View Full Version : Boeing awarded $35B AF Tanker contract!
TriggerHappy
02-25-2011, 10:36
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/02/24/boeing-wins-35-billion-air-force-tanker-contract/
If its not boeing, I'm not going.
Its good to see our government give and American company our business. Airbus and EADS were the competitors... No one likes the french....
The replacement of the KC-135 tanker/fueler.
[Ole]
ruthabagah
02-25-2011, 11:38
Boeing won…. Yet I am not sure that we got the best deal.
Boeing can't make the planes that the AF originally wanted and EADS can. They would both be made in the US (Alabama vs. Washington & Kansas), but Boeing was smart enough to convince congress that EADS was a "foreign" company despite all the work being done in the US. Now we get planes we don't want or need, but they're produced by an "American" firm (who outsources).
If Washington state wasn't "in play" while Alabama is firmly Republican, this wouldn't have happened.
Troublco
02-25-2011, 11:40
I agree; I think contracts this large for our Military (or for any branch of the Government) should be with an American company. The EADS product may be a good one, but American tax dollars should stay in America! I know Northrup was the face of EADS for their product; and I've heard that they were supposed to be built here. How much of them? Assembly?
Wonder if the refueling probe falling off the EADS tanker a few weeks ago in flight had anything to do with it? [ROFL1]
The 135's are older than the C-141's that went to the boneyard and were immediately cut up because they had no useful life left in them. I think the country got its money's worth out of the 135, and then some.
Troublco
02-25-2011, 11:50
Boeing won…. Yet I am not sure that we got the best deal.
Now we get planes we don't want or need, but they're produced by an "American" firm (who outsources).
So because you don't like Boeing, EADS was the best choice?
Planes we don't need or want? Whatever. I've flown on some of those 135's. They desperately need to be replaced. If Northrup Grumman wanted to enter the contest and build something here, I think they should have designed their own plane (but that is just my opinion).
The winners here are the folks who have been trying to keep 50 year old planes operating while they fly the crap out of them. Tankers maintain a grueling ops tempo, and they are finally going to get the replacements they need.
ronaldrwl
02-25-2011, 12:00
This was a long hard battle for Boeing. Boeing lost the bid at first because of some shenanigans. Are government is so retarded. They screwed this whole process up from the beginning. I give Boeing lots of credit for fighting through the red tape of the Leftards that tried to give this contract our European allies/rivals.
The argument that we shouldn't buy from EADS because they aren't "American" (even though by law the ships would be made stateside, in AL as someone mentioned) backfires on us, because our European allies frequently buy gear from us. So now they may feel punitive or just that they need to "protect their domestic producers" like we did.
All the people building the aircraft, all the tooling would have been in Alabama. If I'm not mistaken it would have been a new plant.
Wonder if similar "logic" was what skuppered the XM-8. I think it all has far more to do with politics than what's really best for the services.
Edit: Speaking of EU birds, have you seen their new C-130 replacement? It's called the A400M.
H.
From what I have read it said that EADS won the original contract. Northrup backed out because the requirements favored Boeing. After EADS won Boeing filed a grievance of some sort, which resulted in the requirements being changed for the plane and ultimately allowing Boeing to win.
Sounds like a typical politics in America.. Someone made some money off of it. Looks like we aren't getting the 'best' product that would be produced here.. but politics trumps reality.
hollohas
02-25-2011, 12:23
I don't know shit about aircraft, especially military aircraft. But I do know that I fly a couple times every week as a passenger and I would much rather be on an Airbus. Although I'm sure that's due the the carrier's choice in purchasing a nicer package from Airbus than many of the carriers that fly Boeing do. And the fact that the domestic carrier's Airbus aren't as ancient as all the Boeings floating around. I don't fly American because those MD's are the worst.
Huh, turns out I do like something from France...damn.
def4pos8
02-25-2011, 16:56
The Airbus can be a decent machine -- until the electrons go on vacation.
I've read that Boeing products essentially have a "kill HAL" switch that reduces the computers' cognitive abilities to that of an infant -- just enough to help the aircrew with basic control. The computer -- "HAL" -- controls an Airbus. If the crew tries to do something HAL doesn't agree with, it doesn't happen. I imagine this can be a bad thing at times when military aviators are performing some sort of gonzo mission.
Also, I believe that Airbus products simply use too much plastic. At least one lost its vertical stabilizer over New York city. That was a very bad day for the cargo. It was especially hard on the flight deck crew as they were the first people to arrive at the scene of the wreck. I prefer to fly as cargo on transports with maximum metal/minimal plastic. Of course, I'm just showing my age that way.
theGinsue
02-25-2011, 17:17
From what I have read it said that EADS won the original contract. Northrup backed out because the requirements favored Boeing. After EADS won Boeing filed a grievance of some sort, which resulted in the requirements being changed for the plane and ultimately allowing Boeing to win.
Sounds like a typical politics in America.. Someone made some money off of it. Looks like we aren't getting the 'best' product that would be produced here.. but politics trumps reality.
BINGO!
We have a winner.
Personally, I can not stand Boeing. I worked for them for a whole 3 months and couldn't stand how that "ran" things. The company is just a bunch of arrogant self-serving whiney b!tches that think the contract was supposed to have just been handed to them and they cried foul when it wasn't.
It's a wonder Boeing had the cajones and audacity to raise a stink about the percieved unfairness in the acquisition process of this whole deal after they were caught bribing the USAF #1 Acquisition officer (http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/03/10/northrop-drops-tanker-bid-nlpc-exposed-boeing-scandal ; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/010505g1.htm).
Yeah; they've got some balls! As taxpayers, let's just hope they can produce a safe and quality aircraft without fleecing the American citizen any more than they already have.
BINGO!
We have a winner.
Personally, I can not stand Boeing. I worked for them for a whole 3 months and couldn't stand how that "ran" things. The company is just a bunch of arrogant self-serving whiney b!tches that think the contract was supposed to have just been handed to them and they cried foul when it wasn't.
It's a wonder Boeing had the cajones and audacity to raise a stink about the percieved unfairness in the acquisition process of this whole deal after they were caught bribing the USAF #1 Acquisition officer (http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/03/10/northrop-drops-tanker-bid-nlpc-exposed-boeing-scandal ; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/010505g1.htm).
Yeah; they've got some balls! As taxpayers, let's just hope they can produce a safe and quality aircraft without fleecing the American citizen any more than they already have.
they probably have a union too.
saw a 135 take off on wednesday just before I did. seemed to be doing fine!
glad to see nice new airplanes being built though! todays technology is amazing for aircraft
Byte Stryke
02-25-2011, 18:56
BINGO!
We have a winner.
Personally, I can not stand Boeing. I worked for them for a whole 3 months and couldn't stand how that "ran" things. The company is just a bunch of arrogant self-serving whiney b!tches that think the contract was supposed to have just been handed to them and they cried foul when it wasn't.
It's a wonder Boeing had the cajones and audacity to raise a stink about the percieved unfairness in the acquisition process of this whole deal after they were caught bribing the USAF #1 Acquisition officer (http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/03/10/northrop-drops-tanker-bid-nlpc-exposed-boeing-scandal ; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/010505g1.htm).
Yeah; they've got some balls! As taxpayers, let's just hope they can produce a safe and quality aircraft without fleecing the American citizen any more than they already have.
they probably have a union too.
The article didn't say anything about it, but I am sure somewhere hookers were also involved
[LOL]
If the crew tries to do something HAL doesn't agree with, it doesn't happen.
Although the class of aircraft we're discussing here are stable enough for human flight without computers, all modern generation fighters are inherently unstable. If the ship was flown with all the flight surfaces fixed, it would roll over, nose down and crash. The computers interpret the pilots inputs and the inputs of all the gyro's and figure out how to actually move the flight surfaces.
There's also things like FADEC, the Full Authority Digital Engine Controller, it's what actually controls your turbines. It monitors all the internal pressures, spin speeds, vibration, fuel flow, and it's what ultimately is responsible for preventing the engine from destroying itself due to incorrect pilot input.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. (this is my sarcasm font)
Also, I believe that Airbus products simply use too much plastic. At least one lost its vertical stabilizer over New York city. That was a very bad day for the cargo. It was especially hard on the flight deck crew as they were the first people to arrive at the scene of the wreck. I prefer to fly as cargo on transports with maximum metal/minimal plastic. Of course, I'm just showing my age that way.
You know that the new Boeing Dreamliner 787 has an entirely composite fuselage? The new giant Airbus has "GLARE", which is Glass-fiber and Aluminum Layered up, running along the leading edges of the flight surfaces. The various densities of each layer allows it to absorb and break up impacts. Neat stuff
H.
Troublco
02-25-2011, 19:09
Lockheed took a Fairchild-Dornier 328 Jet and built an almost all composite fuselage for it; converted it into a small airlifter and called it the X-55. It was built as a technology demonstrator, never designed to go into production. But still interesting. Next phase if I remember correctly is to build a composite wing for it.
787 has composite wings, here's video of failure testing a section of the "box", the wing root and a section of the wings, this is the portion of the airplane that does most of the actual lifting.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2008/11/18/787-test-video-of-wing-breaking/
I hadn't heard of the X-55 before, not a bad looking little cargo hauler.
H.
Byte Stryke
02-26-2011, 07:25
787 has composite wings, here's video of failure testing a section of the "box", the wing root and a section of the wings, this is the portion of the airplane ... blah blah blah blah
H.
dag nabbit.... Airplane nerds
I sed HOOKERS!
[ROFL1]
BINGO!
We have a winner.
Personally, I can not stand Boeing. I worked for them for a whole 3 months and couldn't stand how that "ran" things. The company is just a bunch of arrogant self-serving whiney b!tches that think the contract was supposed to have just been handed to them and they cried foul when it wasn't.
It's a wonder Boeing had the cajones and audacity to raise a stink about the percieved unfairness in the acquisition process of this whole deal after they were caught bribing the USAF #1 Acquisition officer (http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/03/10/northrop-drops-tanker-bid-nlpc-exposed-boeing-scandal ; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/010505g1.htm).
Yeah; they've got some balls! As taxpayers, let's just hope they can produce a safe and quality aircraft without fleecing the American citizen any more than they already have.
Hope to hear how you REALLY feel sometime Thomas. LOL!
ronaldrwl
02-26-2011, 10:02
BINGO!
We have a winner.
Personally, I can not stand Boeing. I worked for them for a whole 3 months and couldn't stand how that "ran" things. The company is just a bunch of arrogant self-serving whiney b!tches that think the contract was supposed to have just been handed to them and they cried foul when it wasn't.
It's a wonder Boeing had the cajones and audacity to raise a stink about the percieved unfairness in the acquisition process of this whole deal after they were caught bribing the USAF #1 Acquisition officer (http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/03/10/northrop-drops-tanker-bid-nlpc-exposed-boeing-scandal ; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/010505g1.htm).
Yeah; they've got some balls! As taxpayers, let's just hope they can produce a safe and quality aircraft without fleecing the American citizen any more than they already have.
I have to set the record straight with all this ignorance about a great American company that almost got screwed (Boeing) and another that did get screwed (Northrop).
I've had the opposite experience the last 6 years. Boeing is one of the best companies to work for. Period. TheGinsue You had one bad experience with Boeing and your totally misinformed on this issue.
I've lived this whole tanker issue from near the inside and without going into details Boeing bid the original contract to spec.
<sidetrack> Boeing had to go to court to stop the US Gov from funding EADS (“it wasn't fair for the Europeans to have to compete against big bad Boeing”) but EADS was selling more plans than Boeing! More stupid wasted money by the US Gov. </sidetrack>
The EADS Northrup team bid a very different plane that did not meet the Air force's requirements but they they won anyways (inside shenanigans IMO). Boeing protested and won. How could they lose being the only team that bid the exact specs of the AF? Long story short the whole thing got over turned and rebid. Northrup pulled out because of all the wasted money bidding a contract controlled by shameful idiots in Washington. The plane that actually met the AF specs won and the contract went to a great USA company. Win Win
The Airbus can be a decent machine -- until the electrons go on vacation.
I've read that Boeing products essentially have a "kill HAL" switch that reduces the computers' cognitive abilities to that of an infant -- just enough to help the aircrew with basic control. The computer -- "HAL" -- controls an Airbus. If the crew tries to do something HAL doesn't agree with, it doesn't happen. I imagine this can be a bad thing at times when military aviators are performing some sort of gonzo mission.
Also, I believe that Airbus products simply use too much plastic. At least one lost its vertical stabilizer over New York city. That was a very bad day for the cargo. It was especially hard on the flight deck crew as they were the first people to arrive at the scene of the wreck. I prefer to fly as cargo on transports with maximum metal/minimal plastic. Of course, I'm just showing my age that way.
The A320 will let you do any normal maneuver that a tanker would be doing. It limits the pitch to 30 degree's nose up, 15 degree's nose down, and 67 degree's of bank. There are high and low speed protections as well.
As to the crash over NY, that was pilot error.
def4pos8
02-26-2011, 15:10
Right! He instinctively "stomped on the sky" without knowing that such a basic move was outside of the envelope. Tech data was corrected after everybody died.
Somehow, I don't like that sequence.
I gather from your post, that you don't believe me.
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/041026.htm
def4pos8
02-26-2011, 20:12
Oh, I very much believe you. I simply think Airbus did a poor job in creating a machine not capable of reacting safely to instinctive inputs from a pilot in trouble. If you do that, it's horrible to only tell the aircrew about it after the tombstones are in place.
I know that I'm just a single schmuck out in flyover country but I judge Airbus responsible for the wreck, not the guy in the left seat.
Troublco
02-26-2011, 20:18
dag nabbit.... Airplane nerds
I sed blah blah blah!
Fixed it for you....[ROFL1]
Tweety Bird
02-26-2011, 21:52
Oh, I very much believe you. I simply think Airbus did a poor job in creating a machine not capable of reacting safely to instinctive inputs from a pilot in trouble. If you do that, it's horrible to only tell the aircrew about it after the tombstones are in place.
I know that I'm just a single schmuck out in flyover country but I judge Airbus responsible for the wreck, not the guy in the left seat.
To be technically correct, it was the guy in the right seat doing the flying. But that's not important right now. I do agree, however, that if overcontrolling the rudder could result in separation of the tail from the fuselage, especially within the normal airspeed envelope, there's something wrong with the design. But I see this from a pretty superficial level and consider myself a Boeing guy.
Seems like I heard a while back that there's some hotshot California lady politician who's married to a lobbyist for Boeing. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with this decision. [ROFL2]
All that said, though, I agree that it's a good thing for Boeing to get the contract. The Airbus airframe was NOT going to be built in Alabama; as I understand it, MAE was to receive complete, flyable airframes from EADS and do the tanker conversion in Mobile.
Oh, I very much believe you. I simply think Airbus did a poor job in creating a machine not capable of reacting safely to instinctive inputs from a pilot in trouble. If you do that, it's horrible to only tell the aircrew about it after the tombstones are in place.
I know that I'm just a single schmuck out in flyover country but I judge Airbus responsible for the wreck, not the guy in the left seat.
Good deal. I thought you were basically saying I was full of it.[Beer]
Now that I've thought about it, I THINK I recall that going full rudder back and forth was AA's procedure. Or Airbus's for that matter. Either way, a terrible idea. I'd be very interested to see if any transport category aircraft could survive what the pilot's did in that case.
As to being in "flyover" country, my entire family is from southern Ohio. More central like Waverly, Portsmouth, and across the river in Ashland.
And for the record, even though I fly the Airbus, I am 100% happy this went to an American company. That's the way it should be.
Aloha_Shooter
02-27-2011, 17:13
In contrast to some posting, I'm elated. We DID get the best aircraft for the job -- the Airbus was too big and Airbus's composite engineering has always left something to be desired. I'd rather fly an old MD-80 than a modern Airbus. Airbus's attitude is that the pilot is there to assist the autopilot instead of vice-versa. Personally, I'll take longer, more expensive flights to avoid Airbus equipment if I have a choice (sometimes I don't).
The Air Force originally selected Boeing for the next generation tanker then went through long complicated RFP process because of EADS' lobbyists and because McCain didn't like the way the deal was done. I will admit I prefer the AF buying the aircraft outright to "leasing" them but I think the lease option was a way to fit the tankers into the AF's budget.
Blaming the NY crash on the pilot was simply political cover to avoid decimating Airbus' business worldwide.
Random uncited statistics say Boeing is better... but behind a Saab and the MD-80.
http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/
H.
Blaming the NY crash on the pilot was simply political cover to avoid decimating Airbus' business worldwide.
Aloha, I'm curious as to where you got this information. Could you post a link to an article or something?
ruthabagah
02-28-2011, 09:40
Aloha, I'm curious as to where you got this information. Could you post a link to an article or something?
It's a troll post. Google some keywords and you will find the same post on separate website. Neither the pilots nor Airbus were to blame on this accident but AA procedures were deemed incorrect and unsafe by the NTSB and the FAA.
Byte Stryke
02-28-2011, 11:25
Fixed it for you....[ROFL1]
I have one for you airplane nerds
Its a Aircraft Maintenance and care video
ERHIbisAMeo
if you study it closely you can even see women wearing Bikinis!
[ROFL1]
Troublco
02-28-2011, 11:53
The soundtrack needs some work...;)
Byte Stryke
02-28-2011, 12:07
The soundtrack needs some work...;)
it had a soundtrack?
[LOL]
def4pos8
02-28-2011, 21:27
They're about the only people on the planet who can still get away with stuff like this! [Coffee]
It's a troll post. Google some keywords and you will find the same post on separate website. Neither the pilots nor Airbus were to blame on this accident but AA procedures were deemed incorrect and unsafe by the NTSB and the FAA.
I agree. Pretty much where I was going with the questions.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.