Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:32 pm
ICLO;
No offense taken my friend, I enjoy the 'back and forth' that this thread is providing.
Right now AIRBUS or more correctly, EADS still can't make up it's mind on the powerplants for a very long delayed and far over budget turboprop transport for the EU military. The aircraft is years and years late, is many billions of EUROS over budget, so I see little hope for true international agreements or much cooperation in getting another project up and running without huge issues cropping up, witness the problems Boeing is struggling with over fuselage assemblies for the 787 and it's Italian partner ALENIA (that entire 'outsource' fiasco is for another thread) where the person you need to talk to to correct a problem is 6500 miles, a culture difference, and two languages away, not a short car ride to the other plant where you can work the problem out without interpreters or someone unknowingly offending the other party.
The F-16 program is another matter, the technology and tooling were a contracted agreement between the involved governments and the manufacturer. The European manufacturers have pretty much autonomous control over the construction aspects of the airframes, and have apparently, little to no outside meddling from either Lockheed or the Pentagon. (AFAIK) sort of along the lines of the F-104/German assembly lines for NATO operators of the 104.
No offense taken my friend, I enjoy the 'back and forth' that this thread is providing.
Right now AIRBUS or more correctly, EADS still can't make up it's mind on the powerplants for a very long delayed and far over budget turboprop transport for the EU military. The aircraft is years and years late, is many billions of EUROS over budget, so I see little hope for true international agreements or much cooperation in getting another project up and running without huge issues cropping up, witness the problems Boeing is struggling with over fuselage assemblies for the 787 and it's Italian partner ALENIA (that entire 'outsource' fiasco is for another thread) where the person you need to talk to to correct a problem is 6500 miles, a culture difference, and two languages away, not a short car ride to the other plant where you can work the problem out without interpreters or someone unknowingly offending the other party.
The F-16 program is another matter, the technology and tooling were a contracted agreement between the involved governments and the manufacturer. The European manufacturers have pretty much autonomous control over the construction aspects of the airframes, and have apparently, little to no outside meddling from either Lockheed or the Pentagon. (AFAIK) sort of along the lines of the F-104/German assembly lines for NATO operators of the 104.
Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:01 am
Big "I", remember Boeing sourced and approved their sub-contractors. They made the promises to Japan and Italy, not the other way round.
I agree that the old KC-767 tanker will be a mighty fine ship but you don't get to the top by bagging the opposition but rather by proving you're the best!
For me if it ain't a Boeing, I'm not going!
I agree that the old KC-767 tanker will be a mighty fine ship but you don't get to the top by bagging the opposition but rather by proving you're the best!
For me if it ain't a Boeing, I'm not going!
Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:28 pm
OD,
And they didn't learn from those fiascoes because they cubed the mistakes to get the 787 going and now the weeds are starting to sprout, that's part of why they had to buy out VOUGHT is S.C. to try and get that program under control.
I'm still wondering (as are my Boeing friends)why the marketing genius' @ the Big B didn't develop a 777 proposal the first three times?
And they didn't learn from those fiascoes because they cubed the mistakes to get the 787 going and now the weeds are starting to sprout, that's part of why they had to buy out VOUGHT is S.C. to try and get that program under control.
I'm still wondering (as are my Boeing friends)why the marketing genius' @ the Big B didn't develop a 777 proposal the first three times?
Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:21 pm
W.T.O. Says Aid to Airbus for A380 Was Illegal
Sign in to RecommendSign In to E-Mail Print Reprints ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy NICOLA CLARK and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: September 4, 2009
A preliminary report by the World Trade Organization has found that Airbus received illegal subsidies for the $13 billion A380 superjumbo jet and several other airplanes, hurting Boeing in the battle for sales, American and European officials said Friday.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Mike Clarke/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
An Airbus A380 from Singapore Airlines.
Related
Five-Year Dispute on Aircraft Claims Loses Its Urgency
But the European Union was not determined to have systematically abused global trade rules, several people with knowledge of the report said.
Both American and European Union officials declared victory after the 1,000-page confidential finding was given to trade agencies. It is the first round of an acrimonious trade dispute that began almost five years ago.
Representative Norman Dicks, Democrat from Washington, where Boeing makes its jetliners, said he was pleased by what he considered to be a “very broad” ruling in Boeing’s favor.
He said that the W.T.O. found that a substantial amount of the low-cost loan money, known as launch aid, that European governments provided to develop the A380 jet was illegal and should be repaid by Airbus.
Mr. Dicks said a panel of experts from the trade organization found that other series of Airbus planes — the A300, A310, A320, A330 and A340 — also benefited from similar improper subsidies.
The report is a response to a complaint filed by the United States on behalf of Boeing, which argues that the European Union and its governments funneled billions of dollars in illegal subsidies to Airbus from 1970 to 2004.
The Europeans stressed, however, that the W.T.O. had rejected many of the specific arguments that were in the complaint.
The panel’s findings could have a substantial impact on the competition between Boeing and Airbus for a $35 billion contract to build new aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force. Airbus won the contract last year but it was overturned by government auditors, and the Pentagon is expected to start a new bidding process soon.
Mr. Dicks argued that it would be “inconceivable” for the Air Force to reopen the bidding without considering the W.T.O. panel’s findings. “The U.S. government cannot reward illegal market actions that have harmed U.S. manufacturers and stolen U.S. aerospace jobs,” he said in a statement.
The United States had also claimed that Airbus received about $8 billion in research and development and facilities financing. Congressional aides in Washington said that the United States had won some — though not all — of those points as well.
Both Airbus and Boeing have about six weeks to review the finding and comment on it. The trade body is expected to issue a formal ruling by the end of the year. Both sides can appeal that ruling, but W.T.O. rules limit the process to 90 days, making a final outcome likely in the spring.
European officials who had been briefed on the report said that the W.T.O. panel had rejected 70 percent of the claims in the American complaint.
“Reimbursable investment loans for the A380 were not judged to be prohibited in their totality,” said one person with knowledge of the report.
American officials who had been briefed on the ruling disputed that the United States had lost on that many points. In some cases, they said, only one of the various arguments needed to be accepted for the panel to find that some subsidies were unfair.
Representatives for the European trade commission, the United States trade representative, Boeing and Airbus all said Friday that they were studying the report, and declined to comment.
The most critical charge, experts said, involved about $15 billion in low-cost government loans to develop Airbus planes. Roughly $4 billion of the loans in question went to the twin-deck A380 jet, which entered service in 2007.
Boeing lawyers had said that a ruling against Airbus could mean that it will be required to either refinance those loans on commercial terms or otherwise restructure them. Under the current terms of the loans, Airbus makes its repayments as its planes are delivered to customers. Airbus has delivered 18 of 200 orders for the A380.
The panel’s findings do not apply to European pledges of loans to help Airbus develop the A350 widebody jet. France, Germany and Britain have pledged a combined 2.9 billion euros ($4.1 billion) to finance the A350, which is still in the early design phase and is not expected to be delivered until 2013.
“This ruling confirms that Boeing has been competing on an uneven playing field for decades,” said Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, who had urged the Bush administration to file the complaint.
A counterclaim by the European Union, meanwhile, is being reviewed by a separate W.T.O. panel. That suit contends that Boeing has received at least $24 billion in backdoor subsidies through generous contracts with the United States military and space programs, as well as significant tax breaks from Washington State. An interim report on the Boeing case is expected in six to nine months and would be subject to the same comment and appeals process.
“It is important to recall that this report is only half the story and must be read together with an interim report on the E.U. case against the U.S. over aid to Boeing,” said Lutz Güllner, a spokesman for the European trade commissioner, Catherine Ashton.
Sign in to RecommendSign In to E-Mail Print Reprints ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy NICOLA CLARK and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: September 4, 2009
A preliminary report by the World Trade Organization has found that Airbus received illegal subsidies for the $13 billion A380 superjumbo jet and several other airplanes, hurting Boeing in the battle for sales, American and European officials said Friday.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Mike Clarke/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
An Airbus A380 from Singapore Airlines.
Related
Five-Year Dispute on Aircraft Claims Loses Its Urgency
But the European Union was not determined to have systematically abused global trade rules, several people with knowledge of the report said.
Both American and European Union officials declared victory after the 1,000-page confidential finding was given to trade agencies. It is the first round of an acrimonious trade dispute that began almost five years ago.
Representative Norman Dicks, Democrat from Washington, where Boeing makes its jetliners, said he was pleased by what he considered to be a “very broad” ruling in Boeing’s favor.
He said that the W.T.O. found that a substantial amount of the low-cost loan money, known as launch aid, that European governments provided to develop the A380 jet was illegal and should be repaid by Airbus.
Mr. Dicks said a panel of experts from the trade organization found that other series of Airbus planes — the A300, A310, A320, A330 and A340 — also benefited from similar improper subsidies.
The report is a response to a complaint filed by the United States on behalf of Boeing, which argues that the European Union and its governments funneled billions of dollars in illegal subsidies to Airbus from 1970 to 2004.
The Europeans stressed, however, that the W.T.O. had rejected many of the specific arguments that were in the complaint.
The panel’s findings could have a substantial impact on the competition between Boeing and Airbus for a $35 billion contract to build new aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force. Airbus won the contract last year but it was overturned by government auditors, and the Pentagon is expected to start a new bidding process soon.
Mr. Dicks argued that it would be “inconceivable” for the Air Force to reopen the bidding without considering the W.T.O. panel’s findings. “The U.S. government cannot reward illegal market actions that have harmed U.S. manufacturers and stolen U.S. aerospace jobs,” he said in a statement.
The United States had also claimed that Airbus received about $8 billion in research and development and facilities financing. Congressional aides in Washington said that the United States had won some — though not all — of those points as well.
Both Airbus and Boeing have about six weeks to review the finding and comment on it. The trade body is expected to issue a formal ruling by the end of the year. Both sides can appeal that ruling, but W.T.O. rules limit the process to 90 days, making a final outcome likely in the spring.
European officials who had been briefed on the report said that the W.T.O. panel had rejected 70 percent of the claims in the American complaint.
“Reimbursable investment loans for the A380 were not judged to be prohibited in their totality,” said one person with knowledge of the report.
American officials who had been briefed on the ruling disputed that the United States had lost on that many points. In some cases, they said, only one of the various arguments needed to be accepted for the panel to find that some subsidies were unfair.
Representatives for the European trade commission, the United States trade representative, Boeing and Airbus all said Friday that they were studying the report, and declined to comment.
The most critical charge, experts said, involved about $15 billion in low-cost government loans to develop Airbus planes. Roughly $4 billion of the loans in question went to the twin-deck A380 jet, which entered service in 2007.
Boeing lawyers had said that a ruling against Airbus could mean that it will be required to either refinance those loans on commercial terms or otherwise restructure them. Under the current terms of the loans, Airbus makes its repayments as its planes are delivered to customers. Airbus has delivered 18 of 200 orders for the A380.
The panel’s findings do not apply to European pledges of loans to help Airbus develop the A350 widebody jet. France, Germany and Britain have pledged a combined 2.9 billion euros ($4.1 billion) to finance the A350, which is still in the early design phase and is not expected to be delivered until 2013.
“This ruling confirms that Boeing has been competing on an uneven playing field for decades,” said Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, who had urged the Bush administration to file the complaint.
A counterclaim by the European Union, meanwhile, is being reviewed by a separate W.T.O. panel. That suit contends that Boeing has received at least $24 billion in backdoor subsidies through generous contracts with the United States military and space programs, as well as significant tax breaks from Washington State. An interim report on the Boeing case is expected in six to nine months and would be subject to the same comment and appeals process.
“It is important to recall that this report is only half the story and must be read together with an interim report on the E.U. case against the U.S. over aid to Boeing,” said Lutz Güllner, a spokesman for the European trade commissioner, Catherine Ashton.
Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Gates Lets Air Force Run KC-X Acquisition, Warns Against 'Corporate Food Fights'
Defense Daily 09/17/2009
Author: Marina Malenic
Defense Secretary Gates said yesterday that he would allow the Air Force to once again act as the source selection authority for the Pentagon's twice-frustrated effort to purchase a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers.
Northrop Grumman [NOC], along with its European partner EADS, won the most recent KC-X contest in February 2008. However, Boeing made a successful protest through the Government Accountability Office when auditors found that the Air Force had made "a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition." At the time, Gates put then-Pentagon weapons buyer John Young at the helm of the revived competition before finally canceling it outright, citing the acrimonious political atmosphere generated by the competing company's surrogates in Congress.
Speaking at the Air Force Association's annual conference at National Harbor, Gates received robust applause when announcing the Air Force's reinstatement as the KC-X source selection authority. However, he warned that the Defense Department "cannot afford" a repeat of what he called the "parochial squabbles" and "corporate food fights" of the previous contest. To that end, he said his office will maintain a "robust oversight role" in the effort.
Service Secretary Michael Donley released a statement saying that he was "pleased" with Gates' announcement. He said the tanker acquisition remains the service's "number one priority."
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz later in the day told reporters that the service must "make every aspect of the competition as pristine as possible" in order to "prevent even the temptation" for the losing bidder of legally protesting the ultimate decision.
Schwartz also expressed confidence that the Air Force can conduct a successful source selection despite not having a confirmed acquisition chief on its staff. Sue Payton, the previous incumbent, recently admitted that the request for proposals (RFP) in the prior contest contained ambiguous requirements that were a prime cause of the ensuing corporate wrangling.
Boeing [BA] has been particularly vocal about the need for clarity in the RFP, which is expected to be released in the coming weeks. Company executives have said they plan to bid an airplane based either its 767 or its larger 777 airframe. The Northrop Grumman-EADS team is offering an Airbus A330-based tanker.
Boeing and Northrop Grumman each released a statement expressing enthusiasm about Gates' announcement and the upcoming competition.
The initial KC-X contract is said to be worth some $35 billion. However, follow-on contracts over several decades could in the end make the work worth over $100 billion, analysts have said.
Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:10 pm
Waiting to see what the next set of shenanagans over this the USAF/DoD is gonna pull---
'nuff for now
'nuff for now
Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:05 pm
Shameful
Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:18 pm
Air Force Draft Tanker Request Scheduled for Release (Update1)
By Tony Capaccio and Gopal Ratnam
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Air Force’s draft bid request for aerial refueling tankers is expected to be released by Sept. 25, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today.
The draft will be released after Defense Department officials brief key members of Congress and the industry as early as Sept. 24, Whitman said in an interview.
The preliminary request will begin negotiations between the Air Force and potential bidders, which may include Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and the parent company of Airbus SAS. Whitman didn’t have additional details on when the final request may be issued.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said last week that he expected the final request for bids to be released later this year and the contract to be awarded in 2010.
Last September, Defense Secretary Robert Gates postponed competition on the tanker program to this year after Boeing successfully protested the award of a $35 billion contract to the Northrop Grumman-led team. It was the second time the Air Force was forced to cancel plans to replenish its fleet of refueling airplanes.
In October 2004, Congress canceled the Air Force’s proposal to lease and then buy tankers based on Boeing’s 767 airplane at a cost of $23.5 billion. A former Air Force official went to jail for conflicts of interest in discussing a job at Boeing while negotiating the lease.
European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. is the parent company of Airbus.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=BA:US&sid=a4ygxDy3xTms
Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:40 am
Another chapter in the continuing saga...
http://UnitedStatesTanker.com
Hey kids! Get a free sticker here: http://unitedstatestanker.com/Action/Sticker
US Air Force kicks off KC-X competition with release of draft request for proposals
Today the U.S. Air Force announced the release of the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the KC-X aerial refueling tanker aircraft, kicking off the KC-X recompetition. Replacing the aging KC-135 Stratotankers is a high priority for the Air Force. "We have been eagerly awaiting the draft RFP and look forward to an open and transparent process," said Rick Lemaster, KC-X director and program manager. The typical proposal timeline starts with the release of a draft RFP followed eight weeks later by a final RFP and then 60 days later with proposal submittals. The Air Force has said that they anticipate a contract award in Summer 2010.
In anticipation of Boeing’s pursuit of the Air Force’s next generation of tanker aircraft, the company has prepared to offer the Air Force a range of refueling capabilities from the KC-7A7 family of tankers. The KC-767 is a wide-body tanker with a narrow footprint that has more agility and proven technological capability than any competitor. The KC-777 tanker also doubles as a formidable cargo aircraft providing more capacity for fuel, cargo and passengers at a similar size to the Airbus A330-based plane. The KC-7A7 family of tankers delivers more capability at a lower cost.
Following receipt of the draft RFP, Boeing released the following statement: "Our next step is to conduct a detailed review of the document. We want to understand how requirements will be defined and prioritized and how the proposals will be evaluated. That information will help us decide which plane to offer or whether to offer both planes. We appreciate that there will be frequent, open discussion with the U.S. Air Force as we go forward. Both the Air Force and the American taxpayer will benefit from the tanker options we can offer. Boeing has a KC-7A7 ’family of tankers’ available to meet the warfighter’s requirements. Whether it’s the agile, flexible 767-based tanker or the large 777-based tanker, Boeing will deliver a combat-ready tanker with maximum capability at the lowest cost."
"We have continued to listen to the Air Force as we have prepared for the release of the draft RFP," said Rick Lemaster, KC-X director and program manager. "We will not lose sight of our customer focus as we move forward in preparing to offer the product that we feel best meets their needs."
Last week at the Air Force Association annual Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, Boeing launched UnitedStatesTanker.com -- a new tanker external Web site. Follow the latest KC-7A7 news on this new site dedicated to providing a public forum to communicate information and the latest updates about the Boeing KC-7A7 offering.
http://UnitedStatesTanker.com
Hey kids! Get a free sticker here: http://unitedstatestanker.com/Action/Sticker
Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:56 am
Well lookie here!
http://www.warbirdz.net/forum/showthread.php?t=410
It may not be perfect, but it's going to be doing the job sooner than the contenders in this current purchasing fiasco.
Not pro, contra or anything - I know what you can see and that's it, but I thought it might be of interest.
Regards,
http://www.warbirdz.net/forum/showthread.php?t=410
It may not be perfect, but it's going to be doing the job sooner than the contenders in this current purchasing fiasco.
Not pro, contra or anything - I know what you can see and that's it, but I thought it might be of interest.
Regards,
Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:08 pm
I don't understand this comment. The Boeing 767 Tanker has been flying for probably a year and a half now. First flight and operational qualification are also very different things. Let's hope that Airbus can delight their customers with this one since they don't seem to have much experience in the air tanker business. Maybe they'll get lucky.JDK wrote:It may not be perfect, but it's going to be doing the job sooner than the contenders in this current purchasing fiasco.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:23 pm
bdk wrote:I don't understand this comment. The Boeing 767 Tanker has been flying for probably a year and a half now.JDK wrote:It may not be perfect, but it's going to be doing the job sooner than the contenders in this current purchasing fiasco.
Oh, it's simple, Brandon. I din't know that.
They all look like airliners with stuff stick on them to me. Then they go paint them all grey...
Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:55 pm
KC-X Q&A:
https://www.fbo.gov/download/e42/e42e3bb70d33f77202dfe3355c3cd6e7/KC-X_Draft_Questions_and_Answers_19_Oct_2009.pdf
For a public tender like this, all parties must have access to the same answers/responses/information to ensure fairness. Sometimes you have to watch what questions you ask lest you tip your hand about your approach to the RFP response.
https://www.fbo.gov/download/e42/e42e3bb70d33f77202dfe3355c3cd6e7/KC-X_Draft_Questions_and_Answers_19_Oct_2009.pdf
For a public tender like this, all parties must have access to the same answers/responses/information to ensure fairness. Sometimes you have to watch what questions you ask lest you tip your hand about your approach to the RFP response.
Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:29 am
JDK wrote:They all look like airliners with stuff stick on them to me. Then they go paint them all grey...
And just for JDK, the following:
With the FAA STC certification, only Boeing can say it has developed and FAA Certified an aerial refueling tanker, which includes the variation built and delivered to the Japan Ministry of Defense and currently in Initial Operational Capability, and the variation that is being built and currently in flight test for the Italian Air Force, said Leblond.
Boeing has three KC-767s in flight test for the Italian Air Force while building one additional tanker for the customer.
Boeing has delivered three KC-767J refueling tankers to the Japan Air Self Defense Force. A fourth is scheduled for delivery later this year. Japan’s KC-767J has an open architecture cockpit and is configured with the advanced Boeing air refueling boom and an advanced RARO II system. The Japan Ministry of Defense selected a convertible freighter configuration, allowing it to carry cargo or passengers, while maintaining its primary role as an aerial tanker. With a convertible freighter interior, the Japan tanker can be rapidly converted from all-passenger to all-cargo configurations.
Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:34 pm
Thanks Brandon. Is it available in colour?