USAF tanker comp looks bad for Boeing (good for Airbus)

[Vympel]

Link

Is Boeing’s aging 767 aerial tanker snake bit?

Five years ago, Boeing got caught pushing the 767 in a controversial $23 billion sweetheart lease deal with the Air Force that landed its execs in jail. Since then, Boeing has been on the loosing end in sales to four U.S. allies which bought aerial tankers. Great Britain, United Arab Emirates, Australia and soon to be announced Saudi Arabia all went with the newer KC-30 built by Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.

Boeing inked deals with Japan and Italy but has yet to deliver. Italy has been waiting for more than two years and counting. And Japan has imposed fees and angrily waits as Boeing struggles to get the tanker fully certified by the FAA.

That’s proving harder than Boeing publicly admits. Problems include flight control software integration and debugging (very serious), and an environmental control system (minor). Others concern communications, not being able to fly long distances on only one engine and night refueling glitches. All keep the aircraft grounded.

And a new wrinkle popped up at Boeing’s recent investor conference. After hearing about yet more Japan and Italian tanker set backs – problems with the refueling boom camera, and hang ups with wing pod gas hoses – J.P. Morgan warned these performance issues and delays may “count against” Boeing in the $40 billion competition against EADS and U.S. partner Northrop Grumman to replace the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of existing tankers. It’s the biggest procurement program in years.

Since past performance is a top criterion of the selection process, the Air Force no doubt is wringing its hands. And Boeing continues to stub its toe and raise eyebrows inside the Pentagon. At the end of May, Boeing got caught embellishing some tanker facts. It said the 767 could take off fully loaded in 7,000 feet of runway. In reality, according to Boeing’s own clarification, it needs 8,000 feet to get airborne.

The art of fact-shading doesn’t stop there. Boeing says its tanker program will create 44,000 new jobs. The truth? Regardless of who wins, the program will create 25,000 new jobs, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The straight facts are not hard to come by. The KC-30 is newer and more technologically sophisticated than the Boeing 767. The KC-30 carries 20 percent more gas (or 45,000 more pounds), more passengers, including aero-medical evacuation patients, nearly double the cargo pallets, is more fuel efficient, and can land fully loaded at 838 runways worldwide—nearly 300 more than the Boeing 767.

Military planers like the fact that the KC-30 multi-platform tanker could lighten the load of the Air Force’s C-17 cargo hauler, letting it move the heavy equipment it was designated for. Others think a straight tanker, like Boeing’s 767, despite its limitations, is best for the service.

But what about Boeing’s current snafus on the Japan and Italian tankers? Is this not a red flag of problems and risk the Air Force should worry about? Boeing says these contracts serve as “risk mitigation” programs for the big U.S. Air Force deal. In other words, our allies in Tokyo and Rome are guinea pigs.

Had the Pentagon gone with the original lease deal – and paid Boeing $250 million per plane or more than twice today’s purchase price – the Air Force would be the guinea pig. The same problems that plague the 767 in Japan and Italy would have left the Air Force without an operational tanker today.

That head-spinning fact is not lost on the pilots who require a tanker that can get airborne anytime to refuel military aircraft supporting troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and hot spots around the world.

[Golan III]

That article reeks of some serious Euro-Airbus fanboy-ism and wank.

I don't know where the writers of that article got their facts from, but that bit about how super-superior the A330 is and how it can land at more fields is flat-out wrong. If anything, it's the other way around - the 767, being smaller than the A330, can fit just about anywhere - it's a medium-sized airplane. Places like Bishkek Kyrgyzstan or Ashgabat Turkmenistan, places we operate from, don't have the largest ramps to begin with and then have them littered with derelict russian airplanes - and it would be nice to fit, say, 8-10 tankers at Manas (Bishkek) instead of only 4-6.

The shame of the competition is that it's really apples and oranges - they are two very different airplanes, at two different technological levels. The problem here (and where I think Airbus is missing the point) is that the desired outcome of the competition is MORE tankers overall - 4 to 500, maybe more - rather than fewer bigger ones. Were this a replacement or supplement for the KC-10, then it'd be more in line. But it's not, the competition is to replace a medium-sized aircraft in large numbers.

As far as the cargo capacity, the 767 can carry 18 pallets - the same number as the C-17 in max capacity. The A330, being larger, can carry even more (although I don't know their figure). Supposedly each of the tankers would be equipped with IR countermeasures, so that they could operate out of combat airfields like Balad or Bagram or what have you, to reduce the strain on the C-17. We'll see on that one. The point of a tanker is to gas jets, not move cargo. Maybe they'll do a little of both, but that's not what the airplane's bread-and-butter is/will be.

As far as the guinea-pig/glitches, well, that's a flight-test program for you. Italy and Japan ordered the 767 as a tanker well before the USAF became involved in the program, so they assumed the development issues from the beginning - it's not like they've been left in the cold by the US. It's the same as Japan doing the 767 AWACS, they assumed all of the technical development. Italy and Japan knew what they were getting into. And the glitches, well, Airbus has yet to have an A330 flying with an operational boom, actively doing 'plugs' on receivers and transferring fuel. They have an A310 demonstrator flying with a prototype boom, and have 'delivered' A330s to people like Australia (without any of the refuelling equipment installed), but have yet to advance anywhere near to the point where Boeing is right now - so Airbus isn't in much of a position to talk much shit.

As for the competition, we'll see. The Airbus subsidies part may play a very large part, although the A330 legitimately has some merits to offer. What I'd like to see? Both - lots of 767s to replace the -135s, and a couple (less than 100) 330s to supplement the KC-10s.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't care if the Airbus is better; military equipment should be produced in-country so that mobilization in the future cannot be hampered by the political alignment of other nations. Autarkism makes perfect sense in terms of both food and military equipment, because both are matters that you simply can never compromise on with other nations.

[The Dark]

Some of the KC-767A delays were caused by Alenia Aeronavali being slower than frozen molasses running uphill with the conversion work from 767 to KC-767 standard, which is delaying both the Italian and Japanese aircraft. Modification work on Italy Two, Three, and Four is supposed to be done by AA, but they're so far behind schedule that Boeing recalled Japan Two to Wichita to prevent it from falling further behind. Other issues have been caused by the hose-and-drogue wing pods causing buffeting issues, which Smiths Aerospace seems to have corrected, but that delayed the Italian jobs because they insisted on dual refuelling systems - fuselage mounted boom and dual wing pods with hose-and-drogue. The simpler Japanese systems (boom only) were delayed by the Italian delays.

[Starglider]

I don't care if the Airbus is better; military equipment should be produced in-country so that mobilization in the future cannot be hampered by the political alignment of other nations. Autarkism makes perfect sense in terms of both food and military equipment, because both are matters that you simply can never compromise on with other nations.

Generally I'd agree, but in this case the US isn't going to lose any manufacturing capability by buying a foreign aircraft; the US has by far the strongest aerospace industry in the world anyway. There's no novel or sensitive technology involved here. The creaky state of US airlift (relative to the demands the politicians place on the US Army) and the fact that Airbus could really do with the revenue (and Airbus failing and allowing Boeing to get an effective monopoly on large passanger jets) means I'd be happier if Airbus got the contract.

[Vympel]

I also think Boeing just needs to be further punished for their criminal tanker lease.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I also think Boeing just needs to be further punished for their criminal tanker lease.

Sorry, but they're a critical part of our national defence infrastructure.

[Vympel]

Sorry, but they're a critical part of our national defence infrastructure.

Doesn't matter- they're not going to be bankrupted because they don't get this deal. They're already quite well off. Corporate welfare shouldn't apply to defence companies anymore than it should to other corporations.

If they've turned out an inferior product, then, well- sucks to be them.

[Howedar]

*snip*

Strongly agreed on all levels. What a steaming pile.

[Omega18]

If they've turned out an inferior product, then, well- sucks to be them.

This clearly isn't the case though.

The reality is the article is simply absurdly wrong on many of its points. There is no serious dispute by analysts that the Boeing proposal would produce substancially more US jobs than the Airbus one. The Airbus proposal would merely do some of the assembly of the A330 tanker in the US, while most of the work is being done for the 767 proposal in the US. This means substancially more US jobs are produced by the Boeing proposal by any serious analysis.

The fact of the matter is that Boeing is producing the clearly SUPERIOR product for the US's needs.

The US needs primarily tankers, not dual use aircraft. In a large portion of the wartime scenarios where the US's large transport fleet is not sufficient, those tankers are ALSO going to be heavily used in their role. If the US need more regular commercial type aircraft, (the tankers can't land in the sort of airfields the C-17 and C-130 can for instance) they could simply lease some of the very large number of commercial freigher aircraft that are potentially available on the market. In most situations hiring airline companies to do the flying is a quite viable option. For many smaller air forces without so many tankers, a really dual use tanker is more useful since they don't have much aerial transport capability in the first place on short notice.

The fact of the matter is the more gas advantage of the A330 will rarely apply, because the limitation is how quickly fighters can be refueled in the air since only so many can be hooked up with a air tanker at once. (The limitation with refueling speed is how fast fighters can take on fuel once hooked up.) The key for the US Air Force is definitely getting as many tankers as possible to put in the air at once to support its aircraft, and the 767 is going to have the CRITICAL advantage of being cheaper. Its actually the 767 which will be more fuel efficient in the practical metric of performing a tanker mission with a load of fuel since it happens to be lighter. As also noted the 767 is the one that is clearly more flexible since US airbase infrastruture can more easily accomidate it since its closer to the size of the KC-135s.

Finally it should be noted that the argument that the US going for the 767 tanker option at this point is a bad idea due to the delays in getting into Itallian and Japanese service is GROSSLY dishonest. Its worth repeating that the A330 is actually much further away from getting into service while the 767 is getting quite close. Its safe to say the bugs for a 767 transport are getting worked out now and will be fixed well before a US 767 tanker would actually be produced, while there is far more risk in this area with the A330 tanker program which is much further from getting into service.

In conclusion, I would be stunned at this point if Boeing doesn't win the contract because they offer a very clearly superior option given the US Air Force's needs.

[Starglider]

Corporate welfare shouldn't apply to defence companies anymore than it should to other corporations.

Corporate welfare may be justifiable for defence companies when it's the only way of retaining key manufacturing capabilities; the ability to build submarines in the UK for example. But only as a last resort, and as you say Boeing certainly does not need (more of) it.

[Omega18]

I also think Boeing just needs to be further punished for their criminal tanker lease.

That's a stupid argument because they already have been heavily punished, and they are the only real US option for a tanker program right now.

The more pertinent issue is the Boeing product is clearly superior for the US Air Force's need since frankly the Airbus product is too big and expensive for the US's current needs. (They probably should have tried to offer a A300 tanker product instead.)

[Vympel]

That's a stupid argument because they already have been heavily punished, and they are the only real US option for a tanker program right now.

Not really, no. I don't see Boeing hurting, and that's what a punishment should be doing. That $615M fine was chump change. They frankly don't deserve to win the contract prima facie. US option? Whoopdeeshit- Northrop Grumman can get some love out of KC-30 instead.

The more pertinent issue is the Boeing product is clearly superior for the US Air Force's need since frankly the Airbus product is too big and expensive for the US's current needs. (They probably should have tried to offer a A300 tanker product instead.)

If they win, they win, but if the KC-30 is superior (and I don't know who's right on this nor do I particularly care) then Boeing doesn't deserve shit on a stick, all-American or not.

[Starglider]

If they win, they win, but if the KC-30 is superior (and I don't know who's right on this nor do I particularly care) then Boeing doesn't deserve shit on a stick, all-American or not.

I accept the 'Boeing version is a better fit with the core refueling needs' argument, but I don't personally have to care about that, so I can still hope Airbus win. However I agree that the 'jobs must be in Amerika!' argument is bogus. If everyone took this attitude there would be no arms trading and military forces just about everwhere would be much more expensive and less capable. True the US military would be the least affected (though the US would lose the most export revenue), but as the biggest arms exporter the US can easily justify the odd import where it's a better choice than the local equivalent (probably not on pure technical merit in this case, but that's a different point) and doesn't impact critical manufacturing capabilities. In fact the way the politics on this go the US buying a few bits of European military hardware will probably make further sales of UK kit to EU nations easier.

[Omega18]

Not really, no. I don't see Boeing hurting, and that's what a punishment should be doing. They frankly don't deserve to win the contract prima facie. US option? Whoopdeeshit- Northrop Grumman can get some love out of KC-30 instead.)

The reality is last year's profits at Boeing would have been substancially higher except for the fine Boeing paid.

The reason Boeing isn't hurting in general is they have been doing spectacularly well with their commercial airline business recently and the new aircraft products they are producing. By contrast, Airbus has been fucking up spectacularly in this area with a two year delay for the A380 and not being able to produce any sort of real competitor for the 787 until 2013 at the earliest. (Airbus previously underestimated the 787 and their initial half assed A350 proposal wan't good enough and they had to go back to the drawing board.) Boeing also recently won a couple key foreign miltary fighter competitions such as one for Singapore where they beat out EADS and Rafale.

The issue with the tanker proposal is Northrop Grumman is really only doing a limited portion of the work.

[Vympel]

This clearly isn't the case though.

The reality is the article is simply absurdly wrong on many of its points. There is no serious dispute by analysts that the Boeing proposal would produce substancially more US jobs than the Airbus one. The Airbus proposal would merely do some of the assembly of the A330 tanker in the US, while most of the work is being done for the 767 proposal in the US. This means substancially more US jobs are produced by the Boeing proposal by any serious analysis.

Don't bandy about words like "absurdly wrong" and "serious analysis" and "there is no serious dispute" without a source for it.

[Vympel]

I accept the 'Boeing version is a better fit with the core refueling needs' argument, but I don't personally have to care about that, so I can still hope Airbus win. However I agree that the 'jobs must be in Amerika!' argument is bogus. If everyone took this attitude there would be no arms trading and military forces just about everwhere would be much more expensive and less capable.

Less capable is right- foreign example is Russia and thermal imagers. They've got very little thermal imager infrastructure so the ones they produce are expensive and until very recently not up to snuff. So they reversed the long-standing policy that everything in Russia's defence industry should be domestically produced and now equip their T-90s with the same French thermal imagers that equip the T-90s that they export. (Russia's domestic 2nd-gen TIs, AFAIK, are going to its helicopters- the upgraded Mi-24PN for example).

It was either that or simply not having many tanks with thermal imagers, which is just unacceptable in this day and age for a modern army.

[Howedar]

The takeoff and landing distances of the 767 and A330 are not exactly esoteric knowledge. I don't feel the need to cite a source saying that it's harder to park a moving van than it is a coupe.

[Omega18]

Don't bandy about words like "absurdly wrong" and "serious analysis" and "there is no serious dispute" without a source for it.

Let me know if you want links to some of the other points, I made in my response. Allot of them are simply logical observations and based on facts such as the A330 is simply a bigger aircraft than the 767 Boeing tanker proposal.

Here's a quote from a link with some details on the number of jobs produced by the 767 program.

Nationwide, the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be designed, built and supported by 44,000 Americans and 300 U.S. suppliers.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art ... 2007-1.htm

While its tough to get this information because Airbus is trying to downplay what a limited portion of the KC330 assembly would be done in the US, Airbus is only talking about at most 1,000 jobs at the Mobile, Alabama assembly site if they win the contract.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdail ... eads.shtml

That simply isn't close to the number of workers needed to do all the typical steps in current aircraft assembly, and this means a large portion of the work for the KC330 is in fact being done in Europe.

[Vympel]

Let me know if you want links to some of the other points, I made in my response. Allot of them are simply logical observations and based on facts such as the A330 is simply a bigger aircraft than the 767 Boeing tanker proposal.

I'm speaking specifically about the jobs issue.

Here's a quote from a link with some details on the number of jobs produced by the 767 program.

Re: CNN. That's a claim from Boeing. Meanwhile, the OP link is saying it'll be 25,000 jobs from either (citing the US Chamber of Commerce). If that's wrong, it's wrong, but a claim straight from Boeing (ie interested party) is hardly "serious analysis" and it certainly is worth less than the Chamber of Commerce.

While its tough to get this information because Airbus is trying to downplay what a limited portion of the KC330 assembly would be done in the US, Airbus is only talking about at most 1,000 jobs at the Mobile, Alabama assembly site if they win the contract.
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdail ... eads.shtml

That simply isn't close to the number of workers needed to do all the typical steps in current aircraft assembly, and this means a large portion of the work for the KC330 is in fact being done in Europe.

A simple google search reveals the 25,000 jobs number coming up in the US in multiple media articles. What you've done here is assume that the 1,000 jobs for the new assembly plant in Mobile is the sum total of new jobs that will be created in all the United States. That's patently ridiculous- even the CNN link isn't talking about direct manufacturing jobs for the KC-767 alone, but you've applied that standard to the KC-30 and assumed there'll be nothing else.

[Vympel]

The takeoff and landing distances of the 767 and A330 are not exactly esoteric knowledge. I don't feel the need to cite a source saying that it's harder to park a moving van than it is a coupe.

?? No one asked you to.

[Omega18]

A simple google search reveals the 25,000 jobs number coming up in the US in multiple media articles. What you've done here is assume that the 1,000 jobs for the new assembly plant in Mobile is the sum total of new jobs that will be created in all the United States. That's patently ridiculous- even the CNN link isn't talking about direct manufacturing jobs for the KC-767 alone, but you've applied that standard to the KC-30 and assumed there'll be nothing else.

You appear to be badly misunderstanding my point.

Yes the Boeing number might be a bit inflated, but certainly the Airbus numbers for the US they give out will be as well. Basically allot of people who barely spend any significant port of their job time working on subcontract related work for the tanker project get counted as "new jobs produced."

The basic point is that asubstancial porportion of the real jobs for this sort of project will be in the assembly stage, so those Airbus numbers are key. By contrast, around 7,000 jobs in Washinton State will be supported by the 767 tanker program. (Otherwise the 767 line is winding down so they would be laid off soon, or at least have to tranfer to work on other aircraft, reducing new hirings.)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ker12.html

Furthermore, the Mobile, Alabama plant where 1,000 jobs may be produced will include the work done specifically to make the A330 tanker modified and ready. By contrast, the Boeing 767s are planned to be flown to Wichita, where another around 500 jobs will be produced as this modification work is done.
http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/ ... ily14.html

Certainly these are not the only jobs related to the tanker project and subcontractors will bring the total number up further, but this is a very substancial basic difference, and Boeing still uses more US based contractors than Airbus regardless.[/b]

[Howedar]

Referring to

Don't bandy about words like "absurdly wrong" and "serious analysis" and "there is no serious dispute" without a source for it.

Another post got in there in the meantime. I know I wasn't the one asked, but it's reasonable to say that some of the parts of this article are absurd even at first glance.

[Omega18]

My previous post actually got it wrong and the article stated 9,000 jobs for Washington State would be supported by the 767 tanker program.

[Golan III]

I accept the 'Boeing version is a better fit with the core refueling needs' argument, but I don't personally have to care about that, so I can still hope Airbus win. However I agree that the 'jobs must be in Amerika!' argument is bogus. If everyone took this attitude there would be no arms trading and military forces just about everwhere would be much more expensive and less capable.

Exactly. A key example of this has been the C-17 - for the past 15 years, it has been the best product on the planet for doing what it does. Certain Euro nations are holding out and refusing to even lease that airplane, despite the benefit it could do them in the world today, because Airbus someday might get around to making their A400M pipe dream a reality. The smart ones (the UK, Canada, Aus), have said 'fuck it' and jumped in, and jumped in big. And it'll pay off - it really is the best product (for its mission), right now anyway.

And do remember the US has rewarded a stronger system from outside the nation quite recently - the VH-71 presidential helicopter. Now what's a tragedy is that 1) the Navy keeps changing the program requirements and 2) that LockMart was installed as the prime US contractor. Otherwise...