Annnnd Here We go Again

Navy1960

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2008
5,821
1,322
48
Arizona
The race to win one of the largest military deals ever awarded kicked off Friday morning, when Department of Defense officials unveiled the arcane criteria they will use to purchase a fleet of airborne tankers from either Boeing Co. or Northrop Grumman Corp.

But what was once a sprint has become a marathon slog as the Pentagon attempts for a fourth time to replace its fleet of 415 Eisenhower-era tankers through contracts expected to total more than $100 billion.

The process that started in 2001 to modernize the half-century-old planes that function as aerial gas stations has made its mark for controversy, with an ethics scandal that ended with jail terms for Boeing executives and countless skirmishes on Capitol Hill over jobs, patriotism and free trade.
Boeing vs. Northrop Grumman: Round 2 of Air Force tanker fight to kick off -- chicagotribune.com

First let me start by saying that it's my hope that the Air Force will finally be able to manage to get a Tanker in the air after a failed attempt to lease 100 of them, another failed attempt with the end result being a complete circus in congress and total lack of judgement on the part of DoD. It's my hope that this time around, we can at least appear to take some of the politics out of this decision and let the Air Force decide what aircraft it wishes to fly so that our aviators can get this vital component and long overdue aircraft in the air.
 
You left out the fact that Airbus was in the running for that contract for a while... The God alone knows what the hell we were going to do when 100,000 gallons or so of av gas fell out the sky on some suburb somewhere.
 
The omission was not on purpose, in fact in my posting I had mentioned that after the Boring lease deal there was another failed attempt in which the KC-45X aka A-330 made by Airbus was awarded the contract and because of a protest that was eventually upheld and much hand wringing in congress we are now in round three. No doubt that if the reward were to go to Boeing this time you would have a protest made by Airbus this time around and back to square one. Eventually all this money spent for a non-existent Tanker to replace the 40 plus year old one still in the air will need to show some results. It does appear that the only solution out of this mess that was created by DoD will have to be an aircraft that is joint produced or a mixed fleet of KC7X7's and KC45's. You had mentioned the danger of an aircraft fuel spill over a residential area, well here is a thought, the longer DoD and congress and the Air Force keep this circus going and the more money it costs the older the KC135's get. So the danger is not in the eventual replacements, it's in fleet of aircraft who are well past the day in which they should have been sent to AMARG. (boneyard)
 
Naw what I was referencing is the fact that Air bus makes some of the least safe aircraft in the world, Which is about exactly what one would expect from an outfit that is essentially run as a slush fund for the governments of France and Germany.
 
Last edited:
Lets hope the Northrup/Grumman plane is accepted again and built this time.

Why would you want Airbus to build an aircraft for our military, for that matter, why would anyone want an Airbus for any use?

This was a very interesting email I received from my airline Captain brother............

Hi Friends,

Another CAL pilot shared this with me, and I thought you'd find it very interesting.

A Brazilian Naval unit reportedly found the complete vertical fin/rudder assembly of the doomed aircraft floating some 30 miles from the main debris field. The search for the flight recorders goes on, but given the failure history of the vertical fins on A300-series aircraft, an analysis of its structure at the point of failure will likely yield the primary cause factor in the breakup of the aircraft, with the flight recorder data (if found) providing only secondary contributing phenomena.

The fin-failure-leading-to-breakup sequence is strongly suggested in the attached (below) narrative report by George Larson, Editor emeritus of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine.

It's regrettable that these aircraft are permitted to continue in routine flight operations with this known structural defect. It appears that safety finishes last within Airbus Industries, behind national pride and economics. Hopefully, this accident will force the issue to be addressed, requiring at a minimum restricted operations of selected platforms, and grounding of some high-time aircraft until a re-engineered (strengthened) vertical fin/rudder attachment structure can be incorporated.

Les

--------------------------(George Larson's Report)---------------------

This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance professional
who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for a while, dba BMI
Salvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida . In the process of stripping parts, he sees
things few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior assessments of
Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero structures communities
by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series vertical fin failures.

His observations:

"I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310,
A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011
and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.

Over a hundred of them.

Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as
airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite
materials.

I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just
performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did,
something a Boeing product will not do.

The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is
the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am
not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the
complete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash
site.

The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a vertical
fin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.

As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstorm
in Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their ferocity. It is not
difficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraft
structure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the presence of
instrumentation problems.

I replied with this:

"I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by French
officials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steer
discussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now Air
France , at the behest of their pilots' union, is replacing all the air data
sensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts the
media's focus away from the real problem.

It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into the
Boeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by its
origin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failure
of wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior to
AA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "

His follow-up:

One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one has
first-hand experience in the dismantling process.

I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutely
stunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internal
airframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum are
actually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered.

Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts.,
catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open.

The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been
removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off.

Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear spars
composite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses composite
material in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for the elevators,
rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum."
-----------------(end of narrative)---------------

Regards,
Paul/Rick
 
I've also heard rumors that they attempted to use aluminum wiring for the electronics in the big 800 passenger Job Aibus built in order to save weight. I haven't as of yet been able to confirm this rumor. has anyone else heard it and have you a confirmation.
 
Lets hope the Northrup/Grumman plane is accepted again and built this time.

Why would you want Airbus to build an aircraft for our military, for that matter, why would anyone want an Airbus for any use?
Why did we want P-51 Mustangs in WWII, with those *gasp* ENGLISH engines?

Why did we buildt those SWEDISH and SWISS Anti aircraft guns on ALL our warships in WWII instead of using the useless American designed weapons???

The answer is their were the best available system.

And contrary to Boeing's bullshit, the Airbus planes will be made in Northrup's plant in MARIETTA GORGIA USA.
 
Hopefully they will do a redesign of a lot of the problems which have plagued airbus for more than two decade.
 
Lets hope the Northrup/Grumman plane is accepted again and built this time.

Why would you want Airbus to build an aircraft for our military, for that matter, why would anyone want an Airbus for any use?
Why did we want P-51 Mustangs in WWII, with those *gasp* ENGLISH engines?

Why did we buildt those SWEDISH and SWISS Anti aircraft guns on ALL our warships in WWII instead of using the useless American designed weapons???

The answer is their were the best available system.

And contrary to Boeing's bullshit, the Airbus planes will be made in Northrup's plant in MARIETTA GORGIA USA.

Boeing,North American and Lockheed make the best large aircraft, check the record. The KC-135 is a Boeing aircraft that has served this country for 50 years, why would Airbus suddenly be the best at anything? The Boeing B-52 is still flying after 54 years. Lockheed C-5s have been in the air for 41 years, the North American B-1 has been flying for 48.

Boeing has been building aircraft tankers for 75 years, this video tells it's story......

Boeing - Tanker

Why would America go outside of this country for a tanker when we have one designed already....... Boeing is already producing a 767 version for Italy.
 
While the feelings expressed on the Airbus product are completely legitimate, in this bidding process for the new gen, Air Force Tanker, which I will remind everyone has been going on for years, being has been having several problems themselves with their recent product lines as well. The 787 has suffered from many issues that have resulted in numerous delay's. Yesterday, in USA Today, Aviation Week reported that Boeing announced the delay of it's most recent product the 747-8 and will move back it's first flight untill next year till technical problems can be worked out. This will also result in delays on this aircraft. While this is not a slap on the face on my part against Boeing, it is to show that both the products that are presented need to represent what the Air Force wants and give the warfighter the best product to do the job. As most of know this saga has resulted in contract awards to both companies and also contract cancellations to both companies. No doubt that if Boeing or EADS is awarded this contract as a sole source it will result in an appeal and a long lenghty hearing process that will further delay a much needed Tanker product to the Air Force. While I am no fan of the solution of two different platforms, perhaps it is the only solution that will result in the Air Force being able to meet it's mission requirements for the next 50 years.

After multiple failed attempts at competing the $35 billion KC-135 replacement program, some officials close to the program are convinced dual-sourcing is the only realistic option to get beyond repeated award protests and delays.

But the split-buy concept still lacks support in the Pentagon. “It will incredibly complicate the Air Force’s life because they will have two new tankers and the old tankers and the maintenance, the training, and the logistics just becomes a nightmare,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during an interview last month with Aviation Week.

Still, officials close to the KC-X program, which was designed to begin replacing more than 500 aging KC-135 tankers with 179 new aircraft, say dual-sourcing may be the only politically palatable way to move forward. Plans from the middle of the decade called for a later buy of KC-Y aircraft and replacing the KC-135s with these two new models in succession. KC-Y was to be a new round of competition after the KC-X buy ended.
Split-Buy USAF Tanker Concept Gaining Favor | AVIATION WEEK

In the soon-to-be immortal words of Sen. Daniel Inouye: “Nothing ever dies” on Capitol Hill. That was Inouye’s response Thursday afternoon when a reporter asked the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman if the split buy for a tanker was dead.

Pressed, the senator who often speaks like a seer, finally admitted that the split buy did appear to be really dead for this session of Congress since it was not even a subject for conference discussions.

You’ve got to hand this one to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He pushed back against Congress time and again, arguing that no rational economic or military justification could be mounted in favor of handing part of the tanker purchase to Boeing and part of it to Northrop Grumman. Of course, this only heightens the importance of the coming draft request for proposal. For those who have not been delving deep in tanker matters lately, it looks as the draft may not come out until close to Thanksgiving. And if Gates really is leaving the building sometime in the next four months, the draft may actually hold until he leaves.
DoD Buzz | Tanker Split Buy Dead, For Now


The problem is after the purchase is in the hands of congress it becomes less about the warfighters needs and more about the needs of padding the districts of the respective congressmen. While it appears on the hill the concept of split-buying these aircraft may be dead, congress will be faced by one of the bidders with a long lengthy appeal that will delay this aircrafts production even further. Also the writer of the last article seemed to indicate that split-buying would cause problems with logistics, costs etc. and hinted that it was a strange concept. It didn't seem too strange a concept when congress approved a second source for the engine on the F-35 as PW was the sole source and now GE has been given the green light to be the second source. In fact there as numerous occasions of this F-15, F-16, and yes even operating two different types of Tankers the KC-10 and the KC-135. So the authors contention on split buy has more to do with enforcing a political position and less to do with supporting a military and finiancial one. I will end with two things, A. Boeing's aircraft are made all over the world, and assembled in various places, including Wa. For example, nations like Australia, China, and Japan are very much involved in the production of the 787 and the 747-8 as well as the 767 which is currently the offered product from Boeing. B. If the a foreign supplier is good enough to build , test, and fly the new Presidential "Marine One" then it's good enough to do the same with the Air Force Tanker.

For those of you who assume that this is supporting EADS, over Boeing, it's not!, it's simply to point out that both offer a product to the Air Force and what is best is what best fits the need. If we cannot have that, then get the next best thing and that's a "split buy" to satisfy the lust of a congress that has zero interest in the warfighters needs.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top