Except they’re not. The 777 and 787 are significantly heavier than the A330, and thus more expensive. Also, Boeing officials have said the 787 does not have sufficient structural strength to handle the rigors of the air refueling mission. It makes heavy use of composites and other lightweight materials because it was designed for maximum efficiency in transporting passengers, not cargo or fuel.

Perhaps a more troubling reality to consider is allowing Airbus a beachhead in the states from which to launch an all out assault on the domestic aircraft industry.

Nah. First of all, the plane will be manufactured in Europe, so this contract does not represent such a beachhead. Secondly, Airbus does not need such a beachhead, because they can do all the “assaulting on the American aircraft industry” that they need to do from their facilities in Europe.

the operational costs of the B767 are substantially less than A330 due to fuel efficiency,

Nope. The operational costs of the KC-45A will be substantially less than those of the KC-767, because the bigger aircraft needs to fly fewer missions in order to offload the same amount of fuel (which is after all the whole point of the tanker).

Your points are well taken. Perhaps a more troubling reality to consider is allowing Airbus a beachhead in the states from which to launch an all out assault on the domestic aircraft industry. I’m sure the Air force could care less!

Please check your facts, the Boeing bid was $35B vs. EADS $40B. If we want to look at $$, the operational costs of the B767 are substantially less than A330 due to fuel efficiency, some estimates at over $14B during the life of the program. This entire process is another example of wasteful spending by the Air force. The brass pushed for the multirole Cadillac platform vs. the Chevy get it done airframe. Please keep in mind this is a tanker, a support aircraft, not a combat system where the latest and greatest most expensive technology is required in order to achieve mission success and crew survival. Both airframes are damn airliners! If more cargo/medivac capacity is needed, buy more C17’s

The aircraft has nearly the same US content as the Boeing entry — 60% (the Boeing entry had parts manufactured in the United States, Japan, UK, Canada, and Italy; the NG entry has parts manufactured in the United States, UK, Germany, Spain, and France). Plane manufacturing is a global enterprise.

The engines on the Boeing entry were PW, the ones on the NG entry are GE CF6’s; both American countries.

Since the plane will be assembled in Mobile, Alabama, our defense-sensitive equipment will not leave the country except when the Air Force flies it out.

Finally, the Boeing bid was $40B; the NG bid was $35B. For those of us who can count, Boeing was underbid by $5 billion smackeroos.

And, last but not least, Northrop did not hire Darleen Druyan.

anyone remember what Toshiba did with our sub technology in the eighties?

No. What did they do?

If so, there was a good reason for that – both the 777 and 787 are too big to be operationally useful,

Lehuster on March 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You stated that the 787 and 777 are to big to be operationally useful… and yet they are very close to the same size as the A330.

I merely went at looked at the stats.

Size was a factor, but not the only factor.

it looks like the 787 has about the same specs…

It is pointless even to talk about the 787! It is not even flying yet (so if they’d offered it Boeing would have been hammered on risk), and Boeing wants to sell them all to commercial customers, not the military. Boeing never even considered the 787 as an option, not even with several years advance warning that EADS would offer the A330.

Blacklake on March 11, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Exactly right!

We constantly “buy” into the programs of planes that are not on the assembly line… F-22? F-35?

It is one thing when two paper airplanes are competing against each other, but if a paper tanker competed against a real tanker, the paper tanker would lose hands down.

Blacklake on March 11, 2008 at 5:50 PM

And yet, thats exactly what we do with our Combat aircraft. We constantly “buy” into the programs of planes that are not on the assembly line… F-22? F-35?

A330 won’t be in production 30 years from now… its not a “new” airframe, but 787 would be.

Actualy an interesting question I can’t find the answer to… Whats the runway length needed by a KC135? Seems to me it probably shorter than that needed for the 330… which would mean either rebasing, or extending runways…

Interesting… both the 787 middle model, and the A330 have the same wingspan… close to same thrust.. 787 weighs less… yet has the same take off weight (thus more possible payload)…

Romeo13 on March 11, 2008 at 3:28 PM

I’d think the deal-killer for the Dreamliner would be that it effectively doesn’t yet exist. Contracting for a tanker conversion of an as-yet unflown civilian airliner would, I hope, qualify as “high risk,” particularly when there are other perfectly viable, already-proven airframes on the table. Going with newly-built examples of “old” designs like the 767 or A330 has the advantage that the service lives and maintenance qualities of the types in question are relatively well-established.

If they reshaped the competition in favor of the bigger plane, why didn’t Boeing move to the Triple 7?

Tim Burton on March 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM

1) The competition was not “reshaped” to favor the bigger plane.

The size of the proposed tanker aircraft was not dictated by the Air Force nor was size an established criteria—each contractor was free to propose the best solution and platform to meet Air Force warfighter requirements.

2) Boeing screwed up. They were free to offer a KC-777 if they wanted. But instead, they tried to push the same old plane on the Air Force, with minor improvements, at the least possible up-front cost to Boeing. They thought they had the KC-767 deal in the bag, but even Boeing acknowledged too late that their plane might not be competitive to the KC-330 offering. That’s when they proposed the re-named KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT), with larger wings and more internal fuel for longer range.

Larger doesn’t necessarily mean more capability, just more capacity. The number of booms in the air is a huge factor, as are the ease of switching to drogues for Navy/foreign receivers and the aforementioned airfield restrictions.

Lehuster on March 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Interesting… both the 787 middle model, and the A330 have the same wingspan… close to same thrust.. 787 weighs less… yet has the same take off weight (thus more possible payload)…

Just at a glance, it looks like the 787 has about the same specs… so how do you get the “too big” idea?

Wasn’t the real reason the A330 was chosen was that it was LARGER and could carry more payload than the smaller 767?

So, if they wanted to submit a plane that more correctly matched the specs of the A330, and were told NOT TO?

Interesting.

More details on the fact that some of McCain’s advisors were lobbyists on behalf of Airbus – for the big Air Force tanker deal.
Gatewaypundit has some good analysis and refers us to a posting on Hot Air which gives more details.
……

If so, there was a good reason for that – both the 777 and 787 are too big to be operationally useful, and also too expensive for the USAF to buy in the numbers it wanted. (Yes, they are bigger and more expensive than the A-330.)

Big ain’t everything. Boeing tried to get the Air Force to buy a tanker version of the 747 back in the 1970s, and the USAF said no, too big and too expensive.

Nah. Any “subsidies” happened up front, during the development of the A-330. That money is already spent, it can’t be taken away. And, there is no reason the American taxpayer should not benefit from it!

Not much time, I have to get ready for work (rapidily disappering technical manufacturing-Semiconductor fabrication…where we try to purchase domestic products when available!!!) I understand, this whole tanker bid stinks to high holy hell all the way back to the ill fated and corrupt Boeing lease deal. I can only hope an investigation makes the process more effective in the future.

Bingo!
Here’s another “what if”; a Euro supplier of composite rudder assemblies in Spain is pressured by the Spainish government to embargo these assemblies due to United States policies in…the Mid East!
Happy-happy, Joy-joy!

dmann on March 11, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Actualy having been in the process for Electronic systems… its not uncommon at all for Reqs to be modified throughout the bidding process.

Sometimes they are modified due to evolving technology… sometimes because NO ONE can meet the specs… and sometimes just because some new guy is in charge of the project (saw that one happen more than once…).

I watched one bid spec for an update to a Solid State Air Search Radar be downgraded to the point where it would only develop HALF the power of the preceeding model (AN/SPS 40… going from B, C, D to the E version). Origional spec was for an INCREASE in power… not a decrease…

Question…

This price is only possible from Airbus because they are partly Government funded… uh, what happens if that funding is cut? Will Airbus be forced to either cut production and renege on the contract, or raise the price?

If the Pentagon did not follow the proper process, then Congress has a role.

Exactly, req’s are established well before the process. When the process is continually interupted or stopped in order to change the req’s there is a problem.
If being a domestic supplier is not given any consideration (as an asset) in the bidding process to procure hardware for our military, sooner rather than later we will witness the total lose of technical manaufacturing capability, and for me that is not a good deal!