I don’t know if this has been talked about before. But I was wondering if anybody knew anything about the new KC-45X program. What I’ve heard is that Boeing offered their KC-777 and KC-767 for the new tanker, but the USAF turned that down, and now they are getting I think Northrop Grumman to make a tanker out of an A330 ( :unamused: ) Which I think is crap! They don’t need a freakin’ Airbus…

Yes, it has. At great length.

Boeing never formally offered KC-777. They talked about it a bit to both the press and the USAF, but IIRC they could only submit one design in response to the RFP.

Boeing offered KC-767 and Airbus offered KC-30. KC-30 won and Boeing protested to the GAO. The GAO agreed with Boeing and recommended the USAF rebid the contract not because of anything wrong with KC-30, but because the USAF managed the acquisition process poorly. SECDEF agreed and spanked USAF acquisitions.

The new RFP (which is currently in its second draft, not finalized) is a bit different. Mandatory requirements are up from 37 to 373 (not a typo). Non-mandatory requirements (I guess you’d call them optional features?) are down from 750 to zero. If the bids are more than 1% apart on price, lowest bidder wins. If they’re less than 1% apart on price then USAF can pick based on the differentiated features (size, capacity, etc) they prefer.

That doesn’t leave a lot of room for the band aid, so to speak.

Will, keep in mind that the “Airbus” will have a substantial amount of parts and manufacturing done in the USA. Just like the Boeing would have a substantial amount of foreign manufactured parts. At this point, we just need to buy the best hardware available for our troops and make sure they can do their jobs as efficiently as possible.

American tax dollars, for American military, should create American jobs. Not jobs in China, or Europe or Brazil. Call me crazy, but I have to draw the line with tax-payer funded military contracts staying on our soil. I’m just funny that way.

Northrup/EADS is talking about no bidding this time around. Last fall Boeing was talking about no bidding.

As of the last bid, KC-30 is about 60% US content, KC-767 about 85% US content.

Right. Let’s make sure that every component of every piece of equipment used by the military, or by any government agency, is “Made in the USA”. In fact, let’s make sure that all the raw materials , the metals, the rubber, etc, etc, etc…all come from US sources. :wink:

Seriously though, we’ve always bought equipment, weapons, and supplies from foreign sources when it made sense. All these companies and their products are multinational. It’s silly to pretend the Boeing is going to be a 100% American product.

Let’s give our military the VERY BEST equipment, regardless of who makes it. The end of a a very thorough, complete and concise bidding process should lead to the best plane, whoever that may be.

We have to trust our military in these types of situations. They know what they want. They know how to test the product.

I don’t care who gets the money, as long as the people we send into harms way have the latest and greatest warfare machinery available.

Already true for specialty metals, which aircraft use a good bit of.

Yet more window dressing from our government. In case no one noticed the US isn’t exactly awash in titanium and other specialty metals. Oh well. At least it looks good in the press. Like the Senator who wants to ban laptops in cockpits.

Only has to melt here. Import ore or sponge?

If you want the VERY BEST equipment available rarely will you get it from the lowest bidder.

As for not caring who gets the money, that speaks for itself. You’d care if it were your job being outsourced to save a few pennies.

Like most government bids, it will probably go to the lowest bidder. I think two things need to happen, the Air Force needs to decide which aircraft will work best, then the politicians need to butt out. Politics destroy most of these processes, because its always about some politician wanting jobs in his district, or for whatever firm donates to him, over what is best in the long run. If the Air Force would have selected the Airbus, it would have created 4500 new jobs in Alabama, plus that factory was set to take over production of the A330F, meaning more American jobs. Airbus or Boeing, America still gets jobs.

That’s a bit of a myopic viewpoint. Added jobs in NC for Airbus will be offset by employee cuts at various Boeing plants, with the net result being a possible negative figure in overall employment.

True. N/G is listing “new” jobs all over the US from the KC-45, but it’s impossible to know one way or the other what will transpire with either manufacturer. The only thing that’s known for sure is that the current fleet is old and getting older.

OK… All I needed to know…

Has any one seen this from Boeing

That’s a great site!

What’s wrong with the current tanker?