| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Congress Drops 'Buy America' for Air Force Tankers |
| 2006-01-04 |
| WASHINGTON (AP) - A defense bill approved by Congress would allow open competition for a multibillion-dollar contract to supply refueling tankers for the Air Force. President Bush is expected to sign the measure, squelching an earlier House-approved bill that would have helped The Boeing Co. (BA) by keeping the Pentagon from buying military equipment from the parent company of European jet maker Airbus SAS. "Buy America" language had been inserted by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. However, Hunter agreed to remove the provision last month at the request of Senate leaders and administration officials, who said it could spark retaliatory measures by other countries and limit Pentagon flexibility. Congress voted final passage Dec. 21. Chicago-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004, after revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who later admitted giving the company preferential treatment. The deal would have allowed the Air Force to buy or lease 100 Boeing 767 planes for use as tankers, but it was killed by Congress in the 2005 defense authorization bill. The Air Force has said it is likely to reopen the deal to competition, although no formal timeline has been set. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #12 After Darlene Drunyon they really had no choice. Boeing just screwed the pooch. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-01-04 22:09 |
| #11 No doubt the EU/Airbus threatened a retaliatory sanction on commercial airframes by european airlines, which would scare Boeing pretty badly. They're trying to move the 787 mid-haul planes. Airbus, OTOH, is going big - the 380 is huge. Aimed at hub-to-hub routes. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-01-04 16:07 |
| #10 The point here is that DOD is tired of Boeing gouging us when it comes to aircraft, parts, and support. Just a quick look at their overhead and labor rates as well as their required profit lines put them in the too expensive catagory. We could buy the aircraft and build a support base with the required capability to manufacture spares for a lot cheaper than we could buy from Boeing. Boeing should take note that DOD is tired of being their cash cow. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2006-01-04 15:13 |
| #9 More significantly, it's harder for Airbus to put us over a spare-parts barrel, with our aircraft industry, than it is to do it to a smaller country. Even smaller countries can do more than you might expect--for instance, Iran eventualy figured out how to back-engineer the F-5 and make their own spares and even new aircraft. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-01-04 13:13 |
| #8 That is a good point Mike. Most DOD contracts for something this large will have a requirement in it for just that to cover them in a time of war. It is just the sort of requirement that could result in a "no bid" of a very expensive bid. You could see Airbus team with a Lockeed, P&W and others to provide airframes and engines only while the others complete the integration. It's all about teaming these days and can have very good results. |
| Posted by: TomAnon 2006-01-04 12:30 |
| #7 If we did buy Airbus tankers, the engines would be P&W or GE (or Rolls-Royce), which are pretty much interchangable in modern airliner-type transports. (Engine type is a customer option on big jets.) As for the rest of it, we could require that production take place in the US, and I'd be willing to bet that Lockheed or Rockwell or Grumman or Boeing could, in a pinch, take the engineering drawings and start making spares. You could also sub out maintenance to airlines that operate Airbus products. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-01-04 10:53 |
| #6 And here we have some of the summary - and a surprise: it's already being done, heh... "First and foremost, the USTRANSCOM report established that CCAR operations are feasible. In its concluding remarks, the report states, "There are no known equipment or technical obstacles to preclude program development." (47) The accuracy of this statement was demonstrated in the fall of 2000 when Omega Air, Inc--an internationally based company specializing in aircraft sales, leasing, and parts--used a modified Boeing 707 to refuel a Navy FA-18C. (48) Omega received certification from the Federal Aviation Authority for the operation, contracted for its own insurance, and paid the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division $1M to certify the Boeing 707 for air-refueling operations. Following this successful demonstration, the Navy entered into a contract with Omega to provide civilian contract air refueling for its training operations. In addition to its 707s, Omega owns a fleet of about 20 DC-9s and DC-10s that could be modified for air-refueling operations, and recently, the president of Omega, Gale Matthe ws, voiced interest in purchasing KC-135s for use in Omega's air-refueling program. (49) Clearly, CCAR operations are feasible." Well, suprise, surprise! |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-04 03:10 |
| #5 Folks may find this detailed Air Force Journal of Logistics article interesting: Civilian contract air refueling: the ability to project and sustain military power over vast distances is a basic requirement of deterrence - Innovative ...or Insane? - Statistical Data Included which addresses the full range of issues of the KC-135 replacement, i.e. the KC-X, with focus on the CCAR approach - at least as an interim solution, if not permanent... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-04 03:06 |
| #4 Hmmm, has anybody noticed that none of the large freight carriers like UPS, Fedex,...et do not use this airframe. Everything from ramp footprint through structural design makes this the wrong platform. I suspect that this is just a move to knock down the price of the 767s or an attempt to get Airbus to open an assembly line in the U.S.. |
| Posted by: TZSenator 2006-01-04 02:51 |
| #3 Stupid Tranzi bull shit. No way we should even consider Air Bus unless they give them to us for FREE. |
| Posted by: Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu 2006-01-04 01:51 |
| #2 Sure, nail corrupt assholes to the barn door - but do NOT put our Military in a position to be dependent upon undependable foreign sources. Stupid. Dangerous. Asinine. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-04 00:51 |
| #1 I love competition and all but when it comes to the military it should be America if all possible. I really would hate to see the day were we would have to grovel to France or such for spare parts in another "un PC war". |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-01-04 00:46 |