Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: British tanker deal decided ??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    flying high
    Posts
    4,593

    British tanker deal decided ??

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...121679,00.html

    BAE snubbed in air tanker contract

    David Gow
    Tuesday January 13, 2004
    The Guardian

    The government is set to deal a savage blow to BAE Systems and Boeing by awarding a £13bn contract to supply the RAF with a fleet of new air-to-air refuelling aircraft to a rival European consortium, industry sources said yesterday.
    The decision, postponed last month and due to be announced soon, is understood to have come after a recommendation in December from senior Ministry of Defence officials in favour of the European team led by EADS and including Rolls-Royce, refuelling experts Cobham and French group Thales.

    It follows a spate of Pentagon investigations into unethical conduct by senior managers at Boeing during negotiations for an $18bn (£9.8bn) refuelling contract for the USAF and other military orders as well as the dismissals and resignations of senior executives, including Phil Condit, chief executive, late last year.

    Boeing, a virtual monopoly supplier, and its partners in the Tanker Team have been offering about 20 converted 767s while its rivals, Air Tanker, have proposed a mix of new and used Airbus A330-200s. Last month EADS broke into the refuelling market by launching the first of six converted A310s for the German and Canadian air forces.

    Allan Cook, Cobham chief executive, said the MoD decision rested on three factors: capability, commerciality and politics. "We believe we have given the RAF the best capability, with the A330 able to carry more fuel and using our proven technology, and the best commercial solution with a PFI over 27 years. It's now about politics and ours is a European solution."

    Employment prospects are believed to have helped swing the decision in favour of the European consortium. Air Tanker is promising to create or sustain some 7,000 jobs in Britain while Tanker Team says it will provide 5,000, with both claiming trade union support.

    Mr Cook said: "I honestly believe that both Tanker Team and Air Tanker have run a close-run battle. But we started in air-to-air refuelling in 1934 and have well over 50 years' experience in providing the required pods on the aircraft wings."

    Boeing executives have cast serious doubt on its rival's technology but Mr Cook said: "For Tanker Team to start rubbishing our refuelling facility is a little bit rich because we are talking about a rival paper design provided by Smiths Group. Both have provided credible solutions but it's just that ours is much better."
    Member of ACIG

    an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    Isn't BAe part of EADS? I thought that was the advantage they had in marketing both the EF-2000 and the Gripen.
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    The Second Foundation
    Posts
    1,848
    Why is the British gov't hell bent to destroy BAe?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    north Wales
    Posts
    558
    BAE Systems is a 20% member of Airbus. They were in a win-win situation, dont get one deal (with Boeing) they still get to take part in the other.
    Before anyone jumps on what I've just said, dont know by how much the value of either contract is to the company and which is of more value to them.
    Don't see the Government being hell bent on destorying BAE, they are just doing what any buyer should do and seek value for money from a suppiler.
    Just because they are a British company does not give them the right to screw the Country.

    Paul

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    The Second Foundation
    Posts
    1,848
    In defense deals, the govt always gets screwed, just depends on how much.

    Furthermore, it's better for Britain to get screwed by a British company than an European one.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    On your nerves
    Posts
    9,060
    ...Boeing of course being a British company
    Regards,

    Arthur
    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
    Bertrand Russell

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1
    Please read the first posting:

    "the European team led by EADS and including Rolls-Royce, refuelling experts Cobham and French group Thales."

    Rolls-Royce and Cobham are both british. Bae is member of Airbus.

    So please tell me: Where is the british goverment destroying british companies?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In the Custard Mines.
    Posts
    1,724
    Yes I was going to say that BAe won't be in the sh!t over this they will be building the wings, as one poster said they have a 20% stake in Airbus and no, BAe is not (as yet) a part of EADS.
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3243&dateline=1166113  560

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,893
    the way they have it seperated airbus is mainly on paper, people for BAe (managers etc) do handle the Airbus side as well, and also the military aspect.. If Airbus/EADS wins then so does BAe.

    What would give BAe more profit? rejigging Boeing tankers, manufactured by Boeing and moded by BAe (i guess likethe Apache) or 20percent stake in the manufacture of a full aircraft i.e. Airbus.
    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    2,306
    well as bae does have a stake in airbus and airbus IS EADS (or the other way around if you like, it doesnt seem to matter to the europeans) then i would assume they at least have a secondry stake in eads......I think that this is the right choice, and BAe Systems has plenty to be getting on with without adding too much more in terms of workload.......

    coanda

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,725
    A more fascinating aspect is, that the British military has its doctrines dictated by the industry (question of larger number of smaller planes vs. smaller number of larger planes). That decision runs contrary the US doctrines. But I wrote about that a month ago already.
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Under the Sea, down in the merky depths
    Posts
    6,550
    Well this makes sence, I've looked over the specs and the Airbus deal is far better, they are offering a lager plane with with a lighter empty weight, more cargo/fuel and most of all, more power in the engines.

    The RAAF is also looking at these as a replacement for their B707's and to tell the truth, I hope they get the A-330's they really are a good plane. Sadly, reality will hit in and logistically we'll get the B-767's since they have similar parts to the Wedgetail and the current Qantas fleet who do the deep maintainence on all the RAAF planes.
    It's a good thing you are short, that way you don't have to live up to a high IQ!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    2,306
    ALL RAAF planes ja or just the big 'uns?

    ja...off subject is your forum still up and running?

    airbus, in my opinion make the better aircraft when you compare the actual deliverable........

    coanda

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In the Custard Mines.
    Posts
    1,724
    A more fascinating aspect is, that the British military has its doctrines dictated by the industry (question of larger number of smaller planes vs. smaller number of larger planes). That decision runs contrary the US doctrines. But I wrote about that a month ago already.
    Its all down to resources then. If we could afford a reasonable number of larger aircraft I reckon we would go for it but seeing as the numbers would probably be relatively insignificant (eg 60 F22 type aircraft instead of 100+ Tyhoon/Rafale types) the F22 might or might not be a cracking aeroplane but it can't be in two places at once.

    I also think it is ironic that the decisions that the general media slam are the ones that we in the 'comunity' tend to debate in a more positive light. They say we should have gone for one deal and we disagree. If you remember what the general media thinks about the Typhoon and compare it to what we here think (in the main at least) you might see what I mean. Sorry I'm not explaining myself too well.

    It simply shows how little the general media understand the subject. Its a bit like getting a Maths teacher to stand in for a Physics teacher at school. Very often news papers have a 'jack of many trades' correspondent. I.e. a reporter who wears many hats like, defence, politics and education but only knows a good amount about 'one' of the subjects he is responsible for. If this reporter had know anything about the relationship between BAe and Airbus, he wouldn't have used words like "the government is set to deal a savage blow to BAE Systems" because they would know it was patently not true. Airbus is an integral part of the BAe portfolio.
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3243&dateline=1166113  560

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Engand
    Posts
    233
    I think that the government's decision is appalling. The government causing the downfall of many of our own industries. People need jobs in this country, the government shouldn't be letting their hate for bae get involved with decisions that affect many jobs. It seems like the government just wants to take the cheap alternative when it comes to matters such as this in order to save up money and waste it elsewhere,as the government as shown many times before. We should be helping our own companies not pursecuting them.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In the Custard Mines.
    Posts
    1,724
    I think that the government's decision is appalling. The government causing the downfall of many of our own industries. People need jobs in this country, the government shouldn't be letting their hate for bae get involved with decisions that affect many jobs. It seems like the government just wants to take the cheap alternative when it comes to matters such as this in order to save up money and waste it elsewhere,as the government as shown many times before. We should be helping our own companies not pursecuting them.
    Mate if they went down the BAe/Boeing road they would be sustaining fewer jobs and those jobs would be lower paid ones. This is a good deal for BAe, like one of the lads said it was a win win situation for BAe and they won. Better than that they won the better of the two contracts. Better for them that is and better for employment in the UK.
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3243&dateline=1166113  560

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    480
    Hi,

    Does anyone know when the official announcement will be made?

    The A330 looked very impressive at Fairford and that big picture in AFM afterwards captured it quite nicely.
    These 2 Tornado's look so small in comparison.

    Cheers, Transall.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Engand
    Posts
    233
    I hope it gets announced soon, its beginning to confuse me a little

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES