Sim, mas esse Airbus na foto, é um 310 e não um 330. , essa questão aliás, foi amplamente discutida aqui.Só coloquei essa foto para mostrar um Airbus com o sistema (mais visívil) Boom and receptacle, mesmo que os futuros KC-45 venham a ser dotados também com o sistema Probe and drogue. KC-45
Tanto quanto sei, a TAP já assumiu compromissos relativos ao futuro dos A310 que vai deixar de operar.
E quais serão esses "compromissos" ? Alguma especulação ?Um camarada espanhol afirmou noutro tópico que Espanha estava no mercado por A310 em 2º mão para aumentar a sua frota. Será que a TAP foi sondada ?
NYTMarch 10, 2008In Tanker Bid, It Was Boeing vs. Bold IdeasBy DAVID HERSZENHORN and JEFF BAILEYWASHINGTON - Just hours before the Air Force announced the winner of a $35billion contract to build aerial refueling aircraft on Feb. 29, an Airbusplane lumbered off the runway in Getafe, Spain, and climbed to 27,000 feetto rendezvous with a Portuguese F-16 fighter.Then, in the skies south of Madrid, the two aircraft edged closer andcloser, until they were joined by a 50-foot boom hanging off the back of thebig Airbus plane. For the first time, the boom pumped fuel into anotherplane, 2,000 gallons in all during several connections.The technology to pass fuel from one plane to another may not be rocketscience - in fact, aerial fuel booms have been in use for more than 50 years- but it helped Airbus's parent and its partner, Northrop Grumman, establishtheir technical bona fides.Eager to enter the American defense market, the European Aeronautic Defenseand Space Company, the owner of Airbus, made several bold plays, perhapsnone more dramatic than building the $100 million state-of-the-art refuelingboom on spec.As a result, Boeing, the pride of American aerospace, was outmaneuvered onits home turf for a contract that could grow to $100 billion, becoming oneof the largest military purchases in history.Boeing received a detailed briefing from the Pentagon on Friday about whyits bid fell short. Now it must decide by Wednesday whether to file a formalappeal.The company and its allies in Washington have already made a number ofarguments. Among them are that too many American jobs are being lostoverseas, and that sensitive military contracts should not be in the handsof a foreign company.The debate about the impact on American jobs is a murky one, because largemanufacturing projects typically involve operations in many parts of theworld, regardless of which company has a contract.If Boeing tries to reverse the decision, it could find itself in a difficultposition, accused of further delaying critically needed equipment in a timeof war.Boeing could also be forced to revisit the corruption scandal in 2004 thatderailed a $20 billion deal for the company to lease refueling tankers tothe Air Force. Two Boeing executives went to jail as a result, and the chiefexecutive stepped down.The parent of Airbus, known as EADS, and Northrop Grumman proposed a tankermade from a refitted A330 jetliner that could carry more fuel than the rivalproposal, a modified Boeing 767. It also offered more flexibility forcarrying cargo, transporting troops, airlifting refugees and deliveringhumanitarian aid.Boeing, the heavy favorite to win the contract, having built earliertankers, promised a new boom but did not build a prototype. One analyst whofollowed the contest said that Boeing, based in Chicago, seemed arrogant andoffered a plan that Air Force officials thought would deliver only 19tankers by 2013 compared with 49 by the Airbus team."The Boeing team was not responsive and often was not even polite," saidLoren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute inArlington, Va., based on conversations he said he had with defenseofficials. "Somehow that all eluded senior management," Mr. Thompson said."They were not even aware there was a problem."William Barksdale, a Boeing spokesman who attended the Air Force debriefingon Friday, said Boeing asked "whether we were hard to get along with." Hesaid Air Force officials had no complaints in that area.On Capitol Hill, the blow to Boeing has set off a protectionist furor amongmany lawmakers. And on the campaign trail, the Democratic candidates forpresident, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, suggest thatthe Boeing loss reflects other Bush administration policies that haveresulted in jobs moving offshore.But the hot rhetoric could sound overly nationalistic, and evenhypocritical, once the real implications for jobs and national securitybecome clear. Boeing, for example, would have made many of its own tankerparts overseas, and some experts say that claims of job losses to a foreigncompany seem exaggerated.For now, though, the pro-Boeing, pro-America talk is showing no signs ofletting up."We really have to wake up the country," said Senator Patty Murray, Democratof Washington State, where Boeing is a significant employer. "We are at riskof losing a major part of our aerospace industry to the Europeans forever."Representative Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, said: "It's outsourcingour national security. An American tanker should be built by an Americancompany with American workers." Boeing would have done some of its tankerassembly in Kansas.Some officials have even suggested that it would have been better to revisethe tainted lease deal than to let Airbus compete.Defense industry analysts, however, say that the Airbus deal in many waysdoes make sense and that fears of lost military secrets are misplaced."We're not talking about missile defense issues," said Jon B. Kutler, chiefexecutive of Admiralty Partners, a firm that invests in defense companies."This is as plain vanilla as a major contract gets."The Airbus and Boeing aircraft are both global products - Boeing has saidroughly 85 percent of its tanker components would be American-made, theAirbus group about 60 percent - making the impact on jobs unclear.Boeing said its bid would create or support 44,000 American jobs. The Airbusteam's figure was 25,000 jobs in 49 states. Both numbers are impossible toverify. Industry analysts point out that, employment claims aside, themanufacturers have a profit motive in building the planes with as fewworkers as possible.In fact, no layoffs are expected at the Boeing plant in Everett, Wash.,where the 767 is assembled, as a result of losing the contract. On thecontrary, the company is hiring workers because of a $255 billion backlogfor jetliners. Airbus, too, has a huge backlog.But while politicians continue to make election-year speeches aboutprotecting jobs, industry analysts say a more useful debate might be overwhether there was too much consolidation of American defense manufacturersin the 1990s when military spending slowed, leaving the government withlimited domestic options.With the award to the Airbus group, Mr. Kutler, the defense companyinvestor, said: "The Defense Department is sending a message: on majorcontracts, don't be assuming we have no other options. It's a globalmarketplace."Another crucial question is how such big contracts will be awarded in thefuture given the indications that many American officials seem to favorcompetition, but only if American companies win."If Cessna wants to start building bigger airplanes, I am happy to see thathappen," said Senator Murray, of Washington. "I don't disagree with theconcept of more competition, but there is a second bigger question and thatis military capability and losing military capability."Experts warned that excluding foreign competitors could prompt othercountries to take similar steps against American defense manufacturers andthat choosing inferior domestic products would only put military servicemembers at risk. That tendency, acted on in other countries, has alreadycreated what one analyst, Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, called "ahideous mix of higher costs and reduced combat effectiveness."Boeing and its allies in Congress have raised a number of objections thatthey say could justify reversing the Air Force decision, including whetherthe bid evaluators properly considered subsidies that Airbus may receivefrom European governments, or even the fact that Boeing pays higher healthcare costs because much of Europe has national health insurance.In a statement after Friday's briefing, Mark McGraw, a Boeing vice presidentin charge of the tanker program, said that the company would "give seriousconsideration to filing a protest." He added: "What is clear now is thatreports claiming that the Airbus offering won by a wide margin could not bemore inaccurate."If the company appeals, it would be to the Government Accountability Office,which would then have 100 days to issue a ruling.The Air Force, meanwhile, insists that it chose the better plane.Sue C. Payton, the assistant secretary of the Air Force, at a contentioushearing before the Defense Appropriations subcommittee last week, said:"Northrop Grumman brought their A game." Northrop is based in Los Angeles.Ms. Payton also disagreed with assertions that the Air Force had tipped thescales for Airbus. She said officials had carefully followed procurementrules and an array of laws, including the Buy American Act, which she notedcalls for certain countries, including Western European allies, to betreated as if they were the United States."Let me say I view Northrop Grumman as an American company," she said. "Iview General Electric, who has jobs from this in Ohio and North Carolina, asan American company. I view the folks in Mobile, Alabama, and Melbourne,Florida, as Americans. But that did not enter into my decision here.""You said we want a fair and open competition under the laws," she told thepanel. "I complied with those laws."General Electric is to make the engines and Northrop Grumman expects to hirehundreds of engineers in Melbourne for the Airbus group's tanker, which willbe assembled in Mobile, Ala.The victory on the Air Force contract could mark the arrival of Airbus as amajor builder of tankers after decades of dominance by Boeing, whichmanufactured the only widely used boom.The Boeing spokesman, Mr. Barksdale, said his company could easily pulltogether the new boom it promised the Air Force. "It's not a huge leap oftechnology," he said. "It would not be a huge deal."But to Northrop Grumman and EADS, building the boom on spec presented achance to demonstrate their competitive hunger."They had to start from scratch," said Tim Gann, a retired Air Force tankerpilot and group commander who now works for the Airbus group, EADS NorthAmerica. "Up until we developed our boom, only Boeing had a boom. Boeingwasn't going to sell us the boom."
lurker escreveu: Tanto quanto sei, a TAP já assumiu compromissos relativos ao futuro dos A310 que vai deixar de operar. E quais serão esses "compromissos" ? Alguma especulação ? Um camarada espanhol afirmou noutro tópico que Espanha estava no mercado por A310 em 2º mão para aumentar a sua frota. Será que a TAP foi sondada ?
Isto é: a TAP está a receber este ano aviões A-330 novos de fábrica e em 2014 quando começar a receber os A-350 decide se entrega à Airbus estes A-330 nas condições e valores que estão no contrato.
India’s MMRCA trials help Russian aerial refueling tanker bidOur BureauViewed: 12846 times Fri, Jan 14, 2011 11:39 CET Flight trials of the six contenders for India’s Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender have had an unusual side effect on the race to sell India aerial refueling aircraft. Asked to prove aerial refueling capability, the contenders, F-16, Gripen, Rafale, F/A 18, MiG-35 and Eurofighter have had no option but use the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s existing tanker, the Il-86 mid-air refueler to prove that their aircraft is capable of meeting IAF’s requirements as regarding aerial refuelling. The Il-86 is a contender in India’s re-floated bid to buy fresh aerial refueling tankers. Fresh bids are due later this month and the besides the Il-86, the other likely contenders are the Airbus A-330 MRTT and the Boeing KC-X. The success of the MMRCA aerial refueling tests means that the IL-76 tanker will have a stronger case due to the fact that its capability has been proven on all the MMRCA bidders, one of which will be eventually selected. In fact, the MMRCA contenders had to make major modifications to their aerial refueling systems to match the IL-76’s fuel pipe mating and locking systems to prove that the their aircraft can be refueled in mid-air. Informed sources told Defenseworld.net that the Russian bid had “emerged stronger” after the MMRCA aerial refueling tests. The IL-86 had earlier been disqualified in favor of the Airbus A-330 MRTT but the Airbus bid was turned down following objections from the Indian finance ministry which found the aircraft “too expensive”. It is not known was the quoted price was. Indian media quoting unnamed Airbus officials has reported that Airbus would be resubmitting its bid for the tanker contest. Boeing however has reportedly expressed that its bid would depend upon whether it wins the U.S. aerial tanker bid in which it is engaged in a bitter battle with the U.S. subsidiary of EADS which is fielding the A-330 MRTT. Airbus’ tanker has been ordered by the U.A.E, Saudi Arabia, Portugal and Australian air forces while the Boeing KC-X was unveiled only in mid-2010 and the U.S. tanker contest is its first major bid. The Il-86 has been an old workhorse for Russia, India and China. At Aero India 2009, the Il-78 had made a demonstration refueling two aircraft simultaneously. It is quite likely that it may repeat this feat with the LCA Tejus at Aero India 2011.http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?n=India%92s%20MMRCA%20trials%20help%20Russian%20aerial%20refueling%20tanker%20bid&id=5355
The Netherlands, Norway, and Poland will send a request for proposal (RfP) to Airbus to buy A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft within a matter of weeks, according to officials close to the issue.Since the platforms will be identical to one another, the forthcoming negotiations "will be all about price", they said."We know the numbers and expect to see a reasonable offer. This has to be affordable: the flight costs have to be low," said Johan Van Soest, commander of Eindhoven's military airfield in the Netherlands, which will be the MRTTs' main operating base. "If they [Airbus] come back with too great a price differential versus what Boeing could offer with the KC-10, then we can always go for a KC family of 4-5 tankers and some cargo aircraft. That's a second-best choice but if it's lower in cost, then we'll consider that option. But it's really to Airbus' advantage to make a deal because this involves all the through-life work as well."(...)The Netherlands, Norway, and Poland will form the launch nations for jointly purchasing three to four MRTTs for delivery starting in May 2019, with an option for up to eight. Forward-operating bases will be set up in Norway and Poland.The trio and the EDA, which has sponsored the procurement project, are hoping other nations will join the effort since Eindhoven has plenty of room. It currently has space for eight MRTTs, "and if we get more than that, then we'll just need to pour some more concrete," Van Soest said.The EDA's MRTT project dates back to a March 2012 when originally 10 EDA nations aimed to jointly buy the capability. But Europe's deepening financial crisis and the difficulty of aligning the nations' programmes and budget cycles saw the other seven drift away.However, Belgium is now back and considering rejoining the programme, though it would not invest in aircraft. Instead, it is looking at buying around 600 hours' worth of flying time - roughly half the cost of a single MRTT. Its hours "would come in at a somewhat higher cost than for the rest of us since they wouldn't be investing directly in the programme, but Belgium's cost would be spread over a long period," observed Van Soest.EDA officials at the briefing said the RfP will go to Airbus "within two weeks", or early May, with a contract to be signed in early 2016. Initial operating capability is scheduled for mid-2020, followed by full operating capability a year later.[continua]