Jump to content

ULA Withdraws from Launch Competition, Leaving SpaceX as Sole Competitor


here_2_help

Recommended Posts

On April 20, 2016 at 9:35 AM, here_2_help said:

Joel,

Noted. Are you suggesting that we hold the SSA accountable for a poor award decision? If so, how?

No. It was a politically decreed decision. 

Unfortunately for the Kansas delegation, Boeing closed the Wichita Plant that they said they would use as part of the Tanker program, even after the Kansans lobbied for Boeing, against EADS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 20, 2016 at 9:41 AM, here_2_help said:

Maybe what's being suggested here is that the USAF could have gotten a better product, faster and cheaper, if they would have acquired the tankers under Part 12 procedure

Not cheaper using Part 12, Faster, perhaps yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Do you think Airbus could have done that under contract to the U.S. Air Force?

Yes. Their A330 MRTT variant tanker was already developed and in service with some Air Forces at the time that Boeing won the second round of the competition a few years ago.

EADs planned to build the initial 4 KC-45s in its A330 plant in Dresden, Germany, while the Mobile, AL plant would have been under construction. EADs also planned to build an A330 factory in addition to the KC-45 plant in Mobile. 

They kept faith with Mobile by later deciding to build the new Airbus A321 plant here. They finished it last year and began production last Fall.  

I think that EADs could have already been delivering the first KC-45s to the USAF by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ... today Boeing announced yet another KC-46a charge, reportedly $162 Million. No details.

There are not very many defense contractors that could stand this kind of profit degradation. I daresay that, for all but the largest of the large, this kind of financial performance would spark talk of financial insolvency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

They'll make it up on long term production and FMS.

Yes, that's what they are telling their shareholders and their auditors. But cash flow matters, even to multi-billion dollar companies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
Guest Vern Edwards

Go to fool.com and search for "Boeing."

This article from fool.com is more relevant to the thread. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/07/23/boeings-kc-46-pegasus-problems-are-already-fading.aspx

That link worked when tested. If it doesn't, go to fool.com and search for "Boeing."

Keep in mind that the story was posted in June. I think that some of the technical problems it described have been solved. Take note of this:

Quote

Clearly, Boeing has done a poor job of managing the KC-46 development program. There have been too many unexpected problems during the past several years, causing delays and substantial cost overruns. But on the bright side, now that Boeing has demonstrated the tanker's key refueling capabilities, it can start shifting its focus to production.

As disappointing as the past few years have been, the KC-46 Pegasus is still likely to be a major profit center for Boeing in the long run. The Air Force already plans to buy 179 aircraft. Including potential follow-on orders from the U.S. as well as international sales, Boeing believes it could eventually sell 400 KC-46 tankers for $80 billion.

The KC-46 fleet will also generate high-margin service and support revenue for Boeing for decades to come. Twenty years from now, the recent spate of earnings charges will probably seem like a small price to pay to get a valuable franchise off the ground.

And remember the learning curve: unit production costs decline significantly as production quantity doubles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...