Air Force: Foreign Tanker Bests US Rival

AP ^ | 3-5-08 | BEN EVANS

[Anti-Bubba182]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The European refueling tanker that won a $35 billion Pentagon contract last week "was clearly a better performer" than its U.S. rival, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told lawmakers Wednesday.

Speaking at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Wynne said the plane offered by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman Corp., was determined to be less expensive and less risky than the plane offered by Chicago-based Boeing Co.

The planes were judged on nine key criteria, he said, and "across the spectrum, all evaluated, the Northrop Grumman airplane was clearly a better performer."

Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and the panel's top Republican, John Warner of Virginia, said they would want more information on how the contract was won after the companies are briefed Friday.

Jim Albaugh, top executive of Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems, said the company was surprised to lose the contract, and believes its proposal would have been a better choice.

"We offered an airplane that was more cost-effective. We offered an airplane that met the requirements better than the competition, and of lower risk," Albaugh told a Citigroup conference of defense analysts in New York.

But Warner, who oversaw the tanker deal as head of the committee before Levin, commended the Air Force's process and said he supports the decision.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Continuing in the NAFTA spirit we now offshore manufacturing of vital defense assets.

[Bommer]

So much better to buy an inferior product as long as the USA stamp is on it?

[illiac]

Posturing to legitimize his claims.....

[catbertz]

would they really admit that their choice was inferior? I always question government procurement.

Too many clowns, too much money and not enough common sense.

[Fundamentally Fair]

Continuing in the NAFTA spirit we now offshore manufacturing of vital defense assets.

Vital? Yeah. But the technology and manufacturing end is nothing like that for a fighter or bomber.

Then again, maybe we should have gone with the company that tried to bribe their way into the contract.

Incidentally, the Aussies are going with the A330 Tanker.

[Red in Blue PA]

Boeing is inferior????

[CWW]

This is a total BS headline and is misleading.

The new Tanker plane is a joint venture of EADS and Northrup-Grummen (a US company), and will be manufactured in Mobile, Alabama by 5,000 to 7,000 Alabama workers, as well as by tens of thousands of other Amercan-based suppliers and manufacturers.

Second, the wining plane blew the pants off Boeing because it holds almost 3 times as much fuel and has two (rather than one) methods to refuel planes.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I don't buy that an American firm can't make whatever the Airforce needs.

The US should have the capability, to the greatist extent possible, to manufacture everything we need in an emergency. It is dangerous to depend on foreign manufacturers for something like Tankers in particular.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Take it up with the AP.

[Fundamentally Fair]

...and has two (rather than one) methods to refuel planes.

That's the first I've heard of that. Certainly the requirements included boom and drogue refueling for any tanker considered...no?

[ontap]

Would the Boeing plane have been built entirely in the USA?

[trane250]

So much better to buy an inferior product as long as the USA stamp is on it?

A direct quote from George W. Bush, "Americans can compete with anybody, any time, anywhere, if the playing field is level."

So Bommer, wasn't the "playing field" level or was our prezhidint deluding himself (again)?

[Nachum]

No. It outsources as much as Northrup. They are both assembled in the US.

[Loud Mime]

There are more intersting comments here.

[Dagny&Hank]

Boeing’s 777 would blow the wings off of the A330 because can hold far more fuel and deliver more too!

[FightThePower!]

Just wait until our friends in Europe decide they don’t like what we are doing with their weapons and decide to withhold them from us.

[DuncanWaring]

the wining plane blew the pants off Boeing because it holds almost 3 times as much fuel and has two (rather than one) methods to refuel planes.

The KC-767 carries a little more than 200,000 lbs of fuel. From the Northrop-Grumman website , their aircraft can carry "25% more than a KC-135", which it quotes at 200,000 lbs, which works out to 250,000 lbs, which is far short of "three times as much fuel".

I can also say, for an absolute certainty, that the Boeing airplane has both a fixed boom and three hose-drogue refueling points.

[wolf78]

Would the Boeing plane have been built entirely in the USA?

Definitely not. Boeing routinely outsources work, especially to Japan and Italy (Alenia). Granted, the percentage for the 767, a 1980 design is lower than for the 787, where Japanese content alone is one third of the aircraft, but still: large parts of the fuselage are "Made in Japan".

Boeing is inferior????

Every aircraft has a life cycle, and the 767 is at its end. Without the USAF order the line will close soon - which is the natural order of things as the successor of the 767, the 787, will soon take to the skies for the first time. So yes, out of all the airliners that Boeing currently manufactures, the 767 is the weakest link. On the other hand the newer 777 is still going strong, as is the 737NG.

[Anti-Bubba182]

That is what worries me.

[ontap]

Sounds like there is not much difference who makes the damn thing. So why all this hand ringing going on here?

[wolf78]

Just wait until our friends in Europe decide they don’t like what we are doing with their weapons and decide to withhold them from us.

Europeans are pragmatists. Do you remember Gerhard Schroeder? While in his rhethoric he condemned US unilateralism, at the same time he kept the German airspace wide open for US bombing campaigns e.g. from Ramstein airspace.

Should such a case ever arise, trust European ingenuity to find a suitable justification for their business interests along the lines of "We are only selling harmless freighters to the US. It's Northrop Grumman that turns them into weapons..." ;).

[ontap]

If the damn thing is being manufactured in Mobile Ala. how they gonna stop production. I think they call it nationalisation. At least that’s what they call it when our oil company assets are ceased.

[wolf78]

Sounds like there is not much difference who makes the damn thing. So why all this hand ringing going on here?

Well, as I said, the fact that the 767 is an older, pre-globalization design can be sold as an advantage (somewhat higher American content) or a disadvantage (less capable).

Now you have the local cheerleaders, e.g. the senator from Boeing Patty Murray, trying to tout exactly the version of the story that helps Washington state interests (aka. tax revenues) most.

[Nachum]

It's called M-O-N-E-Y. Boeing lost a juicy deal to its competitor and doesn't like to lose. Therefore it is doing the following:

a. Trying to poison the deal with Northrup to get it back

b. Trying to create a firestorm politically to make sure the public will scream if it happens again

c. Calling in their markers with politicians for whom have a vested interest in Seattle keeping the jobs and Alabama losing them, keeping their stockholders happy, and laying groundwork for the next big deal.

[Armando Guerra]

Is this kind of like the argument over whether it is better to buy a Ford made in Mexico or Toyota made in Kentucky?

[DuncanWaring]

If the damn thing is being manufactured in Mobile Ala. how they gonna stop production.

It's not being "manufactured" in Alabama, it's being "assembled" in Alabama, from a collection of parts, many of which are imported.

[snoringbear]

“If the damn thing is being manufactured in Mobile Ala. how they gonna stop production.”

Final assembly will be in Mobile, Alabama. Engines, components,wiring,engineering, etc, etc, all the really high paying technical jobs, design, marketing, will remain in France. It’s the same as with the Japanese auto final assembly plants here in the U.S. About 15 to 20 percent of the cost of manufacturing a car is associated with final assembly. The engineering, design, marketing, planning expertise, component cost, engines,drive trains, etc,etc, is where the rest of the cost resides and thereby the really good jobs - in Japan. Now you know the rest of the story.

[wolf78]

EADS/Airbus will build an assembly line in Mobile, not only for the tanker, but also for the civilian A330-200F freighter. But that doesn't mean all the parts will be manufactured in the US. Parts of the fuselage will be made in France, Germany or Spain, most of the wings in the UK. Airbus has had a large number of American suppliers already, so they will continue to build parts for the KC-45A, also will the engines come from GE, not Rolls Royce. An example of an existing US supplier:

Vought

Of course there are risks with an international supply chain, as one can see with the problems Boeing recently had with the Italians and their contribution to the 787. But as Airbus already has 15 years of experience with the A330, the kinks in the supply chain should be ironed out already.

Plus: Northrop / EADS fought way to hard for the deal to endanger follow-up orders by political posturing. The thing is: Tankers aren't fighter jets. They are based on existing civilian airliners. Of course one could theoretically have a nationalized, purpose-built tanker not based on existing designs and their global supply chains - for thrice the price.

[wolf78]

Final assembly will be in Mobile, Alabama. Engines, components,wiring,engineering, etc, etc, all the really high paying technical jobs, design, marketing, will remain in France.

There are several mistakes in that sentence. First of all, Airbus is not "French" per se, but rather a subsidiary of Dutch EADS, formerly a British/French/German/Spanish-consortium. The bulk of the design work is done in France and Germany, granted, with assembly lines in Toulouse and Hamburg.

Secondly, there are three engine choices for the A330-200: General Electric CF6, Pratt and Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent 700. None of these French. And guess what, they didn't choose the Trent engine for the KC-45.

[Bommer]

So Bommer, wasn't the "playing field" level or was our prezhidint deluding himself

He's been deluded on the verge of demented for the past 4 years. Why change now?

[Always Independent]

They are not selling us weapons. On the other hand, how many fighter aircraft have we sold them and how many more are they slated to buy! Suppose they turned around and told us that they can’t buy the F-16, F-18 C-130, AH-64, F-35 anymore. There are something like 300+ f-35s that the US wants to sell them in the future.

[snoringbear]

“There are several mistakes in that sentence. First of all, Airbus is not “French” per se, but rather a subsidiary of Dutch EADS, formerly a British/French/German/Spanish-consortium.”

Ok, kudos to you as you are correct in that EDS is not soley a French Corporation. However, I believe that the French government is the majority stock holder. And, by decisions made over the past few years, it has obviously looked out for the best interests of their own. At any rate, my point was that the majority of the technical aspects, design, sub-assemblies, probably engines, etc, etc (aka really good jobs) will remain outside of the U.S. as your own comments acknowledges.

[Non-Sequitur]

Boeing’s 777 would blow the wings off of the A330 because can hold far more fuel and deliver more too!

Perhaps. But the 777 wasn't the platform used. The 767 was.

[listenhillary]

Why did we build the inferior product?