EADS staff stand near a life-size scale display of the interior of the Airbus A400M military transport plane
Posted on 03/08/2010 5:17:48 PM PST by bruinbirdman
European defence giant EADS has dropped out of a nine-year, two-horse $40bn (£27bn) race to provide the US Air Force with a fleet of air tankers after accusing the American government of skewing the competition in rival Boeing's favour.
EADS staff stand near a life-size scale display of the interior of the Airbus A400M military transport plane
EADS and US partner Northrop-Grumman last night took the dramatic decision not to make a bid for the 179 plane contract after studying the latest terms drawn up by the US Department of Defence (DoD).
The pairing, which actually won the contract in 2008 only to be stripped of it after a political backlash in support of US rival Boeing, branded the competition for one of the largest military programmes in US history as unfair and unworkable.
"The acquisition methodology outlined ... would heavily weigh in the favour of the smaller, less capable Boeing tanker," said Ralph Crosby, chairman of EADS North America, whose bid would have been based on the Airbus A330. Boeing will propose the use of its smaller 767 jet.
Mr Crosby and Wes Bush, Northrop's chief executive, stressed that after working through the 1,000-plus pages within the latest request for proposals issued by the DoD, it was in neither company's interest to pursue a joint bid.
The withdrawal comes three months after the pair warned they might pull out of the running, a plea which led Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, to promise a "fair and highly transparent process" to replace the US's aerial refuelling tanker fleet, some planes in which are close to 50 years old.
EADS pointed out that although the bid documents "signal a preference for a smaller aircraft" the DoD has chosen its aircraft over those of Boeing
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The EADS plane was going to be built in America. Once again, union harassment wins out over the better product and our servicemen will be the ones who pay.
but the A330, isn’t that the one that just fell apart in the air somewhere between Brazil and France?? And maybe built here,, but airbus is still foreign owned, profits go home to French and German owners.
Not to mention, in a bid how do you factor out the massive Euro government direct subsidies to that company? They walk in the door with some bidding advantages that Boeing doesn’t.
The Northrup-Grumman team had the better design that would have been more cost efficient for the Air Force. Not to mention it would have provided a multitude of jobs for our area.
You have to understand. A few years back Boeing had us as a finalist for a new plant. They didn’t choose us. Then Northrup offered us the tanker and we threw in our lot with them. Boeing then proceeded to take out an ad campaign attacking us as unable to build planes and all sorts of other insults even though they themselves had figured us a good enough spot that we had been a finalist for one of their facilities.
I’m sorry but I do speak for a metro area of more than half a million people when I say that I sincerely hope that Boeing and their goons rot in hell and that McCain’s probe of their contracting practice will show them for the corrupt shills that they are.
Well,, it’s still a foreign machine. And strictly speaking as John Q. Public here, Boeing has a HUGE track record, going back to the 1930s, that i think should be heavily weighted before giving the Europeans such a plum. I’m thinking B-17, B-29, KB=50 (Americas first tanker) B-47, B-52, KC-135, etc.
Besides, i want to see airbus weaker,, i always worry a little when i get on one. Tail fell off the one in Newark, then this one out of Brazil.
Just telling you my opinion from the peanut gallery. It’s some of the problem that Airbus must deal with, image.
And don’t worry, im no Boeing slave, i won’t feel good in their machines if their airliners are assembled in China as their CEO has mentioned.
The bid is for a medium-size tanker, capable of operating at forward bases. The NG/EADDS bid was a large tanker incapable of operating at ll but one stateside reserve base, let alone forward deployed locations.
The Air Force erred first time around because they established the bid as a medium-sized tanker and assured Boeing that they had no reason to submit a 777-size bid, not would Boeing be awarded extra points if they offered a larger tanker. However, that was not what they briefed EADS.
Double standard, a mistake, one that the GAO agreed with (GAO has NO authority to over-turn a source selection. The Air Force doesn't have to go along with the GAO findings, but they did after a serious look and agreed mistakes were made. Sec Def, not friend to Boeing, agreed with the GAO, as well.
EADS/NG looked at the RFP, determined that the RFP was what was required by the Air Force, looked at their true costs and ability to operate, and decided their LARGER tanker could not win in a bid in accordance with the RFP for a medium-size tanker.
“Corrupt shills?” Interesting that you would attack the Boeing tanker team, a team made up of a majority of former service-men, men that have flown tankers for a career and ran AMC. . .the very servicemen you “thank” for their service are now a target for your scorn. Okay, but I choose not to insult and attack the credibility and integrity of these honorable men. You may want to, but not me.
“A few years back Boeing had us as a finalist for a new plant. They didn’t choose us. “
Explains a lot.
Thanks for the informed information!
All in all, I prefer my tankers and airliners to keep their tails bolted on.
Northrop / EADS was proposing building in the U.S. the same tanker version the British and Australian air forces have, and they haven’t had problems with the 330 frame.
“but the A330, isn’t that the one that just fell apart in the air somewhere between Brazil and France??”
Yeah, after it was bombed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2465302/posts?page=25#25
From a purely chauvinistic point of view, it would be hard to complain about buying aircraft that were subsidized on the back of the European taxpayer (the poor slob).
“but the A330, isn’t that the one that just fell apart in the air somewhere between Brazil and France??”
So what if it was? Things like that happen. There have been Boeings that have broken up in flight in light turbulance. There have been others that have had large pieces fall off of them, then there are the uncommanded rudder deflections, etc, etc.
“And maybe built here,, but airbus is still foreign owned, profits go home to French and German owners.”
Northrup-Grumman is 100% American owned and would get some of those profits too.
“Not to mention, in a bid how do you factor out the massive Euro government direct subsidies to that company?”
You mean like the massive direct subsidies that Boeing enjoys through defense and space research? Then there are the massive tax breaks they get (they pay the lowest federal tax rate of any large corporation in the country) and get huge tax breaks from the state for every aircraft that rolls off the lines.
But by all means lets equip the Airforce with an obsolete aircraft design that doesn’t have the legs (range), nor the offload capacity that the Airforce wanted just to protect some union crybabies in Washington State.
FYI the tanker offered by Boeing to the Airforce hasn’t even flown yet which is the KC-767AT (Advanced Tanker), while the KC-30 has been flying for well over a year now. And NO, the KC-767AT is NOT the same aircraft that Japan and Italy was duped into buying.
If the NG plane couldn’t forward deploy, how did it win the first round?
This seems like “JUST LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL...”
“”More passengers, more cargo, more fuel offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability,” Gen. Arthur Lichte, the commander of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, said of the Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-45A tanker.”
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163119,00.html
Sounds like Gen Lichte was either very stupid, or that the EADS tanker could forward deploy...
“On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told a Senate panel that the Northrop-EADS team defeated Boeing soundly.
“There were nine key performance parameters ... and across that spectrum — all evaluated — the Northrop Grumman plane was clearly a better performer,” Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates added his support for the Airbus tanker selection. “I believe, based on briefings that I’ve received, that it was a fair competition and a merit-based decision,” Gates told reporters.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/353812_tanker06.html
The wingman has a dark power.
yitbos
“According to data provided by the Boeing Company, there are about 1643 airfields worldwide that can accommodate tanker operations. Of those, Boeing claims, the 767 tanker can operate out of about 811 and the Northrop Grumman/EADS A-330 can only operate out of about 408.
Data provided by Northrop Grumman — apparently from the model used by the Air Force — shows that their larger tanker can operate from 838 airfields while the Boeing can only operate from about 465 with the same fuel load.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25851
The Human Events article goes on to say: “Assuming the Boeing data are exaggerated in its favor, the conclusion must still be drawn that the NG/EADS tanker cannot operate out of hundreds of airfields that can accommodate the smaller, lighter Boeing aircraft.”
If that is the sort of logic that drove the new requirements, then it was all about politics.
You know how many F-22s we could have bought for $5 billion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.