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 ...
Boeing’s data was with both aircraft at MTOW. NG-EADS’s data was with the KC767 at MTOW, and the KC-30 at the Boeing fuel load.
I worked OT&E for 4 years...I have a hard time believing the folks working tanker acquisition didn’t look at where the tankers could fly out of at various weights...long before either proposal was accepted!
Boeing or Northrop saying their aircraft can operate out of x number of airfields vs. the competition is just posturing for the media. Remember this NG spider chart from the last go around? Look at the number of airfields @ 200,000 lbs of fuel: Boeing 465, NG 838
Thank you. I only experienced tankers from the receiving end, but I met a lot of smart & good people working acquisition. Lots of crooks as well, but a lot of good & honorable folks were trying hard to do what was right.
yeah lower risk to build an airplane in a factory that hasn’t been built, with a workforce that hasn’t been hired or trained. For two companies that have never worked together.
Oh yeah that Boeing airplane has never been built in this combination. But each of the components has been designed and built before. It is like getting the F-150 with a step side in red....
But people from AL totally bought the Airbus behind a mask fake.
Meanwhile Boeing already employs more people in Alabama than NG or EADs even if they would have gotten the contract.
So after the last botched RFP and evaluation the Pentagon complained that part of the problem was that they didn’t have enough aquistion people.
So they asked for and got 9,000 more folks.
Think about that for a minute. let’s assume 100K (with bennies) a year that is $900,000,000 a year for bean counters. We got more bean counters than beans.
Here are some informations about the boom offload capablilties:
Boeing: 6,800 pounds per minute (status: ?)
Airbus: 8,000 pounds per minute (status: tested)
http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/080222af_tanker.pdf
The 226 PAX for the KC-30 are not quite right. With palletized seating in case of an airlift a KC-767 can carry about 230 PAX and a KC-30 about 350.
Current example: South Korea, 8,000 troops to deploy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62724920100308
KC-767: 35 missions
KC-30 : 23 missions
Boeing employs people in Huntsville which is about 300 miles away from where the new plant was going to be. The Northrup-Grumman facility was going to be at the other end of the state and they already have a facility about 30 miles west in Mississippi that does employ some of our local people.
And you obviously know nothing about where that plant was going to be built because it was going to be built in an industrial park whose primary business is aerospace and which has among others, Teledyne Continental.
Exactly, you notice how they have a label for each part. Becasue they exist on existing airplanes.
Check out how the Boeing Business Jet was built, 737-800 wing on a -700 fuselage, with several optional fuel tanks...
It is called optimizing the airplane for the mission. In the business that is considered a minor derivative. Not high risk by any means.
The risk of joining Airbus to NG is a higher risk. With a new plant and new workforce.
“Once again, union harassment wins out over the better product and our servicemen will be the ones who pay.”
Bullshit. Airbus sucks.
BAA’s and RFP’s put out for bid are not “subsities.”
And the Boeing bid will bring a multitude of jobs to other areas. Why should the Defense budget be viewed as nothing but a jobs-creation program?
Then there is the whole issue of re-stressing runways and ramps to support a much heavier and larger jet that, by EADS own admission, was not what the Air force said they needed, first bid and now.
The Air Force wants a medium-size tanker, always was that requirement.
Like I said, if the Air Force wanted a large tanker replacement for the KC-10, EADS would have a reasonable stake. But it was not what the Air Force asked for.
No, it didn't fall apart. The plane was intact when it hit the water. The pitot tube froze over, which could be easily prevented in the new tanker design. The pilot also flew into bad weather that all other pilots were flying around.
The fly-by-wire design did not allow the pilots to over-ride the flight computer to fly the jet once the pitot tubes froze. Also, pitot heat “on” is standard in the checklist when flying at altitude and in precip.
“BAA’s and RFP’s put out for bid are not “subsities.””
Funny, EADS gets research funding for defense and aerospace projects and you Boeing cheerleaders claim that they’re subsidies.
“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.”
BS!
IF your claim was true, then that means the C-5 and the C-17 are “limited” to the same airfields that you claim the KC-30 is limited to.
And “forward deployed locations” Oh you mean places like South Korea, Japan, and maybe Taiwan? Those same “forward deployed locations” that are going to get flattened by the chinese if/when we go to war with them? Then there are those locations in and around the Persian Gulf that are going to get flattened by iranian missiles and suicide bombers breaching the wire at those bases to blow the tankers up on the flight line.
The Boeing tanker offers NO real improvement in capability over the existing KC-135 and with all those “forward operating locations” being turned into smoking craters the shorter range and capacity of the KC-767 will be a liability.
“Sec Def, not friend to Boeing, agreed with the GAO, as well.”
Only after pressure from congress with that traitor murtha threatening to pull funding for various programs unless his union lackeys at boeing got the contract.
The 767 isn’t 80% American.
The wings are made in Japan by Kawasaki Heavy Industries
The fuselage is made in Italy.
There are other parts made in communist china, and still more parts made in russia.
And a vast number of the American suppliers for Boeing get components for the various items they supply to Boeing from overseas sources.
“If that is the sort of logic that drove the new requirements, then it was all about politics.”
Damn skippy it’s about politics.
It’s 0bama throwing a bone to his union supporters.
It’s 0bama screwing over “red states” that never voted for him.
And it’s 0bama screwing over the military who also didn’t vote for him.
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.