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 ...
“Look at the number of airfields @ 200,000 lbs of fuel: Boeing 465, NG 838”
That’s because the KC-30’s larger wing provides more lift.
“And the Boeing bid will bring a multitude of jobs to other areas.”
No it isn’t. It’s going to keep existing UNION jobs in a small handful of blue states.
The NG/EADS plane would have added NEW jobs in dozens of states.
And the KC-30's larger engines produce more thrust.
So Boeing will take on all this work with existing employees only? Not a single new job will be created? I have a hard time believing that.
I'm not even sure it's been designed yet.
The 767 isn’t 80% American
No its 85% AMERICAN MADE
The wings are made in Japan by Kawasaki Heavy Industries
NO they are made by Vought a division of BOEING. Kawasaki does not even supply body parts for the B767.
The fuselage is made in Italy
Alenia makes control surfaces not fuselage parts
CHECK Airframer.com for a breakdown of who builds what
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?program=109
Airframe Systems / Airframe Assemblies
Aero Vodochody a.s. (Czech Republic)
Aircraft Control Surfaces: Fixed leading edge parts & kits (Spirit Aerosystems)
Aerosud Pty Ltd (South Afrika)
Aircraft Interior Bulkheads: Business class seat partitions
Alenia Aeronautica SpA (Italy)
Wings:
Spoilers, flaps, ailerons, slats and wing tips; Empennages: Fin; Aircraft Control Surfaces: Rudder; Radomes: Radome
Avcorp Industries Inc. (Canada)
Fairings: Aft strut fairings
BHA Aero Composite Parts Co., Ltd (China)
Wings: Wing fixed trailing edge; Empennages: Empennage panels
Elbit Systems Cyclone Ltd (Israel)
Fairings: Tail skid fairing; Aircraft Doors: Blowout doors
GE Aviation Systems Mechanical (Corona, USA)
Air Refuelling Systems: Wing aerial refueling pods, hose drum unit (KC-767 tanker)
GKN Aerospace Services (UK)
Winglets: Blended winglets (767-300 ER)
Hexcel Structures (USA)
Wing Flaps: Wing trailing assemblies
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (Aircraft Division Bangalore, India)
Aircraft Doors: Bulk cargo door
Hitco Carbon Composites Inc (USA)
Fairings: Composite flap track fairing assemblies
Korean Air Aerospace Business Division (South Korea)
Fuselage Sections: Body sections
Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation (Japan)
Fuselage Sections: Aft fuselage panel; Aircraft Doors: Cargo doors
Peco, Inc. (USA)
Aircraft Doors: Impact Resistant Fuel Access Doors
Romaero S.A. (Italy)
Aircraft Control Surfaces: Fixed leading edge polished skins
Spirit AeroSystems Europe Ltd (Europe)
Wings: Fixed leading edges
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (USA)
Fuselage Sections: 41 section
Vought Aircraft Industries (USA)
Wings: Wing centre section, horizontal stabilizer; Aircraft Doors: Passenger, cargo & service doors; Fuselage Sections: Aft body section; Empennages:
Boeing already got a nice CGI design:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/12/new-video-who-wins-kc-x-battle.html
Any bets for the KC-NewGen platform?
- 767-200ER
- 767-300ER
- 767-400
Nice.
C-5s have a different foot-print and weight limitations. Regardless, fully loaded C-5’s are VERY limited in where they can deploy. Same with the EADS bid. C-17’s don't even come close and aren't even in the same league. With fewer bases, farther away, you are more vulnerable to being shut-down than if you use a medium-sized tanker that can be widely dispersed.
And, if you have a gorilla package that needs refueling, and you have, say, 10 EADS tankers in a track, you can only refuel so many jets at a time, whereas, if for the same package you have 15 medium-sized tankers, you can cycle through more jets, faster, and at push time the jets are fully fueled, as opposed to the first refueled jet being low on gas before the push because they had to wait longer for the package to refuel and assemble. Using your logic, let's apply to the Army that same standard of bigger is better: Fewer FARPs with larger bladders would be best. Many would disagree.
The RFP was for a medium-sized tanker, that is a fact. And the 767 tanker is more efficient, saving billions in fuel costs, has a higher MR rate than the KC-135, and require less maintenance than the KC-135.
The Air Force gave extra points to EADS when the rules did not allow that.
Round one the requirements were clearly stated in the RFP, the Air Force told Boeing they would not receive extra credit for a larger jet, whereas, they told EADS they would receive extra credit. Double standard. And wrong.
Round two, the RFP was more clearly stated for a medium-sized tanker and that is what was being bid. If it was for a replacement for the KC-10, then the 777 (larger than the EADS 330) would have been bid by Boeing, and using your logic, bigger is better and Boeing wins again.
Because EADS doesn't have a medium-sized tanker, and they couldn't make the Air Force warfighter change their requirements, they elected not to bid.
While I understand your feelings and emotions on this subject, thought would support the Air Force on their requirements and support EADS decision not to bid.
And burn more fuel.
According to US Air Force calculations the KC-767 got a less efficient aerial refueling efficiency than the KC-30. In other words the KC-30 burns less fuel for each pound of fuel delivered. These figures are based on various scenarios.
The KC-30 may have higher fuel burn per hour. But that figure is not the only base to calculate efficiency.
“C-5s have a different foot-print and weight limitations. Regardless, fully loaded C-5’s are VERY limited in where they can deploy. Same with the EADS bid. C-17’s don't even come close and aren't even in the same league.”
The LCN or PCN for a C-17 is higher than for a C-5. The limitations of the C-5 stem from the required runway length. The KC-30 is close to the C-17.
“With fewer bases, farther away, you are more vulnerable to being shut-down than if you use a medium-sized tanker that can be widely dispersed.”
A KC-30 can operate out of more bases than the KC-767AT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464548/posts#11
“10 EADS tankers in a track, you can only refuel so many jets at a time, whereas, if for the same package you have 15 medium-sized tankers,”
The Air Force calculated that for a fleet of KC-767 one KC-767 could replace 1.79 KC-135 and one KC-30 can replace 1.90 KC-135.
It's always possible to make up some scenarios where on aircraft looks better. But overall the KC-30 performed better.
“The RFP was for a medium-sized tanker, that is a fact.”
What is the definition of “medium-sized tanker” - a KC-767?
“And the 767 tanker is more efficient, saving billions in fuel costs, has a higher MR rate than the KC-135, and require less maintenance than the KC-135.”
The KC-767 won't save any fuel and comparing it to the KC-135 and not to the KC-30 is a nice little spin.
“The Air Force gave extra points to EADS when the rules did not allow that.”
Extra points were allowed for more plugs on the cargo bay but not for rating the main capability of a tanker aircraft.
“Round two, the RFP was more clearly stated for a medium-sized tanker and that is what was being bid.”
This round stated that Air Force wants a slow and less capable aircraft. This was fixed within the fuel cost estimations.
“If it was for a replacement for the KC-10, then the 777 (larger than the EADS 330) would have been bid by Boeing, “
Remind the price tag on a B777!
“Because EADS doesn't have a medium-sized tanker, and they couldn't make the Air Force warfighter change their requirements, they elected not to bid.”
It was all about skewed fuel costs estimations.
“According to US Air Force calculations the KC-767 got a less efficient aerial refueling efficiency than the KC-30.”
Based on using a model designed by NG, and USAF analysis indicates over the life of the jet, the EADS aircraft would burn more.
I was wondering when the head of the boeing cheerleader squad would return to lend support to your union bosses.
"NO they are made by Vought a division of BOEING. Kawasaki does not even supply body parts for the B767."
WRONG as usual.
Vought is NOT a division of Boeing. Vought is wholely owned by the Carlyle Group.
Boeing bought the North Charleston SC factory from Vought that makes sections 47 and 48 of the 787 Screamliner
And you say that Kawasaki doesn't supply parts for the 767?
Funny but someone ought to let Kawasaki know that they're not a supplier if that's the case:
http://www.khi.co.jp/products/aerospace/airplane_e.html
"In the civil aircraft business, the Company focuses much of its energy on the joint international development and production of large passenger aircraft. It is involved in joint development and production of the Boeing 767 and 777 with The Boeing Company of the U.S."
DOH!
“I’m not even sure it’s been designed yet.”
It’s still sitting as a .dwg file on some server
The USAF admits to making errors in the process. Understandable, as everyone makes mistakes.
They made errors and now, holding to the medium-sized tanker requirement, EADS has no tanker to bid. Period. EADS can't bid a medium-size jet so they won't bid. Simple.
When the USAF bids for the replacement for the KC-10, then the EADS 330 will make a good case.
We should not reward illegal launch subsidies, nor should we ignore the price-break EADS enjoyed in their original bid because of the launch subsidy, nor should we ignore the warfighter and what he says--and he says they want a medium-size tanker to replace a medium-sized tanker.
WTO ruling will require payback of the subsidies and the pay-back amount will be attached to new jets they build, like the EADS tanker. That means the cost they estimate is woefully low and artificial.
So, it comes down to the size of the jet and what the Air Force warfighters want. Not what EADS and the French want, not what Boeing wants, and certainly not what you or I want. It is what the Air force warfighters want; they want a medium-sized tanker to replace the KC-135.
I will not attack the warfighters and accuse them of being unethical in all this, as they are men at arms, men that fight the wars and do the best they can. They determine what is best and they decided a medium-sized tanker is what they want.
So, next time you see a serviceman and thank him for his service, also thank him for staying true to his requirements for a medium-sized tanker. We can go back and forth endlessly and, frankly, I'm getting bored with this, but hey, knock yourself out and carry on if you wish. Have a great day.
The part about the “aerial refueling efficiency” you can read within the GAO report.
Where can I found a source for your claim?
OK, according to the "calculations" used in the latest RFP the KC-30 would burn more.
But do you really believe each aircraft performs eight takeoffs on every single mission? Do you believe it's appropriate to neglect aircraft speed to calculate fuel costs? Do you believe the fleet effectiveness won't effect the fuel costs? Do you also believe the KC-X will perform as much cargo missions as the KC-135?
OK, according to the “calculations” used in the latest RFP the KC-30 would burn more.
But do you really believe each aircraft performs eight takeoffs on every single mission? Do you believe it’s appropriate to neglect aircraft speed to calculate fuel costs? Do you believe the fleet effectiveness won’t effect the fuel costs? Do you also believe the KC-X will perform as much cargo missions as the KC-135
Normal training missions could have more than 8 take offs and landings along with pattern work. And no the KC-x will not carry much cargo or Pax’s, That is the job of the c-17, c-5 and c-130, Paxs are sent over by civilian airlines normally. In theatre is by Cargo planes not Tankers.
Obama is well known for this, don't ya know?
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.