France Wants New Tankers Too

France Wants New Tankers Too

France’s defense attache met with defense reporters this morning and said his country hopes to buy 14 to 15 airborne tankers. No date is set for a Request for Information yet, but France does plan to buy tankers, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Gratien Maire.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Maire said that France would place a premium on interoperability with allies and noted that Britain is buying the EADS tanker” “It is important for us that the equipment is completely interoperable.”

I asked the general, who was attending a Defense Writers Group breakfast, how the French military had reacted to Gates’ decision to kill the VH-71 presidential helicopter and the long slow madness of the tanker competition. After all, France has been one of America’s staunchest allies, especially since 9–11. They have shared a great deal of intelligence, provided fly-over rights, helped the US make excellent use of Djibouti, and most important, they have consistently provided large numbers of highly capable troops in Afghanistan and other theaters. I pressed him, asking if he felt that France had gone unrewarded on the industrial side after contributing so much treasure and blood.

Maire said simply that France did not “expect something back.” Being plain spoken did not stop him from playing a diplomatic card, however. He referred to the industrial balance between Europe and the United States. “This is not a good balance. The US buys equipment from Europe about Euros 880 million and Europe buys about 3.3 billion from the US,” he said, adding that it is of course “a competition.”

The top French officer in America also made a point that caught most of the reporters — including myself — by surprise. France has roughly 1,600 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There have been persistent reports that French and other NATO troops operate under fairly restrictive rules of engagement designed to lower casualties. This, Maire insisted, is simply not true for french troops. Several of us made sure there was no linguistic barrier and asked the question several different ways, and we checked with his press aide. French troops can operate and engage the enemy as needed — end of story.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

I wasn’t aware of limitations on the French and most other NATO countries with respect to conducting combat operations. From what I’ve read its the Germans that are loathe to engage the enemy for fear of casualties.

Hhhmmm. No ulterior motives here I’m sure. Could it be perhaps that the reference to “complete interoperability” means that they prefer an EADS-based tanker?

Yea…this would seem to indicate they are betting on a Northrop/EADS win here. Does Boeing even have a real product here? I keep hearing from Boeing folks that they swear they are going to win and the Northrop guys are saying that Boeing’s product is just a design as hasn’t even flown yet. Anyone have some real insight into this?

I thought the french have aircraft that do not utalize a boom?

LockMartSkunk,

Real insight…

The NG/EADS KC-30 is not the exact same as the Australialian KC-30B (of which there is currently only ONE airframe even close to operational) or the A330 MRTT the UK is leasing (funny how NG/EADS KC-30 supporters don’t seem to have much of a problem with this) or the A330 MRTT France is making no bones about preferring (seems ok to NG/EADS KC-30 supporters for France to prefer a mostly French product but the US preferring a mostly US product is not ok). If it were the NG/EADS KC-30 SDD cost for the KC-X would be $0 & 0 days…

There is nothing radical about the KC-767AT. Every component of the airframe is currently FAA certified & flying on one or more 767 version, just not all together in one airframe. Boeing has proven over & over again that it is more than capable of putting together new varients of existing platforms. The P-8 Poseidon is made from parts of a number of different 737 variants as just the latest example. The KC-767AT’s 6th generation boom is ‘just’ an improvement over the 5th generation boom on the FIVE delivered KC-767 (3 to Japan & 2 to Italy of orders of 4 each).

And with the current 767 production rate being so low it would be EASY for the very next 767 airframe to begin construction to be a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe & there is enough similarity between the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe & all other 767–200/767-200ER/767-200F airframes to not even have to wait for a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT airframe to begin SDD.

pfcem…

lets face it… the whole thing regardig DOD procurement especially with the tankers is overly political… This whole shabang started with the lease deal w/boeing gone wrong… and the team that came in to take over for the AF unfairly bid the contract by not giving both companies the same specifications…So this whole things starts from scratch!

Both tankers are capable… both will be improvements… This its like a camaro mustang forum… The AF in the end is going to have to decide whats right… Once they rebid the contract, both designs will undergo changes… and we will find out the winner…

Theirs not a problem with either tanker… the procurment process on the other hand… is a disaster!

pfcem,

So here is what I take away from your explanation. NG/EADS has a tanker already flying and they would modify it for US purposes. BA is saying that they have the parts and can theoretically build it. As bad as we all know the contracting process to be I feel like this is trying buy a house. You got one real estate agent saying yea we got a house ready and we can put some new electronics on it and another real estate agent with an empty lot saying yea we can build it.

^ i think you hit in on the head

LockMartSkunk,

It quickly filters to what you’ve said…BA would like us to buy into the idea that you can just take a production commercial airliner, mod the aircraft, and poof you have a capable tanker. But BA’s own experience with Japan 767 AWACS, and current 737 Wedgetail and Peace Eagle programs tells a different story — read what Australia and Turkey are saying about the cost, risk and delays they’re now experiencing…BA is paying penalties for late deliveries. And bottom line, you can say what you want about the AQ process, but the evaluators saw right through this argument and voted for lower risk and higher capability. The flaw in the process is that the process is held hostage to politicians who are lobbied not to allow a no answer by a very effective BA Washington machine. And the Air Force blinked.

mel50, why are you singling out Boeing for criticism? As noted above the Australian MRTT has been delayed, for reasons unknown. The A400M may just be the most botched military aircraft transport program of all time. And even Sue Payton took a shot at Northrop Grumman for issues with Global Hawk on her way out. The A330 tanker has NOT yet transferred fuel; the KC-767 has. Isn’t this the primary reason for this aircraft–or is it to move 463L pallets? (That’s a rhetorical question by the way).

Boeing has its problems, but lower risk for the airbus? I don’t think so.

Aurora, you need to update yourself on the status of the actual tanker programs for NG and BA.

LockmartSkunk, please set the record straight.

bob,

There IS a problem with the NG/EADS tanker. It is too big & too heavy (bigger & heavier than ALL aircraft in US inventory except for the C-5 & a handful of 747-based aircraft) and even the significantly smaller & lighter Boeing proposal meets or exceed all key requirements.

***

LockMartSkunk,

No. EADs has ONE tanker flying (which I have yet to see a report that it has actually passsed fuel in flight — it was SUPPOSED to have by now & one would think if it had it would be BIG news) & it is NOT THE SAME as the NG/EADS KC-30. If it were the NG/EADS KC-30 SDD cost for the KC-X would be $0 & 0 days. Boeing has deliverd 5 tankers to two customers (all of which have passed fuel in flight).

BOTH the NG/EADS & Boeing proposals for the KC-X are modified varients of their existing tankers.

Because Boeing actually took the time & effort to propose a specific varient specifically for the KC-X requirements (as opposed to NG/EADS who threatened to pull out of the competition unless the criteria were altered to better suite their airframe which the USAF had already rejected because it did not meet its requirements) there is more structurally different between the KC-767AT & the KC-767s that Boeing has already delivered than the there is between the NG/EADS proposed KC-30 & the ONE KC-30B that has been delivered to Australia. BUT there is A LOT more to a tanker than the airframe structure…And Boeing has just recently proven with the P-8 Poseidon that taking diffierent structural components from different varients of a platform to create a new varient is well within its capability.

***

mel50,

Boeing has deliverd FIVE tankers to TWO customers & all have passed fuel in flight. NG/EADS doesn’t even have a US FINAL ASSEMBLY/systems integration facility for its European manufactured airframe. EADS has only delivered ONE tanker to ONE customer & it is still not clear if it has in fact passed fuel in flight.

Read what EADS customers are saying about the cost, risk and delays they’re now & have been experiencing with EADS procudts…

You have it backwards. The ‘evaluators’ (not the USAF) failed to assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. The process is held hostage to politicians who are lobbied not to allow Boeing to get the contract.

This guy must be on the boeing proposal team.….…

Acutally NOC has never delivered a tanker to anyone, EADS hasn’t yet delivered an A330 based tanker to anyone. The Aussie tanker is still in EADS custody and in flight test in Spain, and is late. EADS however HAS delivered A310 based tankers to Germany and to Canada. No boom, only hose and drogue. EADS only has two booms, one on the A310 test bed, and one on the still in testing A330. Neither boom has been in actual service. The A330 has yet to actually do anything more than dry contacts.

pfcem is a Boing guy alright. He is like a bad penny that just keeps showing up with the same trash talk over and over. But then, according to Boeing and pf’s theory of low Boing risk because of their past KC-135 tanker experience, pf is probably one of the original KC-135 engineers, old as the hills and repeating the same sad Boing BS line over and over again.

Wow, the pfcem-bashers are really lining up. Given pfcem’s minor mistakes with tanker delivery, I doubt he’s either a BA employee or proposal team member. More likely a loyal American that…please forgive him…prefers his proven home team to Euro-trash.
Howard corrected the delivery story correctly, as I know it at least, and also struck upon a key issue. Firstly, just about any aircraft can trail a hose and drogue. Consider the F/A-18 buddy store pod used routinely now to get jets back on the carriers. Turns a fighter into a tanker. No problem. However, a flying boom appears to be a much bigger kettle of fish. So instead of focusing on which airframer can mod an airliner into a tanker…consider what makes the tanker in question “a tanker” for USAF. It is the boom. BA has the combined history and experience with two highly successful boom designs from legacy Boeing and McDonnell Douglas tankers. These designs were then evolved into the Japan and Italy KC-767 boom, which have over 1000 contacts and tens of thousands of pounds of real jet fuel transferred to date, according to press releases. EADS…(remember, NG has NO tankers in service, in production, in flight test, sold to any nation…nada)… on the other hand continues to struggle to transfer a single liquid drop of fuel with their new boom. Not a single drop on any A330-based tanker. Also consider the development issues with our legacy tanker booms. It must be harder than it appears to make these things work. But BA has the track record and proven product flying while EADS does not and NG only knows what a boom looks like on glossy product cards. BA’s boom is even “operational” now in Japan, having reached IOC in recent months.
Now, as to tankers for our trusy French ally that denied overflight for our F-111s during Operation El Dorado Canyon where we lost a jet and brave crew, you may all recall the original discussion a few years back when they originally announced they were interested in new tankers. You may further recall they specifically limited bidders to those with European design and manufacture. Funny how quickly everyone forgot that. Let’s just see how fairly THEY conduct their competition in the future and if BA gets as fair of a shot in that as EADS got in the USAF version. I guess BA will need to hire some phony French frontman like EADS did with NG to play that game.
This whole thing has become so politically charged and has evolved into such an ACQ morass, the only semi-clean expeditious way out is a Dual Buy scenario. But Obama got his pit bull Pelosi to twist Murtha’s arm until he cried “Uncle” and gave that fight up. So, here we are now…about to start KC-X over with Gates running the show. Oh boy. I’m going out to get some popcorn and a soda, because this is gonna be one hellova show.

Tanker: “Prefers the proven home team to Euro-trash?” Seriously? Using that logic we’d still be flying piston-engine props into combat. The first jet engines were British designs built under license.

“This whole thing has become so politically charged…”

Yeah, and you know what? People like you are keeping it that way.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement