Southern Guvs Start Tanker Group

Southern Guvs Start Tanker Group

The governors of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi completed a move we first reported several months ago, setting up a non-profit group to bolster their chances of getting jobs from award of the KC-45 tanker contract.

Governors Bob Riley (R-Ala), Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), and Bobby Jindal (R– La.) launched  The Aerospace Alliance, intended to “establish the Gulf Coast  and surrounding region as a world class aerospace, space and aviation corridor.”

As the press release about the new group said: “Members will advocate for policies, programs and specific aerospace projects on the local, state and national level.”

But job one — and maybe its most important job ever — is to “help secure the KC-45 aerial tanker program for the region. ” How much does that matter to the governors and their constituents? The Northrop Grumman tankers would be assembled in Mobile, Ala. While the three states would not get all of them, the Northrop bird would bring bringing an estimated 48,000 jobs to the country.

“We look forward to working with governors and leaders of Aerospace Alliance states, and the many members and supporters of The Alliance, to spread the word to the rest of the world.” said Mitch Waldman, Northrop Grumman VP for aerospace systems. There was no mention of who is funding the alliance, but it would seem a safe bet that Northrop and its suppliers are putting serious money into the alliance.

Winning the tanker deal would create a new aerospace center in the country, with enormous industrial capabilities that could probably only be matched in Washington state, where Boeing has most of its metal bending operations.

“Last year taught us something: while we all know about our long tradition of aerospace excellence and the quality and skill sets of our workforce, obviously some parts of the country (Kansas and Washington State), might not be aware,” Gov. Riley said.

Lest observers think the tanker is the alliance’s only priority, the release says the group will try to increase the “aerospace, aviation, space and defense industries in the region” generally.

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

Colin, the “48,000 jobs” number touted by EADS and NG is spurious at best; just a hunk of mud thrown at the wall. This time it seems to have stuck. As for the “Aerospace Alliance”, all Republicans, a quick Congressional headcount shows they are a few votes shy of steering the tanker competition their way if it ever comes to that.

By the way, my read of the tea leaves is that the latest RFP is in big, BIG trouble. Couple that with a WTO decision that, when finalized, will be (politically) impossible for DOD to ignore does not auger well for another “competition”. I realize its anathema to some folks, but if USAF wants a tanker anytime this century, then it better ask for sole source authority for a Boeing product. There is no way the majority will opt to fund an airbus product given the precarious state of the economy, concerns for our aerospace industrial base, and the WTO subsidies issue. Anything else is inviting conflict without end.

48,000 jobs? Are they counting the folks on work release that pick up paper along the highways in Mobile?

Looks like Boeing won’t get tanker.… time for BA to start calling foul and screaming about how un-American it is to buy NG/EADS. Nevermind the fact that they can’t get their 787 act together or that their 767 is only a design and not an actual platform flying around anywhere… and a KC-777 is just an idea being floated around. Did I also hear in the news about the Airbus MRTT actually passing gas to some F-16’s? Sorry BA, looks like the folks over at NG got wise to your political string pulling and are going to dominate this tanker comp.

this is ridiculous. the USAF should pay no attention to this. the only thing that matters are the proposals submitted by Boeing and Northrop. Nothing else matters. Both companies will bring a lot of jobs to their region if they win. it hurts the American taxpayer more for this thing to be protested and canceled again…not to mention the military personnel who really need a new tanker! When your grandpa flew the same airplane as you, there is something seriously wrong.

Just make something happen this time… and make it fair… i am sick of the schenanigans that this whole process has been.… we should already have new tankers out in the field by now… just make up ur damned mind!

FYI — Japan is flying Boeing 767 Tankers — yes, the same ones you say do not exist. Another good example that people who think they know everything are often vehemently wrong.

fying is one thing.. are they passing gas?

I still say the only fair way to award this contract is a Fly Off. Bring your production tanker to Wright Patterson and have at it. That way who ever win can not complain about anything. Now to make sure Boeing plays according to the rules we might have to wait a while for Boeing to get their tanker design done and produced.

Yea there flying a made for Japan and Italy Tanker. This is not the same tanker they were proposing for the Tanker Contract. Their tanker is still on paper

Export versions are entirely different than the ones we use, unless you think we actually would share our cutting edge tech with anybody else.… moron.

Yes they are, but only at 900 lbs / min not 1200 lbs / min that NG has shown

Oops. Boeing has a boom on paper that pumps 900 lbs / min. I do not know what the current boom pumps, but it is below this.

I think the fly-off is a great idea. Are we just repeating the same old mistake over and over again? Before the plane is even built, we have legislators lobbying for it because it means jobs. Let’s see if it works first and does everything the requirements list before we start selling jobs, as badly as we need them.

We should ban weapons manufacturers from lobbying for jobs until prototype testing is completed. That means no lobbying until after the assembly line has also been bid out and demonstrated at least as a cost model.

Captain “Sully” authored a piece in Vanity Fair two months ago and I would urge you to read it. He praises the French built A-380 (I think that’s the model) as one of the reasons he made it safely into the Hudson. There is nothing wrong with licensing a European design and have it made by Americans in America. My guess is given a choice between an indigenous design and what’s best for the military, the taxpayer would pick B.

We license the M-9 from Italy. We license the H&K 416 assault rifle used by special ops from Germany. We license the steel in our MBTs from Germany. Let’s get the best plane for the money first.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

The 5th generation boom on the Italian & Japanese KC-767s is capable of 900 gal/min.

So what receivers are capable of taking fuel at 1200 lb/min?

Actually, Daniel, Sully flew A320s. I’d hate to see him have to duplicate this feat with a Whalejet.

So you see nothing wrong with hollowing out the industrial base even further than we’ve managed so far? 1500 painters and decal slappers in Mobile, AL, working on a frog tanker manufactured in Europe and put together in Alabama?

Aurora,

Sure I wish the United States made the very best of everything. I wish our aircraft manufacturers would make the highest quality lowest priced weapons. I also wish everyone had a pony. The fact is we don’t. We make the best products in some categories and not the best products in others. We have lost our primacy in some areas and the shame would be to ignore the facts.

When equipping US forces, I expect that we would give our troops the best products, period. In WWI we leased “frog” Spads to dogfight and perform recon because they were the best planes. Is there something wrong with that? I guess it depends on who you ask.

I can think of nothing that would light a fire under the asses of our combat aircraft manufacturers than seeing the US go with the best product versus the best US product. Their lives and the success of our missions are more important to me than propping up domestic industries that increasing are having a hard time competing with them and cannot seem to sell anything without 1000 lobbyists wining and dining our legislators.

Frog tanker? There are between five and ten thousand “frogs” fighting alongside US troops in Afghanistan. Does it make sense to use a demeaning term describing men who are bleeding and dying along with US troops? Do French soldiers who are a part of ISAF deserve no respect because their government happens to often disagree with our poorly thought out foreign policy? We should be grateful that they are spending money and blood in this mission. But here in America, sound bytes and invective trump logic and reason every single day. Just watch the “news” (and I use that term loosely) and everything…and I mean everything here is politicized.

Most Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Did you forget, the whole Armed Forces are carrying the Beretta 9mm side arm. I am thinking that the age of the air frame is the curse. Twiquing the gas pass rate is nice to have…G**. D***. Sen McC’s worry about a $5Bill pittence excess rent– t-o buy in 2001. The past FY’s $1.4 trill deficit will look like a pittence when “Progressive” domestic policies are fulfilled.

Not to minimize or demean our allies’ participation in Afghanistan, but if they did not perceive it in their own best interest they wouldn’t be there, France included. This doesn’t mean we’re obliged to award them the 2nd largest defense contract in history, does it?

In the area of military procurement politics are the 800 lb gorilla. Look at the A400M and its engine. We have developed the best military transport, the C-17. With the exception of the UK, none of the airbus countries will consider it–it could impact the numbers of A400Ms they purchase. Look at the engine for the A400M; Chirac insisted that the airbus countries go with a locally produced power plant when P&W of Canada was perfectly capable of manufacturing this beast. Then there’s Galileo, the Euros want to develop their own satellite constellation to compete with our own GPS. Frankly, I give kudos to the euros for acting in their best interest here.

Of course its political. I hope against hope that this administration will at least have a modicum of common sense to consider the impact on the U.S. aerospace infrastructure before proceeding to an award.

There won’t be a new tanker flying by 2020 as long as politics is involved in DOD decisions.
Boeing should have been the clear favorite to replace a fleet of Boeing built tankers. Their
management screw ups cost them the job, now the DOD tried to give it to Northop/Airbus
and politics is again screwing up the job. No contract for ten more years when the wings start falling off the existing tanker fleet!

Please use the word “Allies” with great care. Most of the people that are call allies are only just counties that want our protection but are not willing to fight with us. Only the Brits, Australians are true allies.

The really assinine part of all this…why don’t ‘they’ start mass producing ‘flying saucers’, so no gas is needed…not like the technology isn’t available!Money, money, money/greed…lots of jobs could be created and
should be…get off the planet explore the galaxy, and quit fightin each other…all so
childish!

Lets see, Airbus operates with cash kickers from participating countries. Airbus is manufactured in Europe. Airbus assembly will take place in USA using imported components. Thats like using third world country to assemble GM cars from parts made in USA. You get what you pay for. Didn’t several Airbus crash because of faulty Pitot Systems manufactured in Europe. And they basically refused to order US made parts replacement until after hundreds killed in crashes. So what would make them change design/manufacture for tanker with only 5 or 6 people on-board. But wait, people will tell you Airbus has stellar flying record.
Boeing made KC-135. It has one of the safest flying records of any aircraft. It still flying after 50 years.
We ar ein the worst economic crisis in history and we are considering sending the biggest contract in recent years to the EU??? Get real people, buy American, made in America. Not buy from EU and assembly here. Majority of money needs to support American jobs.

For the record, I am French, non military.

There is a large number of people disagreeing in Europe about the involvment of their respective governments in the ISAF. In the UK, in Germany, even in France.

I think that one of the reason we got engaged in this war is that we are part of an alliance (be it NATO or any other name) and that our governments could not have not go without having lost all respect in the international community. Furthermore I suppose the POTUS did some convincing lobbying. The rest was a PR stunt involving “concealed weapons of mass destruction”.

I completly agree with you that protectionism is not a game only the US plays, A400M being a good example. French Air Force even considered russian transports (I can’t recall which model), but dismissed it.

France is one of the best example of protectionism in military affairs: our aircrafts, our ships, our tanks and guns, our satellites, our nukes, etc. are all made in France!

One exception though: the Direction Générale de l’Armement (our defense procurement agency) decided to procure Lockheed’s Javelin missile for operations in Afghanistan… against a Thales design.

IMHO, I blame the politicians. They are the ones who spread lies to get what they want, be it more jobs for their constituants or more cash for their secret campaign fund. If politicians were rational and had some guts, the military-industrial complex would crumble having nobody to lobby or buy.

How can Air bus be competitive? They will have to build in Europe, ship parts to USA, build facilites in US to assembly, hire and train totally new workfoce. The new facility will have zero years of experience on issues such as Quality, Safety, economic performance etc. All of these are called Past Performance. How can NG be considered a low risk to total performance when they are a paperwork Company without even a manufacturing base of Operations.

(Cont) Having served on large scale Source Selections for DoD I would have serious issues with this approach. Just because Airbus are working in Europe doesn’t mean a totally new company will work.
What about the dollar exchange rates? It is my understanding that the bid is in US Dollars and if exchange rate changes we could pay more. Lets see Euro was at even rate with dollar when introduced. This week it was @ $1.50 for a Euro. Thats a huge swing, and the dollar isn’t looking any better with our current Administrations spend, spend spend mentality.
Lets see Past Performance Risk-Red, Cost Risk-Red, Ability to produce with totally new organization Risk-Red. But political backing and USAF P.O. because of a few wayword Government employee’s violating law with Boeing will amke Risk for Boeing RED.
This should be a no brainer to anyone with a brain. But some people are working RFP to give NG a big advantage in Technical to counter the obvious Risk to NG.
Go Figure.

I realize that most people here have well-paid government jobs and health care, but using American taxpayer funds to buy an American product from Boeing, would create three times more American jobs, than importing French airbus parts and assembling them in the deep South.

If the perception arises that EADS was eliminated unfairly, watch what happens to JSF. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the partnership shrink, the price go through the roof and the total US procurement dwindle and spread over a longer period of time.

Weapons Systems procurement is going to be more of a two way street amongst NATO and other allies than it has been previously. The deals LM has offered partner nations is just like what EADS is doing.

Were the choice mine alone, I would select the B-777.

I would love to have a well paid government job and health care.

The questions we have to ask are: 1) Is delivering a weapons systems just about jobs or about delivering performance on the battlefield? We saw lobbyists game the parts manufacturing process for the F-22 to 41 states and that created production problems that in part helped to end the program. 2) Would it be better to single source a weapons system to a company that has no domestic competition, or act in the spirit of capitalists who expect a company to have to compete by making a better product for a lower price? 3) Why not have a fly off? It makes so much sense and probably wouldn’t drag out any longer than the current procurement process. Only difference would be that we have proof. Take the theory off the table and demonstrate it with a couple of models.

I don’t profess to have the answers and frankly it’s easy for me to be an armchair general. But I truly believe it’s more complicated than just jobs.

Phyzz, I suppose you’re right. Politicians muck up the process no matter what the nationality.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

If Boeing wins it won’t be because they deserve it.

Oops. I hit the submit button too fast.

I’m for a bakeoff too. Both companies claim to have something. Bring them forward…as they are.…today. Lets walk through them and kick the tires. Let the execs grovel. Put the AF back in control. It’s clear both companies would make every effort to comply. Lets be real.

Very interesting reading of the replies posted. However buying strategic weapon systems of this nature from foreign sources is for the rest of the world– not the U.S. All this globalization mantra is so much P.C. chaff. The KC45 is not NG. It is Airbus. Made by the same European “friends” who supplied Iraq with Sams during the arms embargo and built Saddam’s bunker. While our NATO allies are trustworthy enough to send token forces alongside U. S. troops, we all know who does the heavy lifting. The Japanese and the Italians are flying the KC767. If the A330 tanker is such a great product why aren’t the French and Germans flying them? Surely if they are good enough for the USAF they are good enough for the French and German Air Forces. Affirmative Action has no place in American defense.

The fly off is a great idea. Boeing is already deliverling 767 tankers for Japan and Italy.……Do we have to wait 6 years for EADS to build one to compete? Boeing already has a production line established with a trained work force and can start building 767 tankers for the US very quickely. Why must the Air Force wait for EADS to build a factory before they can start building planes?

That shows you how poor Boeing’s offering was the first time. Now that they have been provided access to NG/EADS cost and performance info, maybe they can make a better offer this time. U.S. Defense companies are not used to having to compete for real.

I just wish Congress would focus on fixing our country FIRST, and keep their grubby little hands, and money-lined pockets, out of the Pentagon decisions…vote for ‘two-term maiximum’ and get them all out of there!

Be it known this is all politics, if you take a look at most of the Govt contractors today they are in mostly democratic states, if they cant get it then it goes out of country. This has been going on since they took control. I currently work for the Government as a QA inspector and my responsibilities have shifted greatly to the north east and California on new contracts. A lot of these contractors dont even have the capability to do the work, they farm it out to a numnber of subcontractors and then have it shipped to thier warehouse. it is total BS. You would be supprised how many times we spend months doing a source and selection to decide who can really do the job only to have it rejected and told who to give the contract to. I dont blame the Govs from protesting this fiasco thats occuring.

Why don’t they just go down to Tucson — at the air force bone yard — and modify what’s down there to meet a ‘throw-away’ mission capability…use them, abuse them, them scrap them. That sure would reduce an eye-sore, as well as, reduce what is an obvious, visual waste rotting away in our deserts…

Great post, Reach Pilot. I would add that the C-17 is the best military air transport every made. Have the French and Germans bought that? No, they prefer to grow their own, the A400M. Years behind schedule and significantly over budget. However, we will see the return of the next ice age before they abandon that effort and lose the jobs.

Northrop Grumman has been building aircraft since 1939 up through the B-2 bomber, how’s that for past performance?

Because it is not cost-effective to do so.

The first planes under NG/EADS contract were to be built in France, bet that number would grow significantly due to fabricated false claims down the road. Boeing builds the best, the 767 is a proven commercial platform that has been flying for many years. The mods for use as a tanker are in place to satisfy the changes in airflow/draft affecting the trailing acft.
2nd: Efficient utilization requires an acft that can land on shorter runways and operate on smaller ramp footprints as afforded by many current facilities around the globe. This equates to big savings as the larger platforms would be required to commute further to reload prior to returning to service areas.
Boeing’s platform and experience brings more plus’ to the table, plus more American Jobs. If there was just some way to dismiss the politicians and lawyers from the process and instruct the SECDEF (Gates) to stop trying to impress Obama and let the Acquisitions Team do their work. He is the one who led the drive to kill the F-22 production citing it as too expensive in favor of the cheaper, less effective F-35 (single engine) whose real cost is just now being revealed. Engine failure in the dual engine 22, only cost another engine as the pilot could safely return to base, whereas an engine failure in the single engine F-35 will result in loss of an entire plane and most likely the pilot. Where is the Logic?

“The first planes under NG/EADS contract were to be built in France, bet that number would grow significantly due to fabricated false claims down the road. Boeing builds the best, the 767 is a proven commercial platform that has been flying for many years. The mods for use as a tanker are in place to satisfy the changes in airflow/draft affecting the trailing acft.“
——————————————————————-
Actually, Airbus will probably build A330 Freighters in Alabama if they win or get a split buy. More long term jobs in the South. Boeing just announced they will build their second 787 line in South Carolina where BMW already builds cars. Multiple foreign businesses are moving to the south to exploit the weak dollar and less expensive labor: Toyota and EADS helicopters in Mississippi, Theisenkrupp Steel, Berg Pipe, NG/EADS, Hyundai, Mercedes in Alabama, Kia just across the border in Georgia.

The 767 is old technology that barely surpasses KC-135R capabilities at C-17 prices. But it would have value in a split buy if Boeing would bid reasonably. Competition from NG/EADS/Airbus would force them to keep prices acceptable on the worldwide market not just now, but over the long term.

“if you take a look at most of the Govt contractors today they are in mostly democratic states”

This is simply not true.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

also the dollar is now 50 cents to the Euro

*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