EADS Tanker Rises Again?

EADS Tanker Rises Again?

The tanker competition has grown so baroque that it’s easy to sometimes wonder what’s real and what’s delusion. The latest twist is that EADS and some of Europe’s governments are reportedly lobbying for a deadline extension on when tanker bids can be submitted.

Boeing’s brethren on Capitol Hill, sensing a possible threat to $35 billion for the company that means so much to their states, swung into action with little delay.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said any “Delay is unacceptable.” Why, aside from the fact it might imperil all that money and all those Boeing jobs? “Changing deadlines would undermine the Department of Defense’s effort to make this competition fair for all parties involved. We cannot have different sets of rules for foreign and domestic competitors. EADS can either choose to bid or not, but it should not expect the United States for help in entering the competition.” How this became about EADS getting “help” is unclear, unless extending a deadline would be construed as help.


Brownback hammered away at the European angle, saying, “It is particularly egregious that Europe needs help to bid a heavily subsidized plane in a U.S. competition. It is even more ironic that France expects special treatment from the United States in this matter, even as it rejects U.S. and NATO protests of its pending sale of a Mistral-class amphibious assault ship to Russia, a move that will undermine the security of Georgia [eds. note: that’s the European country sending thousands of troops to Afghanistan].” Brownback’s fellow Kansan senator, Pat Roberts, joined in criticizing any possible change to the competition.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and a fellow Kansan, noted without any apparent irony that, “Changing the rules in the middle of the competition is what got the Department of Defense in trouble last time.” {No mention of Boeing’s various tanker shenanigans over the years, of course.} And he called on DoD to “keep its word” and go ahead with the competition.

So far, no one is confirming any actions by anybody. But French President Nicolas Sarkozy is raising the tanker deal March 30 when he meets with President Obama and it probably isn’t just because he’s going to tell his NATO friend that they are sad that Northrop pulled out, leaving EADS high and dry.

Join the Conversation

OK?.…..a delay plus speculation the most ethical congress gets their packing notice next November?. It’s a play. I say do it. I’d LOVE to see the corrupt politicians on the other side of the isle steal this away from Boeing. Where’s the popcorn?

So the big lie has been exposed. IF as the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers would have you believe the NG/EADS KC-X is the same tanker as those being bult for other nations then there should be no need for an extention as EADS could simply bid with the same tanker that is expected to enter service in Australian later this year. The truth is as EADS has admitted that it does not have the ability to bid on its own & NEEDS NG’s expertise & reputation as ‘lead contractor’.

Why are our European government trying to control how the DOD spends USA Tax payers money?

“How this became about EADS getting “help” is unclear, unless extending a deadline would be construed as help.”

I think it would be obvious that extending the deadline would constitute “help”, or “aid”, or “assistance” to EADS. Technically, DOD may be able to do it. Politically, it would be very, very unwise. It will only ignite a firestorm. The Pentagon would be accused of changing the conditions of the competition to suit one of the competitors.

Sound familiar?

problem is one more time because french was in. USA was really angry because french was not dependant to USA like to many country in europe. just see in arms export when france was, you see immediately pentagon machinery boosted for blow the contract of french

> IF as the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers would have you believe the NG/EADS KC-X is the same tanker as those being bult for other nations then there should be no need for an extention as EADS could simply bid with the same tanker that is expected to enter service in Australian later this year.

Way to pull out the strawman pfcem!

1. No one said they were exactly the same.

2. Do you have ANY IDEA how much time and money it takes to create a valid bid for such a complex and detailed RFP?

Assuming NG doesn’t let EADS copy their bid (and there’s no reason they should considering the millions they spent putting it together), EADS is going to need a lot of time simply to put together all the documentation for a valid bid.

It sounds like EADS may be stepping out without NGC. I’m sure the proposal with teammate NGC in no longer valid. Formal proposals are typically a lot of work. I could see an extension for EADS to write their proposal. Unfortunately, for the French, this may be a ploy by the DoD to get their competition. I don’t know FA regulations, but I sense it’s easier for the DoD to conduct business with an award winner under a competitive bid than sole source. But what an Inspector Clouseau slap in the face to EADS when DoD turns around and hands the award to Boeing!?! Thank you for competing, now pound sand. I like Kettle Corn best. :)

“The tanker competition has grown so baroque”

Should that be:

“The tanker competition has grown so broke[n]“
?

Good Morning Folks,

Think about this, there may be more tankers the there will be F-35’s to refuel. I think it might be prudent to cut back this contract since Boeing is the only player, it doesn’t effect the bid of when or how many tanker are ordered. Have Boeing submit a short run not to go over price and start building.

The truth is with the uncertainly of the F-35 program, at the very least production will be cut and stretched, and the lack of any other manned aircraft in the pipeline the future needs of both the Air Force and the Navy are at best uncertain.

Orders could like the C-130 and C-17, be drabbled out at say 10–12 airframes a year at what we can afford or just at the whims of Congress for a decade or two.

It works for me.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

This time the tender has specified a set of requirements that largely match the KC-135 — a design with radius/offload capable enough for the European war we faced in the early 50’s when the KC-135 was purchased. Better hope there are no potential enemies in the Pacific theatre, ’cause the KC-767–200 will run out of fuel to off-load in the vast trans-pacific region, especially since the USAF announced the F-22 had a radius of action of only 400nm of which some 50nm were at the much touted super-cruise.

It should not be so hard to get some new damn tankers. We needed these aircraft yesterday!

Good Morning Steve,

You present some serious unanswered questions, but reality is that Boeing is going to get the contract. When politics enters the game question such as you raised are not relative to the discussion sorry to say.

I do think that EADS/NG are blowing smoke on this. I think the reason that EADS backed out was the A400M and the current $7 billion of red ink on the books. EADS is going to have to get the A400M into production and get some cash flow going. The tanker bid would have been a drain on capital that a cash starve EU right now would rather not deal with.

Also sitting in the wings on tankers is Brazils Embraer KC-390 which for short range and refueling UAV’s might be a more economical choice then a whole fleet of large Boeing tankers. The KC-390 cold also be an attractive replacement for the C-130.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

A “cash starve EU”? So EADS isn’t a company in the traditional sense? Its the EU?

Still have not seen what Boeing is going to offer for their tanker, wait I forgot it is an updated version of the tankers they built for Japan and Italy, which were 2 years later and still having problems

Just like Boeing wanted more time…

The comments of Tiahart and Brownback are embarassing to many Kansans. Why can’t they ever tell the truth??

EADS/NG claimed that the RFP was slanted towards the Boeing tanker since the RFP asked for a smaller tanker. If EADS/NG was really serious about bidding, then why didn’t then offer a tanker based on a smaller A/C frame that EADS builds commercially? If the RFP asked for a bigger airframe, Boeing was going to offer the 777. I think it gets down to EADS not wanting to spend any more development money for a smaller airframe based tanker. I guess the concept of capitalism is lost on EADS. You need to offer what the customer wants. If what you have to sell isn’t what the customer wants, either offer what the customer wants or close your shop.

I see F-35 cancellations and 787 cancellations coming soon…Protectionism is never good, is it Byron?

irtusk,

No strawman. You & other EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have said MANY TIMES that the KC-30 is flying but the Boeing KC-X is not. Completely ignoring the fact that the KC-30s ‘flying’ are NOT the same as the NG/EADS KC-X. BOTH (KC-767 & KC-30) are existing tankers for which advanced models are being proposed for KC-X.

Yes I know that putting a bid together takes time & effort but it is not like EADS does not have ALL the info to put one together & supposedly has put a number together for other custiomers…

*

Steve,

The requirements this time are essentially the same as they were last time.

The USAF has operating just fine in the Pacific for DECADES using KC-135s.

Remember, Northrup/EADS already won the competition once! Boeing got a considerable amount of “help” waiting for this “new” competition.

Sorry, the GAO found that the USAF awarded the contract using criteria for selection inconsistent with the RFP criteria (which coincidently looks a lot like the current RFP). So in other words, they were awarded the contract as a result of “cheating” by the USAF KC-X selection team. So they didn’t win, they were mearly named the winner in a flawed competition. Kind of like scoring a touchdown when there is a holding penalty. It doesn’t count.

You just keep bitin the hand, don’t ya, Curt? Keep telling your customer they suck. I’ll quit renting movies. :) Boeing shinanigans and their sock puppets in congress are the best entertainment in town.

I guess this statement from NG and EADS wasn’t so meaningful after all;

“We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest… America’s service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly.”

What a bunch of jerks. First, you gave away our technology advantage and now you want to turn the US into a third world country. In case you forgot the reason we wone WWII was the US could more, faster and better than anyone else in the world.
When we went to war, France to the US to get screwed! So I believe its time to tell the French to go to hell.
In case you didn’t notice we’re in deep financal trouble. How about stimulating the US economy and put Americans back to work. We’re the ones paying for the new tanker.

You are right: still French bashing…
What those frenchies do which merit so much US attention if not smart systems?
Will we admit it once?
Hope that USAF knows what she does and that Boeing will deliver…

Read the above comments. All I can say is that the contracts got screwed up when the politicians got involved.

this process has been taking to long already. as a former 135 crew chief i know for a fact these acft have more than exceeded expectations and proven more reliable than the newer kc-10’s which holds twice as much fuel but can not off load as high of a % having t okeep more for itself. to answer the comment about not needing as many because fo cutbacks to the f-35 that is hilarious. the tanker is one of the most versatile airframe refueling all manned wing acft from all branches of service and nato forces. i do not see where buying from anther country is an issue. boeing oviously has an the knowlede and ability to build another 50 year plus acft.

Gee when I was in PACAF I remember we had to delay flights over the pond because the tankers were not available. When your flying a fighter from Hickam to Korea, there is not that many places you can pull over for gas. I have seen flights return to base cause of no tankers available

During the “original” bidding two years ago, with Boeing about to lose to a superior aircraft… the “Boeing congressional” delegation pressured DOD in to changing the rules to heavily favor Boeing and do a rebid!
Northrup & EADS knows that they will lose under these rules.
The reals losers are our Airmen and the taxpayers!
Once again, the military gets a weapons system they don’t want!

Starting out in the 60’s as an eng. tech. on tankers, later as an engineer, much later as a 135 crew chief, I have been closely associated with Boeing tankers for 33 military years. Boeing was first with tankers and builds a very dependable ac. The KC10 was junk from day one, a Govt. quick buy to keep the manufacturer from going under. Think of it, the 135 was originally built to last 8500 hours!!! Twice now the wings have been reskinned to last another 8500 hours. Original purchase price was 18 million $. They did something right to last this long. I don’t think a foreign manufacturer could do it. Thank you.

A foreign manufacturer could do it, you are lost in your own world, who do you think supplies the tail section of the 787, Airbus, you people amaze me…

Sure hope Kansans wake up and not vote Tiahart in as a US Senator, but if you are in Kansas ask him about his photo op at the ribbon cutting or Airbus, he loved when they opened an office in Kansas, his district and then why he supported Cessena moving the Sky Catcher plane to China, this dude is a lying loser…

Hope you see this Steve. Yes, the 767–200 Tanker will have an unrefueled range similar to the KC-135R. However, the KC-X will also be air-refuelable. This will allow you to get the gas offload you need where you need it. The F-22 has a fuel consumption similar to a F-15A-D, but travels about 1.3 times faster giving it a fuel advantage over the 4.0 version fighters it replaces.
Also, the hose built into the airframe will make it more suitable for replacing the 55 yr old KC-135s. Hose or Boom on the same mission.
Sig Nelson (sig.nelson@cox.net)

Spending US taxpayers money on a tanker buit by EADS? With unemployment running rampid in our country this is the most screwed up thing ever. Like the French are our friends? Screw them. Boeing is one of the only major manufactures left in our country! This shouldn’t even be a competition!!!

Does that mean the 787 tail will fall off, too?

Build the AF a new tanker. I dont care if Cessna builds the thing, It’s WAY past time for a new tanker. sheeesh is that so freakin hard???

Why are there so many naive Americans who keep harping on about Boeing’s aircraft being the only one built in America. American people can be so myopic and self absorbed. The Boeing tanker actually as MORE parts build in foreign countries than the Northrop aircraft. For gods sake, stop being so self centered. If we really want or service men and women to have the best equipment and we really want to have the most jobs on our soil as possible then that would be the Northrop aircraft that will not be built now simply because of corrupt, selfish politicians who have their own agendas which get reinforced by uninformed constituents who keep voting them in. Wake up America and stop believing everything you hear on local TV and start realizing also that defense exports are a two way deal. We have to start trusting our allies and their products as often we are wasting our scare resources developing a new product in US when the same capability could be procured off the shelf from our allies and the money saved spent on another shortfall.

Look at a map, where is Alabama and what are Alabama folks? AMERICANS pull your head out of the sand…Boeing 787 is totally engineered in Japan, many components for Boeing planes come from Asia, wake up it is a global world…

I ain’t ridin on it. I’ll give em a few years to “shake out the kinks” :)

We all know the majority of the 767 airframe is made outside the United States. You talk abot the French, what happens if Asia, like China, who is building part of the airframe decides to stop supplying it. Same thing. Get your heads out of Boeing rear end and step back take a good look then make a decision. Boeing has done a good job of hiding where the plane airframe is built. Remembe Boein ill assembly the airframe in the USA

Hey folks is goverment stupid or what I have dealt with EADS in the commo world and they cant even delever a propsal there and now we are giving them breaks on our tankers. Our soldiers are US so should be there equipment. In times like these when people are losing there jobs we should have made in the USA a priority not equal to foreign companies.

*required

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