Home » Air » EADS Steps Gingerly To KC-X Bid

EADS Steps Gingerly To KC-X Bid

By Colin Clark Friday, March 19th, 2010 10:03 am
Posted in Air, International, Policy

In a move that could make for one of the most exciting defense procurements in modern history, EADS formally confirmed this morning that it is considering an independent bid on the KC-X program.

The press statement said that the Pentagon “indicated” yesterday that “it would welcome a proposal from EADS North America as prime contractor for the KC-X tanker competition.” In a bit of masterly understatement, the company notes that, “This is a significant development.”

But the company, known for its political attennae, does not go overboard. Instead, it very carefully reminds everyone that the same factors that led Northrop Grumman to drop out of the competition remain in force. The press statement says that the Pentagon’s positive noises are “a positive sign that the DoD seeks competition, it does not address EADS’ underlying concerns that the RFP clearly favors a smaller, less capable aircraft, and that the additional combat capability offered by our system may not be fully valued.”

If the Pentagon is serious about encouraging EADS to bid it should offer “a significant extension to the period within which to prepare and submit a proposal,” EADS says. And even then, the company may not bid unless the RFP is amended. If Robert Gates and Ash Carter are serious about encouraging another company to bid on KC-X, they will probably have to reinject some form of a best value proposition in the RFP. Given how strongly our closest NATO allies have reacted to Northrop’s decision to drop out of the tanker competition, there may be good reason for the Pentagon to rethink the tanker RFP. This will highlight the essential conflict between strict rendering of military requirements and the capability approach, which takes best value into account. Which way the Pentagon tilts will be closely watched by the defense companies and our closest allies for very different reasons.

Note to Buzz readers: Senior Air Force, OSD, Capitol Hill and EADS officials read every word we write on this subject, so if you want them to know what you think post away and tell ‘em!

Below is the EADS press release in full:

EADS will assess new situation on US Tanker Request for Proposal
Leiden, 19 March 2010 – Yesterday the US Department of Defense (DoD) indicated it would welcome a proposal from EADS North America as prime contractor for the KC-X tanker competition. This is a significant development. EADS is assessing this new situation to determine if the company can feasibly submit a responsive proposal to the Department’s request for proposal (RFP).
And while this development is a positive sign that the DoD seeks competition, it does not address EADS’ underlying concerns that the RFP clearly favors a smaller, less capable aircraft, and that the additional combat capability offered by our system may not be fully valued.
An important prerequisite for our consideration of entry into this competition will be a significant extension to the period within which to prepare and submit a proposal. EADS welcomes the DoD’s recent statement which indicated a willingness to extend the timeframe. Though this is essential, it is only one factor in making a decision for EADS to compete. In the end, the company will only submit a proposal if there is a fair chance to win, after evaluating all relevant factors.

Tags: Ash Carter, EADS, KC-X, tanker

Join the Conversation

	rOBERT March 19th, 2010 at 3:49 pm So, we are bucking to the Europeans. How many combat toops do they have supporting us in Afghanistan in comparison to our troop numbers? VERY MINIMAL! Research it! They want our tax dollars, but nothing in return. We owe nothing to EADS! WE NEED OUR USA AEROSPACE JOBS TO STAY IN THE USA.….….….
	Aurora March 19th, 2010 at 5:17 pm EADS’ real intent is to change the RFP itself, not just an “extension of the bidding deadline”. If DOD agrees to their demands, they will consign this acquisition to war without end. It will be very ugly on the Hill, but even uglier when the WTO decision leaks next week.
	@7thwave March 19th, 2010 at 5:34 pm Bow down before the ones you serve. Trick question..since when does America bow down and kiss the feet of France and Germany over the threats of lost buyers of American defense hard ware? Answer.…as of today. And if we allow EADS to win this so-called competition, we will get a plane that is way behind schedule (M400, in which half of the countries in that program have threatened to pull out due to cost overruns and delays to the program), not totally built here,(EADS does not have the facilities here in America to handle such a program..they would have to be built ground up,and most of the planes built in Europe), and thats not to mention the loss of hundreds of jobs here at home for the defense aviation industry that will never return or created. Way to go America!
	@7thwave March 19th, 2010 at 5:38 pm Oh, before I forget.…thats not to mention in these money tight times, a very bad thing to allow Europe to dictate to our military who will bid on a program and on what terms in our defense spending.….another shining example of Obama’s Washington bowing down and kissing the toes of every one he meets.
	ROBERT March 19th, 2010 at 6:16 pm Hey Chris, Get off the cognac and the bubbly water!
	jkm March 19th, 2010 at 6:51 pm same reason why Britain, Netherlands and the rest should ditch the F35 JSF asap, and buy European. Strange how this free-trade thing is fine for other people buying American, but thrown overboard when an American defense corporation is affected.
	Chris March 19th, 2010 at 4:14 pm Hey Einstien you do know that the plane would be assembled in the US right? And that EADS would open a production line for it’s military transports also? In a sense that would “take” jobs from Europe and bring them to the US. And before anyone comes here and says “the tanker will still have parts built in Europe stop and remember that Boeing has relied on overseas suppliers to build huge sections of the Dreamliner and no one has said a word about “saving” American’s jobs. You can’t have it both ways. If EADS opens an American assembly line it will only grow the American Aerospace industry. The Boeing Everett line will not shut down, hell they need topen up a second Dreamliner line anyway.
	irtusk March 19th, 2010 at 5:56 pm is this story legit? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132081360882728.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews
	Chris March 19th, 2010 at 10:14 pm That’s your only reply? really? WoW!
	Chris March 19th, 2010 at 10:20 pm Guess what ? Boeing outsources a lot of their plane construction overseas, everyone does. You think they would bring in European construction firms to build an assembly plant in AL? If Boeing wins on the merit of a fair proposal then great, if EADS wins that will create even more AMERICAN jobs in ALABAMA. Stop with the “buy american, keep american jobs” crap already. Trust me Boeing will survive either way. Get your facts straight before you embarass yourself further.
	stephen March 20th, 2010 at 1:33 am here’s a new wrinkle from the sister site: Russian state-owned aerospace group United Aircraft Corp. plans to bid for a U.S. Air Force tanker contract, teaming up with a U.S. partner, a lawyer representing UAC said March 19
	@7thwave March 20th, 2010 at 2:21 am Make those AMerikan jobs with EADS.…yeah, right…theres a laugh! For the shortest part(the end) of the program, the parts will be made in France, Germany,and Spain, and shipped to those red necks in AL-A-Bama to be assembled, where the plant will close because of no business for large body aircraft..shortly after the last plane that was over budget, and several years late is finally assembled in their corn-bred state.(Sorry, Boeing holds the honor for that one! That is, manufacturing of big planes)and the people laid off and on the street out of work, begging Europe to come and save them. Sure…lets build that dar tanker right heyah in grand ol’ U.S.ofA!
	irtusk March 19th, 2010 at 10:50 pm > here’s a new wrinkle from the sister site what sister site?
	irtusk March 19th, 2010 at 11:34 pm http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011392418_russiatanker20.html “He said his Russian clients told him that when President Obama met Putin, the Russian president specifically asked about United Aircraft’s potential bid on the tanker. “Obama gave him his personal assurance they would be given a fair shot at this like everyone else,” he said” ““Just when I thought (the tanker competition) couldn’t get any dumber this comes along,” [Aboulafia] added.
	Byron Skinner March 20th, 2010 at 1:22 pm Good Morning Folks, Well its been tow weeks or so since NG/EADS bowed out of the $35 billion tanker bid. Well since Boeing has it all to them selves the bid estimate is now $40 billion. The screw job has started. Next week NG/EADS is expected to get back in with a smaller “cheaper” air frame and the Russians are expected to get in to bid as irtusk indicated. All this money for something that is not needed at this time. Boeing where Corporate Profits and Corruption come before Patriotism. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	mountainview March 20th, 2010 at 8:03 pm Of course, they have big big lobbyists including the former Campaign staff on McCain presidential run and the former NASA Administrator (sic) etc. Selling of America continues and we saw these original ontracts going that way from W.Bush (VH-71, now kllled fo excessive cost and time over-runs, the LUH and the KC-X). Then McCain had all those EADS lobbyists on his team (is that why he hounded the Air Force to have the original RFP read the way it did? .. Credits fro more fuel & seats; but no penalties for additional weight & cost at real fuel cost/gallon, no penalty for having to build larger hangers for these larger planes and no penalties for having to build larger runways!!). Now we see Mr. Obama having no spines to stand up to these whiners from Europe. Ha now let the Rooskies also enter. We can depend on them during the next war if those planes are reliable enough…
	mountainview March 20th, 2010 at 7:50 pm If Europeans were dependable, we would have seen more NATO troops in Afghanistan. If we had depended on their equipment during WW2, there would have been no equipment available after the blitzkrieg. They did not buy teh P&W engine for the A400 and instead overruled their own source selection to build alll new engine that is now costing them like hell. What is their CPAR? Take a look at the A400. A fixed price is not a fixed price as we all saw in the last 2 months. It is a subsidized company run buy the French and to some extent the reluctant Germans and a bunch of smaller partners. It is time to build the All American Boeing fleet to serve the Americans by the Americans. USA needs to build her economy, especially with the money borrowed from teh Chinese and the others. We do not have the luxury to indulge the Continentals at this time of grave economic peril. Light the lamp first at home and then the streets !!
	Aurora March 21st, 2010 at 2:38 pm I see a pattern developing here, to the delight of pundits, bloggers, and analysts covering the tanker affair: “the Friday surprise”. It seems every Friday, since the RFP has been released, we have a new twist, wrinkle, or revelation. First, NG pulls out, then EADS. Next, EADS says that they want more time, and “may bid”; DOD says they will “consider” an extension to the deadline. EADS says “OK, but about the basic requirements.…” Now the Russians want in. Next week’s Friday surprise may take the form of Paris Hilton announcing that she’s forming a group of interested parties from Beverly Hills to explore a bid. Yes, it has gotten that ridiculous. Watch out Mr. Carter. You are going to lose control of this process if this continues.
	Aurora March 21st, 2010 at 2:41 pm What “smaller, cheaper” airframe is EADS going to propose, Byron? A Falcon 7X?
	Byron Skinner March 21st, 2010 at 1:18 pm Good Morning Folks, Aurora. Got me. With Russia and France currently involved in military transactions one never knows, do they? One must remember that the 767 airframe is a late 1970’s technology, already flying for 30 years another 10 before deliveries, what will the USAF be buying a 40 year old airframe? Just as a citizen I would think that a newer airframe would be better such as the 777 that would only be about 15 years old when deliveries start. Since the bid from the 2nd. round has gone from $30–35-40 Billion something seems very wrong here with Boeing now the only active bidder. As a former contractor who did more then his share of Government business a rebid was a clear strong signal that all the bids were to high and to bring the price down if you wanted the work. I’m sure the laws have changed but 30 years ago if a competitive bid or RFP was put out and only a single source responded the Government had to change it to a single source job, if the Government wanted to go through with the project. Single (sole) source usually meant 10% above all “acceptable” costs on a project and could be terminated by the Government at any time for cost reasons, most of us didn’t much care for sole sourcing contracts. The $5 billion increase this week is almost a 15% increase, what goes? Like the F-35 program there is a lot about the tanker bid that screams for investigations, that will of course never happen. I would not be shocked to hear that that a lot of envelopes haven’t been passes out to members by Boeing and LM recently. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Aurora March 21st, 2010 at 7:32 pm Envelopes? Good grief, they’ve copying EADS on that, too?
	Tom March 21st, 2010 at 8:18 pm So lets try and examine this rationally. First the Air Force is looking to replace the KC-135 and cost is a major issue. Second the A330 and 767–200 are very different aircraft and no airline would seriously consider them as competitors. So the KC-767 is far newer and more capable airplane than the KC-135 and it will give the Air Force a noteworthy improvement in capability and not require a major investment in infrastructure since its occupies roughly the same footprint as a KC-135. The KC-330 is a vastly larger and more capable airframe that while offering KC-10 like capabilities will also require a significant investment in infrastructure because of its size differemtial compared to a KC-135. Regardless of acquistion costs the KC-767 will be the cheaper airplane to operate an important consideration in a world where a vast number of sorties are flown in support of training requirements that don’t require the full capabilities of either tanker.
	Tom March 21st, 2010 at 8:19 pm Lets be honest an RFP for a new tanker cannot possibly fairly compete airplanes as different as the 767–200 and A330-200. The RFP will either favor a larger aircraft (aka the “value proposition”) or a smaller aircraft (aka price) and the Air Force has to decide what it really wants. Based on the latest RFP it would seem that the Air Force has decided that what it realy wants is the cheapest possible replacement for the KC-135 and the truth of the matter is that Airbus/EADS doesn’t have an aircraft in its portfolio that can meet requirement as well as the 767 can. All the talk of USA vs France and Europe vs the USA isn’t going to change that fact. On that subject it should be fairly noted that most of continental Europe (aka Germany and France) have not exactly been our best allies over the last several years. Also as the A400 engine so vividly shows they have a long history of buying inferior and/or more expensive local products instead of an option from the USA. So the charges of protectionism and unfairness should be immediately dissmised as the nonsense that they are.
	Aurora March 21st, 2010 at 9:01 pm I think you’ve summed it up nicely, Tom. I hope those readers in the Pentagon, that Mr. Clark noted above, read and heed your words very carefully.
	irtusk March 21st, 2010 at 5:27 pm > Based on the latest RFP it would seem that the Air Force has decided that what it realy wants is the cheapest possible replacement for the KC-135 No, the previous RFP was a far better reflection of what the AF wants. This RFP demonstrates the utter cowardice of the AF in its decision to subordinate the needs of the warfighter (carefully balance several capabilities) to the needs of the acquisition team (easy to apply and justify rules) and the political situation in Congress (Dicks (D-Boeing) will never let EADS see a dime regardless of how they do in the competition)
	Cole March 21st, 2010 at 11:09 pm Part 1 OK Tom, let’s be rational. The first time around NG/EADS underbid Boeing by $3 BILLION for just 68 aircraft. This time without competition, we could spend $223.5 million per KC-X (instead of the $178 million that NG/EADS bid for 68 KC-X) making it a $40B program. Then we replace the KC-10 with a larger KC-Y and spend more for KC-Y fuel and hangar upgrades anyway. Sounds like KC-Y will probably be a $50B program due to the larger aircraft and…no competition since we think we should only buy American. So Mr. Taxpayer will pay $90B to replace just 360 refuelers…and then we still have 180 KC-Z still left to be purchased for around $55 billion? Total: $145 billion. Since we still have KC-135R, KC-10, and KC-X/KC-Y/KC-Z acft operating through parts of this process, we still have at least 4 different refuelers throughout the next 36 years in three separate 12 year buys of 15 aircraft where the acquisition process each time will be the same tooth-pulling exercise.
	Cole March 21st, 2010 at 11:10 pm Part 2 Or we could have a split buy of 24 mixed B767/A330 each year for the next 20 years and buy 60 larger UAS refuelers to replace the 60 KC-10…and probably pay $96B for the mix + $20B for the 60 UAS and only about $1–1.5 billion more annually initially (divert stimulus money) and less annually in the outyears. Replace all the KC-135R with the mixed fleet and save the big UAS for last. The result is still have no more than four different aircraft in the fleet throughout with three types in the end.…just like the costlier single source KC-X/Y/Z.
	irtusk March 21st, 2010 at 9:46 pm Russia’s United Aircraft Chief Fyodorov Denies U.S. Tanker Bid http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adEaKS.f.nIk&pos=7 “This is utter nonsense,” Fyodorov said in a subsequent telephone interview with Bloomberg News. “UAC is not planning to take part in the tanker tender or set up a joint venture.”
	seesthrubs March 22nd, 2010 at 1:55 am It looks like my comment a couple of weeks ago about the US ditching the F-35 to license build the PAK said half jokingly is a bit closer to a reality! Seriously, the UA bid is just so cool. In my view it confirms suspicions I had about a strong effort on the part of the Russians to tap into the western defense market that has been g gaining momentum for a number of years with previously exclusive Western subscribers opting for Russian gear. The Russian purchase of the French ships, despite having the capability to build their own, indicates they are making the first moves in opening the western market. First Europe, now the US. I find it hard to believe they will actually get the contract but is there anything wrong with this? Is there anything wrong if you get an aircraft that meets or exceeds RFP for the lowest price and still guarantees US jobs? Hell no! In fact the only crazy thing about the bid is that the US may actually procure something on time, on budget which does the job. At the very least the extra competition is a good thing, which the US, the champion of capitalism, should understand better than anybody. If it forces the existing, bloated, complacent defense companies to pull their finger out then it has to be a good thing. Such a contract would also go a long way in forging ties and burying the Cold War mentality which is still amazingly strong (if anyone cares to read the comments of the Seattle Times article – wow what a pack of nutters.) No two ways about it though, the tanker program has more twists and drama than a day-time soap. Who’d have thought.
	Aurora March 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 am OK, so the media got taken in “a little” over this Russian thing. But I still stand by Paris Hilton as next Friday’s “tanker surprise”! ;-) After all, if the media took the bait on the Russians hook, line & sinker, they’ll absolutely adore the press conference from her media director!
	irtusk March 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 am more details http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE62L0AX20100322?rpc=44
	ronaldmgse52 March 22nd, 2010 at 6:34 pm We, US and NATO need to remain current. If not only to keep aircraft in the air, but to keep engineers and the trades working. Aerospace is in a very depressed state, costing thousands and thousands of jobs. Not only here in the US, but abroad as well. All major contracts now offload design and fabrication overseas. Its just a fact. Anything we can get right now would be better than nothing. Engineers must stay busy! We need to keep looking forward to the next advances. Without current programs and new programs like KC-X, the employment of engineers is aerospace will suffer. With that will come a decrease in staying ahead fo the world curve for a strong defense. There is much more here that just if we should buy a new tanker and who is going to build it. It is, to a larger extent, critical to national defense from a employment point of view.
	fthomas March 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm Bring on the Russians and a low bid and watch Patty Murry and Norm Dicks scramble
	fthomas March 22nd, 2010 at 9:22 pm Then why don’t you ask the Kansas delegation why they supported AIRBUS opening shop in KS and supported the Cessna move of the Sky Catcher to China, over 35 years worth of work exported, WAKE UP Robert and get with the program.
	seesthrubs March 22nd, 2010 at 10:02 pm Yeah its a shame, I was looking forward to the storm such a bid may cause just for the lulz…but you had to wonder when in the Seattle Times article it still referred to Putin as President and if those comments had been made you’d think this story would have broke sooner. I still stand by my call on the Russians looking to crack the Western markets though, i just thought it would be a strategy over a longer period. A tanker bid would be simply audacious.
	Will March 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 pm If you don’t have a strong enonomic base there is no money for the military, No one can deney that Boeing is American , as well as EADS is european. This crap that we should buy the best weapons no matter where they come from is crazy. If there is a weapon system that is better ‚but made by foreign company. You go back to American companies and tell them to make their system better, you don’t buy the foreign system. You make America stronger by buying domestic , a stronger economy means a stronger military. You cannot have a strong military without a strong economy. Some of these military leaders forget who is footing the bill, and if it costs more money to buy American , then it costs more . We have minimum wages , and labor laws in this country for a reason , and that is to maintain a higher standard of living. It is that same high standard of living that men and women in uniform fight to protect.
	Benjamin March 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 am I am going to go out on a ledge with this but the Russian aircraft is the best buy. It’s performance will not be to bad because it will have a significant amount of western components (engines and electronics at least). The most important reason for us to buy this aircraft is political in nature. We need to halt the Russian sale of weapons to China and the only way to do this is buy them. 20% of the Russian economy is based off of weapons sales last I saw. I don’t think the Russians want to sell weapons to the Chinese but they have no other choice. They need to keep there people employed. In the end if we do not start taking action to prevent Russian weapon sales to China it will be more American lives lost.
	Cole March 23rd, 2010 at 12:14 am Part 1 America’s greatness after WWII was due to the GI Bill, manufacturing, and reasonably priced housing and taxes. But our economy evolved into a coastal or union one that artificially drove up employee incomes forcing manufacturing overseas and coastal housing costs through the roof. Coastal state and local government employees (and federal/service members in urban areas) are costly due to high cost of living. This has led to higher federal, state, and local taxes and deficits. The whole nation suffers bailing out state and federal deficits, American manufacturing failures, real estate speculation and the current round of bank failures and upside down/foreclosed mortgages. Coastal kids are not guaranteed that they can get into or pay for a college education due to excessive competition and cost for slots available. So how does our nation retain what little manufacturing, educational opportunity, and reasonably priced housing it has left? Wouldn’t spreading around good jobs also spread employees and college students around to reduce coastal housing, university inflation, and the arm-twisting capacity of unions? Can your coastal kids afford to buy a house where they grew up?
	Curt March 23rd, 2010 at 1:19 pm It also should be noted that the KC-X is only supposed to replace some of the KC-135s while the later KC-Y will replace the KC-10 and more of the KC-135s with three times as many heavy tankers as we currently have. So even if you drink the EADS Kool-aid about bigger being better, we have that covered too. Of course, by many accounts the KC-10 is already a better heavy tanker than the 330 based MRTT so EADS probably wouldn’t have much chance against a bigger 777 based tanker either, so the KC-Y competition is obviously biased as well.
	max headroom March 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 am i say cancel the whole solicitation. award a maintenance contract instead. we’ve got a massive new entitlement to start saving for.
	Aurora March 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 pm According to this NYT article, the WTO found that the A330 benefited from subsidies (my, what a surprise–I’m shocked!). This is going to play in the tanker acquisition drama, one way or another. If DOD still thinks its “above the fray”, then it will likely be dragged kicking and screaming into said fray. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/global…
	Aurora March 23rd, 2010 at 7:02 pm BTW, the airbus press release that “70 percent of the U.S. case was rejected”, reminds me of the airbus supporters proudly proclaiming that the GAO dismissed all of Boeing’s protest except “8 minor points”. Remember that one?
	pfcem March 23rd, 2010 at 7:50 pm Byron Skinner, No the KC-X contract has ALWAYS been an estimated $35–40 billion contract. And you can bet no matter who wins that with the ususal delays & cost increases most every defense contract suffer that it will end up >$40 billion. Just what on the KC-767NG is 1970’s technology? And aside from the 767 & A350 what current airliner is any more technologically advanced? * Tom, No the KC-30 is not more capable (dont’ confuse greater size/payload with greater capability — capability is a MUCH more complicatted matter) nor does it offer KC-10 like capabilities (it is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 but is 110,000 lbs short of the KC-10’s payload). * irtusk, The requirements this round are essentially the same as last round… * Cole, The tanker lease was the 1st time around. Read the GAO ruling, the numbers you are citing for the 2nd round are bogus.
	L Berry March 25th, 2010 at 1:46 pm If I runa taxi cab company and wanted a VW sized taxi which would get 40mpg and hold two passengers and be great in city traffic why would I consider buying a Caddie size cab, which would get 15mpg but have the cability to haul 4 people with luggage. My average cab picks up 1–2 people and rarely gets a call for 4 people. But the caddie company says that I should change my business plan to continue picking up fares until full, then deliver all the passengers. Hell I could even operate like a bus and run routine routes. It would be cost effective because I can haul more. But all I need and want is a VW taxi…
	ronwiltx March 25th, 2010 at 6:04 pm Just a minor correction concerning WW II, the P-51D became the best fighter plane of the war when the Rolls-Royce engine was installed. Thank you Britain for that contribution. Also, the T-45’s are flying now with Rolls-Royce engines, so Britain continues to contribute. Maybe (IMHO) Nato is not sending more troops to the mountains because they feel like they got short-changed in the “sending of troops to the sandbox”. Shrub and the neo-cons promised Nirvana and delivered death and bankruptcy. Finally, beware of protectionism, it’s not always the best policy for a nation-state.
	Everybody bid March 25th, 2010 at 6:41 pm Good ole US companies like LM who recently double the JSF price. What happened to “power by the hour” contracts that were supposed to guarantee that companies only got paid if the units met their uptime spec’s. The Tanker should be the same kind of guranteed capability contract and support level and the only way to get the best price is to have a competitive environment or BOING can just continue to charge what they want… even after getting their hands caught in the cookie jar multiple times.
	Mike March 25th, 2010 at 7:49 pm From a National Security perspective we should do all we can to keep military hardware design and procurement in the US. Anyone remember April 1986, the Libyan raid? The United States was denied overflight rights by France, Spain and Italy as well as the use of European continental bases, forcing the Air Force portion of the operation to be flown around France, Spain and through the Straits of Gibraltar, adding 1,300 miles (2,100 km) each way and requiring multiple aerial refuelings. History has a way of repeating itself! If for some reason down the road the Europeans have a disagreement with us on policies etc again, shut down the parts line or delay delivery it will hinder us big time! Can’t refuel cargo planes, fighters, bombers, we’re grounded!!
	Mike March 25th, 2010 at 7:49 pm Also if EADS wanted to stay in the competition they should be offering a same size aircraft comparable to the 767 instead of trying to tell us what we need! Keep in mind going with a bigger aircraft comes with additional costs, ie; bigger hangers, bigger flight lines and runways, your limited to land at certain airfields, bigger support equipment and costs per flight hour will be more! So where is the savings and the best bang for the buck?? National Security should be 1st priority then everything else afterwards! Also any one has been keeping up on the news! France is also setting up a deal to sell 2 Mistral class helicopter, troop transport ships to Russia! So who is our allies and a part of NATO??? If EADS did open a facility to build the tankers in the USA, how long would it take to build, setup the facility, staff it and then how long before they produce an aircraft before Boeing??
	For America March 30th, 2010 at 4:13 pm But we would have more jobs if the U.S. went with Boeing.
	For America March 30th, 2010 at 4:18 pm Look, Bottom line I do not want to depend on a military product from another country. What happens if that country no longer supports us. No more product and no more parts, thats what.
	Matt April 19th, 2010 at 12:40 pm love the anti-european comments here. FYI, more british soldiers are dying in Afghanistan in comparison of troops deployed than any one else — we’re picking up the tab literally, plus both the German and French are takinf casualties too. Second, re Eurpean equipment being no good, without the Merlin engine, the Mustang would never have been the best fighter in WW2. the USA also bought the 105mm tank gun of us, the Harrier, the L198 howitzer, and hosts of other kit. Thirdly this is a 2 way street, and the US sells more to Europe than vice versa. If you want to stop Europe selling to the US, lets stop it both ways and watch your industries scream. But finally, EADS/northrop met the requirements for the tanker with an IN SERVICE aircraft not a designer piece. They would have saved money for the US tax payer. Seems pretty good for everyone

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

DoD Buzz

EADS Steps Gingerly To KC-X Bid

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments