EADS ‘Will Bid,’ Sarkozy Says

EADS ‘Will Bid,’ Sarkozy Says

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today that the Franco-European defense giant EADS “will bid” on the tanker contract after receiving assurances from President Obama that the competition will be “free and fair.”

And in what looks like a clear signal to EADS that the Pentagon will seriously consider opening the bid to EADS, the Air Force Chief of Staff told my colleague Andrea Shalal-Esa of Reuters that, “they have to say they’re serious and then the department will decide how much time to allow.” He spoke to Andrea at an event hosted by Air Force Association.

“If you say to me that the competition will be free and fair and transparent, then we say EADS will bid and we trust you,” Sarkozy said at a joint White House press conference.  Obama said that Sarkozy’s “trust is justified.”


And, just in case anyone wondered whether Obama was stepping on Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ procurement toes with his declaration, the president made it clear he was not.

“The Secretary of Defense makes procurement decisions. The president does not meddle in these decisions and that’s a long-standing policy, so I maintain an arms-length approach. I have assurances from Secretary of Defense Gates that, in fact, the rebidding process is going to be completely transparent and completely open and a fair competition,” Obama said.

Obama’s declaration comes after major European leaders blasted the United States for being protectionist after Northrop Grumman dropped its bid for the KC-X tanker. Even Britain’s Gordon Brown said at the time that he was “disappointed.” The administration, keenly aware of the importance of its allies’ help in Afghanistan, clearly decided to make the nicest noises possible during Sarkozy’s visit.

The question to be answered — after EADS decides whether to bid or not — is whether EADS North America will place the bid or the company will look for a large American partner like Lockheed or another larger company like Raytheon.  I’m skeptical that Lockheed would take the political risk of aligning itself with EADS on this program (but not on the A400M).  Any other American company would also have to grapple with the prospect of angering Rep. Norm Dicks, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, and a host of other powerful lawmakers. Whether EADS North America would be sufficient political cover for EADS is open to question.

Join the Conversation

This is especially difficult when Dicks is calling potential partners and “strongly encouraging” them to stay away. Threats and intimidation from the new chairman are still “free and fair,” right?

So does that mean NG will get back into the fray as well or is this purely an EADS vs Boeing fight? I don’t get how this is ANY better than the NG/EADS team??

The problem here on the requirements is that while the Air Force is basically looking to replace its smaller KC-135 tanker with something similar (which is not the Airbus 330), and will look to replace their larger KC-10 later, they should have designed the RFP to be open to both. That is, if they had developed an RFP to focus on fuel delivered versus fuel consumed in making that delivery (in other words, a unit cost concept), then they could have considered both tanker sizes. Given that their mission at the low end have increased, the Air Force might want to replace the KC-135 with a bigger tanker. Boeing should have recognized that fact and bid two sizes!

Now that the Obama-Sarkozy love fest is over, EADS needs to get off the dime. Either they submit a bid or we negotiate sole-source with Boeing. Either way we need to stop this never-ending procurement madness and get a contract award. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in the same situation as the Brits with their Nimrods. The old planes are worn out and their replacements aren’t in service. Hope those Russian subs in the Atlantic play nice for the next 3 years.

Boeing protested the last contract award because the A330 was given bonus points for cargo/fuel capacity. That value-added consideration was not spelled out in the RFP. In preparing for the current RFP, Boeing took your suggestion to heart by preparing bids based on the B767 and B777. When the current RFC hit the streets with limited value-added consideration, Boeing proceeded to bid only the B767.

Air Force isn’t looking for something similar to the KC-135. The next tanker was supposed to have a far better airlift capability than th old tanker.
http://​www​.amc​.af​.mil/​s​h​a​r​e​d​/​m​e​d​i​a​/​d​o​c​u​m​e​n​t​/​A​F​D-0…

According to the GAO report the Airbus is the more efficient aircraft:

“[…] better aerial refueling efficiency (more pounds of fuel offload per pound of fuel used) than Boeing’s[offer];”

“The SSET calculated a fleet effectiveness value of 1.79 for the KC-767, and a higher (superior) value of 1.90 for the KC-30.”

So if EADS can now go it alone, why the cuss word did they ever hook up with NG and now it’s ok not to? I can’t get my head around that. And how come the French president flies over here to support his economy, and our president has never gone out to show support for our defense products? maybe he has, but it’s never been as publicized as this. I can’t believe our own government is bending over backwards to support a foreign nation’s economy. They’re already suffering so many losses with their programs, why would we ever put ourselves in that situation?

If DOD keeps ________ around here, they will risk litigation & protests. Take a lesson from CSAR-X. That was protested into oblivion.

Now that the Obama-Sarkozy love fest is over, EADS needs to get off the dime. Either they submit a bid or we negotiate sole-source with Boeing. Either way we need to stop this never-ending procurement madness and get a contract award. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in the same situation as the Brits with their Nimrods. The old planes are worn out and their replacements aren’t in service. Hope those Russian subs in the Atlantic play nice for the next 3 years.

Let me get this straight. We are going to buy a tanker aircraft off the Hitlers 4th reich (EU). We will
be at war with them within 8 to ten years. Lets face it Bin Laden is less a threat to the U.S. than
the E.U. America better wake up before its to late. a 30 year retired Chief who has been there,
done that and got the bloody tee shirt.

Ahh, “F” the French! I saw build the damn thing in the U.S. and put people to work!! We could end up like Iran with all the military jets left behind when the Shah was ousted.…and then they had no parts, no mechanics, very very little support to fix the aricraft except from the French, who negoiated to get the parts shipped to France, then the French took the parts to Iran and mechanics and installed them.…and the French made TONS of money.…“F” them! As an ex-Air Force pilot, saw it with my own eyes and it made me crul with anger…keep all US Military Aircraft, tanks, guns, whatever it is for OUR protection under OUR cnotrol, not some friggin country, like France, who goes on strike because they may have to work over 32 hours in one week, or at the drop of a hat!!

Well if we are to fight the Europeans than it would be best to get these EADS plane built, purchased and flying asap so we can be ready to go when we start flying missions to Europe.

We need to be patriotic. We need to buy the best weapons sysytem available for our warfighters. Defense procurement is not just a job bailout programs for American defense contractors. They need more competition to improve the breed.

Any day now Murray and Dicks will become apoplectic over the 60 day delay EADS is receiving. What a circus we have created. Is anybody really honest about these things anymore?

Let Airbus, the company that set out to undercut the American airline-building companies, and did, get into our
’drawers?’ Oh, swell, why don’t we just go ahead and deplete some more of our industrial capacity! As someone
(now retired) who worked on both the KC-10 and C-17 programs, among others, if they want a big, reliable jet
tanker, why not convert the C-17? Recently, I saw on an evening news program that there is still a contract for
building more C-17’s, but now the military says they don’t ‘want’ them! Perhaps, because they have been so reliable? If we could convert a DC-10 to a KC-10, why not convert the C-17 to the KC-17? Bigger, stronger, can
carry damn near anything, and could do dual missions, transporting both fuel and supplies! Keep France, Germany and any other European country OUT of our business!

Boeing is as guilty as anyone for procuring parts and vendors overseas. They helped modernize Japanese aircraft techniques. But.…the idea of a KC-17 is a fascinating proposal. Why not take a great airframe and use the advatages of having parts and maintainers already in the field to simply operations? And i like the idea of building these planes over an extended period to keep the production lines going to incorporate upgrades/mods and the eventuial wing rebuilds. This sort of rational thought seems to be haphazard in the way we normally procure airplanes. Any downside?

Does this contract include all design and manufacturing drawings/manufacturing processes and molds/fixtures? If not, we will not have an internal means of producing spares should our EU commie friends decide they don’t like the way we treat…Iraq, Iran, Russia, Cuba etc and withhold spares and support. It has been done before. As a retired AF Chief I say screw anyone outside of Domestic American manufacturors. Like the Program used to saw…Buy American.
What about the recent WTO finding that EADS constantly operated with Foreign National Support and does not represent Fair Trade. The friggin EU can say all they want, but they subscide EADS and any bid from them will never be “Fair and Open”, but subscided to gain jobs for EU nations.
Didn’t the last RFP have a clause about subscided products not being compared apples to apples? Le tthem bid, but add on a few hundred million for their unfair practices.

So if EADS is going to make a bid in 60 days instead of 90, will they buy the bid paperwork from NG giving NG profit out of not even making a bid on the Tanker this time. Or will EADS as Prime bring NG back in as a major American Sub contractor. The risk transfers to the deep pockets of the French and German government.

The final question question is since the US government has graciously extended the bid for its Tanker, Will the French government open its bid for replacement tankers or a competitive review of the supply of a400 buys?

Then again maybe they will offer a KC-400m tanker based on the A400m to get their numbers up.

I am an ex British soldier with 11 years’ service and do not classify myself as European. But I believe you’re comments are wrong and do nothing to strengthen the northern alliance against the real enemies of freedom. I have friends who live in America and have spent many holidays in America and it is good that they do not share you’ re paranoia!

Time to return to isolationism. If other countries have a problem with us, send them a sympothy card on the nose of a few ICBM’s. Enough of it all America. Start spending our money at home and take care of our own.Close the borders off to new imigration and coral up all the illegals and deport them. As for the Tanker it should be built at home. Why trust a country to build our suuport aircraft when the cant even defend themselves in war. Stop bailing every one out O B A M A !!!

There are about 1000 Boeing 757’s around. The DOD should just select that airframe and ask for bids to modify them into tankers. Fair to all, free-for-all who want to submit a bid, and I venture far cheaper than any alternative.

Put the US Citizens to work. They are the ones who need the jobs. Work means more taxes to be collected to pay the salaries of Obama and his staff, congress, etc. Support The United States and not a foreign economy.

Sheila Most of the work on the Tanker built by Boeing is done OVERSEAS in the FAR EAST. Only thing Boeing will do is the same as NGC/EADS would have done assemblied the aircraft here in the United States. If we wanted to Support the United States, then the Whole nien yards should be built here in the US not just assemblied, but then the Unions would get involved and it would end up costing MORE> That is wht so much of the Airframe is built overseas. If Boeing could build the whole thing overseas and then fly it to the US they World. MONEY MONEY they would save

A KC-17, what a great idea. Take a proven airframe, engines and avionics and make a tanker variant. The logistics chain is already in place. The manufacturing plant in Long Beach is already up and running. I don’t see a down side?

*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