Why EADS Needs KC-X Partners

Why EADS Needs KC-X Partners

When Northrop Grumman joined forces with EADS to bid on the airborne tanker, most people assumed the two companies were driven together largely by political reasons, helped by the prospect of $35 billion in revenue.

Northrop saw a chance to become an aircraft prime and to work closely with Europe’s largest defense company. EADS knew Boeing supporters would hammer them on being foreign and hooking up with one of the American primes gave them political cover. Once Northrop dropped out of the bidding, having concluded that the negatives — like the opposition of top defense appropriator Rep. Norm Dicks — outweighed the benefits and EADS decided to pursue the possibility of an independent bid, a basic question arose. Since EADS North America exists, would the parent company feel the need to partner with a Tier 1 or a large Tier 2 company.

The conventional wisdom quickly hardened: EADS would join with L-3, or perhaps BAE or Raytheon should it pursue a bid. Beyond the issue of political cover — which wouldn’t really carry much weight given how relentless Boeing supporters have been in painting EADS as a dark foreign force threatening American jobs and security — many of us believed that EADS North America lacked some of the necessary corporate security mechanisms and needed to piggyback on a larger American firm with black corporate infrastructure.


I checked around and EADS North America does operate under a Special Security Agreement and so can take on some classified work. However, it does not, as far as I can find out, have a proxy or voting trust agreement setup, which more rigorously separates a foreign parent from its American subsidiary. A proxy means that a company has been set up as a U.S. company that is legally and bureaucratically independent from its foreign parent. SSA companies can be granted access to highly classified information but it requires a judgment by the contracting authority, while a proxy company will include clearance as an assumption of its creation. They are harder to set up and create much greater operational barriers between the U.S. company and the foreign parent or foreign investors. So EADS North America can probably handle any classified work on the tanker, but if ELINT and SIGINT systems are included it may face some obstacles in getting cleared for that work. That may be one of the reasons for the talks with L-3, which does heaps of the most highly classified work.

UPDATE — Turns out EADS NA does have a proxy called EADS North America Defense Security and Systems Solutions. It handles information assurance work for the Air Force. I haven’t been able to find out yet if it could handle other types of work. UPDATE ENDS

Meanwhile, EADS North America is looking to add suppliers that augment its capabilities with best in class skills, such as engines, avionics, hose and drogue systems, etc. The word we are hearing is that the capabilities of suppliers is more important than security clearances but we’ll have to get more information about this before making any hard and fast judgments.

So far, EADS has nearly 200 companies that would get some kind of direct or indirect work share on a tanker program. As they delve deeper into the RFP, we can expect EADS will identify areas where adding a supplier will help them gain expertise relatively painlessly.

Join the Conversation

“Beyond the issue of political cover — which wouldn’t really carry much weight given how relentless Boeing supporters have been in painting EADS as a dark foreign force threatening American jobs and security —”

Yep, it don’t carry much weight at all–except when the time comes to vote on the Appropriations Bill to pay for it. But, let’s ignore that small detail for now.

Why doesn’t Eads just get everything in order to bid on the next round of tankers? They need about 600 of them eventually?

EADS needs the cash now. They run a giant Ponci scheme and are at the end of their rope. They can’t fund their 350 program without a cash infusion from the Tanker program.

There’s a lovely anti-european bias in this tanker bid. If you guys don’t want to give a European company a chance lets stop US sales to Europe in return, but remember that the US sells far more to Europe than vice versa. We’d be quite happy not to buy F-16/F-18/C-130/C-17/various armoured vehicles/M4 rifles/radio and whatever else sold to us; might be better to buy home grown products.

Also you can stop using our bases including Ascencion Island and Diego Garcia.

Enough of the rant, we’re meant to be allies, lets act as such; the chinese and Russians think this is quite funny.

“Europe” as opposed to the “airbus countries”. Aside from the UK, none of the airbus countries buys U.S. defensive systems in a big way. The French passed on a chance to improve the two way street by buying C-17s or C-130s as an interim fix for the A400M debacle; instead they opted to purchase some little planes from CASA, a division of EADS, instead. Germany? Spain? They will only purchase from the U.S. if they cannot provide it themselves.

Frankly, that’s smart. We seem to be the ones intent on gutting our aerospace sector.

So you’re a Brit? How many F-16s and F-18s does the RAF/RAN fly now?

Please substitute “RN” for “RAN”.

The Boeing bid also contained a percentage of foreign (allied) parts. The percentage of allied parts in the two planes is very close. Airbus is just more visible. The plane would have been built in Mobile Al. With support companies all along the coast from Pensacola Florida to Pascagoula Ms. Foreign companies (our European Allies)who would have contributed had already looked into building operations in these states. It costs millions to set up these bids. Before this round of bids information on the previous bid was released showing Northrop Grumman’s hand and giving them a major disadvantage in the next bidding process. This plane was to be built here! The media did no investigations, they ran with what they think they knew and everyone believed it. A bid made and awarded in good faith was canceled. How unfair!

“This plane was to be built here!“
No, it was to be assembled here. The majority of the manufacturing for the airframe is in Europe, e.g., the wings are manufactured in the UK.

The bid was overturned by the GAO because the USAF did not follow its own award criteria.

It is always embarrassing to read these posts and hear all the BS about where airplanes are made and what percentage of the airplane is made where – bla, bla, bla!!! For once the Unions and the Suites agree on something.

Just once I would like to hear someone write something intelligent about what is best for the war fighter!!! Just once, anyone?

Coronet, where they are made and by whom is very important. If Boeing loses this “competition”, then they are out of the tanker business. The industrial base atrophies; the warfighter, and our nation, must depend on a foreign source for an essential element of power projection: aerial refueling tankers. And as we saw a few years back, these countries don’t always agree with our foreign policy moves. Should we be held hostage to their political whims?

Now tell me, what’s best for the warfighter in this case?

Views on a Bush war versus quality of the equipment for our warfighters? I am puzzled by your argument.

*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

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.