We’re Cheaper, EADS Says

We’re Cheaper, EADS Says

UPDATED: EADS Refueling Video

The EADS tanker boasts substantially lower costs per gallon of fuel delivered because its planes can offload fuel at a higher rate and can carry more fuel than Boeing’s planes can.

Those were the basic arguments offered by EADS NA board chairman Ralph Crosby this morning at the Air Force Association’s annual conference. Crosby also said his company could adjust its bid price at any point, just as Boeing has said it might do.


EADS also boasted that its tanker refueled another tanker at the full rate of 1,200 gallons per minute in a recent exercise. “Our tanker has proven that it can refuel other aircraft at a rate of 1,200 gallons per minute, which is a critical requirement the Air Force has set forth for its tanker,” Crosby told reporters this morning.

The A330 tankers were completing certification flights for the Royal Australian Air Force. Crosby said the Australian planes are 95 percent common with the planes that it would build in Alabama if it wins the tanker contract. And that shows how low the risk levels are for an EADS-built tanker since his company has already built planes and demonstrated its abilities to do what the U.S. wants its new tankers to do.

One question Crosby did not answer was how long it would take to build its manufacturing plant in Alabama and what level of risk that entailed, in contrast to Boeing which has a 767 plant in place, though few planes are being built on it. That information, he said, was competition sensitive. He did point out that Boeing bore a $2 billion cost burden in the last tanker competition. Boeing, of course, argues its plane, being smaller, will cost much less in life cycle costs because it won’t require new hangars, longer runways and other military construction costs.

Join the Conversation

“… its planes can offload fuel at a higher rate and can carry more fuel than Boeing’s planes can.”

Did anyone ask Mr. Crosby to explain the fact that all that capacity is seldom needed? Quite often, much smaller KC-135s land with fuel on board.

Yes they always do, you expect them to glide home ?

Just award the contract to Boeing, taking care of American workers and lets move on!

Yeah, to hell with which aircraft has more capability for the end user, as long as the workers are protected, right?

Yes.

Not to mention that the KC-10 boom which the KC-767GN boom is based on can offload 1500 gal/min…

With the remark of the 1200 gallons/minute they only fullfill the needs set by the Airforce (wether or not it is used in real life). That part of the discussions is less interesting.

What I find interesting (and looking for an answer) are the hidden costs:
“Boeing, of course, argues its plane, being smaller, will cost much less in life cycle costs because it won’t require new hangars, longer runways and other military construction costs.”

If that is true this must be put taken into account!! (but if the Air Force was planning this anyway, then off course not). I hope they keep the big picture in mind when they choose the plane.

How many receiver aircraft can take fuel at 1200 gallons/minute? Perhaps EADS should bid an A380? That would lower the costs of carrying all that fuel around in the larger airframe, right?

Enter text right here! Boeing should win Air Tanker Contract period!!!

First, the U.S. government should not allow foreign companies to supply these important systems for the U.S. Military.

Secondly, “liberal” free trade ideology has already brought to America an official 10% unemployment rate or 15 million people (unofficially it’s more like 17% or 26 million citizens). The U.S. should be protecting the military industrial complex from any further erosion and unemployment.

Third, the DOD will soon be cutting the defense budget bigtime. Lets buy American!

U.S.A. All The Way! JMN

And if the criteria was §/lb of fuel, Boeing could have bid a 747-8T. Once you are past enough, everything else is excess. There is no enough, enougher, enoughest.

The alternate criteria were based upon the arguments that EADS is spitting out now. It is the same stuff that the airforce bought into, changed requirements in midstream, and the gao shot the criteria down.

I got a better idea, have Boeing build the entire airframe in the USA, do not use China, Japan or anyone in Europe to build these parts. Now I wonder how much it would cost to build the tanker.

All of you above me constantly crying about EADS remember Boeing outsources a lot of the airframe to foreign companies.

To you JMN only way to BUY American is to have Americans COMPLETELY make the product.

Even though I am a Canadian… I think the tanker decision should be quick and simple..just let Boeing build them. Every way you look at it…Job protection…tax $ spending at home…proven air craft.…national supply security..manufacturing infrastructure…etc etc points to Boeing. What the hell are those guys at the Pentagon thinking.…they must be consuming alcoholic beverages at high attitude when they are going thru the pros and cons!!!!!

The US military already has numerous contracts with EADS for several differnent items.…I.E. defense type aircraft and /or systems.…the “Tanker” is a flying gas station and nothing more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boeing DOES NOT have a proven A/C flying…EADS does.…yes ladies and gentlemen a real aircraft exist today and not on paper as is the case with the Boeing A/C.

Part 1:
IMHO, it’s ironic the USAF/Navy recognize emerging Pacific theater needs requiring an AirSea Battle solution, but don’t appear to acknowledge that PACOM and its new threats completely alter aerial refueling requirements. Longer distances and lack of safe closer ramp areas due to threat missiles means more fuel must travel more distance to reach wartime anchors/legs for aerial refueling. Carriers also will be farther from targets thus exponentially increasing aerial refueling requirements.

Add new capabilities to refuel one tanker with another, and former average offloads and return-to-base quantity stats are meaningless. Before returning to base, tankers will simply refill newly arriving or on-station tankers. Also relevant is that more aircraft with greater offloadable fuel will be essential but unavailable for decades until costly KC-Ys are produced in quantity.

ONLY ~30% of the 767 airframe are built oversees, components like control surfaces, doors, skins & such.

In terms of costs, after initial startup (which Boeing is perfectly capable of doing within the time frame for delivery of the 1st KC-X) & assuming a cost difference for the ‘new US manufactured parts of say ~30–50%, somewhere around ~$10–20 million more.

There ARE currently KC-767 tankers in service with more than one service (both new build & conversions) but ZERO KC-30s. The changes necessary to make the closest KC-30 to being in service (the Australian KC-30 — which it appears will finally ‘enter service’ about the same time as the Italian KC-767s) meet KC-X requirements are MUCH greater than you want everyone to believe and the differences between the IN SERVICE KC-767s & the KC-767NG (aside for the VERY SAME KC-X SPECIFIC SYSTEMS NECESAARY FOR THE KC-30) are MUCH lesser than you want everyone to believe.

The USAF has been doing just fine in the Pacific theater for 5+ decades with the KC-135. Besides, greater offload (distance &/or quantity) are what the KC-Y is for and since you so ignorantly (or deliberately) ignore we DO have the KC-10s. Not to mention that the KC-767AT/NG can offload >25,000 lbs of fuel @ a given range OR offload as much fuel @ >500nm greater range than the KC-135R (which DO NOT need replaced duel to lack of fuel offload capacity)…

No, the best solution is either the KC-767 or (if you can get the USAF to lessen or drop the emphasis on airlift capability) something even smaller/lighter (for the VAST MAJORITY of refueling sorties, 75,000 lbs fuel offload @ 1000nm is more that sufficient) for KC-X and either 777-200x or A350-800x [with –900 MTOW] for KC-Y. The KC-30 is simply a poor tanker fot the US. It is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 but with 110,000 lbs LESS fuel capacity. In fact it is BIGGER & HEAVIER than ALL USAF aircraft except for the C-5s & a handful of specialize 747-based aircraft. It is nearly as big (& with similar ACN) as the 777–200 & A350-800 but with a payload (fuel/weight) closer to that of the 767-200ER.

The comparatively poor payload (fuel/weight) of the KC-30 (for its size/weight/operating cost) the US would STILL need a true ‘large tanker’ for KC-Y. And splitting the KC-X between the KC-767 & KC-30 would GREATLY INCREASE costs & actually result is lesser capability vs a KC-767 + 777-200x or A350-800x.

What you are looking at in the future is a KC aircraft, that due to the missile threat, must take off in Guam (also dangerous and crowded), or Hawaii, or Alaska, or north Australia, or Diego Garcia and fly for hours before linking up to refuel others. It is indisputable that a KC-30:

* can offload more fuel after those hours of transit than any KC-135R or similar capacity KC-767
* costs far less and burns far less fuel than any 777 which requires more ramp and hangar space than a KC-30
* can top off any KC-767 or KC-30 on station providing limitless fuel for those aircraft that simply then carry extra crews allowing refueling of far more aircraft than any single load KC-10

It is analogous to the difference between a 30 and 15 year mortgage. Pay a little more now to save a whole lot more later…and create an entirely new aeronautical belt creating long term jobs in the process. Talk about an effective stimulus!

Like I said, U.S.A. All The Way!

Make as much as we can on our own.

Liberal free trade has been a disaster.

JMN

Hey Andrew , where do you work? Any competition from foreign company’s? Or are you one of those that argues globalization and the benefits of it are more important then a few American jobs? The only people I know making that argument are selling Slurpees at 7–11 where the only competition is the Bodaga down the street!

CREDIBLE ‘anti-ship ballistic missiles still do not exist AND have you ever heard of SM-3…

Carriers can STILL launch aircraft from the same distances they have for 5 decades.

We STILL park KC-135s in Japan.

The KC-135 have done the job without the ability to ‘top off’ fellow tankers.

The KC-10 will CONTINUE to do the ‘large tanker’ jobs until they are replaced by the KC-Y.

It make a HUGE difference if you need more hanger space for the 179 KC-X IN ADDITION TO the ~108 (IIRC) KC-Y.

The KC-767 (which is more than enough tanker for KC-X) will burn significantly less fuel than the KC-30 at a fraction of the total lifetime cost.

There are very important reasons why the USAF has chosen it future tanker fleet to consist of ~2/3 ‘medium’ & ~1/3 ‘large’ tankers (capability not actual numbers — which are to be ~350 ‘medium’ + ~100 ‘large’) representing the eqivalent of 600 KC-135R.

The 777-200ER can carry up to ~350,000 of payload (fuel/weight) & the 777-200LR up to ~450,000 lbs…a significant increase over the ~245,000 lbs of the A330-200.

ALL THREE tanker solicitations thus far tell a very different story.

Stop trying so despirately to alter reality to fit the KC-30 & accept that the KC-30 does not fit.

Credible ASBM will exist during the life of KC-X and KC-Y…and ASBM likely will be exported and fielded in numbers too numerous and with countermeasures for limited missile defense. It would be unwise to continue operating so close to threats able to take out a carrier, amphibious ships, or large TAK, or to park new KC aircraft in Japan in any numbers, just as it would be less than prudent to park F-22s there. Even if missile defenses killed many missiles they would not get them all and runways would be unusable for surviving KC-X.

Ability to top off fellow tankers is a positive and a gamechanger only if sufficient fuel is available to refuel fighters/bombers/C-17s and still have some left to transfer to inbound tankers after flying 1500+ miles each way to the anchor/leg. Your historical figures are meaningless in that context with OEF historical figures coming the closest. Too few KC-10 exist to do the job in such a future PACOM environment unless augmented by something like KC-30s until KC-Y exists. Given a fielded KC-30, the USAF also could buy just 60 KC-Y to replace the 60 KC-10, and they could be unmanned aircraft.

A hangar holds just one plane whether it is a KC-30 or KC-10 or KC-Y…same hangar and runways can handle all. Fuel consumption for KC-30 is far closer to the KC-767 than the KC-10/KC-777 and isn’t unreasonable when factoring in that three KC-30 offload and burn similar fuel to four KC-767 flying 1500+ miles…typical PACOM distances. And we have yet to address how KC-30 would save on C-17 fuel and maintenance expense carrying cargo.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!

THE KC-767 FITS IN CURRENT HANGERS!!! THE KC30 DOES NOT!!!

The KC-30 is BIGGER & HEAVIER than ALL USAF aircraft except for the C-5s & a handful of specalized 747-based platforms. It is a big airplane with comparatively littile payload (fuel/weight).

And guess what, the KC-767 can carry as many pallets as a C-17.

Again, KC-X is a MEDIUM TANKER to replace KC-135s.

pfcem you afriad that if EADS wins your Boeing stock will Tank??? The Air Force should have said give me your best Airframe price, then a-la-cart all the other equipment they wanted and then have both companies bid to that.

Let just make a decision and move on, now you know why military equipment cost so much, all the delays and BS

I have no sigificant holdings in Boeing stock.

A-La-Cart would never work. Systems development & integration is difficult enough as it is.

CONGRESS is as much at fault for the tanker fiasco as the USAF.

Hey Keith EADS AIRBUS make the tail section for the 787, also did you know that the 787 for the first time ever the wing was designed by the Japanese? Yeah I got laid off so Boeing could send that work to Japan. So those people in Alabama that could be going to work are foreign people too Right? You want to tell me how Boeing is All American? Get real get the KC-45 from EADS

You are really off kilter. Face it EADS will have the superior tanker no matter what the political folks do…sadly the Airmen and women will not get the best and the taxpayer will get to continue to subsadize Boeing

Last I checked Boeing is not even close to a ALL AMERICAN company. Get back to Earth and out of fantasy land and realize there are no ALL AMERICAN companies. Heck Bill Clinton as POTUS allowed our top secrets to be sold to China.

Boeing is a publicly traded company with many ‘non-American’ stockholders. BUT Boeing was founded in the US, its corporate headquarters is in the US (moved to Chicago from Seattle in 2001), its major manufacturing plants are in the US, et cetera…

*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