Psst, Congress! KC-X Award Thursday?

William C. February 22nd, 2011 at 5:49 pm

Hi Colin, I wasn’t aware of this conventional Wisdom that EADS NA is going to be the winner. Can you spare any more details?

symbolicalhead February 22nd, 2011 at 8:12 pm

The biggest public signal was Dr. Thompson’s strong hinting that direction in Forbes a couple of weeks ago: http://​blogs​.forbes​.com/​b​e​l​t​w​a​y​/​2​0​1​1​/​0​1​/​3​1​/​a​i​r​-fo…

(HT: Bill Sweetman)

Gray Eagle February 23rd, 2011 at 2:37 am

If you are a fighter or bomber pilot — - or a planner for combat or long-range redeployment missions, the primary requirement for a tanker is reliability to achieve the ” Maximum Offload at the Optimum Point” — - — and NOT who built the tanker. .

outside observer February 23rd, 2011 at 8:05 am

The economics are interesting: build a new untested plane, build a brand new assembly line, train or import a whole assembly line and staff. Whereas boeing has the experience and staff and infrastructure in place with proven technology. Nothing revolutionary being built here, this is no osprey, proven performance, better economics equals better value and safer investment correct?

jack February 23rd, 2011 at 10:22 am

I wonder how the shell game corporate structure of EADS NA-EADS EU-Airbus (and Northrop for the token American presence??) would actually post a profit on this other than a ton of cost overuns or high markup. Build and design components of the plane in various parts of Germany and France and other EU countries, ship to Alabama for final assembly?? Does not seem cost effective.

What are the strategic implications of this? Become dependent on Airbus-EADs for this tanker for the long term? Hurt US aerospace longterm R&D and investment? Further help tax base and investment of Europe Aerospace? Boeing won’t go down without a fight anyhow if EADS is “locked in” as believed or the passive-aggressive acquisition selection process of avoiding any conflict since the perception of Boeing and the Air Force has been hurt due to previous screw ups. Either way, EADS might go to the WTO for an American defense contract dispute — or cry to père or vater to some EU ministry. It’s not like Europe does not subsidize Airbus-EADS anyways.

This thing has denial of service via litigation written all over it from all sides.

Jeff February 23rd, 2011 at 11:09 am

The 767 is just under 30 years old and the 330 is about 20 years old. Both have seen updates to their original designs, I don’t know if 10 years is enough to call it “a generation behind.”

My concern with a yet to be tested and built design there is more uncertainty with delivery and service dates. So while Boeing may have relied on pulling parts off the shelf that means it would be done quicker and at this point I think that should be a significant goal.

767 vs 330, is just a matter of bad timing for Boeing. If this were happening a year or two further from now they’d have better luck proposing the 787 as an airframe since thats their intended modern competitor with the 330. Boeings failure here was in attempting to levarage the 767’s established production lines to save costs. I’m betting if EADs wins, we’ll see delays and a cost that balloons, since neither sides really left time and money for problems that might arise; Boeing could rely on experiance to mitigate that, EADs not so much.

harvey123 February 23rd, 2011 at 11:43 am

very short-sighted. I don’t disagree that it will benefit americans by bringing jobs but long term we have to realize that we are goin to be subject to the whims of a foreign power when it comes to the aircraft. Yes, the aircraft may be assembled here but its components (wings, landing gear etc) are going to come from airbus facilities in europe. So what happens if we go to war with a country and france disapproves? Well they could refuse to export needed components so that our tanker line would shut down (do NOT FOR A SECOND think that they wouldn’t do this– we have done it before and so have they. Not to mention they havent been afraid of throwing their weight around when it comes to decisions by the u.s. that they disapprove of).

To those who say they are going to start to use U.S. suppliers on components (that are european based– i know they have U.S. built components in them already) you have to realize that such a move would mean a redesign of the aircraft– leading to higher costs– its not goin to happen. The fuselage, the wings, the nose.…all of those will be fabricated in europe and shipped to america where they will be assembled into the final product. THATS IT.

asdf February 23rd, 2011 at 11:50 am

no way
if not for anything else, they are the most skillfull to do work on a new navy fighter. or what else is there? rafale, sukhoi? :lol:

asdf February 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 am

initial testing was done with the australian birds or the UK ones, i suppose.

harvey123 February 23rd, 2011 at 2:25 pm

BAE is a different story– unlike EADS which is getting its foot in the door with winning contracts– BAE acquired smaller companies and made them subdivisions. BAE land systems (united defense before the take over) is actually an american company with its facilities in the U.S.). EADS on the other hand didn’t buy out anyone to gain entry to the market place– and their primary facilities are in europe

Also EADS NA is still a subsect of EADS-EU. BAE land systmes and other BAE american subsects are actually a much greater part of the entire BAE

Lance February 23rd, 2011 at 3:35 pm

No one know of who wins this this is bullcrap on the post that EAD will win. Any one can win Boeing has many powerful senators backing it remember that congress controls the military.

Anonymous February 23rd, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Didn’t Boeing just get a big, unsolicited boost of F-18’s? They’ll be building military aircraft for quite a while.

harvey123 February 23rd, 2011 at 4:06 pm

thats not really true. an SSA is in regards to a foreign company purchasing an american defense company. It doesnt apply to a foreign defense company that opens up a U.S. division. Thats why BAE and EADS are different, BAE acquired american companies therefore SSA applies, EADS opened up a new division so it doesnt apply to them.

James February 23rd, 2011 at 4:08 pm

EADSNA to the best of my knowkedge, has an SSA. otherwise it could not have participated in the bid.

asdf February 23rd, 2011 at 4:10 pm

and 787 is not a tanker plane. there is A LOT of uncertanity in the design, not to mention that the lightning protection is worse (or more prone to error at least) and crashworthiness is also worse (combustion of the skin).
and since the parts of the barrel are from one piece, it’s more difficult to strengthen it (or not) or repair it.

Anonymous February 23rd, 2011 at 4:13 pm

A protectionist one.…. It undermines the greatest benefit of a capitalist economy, competition. Competition results in the best product at the best price for the customer. DoD is one of the biggest violators with billions of dollars in “sole source” contracts. If the warfighter always comes first, then as the ultimate customer, everything should be born out of competition rather than subsidizing inferior products through “sole source” acquisitions.

Oblat February 24th, 2011 at 4:13 am

And the US taxpayer is paying for that how ?

outside observer February 24th, 2011 at 8:48 am

Helicopter analogy i weak. Last I checked, a large jet with parts imported from various parts of europe, since eads must protect jobs back home as a condition of its subsidies, is not a similar manufacturing and logistical process.

CW3 Pookey February 24th, 2011 at 11:02 am

Too bad the tail sections fall off the Airbus made aircraft.…..with all that fuel on board it should burn for days!

asdf February 24th, 2011 at 12:54 pm

the boeing got the ifara model for the airbus (the boeing one is worthless to the airbus), which means they have a good guess, how much they can lower their price to still compete.

afwife February 24th, 2011 at 1:14 pm

I don’t care who makes it as long as it is safer than the 135’s they are flying now. They are old, unreliable and UNSAFE.….As the wife of a pilot who flies them I just want it done already!!

asdf February 24th, 2011 at 3:00 pm

good one.

TROJANII February 24th, 2011 at 3:58 pm

From what I have read, whoever wins, about 50,000 jobs wil be added.

TROJANII February 24th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Um, military does not get furloughed.

TROJANII February 24th, 2011 at 6:16 pm

And, Boeing wins according to MSNBC.

pfcem February 24th, 2011 at 10:10 pm

C-17
length: 173′ 11″
wingspan: 170′ 9″

KC-10
length: 181′ 7″
wingspan: 165′ 4″

KC-30
length: 193′
wingspan: 197′ 10″

pfcem February 25th, 2011 at 11:47 pm

C-17
ACN with 246,000 lb payload
F: 44.1 — 49.5 — 59.3 — 78.0
R: 45.2 — 44.3 — 47.4 — 57.4
ACN @ peacetime MTOW (585,000 lbs)
F: 50.4 — 57.0 — 68.5 — 90.2
R: 51.6 — 49.6 — 54.1 — 66.2

KC-10
ACN with 246,000 lb payload
F: 47.0 — 51.2 — 60.6 — 81.5
R: 40.2 — 47.4 — 56.4 — 64.7
ACN @ peacetime MTOW (585,000 lbs)
F: 58.5 — 64.2 — 76.8 — 104.4
R: 49.6 — 59.3 — 71.2 — 81.7

KC-30
ACN @MTOW (246,000 lb payload)
F: 61.5 — 66.7 — 77.7 — 105.1
R: 52.2 — 61.1 — 72.4 — 83.6

ga March 30th, 2013 at 7:30 am