backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 122 comment(s) - last by ikkeman.. on Mar 5 at 11:39 AM

Northrop Grumman/EADS were awarded a $35B contract for 179 aircraft  (Source: Northrop Grumman)

  (Source: Northrop Grumman)
Boeing loses out to Airbus in next generation Air Force tanker contract

DailyTech reported last year that EADS' Airbus division was seen as a candidate to supply airframes to replace the existing C5 Galaxy cargo planes and the Boeing 747-200B (VC-25A) used as Air Force One. Many discounted the possibility of foreign interests supplying airframes to the Air Force given the overwhelming lobbying presence to keep jobs and production on American soil.

While we still don't know the outcome for the C5 Galaxy/VC25A replacements, the U.S. Air Force shocked many on Friday when it announced that Northrop Grumman and EADS were awarded a $35B contract to produce 179 tanker aircraft.

Northrop Grumman/EADS long battled with Boeing in the KC-X tanker program, with many analysts and industry insiders reporting that the former had little chance in winning out to the hometown favorite. In the end, Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte simply said that the larger, modified A330 provided by Airbus offered "more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

According to defense analyst Loren Thompson, Boeing will have little chance in reversing the decision as the Airbus plane "seemed markedly superior" to the Air Force.

The Airbus A330-based aircraft will be called the KC-45 and will replace 531 KC-135 aircraft which date back to the 1950s. The main structures for the aircraft including the body and wings will be manufactured in Europe by Airbus. Final assembly and militarization of the aircraft will be undertaken by Northrop Grumman in Mobile, Alabama.

Not surprisingly, reaction from many in Congress came swiftly and fiercely. "It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Kansas senator Sam Brownback. "We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. I can't believe we would create French [and British] jobs in place of Kansas jobs," added Todd Tiahrt, a congressman from Kansas.

Patty Murray, a senior senator from Washington, also expressed her displeasure with the Northrop Grumman/EADA decision. "We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military. At a time when our economy is hurting, this decision to outsource our tankers is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America's military."

Northrop Grumman/EADS won the first of three stages for the $100B Air Force tanker program which calls for 500 aircraft. With Northrop Grumman/EADS having won the first stage, it has the inside track in securing the final two stages of the program.

Boeing has 100 days to appeal the decision. "Once we have reviewed the details behind the award, we will make a decision concerning our possible options," said Boeing in a statement.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
all i can say is...
By judasmachine on 3/3/2008 10:06:48 AM , Rating: 5
Boeing should have bucked up and made a better plane.




RE: all i can say is...
By othercents on 3/3/2008 10:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
I can't say that the Airbus is a superior plane, but it is a much larger airframe which is exactly what the Air Force needs. Boeing is probably running computer generated designs right now on a larger airframe to see how quickly they can produce one.

I wonder how quickly the Air Force can expect delivery of the first airframe. I am guessing that the airframe won't have the same time issues that the Airbus has been having with their completed systems.

Other


RE: all i can say is...
By stburke on 3/3/2008 11:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
Boeing could have offeered a larger varient of the 767, such as the -300ER model but it's just a longer frame with a slightly larger MTOW. The only other option would be the 767-400 which would be too heavy to viably carry enough fuel. I guess the could have offered a 777 variety, but that would be too large. A 787, you would have to wait at least untill ~2020. The A330-300 was the right choice


RE: all i can say is...
By judasmachine on 3/3/2008 1:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they were in competition to make a new plane for this purpose, not selecting from existing airframes. Not that it changes my position. If the AF wanted a bigger plane, then it would appear they made the right decision.


RE: all i can say is...
By CubicleDilbert on 3/3/2008 3:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
Starting a new plane from scratch takes about 10 years in average. And the 787 has not even made a little hop on the tarmac yet. (And probably will not for another 1-2 years :-)

So the USAF needs a solution NOW and not in 10 years.


RE: all i can say is...
By eye smite on 3/3/2008 10:24:45 PM , Rating: 3
The KC-11 would have been a good solution as the KC10 has been an excellent tanker. Since Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, they have all the plans for that aircraft. I find it humorous that congressmen are put out by this outsourcing since they haven't cared before now about all the jobs going overseas. Someone needs to grab the reigns up there and take control of this outsourcing garbage.


RE: all i can say is...
By Solandri on 3/4/2008 1:30:01 AM , Rating: 1
The MD-11 suffers from high wing loading (i.e. small surface area for amount of lift generated). This leads to long and/or fast takeoff and landing speeds. There have already been several MD-11 crashes (including two FedEx planes) due to hitting the runway at excessive speed on landing. It's not exactly a trait you want from a plane which may be forced to operate off of short or substandard runways.

And previous outsourcing mostly happened during economic booms. Now that we're in a recession, voters are hyper-sensitive to the domestic job market.


RE: all i can say is...
By pmonti80 on 3/3/2008 12:19:00 PM , Rating: 4
This is good for Boeing on the long term, because next time they will try to build a better plane, wich is good for everyone.


RE: all i can say is...
By ikkeman on 3/3/2008 2:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Boeing should have bucked up and made a better plane.


Boeing did - try. They took parts of several 767 variants (wing from -300?, fuselage from -200? (not sure about what from where, doesn't matter for my point) and added new engines to get it into competative shape. it didn't win

not only is the 767 smaller than the 330, the fact that boeing needed to put together a new combination of parts meant there was a large risk of production trouble (like with the 787 - parts not fitting, wrong fastners on joining parts) The lower risk in the northrop offer was one of the top 3 reasons for choosing it


Biased
By MaximillianSterling on 3/3/2008 12:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
My brother flies KC-135s based on the original 1950s Boeing 707 airframe. The things are dangerous pieces of crap. Granted much of the danger comes from being 50 years old, but that's beside the point. There is a chance he will still be flying tankers when the new ones are put into service. Personally, I want him flying the safest, most reliable plane. So I whole-heartedly support the Air Force's decision. Yes, it's a pretty biased opinion, but there it is.




RE: Biased
By TerranMagistrate on 3/3/2008 12:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
I want him flying the safest, most reliable plane.

I doubt the decision had anything to do with which company had the more reliable tanker. Boeing is the industry leader in commercial jets especially when considering the 787 so chances are that Boeing does build the safest, most reliable plane.

And yes, Pratt and Whitney is superior to Rolls Royce so the powerplant of the Boeing jet would be better.

Clearly these points were not what the USAF was focusing on when they made this questionable decision.


RE: Biased
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/3/2008 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly these points were not what the USAF was focusing on when they made this questionable decision.

Correct. Those were minor background checks. Did they comply with all the standard safety standards and regulations? Yes. Was safety a key point of this contract? Hell no.

Key points were based around how much better it would be as a tanker. The 330 is a better tanker.


RE: Biased
By Amiga500 on 3/3/2008 1:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
The KC-45 will be using General Electric engines (upgraded CF6 for anyone that cares).


RE: Biased
By MaximillianSterling on 3/3/2008 1:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what you're talking about. The article quotes the general saying that the A330 solution has "more availability, more flexibility and more dependability." That would mean it's safer. You're saying he's lying?


RE: Biased
By Calin on 3/4/2008 5:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
No, that doesn't mean it's safer.
More availability?
On a short timescale, can take its fuel load farther, and can stay longer on station.
On a long timescale, preventive maintenance takes less time, and repairing expected problems also takes less time (or less personnel, or there is a commonality with other planes, so it is easy to train every mechanic for every plane).
More flexibility? It can carry cargo, fuel, troops (on chairs), wounded on stretchers, can refuel all the planes and helicopters used by the US services (military, coast guard, national reserve).
More dependability: when it's flying, it's flying without problems - and when problems will appear, 10 or 40 years from now (look at the life span of the actual tanker, KC-135) there will be stocks of parts to repair them.


RE: Biased
By blowfish on 3/4/2008 9:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
Boeing managed to cover up the rudder problems on the 737, despite numerous crashes. There are still 737's flying that have yet to have the replacement parts fitted.

Next time you fly in an Airbus, look out over the wing - no vortex generators necessary. Compare that with Boeing.

The Grumman/EADS tanker will have US engines, but I guess you didn't notice that. The US contribution to the contract value will be 58%. I wonder what the figure would be for the Boeing alternative? You know they outsource a certain amount of work on their planes.

I don't think the military could have stated their preference any clearer - the Grumman/EADS will carry "more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."


RE: Biased
By Spazmodian on 3/3/2008 5:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
The KC135 is one of the most reliable and dependable aircraft in the Air Force inventory. They are not dangerous pieces of crap.


RE: Biased
By Calin on 3/4/2008 5:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
A 50 years old plane is a dangerous piece of crap, at least compared to a new one built by the same specifications.
While a new production of KC-135 would create again those most reliable and dependable aircrafts, the Air Force has new requirements that the KC-135 might not be the best airframe to fulfill (internal volume, cargo capacity, troop transport capability, time on station, range, ...)


RE: Biased
By Spazmodian on 3/4/2008 11:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Simply because the airframe was designed 50 years ago doens't mean it is a dangerous piece of crap now. You want a piece of crap airframe? The C5 blows. The KC135 is superior to the C5 by leaps and bounds. The C5 is a newer airframe.

As far as capabilities go...you underestimate what the KC135 offers. It is the most efficient and one of the fastest cargo aircraft the AF has. A KC135 will get from point A to point B faster and using less fuel than a C17, KC10, C5, C130... By building a bloated airframe that's a swiss army knife you lose that advantage. Most of the booms I know wanted the Boeing, because it does AR better...that means it's the best choice to do the job.


RE: Biased
By ikkeman on 3/5/2008 11:39:21 AM , Rating: 1
if it is true that a 707 based, 50yo transport is more efficient than a 20yo (boeing) C17, I guess I just found another reason for the airforce to not choose boeing. I thay cant improve fuel efficiency over 30 years - they deserve to get spanked.

as for your last point. How many of those booms actually tried the airbus???