The website and forum will be intermittently unavailable while we're making some security updates.
File uploads to the download hangar are also disabled until further notice.

Airbus Build in the USA! The Tanker Wars Continue

Have a story, topic or report on what's really happening in the world's militaries? Talk about it here.
User avatar
GZR_Sactargets
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 984
Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
Version: FS9
Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)

Airbus Build in the USA! The Tanker Wars Continue

Post by GZR_Sactargets »

Upping the Ante: EADS North America publicly raised the stakes in the Air Force's KC-X tanker competition yesterday by announcing that it would build Airbus A330 civilian freighter aircraft in Mobile Ala., in addition to USAF KC-30 tankers, if it and teammate Northrop Grumman prevail in the KC-X contest. The company thus held out the added bone of additional high-skilled jobs and long-term economic growth for the state and the American South. "Today's announcement is a historic opportunity for Airbus, EADS, and for the US aerospace industry," said Thomas Enders, Airbus president and CEO. "Selection of the KC-30 by the US Air Force will not only provide the world's most capable military tanker, it also will result in the establishment of the first large commercial aircraft assembly facility in the US in over 40 years-and the first such Airbus assembly facility in the US."

Boeing, rival to Northrop Grumman and EADS in the KC-X competition, played down EADS's announcement about co-location of Airbus A330 freighter production at the KC-30 assembly plant. "Only the US Air Force can comment on how-or if-this 11th-hour Airbus/EADS announcement may impact their decision," said Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale. "It's important to note that moving an entire production line from France adds time and complexity to production. Whether or not the governments that control EADS will permit such a move remains to be seen, given those governments' apparent desire to keep the EADS tier one supplier base in Europe." Overall, said Barksdale, "we think this move simply highlights the inherent inefficiencies of their production approach relative to ours."

Flexibility: The move to co-locate Airbus A330 freighter production at the KC-30 assembly site (see above) calls for expansion of the Mobile, Ala., tanker production site by 20 percent and would create "at least" 300 additional positions on top of the 1,000 currently estimated for Air Force tanker production, EADS said yesterday. The expanded site would be capable of producing up to four aircraft per month and have the flexibility to support military and civil customers. Depending on when the Air Force chooses the KC-X winner, construction of the facility could begin in late 2008, EADS said. As part of Northrop Grumman's KC-30 team, EADS would be responsible for delivering flight-qualified aircraft to Northrop Grumman. The US aerospace giant would then take the aircraft and militarize them.

Dollars Saved at the Pump: As yet one more salvo in the war of words in the Air Force's KC-X tanker contest, Boeing said yesterday its 767 commercial airliner is "substantially more fuel efficient" than the larger Airbus A330 and issued a company-funded, yet "independent" study by Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information to prove its point. Using published data to calculate fuel consumption, Boeing said a fleet of 179 767s, the design upon which Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker is based, would burn "24 percent less fuel" than a fleet of Airbus A330-200 airplanes, the model from which the Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-30 derives, over a 40-year service life. This "would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs," Boeing said.


From AF Daily Report -15 Jan 08
GZR_SACTARGETS
User avatar
MIKE JG
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 10976
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 02:25
Version: MSFS

Post by MIKE JG »

And the games continue, I wish they would just pick one already so our guys can be that much closer to getting some better equipment to work with.
-Mike G.

Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.

Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
User avatar
nickblack423
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 2155
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:43
Version: FS9
Location: Ipswich, UK
Contact:

Post by nickblack423 »

Oh mate dont even get me started. The RAF's Tristars and VC-10s are so old and decrepid. They really needed replacing about 5 years ago, if not before but the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program and the expansion of Brize Norton to handle it, has been draggin along waiting for someone to make a decision as to which one to buy. The Aussies didnt hang around they just went out and bought one. The A330.

Nick
"Pain Heals......Chicks Dig Scars.....Glory, Lasts Forever!!!"
Image
Image
User avatar
SMOC
Captain
Captain
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 May 2007, 12:49

Post by SMOC »

What's really irritating about the issue with the USAF is that it's extremely likely they'll end up selecting the same aircraft they already selected a few years ago. I'd be very surprised if Airbus was selected.

Someone screwed the pooch in the '80s when they only bought some 50 KC-10 aircraft. Considering there are almost 500 KC-135 variants in the USAF I'm not sure how they thought 50 KC-10 would be an impressive augment.

It will be a sad day however when the venerable KC-135 is finally retired. Truly a beautiful and productive aircraft.
--Chris
Image
User avatar
GZR_Sactargets
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 984
Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
Version: FS9
Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)

Post by GZR_Sactargets »

It always happens when Congress gets involved. Someone's Ox gets gored and they see the loss of jobs(votes) and start meddling in what should be a straight-forward acquisition decision. No one seems to care about what is good for the country-just what gathers votes in their home state. (end of rant). :twisted:
GZR_SACTARGETS
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12112
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Post by Firebird »

nickblack423 wrote:Oh mate dont even get me started. The RAF's Tristars and VC-10s are so old and decrepid. They really needed replacing about 5 years ago, if not before but the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program and the expansion of Brize Norton to handle it, has been draggin along waiting for someone to make a decision as to which one to buy. The Aussies didnt hang around they just went out and bought one. The A330.
Nick
Nick, I thought that it had been officially announced mid '07 that 14x A330s were going to be leased. Did i imagine it or has something changed since then.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
User avatar
GZR_Sactargets
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 984
Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
Version: FS9
Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)

Post by GZR_Sactargets »

GZR_Sactargets wrote:It always happens when Congress gets involved. Someone's Ox gets gored and they see the loss of jobs(votes) and start meddling in what should be a straight-forward acquisition decision. No one seems to care about what is good for the country-just what gathers votes in their home state. (end of rant). :twisted:
The Reckoning: The Air Force faces "a political minefield" in choosing the winner of its $40 billion KC-X tanker contest, regardless of whether it opts for Boeing's KC-767 or Northrop Grumman's KC-30, writes Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. "If the Northrop plane wins," he states, "buy-America sentiment will surge on Capitol Hill, potentially blocking a purchase." Conversely, Thompson says, "If the Boeing plane wins, legislators from the South whose region stood to benefit from tanker assembly will seek to split the buy between both teams." Ultimately the Air Force will get its new tanker aircraft in the end, but "there is no guarantee," he writes, that the KC-X airplanes will reach the fleet before the Eisenhower-era KC-135s they will replace begin failing. USAF anticipates announcing the winner around February, but officials have said the service will not rush its decision.
From AF Daily Report 16 Jan 08
GZR_SACTARGETS
User avatar
wildcat
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 Sep 2006, 17:40
Version: FS9
Location: Grantham

Post by wildcat »

Steve, It's still the A300-200 or so the raf site says. Most will be rigged as two point tankers with a few set up as three point. They are even talking of leasing unused leased aircraft to third parties to make the mod some cash. Personally I think we should buy the ones the aussies did, then we can refuel anything.
Mick
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12112
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Post by Firebird »

Thanks for that, Mick.

Good to here from you again.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
User avatar
GZR_Sactargets
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 984
Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
Version: FS9
Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)

Post by GZR_Sactargets »

From the Early Bird- 1 March 08

Boeing Loses Big Air Force Deal

Northrop, European Firm to Make Tanker For Refueling; Value Is Up to $40 Billion

By August Cole

In a surprise, Northrop Grumman Corp. and the parent company of Europe's Airbus won a contract worth up to $40 billion to build the U.S. Air Force's next fleet of refueling tankers.

The Air Force's decision deals a major blow to Boeing Co., while giving Europe's largest aerospace company a landmark foothold in the U.S. military market.

Boeing was heavily favored to win the contract. It had been on the verge of sewing up a similar tanker deal in 2001, only to see it unravel after the revelation that a top Boeing official had conducted illegal job negotiations with an Air Force acquisition official who later joined the company. That thrust Boeing into a years-long ethics scandal, and the U.S. put the contract up for rebidding.

Besides being a strategic coup for Los Angeles-based Northrop, the victory is a personal vindication for Ronald Sugar, Northrop's chairman and chief executive. Mr. Sugar agonized for a long time before teaming up with European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., which owns Airbus. Northrop officials worried that the unprecedented alliance with a foreign company could antagonize officials inside the Pentagon and at other major U.S. defense contractors. Northrop is a big supplier to other U.S. aerospace firms.

From the beginning, EADS and Northrop officials felt they were underdogs in the competition. Some had said they hoped, at best, that the government would split its purchase between Boeing and Northrop. Even in the last few days, some of them tried to play down the chances of a win, talking instead about long-term opportunities to compete for a later batch of orders.

Boeing's backers in Congress immediately went on the offensive. "I am frustrated, angry and shocked at this announcement today," said Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state. She said she had just been talking to Boeing workers on the 767 tanker line in her state when the bad news came.

Air Force acquisitions official Sue Payton told a news conference that "Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government." Ms. Payton cited the Northrop-EADS plane's aerial refueling capabilities, its ability to haul cargo and its cost. She declined to go into details about why Boeing's proposal didn't win, but said "there was absolutely no bias in this award."

Under the contract, Northrop and EADS will build up to 179 tankers based on the Airbus A330 jetliner. The first planes are expected to enter service in 2013, replacing aircraft in the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135 tankers, many of which have been in service for more than 40 years. Eventually, the government expects to spend billions more dollars to replace more than 500 tankers.

At Boeing, the world's largest aerospace company, executives now must figure out why it lost one of the Air Force's premier contracts and how it will defend the rest of its military business. Boeing's top defense executive, Jim Albaugh, oversaw the company's bid.

Boeing said in a statement it was "very disappointed." After studying the move, the company "will make a decision concerning our possible options," the statement said.

The loss could hasten the shutdown of the Boeing 767 jetliner production line in Everett, Wash. After years of losing out in commercial competitions to the larger Airbus A330, Boeing decided to replace the 767 with the 787 Dreamliner, which is now in development and has received 857 orders. Although the company has received a few orders in the last few years from customers desperate for widebody planes, the backlog of unfilled orders for the 767 stands at 51, which equates to roughly two years of production at current rates. Meanwhile, problems with the 787 have made that program nine months late.

Few in the defense industry expect Friday's Air Force decision to stand without protest. Over the last couple of years, companies losing out on big contracts have increasingly filed protests, leading to delays as government officials review every aspect of the deals.

Lockheed Martin Corp. and United Technologies Corp.'s Sikorsky helicopter unit twice protested the Air Force's November 2006 decision to award Boeing a more than $10 billion contract to build search-and-rescue helicopters. After the Government Accountability Office sustained the protests, the Air Force in October asked for new bids. A winner is expected this summer.

A refueling tanker is an aircraft modified to carry large quantities of fuel that can be transferred in flight to smaller airplanes such as fighters, either through a pipe from the tail or from hoses that trail from pods on the tanker's wings.

The Northrop/EADS plane can carry 37,000 gallons of fuel, 7,000 more than Boeing's jet, as well as 220 people, 30 more than Boeing's. Northrop is the prime contractor on the plane, while EADS is the principal subcontractor.

Air Force officials said they have tried to minimize the chance of a successful protest by conducting the tanker competition as openly as possible and meeting on a regular basis with both competitors to eliminate surprises. "I can't stress enough what an incredibly open and transparent and rigorous source selection we have gone through," Ms. Payton said, adding that both competitors knew where they stood with the Pentagon at all times.

Northrop's Mr. Sugar said his tie-up with a European company shows that "this is in fact a global aerospace and defense industrial base."

The government had earlier planned to give Boeing a $23 billion contract for at least 100 tankers. That plan was shelved after the discovery of the illegal job negotiations by Darleen Druyun, then an Air Force acquisitions official with oversight over billions of dollars of Boeing contracts. Ms. Druyun and Boeing's former chief financial officer, Michael Sears, served time in federal prison.

Boeing's reputation was damaged further when the Pentagon learned that some Boeing employees improperly obtained thousands of proprietary documents from Lockheed Martin Corp. relating to a rocket contract. Boeing agreed to pay an unprecedented $615 million fine in May 2006 as part of a global settlement.

Sen. Murray told a gathering of Boeing suppliers in October that it would be a "huge mistake to select a foreign company for this contract," citing European government subsidies for EADS and Airbus. "The tanker contract isn't just one defense contract -- it's a key piece of our national and economic security," she said.

The Northrop and EADS team called attention to their plane's U.S. assembly and the ensuing jobs. The two companies promised that Airbus jets would be produced in Alabama if they won the contract, and they forecast that the Airbus jet would save taxpayers $55 billion over the life of the program.

"Any attempt by a contractor to wrap itself in the American flag during a competition today is disingenuous and condescending," wrote Alabama lawmakers Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Rep. Jo Bonner in an October letter.

Sen. John McCain, the probable Republican presidential nominee, led a lengthy battle that derailed Boeing's tanker-leasing proposal years ago. On the stump, Sen. McCain has been mentioning his efforts to personally block Boeing's improper efforts to rush through a questionable lease deal for tankers. He said the Pentagon could save money if it put the contract up for rebidding -- a stance supported by the Air Force's decision Friday.
GZR_SACTARGETS
User avatar
KevinJarvis
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 920
Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 19:13
Version: FS9
Location: Jacksonville, Illinois, USA, Earth
Contact:

Post by KevinJarvis »

I'll admit that I'm pretty nieve when it comes to such things as government contracts for such things as aircraft, but Northrup-Grumman is a US based company. While Airbus is the principal sub-contractor, the company that won the bid is an American company.

Plus, I would be a bit hesitant to award such a huge contract to a company who has done some egregious things in the past.

If anyone should be mad at Boeing, it should be their own employees. They had a few rotten apples spoil this thing for them..IMHO.

People went off the deep end like this when they found out that parts for their cars were being assembled in Mexico. But we've gotten over it. There is just no such thing as a purely American car anymore that is produced in mass quantities.

Plus, if they hold to their word, these aircraft will be built in the US giving lots of good Americans good jobs for quite a while.
Kevin Jarvis

Image

Image
User avatar
SMOC
Captain
Captain
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 May 2007, 12:49

Post by SMOC »

KJ, over 40% of the Airbus version will be outsourced to foreign countries whereas the Boeing version was only 15%.
--Chris
Image
User avatar
GrahamS
Captain
Captain
Posts: 275
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 20:22
Version: FSX

Post by GrahamS »

Is this really appropriate for an international site! There appear to be quite serious prejudices showing, not a pretty sight!
Which way is up?
Image
User avatar
SMOC
Captain
Captain
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 May 2007, 12:49

Post by SMOC »

GrahamS wrote:Is this really appropriate for an international site! There appear to be quite serious prejudices showing, not a pretty sight!
Are you being facetious?
--Chris
Image
User avatar
GrahamS
Captain
Captain
Posts: 275
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 20:22
Version: FSX

Post by GrahamS »

Several points.

1 I have not said that I disagree or agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread, or elsewhere. Neither have I said that I agree or disagree with the reasons for forming the opinions upon which those sentiments are based.

2 The opinions expressed give the sense that the decision being discussed SHOULD have been based on the sole criterion that the contract offering the least percentage of outsourcing should be the winner of that contract. In which case it as well that the actual decision was made by others.

3 My comment was based purely on the fact that an international forum is not the most diplomatic, tactful or indeed sensible place to air such an opinion. Having that opinion or not is unaffected, we are all entitled to our opinions and are all entitled to express them. Sometimes we have to be sensible of the right and not so right places to do so.

4 It is a fact that international interests are becoming more prevalent in all areas, but if you are insistant on the contrary then perhaps you should drive your all american car, watch your all american television while drinking your all amercan coffee.
Which way is up?
Image
User avatar
SMOC
Captain
Captain
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 May 2007, 12:49

Post by SMOC »

Graham, I was only asking if you were kidding or not, internet doesn't always allow to pick up on one's subtleties in dialogue.

In following what seems to be your point, I'll simply say we'll just have to agree to disagree. I didn't think anything posted was hurtful to nations other than the US but instead attempted to discuss some of the reasons people like or dislike the arrangement.

But I guess I'll be over here drinking my American soft drinks... as I don't drink coffee.
--Chris
Image
User avatar
GrahamS
Captain
Captain
Posts: 275
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 20:22
Version: FSX

Post by GrahamS »

Then you now know that I was not kidding. I accept your intention was not to hurt the feelings of others, but in this case you did. I have nothing further to add to this discussion.
Which way is up?
Image
User avatar
btaylo24
MAIW Staff
MAIW Staff
Posts: 2747
Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:57
Version: P3D

Post by btaylo24 »

Come on guys ...keep it nice (said while drinking an Australian beer)

barry :D
Barry
User avatar
SMOC
Captain
Captain
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 May 2007, 12:49

Post by SMOC »

AUSSIE! AUSSIE! AUSSIE!! OY! OY! OY! 8)
--Chris
Image
User avatar
btaylo24
MAIW Staff
MAIW Staff
Posts: 2747
Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:57
Version: P3D

Post by btaylo24 »

Remember we (OZ) brought the A330 tanker as well, so cant be that bad?? Replacing the 707 I believe?

Anybody else ordered the A330 tanker? And is it Italy/Japan who are getting the 767 tanker?
Barry
Barry
Post Reply