EADS & NG win USAF KC-45 Tanker contract

EADS and Northrop Grumman have won an initial $1.5billion contract to supply the USAF with 4 development versions of the KC-30 aircraft, and face winning a further $10billion in inital contracts.

www.bloomberg.com...

If we play by Airbus rules ala the Pratt and Whitney Canada A400M engine contract, then The USAF should share the EADS/NG bid and allow Boeing to re-bid. But hey would that be fair

However despite the airfame being built in the US , this will be tied up for a bit in appeals and no doubt Congress in an election year is going to weigh in with so many people up for election.

This alone will be fodder for the politicos

In the months leading up to the award, much of the discussion was about jobs, who'd create more where, and whether the Air Force should award such a major contract to a foreign-owned firm. Boeing says its plane would sustain the 767 production line and 44,000 jobs in the U.S. Northrop and EADS say their plane would mean a new airplane plant in Alabama, and 25,000 new jobs in this country. www.stltoday.com...

Thats quite a few jobs.

The A330 is actually the best airframe for the job - it carries more fuel , more cargo , over longer range than the smaller 767

have a look in the KC-X thread.

reply to post by Harlequin


A case could be made for either airframe actualyl and I have followed the thread you linked or even a mixed buy as well.

However I was meerly commenting on the political issues involved with the decision domesticaly. There is no doubt in my mind that the appeals process may last quite a bit.

There won`t be a mixed buy - money and politics won`t allow that


but as you raised the politics spectre - this `battle `will now rage on and on - at the detriment to the US airmen who actually want this kit ; its being built in the `USA` with US jobs - but apparantly for some because it doesn`t say Boeing , then its an issue.

When a city with a population of less than 300,000 has to add at least 50,000 new toilets & parking spaces there are going to be some severe growing pains. The facility in Mobile is the old Brookley Airforce Complex. Singapore Aerospace has been there over 10 years and has grown substantially due to the unavailability of major aircraft rework facility inventory. The complex itself has plenty of room and is probably one of the most underutilized prime industrial properties in the United States. It has 11,000+ feet of runway, rail service, deep water port frontage and is located 3 blocks south of I-10 which traverses the entire US from East to West. In my opinion, they have found the right property, now if they can find the people and house them it will be a big boon to a somewhat depressed area.

reply to post by Harlequin


It will be less jobs though (19000 less) and lets face it the US economy needs it. And Ill bet that politics will allow for a mixed buy. But you never know.

Whats the engine choice? If the USAF is smart it will be GE or Pratt to lessen the political issues.

According to reports it's going to be a GE engine paired with the airframe. It's an upgraded CF6 engine.

Originally posted by mizzu
When a city with a population of less than 300,000 has to add at least 50,000 new toilets & parking spaces there are going to be some severe growing pains. ...

As I understood it the actual staff at the Mobile site will be around 1000-2000. These projected 25.000 jobs will be strewn across over 200 secondary suppliers acround the country.

Of course the 25.000 jobs is only a marketing figure, there will be less. Then again, since Boeing chimed in with their highly inflated 40.000+ jobs figure in danger, I think that bit of PR polish by EADS is OK

Originally posted by Harlequin
but as you raised the politics spectre - this `battle `will now rage on and on - at the detriment to the US airmen who actually want this kit ; its being built in the `USA` with US jobs - but apparantly for some because it doesn`t say Boeing , then its an issue.

Hehe, the official DOD news release coonstantly says its a Northrop-Grumman product, and only mentions that N-G is "allied" with Airbus twice, towards the end of the article.

Anyway, I´d have really liked to be present in the EADS offices when that News came around... must be one hell of a party. And nonetheless, it is a two-sides victory of EADS. Now they have a foothold on the american soil, it is suggested that they may move the entire 330 line to the USA. This lets them benefit from the weak Dollar and will also free up manufacturing capability in Europe just in time for the A350XWB.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by Lonestar24]

the australian planes are powered by GE CF6-80E1 engines, rated at 72,000lb thrust.

I wonder if our designation will also change.
Currently referred to as KC-30s

according to BBC news they are not being built in the USA as the order safeguards jobs at the UK site where the wings are built. They are probably jusy being fitted out in the USA, and painted.

Besides, whats wrong with you buying our tankers if we are buying your F-35?

The major order depends on EADS delivering the initial 4 test aircraft satisfactorily so nothing is set in stone, even if the legal challenge doesn't kill it.

Auntie Beeb tells the tale

For anyone doubting the superiority of the Airbus, don't forget that in the commercial markets, where efficiency and cost control is king, the launch of the A330 killed commercial sales of equivalent 767 models stone dead, leading Boeing down the path to the 787 which did the same back, but of course there is no tanker model of that.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by waynos]

the 787 isn`t built in the usa either -the wings are made in japan and even china has some slice of that cake - they make the rudder and other similar parts

fuselage parts are made as far a field as italy and the doors are made in france!

That is quite right, how ironic if Boeing starts bleating about jobs going overseas when Boeing itself is farming them out abroad on America's biggest current civil aircraft programme, Oops

[edit on 1-3-2008 by waynos]

Originally posted by FredT

It will be less jobs though (19000 less) and lets face it the US economy needs it. And Ill bet that politics will allow for a mixed buy. But you never know.

Whats the engine choice? If the USAF is smart it will be GE or Pratt to lessen the political issues.

There was an astute observation on 'another aviation forum' that Boeing maintained the 767 production line earlier this decade with around a third of the jobs that they said the KC-767 would involve, while simultaneously producing three times more 767s per year than the KC-767 line would. Was Boeings planned KC-767 line less efficient than their own commercial line (trick question - they are the same line)?

Originally posted by waynos
according to BBC news they are not being built in the USA as the order safeguards jobs at the UK site where the wings are built. They are probably jusy being fitted out in the USA, and painted.

Mobile, Alabama is getting a Final Assembly Line, exactly like the one that exists in Toulouse - major sub assemblies like completed aircraft sections, wings and flight surfaces are all shipped to the FAL where they are assembled into the complete aircraft and fitted out.

Originally posted by waynos
That is quite right, how ironic if Boeing starts bleating about jobs going overseas when Boeing itself is farming them out abroad on America's biggest current civil aircraft programme, Oops

[edit on 1-3-2008 by waynos]

They've been going down that road for well over a decade - the 777 is around 50% foreign, built as sub-sub-assemblies (such as fuselage panels, wings etc) and shipped to the US for final assembly, while the 787 moves even more of the work overseas, with sub-assemblies (major fuselage sections, entire wings, wing box etc) arriving in the US 'pre-stuffed', so there is less outfitting to be done in the US.

The 767 also has a large proportion of foreign made sections, although Boeing have never released an accurate picture of just what.

Originally posted by Harlequin

fuselage parts are made as far a field as italy and the doors are made in france!

Even more amusing - the main pressure bulkhead for the 787 is built by ... EADS!

the launch of the A330 killed commercial sales of equivalent 767 models stone dead, leading Boeing down the path to the 787 which did the same back, but of course there is no tanker model of that.

No, it didn't.

Only after 2000 when oil prices started to rise. A330 is still selling like hotcakes.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by C0bzz]

uk.news.yahoo.com...

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers have reacted angrily after the US military awarded a 35-billion-dollar aircraft deal to Europe's Northrop Grumman/EADS group, in a major blow to US manufacturers Boeing.

"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon's decision.

"I'll be calling upon the Secretary of Defense for a full debriefing and expect there will be a protest of the award by Boeing."

and so it begins - the political fall out and law suites - it looks like the USAF will not get what they want so soon.

reply to post by Harlequin


From the article -

"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon's decision

"I'll be calling upon the Secretary of Defense for a full debriefing and expect there will be a protest of the award by Boeing."

Perhaps a better thing to do would be to wonder why there were no full American bids worth accepting by the DoD - why did a partnership between an European multinational corporation and a North American defence contractor manage to put together a superior bid against an incumbent and major US defence contractor, indeed the manufacturer of the current USAF tanker fleet?

Or would that be too hard a thing to ponder for a politician? Maybe it might open up cans of worms that best be left alone. Perhaps it is better to just fall back on plain old patriotism.

Again, from the article -

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt.

"I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs."

Hmm, and out comes the anti-French sentiment. What you really can't believe, Mr Todd Tiahrt, is that a 'French' (European Multinational actually) company put together a superior bid, and your 'American product by Americans in America' solution was in-fact an inferior offering by at least four of the five major categories in the DoD RFP. I mean, how can that possibly be the case?

I guess he missed out on the fact that the decision was taken by the men and women that would actually be using the product, so is it any wonder they went for the superior offering?

Bitter pill to swallow, Mr Todd Tiahrt? You really aren't suggesting that patriotism should trump giving your fighting men and women the best possible solution, are you? You aren't *really* suggesting that it doesn't matter that you supply the men and women risking their lives for your country with equipment that isn't quite the best, because American jobs are more important than their lives and safety, now are you?

I think there are a few questions that need to be put to these outspoken critics.