Airbus: Umm, just ignore that ... (KC-X)

[Marc]

And to counter a earlier point I don't think this is a production aircraft - but style in the prototye stage as the winner hasn't been decided.

The aircraft in question would probably have been en route to Australia for delivery to the RAAF this week if it weren't for this incident. KC-X is the American program.

EDIT: You can even see "Royal Australian Air Force" and the kangaroo roundels stencilled on the airframe in the images I posted.

And we can't really complain about this. Boeing is still dicking around with the Wedgetails.

 

[Switch]

And we can't really complain about this. Boeing is still dicking around with the Wedgetails.

Except that the A330s were meant to be delivered 2 years ago. The KC-767 is even further behind schedule though, so that hasn't weighed against it in America's deliberations.

It's remarkable how many difficulties such seemingly undemanding projects are encountering.

 

[MANT!]

Defence projects and prototypes are often saddled with "Requirement bloat"..

Often a simple cargo or tanker aircraft gets saddled with ever more requirements provided by the end customers...

The F-35 (like most other defence systems fielded since the 1960s) is subject to the same additions on what WAS a cheaper alternative to the F-22A..

The KCX is no different...

 

[Switch]

^ Another problem with defining requirements for programs like KC-X where there's no prospect of fielding an entirely new aircraft is that the Pentagon can hardly avoid knowing what the likely bidders have to work with, which in turn goes on to shape the RFP. The KC-X RFP could easily have been written in such a way as to effectively exclude Boeing from the competition, which would not only have gone over like a lead balloon with the politicians, but would've allowed Airbus to charge whatever they like for their offering.

 

[Switch]

Seattle PI

Boeing is not bidding on India's aerial refueling tanker competition, leaving the field to Airbus Military and Ilyushin, Flightglobal reported Friday.

The reason is simple: Boeing apparently will only bid on future international tanker opportunities if it wins the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion KC-X tanker competition.

"Only upon the outcome of the KC-X competition will we be able to fully determine our ability to participate in future international competitions," Vivek Lall, vice-president, Boeing Defense, Space & Security, India, told Flightglobal.

Some fun sledging in the comments:

Ha ha, and apparently Airbus also have an order from King Neptune. They already delivered the refuelling boom to him at the bottom of the ocean.

Boeing wants to avoid a straight forward comparison by a third, independent party. The result might leave the wrong impressions with US decision makers.

The IL-78s would be more reliable than the A330s as well. At least when their parts are bolted on, that's where they stay.

Maybe Boeing isn't offering a tanker because it only has a power point airplane....

It's nice to see that some things never change.

 

[Amaris]

Come on, Boeing!
I've always liked their airframes.

And some people in the DoD like Boeing's bribes which is why the whole thing was re-tendered leading.

And to counter a earlier point I don't think this is a production aircraft - but style in the prototye stage as the winner hasn't been decided.

Also looking at the aircraft specs from the wiki entry, in term of capacity the Boeing entry (derived from the 767 Airframe which is now 30 years old) lags behind the airbus.

It's still a tried and true airframe, one I much prefer over the Airbus. Just a matter of preference, really.

 

[Switch]

Aviation Week

The U.S. Air Force will respond to a lawmaker’s inquiry on whether the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (Ifara) can be eliminated from the service’s KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition, as well as comment on how important Ifara is to the award, an Air Force representative told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) this morning.

[....]

The 2.5-hr. hearing, which quickly became more contentious among senators than between the panel and the witnesses, follows the Nov. 1, 2010 [data-release] incident and comes just weeks before the long-expected award announcement [....] most senators used the opportunity to try to advocate for Boeing or EADS, depending on the potential benefits to their states.

Sounds like everyone had a good time.

Incidentally the first KC-767 has now been delivered to Italy, a mere 6 years overdue.

 

[Switch]

Loren Thompson has an interesting piece on the contract award over at Forbes (but check the comments):

Having declared in his State of the Union speech that waning competitiveness has brought America to a new “Sputnik moment,” the President will be asked to award the biggest military hardware contract ever to a foreign country — mainly because it was able to leverage illegal trade subsidies to underbid its U.S. rival. That should provoke quite a political storm on Capitol Hill, where members have already alleged that predatory business practices by Airbus have cost the U.S. aerospace industry many tens of thousands of jobs

Bill Sweetman, for his part, has an interesting piece on Loren Thompson.

What Thompson, and some on Capitol Hill, are advocating is a retroactive change in the tanker competition rules, to throw out any decision in favor of Airbus. Such a decision would subordinate the Pentagon's judgment to that of Congress, delay the program and increase its costs, and force the USAF to buy its second-choice aircraft. It's hard to consider an action that would be more damaging to European-US defense trade interests.

One final observation: Thompson's clients usually keep him well informed, and he's saying bluntly that "the Air Force is planning to award the $35 billion tanker contract to its European rival". The piece in Forbes reads a lot like what doctrine writers call "shaping the battlespace".

Take from all that what you will.

 

[Marc]

Loren Thompson has an interesting piece on the contract award over at Forbes (but check the comments):

Having declared in his State of the Union speech that waning competitiveness has brought America to a new “Sputnik moment,” the President will be asked to award the biggest military hardware contract ever to a foreign country — mainly because it was able to leverage illegal trade subsidies to underbid its U.S. rival. That should provoke quite a political storm on Capitol Hill, where members have already alleged that predatory business practices by Airbus have cost the U.S. aerospace industry many tens of thousands of jobs

Bill Sweetman, for his part, has an interesting piece on Loren Thompson.

What Thompson, and some on Capitol Hill, are advocating is a retroactive change in the tanker competition rules, to throw out any decision in favor of Airbus. Such a decision would subordinate the Pentagon's judgment to that of Congress, delay the program and increase its costs, and force the USAF to buy its second-choice aircraft. It's hard to consider an action that would be more damaging to European-US defense trade interests.

One final observation: Thompson's clients usually keep him well informed, and he's saying bluntly that "the Air Force is planning to award the $35 billion tanker contract to its European rival". The piece in Forbes reads a lot like what doctrine writers call "shaping the battlespace".

Take from all that what you will.

Isn't Airbus doing a lot of the build work at facilities in the U.S?

And given the history of the U.S companies when it comes to defence deals (Germany would never have bought the F-104s if the manufacture hadn't tossed in a few bribes and Boeing's own behaviour in recent tenders) it's a tad hypocritical for people to get upset when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Switch]

Isn't Airbus doing a lot of the build work at facilities in the U.S?

Yeah, if Airbus wins the contract they'll be opening a new plant in Alabama to build it. Their propaganda claims 48,000 American jobs would be "created or supported" under the contract. Whatever number an impartial accounting might arrive at, it's certainly greater than 0. That's why Airbus enjoys some support in Congress for its bid.

 

[Marc]

Isn't Airbus doing a lot of the build work at facilities in the U.S?

Yeah, if Airbus wins the contract they'll be opening a new plant in Alabama to build it. Their propaganda claims 48,000 American jobs would be "created or supported" under the contract. Whatever number an impartial accounting might arrive at, it's certainly greater than 0. That's why Airbus enjoys some support in Congress for its bid.

Iirc a Republican Senator from Alabama put a lock on nomination hearings to try and force the Administration in to more money/work for the EADS plant there.

 

[Switch]

There's a huge game of chicken going on here.

- The Pentagon sent Airbus and Boeing each other's data by mistake ("mistake"?) a few months back
- The general feeling in the air seems to be that Airbus has won

Now consider the following comments:

However, if Dr. Thompson is correct that the fix is in for Airbus, the task for Boeing is clear. They should lower their price and promise the moon in order to make EADS follow suit. Hasn't EADS been saying for years that they can build an airplane that is 30 percent larger for less money? Was this ever possible? Well, push them further towards catastrophe. Assuming EADS then wins an unperformable contract, it would eventually weaken the Boeing competitor's reputation and financial condition. The US Congress would also have an election issue opportunity to disparage Europeans and get votes. It is diabolical, but Boeing could be better off losing this job. The money losing potential and the public relations risk are too large. Boeing would even get to play the victim of circumstance in the media and in Congress. Perhaps losing this business battle is precisely what Boeing needs to win the war.

Of course, there's a downside to that tactic, which is that Boeing could win and end up with contracts for hundreds of aircraft at prices well below cost...


...again.

Since then, Boeing has announced that it will be revising its bid at the last minute. And Airbus is now indicated that it won't be revising it's own:

Airbus (EAD.PA) Chief Executive Tom Enders said on Saturday the European planemaker's parent company EADS would not improve its bid to build a fleet of U.S. Air Force aerial refueling planes.

"It is not our style to make hectic corrections at the last minute," Enders told Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich.

Enders said EADS had made a very good offer for the contract, that also made economic sense, whereas competitor Boeing Co (BA.N) had announced "last changes" to its bid.

The transatlantic rivals have been locked in a bitter battle for the job, worth up to $50 billion, which calls for 179 new planes to start phasing out Boeing-built tankers that average about 50 years old.

Of course, what Airbus says and what Airbus does could be different things, but the message to Boeing here is clear: play this game at your own risk.

At this point I hope Airbus wins just for the extra controversy that result promises to cause. This is like a soap opera.

 

[Mr. B]

Boeing gets the contract.

After a decade of false starts, Boeing pulled off an upset to win the $35 billion contract to build a fleet of Air Force aerial refueling tankers, two congressional sources told POLITICO Thursday.
The decision was 10 years in the making after bitter back-and-forth lobbying, advertising and scandal. Two earlier efforts floundered– one ending the careers of several Air Force officials and landing a Boeing executive in jail, and another award to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company and Northrop Grumman in 2008 being overturned after Boeing protested.

POLITICO: Boeing gets $35 billion Air Force tanker contract
​

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

The A330 MRTT has already been selected by the United Kingdom, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to fulfil their tanker requirements (the KC-767 has been selected by Italy and Japan) and Australia is the launch customer for the aircraft

Might European companies enjoy the same feeling in Europe that Boeing feels in the US if European armed forces ordered from the same catalogue more often?

IIRC, Britain, Germany and Italy contributed jointly to the Eurofighter and Tornado, Sweden and France make their own fighters and US planes are used in Greece and the Low Countries.

I guess there's the issue of job protection to think of, but might anyone make the case that one fighter design shared around Europe would surely save some Pounds/Euro?

 

[IcecreamLtDan]

As a former KC-10 mechanic with a lot of fellow co-workers and friends in both the KC-10 and KC-135 programs, I'm just happy they finally made a decision. Now let's see how long before EADS protests this decision and then how long before airframes actually start showing up on the flightline.

 

[B.J.]

According to the contract, deliveries are supposed to begin in 2017.

 

[J.T.B.]

As a former KC-10 mechanic with a lot of fellow co-workers and friends in both the KC-10 and KC-135 programs, I'm just happy they finally made a decision. Now let's see how long before EADS protests this decision and then how long before airframes actually start showing up on the flightline.

It hasn't been officially announced, but there are strong indications that EADS will not protest the award, in the interest of good relations and future business with the Pentagon.

--Justin