Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal  
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5077 times:

From Yahoo:

Quote:
European aerospace and defence firm EADS is confident of winning a share of the U.S. Air Force's upcoming $20 billion-plus requirement for air refuelling tankers, a newspaper reported on Sunday.

German financial daily Handelsblatt quoted EADS defence chief Stefan Zoller as saying the company had high hopes for the Air Force business after teaming up with Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp.

"Both companies are convinced that they have a chance of success for a substantial share of this contract," Zoller said.

U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said last week he expected the competition would kick off by the end of September.

Northrop plans to offer a variant of the Airbus A330. Airbus is majority owned by EADS. Chicago-based Boeing Co. is also expected to bid.



Click


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

Hi Columba,

I read that article too... Sounds more like fluff to me. Odds are against them and that's just the political reality they're in.

This contract is so important for Boeing that they will build just about anything to get it, 100% of it. Indications are that this will NOT be split among the two competitors.

I send you and your family best wishes!

Regards,
Sal



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5011 times:

The Air Force won't split competitor's not in this age. Current military/congressional thinking is one aircraft does all. Like the JSF. They'll order from one company only, not both. It's all about cost, operating two different aircraft from two different companies for the same job is hugely expensive.

User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4979 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 2):
The Air Force won't split competitor's not in this age.

But it worked so well with the EELV....



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

I don't believe they will split the aircraft buy in the "medium" category (B767/A330) but they could decide to buy a mix of "large" (A340/B777/B747) and the "medium" size. Plus don't forget the used aircraft option is still open but that appears unlikely because congress was not happy with the E-8 (B707) program which used old airframes.

User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 4911 times:

Did anyone really expect an officer of EADS to publicly announce "We think it is unlikely our bid will be selected?" Surely EADS is aware they are up for a tough political fight (not to mention a tough technical one).


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3959 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4895 times:

A deal as large and important as this, regardless of all what is being said, will of course ultimately go to Boeing, both to support the aircraft-building capacity in the USA and to please the voters. That's only natural, regardless of the soundness of the Airbus aircraft.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 3):
But it worked so well with the EELV....

ouch....soooo true... Smile


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

The current atmosphere among AMC and ACC is that the Petagon is against outsourcing major hardware and will not buy the Airbus product. It's probably a political pride thing, but it's there nonetheless. The current frontrunner is the 777 "Combi". A 777 with a gas tank in the back and a transport area for troops/equipment up front, for the interim. Boeing has also hinted at a "KC-787", a tanker based on the 787 airliner. The KC-767 is a dead issue. I fully expect Boeing to close the 767 production line once the 787 comes online. I also expect Boeing to heavily push a 787 tanker once the airliner production is in full swing, especially if they open the much-aniticipated second production line. When asked, a Boeing executive (I forgot which one) alluded to "future military applications" for the 787.  

Quote:
This contract is so important for Boeing that they will build just about anything to get it,

  

Quote:
Courtesy of The Chicago Tribune:

For several years, Boeing Co. has been consistent on one point: The best aircraft to replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet is a modified version of its 767 commercial jet.

On Tuesday, however, Chicago-based Boeing said it was ready to build a new tanker based on any of its airframes, including the next-generation, fuel-efficient 787 Dreamliner.

"We have a full family of aircraft, and if the Air Force and the Department of Defense determine a new aircraft is the best solution for replacing the KC 135 tanker, we think we can ensure their requirements are met," said Brian Ames, a Boeing spokesman.


[Edited 2006-09-19 02:10:03]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 4):
I don't believe they will split the aircraft buy in the "medium" category (B767/A330) but they could decide to buy a mix of "large" (A340/B777/B747) and the "medium" size.

That's always been my view on this, particularly considering that the RFP study was bumped from 100 to 189 airframes. Add in Senator McCain's newest "stir the pot" where he is trying to get WTO subsidies actions out of the decision and it is looking more political all along. It isn't any surprise, to me at least, that NG and A have put their money on manufacturing/assembly facilities in the south. The pols from Dixie have a heavy say in military budgets and have already come out on NG's side. Add in also that the foreign governments like Britain are most unhappy with the JSF job/tech transfer mix and I could see an appeasement contract split like what TropicBird writes. JSF technology will stay in the US, tanker split deals gets that "thank you" to Europe and McCain the Southern block of votes for 2008.
And actually, the A330/340 is not a really bad deal for a large tanker/cargo aircraft either. The AF is sure happy with their KC-10's.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4876 times:

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 9):
Add in also that the foreign governments like Britain are most unhappy with the JSF job/tech transfer mix

Actually, this has been worked out, at least with the UK.

Story



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4866 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 10):
Actually, this has been worked out, at least with the UK.

True, you're very correct there. But I still think that those countries like Britain, deserve a share of the overall pie, particularly since they have worked so well with us as Allies. What goes around comes around and I'm a bit tired of the nationalistic rhetoric that seems to color these threads sometimes. We're all in this together and as you point out, we're working together. Thanks for the post clarifying that point.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 11):
True, you're very correct there. But I still think that those countries like Britain, deserve a share of the overall pie, particularly since they have worked so well with us as Allies. What goes around comes around and I'm a bit tired of the nationalistic rhetoric that seems to color these threads sometimes. We're all in this together and as you point out, we're working together. Thanks for the post clarifying that point.

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly! It's high time we stopped acting like enemies! While I do have security concerns with some "partners" regarding tech transfer on the Lightning II program, I have none with the RAF or British goverment. I can't see the RAF giving up any secrets.
A BAE official was asked about the recent sale of their stake in Airbus. He said he wasn't concerned 'cause he expects a 5% increase in business from the US over the coming years. They build MAJOR components of the F-35 including the aft fuselage section and EW equipment. In light of that, I thought the tech transfer issues were really petty.  
Some of the other "partners" on the other hand...

[Edited 2006-09-19 02:21:32]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4853 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 8):
The current frontrunner is the 777 "Combi". A 777 with a gas tank in the back and a transport area for troops/equipment up front, for the interim.

Why would they put fuel in the main cabin? There is enough below floor cargo space for tankering fuel. This leaves the main cabin free for cargo, equipment and people, just like the KC-135 and KC-10.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4849 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 13):

Couldn't tell you, but it is what's being thrown around. The drawing I saw actually had passenger windows forward and none aft. I personally think it's a bad idea. I know the 777 has incredible range but it also requires a pretty big field to operate out of. I think a split fleet of 737 and 787 tankers makes more sense. A small fleet of KC-130's could also be kept for operation out of unimproved strips.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 8):
The current frontrunner is the 777 "Combi". A 777 with a gas tank in the back and a transport area for troops/equipment up front, for the interim.

 no  Not a chance...you are definitely mistaken. An aircraft must be balanced, and a "combi" as you suggest could not carry fuel in the tank unless there was cargo up front, and could not dispense that fuel once airborne.

The KC-135 carries fuel in the wings and belly, leaving the main deck open for cargo. The replacement will do the same.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4831 times:

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 11):
But I still think that those countries like Britain, deserve a share of the overall pie, particularly since they have worked so well with us as Allies.

I agree that we have true friends in the UK, but now that BAe has opted to sell their share of Airbus, what obligation could there be to give EADS a share of US taxpayer dollars? EADS counts the French and Russian governments as major shareholders. That will not sit well in the Pentagon or the US Congress. There will be increasing industrial cooperation between US and EU corporations, but don't look for big contracts going directly to EADS until they shed their government ownership.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 15):
The KC-135 carries fuel in the wings and belly, leaving the main deck open for cargo. The replacement will do the same.

Yeah, I don't see it actually happening either. Rummy is happy to maintain the 135 and 10 fleet until something (much) better comes along. The idea was in the spirit of "multi-use" equipment. The idea of a dedicated 737-based tanker has been put forward too.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

Just remember that the KC-767 tanker that sits on the ramp at Paine Field waiting engines as GFE is a purpose built aircraft to USAF specs. It wasn't a speculative offering to the USAF to see if they had any interest. I don't see the mission planners, tech/ops guys, and contract admins changing their mind and going for a different bird. That would say that they were wrong when they custom spec'ed that bird...Thats their aircraft, the one that they wanted...they'll get it most likely...that is unless they are instructed to do differently by the pols. The balls in McCain's court. We'll see if he gets his 13 answers and whether they change the course of the RFP.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12):
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly! It's high time we stopped acting like enemies!

Both the UK and France have used their stranglehold on foreign countries using their military equipment in the past to shape internal policies of those countries.
Simply put "either you do as we tell you or we stop supplying you with spare parts and withhold the (paid for) equipment you still have on order".
Pretty much every other country selling military hardware abroad has done the same of course, including the US.

I can fully understand (and fully do support) any country that doesn't want to make itself dependent on outsiders for their national defense and therefore prefers homegrown solutions over imported ones (even if those are accompanied by "promises" and "treaties" about "sharing production capability" and "building vital parts in your country".



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4880 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days ago) and read 4672 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6):
A deal as large and important as this, regardless of all what is being said, will of course ultimately go to Boeing, both to support the aircraft-building capacity in the USA and to please the voters. That's only natural, regardless of the soundness of the Airbus aircraft.

This implies that Boeing's offering has little going for it technically, assumes superiority of the Airbus product - and impugns the objectivity of the bidding process even before all presentations are complete. Why do EADS bother at all?

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12):
Some of the other "partners" on the other hand...

I believe the "others" are more concerned with workshare rather than source codes.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3959 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4641 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 20):
This implies that Boeing's offering has little going for it technically, assumes superiority of the Airbus product

No, of course it doesn't. I'm only predicting Boeing will win, whether it has the better offer - which it may well have as far as I'm concerned - or not.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 20):
and impugns the objectivity of the bidding process even before all presentations are complete. Why do EADS bother at all?

I don't know. Perhaps to ensure Boeing doesn't make too much money out of this. Perhaps to make the Americans look bad in the free trade talks. Admittedly a bit far-fetched. But why, for example, does Lockheed bother to offer the C-130J to the US Army, which needs a smaller aircraft? It's happening all the time.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4880 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4607 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 21):
But why, for example, does Lockheed bother to offer the C-130J to the US Army, which needs a smaller aircraft?

Because they're confident they could swing the decision in their favor.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4591 times:

Wasn't the KC-767 already cancelled several months ago?


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

As an aside, one has to wonder how much enthusiasm an Airbus worker in France or Germany has for an assembly facility to be located in the U.S.? Or China for that matter....


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
25 Stitch : As a program, the KC-767 is still very much alive, with frames for the Japanese and Italian Air Forces in production. The original 100-frame lease de
26 EBJ1248650 : No, but it's just possible they have an inside track that allows them to cofidently believe they can get a piece of the action. Might be the large an
27 Texfly101 : The Boeing development program of the USAF KC-767 tanker was cancelled several years ago and the cost of the one airframe that was built was written
28 Jwenting : Nah, they just believe they can get a court to force the US government to order their aircraft when they sue after loosing the deal.
29 Post contains links Texfly101 : anyone doubting that this will be a political decision, just check out this article in Defense daily (hope the link works) http://www.defensedaily.com
30 TropicBird : I wish it worked...but sadly it does not.
31 Post contains links Texfly101 : yes, I know, I try it in the preview section and it works just fine... maybe try www.defensedaily.com and look at the current articles, its the lead a
32 TropicBird : When I click on the "full story" link...it wants a user name and password....Oh Well
33 Texfly101 : It just opens up for me but I guess that means that we have those priviledges here at work...I tried at home and it didn't work for me. I'm tempted to
34 Socal : EADS should be confident that they will NOT get a share of the tanker deal. I see a KC-767.
35 Post contains images MCIGuy : I'm sure lots of folks will disagree with me, but I'm against the KC-767. Why would the USAF want a tanker based on a 26 year-old airliner design tha
36 Post contains links Keesje : I think the basic issue hasn't changed much during the last 4 years of this process, despite the specs being "customized", key players bribed, politic
37 Lumberton : Don't forget the article in the UK Guardian where EADS may seek to oursource production in the "dollar zone". Alabama is in the dollar zone, isn't it
38 Drewfly : To throw something out there, what about KC330s to replace the -135s and KC777s to replace the -10s? Just a thought.
39 Texfly101 : If you go to the 9/18/06 issue of AvWeek, read the article entitled "Italy's Defense Strategy". In it, there is a very consumate explanation of why I
40 Post contains images DEVILFISH : With the 787 on the horizon for the target EIS (not to mention T7) and Boeing's track record for this kind of work, that criterion is more than satis
41 Post contains links SkepticAll : I do not think it feasible to have two sources provide different aircraft for the same mission. Below you will find an article which sums up the Air F
42 Keesje : Smart move to avoid a showdown!
43 MD-90 : Two words: Richard Shelby. Don't count Northrop and EADS out yet.
44 Columba : Who is he ?
45 Post contains links Columba : Two interesting articles published today: Source Source
46 Lumberton : Senator from the state of Alabama--one of 100.
47 Post contains links and images Halibut : Hhhmm Look what Boeing may be pitching up for the Tanker deal ??? The 777 ! Things are starting to get interesting ! Halibut http://seattlepi.nwsource
48 Post contains links and images Halibut : Perhaps , put I doubt it . However , I was thinking a spit between the 777 & 767 ? Now , would that be a good combo ???? Hhmm Halibut http://seattlep
49 Post contains images MCIGuy : Awesome! I'd love to see a KC-777! However, this caught my eye: Then this... The 777 would make a great replacement for the KC-10, but I can't see it
50 Keesje : Boeing has argued for years that the KC330 was just to big & unproven. Now they are promoting the KC777. It will take at least 3 yrs to develop. The D
51 Post contains links Lumberton : The State of Alabama OK's USD$110 million for the plant. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4218622.html
52 TropicBird : What is happening here is a game of high-stakes poker. Boeing was very confident they had the KC-X program won with the KC-767 lease deal. When that
53 Post contains links Halibut : MCIGuy, Me too ! That would be one mean Tanker ! The Boeing 777 Tanker (by NWDC10 Sep 28 2006 in Civil Aviation) Halibut
54 Revelation : Yes, but as been stated in this forum by people who know, what matters is the number of refuelling booms in the air at one time. Bigger capacity is s
55 SAS A340 : THIS IS SO SO SO!!! TRUE!!! I am with you 100%
56 Socal : KC-767..........................................!!!!
57 Post contains images Broke : Let's see. The A380 is running at least 2 years behind schedule. The A350 is going through a complete redesign and it is sliding from its originally p
58 Post contains images Socal : All models above are available for Flight Simulator 2004...... thou....
59 Post contains links DEVILFISH : As posted in the other thread - this may dampen that confidence somewhat..... http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...-X+tanker+replacement+contest.ht
60 DeltaDC9 : In what way that really matters the the USAF????? I believe it is Congress promoting it. The AF has said footprint is a major if not a primary consid
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg posted Tue Jan 11 2005 22:51:09 by JMV
Boeing Plans To Double US Air Force Tanker Deal posted Fri Oct 3 2003 14:31:52 by Kl911
Impact Of The Pentagon's Tanker Decision On Brac? posted Sat Jun 4 2005 04:08:53 by STT757
Latest News On RAF Tanker Deal posted Tue Mar 1 2005 01:07:48 by Ant72LBA
Airbus Fantasy - the US Tanker deal posted Wed Jan 12 2005 20:44:24 by Dayflyer
Tanker Deal? EADS: Airbuses And Boeings posted Fri Dec 3 2004 07:21:45 by Kalakaua
Holidays At The National Museum Of The US Air Forc posted Mon Nov 22 2004 16:51:30 by Broke
Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal posted Sun Oct 10 2004 19:15:33 by Philsquares
US Air Force, Who Get The Tanker Jobs? posted Mon Aug 2 2004 04:10:43 by Flymia
The US Tanker Deal Again posted Sat Dec 13 2003 10:28:57 by Racko

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format