Northrop drops out of tanker race.

[Kei Lau]

I'm with the other quiet voices. I sincerely believe the best tanker won in 2008, and in 2010 the only acceptable tanker is the one left in the running. But irregardless of my feelings, even as a foreigner I'm absolutely astounded that playing politics has so badly served the only people who matter - the people who need the new product. 15 years ago, not now!

A sad outcome but NG/EADS have done the right thing by themselves.

In the NG anouncement, NG acknowledged that the tanker technical requirements have NOT been changed from 2008. They made the decision purely on business ground. The risk vs. potential profit.

In 2008, a US Senator from a desert state was able to single-handedly forced the USAF to change the RFP and later gave a larger tanker credit in the evaluation with no consideration of the total cost. But the USAF did not inform Boeing of the change of their evaluation criterion which caused the GAO to accept the protest by Boeing. A new adminstration is no longer from the same party of the Senator and the congressional majority changed hands too. That freed the USAF to do what they really want.

Is a bigger tanker necessarily a better tanker. Not so if the service already has KC-10 and C-17. The USAF fully realize that buying a bigger tanker means less budget for other pressing needs.

This time, the USAF clarified their evaluation. A bigger tanker will still receive extra credit, but only if the cost is within 1% of the competition. This 1% requirement is the part that NG and their supporter complained about because the technical requirements were not touched at all from 2008.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Kei Lau

[Wayne S]

Is a bigger tanker necessarily a better tanker. Not so if the service already has KC-10 and C-17. The USAF fully realize that buying a bigger tanker means less budget for other pressing needs.

There are other things that come into play when there is a significant size difference. Runway lengths, taxiway widths, airport ramp space etc.

[Kei Lau]

In 2008, a US Senator from a desert state was able to single-handedly forced the USAF to change the RFP and later gave a larger tanker credit in the evaluation with no consideration of the total cost.

I don't mean to imply that Senator McCain had any dishonest motivation. I respect him as a war hero and a straight shooter. He first caught the misdeed of Boeing and some AF personnel in the first tanker award and forced its cancellation. In the zeal to foster competition, he pushed the USAF into bending the rules that resulted in the 2008 award. It is noted that his office is much more muted this time around.

Boeing had its own problem of arrogance in 2008 too. They provided all the cost saving data in the commercial airplane format for the greater details. The Air Force rejected their cost argument because the cost data was too complex and the AF could not verify it using their own computer tools.

[Woland]

As a Finnish citizen I think it was wrong that our airforce bought the F/A-18 in 1992! We should have bought the SAAB Gripen.

[pbishop]

As a Finnish citizen I think it was wrong that our airforce bought the F/A-18 in 1992! We should have bought the SAAB Gripen.

As a bug fan, you just made me cry.

[Fuji]

As a Finnish citizen I think it was wrong that our airforce bought the F/A-18 in 1992! We should have bought the SAAB Gripen.

As a Hornet and Gripen fan, I have no idea what this has to do with the Tanker issue of this thread.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Northrop will just stand by for their bailouts instead LOL

[Andrew Maverick Taylor]

HOLY MOLY!!! :)

Why on earth (please I know it's wrong but just run with me here) can't American companies just agree on something for once. Having previously worked for Airbus who was building the standard KC-30 airframe, it was a big moral boost for the company to realise that America wants our planes.

This whole Northrop Grumman issues has gone on far too long. The best advice I could give European aircraft companies now is, to hell with American aircraft companies, Europe and Europe only. On the other hand I thank the US military who wanted the KC-30 in the first place and for helping to create more work in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

[Wayne S]

HOLY MOLY!!! :)

Why on earth (please I know it's wrong but just run with me here) can't American companies just agree on something for once. Having previously worked for Airbus who was building the standard KC-30 airframe, it was a big moral boost for the company to realise that America wants our planes.

This whole Northrop Grumman issues has gone on far too long. The best advice I could give European aircraft companies now is, to hell with American aircraft companies, Europe and Europe only. On the other hand I thank the US military who wanted the KC-30 in the first place and for helping to create more work in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

So like, your going to change your Sig?

[Kei Lau]

As a Finnish citizen I think it was wrong that our airforce bought the F/A-18 in 1992! We should have bought the SAAB Gripen.

As a Hornet and Gripen fan, I have no idea what this has to do with the Tanker issue of this thread.

The best airplane is the most affordable airplane that can do the job and do it reliably for you. Same for a fighter as well as a tanker.

Woland did not give any reason of his preference. The Finish Air Force likes their Hornet just fine and is in the middle of a MLU (Midlife Upgrade) Program to extend the 15 years old Hornet to 2025. It will cost over $400million US dollars. And the Swiss is doing the same for their 34 Hornets.

The Fin is not buying new fighter anytime soon. But the Swiss is. Boeing declined to bid the Super Hornet for the Swiss program because the budget profile did not fit. That left the cheaper Gripen as the most probable candidate. Does it sound a little like the NG tanker story?

Both the Super Hornet and the Gripen are in the running for the Brazilian and Indian fighter competition. It is interesting to see not only who wins, but why. The Gripen NG (Next Generation) will use the General Electric F414G engine. It is the same engine family used on the Super Hornet, but only one on the Gripen. Gripen is a very capable airplane, but a single engine design to keep cost down.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Kei Lau

[niart17]

The best airplane is the most affordable airplane that can do the job and do it reliably for you. Same for a fighter as well as a tanker.

Woland did not give any reason of his preference. The Finish Air Force likes their Hornet just fine and is in the middle of a MLU (Midlife Upgrade) Program to extend the 15 years old Hornet to 2025. It will cost over $400million US dollars. And the Swiss is doing the same for their 34 Hornets.

The Fin is not buying new fighter anytime soon. But the Swiss is. Boeing declaim to bid the Super Hornet for the Swiss program because the budget profile did not fit. That left the cheaper Gripen as the most probable candidate. Does it sound a little like the NG tanker story?

Both the Super Hornet and the Gripen are in the running for the Brazilian and Indian fighter competition. It is interesting to see not only who wins, but why.

and questioned answered :)

[11bee]

You do realize the B-1, B-2, F-22, F-35, and F-15E all have those "pretty" displays.

Cheers,

Hugh

Yes I do.... but I believe that the "pretty" displays in those aircraft are all milspec units and not off the shelf commercial displays, which are typically built to a lower standard, for civilian applications.

[GreyGhost]

I haven't read anywhere that says the KC-X will or won't have shielding from EMP, etc ...

I believe the cockpit is to be 'based' on the 787 cockpit ...

Gregg

[Finn]

Another contender for the contract from unusual source:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...iatanker20.html

Jari

[Alvis 3.1]

You know, I thought I was being just plain silly when I did this last year in February:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....howtopic=178619

Hmm..sometimes I might be a threat to security!

Alvis 3.1

[GreyGhost]

Quick, Alvis, what's tomorrow's Powerball numbers going to be ?

I'll cut you in ... :lol:

Gregg

[Murph]

Looks like EADS was just joking. Well, on second thought.

EADS tells Pentagon it might still vie for tanker deal

Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:11pm EDTRelated NewsPentagon would consider extension in tanker deadlines

WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - Europe's EADS has told the Pentagon of its possible interest in continuing to vie for a multibillion-dollar contract for a new U.S. aerial refueling fleet despite the end of a trans-Atlantic partnership formed to bid, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

The Defense Department would welcome an EADS bid and would consider a "reasonable extension" to the May deadline for bids if necessary, said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, in an emailed statement.

Absent a bid involving Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA), rival Boeing Co (BA.N) is poised to win a sole-source contract to build up to 179 refueling planes and compete for follow-on orders in future decades.

[Kei Lau]

Looks like EADS was just joking. Well, on second thought.

No, they are not. It is much easier to build a tanker with a bigger airframe to meet a fixed set of requirements and comes out with larger margin technically. It is just the nature of physics and engineering, bigger is easier.

The first question is whether EADS can build a larger tanker within 1% of the cost of the smaller tanker which also meets the requirements. NG felt that risk is high and it may not leave them with enough profit. NG decided to withdraw. EADS have a different agenda that the main objective is to build a bridgehead on US soil to gain more civilian business. With the EU government aids, they can afford to take a loss such as the A-380 or AM-400. The USAF already anounced that they will not consider the WTO ruling on government aid. EADS can still win on fly-off cost with agreesive pricing.

But it is impossible for EADS to design a larger tanker with enough efficiency gain to offset the advantage of the competition in lifecycle cost. The EADS can still win if the USAF changes the rule again to ignor the total cost like they did in 2008. But it is unlikely to happen again due to the GAO ruling, which is causing all the complaints from EU countries.

NG and EADS could have built a tanker of the right size to meet requirements and low in operational cost. They decided against it because they did not see enough opportunity to compete technically or in cost.

Buying a larger tanker will take away Air Force budget from other security needs over the next 40 years. It may be good for EU and EADS, but it is not good for the security of the US and the tax payers.