France Gets Aerial Refueling Tanker Contract
Artists rendering of the Northrup KC-30.
We told you yesterday that the decision may come down as early as today…
Northrop Grumman and EADS have somehow managed to defeat heavy-favorite Boeing in the battle to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers. The initial contract for 80 aircraft is valued at $40 billion, and the service has plans to purchase as many as 100 more at an as yet undetermined cost.
The Northrop KC-30, which is based on the EADS Airbus A-330 passenger jet, had been considered the more capable aircraft. It’s bigger, which means it can carry 20 percent more fuel, 20 percent more passengers, and 30 percent more cargo. It can also carry 45,000 pounds more fuel than Boeing’s KC-767. But Boeing had pitched the smaller size of the 767 as a feature, rather than a handicap. However, the 767 is at the end of its commercial life. The military would have been the only customer for the airplane had Boeing won the contract, raising concerns about maintenance costs.
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Alabama, but much of the work will be done in Airbus’s facility in Toulouse, France. There had been doubts as to whether the Air Force, and Congress, would award such a massive contract to a French firm, but a thaw in relations following the election of Nicolas Sarkozy may have eased concerns. Also Northrop claims that its aircraft will create 25,000 American jobs.
The Air Force’s tanker acquisition program first received national attention in 2001, when Senator John McCain called into question a no-bid contract that would have seen the service lease, rather than buy, 100 tankers from Boeing. Upon further investigation, it became clear that Boeing had offered illegal inducements to Air Force officials in exchange for the contract. The ensuing scandal led to jail sentences for two Boeing officials, including the firm’s CFO.
McCain has repeatedly noted his role in exposing the corrupt deal during this year’s presidential election.
Full article by Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard here.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
As a future tanker pilot, I’m pissed that I might have to fly a french POS one day.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pmI have about a half million reasons why this was a horrible idea. Essentially, this is a Post-Hurricane Katrina bandaid on the south Alabama/Mississippi area. Politics driving the military as usual. The best thing would have been to made Boeing create a new tanker from scratch. so it wasn’t the 676 or French.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:00 pmAs goes Boeing so goes Seattle
February 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pmKBoomr could you elaborate? This article seems to prove that the airbus is a much better choice than the 767.
Also, it looks like Boeing tried to illegally persuade the air force officials to get the contract.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:23 pmsee the previous topic, I brought there some links
Your are going to get the “assemblage” of the tank in your country
and plus, Airbus is going to build a manufacture near Boeing
March 1st, 2008 at 1:44 amI did not think they would have the courage to award to just one contractor. Really don’t wish to offend anyone do we?
March 1st, 2008 at 4:23 amI worked on aircraft for while before becoming a firefighter, and the Airbus is an excellent airplane, boieng 767 isn’t bad but the airbus in all fairness is a superior, easier to work with aircraft. and unless you work maintenance you just don’t realize how much maitenance an aircraft has. the less downtown an aircraft has the more planes the tanker can refuel the more bombs dropped on the badguys.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:39 amLets look at it this way. Do we really want a foreign power building our military equipment? Franchie, Airbus is not building anything near Boeing. How do I know? I work for Boeing. The airplanes are being assembled in Toulouse and modified in Mobile. They are not building them over here. Its great that Alabama just got 2,500 jobs. Guess how many workers in Everett are going to lose jobs when the 767 line closes down. Lets not forget about how many people in Wichita will now not have a job. So we created 2,500 jobs to lose 10,000. Makes sense to me. All those supplier jobs that it is also creating would have been created by the 767 win as well, so those are not even a point that should be considered. Oh well, let the Air Force learn the hard way going from a company with over 50 years of tanker experience to a new entry. Ah the growing pains.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:35 amhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004121472_airbus12.html
USMC BEANS
Well, as far as Airbus in Seattle, it’s my man who told me the info, so I tried to check on the net, so far, can’t find any confirmation, I’ll ask him where did he get the info from.
but I got that :
Airbus investit à Seattle
Plus sensible au volet technologique du projet, Airbus a annoncé une participation de 30 % dans Tenzing , une jeune pousse basée à Seattle… ville où siège Boeing. Tout un symbole.
Créée en 1998, Tenzing a levé jusqu’à présent 52 millions d’euros auprès de fonds d’investissements et de la compagnie aérienne Cathay Pacific. L’entrée d’Airbus au capital de Tenzing valorise cette dernière à 170,9 millions d’euros.
Le projet d’Airbus prévoit une mise à disposition pour les passagers de prises de connexion Internet, reliées à un serveur central et à un logiciel de navigation développé par Tenzing.
En Amérique du Nord, par exemple, les passagers devraient payer 4,95 dollars pour visualiser la liste des e-mails qui leur sont adressés. Ils débourseront 50 cents supplémentaires pour lire ou envoyer une page de texte. Airbus prévoit également de créer un bouquet de sites accessibles gratuitement. “
http://www.01net.com/article/152388.html
March 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pmI just had a look at Mobile history, it was a french settlement at the origin.
http://www.alabamamoments.alabama.gov/sec02det.html
Seems the Frenchs are settling there again
About airbus and a possible factory in the nearby of Seattle, it looks like my man got mixed with the names, hehe, he is getting a bit “old”, but I should have checked first, then sorry for the erroonrd info
March 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pmThe first flaw in this argument that Boeing should have gotten the contract because it is an American company resides in the truth that all of the companies in the bidding were multinationals. EADS will be doing much of its work on the tankers in Alabama. GE (NYSE: GE) will be supplying $5 billion in engines for the planes. If Boeing had gotten the contract the odds are near 100% that many of the components of the tankers would have come from suppliers outside the US.
http://www.247wallst.com/2008/03/air-force-tanke.html
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm