EADS-Northrop tanker contract exit prompts EU fears

bbc ^

[darkside321]

Brussels has said it would be "extremely concerned" if the defence group EADS was prevented from fairly bidding for a major US defence deal.

Its comments came after pan-European EADS and US partner Northrop Grumman abandoned a bid for a $35bn (£23bn) mid-air refuelling aircraft contract.

Northrop Grumman and EADS said the terms of the Pentagon tender "clearly favour" US aerospace giant Boeing.

Boeing is now widely expected to win the contract for the aircraft.

The US Pentagon said the contract could even be awarded sooner than expected now that only one bidder remained.

Companies were due to submit their bids by mid-May, but that could now be brought forward.

'Disappointed'

The United States Air Force is seeking to replace its ageing fleet of 1950s-built KC-135 air tankers, which refuel other military planes in mid-air. Northrop and EADS planned to supply a tanker plane based on the large capacity A330 plane made by EADS subsidiary Airbus, while Boeing's tanker is based on its smaller 767F freighter.

Northrop said the US defence department's latest proposed air tanker requirements were unfairly geared towards a smaller aircraft such as the 767.

The European Commission said in a statement that "it would be extremely concerned if it were to emerge that the terms of tender were such as to inhibit open competition for the contract".

It added that it "will be following further developments in this case very closely".

UK Business Secretary Lord Mandelson echoed the Commission's concerns.

"I am extremely disappointed at this announcement," he said.

"Given the open market to US producers we have in Europe, it is very disappointing that a US-led European consortium feels that the revised tanker procurement process is now so biased against them that it is not even worth making a bid.

"It is doubly disappointing...

[oldenuff2no]

This is pretty simple. The 330’s are too big to get in and out of some of the airstrips that the AF needs to fly from. Do there people really believe that they are going to change our entire war plans just so they can have their horse in the race??? The last time this went down they tried to ignore this requirement and finally got caught. Instead of submitting a smaller platform they are trying to play the same game and get a different result.

[ricks_place]

Every Airbus product from the A300 to the A380 has been no risk financed by European Governments, a high tech jobs program. WTO called them on the A380 and the rest of the line is pending WTO action. Too big for landing fields, too inefficient, too bad.

[Yo-Yo]

This is pretty simple. The 330’s are too big to get in and out of some of the airstrips that the AF needs to fly from.

This is simply not true. The Air Force specified operation from a 10,000 foot runway, and both aircraft do that.

And the A330 could operate out of shorter runways than the 767 when carrying the same amount of fuel the 767 carries, which means it could have operated out of more airstrips.

Now, did the A330 take up more space on the ramps? Yes. Were they larger than the hangers built for the KC-135s? Yes. But did they need longer runways? No.

[MHalblaub]

“This is pretty simple. The 330’s are too big to get in and out of some of the airstrips that the AF needs to fly from. “

That is just not true. You can park more tankers on some tiny bases but tankers are not used by Air Force just to ballast tarmac. The aircraft have to takeoff with a fuel load. A KC-30 can operate out of more airfields than a KC-767.

“Do there people really believe that they are going to change our entire war plans just so they can have their horse in the race??? “

According to the GAO report the aircraft offered by NG/EADS got a better aerial refueling efficiency than Boeing’s offer. To determine this Air Force simulated many scenarios with the same computer model used to prepare the latest wars.

The last time this went down they tried to ignore this requirement and finally got caught. Instead of submitting a smaller platform they are trying to play the same game and get a different result.

Not NG/EADS got caught. Air Force got caught.

This time DoD skewed the way how to calculate the fuel costs in an unbelievable way. Therefore NG/EADS dropped the bid.

Both aircrafts would have performed great as tankers. I still prefer a split buy due to development risk, reliability and price.
Even with a contest upfront a split buy could be cheaper due to the fact that after a contest just one bidder remains who can set up the price for the upcoming years.

[MHalblaub]

Were they larger than the hangers built for the KC-135s? Yes.

Did a new aircraft need as much hangars as an old aircraft?