Posted on 12/06/2010 6:28:52 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. will win the U.S. Air Force tanker contract over rival Boeing Co., according to a leading defense analyst.
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said EADS has emerged as the clear favorite for the coveted deal, based on the Air Force's internal analysis of the two competing bids.
"Boeing has lost this competition," Thompson said, citing conversations with Boeing executives. "The only question now is whether they choose to protest the award, and I'm not sure they will."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.al.com ...
Sending our military dollars to a foreign entity should be forbidden. The money should stay here and employ as many Americans as feasible. Yes, Boeing has overseas partners, but building inhouse is the way to go. What happens if WW3 breaks out and we are unable to restock lost aircraft from overseas sources like EADS?
There go those jobs...
EADS should have the right to bid for a contract. If the USAF did not want to have the contract bidded, they should have listed it as a “No Bid” contract. The military allows “no bid” contracts.
Won’t this be just the boost our economy needs? s/
Again?
I read all the arguments pro and con the last time around. Boeing has its problems, but it seems to me that Airbus has far worse problems. Like a tendency to fall apart in midair. And this EADS tanker, though it will carry more, will be too big for many fields or even theaters of operation.
I suspect that the key consideration is that powerful politicians want it to be built in Mobile.
They can add a clause to the contract that all planes are to be built in the USA
Right.
The AF Source Selection documents were leaked on Wikileaks?
Call BS on this.
This is not from Wikileaks. Boeing told Loren Thompson this.
More likely to be able to get parts from EADS than from Boeing’s partners in Red China, the dear friend of North Korea.
We all know that 90% of the work will be done in the EU. The Airbus tanker is a modification of an existing aircraft, already in production. Airbus will fly white-tail A/C, minus interior parts, to Mobile. I really doubt EADS will relocate or duplicate airframe production here. Some work may be done in Mobile to militarize the A/C, but I see only a handful of jobs gained in the US.
The Air Force will get a new tanker in 2103.
I think that the Congress will intervine for Boeing. This whole mess would have been avoided if the USAF made it a “no bid” contract.
This contract has a strange history. After the contract was preliminary given to EADS with a US counterpart, the entire contract was rebid due to complaints from Boeing. Then Boeing was the only contractor for the new bid after the US contractor dropped out feeling that the contract could not be won. The bid should then have been closed. Instead, the bid was reopened to allow EADS to bid alone. Why did the US partner withdraw if it looks like EADS will win the contract essentially on the same grounds as 2 or 3 years ago?
The Air Force has discounted the advantages of the 767 tanker so that the A330 tanker looks superior. The 767 does not get any advantage for its lower cost and more flexibility with regards to airfields and perhaps other areas. The A330 tanker can carry more fuel but only at higher cost and less flexibility.
This contract has been screwed up from the beginning.
Perhaps not.
First of, the avionics, radar, jet engines and military specific items will be built in the US. They are the bulk of the high value in the aircraft.
Gear and brake parts can by sourced in the US. Same for the control surfaces and transparencies.
Airbus already flies all of the parts, including the fuselage in from around the EU for assembly so shipping for assembly in Mobile is not a problem. The wings and tail will be made in EU but even the fuselage could easily be made in the US
If I understand A/C manufacture correctly, the bulk of job are all the subcontractor job to build the components by smaller businesses.
EAD subcomponents will be made in EU, while Boeing would have more subcomponents made in USA.
I am just guessing, and I have no real, hard information on the differing labor impacts between the two alternatives.
The software would be developed in US for Boeing, not so sure about EAD.
I'll believe that when I see it. The cost of duplicating tooling for assembly would eat up any profit EADS hopes to make.
Don't know if Lockheed Martin has the facilities to house such an effort; if not, that's even more startup expense.
Let's not forget French labor unions, who currently assemble Airbus aircraft - how do you think they will react to their jobs being outsourced to America?
If EADS was so concerned about profit margins-why would it build an Airbus assembly line in China (already churning out aircraft)or allow transfer of technology and assembly to countries such as Japan and India which want the Eurofighter ?? They can’t have it both ways. The net worth of the KC-X contract will make the biggest military export contract (if not largest ever) for EADS
Besides companies such as EADS and Boeing have the resources for multiple production lines to keep French, Germans and everyone happy. I don’t think current lines in Europe even have the scope to cater to the USAF’s needs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.