The Pentagon picks Airbus over Boeing; Northwest congressional delegation in an uproar; Update: “This won’t be pretty”
Scroll down for updates…
I mentioned this in the Friday night open thread, but it’s worth a separate post. Boeing lost a major mega-contract on an air tanker to Airbus/Northrop. Lots of buzz in military circles about the decision that came down today:
Northrop Grumman Corp. won a U.S. Air Force program valued at as much as $35 billion to build 179 aerial refueling tankers with partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. in a surprise decision that breaks Boeing Co.’s half-century hold on the business.
Northrop, based in Los Angeles, and its team won an initial contract of $1.5 billion for development and design of four test aircraft and five options valued at $10.6 billion to build 64 aircraft, the Air Force said in a statement today. Boeing was the unanimous pick to win in a Bloomberg News analyst survey this month.
The new aircraft, to be named the KC-45A, will replace Boeing-built KC-135 tankers flown by the Air Force since 1956. If all contract options are fully funded, the tanker program would become the largest Pentagon project since 2001 when Lockheed Martin Corp. was chosen to build the Joint Strike Fighter.
“This was definitely a surprise win,” said Peter Arment, an analyst with Greenwich, Connecticut-based American Technology Research, who has a “sell” rating on Boeing stock. “Northrop had a plane with more capability for cargo and fuel capacity and those capabilities made it very compelling. The Air Force decided that was the direction they wanted to go in.”
The announcement came after the close of U.S. markets. Northrop, the third-largest U.S. defense contractor, rose $4.19, or 5.3 percent, to $82.80 at 5:58 p.m. in after-market trading. Boeing shares fell $2.69, or 3.2 percent, to $80.10 at 6 p.m.
Boeing said it hasn’t decided whether to protest the decision.
John Noonan notes a corruption angle on the story, with John McCain playing a key role in exposing shady Boeing dealings:
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.
The Northwest congressional delegation is up in arms–issuing a bipartisan joint statement:
We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military.
This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform.
Boeing has 75 years of experience in building the tankers our military flies. Washington state’s workers are second to none and so is their product.
At a time when our economy is hurting, this is a blow not only to our state, but the more than 40 states across the country who would help build this national plane.
We will be asking tough questions about the decision to outsource this contract. We look forward to hearing the Air Force’s justification.
Aerospace workers in the Seattle area held angry protests after the announcement.
DonWard at Soundpolitics weighs in:
The Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. variant of the AirBus A-330 frame was more in keeping with the strategic goal espoused by the Pentagon than the modified 767. EADS has already beat out Boeing with smaller tanker contract competitions between the two models.
The A-330 reportedly has greater flight endurance and a bigger payload than the 767. Boeing’s product has the tactical advantage of being able to be deployed closer to frontline battlefields and on smaller runways. This has its benefits to be sure where, in theory, tankers could base in Afghanistan or similar far flung environments.
This runs contrary sixty years of Air Force doctrine where the strategic purpose of refueling tankers is to linger out of harms way for an extended period of time.
If a tanker plane design carries more fuel and flies longer it will beat any competing design lacking in those two categories; all things being considered equal.
Another issue is that the Pentagon has snubbed an American airplane manufacturer in favor of a foreign rival. The question is whether supporting a domestic company outweighs the military benefits of having a superior piece of equipment.
This is always a consideration.
Boeing could have made the decision easier by designing the plane which the Air Force brass wanted in the first place rather than dictating to the military what they had to make do with.
The Seattle Times asks its readers: Why do you think Boeing lost the contract?
If any of you have expertise/familiarity with the issue, share your thoughts.
***
Update: Good point from a reader who e-mails, “Boeing is responsible for designing the virtual border fence which is a virtual disaster. They did not even consult the border agents on the software that was to be used and now has to go back and redesign the software for military style usage. So Boeing may not be the best people to trust with national security at the moment.”
Update 3/1: Via the Seattle Times this morning, more sound, fury, and threats from lawmakers…
“This won’t be pretty.”
That is the warning and the promise issued Friday by Rep. Norm Dicks, one of Boeing’s foremost supporters in Congress.
Dicks, D-Bremerton, predicted “there will be a firestorm of criticism on Capitol Hill” over the Pentagon’s award of the $40 billion tanker contract to a joint venture between European EADS, the parent of Airbus, and Northrop Grumman.
Dicks’ words were echoed by Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, whose district includes Everett’s Boeing plant.
“Obviously, Congress is going to react to the American public,” Murray said, adding there will likely be anger on the part of Americans who see thousands of jobs being sent overseas.
How about getting the facts first?
But the legislators acknowledged that their immediate reactions to the news — shock and anger — might have to give way to administrative processes.
“As much as we want to yell and scream today, we do need to understand from the Air Force what the facts are,” Murray said.
She said the Pentagon must debrief members of Congress, explaining how Boeing’s bid fell short. The real test then will be whether their colleagues from other states are prepared to take action, Murray said.
That could be complicated by McCain’s emergence as the likely Republican nominee for president, though he has said he thinks the earlier scandals no longer taint Boeing.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
First Day of 2012 Open Thread & Aspirin-Swapping Roundtable
January 1, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
235 Comments
Reports: Miners trapped in Mullan, Idaho; 6 hospitalized
December 15, 2011 01:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
23 Comments
Sports and the sexual abuse of children; Plus: Rick Santorum makes things worse
November 8, 2011 02:29 PM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments10 years ago: My generation’s bloody wake-up call
September 10, 2011 10:07 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 Comments
Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene Open Thread
August 28, 2011 12:25 PM by Doug Powers
104 CommentsQuake alert: Shake, rattle, and roll!
August 23, 2011 02:03 PM by Michelle Malkin
231 CommentsHappy Mother’s Day!
May 8, 2011 11:07 AM by Doug Powers
57 CommentsChrist the Lord is risen today
April 24, 2011 09:32 AM by Michelle Malkin
100 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesPundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» Notre Dame faculty calls Obama so-called accommodation “grave violation of religious freedom”
Another round of Boeing layoffs incoming, I fear. Fantastic for the Seattle economy.
Its simple – the Northrop team put together a better aircraft that was cost effective, and it met the specs the AIrforce needed.
Its complex – Boeing cut its throat politically back in 2001, which opened the door for Northrop, who is very well connected in other areas of defense (Shipbuilding for example).
And its simple again – Boeing and Lockheed do not have aircraft manuacturing capacity that is at risk, being as they have civilian and recent military wins. It was Northrop’s turn.
NG’s plant will be in Alabama.
And with all the crap going on in the Seattle area, and all the nasty anti-military people there, and the lunatics in the Wash State, do you think Seattle DESERVED it more?
Price to be paid, Seattle. The bill just came due for being hostile to the military.
Sheer arrogance by Boeing.
The new tanker will be assembled in Mobile, Alabama, with more of the future production work to move from Toulouse to Mobile. So the work moves from a blue state (Washington) to a red state (Alabama). Oh, well.
If I’m not mistaken Tom Daschle’s, the former senator and majority leader, wife is a big time lobbyist for Boeing. Could be the big fish that got away. Maybe this will make the liberal Northeast take another look at their agenda concerning the military.
Nice lack of logic. Even if the statement is true, it would have created (or maintained) at least that much if the work had gone to a team solely based within the US. Now even critical military manufacturing is moving overseas. I may not survive the new world order.
Coffee – some components will be made overseas, but the majority of the aircraft will be made here, and 100% of the assembly work will be done here in the US, as will most of the spares.
And thats not uinque – you ahve to remember that a vast majority of chip fabrication is done outside the US, including the subcomponents of many other defense systems.
Its global economy, for better or worse.
Boeing has been on a downhill slide ever since the government let them buy out their main American competitor in the commercial airline business … McDonnell-Douglas … they immediately closed a lot of the M-D plants … they lost their competitive fire when they no longer had that US competitor to deal with …
M-D was the developer of the Apache Attack Helicopter and other military products as well as airliners …
Now … we just got told they can’t even make a 28 mile, 20-odd million dollar stretch of virtual fence on the border work … so why should they get more contracts to screw up …
Besides … I agree with the comments about payback time for all the anti-military actions in Olympia and Seattle …
To me, putting ANY major military component into the control of any other country, even an Allie (at the time) is a HUGE mistake.
We spend BILLIONS helping other countries economies, but then, in a time of recession, don’t help ourselves?
DOH!
Boeing needs to concentrate on what it does best, design and build airplanes. They have a useless 28 mile virtual fence that is dead, but cost more than it is worth.
The Vought plant in Nashville (next to KBNA) already produces wings for the A330/A340. The KC-45A is basically an A330-300 with an A340-300 wing (two extra hard points). Mobile may be final assembly, but the components are sourced from all over, including other US states.
I have a feeling the USAF went with a better product for the mission with the Airbus (and I am a fan of Boeing aircraft).
McCain wasn’t going to carry Washington in any event so maybe something good has come from his actions. I’m no fan of Boeing, any more than I am of McCain, but this agreement appears to make sense. Certainly if we have to deal with any country in Europe, and it pains me to say this because it could all change in an instant, it might as well be France.
Moreover, Boeing is a very PC company in, as noted, a very PC state, and having worked at the Lazy-B, I am here to tell you they really and gleefully push the buttons hard. My time spent at that awful place were among the worst in my working career.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys. Go France!
For those who want to know what this beast will look like, check here (still called a KC-30 for the competetion based on the A330 airframe):
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/
Northrop’s got a great history of building highly capable aircraft. They lost a fighter competition to Boeing (F-22 vs. F-23). Airbus sources a lot of parts for commercial and military aviation, just as American companies are subcontractors to EU military systems. Boeing’s illegal dealings in 2001 delayed replacement of the tankers flown since 1956 until 2008. It seems likely this also weighed in the decision (personally I would hope so). Also, the announcement stated that Northrop’s team offered a tanker design that better meets the military’s requirements. Add the Northrop runs contract programs very efficiently = why not Northrop’s team? The contract didn’t go to Airbus – it went to the Northrop team that Airbus is a big part of. The Sarkozy angle probably helped, too.
Plus, we’ve now got 3 healthy US manufacturers building military planes: Boeing, Lockheed-Marting, and Northrop.
Correction, “competition”
PBoilermaker: Thanks for the tech details. The A330/A340 seems to be a great airframe…seems like the best team won.
DesertLover: M-D announced closure of their Commerical Aircraft organization more than a year before the Boeing acquisition. I was there when Mike Sears made the announcement – interesting aside: Mike Sears was the Boeing CFO that is now in prison for the illegal influence on the tanker lease program.
I agree whole heartedly that Boeing’s been sliding since. Didn’t seem like they had military plane experience, and M-D had a lot a bad habits that seem to have transferred to Boeing.
The fence debacle you’ve deftly hammered on clearly shows B’s struggling to be effective in such diverse areas – they bought most of Hughes Aircraft didn’t they? – and still ethically-questionable given B’s getting another $65M for the virtual fence that didn’t work after spending $20M.
The way airbust delivers those tankers won’t see air until 2025. Very bad decision.
Ouch! Well done!!
Did Boeing relocate HQ to Chicago? And mostly build commercial aircraft in the NW?
Yep, as DesertLover points out, they just totally fumbled the virtual Fence contract–although there’s some speculation that Bush and Juan McAmnesty tried to rush that virtual fence tech through to pacify conservatives to pass the shamnesty bill. (Maybe that’s just Beoing’s spin?) That’s two high-profile hits in a row–although it sounds like this aircraft deal was much bigger.
How could anyone feel the slightest sympathy for the Seattle area? Talk about leftist scum….we’re very proud to have the KC-30 coming down here to the Gulf Coast.
Washington State lost much with this decision. However, Boeing is a Chicago based Company.
Where was the Senator from Illinois during this affair? I doubt that he was doing what his people elected him to do. He was more worried about getting elected to a higher position.
I guess this is one more thing that Sen. Obama can add to his list of things he didn’t take leadership on.
Perfesser @17 – Make no mistake. Boeing did NOT acquire MD. MD bought Boeing with their own money! The only thing that remained of Boeing was the name. The leadership of the “new Boeing”, including all those who made a mess of things, were from MD.
Condit was unable to control the MD bad-boys. Harry and Sears destroyed what was left.
Boeing has bounced back and is again a great company with integrity. But it was a wild ride.
as a former (retired)employee of Boeing and having known a couple folks that try to acquire the contracts for Boeing I am not surprised by the outcome of the competition. Boeing historically has this bad habit of trying to tell the customer what it should buy and why instead of asking what the customer really wants. Believe me when I say that they lost a few contracts when I was there because of that attitude. Management has this “the right way. the wrong way and the Boeing way” mind set and I’ll give 3 guesses which they pick. Just ask any of the company management team either from their forced retirement or jail cells …
coffee, the KC-767 is 85% US. Most of the rest is Japan, with 3% to Italy and 1% to the UK. The KC-30 is 58% US (which includes all of the militarization along with the engines and assembly) with the rest (i.e. the plane itself in pieces) EADS, split among the usual suspects: Germany, France, UK and Spain. There is no critical military manufacturing moving overseas.
gandolphxx @10: “Boeing needs to concentrate on what it does best, design and build airplanes.”
That is a very interesting statement, because that’s what many Boeing employees would say. However, that is NOT what Boeing’s main emphasis any more. Boeing’s core competency is now large scale systems integration.
The new KC-45 aircraft will use General Electric CF6-80E1 engines, which are assembled in Evendale, Ohio.
*rotflmao* all evidence to the contrary.
Boeing is just like Chevrolet/Dodge/Ford in the 70s. Dumb, fat, and happy.
They had a lock on the Pentagon — funny how the complaints about this were non-existent from the Northwest — and they were making a mint off of financing — hmm what is that? deafning silence on the immoral lending outfits — and tried to rack up more money with dubious leasing arrangements. [is there a mileage charge for jets?]. Boeing bought into the conventional wisdom, now they get to pay the price. Boo-hoo.
Where are all the lefties complaining that the Pentagon purchases faulty equipment? Oh yea, they are complaining that the Pentagon isn’t purchasing THEIR faulty equipment.
Everyone one of the pols complaining only cares about the campaign contributions they just lost because of this decision.
From the most recent 10-K:
they did.
how about improving your products? anyone see a problem here?
Our customers are so happy they are leaving in droves for a socialist competitor.
Hey, liberals wanted the military out of Washington and it looks like they got their way. You know what they say. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
I have relatives in Mobile, AL, and they’re thrilled to death about this. They also love the military down there as well and there are a lot of vets in that area too (with 12 of my cousins in that count).
As Rip said, the liberals want the military out of Washington and knowing many people who’ve been stationed there, they wish the post would pack up and leave as well.
I’m a bit biased, being a former employee of Northrop Grumman Newport News (parted on good terms – I wanted to go back to college), I love seeing Northrop Grumman win out.
Sweet Home Alabama. Maybe some of the left wing folks from the NW will resettle to the land of chittlins, pickup trucks, moon pies and RC cola!
My brother is an engineer working on the Airbus in Seattle. He believes he will be one of the last generation American born engineers having a career in his field.
Boeing employs engineers from around the world. How? Work visas! Boeing brings in people from India, Russia, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Korea, Canada, etc., etc., using the HB visa programs.
Why do they always recruit workers from around the globe? Same reason employers are allowed to employ illegal aliens, to keep their wage cost down and profits up.
The out of work loony military protesters should be very happy that Boeings military production has been struck a devastating blow!
I don’t think the issue is completely settled. From AWST:
We’ll be talking about the bid protest in June, or longer. Congressional hearings in 3,2,1…
I expect a Code Pink Parade in Seattle soon. That should help Boeing lots.
What I heard was that Boeing tried to convince the Pentagon they needed a square peg in a round hole.
Northrop actually bothered to listen to the needs of the military and submitted a new design, whereas Boeing’s submission contained little input from the military.
Boeing’s approach is pretty consistent with their dealings with the government. Look at what they dis with the failed “secure border fence”. They developed and rolled out the project without even soliciting input from the ultimate end users in the Boirder Patrol.
There are other benefits in spreading out the work among different companies in different locations. And the comment on the hostility of the State of Washington to the military is indeed a factor. Once a project like this starts, there is little room for delay, especially delays caused by civilian protests.
The military needed a global refueling platform capable of being based out of harms way but with the range to conduct refureling operations around the world. Northrop gave them what they wanted. Boeing’s solution was for a shorter range aircraft based in theater that was not capable of refueling as many aircraft with one load as the Airbus aircraft.
I seriously doubt the bid rigging of the past had anything to do with the decision. In the end, the military cannot afford to punish contractors by passing on an aircraft that better meets their needs. The lives of military personnel are not chips in a political poker game.
I want our Air Force to have the best equipment possible. If the military brass think that Northrup equipment is the best then spend my tax dollars on that. I’ll have to admit a little schadenfreude, for the socialist state of Washington, even though it’s a French plane.
Because they can’t find qualified engineers in the U.S.
Hhhhmmm…..where was the ‘Northwest Congressional Delegation’ when the moonbats were camping in front of the trucks offloading military supplies? Oh, that’s right, GI Joe doesn’t make political contributions, Boeing does.
#5 You are right, Tom Daschle’s wife Linda is a lobbyist to Boeing and a few of the airlines. She is also a lobbyist for L3 who makes the machines that scan baggage at airports (very ineffective machines). Lobbying must be harder work when your husband is no longer the Senate Majority/Minority Leader, or a Senator at all for that matter.
Amen. All branches of the military ought to have the best equipment, regardless of where it’s made.
Willie Brown’s success in getting the military out of the Bay area put the area on the march to the “Workers Paradise” mentality (as exhibited by the recent “Pinkos” USMC protests.
With the defense industry now dying on the vine in PacNorWest, they will marshall their “intellectuals’ ” forces to become the new Albania of the west coast.
What they failed to mention is the production problems Airbus has had at times due to the Unions in France and the workers there. Does no one know or remember about the A380 delays the the cost overruns because of it?
#1 Jeddie said, “Fantastic for the Seattle economy”
Yep! I’d rather support the French economy than the anti-American-envrio-commie-socialist-Starbuck freaks of Washington State!
Yes Boeing has had problems of late, but I think it’s still a great high tech American company. I have no association with Boeing, but keeping these high tech jobs in the USA is important. It bothers me that the the US government would give a large portion of such a huge contract to Airbus. So much for supporting high tech American industries and so much for helping our trade deficit.
Isn’t that backward? Shouldn’t high tech American industries support their customers–especially the military–by delivering a quality product at an affordable price?
A great American high tech company could have finished the “virtual border fence” on time, under budget and working properly. I don’t like being fleeced. I will be calling my congressman Duncan as well as my Senators to let them know I expect them to do what is right for our soldiers and not crossing the aisle to make the communist legislators in Washington state happy. I could really care less about bipartisanship. I’m a conservative, and a lot less compassionate these days.
Tell ‘em about it TexasTiger. I think we are on the same wavelength.
Being a KC-135A/Q/RT and KC-10A Boom Operator I tend to be a little partial toward Boeing products. After all Boeing pioneered the rigid boom aerial refueling technology with the B-29 using rudders (called ruddervators) on the boom to direct air flow allowing the operator to actually fly this part of the aircraft.
I started flying the old KC-135A steam jet (we used 550 gallons of demineralized water injected into the engines to increase thrust for takeoff, as we called it 90 seconds of shear terror during the dangerous takeoff phase of flight) back in 1979. The J-57 engine we had at the time was just not powerful enough and we were losing one crew a year due to not having enough thrust to get the aircraft out of the trouble you either got into due to mechanical failure or pilot error. The re-engined R model with the powerful CMF-56 engine was a huge improvement in power and started to come on line about the time I was selected for the new KC-10A tanker developed by McDonnell-Douglas in the mid-1980s.
At the time the KC-10A became operational with only 60 aircraft we have been expecting a new generation of tanker since about the time I was grounded in 1990, but after the end of the Cold War, the overwhelming victory of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and Clinton in the White House the objective was to use the peace dividend to save money (thank Bush I for that) and the military was gutted almost as badly as by the Carter Administration. We continued to fly the R model while retiring the A model tankers. The oldest still flying are the same age as I am 1957 models. It is time to retire them as soon as possible.
We still have a pretty good network among the Boom Operator community based at the Combat Crew Training Center at Altus AFB, OK. They conduct annual reunions allowing us to continue the fellowship of the many friends we made while flying and to keep up with the latest developments. Back in 2004 we had a reunion at what used to be Castle AFB in Atwater, CA and I was able to catch up with my flying buddies and there was a lot of talk about the next generation of tanker with everyone hoping it would be the Boeing KC-767. I am just glad we will have a modern aircraft to perform this essential service to our flying fleet.
Considering the KC-135A was developed to replace the propeller driven KC-97 with a primary mission to support the B-52 operated by Strategic Air Command during the Cold War days and the cargo capabilities of the aircraft were very primitive and the evolution of a more mobile force controlled by the T tail mafia of Air Combat Command the Air Force requires all the cargo capability it can get along with the abilities of a tanker aircraft so I fully understand why the new Northrup-Grunman KC-30 was selected. I can’t bring myself to use the Eurotrash Airbus connection. I am still pretty unhappy with the French for not allowing us to fly a direct path when we attacked Libya with F-111 aircraft in 1987. Not that I have every really been fond of the cheese eating surrender monkeys.
I do feel sorry for the employees if Boeing, but am torn in my enjoyment of watching the far left anarchist culture of Puget Sound being deprived of the tax dollars that will be used to build this new generation of tanker.
DanMe, we are a capitalist country, we have always been a globalist economy. We want the best products. Being a retired USAF, I am more concerned with providing our warfighters with the best equipment available. The liberal Northwest now has to walk the walk in their hate for the military; they are capitalist after all, it’s about the money. Northrup has been very diverse in the aviation industry; Boeing, on the other hand, has been an expert on large frame aircraft.
If the French can build the type of plane our military needs, i.e., one that has greater fuel transport capacity, then so be it; plus, like the other posters here have said, there’s something sweet about denying the anti-military left in Washington state a pretty lucrative Air Force contract.
A better product, built with input from the customer – our Air Force – at a better price, spreading economic benefits around our country too numerous states.
Boeing’s quality has been in decline or a while, even while they had a lock on ctonracts for decades with the Pentagon.
Yes. It is a shame that we have to look to a French company to fullfil our needs for this contract. But, it is a global market – good, bad or indiffernt – and we go where they have the technology and the ability to make it right.
If Boeing wants to remain competitive, maybe they need to back up, regroup and come up with more solid and cost-effective designs, actually taking into consideration what the customer wants, not what they want to dictate to the customer.
As a taxpayer footing the bill for the award of this contract, I don’t have any real issues with it. My money seems to have gone to the better value, at least as far as government purchases are concerned.
Boeing is in the fence business now. They don’t need to build airplanes any more.
Boeing lost the contract because they underperform on all of their others at twice the price.
I wouldn’t get too excited about the red state-blue state issue. Northrop provides a state-by-state impact assessment of the contract here. Among the 20 states impacted by the award, I couldn’t determine if red or blue made out better.
The McCain angle here is that he, among few, brought the Boeing lease boondoggle out in the open for it to be stopped. See Bob Novak’s archives for more.
Should that attempt have disqualified Boeing? What about the ethics scandal that followed? Maybe not.
What about offering a plane the Air Force doesn’t want? More likely.
It will be interesting as it unfolds, but the airframe may end up being a relatively small part of this. There is no doubt a lot of Americans will be working on this.
Companies don’t have an inherent right to government contracts. Working in the industry on the Navy side I can tell you the prime contractor that we work with is ruthless in terms of making a profit. These companies aren’t patriotic anymore, they just care about the money. I wish the DoD offices in Washington, DC would have lawyers as ruthless as those the contractors hire.
Disputes like this are what we get by outsourcing government defense work to contractors. Explain to me why our military-industrial-complex needs contractors anyway? There used to be plenty of weapons systems developed by government engineers without contractor involvement. I know an easy answer is to say “government workers are lazy”, but thats simply not true… there lazy people and hard working people on both sides.
The defenders of our great country should have the best equipment available..that said I can’t help but feel some what elated at the loss of military money to the anti-American, anti-military, unAmerican socialists of the northwest…Bezerkerely, are you watching?
No issues with French labor unions, etc, because this plane is being made in the USA.
A lot of you keep calling this a “French” plane and refer to Airbus’ problems producing aircraft in Europe.
WRONG!
This plane will be produced by Northrop Grumman. Yes, it will use an Airbus design, and a few component from Airbus. But the wings, engines, boom, tanks, etc – they will be made here in the US (as shown by people posting above). And 100% of the assembly done in the US, with the final assembly being done in Alabama at a Northrop Grumman Plant.
People this is NOT a French nor really an “Airbus” plane.
Its an AMERICAN aircraft made here in the USA by Northrop Grumman, a very American company.
THe delicious part is that the shipments for the plane will come in via the port of Mobile. Not Seattle where protester could delay them.
Too bad for Seattle’s Boeing Aircraft guys. Move to Alabama, I’m sure NG can use you – and your taxes will be lower and the weather less gloomy.
Just leave the rotten leftist politics in Washington state with the anarchists and leftists.
Eventually with the jobs flowing out, those spoiled brats will run out of people to rob to pay their welfare.
Capitalism is a beyotch!
Poo. We have a German cannon on a British mount in every M1A1/2 main battle tank. Our premier towed Howitzer is also British. The M240 and M249 machine guns are both Belgium designed.
The main battle tank concept was originated by the British during WWI. American forces used tanks made by Renault and Opel, and were obliged to use a most horrible machine gun known as the Chauchault. The AEF also used some British rifles in British calibers, French gas masks, Canadian hand grenades, and the wonderfully accurate and fast firing French 75mm Howitzer. Heck we even wore British “Tommy” helmets into WWII. Before WWI, the American military was not interested in US citizen Hiram Maxims machine gun design, and neither were the British. He went to the next country capable of making it….Germany.
Late 1800′s, the US Army and Marines are issued the Lee-Navy bolt action rifle of British design, that rifle supplanted the Krag rifle of Norwegian design AND manufacture.
Civil War, at least half of all small arms used, were NOT of US manufacture or design.
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 fielded NO arms of American manufacture or design. We used German drill techniques for troop movement, and copied the British uniform for officers.
We are not immune to equipment made or designed elsewhere. My issue underwear was made in El Salvador
The Air Bus tanker may have a longer endurance and a larger payload and cost less than Boeing’s 767 tanker. The aircraft will be assembled in the USA but most of the components will be manufactured in Europe. But is the Air Bus a better aircraft ? In my opinion, I would say the Boeing 767 is a better aircraft.
But one of the major factors choosing the Air Bus over the Boeing 767 was future maintenance cost and logistical problems for spare parts in the future. The Boeing 767 commercial production is coming to an end. This would mean that the U.S. Air Force would have been the only customer for the 767 and this would mean increase cost for manufacturing for future aircraft and spare parts.
America is becoming a third world country. We are no longer able to arm our military services with American arms and weapons. The M-16 rifle we issue our troops is no longer manufactured by Colt but by Fabrique National, an European company. Our basic side arm is no longer the Colt .45 acp M-1911-A1 but a inferior 9 mm Beretta pistol of Italy. We even had to purchase ammunition from Israel during the first year in Iraq because we couldn’t manufacture enough ammunition fast enough in America. But we can blame the liberal anti gun movement for all of the above. They have forced gun and ammunition manufactures to go out of business in America.
Great post Jim M…very informative. I worked for a big defense contractor in a former life, and I completely agree with your takes on this subject.
This will just free up Boeing to get the bugs out of that virtual fence they just can’t ssem to get working right.
per #61 Off topic: small arms ammo was being purchased from Israel 20+ years ago. Our ability to make our own ammunition has been in the hole for several decades and is really old news except to the young folks. And that ammo was “hot”. The pistol team I belonged to cracked several 45 frames shooting it (one reason they had to finally replace the 1911, they were wearing out).
To think the USAF wouldn’t have an answer to the blowback will be a mistake.
Losing bidder debriefs are part of the game.
As a longtime resident of the Peoples Republic of Washington state I am not too disappointed by this. Things around here are going to get ugly – but not as ugly as you might think. Boeing isn’t the only ‘major employer’ around here anymore.
Hopefully Boeing will get rid of its leadership and heads should roll over this – otherwise things are going to get a whole lot uglier. Looks like Boeing was depending on its being an ‘American company’ to overcome their proposal of a smaller, more expensive aircraft which basically didn’t meet the air force’s needs.
And not everyone in Washington State is a flaming Leftist moonbat….
As long as NG is controlling things, I really don’t have a problem with this. Otherwise, given Euro Airbus’s history of not delivering airframes anywhere close to on-time, I’d have a problem.
Boeing may not know what they’re doing when it come to building fences but they are the absolute best aircraft manufacturer in the world. I will not fly on an Airbus when a Boeing is available. And Boeing had an alternative, the KC-777. From a 2006 Seattle PI article:
The KC-777 would be considerably larger, carry more fuel, cargo, and passengers then the Airbus tanker. And unless Airbus corrects this on the tanker version, it will limit what the pilots can do because the computer is always in control of the aircraft and prevents the pilots from “over stressing” the aircraft, which I think USAF pilots are qualified to do themselves.
My father flew over 30 missions in the greatest Boeing aircraft ever made; the B-17 Flying Fortress. Boeing has a rich history and tradition with the USAF but they botched this contract.
Personally, I believe all of the factors surrounding this decision weighed against Boeing.
1) Airbus designed a tanker with more capacity.
2) Some of the Airbus parts are already being made in the U.S.
3) Mobile, AL is a port city (like Seattle) and capable of handling ship traffic.
4) Mobile, AL does NOT have wackadoodle socialists running the place, like Seattle does.
5) All of the problems the military is having with protesters in the Seattle area.
This is NOT a difficult choice for the Air Force. The Northrop/Airbus tanker makes much more sense. If Seattle/Boeing want more gov’t contracts in the future, they’d better clean up the their town.
I much prefer flying on a Boeing product than an Airbus. I was disappointed that Airbus won this contract. But if the plane is better and fits the military’s specs where the Boeing plane did not, we owe it to our military personnel to support the best product. Even if it helps the French economy more than our own.
Boeing needs to build a better plane next time.
This IS hillarious! Anti-military uber-leftists from the Northwest crying about not being able to capitalize on military spending for their constituency? What’s the old saying…what goes down, comes around?
Maybe actual competition will help Boeing become a stronger, leaner company. Now, they won’t have to rationalize charging $2,500 for aircraft toilet seats, eh?
If you “most of the plane is made in Europe” poeople would just look a few things up you’d find you were wrong.
Here is a list (Note that most of these are RED states)
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Alabama will include:
* Engelhard (BASF), Huntsville, Ala. — Ozone Converter
* GKN-Westland Aero, Tallassee, Ala. — Wing Panels
* PPG Industries, Huntsville, Ala. — Windshield & Glass
* EADS NAT, Mobile, Ala. — A330 Assembly
* Goodrich Aerospace, Foley, Ala. — Engine Sub-Assemblies
* Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Mobile, Ala. — Program Support
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Arizona will include:
— Goodrich Corporation; Phoenix
— Honeywell; Phoenix, Tempe, Tucson, Ariz.
— L3 Communications; Phoenix
— American Aerospace Tech Castings; Phoenix
— Intec EDM; Tempe, Ariz.
— Parker Seal – CSS Division; Tempe, Ariz.
Arkansas:
Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and its KC-30 Tanker supply base will generate significant economic activity and support 150 direct aerospace jobs in Arkansas.
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base of more than 40 California companies includes:
Alcoa; Torrance, Calif.
Barry Controls; Burbank, Calif.
Circle Seal Controls; Corona, Calif.
Meggitt Safety Systems, Inc.; Simi Valley, Calif.
Pacific Scientific; Duarte, Calif.
Teledyne; Los Angeles
ACRA Aerospace; Anaheim, Calif.
Air Master Production Corp.; Chatsworth, Calif.
Ameteck Aerospace; Costa Mesa, Calif.
Avibank Manufacturing Inc.; North Hollywood, Calif.
Carlton Forge Works; Paramount, Calif.
Cast Parts Inc.; City of Industry, Calif.
City Wire Cloth; Fontana, Calif.
Eaton Aerospace; Los Angeles
GKN Aerospace Chemtronics; El Cajon, Calif.
Goodrich Aerostructures Group; Chula Vista, Calif.
Hartwell Corporation; Los Angeles
Hexcel Composities; Dublin, Calif.
Hi-temp Insulation; Camarillo, Calif.
Honeywell; Torrance, Calif.
Independent Forge Company; Orange, Calif.
ITT Aerospace Controls division; Valencia, Calif.
Jet Manufacturing; Corona, Calif.
Kirkhill Rubber Company; Brea, Calif.
Kirkhill-AT Company; Valencia, Calif.
Morton Manufacturing; Santa Clarita, Calif.
Pentacon Aerospace Group; Chatsworth, Calif.
PSI Bearings; Simi Valley, Calif.
RBC Transport Dynamics; Santa Ana, Calif.
Schlosser Forge Company; Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
Stillman Seal; Carlsbad, Calif.
Thermal Structures Inc.; Corona, Calif.
Transdigm Adelwiggins Group; Los Angeles
Argo Tech; Costa Mesa, Calif.
Easterline Mason; Sylmar, Calif.
KGS; Arcadia, Calif.
Parker Aerospace; Irvine, Calif.
Dowkey; Ventura, Calif.
Fischer Custom Communications; Torrance, Calif.
Phoenix International; Orange, Calif.
Synergy Microsystems; San Diego
Viasat; Carlsbad, Calif.
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Florida includes:
* Gables Engineering, Coral Gables, Fla. – Air traffic control
panel
* ABA Industries, Pinellas Park, Fla. – Engine subassemblies
* Kam Specialties, Pompano Beach, Fla. – Engine subassemblies
* Pall Aeropower Corporation, New Port Richey, Fla. – Engine
subassemblies
* L3 Communications, Sarasota, Fla. – Mission recording system
* Smiths Aerospace, Clearwater, Fla. – Flight management system
* EADS, Melbourne, Fla. – Program management and engineering
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Georgia will include:
* Vought, Millegeville, Ga. – Engine Sub-Assemblies
* Parker Hannifin, Dublin, Ga. – Servo Valves
* RCF Seals, Vidalia, Ga. – Engine Sub-Assemblies
* TIG Hitco, Atlanta, Ga. – Engine Sub-Assemblies
* Millennium Solutions, Chamblee, Ga. – Aircraft Components
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Illinois includes:
* Hamilton Sundstrand; Rockford, Ill. — turbine and power generation
control units
* Abrasive Form; Bloomingdale, Ill. — engine sub-assemblies
* Danville Metal Stamping; Danville, Ill. — engine sub-assemblies
* NTN Bearing Corp.; Mount Prospect, Ill. — engine sub-assemblies
* MPC; Skokie, Ill. — aerial refueling boom components
* Northrop Grumman; Rolling Meadows, Ill. — LAIRCM
Continued…
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Indiana will include:
Alcoa; Lafayette, Ind.
Honeywell; South Bend, Ind.
BAE Systems; Fort Wayne, Ind.
L&E Engineering; Greenwood, Ind.
Morris Machine; Indianapolis, Ind.
Praxair Surface Technologies; Indianapolis, Ind.
Reeder & Kline Machine; Carmel, Ind.
Louisiana:
Northrop Grumman and the KC-30 industry team support more than 5,500 jobs throughout the state and inject $265 million in employee salaries into the economy each year. Louisiana’s KC-30 supply chain brings nearly $12 million to the economy annually
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Maryland will include:
Middle River Aircraft Systems; Baltimore
Perkinelmer Fluid Sciences; Beltsville, Md.
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems; Linthicum, Md.
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Michigan will include:
Smiths Aerospace; Grand Rapids, Mich.
Eaton Aerospace; Grand Rapids and Jackson, Mich.
Parker Aerospace; Kalamazoo, Mich.
Barnes Aerospace; Lansing, Mich.
Flexfab LLC.; Hastings, Mich.
Howmet Corp.; Whitehall, Mich.
Moeller Manufacturing; Wixom, Mich.
Rolled Alloys; Temperance, Mich.
MIssissippi:
Northrop Grumman’s current KC-30 supply base in Mississippi employs 520 employees and will provide aircraft components for the KC-30 Tanker.
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in New Mexico will include:
* GE; Albuquerque, N.M. — CF6 engine sub-assemblies
* Mach2 Machining and Manufacturing; Albuquerque, N.M. — CF6 engine
sub-assemblies
* Sun Country Industries; Albuquerque, N.M. — CF6 engine
sub-assemblies
* Honeywell; Albuquerque, N.M. — Radio Management Systems
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in North Carolina will include:
— Alvac, Monroe, N.C. – Titanium
— Cincinnati Thermal Spray, Rocky Point, N.C. – CF6 engine
sub-assemblies
— GE Shop-Assembly, Durham, N.C. – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
— GE Shop-Disks, Wilmington, N.C. – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
— Goodrich Corporation, Charlotte, N.C. – computer systems
— AAR Corporation, Goldsboro, N.C. – advanced cargo loading system
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Ohio will include:
GE; Cincinnati – will provide the CF6 engines
Goodrich; Troy, Ohio – nose wheel assemblies
RTI International; Niles, Ohio – will provide titanium
Barnes Aerospace; West Chester, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Byron Products; Fairfield, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Cincinnati Thermal Spray; Cincinnati – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Ferco Tech; Franklin, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
GE Shop – Frames & Shafts; Evendale, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
GE Shop – Tubes; Xenia, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Graphel Corporation; West Chester, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Metal Improvement Co.; Blue Ash, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Ohio Gasket & Shim; Akron, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Parker Aerospace; Forest, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
PCC – Airfoils Co.; Wickliffe, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
QC Labs; Woodlawn, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Tool Sales & Service; Cincinnati – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
TW Metals; Cincinnati – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
U.S. Aeroteam; Dayton, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
U.S. Chrome Corp.; Dayton, Ohio – CF6 engine sub-assemblies
Honeywell; Urbana, Ohio – pilot director and marker lights
Northrop Grumman; Fairborn, Ohio – will provide the training system
Continued…
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Pennsylvania will include:
Timet; Morgantown, Pa.
Carpenter Technology; Reading, Pa.
SPS Technologies; Jenkintown, Pa.
(guess they had to get Jack Murtha his payola)
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in Tennessee will include:
* Vought Aircraft Industries, Nashville, Tenn. – A330 wing structure
* Aircraft Safety, Memphis, Tenn. – Interior smoke barriers
The KC-30 supply base in Texas includes:
* Honeywell; Roanoke, Texas — CF6 engine sub-assemblies
* Texas Almet; Arlington, Texas — CF6 engine sub-assemblies
* Wyman-Gordon Forgings; Houston, Texas — CF6 engine castings
* Chelton; Lewisville, Texas — Radio and IFF antennas
* Knight Aerospace; San Antonio, Texas — Palletized seating systems
Virginia-based companies that will support the KC-30 Tanker program include:
* Mecaero Products; Dulles, Va. – CF6 engine subassemblies
* Airbus Service Center; Ashburn, Va. – A330 service and support
* Euro-Composites Corporation; Elkwood, Va. – CF6 engine subassemblies
Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker supply base in West Virginia will include:
Alcan; Ravenswood, W.Va.
Star Technologies; Huntington, W.Va.
Sargent Fletcher; Bridgeport, W.Va.
EADS; Bridgeport, W.Va.
And thats only the publicly available list.
Get the point?
FYI,the breakdown is (roughly)
US 60%, Spain and Germany roughly 12% each, UK 10% and France 6%
And yes I dont mind foreign parts. I went to war with a German Rheinmetall 120mm gun (US Deisngnation M256) in the M1A1, and Chobham composite armor the Brits came up with, and it got us through combat quite well.
As a member of the military I will put this in perspective. As airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines, we are told that the military will do it’s best to:
1. station us where we want to be
2. let us do the job we want to do
But with one provision–The needs of the military come first.
This is just another area where the needs of the military come first. If the Northrup entry is the best choice, well……doesn’t our military deserve the best equipment it needs to do the job we are entrusted to do?
I’d think if the military wanted the very best they would have specifically asked Boeing to use the KC-777.
The Military asked for a new tanker design. What they received from Boeing was a design based on the 767, not the 777. It was Boeing’s responsibility, not the US government’s, to modify their design if they thought the 777 was more consistent with the requirements they have had for years.
If it is indeed true that the use of the 777 airframe would have resulted in a takner that beat the Airbus, it is shame on Boeing, not shame on the military. And whining to the press does nothing to change the specs the Pentagon has in front of them for review. Boeing submitted the 767 for approval, not the 777.
In addition, it may have been exceedingly difficult for Boeing to use the 777 when it was trying to drum up civilian sales of the same aircraft. My undertstanding is that Boeing is already behind schedule on deliveries to the civilian sector, and it sounds likely that adding a military aircraft using the same airframe would have been impossible to deliver. Which is probably why Boeing stuck with the 767 design and never changed it. That, and it would allow them to have a captive customer for an aircraft no longer being made for anyone else, adding to their bottom line.
The three women running Washington state – Gov. Gregoire, Sen. Murray, Sen. Cantwell – are relentless advocates for “open borders” immigration. All three agree that it’s just fine to import foreign labor to our state, which crushes wages and job opportunities for our least skilled citizens. But, it’s Bad, Bad, Bad to send Boeing’s jobs to Europe? Gimme a break.
They aren’t Boeing’s jobs. And has been offered above, they aren’t going to Europe.
While I feel we are all obviously indebted to Boeing for their spectacular performance in WW2, by all accounts Northrup simply designed a better plane. Having spent close to 12 years in the Seattle area, I know it will affect a lot of my friends who work at Boeing, but I agree that the needs of our military should come first. Boeing simply needs to be more competitive in the future.
“A perfect question for Tuesday’s Dumb DEM debate (One that you, of course, won’t hear):
Do you think that the U.S. AIr Force giving a $35 billion tanker deal to the European company Airbus is bad for the American economy and outsourcing our national defense?”
You want jobs to stay in America? Let’s raise a generation with a decent work ethic and stop dumbing down their education.
And if we’re going to just sit around and absorb the empty pop culture around us, at least watch a few episodes of The Apprentice.
Rule # 1, if you don’t listen to the customer and give them what they want, you will lose and SOMEBODY WILL BE FIRED!
I live not too far from the Everett Boeing complex north of Seattle. I’ve been reading the PI comments section on this flap and have laughed so hard the tears rolled. I’ve had to listen to the anti military, anti war, anti Bush rantings until for all these years. Protests from the war to environmental issues from these Socialist scum. Seattle is a twin of San Fransicko. Well, they have talked the talk, but are unable to walk the walk. All of a sudden they are outraged over the loss of this military contract and their chicken has come home to roost. Hats off to Alabama, and don’t give these morons up here any ideas about moving to your state. They’re a pox on society and believe me you’d be most sorry if they moved there.
What no one has mentioned yet? This bid went out before the Euro has jumped against the dollar and I would love to know if the price is locked with US dollars or if the bid was in Euros and will end up costing a lot more now?
I have no problem with Northrup Grumman and Airbus winning this contract. If they designed the better plane then they should receive the contract. Airbus has gotten lazy and hasn’t adapted to the changing needs of the military while Northrup Grumman has.
The Boeing scandal (the tanker lease debacle involving the Air Force) was a big deal a couple of years ago. There was a lot of graft involving not only their civilian contractors but their military counterparts. While the Air Force doesn’t always get it right, I think this time around they went for a plane that better suited their needs.
Let the lefties have a conniption fit. You can’t protest a local military contractor not getting a big contract at the same time that you’re making the miltary’s job more difficult. You can’t have it both ways. Oh, well….
I think (although I could be mistaken) that when contracts such as this are signed, given that it is over a period of 10-15 years, there is generally some kind of clause that takes into account currency fluctations, so I don’t think that will be a problem.
As for the Airbus manufacturing delays, they were specifically for the A380 (wiring problems), and not linked to any other aircraft, so I reckon that risks of any major delays in construction of these tankers are negligeable.
well after talking to people I know who work for Boeing military systems here in Wichita, it seems that the Air Force changed the RFP after Boeing made their submittal. According to my sources the Air Force wanted a tanker, but after Airbus submitted their proposal with the cargo component. Something that was not in the original RFP. This is why Boeing was forced to amend their proposal in Jan.
The Air Force changed the requirements very late in the game and it will be interesting to see how Congress reacts to the bait and switch and how much Airbus filled the campaign coffers of people from the states where the Airbus project will be built.
As for all those saying the plane was to be built in Washington and because its a blue state its good they lost….We in Kansas lost huge because even though the airframe was to be built in Seattle, the tanker conversion and all testing was to be done here in Kansas, you know where we are already doing the 767 tankers for Japan and Italy…
Not going to be pretty is right