Northrop and EADS retreat from USAF tanker

[+Gepard 11,324]

Today Northrop and EADS spokesmen declared that their companies will not longer take part at the competition for the next USAF tanker.

European and especially german politicans found harsh words against Boing and the Pentagon.

 

I dont know why the european politicians are crying, especially the german ones. Okay. The american politicians have cheaten. Its true. Okay, the USAF will get only the second best tanker plane it could have. Its true.

But the pentagon had a good reason for acting so. And this reason is money.

All words of free trade, of free competition etc. pp. are empty phrases if the only target is maximum profit for a big company.

No need to cry. You can read it in the books of Karl Marx. Thats typical capitalism. Dont worry about it.

For me its a deja vu. Around 20 years ago the german Luftwaffe scrapped the east german stand off missile capable Su-22M4 fighterbomber fleet to favor the dumb iron dropper west german Tornados. They scrapped the highly capable east german Mi-24 fleet to favor the medieval west german UH-1Ds. They favored the west german Heckler&Koch with their outdated and unreliable assault rifels against the east german WIGER company which had a NATO caliber Kalashnikov in production. ... etc etc etc.

No need to cry. Thats capitalism. Not the best weapon will reach the troops. It is like it is.

[+Spillone104 553]

Ehh.. true words...

[Silverbolt 104]

What ironic...i don't like unfair competition, specially when i'm seeing this happening here.

we're about to finally choose the Rafale by presiden'ts policy and scrapping the airforce desicion to buy the gripen.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Silverbolt

[+Gocad 26]

The German government should be really quiet about this whole matter, especially when it comes to blaming the US government of favoritism... *points at A400M*

 

But Gepard, it would have not made much sense of putting East German military equipment into service with the Bundeswehr for two reasons. First of all, there was the severe reduction of the armed forces after the unification, but also that they would have needed to spend additional money to make the ex-Soviet equipment usable with NATO standards.

[sarcasm]Besides, what does Germany what with strike aircraft anyway....it's not like they would drop bombs on anyone any time soon. That would probably mean the end of the world.[/sarcasm]

 

 

Also, H&Ks unreliable?

[macelena 1,070]

It happens everywhere. In example:

 

About the Helos, while our army wanted the AH-64 and UH-60, we ordered the Tiger and Cougar. And when the Navy wanted latest variant SeaHawks for utility and the Air Force Super Cougars for CSAR/MEDEVAC, they both got the NH90s the Army ordered...to replace the Cougar. All for european partnership.

 

In the early 60s, our Air Force was about to buy Mirage IIIC. We got F-104G. Finally, in 1970, Mirage IIIE were delivered

 

 

 

 

 

[+GrinchWSLG 24]

Okay. The american politicians have cheaten. Its true. Okay, the USAF will get only the second best tanker plane it could have. Its true.

 

You're somehow claiming Airbus wasn't padding American politicians pockets too? Come on... The results of the competition were thrown out by a GAO board. Its sorta their job to determine when things aren't fair or impartial. I've read some of their reports in college and they can be honest to the point of brutal.

 

And I also don't see how the Airbus tanker was any better than Boeing's offer. It was more than the Air Force and the tax payers needed.

[+Typhoid 231]

horse droppings, my friends.

 

Northrup (what country is that company from again?) and EADS had a mix of European and American work, as did Boeing.

 

on the last go around of this, an analysis I saw on the two proposals showed that the content of European and American work was about equal.

 

The Airbus proposal had some good stuff in it, and some not so good stuff in it.

 

The Boeing proposal had some good stuff in it, and some not so good stuff in it.

 

Airbus won last time. The protest was keyed on irregularities in the RFP and source selection process. Those complaints were validated (as in found to be true).

 

The new RFP got critical comments from BOTH teams complaining that the new RFP favored the other.

 

You can hardly make the case that this demonstrates the fall of capitalism - that is quite a stretch.

 

When I read the last proposals, I thought Airbus had won fair and square, until I saw what was in the protest. The source selection process changed the criteria after the bids were in. That was a foul, plain and simple.

 

This time, the RFP was clearer on the operational criteria. I am surprised that Northrup-EADS chose not to play. But their declining to play is hardly proof of the fall of capitalism nor evidence of corruption of the source selection team or political influence. Such allegations are - distasteful.

[JediMaster 451]

This is simply their realization that what the USAF requires isn't what their plane could offer...why? Because they don't apparently have a small enough plane available to be made into a tanker. The 767 is already quite a bit larger than the 707s now used. Now they whine we should buy an even BIGGER plane (which will mean fewer) just to suit THEIR choices?

 

Let's face it, the only type of plane that is never designed from scratch for its role is a tanker. Every tanker has always been a bomber, transport, or in the USN's case even a fighter or ASW plane. The US gov't allowed Boeing to buy McD in the 90s and in so doing made just 1 manufacturer of transports/airliners in the country. Until recently, Airbus never made any military planes. Now they've begun, but crying that the US should want what it offers is ridiculous.

 

You don't see Ferrari whining that no company uses its product for company fleet cars, do you? They don't build cars that fit that mold, and Airbus doesn't seem to have built one to fit the USAF's RFP.

 

You can complain if a competition wasn't run properly, but to complain that the RFP won't let you sell them what you want to sell them, as opposed to what they need, is ludicrous.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Did Northrop/EADS bail because one of the new requirements in the Tender was a stipulation that Boeing has to make it...? Besides, all the articles I've been reading seem to state the KC-30 contender beat Boeing's ass black and blue before the post tender alterations (the bending of the rules in Boeing's favour) took place.

[JediMaster 451]

I think it's something like there is emphasis on unit cost and such and they're complaining basically that they won't get "extra credit" for their tanker being bigger and carrying more fuel/cargo per flight. So since theirs HAS to cost more because of its size, they figure they're out automatically.

The funny thing is IIRC that the last competition had Northrop given such extra credit (apparently one of the deciding factors) when it was never stated at the start that such credit would be given. Kind of like going to take your exams and you find out someone who barely passed is now getting a top grade because they wore a red shirt that day and it was "red shirts get extra credit day"...yet they never told anyone. I know Boeing had talked about submitting the 777 instead if it looked like the USAF was going to go with bigger, but I've since heard that it's still the smaller 767 they're offering, just now with some new things like an updated cockpit.

[+Gocad 26]

One should wonder though how long Boeing will need to put a real flying prototype together though...and how much it will cost in the end. Seems like that's not so easy these days with all major military aircraft projects....on either side of the ocean

[JediMaster 451]

Well in theory the ones Italy are getting are very close in a lot of ways.