Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 3. Propulsive efficiency April 12, 2024
EADS statement on WTO affect on KC-X competition
From Guy Hicks, VP of corporate communications at EADS North America:
“The Obama Administration and Department of Defense have opposed every attempt to use the ongoing WTO commercial trade dispute to derail the KC-X competition. The only beneficiary of such a noncompetitive action would be the Boeing Company. Everyone else—the warfighter, the taxpayer and 48,000 Americans who stand ready to build the KC-45—would lose.
“The warfigher would lose the right to choose the only tanker that is real and flying today; taxpayers would lose the benefits of competition; and 48,000 Americans would be robbed of the opportunity to work in support of US national security. The US warfighter, taxpayer and 48,000 Americans deserve a fair competition decided on the merits—not on politics.”
The Seattle PI has this reaction on the WTO-tanker connection from Washington Members of Congress.
Mr. Hicks,
The War Fighter and the taxpayer loose nothing in bringing this final ruling from the WTO into the KC-X compitition.
This WTO ruling is all about fair compitition, not only in the KC-X, but in just about all applications that involve Boeing and EADS.
Why are you and EADS-NA so opposed to having a level playing field?
As to your claim the Pentagon would loose the only “real tanker” flying today, that is pure hog wash. EADS does not have any tanker that complies with the USAF SRD, nor does Boeing. I also dispute your claim your airplane will put 48,000 Americans back to work. Boeing has released PR after PR showing the number of jobs the KC-767NG will directly create, by state, EADS-NA has not produced even one such PR. You, sir, are simply carbon copying NG’s claims from 2007 and 2008, when they changed from 24,000 jobs created to double that simply by using different US Government reports and numbers. How much trust do you put into those government numbers, now that the US Administrations have changed, as well as how those numbers are computed? Your offer will create or keep thousands of well paying European jobs, paid for by the American Taxpayer. Americans care about American jobs, not European jobs.
But, I conceed you will be correct if the number of jobs you are claiming also includes the higher and more expensive construction jobs around the country if you include the much higher MilCon costs the KC-30 requires over the KC-767NG. That may be double or triple the number of jobs for MilCon because the KC-767NG can already use most current KC-135 facilities (hangers, nose docks, taxiway safety areas, runway safety areas, etc.), the KC-30 cannot and those facilities must be built.
EADS-NA claims to have the only “real tanker” flying, when in reality, the RAAF KC-30 has about as much in common with the KC-X requirements as the ITAF KC-767A and JASDF KC-767J. How many tankers has EADS delivered? NONE. How many EADS tankers fly operational real world missions today? NONE. In fact the Japanese KC-767Js have recently deployed to, and flew in Red Flag, the KC-30 is yet to be delivered to the RAAF.
Why don’t you address the MilCon, LCC, and lifetime fuel burn, issues? What are you afraid of? Is Boeing accurately discribing the fuel burn difference? If not, why?
This is not a compitition to buy a used car, so please don’t treat it as one. This is a serious attempt to address the USAF Air Refueling capability for the next 40 years. We already know if we reengine the KC-135Es, they will give at least 30 years of good reliable and safe service of those 40 years.
The bottom line is there is not much difference in capabilities between your proposed KC-30 and Boeing’s proposed KC-767NG themselves. The 20% fuel load advantage of your airplane over Boeing’s is eaten away by more fuel burned by the KC-30, anywher from 10% to 28% per flying hour. This factor does not justify buying what will be the second biggest airplane in the USAF inventory by wingspan, yes, even bigger than the VC-25A/E-4B. Don’t give me that more cargo and pax hauling crap, either. Tankers only fly those missions, at best about 3% of the time. Again, that does not justify it size.
Personally, with a national debt of over $13 TRILLION, and counting, I would not buy either yours, or Boeings proposed tankers. I would reengine the KC-135E.
This time just the big errors:
TopBoomer:
“How many tankers has EADS delivered? NONE.”
You count the KC-10 as a Boeing tanker so you can count the VC10 as an EADS tanker.
“How many EADS tankers fly operational real world missions today? NONE. ”
Several French C-160NG Transall are also tanker.
German Luftwaffe A310MRTT are operational since 2009.
“The 20% fuel load advantage of your airplane over Boeing’s is eaten away by more fuel burned by the KC-30, anywher from 10% to 28% per flying hour.”
At short distances the offload advantage for the old NG-KC-45 against KC-767AT was more than 30 %. At distances of 2,500 nm and further away it’s more than 60 %.
The study by Conklin & de Decker speaks of 24 % higher fuel burn rate per hour and used for comparision a Boeing model more than 15,000 lbs lighter than the proposed and still fictional KC-767AT.