Airbus hasn’t had an easy ride so far in 2009. Its US rival hasn’t had it any easier either.
While Boeing has been plagued with issues on the 787, Airbus has had to contend with the A380 production schedule evaporating quicker than a genie escaping from a bottle as well as pass the proverbial begging bowl amongst its EU compatriots to cough up for the A350XWB – all neatly enmeshed with the political buffoonery attached to the deal to salvage the A400M from joining the dodo in the history books.
With the WTO providing a preliminary ruling that says aid on the A380 is illegal, the repercussions are starting to stretch from beyond the commercial sector into the military and political arena.
Although the WTO case may play out for years to come, this will certainly impact the KC-X tanker competition.
Airbus A330 MRTT’s In Flight
Image courtesy of the RAAF
Congressman Todd Tiahrt’s (of Kansas, location of a key Boeing tanker facility) comments about disqualifying the Airbus tanker may have come under fire from the usual circle of cereal-packet and Airbus-paid critics, but with questions about the way Airbus finances its endeavours without bearing risk is a cloud that will not disappear overnight, if at all. While Tiahrt’s objections are nothing new, the WTO preliminary findings may give them added weight.
Further, with questions about the June 1, 2009 Air France Airbus A330-200 crash still a raw emotion, pilots from the airline are up in arms because Airbus, Air France and the BEA have all but pinned the blame of the crash squarely at the feet of the air crew.
For Airbus, the most debilitating aspect of the KC-X tanker competition is that the A330-based tanker, the A330 MRTT, has thus far failed to verifiably demonstrate active fuel transfer through the boom.
With the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) poised to be one of the first to operate the A330-derived KC-30A tanker, the delay in service entry stems from a design issue with the boom – meaning that fuel transfer is still a distant prospect for the tanker and is being noted by several US Air Force generals close to the KC-X tanker competition.
While tests have already been conducted for passing fuel via the drogues, the RAAF has classified comments and criticism of the boom along with its inability to transfer fuel successfully through it as “sensitive”. First delivery of the RAAF tanker was initially slated for 2008 and is not now expected until next year. Conversion on the second RAAF tanker has slowed to a trickle while work to rectify the failed boom on the first article continues. Conversion of the third RAAF KC-30A also appears to have been postponed indefinitely.
Airbus has been keen to avoid making known the technical faults of the boom on the RAAF KC-30A for fear of further public relations problems as encountered on the A380 and disastrous A400M programs.
None of this will be lost on the US Air Force – particularly as it gears up towards finalising a new RFP.
Critically, questions have recently arisen about the additional certification requirements sought from both the FAA and EASA. These link directly to the KC-30A’s need for further floor strengthening and the flight dynamics regime that has suffered as a result of the increased weight and shift in the CoG/moment arm of the airplane. Combined, these issues have impacted the ability of EADS and partner Northrop Grumman to table a working solution that fits the bill for the upcoming US Air Force RFP.
Where some quarters have claimed that the WTO allegedly dismissed 70% of the US claims against Airbus and the EU, it is worthwhile noting that when the GAO ruled in favour of Boeing’s tanker appeal, it upheld around eight key points that scuttled the whole contest to a grinding halt.
With other Congressmen such as (Puget Sound-based and admittedly pro-Boeing) Norm Dicks weighing in heavily on the WTO ruling, this new revelation about the inherent tactical failings of the A330 in tanker form will surely play on the minds of those who advocate a split deal procurement of the contract.
KC-777 & KC-767 Tankers Refuelling In Flight – Click image for bigger photo
Image courtesy of Boeing IDS
Further, those who are calling for a dual-source 767-777 solution will take heart that any new RFP that intimates that “more” troop, fuel and freight carrying capability are a “must”, then the A330 is trumped by the 777 in every profile.
Fundamentally, when one USAF general stated that “it was impossible to draft an impartial RFP when the characteristics of the airframes were known beforehand,” the question that the USAF must now be asking itself is whether the pretence of a competition is even warranted given the A330′s questions surrounding the Air France crash, the RAAF KC-30A troubles topped off with the WTO siding with the US complaint of illegal funding.
That’s something only the USAF has the answer to – saving aggravation on all sides points to a sole-source contract being the only judicious way out of the KC-X conundrum.
Quite where that leaves Northrop Grumman is frankly another debate altogether.
290. Vero Venia | October 14th, 2009 at 08:10
“And yes, the US Air Force needs more flexible, more versatile and smaller tankers.
But hey! Let’s leave them decide what they want. They wrote down the requirements, they wrote down the criteria.”
I’m struggling to understand why the Air Force insists on wanting almost the exact opposite of what you think they need. Anyone would think they know more than you about the requirements than you!
Have you “bothered” to read the RFP yet? It really might help to stop you making a fool of yourself so often.
As to the KC-767 being too big, you do know it can only deliver a tad more fuel than a KC-135 don’t you? Don’t you?
@299. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 14th, 2009 at 22:07
When it comes to military contracts, most often the price includes training of crew and ground crew, provision of ground support equipment, spare parts inventory, delivery, simulators, ongoing servicing and support for a number of years etc. That often leads to these grossly inflated figures that seem implausible when broken down to a per aircraft basis. I wouldn’t rule out kickbacks being paid either.
An example from Oz – our 24 SuperHornets cost $6 Bn Aussie dollars (4.5 – 5 Bn USD). It’s the support package that inflates the cost of each Superhornet to $250M each. And we are an existing Hornet operator.
Sorry, a correction to post 299.:
€800 (~ZAR8 billion) for eight planes not per plane.
Lots of money in support and kickbacks, and from Rocketsurgery’s post 302. – that’s whether the country is developed or developing.
Unfortunately, it appears that the local side did not put up a bidding process for the acquisition of eight transport/airlift category planes.
Also, it appears that the local side did not budget for the operation (spares, training, etc.) of these planes for 30 years.
This is an unfortunate development that leads me to retract my prior complaint. Sometimes, you wonder why Boeing can’t be a sore losser, expose this kind of thing and get the bidding process going again.
Pingback: Analyst takes shot at Alabama tanker backers « Machinists News
Vet contact made.
Change bitching to this and that plane can’t be fueled under this or those circumstances.
First Australian A330MRTT passes fuel through its boom. Guess that’s one less argument for the haters!
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Eads-North-America-1063906.html
[quote]The contacts and subsequent fuel transfers were made with two F-16 receiver aircraft and validated the advanced ARBS handling qualities, precision, and stability on the A330 MRTT, as well as the capabilities of its 3-D vision system. The flight lasted four hours and 30 minutes, with more than 3,300 pounds of fuel transferred during 13 contacts.
Geez, Vero seems to be having a tough week – first the A330 passes fuel, now the attached article confirms that both the Japanese and Italian Airforces have gone for tankers that are multi use.