Summary
To suggest that the KC-X tanker competition is now “a sham” may well indicate that the final RFP and final WTO ruling will impact on the admissibility of the A330 as a tanker. Is this a precursor to Northrop Grumman leaving the arena via their campaigners’ complaints?
Analysis
The first and most obvious question you have to ask is that if, as lawmakers like Senator Shelby imply, the contest is a sham – why are you continuing to compete in it?
Or is it just to impugn the USAF?
Let the USAF sole source the tanker and then protest the award.
The reality is that the lobbyists behind the untested partnership of Northrop Grumman and EADS are slowly coming to the realization that when the WTO releases its final ruling (which EADS/Airbus has no choice but to fall into compliance with), the penalties that can be applied to the subsidized A330 will mean that the USAF will have to sit up, take note and factor in that one of the competing airplanes skews the entire premise of the KC-X competition because it was born using public funds.
That by default does not suggest a clear win for Boeing. Far from it.
This is a contest, and Northrop Grumman and its supporters would serve the interests of Alabama well if they concentrated on that – after all, Northrop Grumman claims a win for them will create almost 50,000 jobs, don’t they?
Further, that Northrop Grumman has failed to heed the comments of Undersecretary of Defense Carter (click) on the so-called leverage Boeing has on pricing shows that they may just be looking for an exit strategy if it becomes clear that the WTO ruling and final RFP make it difficult to the A330 tanker work to meet the requirements set out by the USAF.
With Alabama lawmakers and Northrop Grumman still living in a time-warp of the previous contest and the theorem of “more”, capability of the new tanker is now less important. It’s more about fitting in to the existing USAF infrastructure at a price that doesn’t negate the benefits of this new and long-awaited military procurement.
Of course, the media, lobbyists and others in Alabama never seem to want to discuss the significance of tanker infrastructure (click here for more) and the implications for the outcome of the contract award.
EADS has only managed one (yes, just ONE) “successful” demonstration of active fuel transfer through the A330 boom. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is still annoyed that EADS’ vision of the A330MRTT has been so utterly flawed and delayed, it makes the setbacks on the 787 seem small by comparison.
EADS and Northrop Grumman have yet to figure out how they’ll rectify the flight dynamics of the excess weight and imbalance on the A330MRTT tanker – and with the USAF pretty adamant about following through on delivery of its first new tanker in just a few years from now, Boeing may well be poised to pounce with a definitive 767-based tanker offering (with a boom that works).
All the omens currently show that Northrop Grumman/EADS are pointing the finger of blame wherever they can instead of keeping sight of the USAF’s needs – it’s hard to argue against the point that this untested partnership may just evaporate before next summer.
EADS has a lot to prove, particularly for the A330 boom.
One photo-op doesn’t qualify as a working solution.
And if Northrop Grumman is somehow prime contractor on an airplane kit it has zero-percent design influence of (particularly as the A330 is both weight and range restricted) its easy see why the RAAF is so concerned that they may have saddled themselves with more "fiction" than "fact" in the A330s aerial refuelling capability.
This author consults with leading institutions through GLG
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
