Northrop/EADS tanker spider chart, en Espanol

You could view this as a reflection of our increasingly globalized defense trade. Perhaps it’s even a clue about the next move for the Northrop/EADS partnership.

It’s a Spanish-language copy of the infamous Northrop Grumman/EADS “spider chart” that apparently proved so persuasive to the US Air Force.

The photo below was snapped in the exhibit hall of Chile’s FIDAE air show last week. The anonymous photographer kindly uploaded the shot on his Flickr page.

tanker_spider_spanish.jpg

The Spanish-language chart also adds to the original by inserting the A310 MRTT into the comaprison. It surprises me by comparing fairly well against the KC-767, at least in terms of overall performance.

Chile’s air force has a need to replace its aging Boeing 707-based tanker fleet. Either the Northrop/EADS team or EADS alone is already hoping to transfer their KC-X win into a new contract in South America.

Here is the original spider chart, in English:

kcx%20tanker2.jpg

3 Responses to Northrop/EADS tanker spider chart, en Espanol

  1. ELP 9 April, 2008 at 2:02 pm #

    Muchos Gracis Senior Trimble

  2. Tom 10 April, 2008 at 8:22 pm #

    This is a turning point for the United States and the short sightedness of the Air Force will have long-term ramification.
    It is such a shame that the 40,000 jobs that will be created from the KC-45A tanker that 25,000 of those jobs will now be going to Europe mainly France and Germany. The other remaining jobs will be here in the United States and will not have much impact. The size of this order is for replacing almost 600 aircraft over 20 years (a long term impact on any economy).
    However, the real problems will begin later on once EADS starts producing the aircraft. EADS is in trouble with their A400M, which is way over budget and very late. The declining dollar against the Euro is going to cost EADS more money to produce the aircraft and after they build the initial four or five aircraft in Alabama EADS will have to do some more cost cuts to make there production targets. One of them will be to build the planes back in Toulouse France because that’s were the experience work force is. The A330 plane is 19 feet longer than the 767 and over the life of the fleet, it will cost the Air Force an estimated $14.5 billion in added fuel cost.
    The initial requirements that the Air Force asked for was for a smaller plane. Originally Boeing had offered the 777 as a tanker Air Force said no it is too large and they wanted a 767 size aircraft. Nevertheless, in the last proposal rounds the Air Force decide to change the requirements. I do not think it makes any difference what Boeing would have offered the Air Force they had made up their minds that they wanted to help support the European economy or teach Boeing a lesson.
    This deal might be OK for the Air Force, but it is not good for the US. I don’t see EADS/Airbus operating with out HUGE subsidies from their owners (The governments of Europe)
    Why not ask them to refuse any money to continue to operate, then let’s see if they are competitive with Boeing.
    There used to be a time where a company doing major contract business with the DOD had to be US based, so what changed?
    I am glad congress is investigating this as well as the other deals. And remember, subsidies to operate need to be included in the over all price for the project.
    The Air Force has proven once again that their acquisition process is broken. It is no wonder why so many of their recent acquisitions have been overturned by the GAO. Just because the A330 is bigger than the 767, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s better. The 767 is able to land in more air fields around the world than the larger A330. And what about the Air Force requirement for quick delivery schedule and cost? The Air Force claims that quick delivery is critical due to the aging KC-135s. Well, the 767 production line is already built and ready to go….versus the A330 plant in Alabama that is still a green field! And the price of a 767 has to be less than the A330 given that the tooling and facilities have already been paid for and fully recovered…and Northrop will clearly have a more costly learning curve. And what about past experience? Boeing has built and delivered nearly 600 tankers to the U.S Air Force (Northrop zero). Therefore, I don’t see how the Air Force can honestly say to the American people that the A330 was selected on best value (technical, cost and schedule).

  3. Tom 18 June, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

    Listen to AIRBUS – Gallois said that EADS is “on track” with a goal to cut 2.1 billion euros ($3.25 billion) in costs from annual spending by 2010. “I’m not going to crow about it” because it becomes increasingly difficult to find new savings after the easier cost cuts have been made, he added.
    The CEO also said the company is still working on finding additional cost reductions for Airbus, indicating it might miss a goal to introduce fresh cuts by summer. Gallois said job cuts in Germany have been slower in coming than in Airbus facilities in France, Spain and the U.K. because labor laws make the process of letting people go more cumbersome.
    Gallois also said he was “serene and confident” about a pending recommendation from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog agency, on whether to accept Boeing’s protest to the Pentagon about Northrop Grumman Corp. winning a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers. EADS is supplying the aircraft. The decision may occur tomorrow.

Leave a Reply