Feature Story

By Rob Holbert Managing Editor

With the ThyssenKrupp steel mill triumph still reverberating so loudly these days, it might be a bit difficult to hear the roar of the KC-30 tanker jet local business leaders still believe may land at Brookley Field.

The 1,000-plus aerospace jobs that would be created at the Brookley complex if the Northrop Grumman-EADS partnership is chosen to build the next generation of U.S. Air Force refueling tankers would be sexy kind of economic development that might actually push the German steel plant off the front pages. After all, we’re talking about building jets.

But since we are talking about building jets, we’re also talking about a bruising battle to get the contract. Northrop-EADS is competing against America’s last large jet manufacturer, Boeing. Not only does this rivalry ostensibly pit an “American” plane against a “French” plane, but it has “red state” Alabama competing against “blue state” Washington – political realities that could come into play when it is Congress that’s making the decision.

The length and breadth of this contract is staggering, as 534 of the Air Force’s aging KC-135s will be replaced at a rate of about 12 to 15 a year.

“It’s the largest acquisition in the Department of Defense’s history,” explained Northrop Grumman Vice President Leroy Barnidge while in Mobile in early June. Barnidge, a former two-star Air Force general, is helping to spearhead the efforts to bring a tanker manufacturing facility to Mobile, and a lucrative contract to Northrop Gumman-EADS.

Barnidge is candid about the political realities facing his company as it tries to wrest the contract – or at least a chunk of it – away from Boeing. Naturally, he believes the KC-30 is a better plane than the 767 tanker being offered by the folks from the great Northwest. Barnidge’s assessments carry the air of certainty one would expect from a former military pilot. But he does admit it is still very difficult to tell which way things will fall.

“The political element is certainly a big part of this. In any discussion with anyone talking generally about the issue, we would want the best technology for the troops,” Barnidge said. “The members of Congress are representing the interests of the people who elected them. But the state interests need to be subordinated the national need.”

Naturally, Barnidge cited many ways in which the KC-30 outstrips Boeing’s offering, including the ability to haul far more cargo and more fuel, as well as an automated “fly by wire” system for delivering fuel to other aircraft. The primary difference, Barnidge explained, is that the 767 is essentially a 25-year-old plane being retrofitted for use as a tanker, while the KC-30 is a retooled Airbus 330, a product line that has only been offered for about 15 years.

“The KC-30 has won the last three tanker competitions around the world – in Australia, the United Arab Emirates and the UK,” Barnidge said. “People want a sunrise system versus a sunset system.”

Regardless of which plane actually performs better, Barnidge said there is still a major obstacle to overcome in terms of the perception that should Congress select the KC-30, they would be buying a foreign product for the American military machine.

“A lot of people are saying, ‘We ain’t buying no stinking French plane.’ But we say, look at a Ford. There are parts from all over the world. In the global world today, what you want is the best product you can put together from all over the world,” Barnidge said.

He also pointed out that Boeing’s new Dreamliner is constructed from “87 percent offshore content.”

“It’s a global world. Even Boeing realizes this,” Barnidge said.

The Northrop Grumman-EADS partnership faces a fierce competitor in Boeing, though. Just last week, an international contingent of companies, including Boeing, beat out an EADS-CASA partnership to build Joint Cargo Aircraft at the Mobile Regional Airport – a $2 billion contract. With as much as $100 billion potentially on the table for the tanker contract, Barnidge said anything could happen, including a scenario whereby half of the contract goes to each bidder. One of the benefits of doing so would be creating long-term competition in the bidding process for large military jets.

“They are actively debating about that,” Barnidge said. “Of course the Air Force will stand up and say it costs more to run two programs. But I think Sen. McCain has been saying we’ve got to have competition.”

The benefit of a split contract, Barnidge explained, other than competition, is that it would give the Air Force two classes of tanker, which could be deployed for vastly different missions. However, he cautioned that trying to run two different planes over the course of decades to serve essentially the same purpose, could be costly.

The Air Force has widely pointed to a decision on the tanker contract by late October or early November, but Barnidge said he wouldn’t be surprised if the decision drags on into the early part of 2008, primarily due to the political wrangling going on in DC. If the decision is delayed, it would greatly compress the government’s stated time frame of having production begin by 2010.

“We’re into the lead time now,” Barnidge said.

Ultimately, Barnidge and Northrop Grumman-EADS hope the decision comes down to the better performing airplane, because they think they’ve got the winner. Whether Mobile becomes an aerospace town will depend on whether they’re right.

Rob Holbert is Lagniappe managing editor. Contact him at rholbert@lagniappemobile.com.

Archives