Comments on: Tanker Troubles?

By: SMP

SMP — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:41:18 +0000

“It’s not about landing at commercial airports but short-run military fields that interest the Air Force. The smaller 767 can land and take-off from more of these facilities than can the larger KC-30.“
The fact is KC767 requires longer runways to operate on than the KC30 civil or military. In any case refueling tankers don’t land on forward military runways since tankers offload their payload in the sky, not on the ground. Tankers normally land at reasonably large airports or airbases to which fuel can be delivered by land, sea.

By: GB

GB — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:22:56 +0000

I have read the comments and for the most part agree with the many points being made. What is bothering me the most are several factors that we seem to be missing. Are we holding a grudge against Boeing for two stupid people who screwed up, got caught and went to prison. There have been many changes in the company to prevent that from happening again. The rest of Boeing is highly dedicated to building quality products and doing the job right. We can find problems like those mentioned above in any industry. Harboring resentment is not healthy!
The bottom line for me is the tax dollar — BILLIONS of them — being used to support a foreign fleet. It bothers me to say that French Quality is better than American quality. It bothers me that we have to spend BILLIONs more in infrastructure changes just to support the KC-45. It also bothers me that we are calling this an American product simply because parts of will be assembled in Alabama. In the end, it is still a French built airplane and the profits go outside of our country to help someone else’s economy. We should be focusing that help to much needed ares in our country. To say that there will be retalliation for not buying European is hogwash. We sell weapons systems to those without the capability to build themselves. This is not the case in this acquisition.
From history, we can feel confident that the French will most likely be the first to turn their backs on us if they disagree with a delicate US political strategy as they did in the Iraq War.
In my mind, the Airbus may be a nice plane and a good tanker, but it is not an American Tanker. The 767 met all acquisition requirements, was a lower cost, and will not require major retrofit of hangars and runways to accommodate it at a wider variety if bases (This new tanker will now become a budget sinkhole that take more dollars for maintenance and upgrades).
Bottom line — we need to rethink our procurement strategy — I cannot see how this decision was anything but a major screw-up. What is worse is to hear our leaders (even a presidential nominee) say that 44,000 american jobs are not important so we will hire thousands of French engineers to do the job,
It all boils down to abuse of the American tax dollar. This particular selection process just shows that Americans nave been screwed again by their own leaders!

By: Buy American

Buy American — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:37:40 +0000

Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone else that when the French held a competition to replace their KC-135s, they did not allow non-European companies to compete?

By: irtusk

irtusk — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:01:05 +0000

also what exactly are concerned they could withhold?
take a look at their industrial partners:
http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/march_29_2007.htm
engines — GE — Ohio
wing pods and drogues — Sargent Fletcher — California
radio, avionics, mechanical — Honeywell — Arizona
flight management — Smiths Aerospace — Michigan
intercommunication — Telephonics — New York
basically the only things EADS will be directly supplying are the frame and the boom
and the frame is a very successful commercial airliner ensuring global availability of spares

By: irtusk

irtusk — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 04:45:13 +0000

> NOONE is flat out refusing to buy from foreign sources.…. just this source, unless we get tons of insurance that their won’t be riots in the street of Paris if these tankers support an air strike against Tehran or Damascus.
it simply is NOT an issue
did you read all my other points? we will buy sufficient spares to last YEARS, there will be legal guarantees, there will be technical guarantees (access to plans and sourcecode). It is simply not an issue. However many people riot in paris or whoever comes to power, it DOES NOT MATTER
besides this is NOT buying from ‘France’, it’s from EADS of which France owns less than a third. EADS is a private company with large presences in Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and America. It’s not clear France could stop EADS even if it wanted to

By: Max

Max — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 03:32:15 +0000

“Do you mean “by holding elections, like everyone else”? Have you not noticed that they *just did exactly that*? “
No, I mean they change policies based upon the whims of the huge Islamic population that burns a hundred cars a night this time of year. That’s what I meant.
They have just elected a somewhat conservative Gov’t however-they have a history of standing AGAINST the US quite TOO OFTEN. I’m still pissed that those F-111s had to fly to Libya via Gilbraltar.
“6. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries we reduce the capability of our own military by possibly refusing better solutions and certainly reducing competition (thus increasing costs)
7. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries, you can expect retaliatory measures against us. Remember the US exports A LOT of weapons overseas. Retaliatory sanctions could severely cripple many companies here.“
NOONE is flat out refusing to buy from foreign sources.…. just this source, unless we get tons of insurance that their won’t be riots in the street of Paris if these tankers support an air strike against Tehran or Damascus. Right now some terrorists claim they hate the US because we arm Israel-is France ready to be a target because they equip us?
As for retaliation against American military manufacturers.…. NOT WORRIED.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:11:04 +0000

all the comments about refusing to buy from foreign sources are off-base
1. it is based off a COMMERCIAL airliner with over 1000 in service, it would be impossible to pull parts off the shelf
2. for the tanker specfic parts, you buy enough spares to last you for years
3. the contract/treaty would contain language that would guarantee availablility of parts no matter what
4. france is actually very good about not cutting off customers (moreso than the US). Whether it’s principle or money, it’s true
5. the contract will undoubtedly include access to plans and sourcecode so IF we were cut off it wouldn’t be too difficult to create our own parts
6. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries we reduce the capability of our own military by possibly refusing better solutions and certainly reducing competition (thus increasing costs)
7. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries, you can expect retaliatory measures against us. Remember the US exports A LOT of weapons overseas. Retaliatory sanctions could severely cripple many companies here.
there are legitimate criticisms of the KC-30, this is not one of them

By: mitch

mitch — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:52:57 +0000

I have worked on the kc-135r for over 7 years and the quality of that plane is excellent. For it to still be around and performing as well as it is today is impressive. I know we have done alot of work to it through the years, but it still shows american made. To purchase from a manufacturer over seas puts us at risk. Just look at the sale of F-14s to Iran back in the day. Now they are trying to buy are parts at surplus auctions, since we wouldnt sell them parts for there broke planes through the years. Do we even want to be in any kind of situation like that.
(air guard) adam mitchell

By: JIM KEATING

JIM KEATING — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:32:59 +0000

I think it’s high time that democrats and republicans quit playing politics with our security and order the new Boeing 767 Tankers, as a retired Air Force Fuel Systems Repairman (Fuel Cell.)
I can assure you the KC-135 needs replaced ASAP as this aging fleet is close to 50 years old, lets get a clue people before it’s too late.
Sincerely; Msgt.(Retired)James M. Keating

By: JIM KEATING

JIM KEATING — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:32:02 +0000