BREAKING NEWS:Northrop Grumman/EADS…the KC-45/A330.
Huge win for US/EU team.
– Christian
MORE:
Pentagon picks EADS/Northrop for tanker contract: report (AFP)
The Pentagon has chosen Europe’s EADS, parent of Airbus, and US partner Northrop Grumman for a massive refueling tanker aircraft contract, the Wall Street Journal said Friday.
The newspaper, citing a person familiar with the situation, said the partnership won a heated contest against US-based aerospace giant Boeing for the contract of some 40 billion dollars.
Boeing, the second leading US defense contractor after Lockheed Martin, has been considered the heavy favorite to snare the contract to provide 179 twin-engine planes that essentially are flying gas stations, used to refuel in-flight war planes and troop transporters.
The contract is one of the Pentagon’s largest in recent years and the first order on a tanker market estimated at more than 100 billion dollars in over 30 years.
The outcome of the competition is being closely watched not just because of the enormous size of the contract. There are domestic and geopolitical implications at issue in the US Air Force’s choice between an all-American contractor or a mainly US team that includes a foreign contractor.
An EADS victory would give the European firm its first major foothold in the world’s largest defense market.
Boeing proposed a version of its long-haul cargo plane the 767–200.
EADS offered a modified version of the Airbus 330. The commercial plane would be militarized by Northrop Grumman and its American partners to prevent the transfer of sensitive technology to a foreign entity.
{ 147 comments… read them below or add one }
a victory for the airforce: the more capable plane
and
a victory for the US economy
- if Boeing won, that would only be 179 planes
- with a EADS/NG win, that’s 179 planes + ALL 330-200Fs, which already has 77 orders before first flight
-irtusk,
If I remember right you have been a big proponent of the NG/EADS aircraft, well it looks like you where right. Congrats to you and congrats to NG/EADS.
My how that hurts.
no this is a victory for the globalist in the Bush administration.
“a victory for the airforce: the more capable plane”
From a manufacturer that is unproven and beholden to nations that ARE NOT our allies.
“a victory for the US economy
- if Boeing won, that would only be 179 planes
- with a EADS/NG win, that’s 179 planes + ALL 330-200Fs, which already has 77 orders before first flight”
You mean a victory for the Alabama Congressional Delegation right?!?
Perhaps a betrayal of our Japanese allies-who ALREADY use the Boeing tanker……….
> Perhaps a betrayal of our Japanese allies-who ALREADY use the Boeing tanker……..
how do you figure that? they got the plane they ordered, whether we ordered it or not shouldn’t be relevant
> If I remember right you have been a big proponent of the NG/EADS aircraft
i am a fan of more capable aircraft. in this case it was the EADS/NG offering
when it comes to the SuperHornet and F-35, it is most definitely the F-35
> You mean a victory for the Alabama Congressional Delegation right?!?
Alabama is a part of the US last time I checked?
and as i pointed out this will result in MORE MONEY IN THE US, which is a good thing, yes?
“and as i pointed out this will result in MORE MONEY IN THE US, which is a good thing, yes?”
Actually-it won’t….. BAD THING…..
Are you from overseas? In the American vernacular “more” means “greater than”.
>> “and as i pointed out this will result in MORE MONEY IN THE US, which is a good thing, yes?”
>
> Actually-it won’t.
you are wrong
without this win, that assembly line in alabama never gets built
if it never gets built, all those freighters will be built in france
we essentially just stole the production of a few hundred planes (likely total orders of A330-200F) from France
that can only be a good thing
and don’t forget the difference in American content between the KC-30 and KC-767 was only about 20% to begin with (~60% to ~80%)
if you only consider JUST the tanker contract planes, you may have a point, but it would be ignorant to ignore the other direct consequences
namely a shiny new factory in the US that is producing planes instead of them being produced in france
> From a manufacturer that is unproven
they’re one of the largest military contractors in the world, calling them ‘unproven’ is just a teensy bit of a stretch
> beholden to nations that ARE NOT our allies
not so, no country can order EADS to embargo another country
not to mention EADS has a large presence in the US (which is about to get bigger). Does that make them beholden to the US?
Last time I checked Northrop is an AMERICAN defense contractor. They are creating a new production line in Mobile, AL that happens to be in the UNITED STATES.It will create 44,000 new AMERICAN jobs. There are 23 companies alone in CALIFORNIA that will also build parts for it. If you studied both proposals you would realize that Northrop’s was far superior to Boeing’s. Boeing got lazy, it was based on an outdated airframe. This is a huge day for the Airforce. Finally we are getting the BEST equipment for our service men & women. So all you Chevy and Ford driving people can stop whining about it only being benificial to the French who are not our alliees. blah, blah, blah..Grow up and do some research before posting your misguided opinions
This disgusts me. Not only are we giving a FORIEGN COMPANY one of THE BIGGEST U.S DEFENSE CONTRACTS IN HISTORY, almost HALF of that aircraft will be built overseas. The contract is valued at $100 BILLION over 30 years. That means 50 billion of that money will go overseas. Aren’t we heading towards a recession? How is this the best choice for America? Congress must not let this stand.
C4C Casey
Like I said try doing some research
The KC-30 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and the KC-30 team will employ 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation and Sargent Fletcher
> The contract is valued at $100 BILLION over 30 years.
no, try reading again
the contract is $40 billion
> almost HALF of that aircraft will be built overseas
that’s a hella lot of rounding
EADS/NG was 40% non-US
Boeing was 20% non-US
that is a 20% difference
20% of 40billion is 8 billion
the US GDP is 13,543 billion (approximately ;)
8 billion one way or the other isn’t going to make a big difference
that said, that 8 billion and more will be recouped by building HUNDREDS OF FREIGHTERS in the US that otherwise would have been built in France
WHAT PART OF ‘THE US COMES OUT ECONOMICALLY AHEAD’ DO YOU ALL NOT UNDERSTAND?
Seems like the best plane won, and as I said in the other thread, the whole non-US thing shouldn’t bother people so much.
But playing devils advocate for a monent..
Could there ever be a situation where a grandstanding (lets call him French) politician could delay a certain part made only in France? EADS is not immune to political shenanigans as has been seen time & again over the last few years despite it’s supposed multi-country private nature.
“Unforseen” delays in shipping componantry isn’t that far fetched IMO for some Chirac-like politician wanting to manipulate home public opinion or somesuch. And I believe they would have the power too – tied up at shipping point for example.
Just wild speculation :)
> Could there ever be a situation where a grandstanding (lets call him French) politician could delay a certain part made only in France?
NO
1. shenanigans like internal politics is one thing, flat-out boycotting a country is another and no country can force EADS to do that
2. the USAF isn’t stupid
a) they stockpile enough parts to last YEARS. If there is some sort of supply issue, we’ll have plenty of time to deal with it
b) the USAF will indubitably require blueprints/specs to all parts so they can make their own (or contract it out) if the need arises
3. what can they withhold?
basically the only thing they are supplying is the airframe. All the high-value components like the engines and avionics are from american companies.
4. the huge civilian fleet prevents a boycott
the airframe itself is close enough to the civilian version that there is no practical way to boycott it
a) if we are desperate need of parts we can cannibalize the civilian fleet
b) they wouldn’t be allowed to jeopardize the safety of the civilian fleet by cutting off spares
for instance, we still supply spares to iran for their airliners, even though some of the same models are also used in the military (like their 747 tanker)
basically, i trust the USAF to have looked at this issue and taken whatever step they feel necessary to prevent this from ever becoming a problem
“Boeing got lazy, it was based on an outdated airframe. ”
No Boeing didn’t get lazy-they actually offered what was requested-EADs deviated from the request-but seized an advantage.
“This is a huge day for the Airforce. Finally we are getting the BEST equipment for our service men & women. ”
Right-The F-22, F-35, C-17 and B-2 are so SUBSTANDARD. Please, stop driveling.
“blah, blah, blah”
Chris-use your head before sounding stupid.
“Could there ever be a situation where a grandstanding (lets call him French) politician could delay a certain part made only in France? EADS is not immune to political shenanigans as has been seen time & again over the last few years despite it’s supposed multi-country private nature. ”
YES!
“that said, that 8 billion and more will be recouped by building HUNDREDS OF FREIGHTERS in the US that otherwise would have been built in France”
What are you stupid? BOEING would build hundreds of planes in the states!
Airbus-will only MODIFY planes in the states.
> What are you stupid? BOEING would build hundreds of planes in the states!
Boeing is going to build those planes here regardless of the tanker contract
that is not the case for the A330-200F. that only gets built here if EADS/NG wins
> Airbus-will only MODIFY planes in the states.
false, the A330-200F will actually be built here from the ground up
EADS isn’t a french company.
It’s mostly german and second french, and is composed by british, italian, spanish, dutch and more european companies.
>> “Boeing got lazy, it was based on an outdated
>> airframe. ”
>
> No Boeing didn’t get lazy-they actually offered
> what was requested-EADs deviated from the
> request-but seized an advantage.
you’re both wrong
Boeing offered the plane they had that closest matched the RFP
EADS/NG offered the plane they had that closest matched the RFP
neither side was complacent, neither side ‘deviated’
(if EADS/NG had ‘deviated’ from the RFP they would have been disqualified and not won the competition. They won the competition therefore they didn’t ‘deviate’. QED)
>> “Could there ever be a situation where a
>> grandstanding (lets call him French) politician
>> could delay a certain part made only in France?
>
> YES!
i already showed why this wasn’t the case
if you feel i was in error, please demonstrate the flaw in my arguments
Better Product Won, FAIRLY,
You know what, the product did win, the only reason that there is moaning is that all the under handed dealing and trading failed and was shown to the light, at least this way the american tax payers dollars will go to products and NOT to cost overruns.
Oh just for your information the EADS do have experience with Air refueling aircraft the new Aussie Tankers being a prime example. Not to mention that by opening a new line will actually create more jobs that extending a current aircraft type, how much experience do you have in the airspace industry? None most likely. As for your europheoibic views is nothing more that I have come to except from most americans, ill informed, afraid of outside countries influence, it worries me that about 20% of US bonds are owned by china for petes sake.
Your “superior domestic product” only seems to be able to increase cost over runs.
- Philip
> KC-767 is more fuel-efficient
depends on the mission
> can take off from shorter runways
false
> benefits from Boeing’s long expertise and experience in building aerial refueling tankers
they hadn’t built a tanker since 1965 until they just delivered that ONE KC-767 to Japan
> as opposed to Airbus’s ZERO experience and expertise)
false, EADS has built several tankers recently
> and is cheaper ($120 million for KC-767 vs. $160 million for the European plane)
those are list prices and have nothing to do with the real price (Airbus tends to jackup the list price so they can seem to offer bigger discounts)
in fact, during the first competition, EADS actually offered a lower price than Boeing
we don’t know what these bids were, but there’s no reason to assume it would be any different
> Not to mention that over 80% of the work on KC-767 will be done here in the U.S., as opposed to 58%-60% of the work done here for Airbus (meaning that’s billions of dollars that STAYS in this country).
about $8 billion
> Would you rather a French worker get this job, or an American one?
that is the question isn’t it?
if we choose Boeing, a French worker will build those A330-200Fs while if EADS/NG wins an American worker will build those freighters
as you say, would you rather a French worker get the job or an American one?
> And, no, these Airbus planes ARE NOT BEING BUILT IN THE UNITED STATES.
there’s 2 parts here
the frame of the KC-30 may be done in France, but as we’ve already established, ~60% of the value stays in America, regardless of how that is done
for the A330-200F, it WILL BE BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP IN THE US
> That number will be more than exceeded by the number of extra Boeing 767s able to be produced seeing as how that line will be able to be kept open for years and years on end!
that’s a joke
have you actually seen 767 orders?
the only reason Boeing is selling ANY 767s is because the A330 is backlogged so far and some companies just can’t afford to wait. The A330-200F already has 72 order BEFORE FIRST FLIGHT
> Your shilling on behalf of a foreign defense company over our own superior domestic ones is frankly insulting.
if the KC-767 was superior why didn’t the USAF pick it?
i want the best equipment for our men and women in uniform and i make no apologies for that
for instance i prefer the chinook over the eurocopter (or US101 or whatever) for CSAR-X
however in this case i happen to believe that the best choice for our military also happens to be the best choice for our economy
Inside Poop!
The USAF will be renamed to Force d’La Air Amerique.
A blue beret (aka the current Air Police headgear) will become the official USAF Class A uniform cover.
Other exciting changes to follow……
You can take your pro-Euro spin and SHOVE IT, Philip McG. EADS is foisting on us a more expensive aircraft than the 767. For every three 330s we buy, that’s 4 767s we could buy. I’d rather have 4 tankers than 3. And you think there won’t be cost-overruns? Kind of like how there aren’t cost-overruns with the VH-71 Kestrel, based on the EH-101? Oh wait…there ARE cost-overruns on it. Huge, massive cost-overruns! And the same will be seen with this Airbus. Seems like you Euros are just as prone to them as we are, probably even more so. In any case, if we’re going to have cost-overruns (and I’m sure we will in either case), better to have those cost-overruns happen with an American company over a European one. And guess what? I’d put Boeing’s 50+ years of experience designing and building tankers over your few years of building a tanker for the Aussies. And while keeping the 767 line open doesn’t create jobs, it does keep American taxpayer dollars in the United States, as well as business in the United States, not to mention it keeps American jobs from being lost by closing the 767 line, and having all that potential tanker production done in Europe instead with regards to the 330. Your condescending, elitist Europeanism won’t cut it in the United States, and neither does your shitty tanker. Once Congress gets involved, this deal will hopefully be scrapped and we can focus on building a wholly SUPERIOR American tanker, rather than one built by governments that have in recent years been openly hostile to the U.S. (France, Germany, etc.).
One thing to consider is that the USAF may be punishing Boeing. That would not be the only reason to choose NG/EADS but it probably did come up.
Tankers are not hitech: They are buses. A commodity. The deal is not a threat to the US defense inustrial base in any way. Because we are dealing with a commodity the deal should be considered and dealt with that way. The deal has almost no geopolitical over- or undertones. Therefore, this is basically a victory of maturity and wisdom over partiality – and a sign of the strength of the American system.
Tankers are not hitech: They are buses. A commodity. The deal is not a threat to the US defense industrial base in any way. Because we are dealing with a commodity the deal should be considered and dealt with that way. The deal has almost no geopolitical over- or undertones. Therefore, this is basically a victory of maturity and wisdom over partiality – and a sign of the strength of the American system.
This is amazing I hope mcCain is happy he has single handley screwed Boeing, I guess with all his moral’s the 30,000 american jobs are nothing.
This is a sad when we give the french the power over our defense industry…..remember Freedom Fries…………
Well by punishing Boeing, the USAF is doubly punishing American workers, who will lose their jobs to French/German/Italian/European workers to build this subpar tanker. I hope the Air Force is happy. Because Congress will be livid.
“Tankers are not hitech: They are buses. A commodity. The deal is not a threat to the US defense industrial base in any way. Because we are dealing with a commodity the deal should be considered and dealt with that way. The deal has almost no geopolitical over- or undertones. Therefore, this is basically a victory of maturity and wisdom over partiality – and a sign of the strength of the American system.”
Wrong, henrik. By closing down a plane production line, that IS a threat to the U.S. defense industrial base. And as such, it does have geopolitical over- and undertones. Just wait and see. When the French and Germans decide that they don’t like us anymore, and stop shipment of A330 airframes and spare parts over it, then people will understand why. Our ability to effect air dominance is dependent on our tankers. As such, the USAF tanker fleet cannot be held hostage to the whims of foreign governments like France and Germany.
So Firesh*t, Pro Euro Spin? British Spin maybe, but I have no problem with being called Pro Euro. How is EAD’s foisiting a more expensive aircraft then the offering was actually cheaper during the first competition between EADS and Boeing. Again what experience do you have aircraft production? Again I doubt very much you have ever seen the outside of your living than the shop floor of a major aircraft producers business facilities. I guess you need a new calculator, here is a lesson, When an apple is cheaper, you get more apples for a given price! So your 4 for 3 comment makes about as much sense as paying 100 million for a ford fiesta to act as a Nascar.
Cost over runs? Could you please point out any problems with the new Marine One? Because if there are any cost over runs its due to expanded American requirements or lack of US experience in putting the pieces together… but god forbid that it could be a US problem, well at least if you have some one to blame eh? Thats trend with you type of people. Last time I checked, if there are any cost overruns they will also be going to an American Company – Northrop Grumman. I will grant you that experience card, but as I said we have a combat tested aircraft, as your gun and combat clothing commericals so often like to quote.
The only reason that the 767 is even still in production is that airline operators need aircraft now and had no other choice but to purchase it, the airbus was the prefered choice, even for BA. So you thank those Euros’ for keeping your FAILING economy in piece, at least for the moment. Yeah I love the fact that you would rather have a poor American product that a Superior European product, all because of your blinded national pride. Elitest Europeanism? Well I guess you don’t read the papers or other educational articles regarding the fact that if it wasn’t for European or Chinese investment in your country that your economy would have failed already, but hey, we don’t want to point that out to you folks or you will pull that elitist stuf.. oh wait.
As for Superior products? Yeah well if its good enough for your president :)
Underhand dealings, bribes, lieing to get the deal, is that the American Way? Is that what you are Proud of?
> EADS is foisting on us a more expensive aircraft than the 767
unknown
as i’ve already stated, those are the list prices that bear no relation to actual prices
AND
for the first competition, the EADS/NG bid was actually LOWER than Boeing’s build
there’s no reason to assume that this time would be any different
> Kind of like how there aren’t cost-overruns with the VH-71 Kestrel, based on the EH-101? Oh wait…there ARE cost-overruns on it. Huge, massive cost-overruns!
if you researched that program, you would know the problem has nothing to do with the airframe (which everyone is happy with), the problem is they keep changing the requirements and keep loading it down with more and more and more junk
> I’d put Boeing’s 50+ years of experience designing and building tankers over your few years of building a tanker for the Aussies.
do you really think anyone who had a hand in developing the KC-135 is still with Boeing? In reality, they are LESS experienced at building tankers than EADS
> . And while keeping the 767 line open doesn’t create jobs, it does keep American taxpayer dollars in the United States
there is only a ~20% difference in the amount of money that stays in America between the two bids
PLUS
we STOLE the production of hundreds of freighters from france that will MORE than make up that 20% difference.
in the end, MORE MONEY WILL COME TO THE US
> we can focus on building a wholly SUPERIOR American tanker
are you saying you’re smarter than all the leading people in the USAF? are you saying they’re dumb and you’re smart?
because they just came out and said the EADS/NG bid as the SUPERIOR tanker
> Just wait and see. When the French and Germans decide that they don’t like us anymore, and stop shipment of A330 airframes and spare parts over it,
read my earlier response to understand why you are wrong about this
The USAF is smoking crack. The Dow falls more than 300 points today and after it closes they make this announcement…just wait till Monday…it’ll test new lows. The dollar is almost equal to that of Brazil’s currency and an American company is penalized…AFTER THEY WON THE INITIAL COMPETITION! (yeah I know their was “foul play” by an Air Force official but come on!). If Boeing has any male reproductive organs, they’ll protest the award and make the USAF redo the competition a third time.
look its the af/governements job to chose the BEST PRODUCT for the airforce not the best american product or best euro product etc etc. i dont understand those of you that bitch and complain about rising weapons systems cost and then complain why products arent made in the USA. what is the incentive for companys to be competitive when they are guaranteed sales not because they have the best product but because its a american product. btw if the euros cut off supplies for the tanker. when we can withdraw all our forces from europe and support for american weapon systems like the f35 from the euros. unlikely to happen.
Listen up, Philip McEurotrash:
Doesn’t matter that the offering was cheaper first time around. Because it ISN’T anymore. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure that buying a larger aircraft is more expensive than buying a smaller one.
Oh, and problems with Marine One? Where do I start? How about with Wikipedia:
“In addition to rising costs, delays and engineering issues have plagued the VH-71′s development. During the ongoing CSAR-X contract controversy (in which the EH101 is LMSI’s offering), the Air Force source selection authority has, on several occasions, referred to Lockheed’s VH-71 program as having “unsatisfactory performance”. These concerns with the VH-71 have caused the Air Force to cast doubts on LMSI’s ability to supply helicopters for a potential CSAR program award; in March 2007 the initial GAO report which upheld Sikorsky and Lockheed’s contract award protests versus Boeing’s HH-47 mentioned “that LMSI had received a little confidence rating for past performance due to unsatisfactory performance under its current contract for the VH-71 Presidential helicopter, which was evaluated as the most highly relevant to this procurement. According to the SSA, LMSI had ‘shown [under that contract] that it could not reliably meet important schedule requirements and had difficulty in systems engineering flow-downs to their subcontractors.’
In December 2007, DoD officials met with the White House Military Office to discuss the VH-71 program’s future, as the Pentagon apparently wished to terminate the program due to multiple setbacks, budget issues, and design problems. The White House overruled a cancellation decision and the program was essentially put on hold while options are considered.”
So sure, it could be a U.S. problem, but I highly doubt it since it’s a goddamn EUROPEAN HELICOPTER. If there are major issues with it, they’re European since you BUILT THE DAMN THING. All we’re doing is modifying it. And frankly, if there are cost-overruns, they’re going to both Northrop Grumman AND EADS, since, obviously, EADS IS BUILDING THE DAMN PLANE! And as for your aircraft being tested, so is ours. In fact, our fuel-transfer system has already been tested, even in night conditions.
As for the reasons 767 is still in production, well, there are many to be sure. But it’s an American plane, built in the United States. As opposed to your piece-of-shit Airbus built in France. That alone is reason enough to buy the 767 for me, and for the vast majority, especially with regards to the U.S. Air Force, which needs to fly AMERICAN AIRCRAFT. I don’t see you Europeans going out of your way to buy American defense equipment, especially when it comes to huge defense contracts. In fact, the only one I can really think of is F-35, and that’s only because you Euros are getting to build a substantial portion of the damn thing. And seeing as how the 767 line exists now and can begin work now, as opposed to Airbus which needs to build an assembly line first, makes a VERY big difference. We need these tankers now and Boeing can give them to us now. Airbus? Wait a good 5 years first.
And sorry, but our American products are obviously superior to your shitty Eurotrash products, evidenced by Boeing’s current success with the Dreamliner over your bloated behemoth, the A380. And if our economy is failing at the moment, then what better way to revive it than to invest in AMERICAN products instead of crappy European ones?
And what the hell does Chinese investment have to do with buying your P.O.S. Eurotanker? Anything at all? No? Then shut the hell up about it.
And as far as our president goes, I thought you Euros hated him anyway. So if he wants this product, then it’s obvious that we ought to be buying the other one instead. Or do you like Bush?
Oh, and underhanded dealings? Lying? Bribery? That’s endemic to all societies, especially Europe. I wouldn’t be surprised if Eurotrash EADS (with the help of Northrop Grumman) pulled their own dirty dealings in this project somewhere. Here’s to hoping Congress roots it out and gives this deal back to an American company, where it belongs. The Washington, Kansas, and Connecticut congressional delegations, labor unions, and state leadership are already warming up for the fight. And you Eurotrash will LOSE IT.
Point 1
“The U.S comes out economically ahead.”
- Perhaps. But seriously, which aircraft would benifit the U.S more? A tanker in which nearly half of the aircraft is manufactured in Europe, or an aircraft where over 80% is manufactured domesticaly? The KC-30 might put the economy ahead, but the KC-767 would put the economy even more ahead.
Point 2
“The better aircraft won.”
Not neccessarily. One of the criteria judged for the Air Force tanker was cargo and troop transport capability. The ;ast tanker we purchased, the KC-10, also was judged on those criteria. Today, less than 1% of KC-10 missions carry troops or cargo. Why waste money on extra capability that we won’t use?
And finally, how could the Air Force pick this aircraft when they knew that it would ignite a firestorm in Congress? And how could they put a comodity that is so valuable to our Air Capablity into the hands of governments that are openly hostile to U.S foiegn policy? (Germany & France) And the biggest thing that gets to me is: did they even consult the pilots. To a man, every Air Force pilot I’ve talked to thinks that Boeing should have won. The general conensus seems to be that no self-respecting Air Force pilot is going to fly a French or German designed and manufactured plane. Period.
irtusk, I don’t find your explanation convincing at all. European governments pull the levers of power at EADS, and if they want to shut off production to the U.S., they can do so at their leisure. And for your information, the USAF has been pretty stupid. The whole lease deal was pretty stupid on their part. Not to mention all the massive cost-overruns we’re now seeing on F-35. And they want that in addition to another 200 F-22s. The USAF is going on a spending spree we can ill afford, and now they outsource American jobs from our defense industrial base to Europe. It’s the very HEIGHT of idiocy.
“EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois said the contract had been won without low-balling the price. ‘No we didn’t smash the price,’ he told Reuters.”
So there goes any consideration of getting a cheaper plane. EADS is screwing us on the price. We need to drop this turkey and get the KC-767.
Correction: The provide link with median home prices is from 2004 I believe, prior to the slowdown in housing.
The fact that there is a current reversal in home prices illustrates that prices got way out of hand on the coasts and in south Florida.
There was no doubt that whomever lost would appeal, which is what Boeing is most probably doing right now. However I am doubtful that they will prevail – the USAF is crossing all its Ts and dotting all its Is due to the high profile of this project. I think the only wildcard for Boeing is Congress, which may just take its mind off baseball for this issue.
Both aircraft are good aircraft and both are already in service around the world. Both have a global economic footprint as well, and both would have had cost overruns (guaranteed in modern aircraft development).
Unfortunately there was only one winner. However, I suspect the tanker world will have some more earthquakes for the next five years.
well it looks like now we’ll be providing subsides to EADS in addition to the European Union…this should easily help them fund the 350 and finally put a nail in the 787′s coffin. first a european presidential helicopter, now a european tanker…whats next a european air force one?
I know, Solomon. The only way our defense industry can be competitive globally is if we fund it here at home. I don’t see the Europeans rushing to buy Boeing aircraft. Why the hell should we give Airbus anything in return? The Air Force just handed the entire tanker market to Airbus for the next half-century. I have yet to hear any coherent response on how that is a good thing.
> easily help them fund the 350 and finally put a nail in the 787′s coffin
get real, the A350 was already funded and the 787 is already the most successful product launch in history
STOP F_ING SAYING THAT SIXTY PERCENT OF THE TANKER IS BUILT HERE. a) The Exact number, according to AIR FORCE TIMES, is 53%. Second, THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 60 PERCENT and 80 PERCENT! 20 percent translates into BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! AND YES< THE EUROPEANS DO CONTROL THE LEVERS OF EADS BECAUSE EADS IS SUBSIDIZED BY THE FRENCH AND GERMAN GOVERNMENTS!
lets look at a quote from the air force mobility command general surely he knows whats hes talking about?
Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing’s tanker.
“More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability,” he said.
it is not the job of the government to provide welfare to boeing. the best product for the best price. esp after BOEING TRIED TO DEFRAUD THE AMEIRCAN TAXPAYER. you still want to give them the contract? what kind of lesson is that? if someone breaks the law you reward them?
> The only way our defense industry can be competitive globally is if we fund it here at home
no, the only way our defense industry can be competitive is if they offer competitive products
> The Air Force just handed the entire tanker market to Airbus for the next half-century.
1. what tanker market?
outside the US, no one operates more than a handful of tankers, and those that do had already made their selection (whether KC-30 or KC-767) BEFORE this decision
2. nonsense
KC-Y and KC-Z are still coming up and Boeing is free to bid on those
> I have yet to hear any coherent response on how that is a good thing.
1. it’s the better plane for our men and women in uniform (and that should be your primary concern after all unless you’re willing to sacrifice their lives on the altar of political expediency)
2. the overall plan results in MORE JOBS FOR THE US
your whole attitude seems to be that Boeing should have got it regardless of the merits of their proposal, this sort of thinking leads to fat, complacent companies that don’t put for their best and offer no innovation. It isn’t good for the US and in the long run it isn’t good for Boeing either to automatically win all contracts just because
The following article is a microcosm of the problem for the U.S. defense industry and most other U.S. industries for that matter.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004076057_787jobs16.html
Unionized employees inflate wages beyond worth which increases manufacturing costs. The company than outsources as many jobs as possible to avoid paying union scale. Note the AVERAGE Boeing employee in the article made $28 an hour, and although not mentioned, they probably get overtime, too. The articles says a new Boeing manufacturing employee can be making $26 a hour after just 6 years.
If you look up the average family income for Everett, WA it is only about $50K. That means you have a city of haves and have-nots, with the haves driving up the bid-price thus threatening the livelihoods of all through lost contracts.
> STOP F_ING SAYING THAT SIXTY PERCENT OF THE TANKER IS BUILT HERE. a) The Exact number, according to AIR FORCE TIMES, is 53%
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/benefits/choice.html
“At least 58 percent of the aircraft’s content – from engines to avionics and systems – will come from American companies”
throw in the actual assembly for the other 2%
> Second, THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 60 PERCENT and 80 PERCENT! 20 percent translates into BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
yes, it’s a difference of about $8 billion
but then you completely ignore the other factor at work here
to win this bid, EADS agreed to build the A330-200F factory here. All A330-200Fs (already 72 firm orders, likely hundreds over its lifetime) will be built in american instead of in france
this is a huge net gain for the US economy and is substantially more than $8 billion
which is why the EADS/NG win results in MORE AMERICAN JOBS
> THE EUROPEANS DO CONTROL THE LEVERS OF EADS BECAUSE EADS IS SUBSIDIZED BY THE FRENCH AND GERMAN GOVERNMENTS!
the amount of subsidies they provide is miniscule compared to the amount of current and future contracts they would lose by pulling a stunt like
but even if they did want to (which they don’t), THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN EMBARGO A CRITICAL PART
it simply isn’t possible, all the high-maintenance parts (engines, avionics, boom) are made in the US and the frame is the same as the commercial A330.
So there you have it, they would be incredibly stupid to try, and they couldn’t do it even if they did try.
>no, the only way our defense industry can be competitive is if they offer competitive products
With the massive consolidation that’s going on in defense worldwide, we risk losing our defense industrial infrastructure to foreign companies if we don’t adequately fund them. In order to be globally competitive, we need to FUND our defense industry so it CAN be competitive. You can’t offer competitive products if you can’t produce them in the first place for lack of money. And since when is it the job of the U.S. to maintain the competitiveness of European defense companies? I don’t see Europe rushing to buy our equipment. Tit for tat, I say.
>1. what tanker market?
outside the US, no one operates more than a handful of tankers, and those that do had already made their selection (whether KC-30 or KC-767) BEFORE this decision
If we operate most of the tankers, then the tanker market is primarily located in the United States. And by giving this contract to Airbus, we cede that market TO THEM. Not too complicated.
>2. nonsense
KC-Y and KC-Z are still coming up and Boeing is free to bid on those
Oh please. You know as well as I do that whoever wins KC-X will be more likely to win KC-Y and KC-Z based on the Air Force’s lack of willingness to maintain multiple tanker production lines. Whoever gets this contract will probably get the next two. And for you to ignore that is outrageous.
>1. it’s the better plane for our men and women in uniform (and that should be your primary concern after all unless you’re willing to sacrifice their lives on the altar of political expediency)
Based on what criteria? That it’s bigger and more of a gas guzzler? How does that make it the better plane? The Air Force suddenly changes the criteria it’s judging these tankers on (probably skewing the selection to Airbus), and that makes it the better plane? Give me a break. And if you ask our men and women in uniform what plane they would rather fly, they’d tell you in no uncertain terms that they want to fly AMERICAN, not European.
>2. the overall plan results in MORE JOBS FOR THE US
your whole attitude seems to be that Boeing should have got it regardless of the merits of their proposal, this sort of thinking leads to fat, complacent companies that don’t put for their best and offer no innovation. It isn’t good for the US and in the long run it isn’t good for Boeing either to automatically win all contracts just because
No, the overall plan does NOT result in more jobs for the United States! Around 25,000 will be created by Airbus. Around 44,000 will be created by Boeing! 44,000-25,000 = 19,000 more jobs created by Boeing than Airbus! The math isn’t that complicated! Now Boeing doesn’t deserve the contract outright because of who they are, but frankly they are offering the better aircraft: it’s cheaper (big aircraft are more expensive than smaller aircraft, meaning you get more planes if you buy Boeing – not hard to see, plus the CEO of EADS himself said that they didn’t knock down the price at all to sell it to the USAF, meaning it’s going to be more expensive), it’s more fuel-efficient, smaller size means it can take off from shorter runways, and you have the tried and true experience of Boeing behind you on this (don’t tell me that having past experience manufacturing tankers doesn’t matter – it most certainly does). Whatever the criteria were that the Air Force selected the 330 over the KC-767, the fact that they changed the criteria at the last second throws this whole contract into a whirlpool of suspicion. Airbus stole this with Northrop’s help, and it’s up to Congress to get to the bottom of this, and take away this award from Airbus. The United States is NOT in the business of subsidizing the European defense industry…EVER.
firebrand, where did you learn that Wikipedia was an accurate source of unbiased information? If I edit the KC-767 page to say that it would cost $3 billion and 14 kittens for each KC-767, would you then quote me?
I somehow doubt that the air force brass who may happen across your vehement opinions on this page would care, seeing as they chose the KC-30. I would tend to trust the air force on these matters. Europe threatens to cut us off from critical military components? Last time I checked, we could take the F-35s, Patriot PAC-3s, ABM capability, GPS, AMRAAMS, F-4/16/18 components et cetera away from them. I mean, take away GPS and suddenly Europe is back to dead reckoning to do EVERYTHING. No matter what, Europe, in varying degrees still depends on America for many defense components.
I would also say that the USAF would probably have the foresight to get the blueprints in case their mechanics needed to fix/manufacture something out in the field, and they would also probably build up stores of spares. As most of the important components, like engines are manufactured in the US, the rest of the materials should be pretty straightforward to reverse engineer and manufacture if necessary. We are, after all, talking about Aluminum/composite skins for the body and wings. If push came to shove, I’m sure Boeing wouldn’t take more than a year to gear up.
Of course, this is also assuming that the US can’t seize stores from the Alabama plant for its tankers, and also won’t raid commercial airline’s spare stocks in the US. There are also a couple hundred A330′s flying around the world, with components that are probably about the same. Finally, we also have the Aussies, the UAE, and soon the UK will also fly the KC-30. Surely they have some spare parts for us.
Why weren’t you complaining when BAE won contracts for the MRAP when there were domestic competitors/production capability? Surely GM could use the extra work manufacturing some more M1114/1117s
Its a good thing that American car manufacturers have their auto plants in the United States and they consist of 100% US components.
Except for those plants in Canada and Mexico I mean. Whoops. Of course, some cars are assembled in the US, but made from Canadian or Mexican components.
Since you love Wiki so much, you might find this article interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_in_Mexico
You should probably check if your car is on that list before posting about Renaults.
Hmmm. NG/EADS wins a competition even though it was reported that the AF changed the scoring methodology that allegedly penalized the NG/EADS bid. I never thought NG could pull his off against ‘The Borg’. Hope it doesn’t mean they will have problems winning the BAMS contract next week – you know how the gov’t likes to spread he work around.
BTW: Unit cost comparison is inappropriate. The different bids approached filling the total end requirements using different unit capabilities and numbers of units to be bought to fill the requirements over the life of the program.
Big contract, relatively low risk (although Boeing hurt themselve in the ‘past performance’ category by being behind with their current tanker program) — a big win for NG.
“Why weren’t you complaining when BAE won contracts for the MRAP when there were domestic competitors/production capability?”
Boeing also chose BAE to do extensive work on Future Combat Systems. Merit works. Allies scratch each others backs. I can see this leading not only to the commercial airliner work that irtusk mentioned, but also potential A400M manufacturing at the same Mobile plant.
Lockheed Martin employees want to strike? Keep them honest by showing willingness to buy a better airplanes elsewhere while retainining U.S. jobs.
Sorry, these are probably better links than that wiki page.
http://www.geocities.com/fbessem/mexico.html
http://www.geocities.com/fbessem/canada.html
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0507/17/autos-249603.htm
Boeing made the mistake of stating flatly that all its tankers would be built in WA and KS – and take a LONG time to produce. A better deal was offered by Northrop Grumman-EADS in that they stated they would spread the large aircraft manufacturing base to other states that can build planes too. And also take a LONG time to produce. The Southeast has all kinds of M1A Tank *(refurb), small aircraft and auto factories. Gulf Stream, GM, Ford, BMW & Benz (Honda?) Its time for Big Jets.
Near term I also think a reason they chose the larger KC-30/KC-45 is that the preponderance of tanking missions are to cargo aircraft (right now). The larger Northrop Grumman-EADS tanker could augment to a greater degree the cargo tonnage that the over-taxed C-17 fleet is carrying now – on the same missions and reduce its cycles. The A-330 and C-17 have very near the same MTW; 513,000 lb and 585,000 lb respectively.
This is the first lot of 179. There will be future awards.
/Besides – we
> With the massive consolidation that’s going on in defense worldwide, we risk losing our defense industrial infrastructure to foreign companies if we don’t adequately fund them.
which is exactly why you should be excited NG won this bid.
Boeing doesn’t need this bid, they’re in great shape.
NG however NEEDED this win
> And since when is it the job of the U.S. to maintain the competitiveness of European defense companies?
neither is it the job of the US military to subsidize underpeforming companies just because they are local
it IS the job of the US military to provide their men and women in uniform with the best equipment they can
> don’t see Europe rushing to buy our equipment. Tit for tat, I say.
i prefer not to play political games with the lives of our servicemen and women
> You know as well as I do that whoever wins KC-X will be more likely to win KC-Y and KC-Z based on the Air Force’s lack of willingness to maintain multiple tanker production lines.
utterly false
KC-Y and KC-Z are likely to have very different requirements, either as a KC-10 replacement (which would favor the 777) or a stealthy tanker (which would favor a completely new design)
not mention NEITHER the 767 nor the A330 will still be in production by the time these contracts roll around
it’s practically guaranteed that there will be a new winner
plus KC-X production will have wrapped so there will still only be one line regardless of who wins
> Based on what criteria?
the 5 criteria that the USAF selected as the most important for their next tanker
> The Air Force suddenly changes the criteria it’s judging these tankers on (probably skewing the selection to Airbus), and that makes it the better plane?
if you’re referring to the change that took place just a couple of weeks ago
a) that actually hurt the KC-30
b) it only affected 1 criteria. The KC-30 won or tied ALL FIVE
> No, the overall plan does NOT result in more jobs for the United States! Around 25,000 will be created by Airbus. Around 44,000 will be created by Boeing! 44,000-25,000 = 19,000 more jobs created by Boeing than Airbus!
that’s what we call ‘stupid accounting’
you can’t count jobs directly because there are so many direct and indirect effects
instead you look at the money that stays in country
there is about a $8 billion gap between the two proposals
BUT YOU CAN’T IGNORE THE A330-200F!
stealing the production of all these hundreds of freighters from France is a net gain of more than $8 billion, thus the end result is MORE AMERICAN JOBS
> but frankly they are offering the better aircraft
then please explain why the USAF selected the KC-30
> it’s cheaper (big aircraft are more expensive than smaller aircraft
i’ve already debunked this myth several times if you paid the slightest bit of attention
> meaning you get more planes if you buy Boeing
FALSE
the contract is for a fixed amount of planes
you get the same amount of planes no matter which bid you select
the only question is how much would it cost
> the CEO of EADS himself said that they didn’t knock down the price at all to sell it to the USAF, meaning it’s going to be more expensive
he said it wasn’t a basement price
and i can assure you Boeing’s price wasn’t a basement price either
> it’s more fuel-efficient
that is very much dependent on the mission
on lots of missions the KC-30 is more fuel efficient
> smaller size means it can take off from shorter runways
you would think that, but you would be wrong
the KC-30 can actually use shorter runways
one of the advantages of being big is having a big honking wing
one of the advantages of being newer is having a more modern, aerodynamically efficient wing
and that doesn’t even take into account the balanced-field length. Basically the K767 takes longer to come to a stop thus you have to use a longer runway to maintain the same safety margin in the case of an aborted takeoff
> (don’t tell me that having past experience manufacturing tankers doesn’t matter – it most certainly does)
it would . . . if that history wasn’t 50 years ago and everyone who ever worked on it was gone
well i suppose they might still have some McDD people who worked on the KC-10
> Whatever the criteria were that the Air Force selected the 330 over the KC-767, the fact that they changed the criteria at the last second throws this whole contract into a whirlpool of suspicion
it would, except the change hurt the KC-30
and again, it was to only 1 criteria. The KC-30 won or tied all five
changing the KC-767′s score from 0-5 to 1-4 isn’t going to get it the win
> The United States is NOT in the business of subsidizing the European defense industry…EVER
or domestic ones for that matter
> irtusk, you can’t keep saying that the 330s are being built here, because they aren’t. If the airframe is being built in Europe, then guess what? That means the PLANE is being built there!
in a sense, it doesn’t matter
what matters is where the money goes
and ~60% of the money goes to the US
> That means it most certainly is NOT being built from the ground up!
i didn’t say that about the KC-30, i said that about the A330-200F, which most definitely will be built from the ground up right here in America
the BBC is reporting that the winning of this contract is going to save hundreds of jobs in Europe. so get real, we just sent money overseas…and yes EADS is subsidized by the EUROPEAN UNION!
>in a sense, it doesn’t matter
what matters is where the money goes
and ~60% of the money goes to the US
As opposed to ~80% of the money going to the US if Boeing gets the contract. Tell me how having ~60% is better than having ~80%. Try doing it with a straight face, if you can.
>i didn’t say that about the KC-30, i said that about the A330-200F, which most definitely will be built from the ground up right here in America
Oh please. The A330-200F is also ONLY being assembled here. It’s being fully built in Europe, LIKE ALL OF AIRBUS’S PLANES. We only get assembly work. That’s it. Which means it isn’t an American plane, it’s a European one.
it all comes down to 2 things do you want to provide taxpayer welfare to boeing or do you want to use taxpayer dollars to get the best product for the airforce.
i believe in merit not privilege. that is the american way you win because you deserve it not because you have a right to win out of some privilege.
I think the trade off was between the larger cargo and fuel capacity of the KC-30 vs the smaller footprint of the KC-767. I thought the larger hauling capability was more valuable, but I was very surprise to hear that Boeing lost. Boeing should have offered a more advance KC-767 or a KC-787. Do you think $40 billion and potential for additional sales to the AF and other countried would have been worth starting up a second 787 production line?
Air Force requirements under this contract were so sketchy that Boeing wasn’t aware that cargo/personnel carrying would be so important. Their was a big debate inside Boeing about whether the 777 should be offered instead and because of the wording of the Air Force proposal, chose to stay with the 767. Cowboy up Boeing and dispute this nonsense!
This whole thing can be traced back to the Darleen Druyun scandal. If it were not for that Boeing would have won this contract hands down as it MUCH more closely matches the original USAF requirements. Hell, the USAF had to change its entire criteria for the KC-X just so the NG/EADS team could/would compete (& in so doing changed the criteria to favor the A330).
When the criteria was changed, Boeing should have changed its proposal to the 767-300 airframe & 767-400 wing to better fit the new criteria but instead stayed with the 767-200 airframe (which better fit the original USAF requirement/criteria but not the new). Better still would have been to change to the 787 (which is out-selling the A350 by more than 4 to 1)!
Now that is not to say that all of this is a bad thing. The reality is that either aircraft would more than adequitely fill our needs for new tankers. Each have their strengths & weaknesses vs the other but NEITHER is so superior to the other AS A TANKER as to make either an unjustified choice.
In the end though (as some of us are aware) the final choice is based as much if not more on politics than the actual merits of the aircraft & the “decision makers” can (& often do) “justify” what ever decision they make by simply changing &/or emphasizing/deemphasizing the criteria…
The 787 is being build around the world:
[quote]Boeing will manufacture the vertical stailizer(tail fin) at its plant in Frederickson, Washington, USA. Ailerons and flaps at Boeing Australia, and fairings at Boeing Canada. Main wings will be manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, in Nagoya, Japan. The horizontal stabilizers will be manufactured by Alenia Aeronautica in Italy, and the fuselage sections by Vought in South Carolina, USA and Alenia in Italy, Kawasaki Industries in Japan, and Spirit AeroSystems, in Wichita, Kansas, USA. The passenger doors will be made by Latecoere, France. Cargo doors, access doors and crew escape door will be made by Saab, Sweden. From France, Messier – Dowty will build the landing gear and Thales will supply the integrated standby flight display, electrical power conversion system, and in-flight entertainment.[/quote]
and the best one yet
[quote]The first “Dreamliner” aircraft’s rudders, fuselage fairing and leading edge of the vertical tail, were all made in China.[/quote]
The Harbin Aircraft Industrialcompany has the contract to make those parts – in china till 2021.
so you can see – the 787 is only assembled in america.
I’m surprised by your reaction but not to much!!!
That’s one of the first time where there is a real competition for a big military contract.
That’s the global competition!!!
It’s hard to ask all the world to have open military market and when you only win half of an internal market, it’s a problem.
Do you think that there is problem like that when you have sell plane to poland (buy with the help of the EU money)?
And remember that for the 3 last confrontations for this type of plane, EADS won the 3 market!!
Why Boieng don’t reacted and proposed a new solution?
And be sure, with the us/euro parity, EADS have a lot of interrest to buy in dollars!!! I’m sorry but now, dollars is more considere like a monkey money in europe.
Best regards from France
ffman: F-You, you goddamn frog. This wasn’t a competition. This was rigged by Northrop and Airbus. Once Congress gets on this, watch this contract dissolve.
firebrand, vulgarity is the weapon of the low!
Ok, it is te politican who make the intervention!!!
So, there is no problem if you will have a good american plan but not the plane in adequation with your need!!!
American protectionism will be a good exemple for all the country in the world!!!
Ah yes, vulgarity. Kind of like you referring to the dollar as “monkey money” eh? And as for the plane we need, when the RFP was issued back in 2001 (I think, maybe earlier), the KC-767 fit the needs exactly. With this latest RFP, Northrop whined and complained to get the RFP changed to reflect Northrop’s bid, biasing the RFP heavily in Northrop’s favor. Not to mention that at the last second, the judgment criteria were changed out of nowhere by the Air Force. So yes, Northrop and Airbus did indeed rig this competition, and that will come out in the forthcoming Congressional investigation.
For my espression “monkey money”, it is not a vulgarity il is a reference to the decrease of your money. I usually work with us firms who work meanly on international market and that the expression they used when the discuss about the $/
Sorry ffman, but you refuse to show the slightest respect to us, so I don’t see why we should bother with you. Just because the dollar’s value right now is quite low is no reason to insult it. And in any case, that doesn’t change the fact that this competition is now looking more and more like it was rigged in Northrop/Airbus’s favor. Congress needs to get on top of this, and strip Airbus of this contract.
For 2001, please remember why the contract has been closed?
And for the KC-767 in 2001, there was only boeing like competitor for the contrat. It’s easy to have the goob product when you are alone!
That’s not mean than Boeing have a bad product.
I think we can agree what Boeing did in 2001 was pretty under-handed. I’m glad they lost the contract initially because they were handing the Air Force a raw deal. But that’s all fixed now, and Boeing is straightforwardly offering up the 767 (which in my mind is better than the 330), and it seems like Northrop/Airbus rigged the competition in their favor. So Congress needs to investigate and get to the bottom of this.
I never insult you! I only compare the dollar with a monkey money! Why, when I made a comparaison of your money, I insult you?
Your money is not the representation of the US, it is the arm of the business!!!
Far to me to be insultant about american people? In term of military situation, you are largely better than european in term of capacity!
Don’t find insult where there isn’t, please!
I will be honest with you Firebarn, It isn’t worth wasting time trying to point out your lack of knowledge and experience in matters such as this, frankly when you started quoting Wikipedia you lost all creditbility that you just managed to gather from the rubble of your earlier comments. All I can say is thank god that wiser men are in positions of your military.
If you had even any military experience of for that matter commonsense, you would take your time to actually revisit the purchases that your countries military arms have made, The USN Jayhawk, a British/EADS advanced trainer, your M1 Abram’s Armour is licensed COPY of the early British Cobolt Armour not to mention the german gun but hey, after living in the states for a few years, its facts like this that people like you like to brush over and ignore. I wonder were most of the parts for those amazing DELL pc’s are made… china, Taiwan etc. I guess that your elitist America is Best is going to run your economy into the ground… oh wait that is already happening, I guess the F-22 really does have a role in insurgent warfare… oh wait… :) As for the French man, he does have a valid point, the dollar isn’t what it used to be, sadly that is a fact of your countries military spending and questionable leadership. Frankly your industry needs a kick in the ass and NG and EADs will do it and you know what, it will force Boeing to produce better products for your military, I thought you guys were all for captalism, or is that just when the result is rigged?
So far all your comments such as bigg planes cost more have debunked by the more knowledgable members of this board so far, you points smash of cluching at straws, next thing you will be telling us is that because its a bigger aircraft it won’t fit in current USAF issued painted stands OH the horror… or that the new plane has useless features like a wine rack of some other item which you hope you can rant about, the USAF picked the aircraft which will meet its needs fairly rather than the boeing superking paying off USAF personnel to get the contract… As for your president comment, no not every one hates him or dislikes him, its people like you that seem to raise blood pressure in the EU or the UK for that matter. Frankly your comments have come off as nothing more than the rants of an uneducated yocal, thank god for wiser men in the USAF.
As for being Eurotrash, I would rather be considered that, than an uneducated redneck.
I will be honest with you Firebarn, It isn’t worth wasting time trying to point out your lack of knowledge and experience in matters such as this, frankly when you started quoting Wikipedia you lost all creditbility that you just managed to gather from the rubble of your earlier comments. All I can say is thank god that wiser men are in positions of your military.
If you had even any military experience of for that matter commonsense, you would take your time to actually revisit the purchases that your countries military arms have made, The USN Jayhawk, a British/EADS advanced trainer, your M1 Abram’s Armour is licensed COPY of the early British Cobolt Armour not to mention the german gun but hey, after living in the states for a few years, its facts like this that people like you like to brush over and ignore. I wonder were most of the parts for those amazing DELL pc’s are made… china, Taiwan etc. I guess that your elitist America is Best is going to run your economy into the ground… oh wait that is already happening, I guess the F-22 really does have a role in insurgent warfare… oh wait… :) As for the French man, he does have a valid point, the dollar isn’t what it used to be, sadly that is a fact of your countries military spending and questionable leadership. Frankly your industry needs a kick in the ass and NG and EADs will do it and you know what, it will force Boeing to produce better products for your military, I thought you guys were all for captalism, or is that just when the result is rigged?
So far all your comments such as bigg planes cost more have debunked by the more knowledgable members of this board so far, you points smash of cluching at straws, next thing you will be telling us is that because its a bigger aircraft it won’t fit in current USAF issued painted stands OH the horror… or that the new plane has useless features like a wine rack of some other item which you hope you can rant about, the USAF picked the aircraft which will meet its needs fairly rather than the boeing superking paying off USAF personnel to get the contract… As for your president comment, no not every one hates him or dislikes him, its people like you that seem to raise blood pressure in the EU or the UK for that matter. Frankly your comments have come off as nothing more than the rants of an uneducated yocal, thank god for wiser men in the USAF.
As for being Eurotrash, I would rather be considered that, than an uneducated redneck.
I will be honest with you Firebarn, It isn’t worth wasting time trying to point out your lack of knowledge and experience in matters such as this, frankly when you started quoting Wikipedia you lost all creditbility that you just managed to gather from the rubble of your earlier comments. All I can say is thank god that wiser men are in positions of your military.
If you had even any military experience of for that matter commonsense, you would take your time to actually revisit the purchases that your countries military arms have made, The USN Jayhawk, a British/EADS advanced trainer, your M1 Abram’s Armour is licensed COPY of the early British Cobolt Armour not to mention the german gun but hey, after living in the states for a few years, its facts like this that people like you like to brush over and ignore. I wonder were most of the parts for those amazing DELL pc’s are made… china, Taiwan etc. I guess that your elitist America is Best is going to run your economy into the ground… oh wait that is already happening, I guess the F-22 really does have a role in insurgent warfare… oh wait… :) As for the French man, he does have a valid point, the dollar isn’t what it used to be, sadly that is a fact of your countries military spending and questionable leadership. Frankly your industry needs a kick in the ass and NG and EADs will do it and you know what, it will force Boeing to produce better products for your military, I thought you guys were all for captalism, or is that just when the result is rigged?
So far all your comments such as bigg planes cost more have debunked by the more knowledgable members of this board so far, you points smash of cluching at straws, next thing you will be telling us is that because its a bigger aircraft it won’t fit in current USAF issued painted stands OH the horror… or that the new plane has useless features like a wine rack of some other item which you hope you can rant about, the USAF picked the aircraft which will meet its needs fairly rather than the boeing superking paying off USAF personnel to get the contract… As for your president comment, no not every one hates him or dislikes him, its people like you that seem to raise blood pressure in the EU or the UK for that matter. Frankly your comments have come off as nothing more than the rants of an uneducated yocal, thank god for wiser men in the USAF.
As for being Eurotrash, I would rather be considered that, than an uneducated redneck.
Firstly, Philip McEuroWeenie:
Of course it isn’t worth your time trying to point out anything. Your shitty aircraft company is trying to foist its shitty aircraft on us with the help of a backstabbing American defense contractor, plain and simple. The military obviously has its head up its ass, because if it were thinking straight the contract would have been awarded to Boeing without a second thought. Better engineered products like Boeing aircraft are typically what you would want to buy over aircraft that fall apart in the sky, as Airbus aircraft are prone to do.
I do indeed review the purchases of the military quite often, and what I’ve seen with regards to the European equipment bought is massive cost-overruns for sub-par machinery, such as the Kiowa, or the VH-71 Kestrel, a monstrosity of a European helicopter that is going to cost (as of right now) over half a billion per helicopter. Half a billion for your Eurotrash helo! I have plenty of problems with outsourcing American manufacturing overseas, and I’ve taken action in that regard with respect to the federal, state and local levels, and I’ll continue to do so, because better that products are manufactured HERE in the U.S. than in China, Mexico, or anywhere else – especially Europe! I don’t doubt that there are many in Europe who feel exactly the same way I do about their manufacturing sector, and I don’t begrudge them for it. Yet you have the gall to attack me for giving a shit about the manufacturing base in my country? I care about jobs staying here in the U.S.! I don’t want to see them outsourced, especially to sub-par manufacturers producing a worse product (for example, AIRBUS). America is certainly the best for Americans, and I’ve seen nothing to change that viewpoint. Your idiocy in fact reinforces it IMO. And yes, the dollar isn’t what it used to be. No reason to get nasty over it, however. Our defense industry, by the way, is quite top-notch. It’s much more streamlined than European defense, where every country that can think of has a production line for a single product, massively duplicating production where it isn’t necessary, and driving up costs as a result (see, for example, Eurofighter). Our industry needs to be policed better, but it sure as hell runs better than yours. Boeing gets plenty of competiton from Lockheed Martin, and Grumman could be competitive if it bothered to actually sit down and develop more aircraft. We’re certainly giving them more than enough cash over CVN-21; you’d think they could put that towards development of a locally-produced aircraft rather than a foreign one. Capitalism works just fine in the U.S.; in fact, we’re a hell of a lot more capitalist than you are in Europe. So don’t throw stones in glass houses. As for rigging, the more information that comes out of this deal, the more it seems like Northrop rigged the competition against Boeing! Changing criteria at the last minute, revising the RFP to bias the criteria heavily in Airbus’s favor – now THAT is rigging a competition.
And no, nothing so far has debunked anything of what I’ve said. The cost differences between KC-767 and the Airbus 330 have been well publicized in the press so far; go look them up if you doubt them. Airbus is presently a more expensive aircraft that guzzles more gas, plain and simple. All that extra space, for what? These are tankers – what the hell else do they need to be doing BUT refueling?? Now imagine the cost-overruns that are bound to happen. Instead of paying $160 million per plane, how about $200 million? Or $250 million? It’s happened with other European contracts, and it’s guaranteed to happen with this one. All your teeth-gnashing trying to defend a crappier aircraft won’t change the fact that it’s crappy. And as far as the military is concerned, this botched contract is just another in a long line of military screw-ups. Had the competition played out fairly, Boeing would have won. Simple as that.
And as for being an uneducated redneck, well, ANYTHING is better than being European!
Looking beyond this initial procurement it is safe to say that the geo-politcal and economic spin-off is huge.
But first to those that think that EADS/ Airbus is 100% French: it is not. It’s main facillities are based in Germany, France and Spain with sub-contractors in Poland, Czech-republic, the Netherlands (where also the EADS HQ is based) and several other countries acting as minor sub-contractors. But having the plane built mainly in the US doesn’t provide them with a lot of benefits from this deal. The only reason foreign defense contractors are awarded a US deal is when they include building a manufacturing site in the US like Beretta/ FNUSA/ BAE/ Eurocopter had to do adding no increased work for foreign workers in their parent countries.
Second: EADS only provides the platform which will be militarized by Northrop-Grumman which will be entirely done in the US.
Third: With the USAF setting standards in the NATO/ Allied infuence-sphere it will mean a that future tanker procurements will most definatly mean more tanker buys for NG.
Fourth: With finally having a US/foreign team winning a major contract the presure is on the tradional defense contractors in the US. With the procurement horror stories with the Navy (JCS and DDG-100), CG (DDG-25) and the murky dealings leading up to the KC-X procurement it will definialty be a US taxpayers win in the long haul.
Fifth: With finally having a US/Allied team win a major contract it gives Allied governments a feel of being a worthy partner of the US. A gratitude which could last a long time.
And please forgive my mis-spellings or grammar because I’m Dutch.
The following article explains that last minute criteria changes actually worked against EADS/NG…not Boeing.
Bottom of second page shows the criteria and weighting used:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2863030520080228
Firebrand, your profanity and name-calling does not earn you points.
RE: Air Force requirements under this contract were so sketchy that Boeing wasn’t aware that cargo/personnel carrying would be so important
That is incorrect. NG/EADS hesitated in joining in the competition until the AF clarified the requirements in that respect-upfront and long before anybody submitted propoal.
All this anti-EADS rhetoric is odd. You’d think EADS was the prime contractor or something. This is more of a ‘NG’ and ‘EADS North America’ operation that most people realize. Even a lot of EADS money will not leave the US before going through an American’s paycheck. I’m on record elsewhere as not being a fan of Airbus/EADS, because they do not really have a proper aircraft culture. But I am also on record elsewhere saying that if anyone can make the plane a good one (like the AF ‘fixing’ the DC-10 with the KC-10 effort) it is NG.
I have only one question for ‘firebrand’. Is your presence here part of an organized union effort to stir ‘buy America first’ emotions to subvert the contract and support a protest of the award– or are you an ‘independent’ moron?
The people here have been extremely tolerant of you. Since a lot of what you’ve posted would get your head popped like a zit in my presence, I can only conclude you are a frustrated little man of somewhat limited capability, lashing out perhaps over a beer-can covered keyboard. Coping skills: get some! And please, be original in your response this time; try using words I haven’t heard before.
Christian: Great red-meat post eh?
None of this talk matters anyway. The KC-30 still has no chance in hell of ever being built in the U.S and will never serve as a U.S tanker. If anybody in Congress wants to be re-elected, they will kill this contract in a hurry. This is an extremely unfortunate choice by the Air Force. Whether or not they made the right choice is mute. The political fallout is huge, and there is no way that the Air Force gets its tanker by 2013. You’re going to see tons more protests and COngressional inquiries before this if over. And no matter what spin people put on this, there is no way you can eliminate the impression in the public mind that the Air Force bought a foriegn aircraft, that they gave the second biggest defense contract in history to a foriegn company, and that billions of dollars that could have landed in the U.S will instead head to Europe. And it is the public opinion that will ultimatly decide if this tanker gets built, since both Congress and the Military serve the public.
I would like to add something – a question to the polar opinonated people:
boeing fully well knew what the re-specced requirements were , but still pushed ahead with the original aircraft , knowing NG would collaberate with EADS for the bigger A330 ; so why did boeing not use the bigger 767 or even a 777 variant?
This comment thread is really getting silly.
First- whatever you say about made in US versus EU- the Airbus is a fine plane. Most US airlines use them- the market will prevail.
The airforce has rarely bought foreign aircraft- so they must have had their reasons- like performance, cost etc.
I have always been suspect about Boeing’s 767 offer- no one is buying that plane anymore- it reeks of goverment subsidy.
Irtusk
i can hear the gnashing of your teeth (or was that hitting your head against the wall) when you posted that ; sadly around the internet it does seem that `fanboyism` is so apparant – very few people are saying the reality – that the best aircraft for the job actually won.
my question about why not use a bigger 767 or 777 was rhetorical – i knew the answer allready – any sized 767 cannot compete with the A330 effectively (as you said right sized) and the 777 (when the engines arn`t shutting down on there own – happened again 3 days ago on an AA flight) is not cost effective.
lets hope all the threats of law suites (from washington senator) are just hot air.
its crazy to see Roy outdone in a thread here….
i was going to post something but Mac pretty much covered what i was going to say
irtusk,
No, Boeing did not write the original USAF requirements – although it does appear they could have been written specifically for the 767…
BS on the 787 not being an option ready in time. Airlines are expecting deliveries of the 787 years before the USAF is expecting deliveries on any KC-X and both the 767 & A330 proposals require an almost completely new aircraft only based on the “existing” airframes with both developing all-new fuel/boom (& many other) systems for them. The 787 would represent a greater risk but there are plenty of airlines who have already accepted that risk (there are already 857 firm orders – making the 787 the “quickest” selling airliner in history).
It is Boeing’s fault for sticking with an airframe that better met what the USAF originally wanted rather than switching to one that better fit what politics changed the criteria to.
As you said yourself, NG/EADS needed to win this conctract but Boeing will survive without it…
I have only one question, My understanding is previous Air Bus aircraft have thin skin, will this KC45A Tanker support the added weight over time and continued heavy use that will be a primary requirement for this Aircraft. wcarter41
Someone answer me this…with the Air Force already pushing for more F-22s, have arguments with the DOD over the number of C-17s, fighting the other services for control of UAVs and reaching the smallest number of active duty members since before WW2, why the hell did they pick this fight with Congress???? The American people are under financial strain, the Democratic Presidential candidates are already signaling that globalization is being conducted unfairly and at the cost of American jobs…Bush is generally disliked by the majority of the public…SO WHY DO THIS NOW? Congress won’t let this fly. Boeing has too much clout having Chicago, Washington state and even members of the California Congressional Delegations supporting them so I really don’t understand the move.
Why do this now and this way? Because this way they get congress to do everything for them. No dirt on the procurement arm of the AF, ‘the numbers back up the decision, but we bend to the will of the people’ and all that load of stuff.
Regardless of how powerful a senator is, we shouldn’t let them tell the military whats best for them. If there has been no fowl play involved, and the air force can prove that the airbus is the better aircraft, then nothing should change about this deal.
> > why the hell did they pick this fight with Congress?
because they want the best equipment for the warfighter, not the most politically expedient equipment for the warfighter
> SO WHY DO THIS NOW?
because we need new tankers now?
> Congress won’t let this fly
if they care about our military, they will
Stop posting this shit about “the military selected the best aircraft” in response to why the Air Force chose to pick this fight with Congress. Whenever you have 100 billion dollars at stake, of course it’s going to be made political, and the Air Force knows that, or should know that. It is irresponsible of them to chose an aircraft that would be so controversial, because the political fallout over this could delay the delivery of a new Air Force tanker even further. If Congress scraps or even delays this deal, it could be a decade before we get a new aircraft. But don’t place the blame on Congress. Place the blame on the stupidity of the Air Force acquisitions leadership chosing such a controversial airframe. This type of controversy is exactly what the Air Force doesn’t need at a time when it’s pushing for more F-22′s and C-17′s, both controversial proposals as well but still vital for our nation’s defense. This decision could very well make some Congressmen very hesitant in dolling out more cash for these aircraft, which would degrade the Air Force’s capabilities and readiness even further.
> It is irresponsible of them to chose an aircraft that would be so controversial
no, it would be irresponsible to select the inferior plane
> because the political fallout over this could delay the delivery of a new Air
> Force tanker even further.
if congress decides to play politics and delay and stall this, then they are the ones being irresponsible
> But don’t place the blame on Congress.
why not? if they think that getting their piece of the pie is more important than serving the needs of the warfighter, then they most definitely are being irresponsible and deserve all the blame they can get
1. I think generally a country should try to keep the industry necessary for its defense from shutting down. Although in this case there’s no risk of Boeing going anywhere so it’s not quite that bad (in fact Northrop’s probably in a worse position)
2. Nevertheless, I also think the American arms industry really needed a shot across the bow.
3. But I’m not that sure that this project will proceed smoother than if they had chosen Boeing. But the N/A offer was better so perhaps the American taxpayer’s actually saving a few billions (a man can dream =)
4. But even if N/A were led by saints the military won’t be able to reign in runaway costs until they also stop the constant feature creep and changing specifications and demands that were the death of so many projects.
Sorry irtusk you are confusing programs. Your link refers to the previous deal for the USAF to lease 100 KC-767. The KC-X program is a later program started up after that one fell through due to scandal. Nice try though. :)
I see, you are so ignorant that you think that NG/EADS can build a totally new assembly plant from the ground up to assemble A330s & Boeing can keep an existing production line open to produce 767s (just for the KC-X program) but nothing can possibly be done to build more 787s…
I already said that the 787 represented more risk than the 767 or A330 but if you think airlines around the world would order over 850 787 even before the 1st production aircraft rolled off the production line if it was too risky you know NOTHING of the aircraft business & risk.
The KC-767 is based on the 767-200 airframe & the KC-30 is based on the A330-200 airframe but the KC-767 is not the same aircraft as any other 767 & the KC-30 is not the same aircraft as any other A330.
Quit blaiming the defence industry for cost overruns.
Has anyone seen this story? Interesting, even though it apparently didn’t affect the outcome.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2863030520080228
Does anybody think this procurment will go through, if Boeing doesn’t get more tankers then they will certainly ask for and get more F-22s and C17, also expect the F-22 to be sold overseas and the F-35 reduced even more. Look Out folks this is going to get ugly and for the AF even worse. I expect one or both of the Democraces to say this is why they should be president they wouldn’t allow american jobs to go overseas epecially jobs for defense issues.
> Sorry irtusk you are confusing programs. Your link
> refers to the previous deal for the USAF to lease
> 100 KC-767. The KC-X program is a later program
> started up after that one fell through due to scandal
um yes, i know
you said
> No, Boeing did not write the ORIGINAL USAF
> requirements
and well, they did write the ORIGINAL requirements
if i had looked closer, i would have realized you were referring to the second competition, not the original competition
> I see, you are so ignorant that you think that NG/EADS
> can build a totally new assembly plant from the ground
> up to assemble A330s & Boeing can keep an existing production
> line open to produce 767s (just for the KC-X program)
> but nothing can possibly be done to build more 787s.
au contraire, i am very familiary with the issues of a 787 rampup
the bottleneck of 787 production is NOT the factory/assembly line, it is the ability of the suppliers to produce segments with those massive autoclaves
Boeing has been under tremendous pressure to increase production, and if they easily could, they would
they have repeatedly said that any attempt at increased production will have to wait until they get production stabilized and then take a look at what additional investment (autoclaves) would be needed to make it faster
if there was a magical ‘increase production’ switch for the 787, they would have done so long, long ago
> I already said that the 787 represented more risk than
> the 767 or A330 but if you think airlines around the world
> would order over 850 787 even before the 1st production aircraft
> rolled off the production line if it was too risky you know NOTHING
> of the aircraft business & risk.
no, it shows you no nothing of the difference between the civilian and military worlds
in the civilian world, they put down a small deposit and get a slot. If there is a major problem with the plane they get compensation or if it’s really bad, a competitor is happy to immediately sell them an equivalent product
it doesn’t work that way in the military world. So much customization and development goes on, that it is a major investment of time and money. If it fails, there is no off-the-shelf competitor you can just jump to, you have to start the entire development process all over again, which is a huge waste of time and money.
this makes the military very risk averse
While the 787 itself is risky, there is little risk to airlines to order it. If it doesn’t meet expectations they can easily get their money back and quickly get an equivalent plane.
It just doesn’t work like that in the military world.
> the KC-767 is not the same aircraft as any other 767
this is true
> the KC-30 is not the same aircraft as any other A330
this is false (as far as the actual airframe is concerned, of course civilian models don’t have a boom ;)
> if Boeing doesn’t get more tankers then they will certainly ask for and get more F-22s and C17
Boeing doesn’t make F-22s, that’s LockMart
The isolationists whined exactly the same when they selected the English Electric Canberra over the Martin B51. Canberra was plainly the better aeroplane and history proved it
I couldn’t quite see Chuck Yeager doing interdiction in the whale-like underpowered B51.
Firebrand has proven himself to be an offensive, ignorant fascist. The founding fathers must be turning in their graves knowing that his kind get to VOTE.
irtusk,
The previous program was not due to any USAF requirements. At the time the USAF said they did not need any new tankers for a decade (but of course would gladly take new tankers if the government wanted to pay for them).
With the 787 you are still missing the element of time. Production for the 787 will have already been ramped up (& more than likely all the risk & ramp-up issues resolved) years before any KC-X are expected. And do you not realize how small an increase the 10-15 KC-X a year is to the current 787 production/delivery schedule?
And you are dreaming if you think that if the 787 failed that the customers could quickly replace it with another aircraft.
Pedro,
WTF??? The XB-51 has no connection whatsoever with the Canberra. Your facts are in error as is your thinking on this subject. Crawl back under your rock and do not return until permission is granted.
> With the 787 you are still missing the element of time. Production for the 787 will have already been ramped up (& more than likely all the risk & ramp-up issues resolved) years before any KC-X are expected.
1. that’s all speculative (and risky)
you say that it’s more than likely all the risk will have been resolved before delivery is expected
sorry, that doesn’t cut the risk NOW
they have to start development of the tanker NOW
if it does fail 2 years down the line, that’s 2 years of wasted time and money
2. Boeing didn’t offer the 787 so it’s a moot point
3. apparently there are other issues like the wings are too flexible for the refuelling pods and would have to be redesigned and the composite fuselage would cause problems with attaching the boom and various other accoutrements
> And you are dreaming if you think that if the 787 failed that the customers could quickly replace it with another aircraft.
well what other choice would they have?
You can’t compare the XB-51 and Canberra. First of all, the Canberra was British made. They were our closest allies and we had flown British-made planes before. (American squadrons were equiped with Hurricanes and Spitfires during WWII before the P-51 went into full production) Secondly, the reason the competition was held between the XB-51 and Canberra was that it was in the middle of the Korean War and the only effective medium-range bomber we had was the piston-driven, WWII era B-29. We needed a new, jet-powered aircraft which could either outrun or out-clime Mig-15s. And finally. The Canberra won because it was already in production by the British and it would be manufactured completely in the U.S, by the loosing bidder! In fact, many elements of the XB-51 were incorporated into the Canberra. A large portion of the KC-30, on the other hand, will be manufactured overseas by a company that so far has a terrible track record when supplying the U.S. military. In fact, many people (including myslef) aren’t so much upset that the choice is a foriegn designed plane as that the choice is an EADS/Airbus designed plane. The EADS-owned Eurocopter supplied the army with the UH-72 Lakota, which overheated so much that avionics systems bagan to fail, prompting the Army to add costly, heavy, and performance-reducing air-conditioners. Meanwhile, the Marine One replacement, the EH-101, is stuck in limbo because of cost-overruns and delays to production. The EADS A-400 military transports also experienced significant cost-overruns and time delays, and the Airbus A380 has so far been an economic disaster for Airbus and EADS. But we’re supposed to trust EADS will not experience similiar delays with the KC-30? We’re supposed to think that a company who has never produced tankers before will deliver an on-budget, on-time aircraft? An aircraft which is supposed to be built at a plant that doesn’t even exist yet? Maybe this is actually a good thing, since if the KC-30 experiences delays and cost-overruns it will finally convince the Military to NEVER buy EADS shit again.
You can’t compare the XB-51 and Canberra. First of all, the Canberra was British made. They were our closest allies and we had flown British-made planes before. (American squadrons were equiped with Hurricanes and Spitfires during WWII before the P-51 went into full production) Secondly, the reason the competition was held between the XB-51 and Canberra was that it was in the middle of the Korean War and the only effective medium-range bomber we had was the piston-driven, WWII era B-29. We needed a new, jet-powered aircraft which could either outrun or out-clime Mig-15s. And finally. The Canberra won because it was already in production by the British and it would be manufactured completely in the U.S, by the loosing bidder! In fact, many elements of the XB-51 were incorporated into the Canberra. A large portion of the KC-30, on the other hand, will be manufactured overseas by a company that so far has a terrible track record when supplying the U.S. military. In fact, many people (including myslef) aren’t so much upset that the choice is a foriegn designed plane as that the choice is an EADS/Airbus designed plane. The EADS-owned Eurocopter supplied the army with the UH-72 Lakota, which overheated so much that avionics systems bagan to fail, prompting the Army to add costly, heavy, and performance-reducing air-conditioners. Meanwhile, the Marine One replacement, the EH-101, is stuck in limbo because of cost-overruns and delays to production. The EADS A-400 military transports also experienced significant cost-overruns and time delays, and the Airbus A380 has so far been an economic disaster for Airbus and EADS. But we’re supposed to trust EADS will not experience similiar delays with the KC-30? We’re supposed to think that a company who has never produced tankers before will deliver an on-budget, on-time aircraft? An aircraft which is supposed to be built at a plant that doesn’t even exist yet? Maybe this is actually a good thing, since if the KC-30 experiences delays and cost-overruns it will finally convince the Military to NEVER buy EADS shit again.
Oops … sorry for the dual comment.
> Meanwhile, the Marine One replacement, the EH-101, is stuck in limbo because of cost-overruns and delays to production
the VH-71 is having problems because they keep deciding to add more and more and more junk to it
the Sikorsky bid would have fared even worse
> We’re supposed to think that a company who has never produced tankers before
that would surely be news to the Germans and the Australians
> The EADS A-400 military transports also experienced significant cost-overruns and time delays, and the Airbus A380 has so far been an economic disaster for Airbus and EADS.
well those are completely new programs which aren’t the same as an adaptation of an existing program
nonetheless, let’s look at how US contractors have performed on new programs
Boeing
- 787 is experiencing massive delays
- border fence. need i say more?
LockMart
- F-22 was substantially behind schedule and overbudget
- F-35 development was halted for a year to implement weight saving measures
- C-5M program triggered a Nunn-McCurdy violation and got scaled back
NG
- got their LCS CANCELLED because of budget overruns
i don’t see how the US contractors are performing any better
> But we’re supposed to trust EADS will not experience similiar delays with the KC-30?
no, we trust that ALL military contractors will have delays
Oh right, how could I forget to mention Boeing’s performance delivering tankers to Japan and Italy?
they were delayed OVER A YEAR while Boeing tried to resolve pod flutter and various other issues
my point isn’t that the US companies are bad, it’s that ALL companies suffer delays, it’s to be expected
and getting back to an earlier comment:
> And do you not realize how small an increase
> the 10-15 KC-X a year is to the current 787
> production/delivery schedule?
do you realize how much pressure they are currently under to increase production?
if they could easily do 10-15 more a year, they would have already committed to it and sold the slots
I’m still shocked Boeing didn’t realize in advance that the CG for this contract would hinge on cargo space – at list this factor appears to be such in all the news releases I’ve read. How could Boeing miss the importance of this and not propose a larger aircraft.
I must confess I thought the NG/EADS proposal would lose out partly because of the falling dollar. This can only hurt the US on these purchases unless they have an absolutely guaranteed price (like there’s a chance of that).
> I’m still shocked Boeing didn’t realize in advance that the CG for this contract would hinge on cargo space
it wasn’t just cargo space, it was also refuelling ability, risk, past performance and cost
> How could Boeing miss the importance of this and not propose a larger aircraft.
to get bigger than the KC-30, they would have to offer the 777, which is far, far more expensive and would have still had higher risk than the KC-30 as it had never been converted to a tanker (unlike the A330) and Boeing still would have lost the past performance metric for their blunders with Japan and Italy’s KC-767s
in other words, they still would have most likely lost (although it certainly would have been closer)
irtusk,
You are GREATLY exaggerating the risk/probablity of failure of a 787 based KC-X while at the same time GREATY underestimating the risk to airlines if the 787 were to fail. I guarantee that airlines are MUCH more adversely effected by risk. And if you think Boeing will not have fixed the risk & production ramp-up issues &/or be unable to add 10-15 787s a year for the KC-X 4 YEARS after it started delivering 787s to airlines you are dreaming.
It does not/did not matter if the KC-X is/was based on the 767, 777, 787, A330, A340, A350 or whatever, the majority of the neccessary developement is/would be essentially the same in order to create a USAF tanker out of an airliner.
> You are GREATLY exaggerating the risk/probablity of failure of a 787 based KC-X while at the same time GREATY underestimating the risk to airlines if the 787 were to fail
i guess i don’t really understand why you’re arguing this point
besides the fact that
1. you’re wrong
there is also
2. Boeing didn’t offer it, so who cares?
if they feel like offering it for KC-Y then we’ll talk about it
untill then, *shrug*
Any thread going to start on Hugo Chavez threatening war with Colombia? he wants to try out his new Su-27s. NOW THIS IS TAILOR MADE FOR OUR F-22s!!!! Now we’ll find out how they’ll perform against each other. Yesssss,bring it on!!!!!!
Everybody,
I should probably alert you to the possibility that a pernicious little troll with the calling card of ‘freefallingbomb’ might show up. You wil be able to recognize it by the disjointed perspective on reality (there’s been some debate as to whether this is drug or stupidity induced, but I’ll leave that to others)combined with the Anti-American bile it spews. Don’t worry, while it stinks up the place , it is completely harmless. And the bile is pretty lame as well.
Just ignore it. That drives it crazy. If you want to have some fun, make oblique references to it without aknowledging its existence.
Christian,
Can you verify that we do not have some sock puppetry going on here? A few of the less-familial posters have some interestingly similar writing styles.
Well, off to work. Have a good day everyone! And I do mean everyone.
Last thing we need right now is another war. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see our beloved air force put Chavez in his place, but yet another war may finally force Congress to re-instate the draft. We should finish up in Iraq and Afghanistan before we worry aabout fighting another war. Unfortunatly Chavez might not give us a choice.
Solomon said: “WTF??? The XB-51 has no connection whatsoever with the Canberra. Your facts are in error as is your thinking on this subject. Crawl back under your rock and do not return until permission is granted.”
The XB51 WAS the loser in the flyoff against the Canberra (which became the B57) because the B51 WAS an inferior domestic product. That makes them connected n’est ce pas?. My facts are NOT in error and my thinking is NOT defective and you have no rights to mention rock-houses .
In fact, you have joined Firebrand on my list of ignorant rednecks with a revisionist tendency.
C4Casey wrote: “In fact, many elements of the XB-51 were incorporated into the Canberra”
Which elements ?? – As far as I’m aware Canberra was an entirely British design that evolved at the same time.. It did not rely on ANY XB51 technology.
Well I am a little disappointed with the EADS win. But only a little and here is why. When I drive by ST. Louis and look at Boeing parking lots and I see a majority of foreign cars in them I loose all sympathy! My first thoughts are, “I hope you choke on your foreign cars,” too bad you never thought buying foreign would bite you in the rear!
Posted by: Michael Portier at March 1, 2008 08:54 AM
“But first to those that think that EADS/ Airbus is 100% French: it is not. It’s main facillities are based in Germany, France and Spain with sub-contractors in Poland, Czech-republic, the Netherlands (where also the EADS HQ is based) and several other countries acting as minor sub-contractors. ”
How come you missed the UK..the Third largest.
Employees by country – 2006
22,966 – France
22,663 – Germany
9,673 – UK
2,932 – Spain
approx 2,200 – other
alright sounds to me like some money changed hands.what retired gen or adm.that was hired and given a vise president position in that company got a big bonus at the expense of the american people and our econamy.that sounds about like lee iacoca and the rest of the big car makers back thirty years ago when they went on a fact finding mission to evaluate the european and japanese cars . and ended up getting rich and selling the american car menufacture down the drain. wake up people smell the roses.some body out there is getting rich.and its not you. keep big business in america. other wise you will have to move to some other country to support your family
Just three questions. Where are the 787 subcontractors,where is it assembled and who tried to influence the first contract?
American Military has a long and proud history of occasionally selecting and modifying a foreign product when the locally produced one isn’t “world class” (list below). It aids US war-fighting capability and stimulates the industial base to make better equipment. Its probably a good thing, but it doesn’t feel like it at the time for some folks.
List – off the top of my head
DH9 WW1 biplane
A36/P51
Merlin engine
Nene engine (aka P&W J42, aka “the needle engine”)
Sapphire engine (aka Wright J65)
EE Canberra (aka B57)
AV8
BAe Hawk Trainer (AKA navy T45)
Casa C27
EH101 (jury’s still out on this one !)
and now the A330.
First private industry outsources to foreign countries now our Government outsources job’s and funds to other countries. Why don’t we just hand the country over to the mexican’s.
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR ECONOMY? SO WHAT IF THE BOEING BID WAS HIGH,AT LEAST THE MONIES STAY IN THE STATES. SHAME ON THE PENTAGON!
U.S. allies in Australia, Canada and Europe are participating in the $300+ billion Joint Strike Fighter program, and Oz, Canada and the UK have purchased the C-17. It’s reasonable to expect that the U.S. should procure some of its aircraft requirements internationally, as these nations have done. If not, a lot of work done in the U.S. for the F-35 and C-17 would never have occurred as the “foreign buyers” (actually, the USAF) would have bought a French or Euro-aircraft.
Boeing ought to be questioned as to why it proposed a 30+ year-old aircraft that had significantly less cargo/fuel capacity than what NGC and EADS offered. Why not a military variant of the 777? And let’s not forget Boeing’s questionable track record concerning it’s attempt to rip off the U.S. taxpayer under a “lease” program. Hopefully, the next phase of this contract (USAF intends to replace 400+ tankers) will generate a better proposal from Boeing.
irtusk,
It is you who are wrong.
A 787 based KC-X would have been possible (& still is – if the KC-X turns into another CSAR-X debacle).
When politics FORCES the USAF to change the criteria for the KC-X just so that NG/EADS could/would compete for the contract, Boeing should have changed its offering to better reflect the new criteria. They did not & that is one of the reasons they (at least at this point) have lost the contract. As I said, they could have based their proposal on the 767-400 (which is about half way between the size of the 767-200 & the A330). I also said that a tanker based on the 787 would be even better. I don’t know what you are smoking to think that a tanker based on the 787 would/could not be ready by 2013 whn Boeing expect to deliver more than 100 787 to airlines by the end of 2009. And the risk to airlines in the 787 were to fail is MUCH greater that it would be for the USAF.
My GUESS is that Boeing did not change its proposal because it new that it more closely represented what the USAF wanted & thought that in the end it would choose what they really wanted rather than have politics dictated what they were to choose.
This is what all of those liberals want. For you to just sit back and cry! How many are you active in preventing the outsourcing of American jobs and products. I serve my country, and see nothing but talk and red faces. Americans have the power to chose, but fail daily on the right choices. Allied country entities are right for America, only if it’s support ours. But, so many companies and individuals fail to see the big picture here. Think, next time when your at the store, check the label. Is it American? Or cheap enough for you to buy?
The U.S version Canberra did indeed incorporate XB-51 technology, which only makes sense since the company who produced the XB-51 (Martin) was tasked with building the Canberra. The Canberra’s rotary bomb bay was the same as the XB-51′s, for which it had been designed. It was a revolutionary design which significantly reduced turbulance when the bomb bay doors were opened and ordinance released. Another feature of the XB-51 which would be incorporated into future aircraft (like the C-17) was the T-tail. There is an excellent article in Air Classics Magazine on this subject. The Martin Canberra, designeated the B-57, was heavily modifed from the British version and was far superior, with a higher service ceiling, bomb load, and loiter time.
so much for economic stimulation.
Coming at this from an international perspective (I
“Canberra’s rotary bomb bay ”
The canberra didn’t have a rotary bomb bay! it was a later B57 addition.
That is exactly why I introduced the B51 vs B57 subject… (and in order to educate the rednecks!) it is a classic case of a ‘non-world-class’ domestic product being properly rejected by the US military while the ‘world-class’ alternative gets adopted, improved and upgraded to make it better than ‘world class’.
The winner is the US military and in this case they have ‘won’ with the A330.
The only difference is that with the A330 they seem to have allowed the Europeans to make the air-frames, but bending Aluminum is such a 20th century task :-).
To be fair, its not just ‘rednecks’ and protectionists who didn’t remember the AF cast about for a plane back in the 50′s and came up with the B-57. I read a Reuters piece today quoting Richard Aboulafia (Teal Group)who called this the first time that the US or possibly any nation selected a foreign A/C over a domestic one. Aboulafia is weaker on Military programs than he is on Commercial ones, but he’s hardly a ‘rube’.
Interestingly, the same article pointed out that there was probably no real difference in US jobs between competitors, citing the percentage of the 767 built overseas and the apparent disconnect between the Boeing claim of 40,000 jobs, when they only claimed 25,000 jobs when they were going to do the job the first time, and the 25,000 jobs claimed for the C-17. I question the ability to accurately estimate numbers from one big program to the next anyway because I’ve seen how wide headcounts vary depending on the oddest of programmatic decisions and from bonehead beancounter influences.
> When politics FORCES the USAF to change the criteria for the KC-X just so that NG/EADS could/would compete for the contract
1. the USAF did NOT change the criteria, they simply clarified it
2. that is only one criteria, the KC-30 won or tied ALL FIVE criteria
the clarification was about the value of the cargo capability
in the end, whether cargo is rated highly or not, the KC-30 still wins, it’s simply undeniable
> As I said, they could have based their proposal on the 767-400
which still would have lost to the KC-30 on all the same metrics the 767LRF did
> I also said that a tanker based on the 787 would be even better.
I also said that a KC-787 wasn’t technically feasible (requiring new wing and having various other issues)
> I don’t know what you are smoking to think that a tanker based on the 787 would/could not be ready by 2013
i think it probably would be
but there is a difference between ‘probably would be’ and being willing to risk $2+ billion that it will be
> And the risk to airlines in the 787 were to fail is MUCH greater that it would be for the USAF.
how so?
if the 787 fails, they aren’t out any money and in fact will probably receive compensation
if the USAF invest $2+ billion in the 787 and it doesn’t pan out, they never get that back
> My GUESS is that Boeing did not change its proposal because it new that it more closely represented what the USAF wanted
i thought you just said Boeing was at fault for not changing the proposal even when they knew the RFP had changed?
my guess is that Boeing went with the 767 because they wanted to keep the already-paid-for-but-not-being-used 767 assembly line open as a cash cow.
If by some miracle, the 787 had been offered and selected, it would have simply been counter productive
they are already selling more 787s than they can make. Selling some to the USAF simply steals slots away from their commercial customers and doesn’t gain them anything.
BOEING HAS ZERO DESIRE TO SELL THE 787 TO THE MILITARY, it’s as simple as that
maybe in 20 years when production catches up with sales, that will change, but until then they are more concerned with keeping their commercial customers happy
> thought that in the end it would choose what they really wanted rather than have politics dictated what they were to choose
lolol
so the USAF ‘really, secretly’ wanted the 767 but politics ‘forced’ them to choose the KC-30!
have you seen the storm that has erupted because of this selection? all the congress people threatening investigations? all the labor unions and governors threatening lawsuits?
how can this POSSIBLY be the ‘politically expedient’ solution
no, the politically expedient, safe decision would have been to stick with the hometown team and you are beyond blind if you can’t see that
To “SMSgt Mac” : I certainly recognize you from our other (“special”…) discussion board, despite your understandable need for new nick-names here on “defensetech”. If you at least were more professional, more interesting where ever you work, uh post…
To “Pedro”: Why does your “off-your-head” list feature ONLY planes?
I think it is important to note that last year commercial overtook IDS for the first time since MD was bought. Also, the Darlene affair, the JSF loss, and the CSAR-X recompete have left a distinct distaste in Boeing’s mouth. My guess: Boeing decides to get out of defense, and NG ends up biting off more than it can chew on this one (primarily because Europeans are crafty and unmanageable), adding to its woes with Deepwater, etc. I see another round of consolidation ca. 1993 coming up. The question is: can/will LockMart buy everything? Do consider in your thinking that LM and Boeing have decided to team on the next strategic bomber, leaving NG to repitch Airbus as a laughable alternative.
“To be fair, its not just ‘rednecks’ and protectionists who didn’t remember the AF cast about for a plane back in the 50′s and came up with the B-57. I read a Reuters piece today quoting Richard Aboulafia (Teal Group)who called this the first time that the US or possibly any nation selected a foreign A/C over a domestic one.”
Using foreign planes was rather common in Europe even before that. Primary reasons for this were either urgent need (Italy 1916-1918, France 1939-1940, UK 1940-194x), a small aviation industry or outdated indigenous designs.
The USA used the Mosquito in WW2 (UK plane) as well.
Well, this doesn’t mean that the B-57 was an especially exemplary decision.
The 3rd condition applied; all U.S. designs for the role were crap.
The Canberra had completely superior characteristics. It was almost an aerobatics bomber, while the American counterparts of that time disappeared on the horizon before they could do a 2nd pass during a demonstration.
The agility of the Canberra even at high altitude made it almost invulnerable to fighters, whereas American models were merely aerial targets.
The Teal group guy might still be partially right if he talked about the USAF, as I am not sure that the USAF was already formed out of the U.S.A.A.F. before the B-57 decision.
irtusk,
Yes the USAF did change the criteria. They were forced to when NG/EADS threatened to not submit a bid until the criteria was changed so that they would/could be competative (& politics dictated that Boeing COULD not be given the contract without a competition).
The KC-X is not expected to be delivered until 2013, PLENTY of time to make whatever changes would be needed to the 787. Also note that a large portion of the KC-X developement contract is much the same reguardless of what airframe it is based on.
Still living in a dream world where airlines would not be HUGELY effected by a 787 failure…
I didn’t say anything about Boeing’s desire to sell 787 to the military. I said that based on the criteria that the USAF was forced to change to, that the 787 would have been better.
No the USAF did/does not SECRETLY want the 767. The simple fact of the matter is that for a new aircraft (whether it be tanker, AEW, or whatever) to replace existing aircraft based on the 707 (C-135, E-3, E-6, E-8 et cetera) the 767 offers the right size & capability – it is only when the USAF is forced to change its criteria to accommodate larger aircraft (which could not compete otherwise) that larger aircraft are/would even a realistic consideration.
No requirements were changed. NG hesitated to join in the competition until some things were CLARIFIED and that was before the proposals were even drawn up (NG’s anyway – Boeing probaly changed the cover sheet on the one they already had submitted.)
Dang it Defense Tech Guys! Can we have this on one long thread instead multiple threads so the errors aren’t multipying faster than they can be corrected? LOL!
SMSgt Mac,
Criteria were CHANGED!
Both teams asked for clearification OF THE NEW CRITERIA after they were changed.
Northrup should build spook airplanes. Grumman should build Navy Carrier airplanes.
Airbus builds flying corrosion traps. I won’t get on any airbus, period. When they get cycles and hours, watch the mission capable rate. corrosion maintenance is time consuming. 20 years in tailhook airplanes. Yes, I am passing judgement, so Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot. Just for the blue suit zoomies!
The reason why the criteria were changed was because of a corruption scandal in which the tankers were to be leased so that Boeing would be guaranteed the contract. If I remember correctly, one Boeing executive went to jail and Boeing CEO forced to resign over thev scandal, and the contract that was awarded to Boeing was eventually scrapped.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26924
.
I believe the initial proposals for a revised contract that were drafted in a way that was intended to disqualify Northrop-EADS (WTO references included in the contract terms with regard to Airbus but not Boeing, despite the WTO dispute being a separate issue and still being investigated), and so EADS refused to waste their time and money tendering. The contract was then revised to remove the discriminatory clauses so that a competitive tender, awarded on technical grounds was possible, Northrop-Grumman/EADS won.
. http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn092606.pdf
“The inclusion of the WTO matter in the RFI was viewed by many as a way to essentially
disqualify the Northrop (Airbus) bid, or at least raise political hackles over it in Congress.
Remember that whatever the Air Force decides on the merits, Congress ultimately writes
the checks and this competition is as much if not more a political battle than a technical
one.
By keeping the WTO matter alive when the Final Request for Proposals (FRFPs) is
issued, the political pressure is kept on Northrop (Airbus).
Understandably, Northrop has strongly protested inclusion as irrelevant to the technical
evaluation and selection by the Air Force of the winning design.
Aside from the appropriateness of including the matter in the RFI/RFP, or not, we
wonder how either Northrop or Boeing (which also has to answer this question) can even
remotely predict the result of the WTO investigation or any penalties that might be
imposed. Recall that we previously pointed out that the penalties don
Northrop is a GREAT American company with GREAT American employees. Northrop’s Tanker HAS defined the future and the best capability won! It’s rare that the DoD gets innovation and that is what they have selected here. It’s very simple. THe rules were followed as much as all Dod contracts….Who is protesting for Boing? I thought a few of their folks were in Federal Prison because of the last attempt. It is clear who cheated and it WASN”T Northrop!!!
nice Article
Greetings Bodenmais
In my opinion, this is another example of how screwed up our government is. How could we even consider awarding a multibillion dollar military weapons system contract to a foreign entity??
I do not have the flyff penya to bought the medicines.
I only know that in the game the 2moons dil is very important.
The girl only wants to use his money to buy the Archlord gold, so the boy was very sad.
together to earn the fiesta Gold, together to go to the abroad.