Comments on: Pitfalls of the Tanker Protest

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:37:45 +0000

irtusk,
The “specifics” you ask for have already been given in previous threads.
Prove that the 44,000 jobs number is dishonest. And do some research as to why NG/EADS revised its number upwards.
No the contract WAS NOT awarded to NG, it was awarded to a consortium consisting of NG & EADS. NG is the “prime contractor” for LEGAL & other reason, NOT becasue it is the “lead” contractor. NG is not MANUFACTURING the aircraft with EADS supplies parts, EADS is MANUFACTURING the aircraft & NG is turning the airframe into a tanker during FINAL ASSEMBLY.
You don’t know what % of the jobs are in the US & how many are overseas based on the content %. Having 60% content being US DOES NOT translate to 60% of the jobs being US so you are wrong as I said. Whether or not “most” (as in >50%) of the jobs are US or not is not the important factor. The important factor is that the KC-767AT will support MORE US jobs then the KC-30 would.
Is there a case against Boeing before the WTO? Note that an exception had to be made for EADS since as a matter of LAW the case before the WTO FORBIDS it from US military contracts.
Most unfortunate that you are unable to get to the link. What it is is a series of satelite images of Kadena Air Base (in particular the parking areas & taxiways where tankers operate from) with graphics representing the KC-30. Basically showing that the KC-30 is too big for many of the parking pads &/or taxiways there by SEVERELY resticting the number of KC-30 which could operate from Kadena Air Base.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:13:19 +0000

I guess as Long as Boeing wants to bid on something they will stomp and cry until they give it to them. Why should Northrop or Lockheed try and bid on future contracts only to have Boeing p-i-$-$ their pants until the pentagon finally gives in them. If the contract is overturned a HUGE political can of worms will be opened.
Well if I had lost every major defense and space contract the last 6 years I would probably be desperate enough to pull some crap like this too.Good luck in Farnborough Boeing, you’re going to need it.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:17:04 +0000

The Washington State Reps. and Senators should be the last people who have a say in this matter.
The fact is they’re only concerned because they want to get re-elected, if the planes weren’t to be produced in their state i’m sure they wouldn’t care if the Air Force went down to the corner gas station and bought thousands of those little red gas cans.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:58:51 +0000

> Not only was/is some of the criteria questionable to ANYONE who knows much about USAF tanker operations but some is outright alternate reality.
which criteria was questionable
please be specific
> It was not that U.S. manufacturers were disadvantaged per se but that foreign manufacturers GREATLY benefitted.
that’s the same thing, but i’ll play along
how were foreign manufacturers made ‘more equal’ than domestic manufacturers
> Some of us are smart enough to figure it out on own own, we don’t NEED the GOA to tell us what is obvious.
what made it unfair? it didn’t go to your favorite company?
again be specific
> NG may be billed as the “prime contractor” for legal & other such necessities
so you’re saying i was right? the contract was awarded to NG?
> but keep in mind that NG/EADS has revised its claimed jobs number up to 44,000 as well…
sure they did, they figured if they were going to get hit over the head with dishonest numbers, they might as well make up their own numbers too
> Sorry, but 60% US content DOES NOT translate to 60% of all contract related/supported jobs.
theoretically that’s true, but in the real world that’s not the case
however, let us suppose that you were right and 60% of the money stayed in the US but less than 50% of the jobs did
what would that mean? more money to fewer people … hmmm … sounds like all the high-skill, high-pay jobs wound up in the US and all the low-skill grunt work ended up in Europe.
would that be a bad thing?
> But the REAL point (which IS realted the % US content) is that the KC-767AT would support more US & fewer foreign jobs than the KC-30.
the real point is that the article lied because that’s not what it said
> The point being that ther IS a case before the WTO.
and did you miss the point about Boeing being accused of receiving illegal subsidies also
and did you dump innocent until proven guilty?
anyone can bring a case, that doesn’t mean it has merit
and even if EADS did receive illegal subsidies at some point for something, then what?
would they be forever barred from competing for any US defense contract?
no, the point of the WTO is to dish out appropriate penalties
if EADS is found guilty, they will have to pay whatever penalty the WTO decides and then the case will be CLOSED
the only clause in the tanker contract is that the cost of any penalties cannot be passed on to the USAF, which in the end is all that we should care about
these tankers will be around for 50 years, to influence such a decision because of temporary political concerns is short-sighted
> The link DOES work (I just tried it). Are you incapable of doing a simple copy & paste into your web browser?
it appears my browser is truncating the link. the very end of it that i can see is:
UNCLASSIFIED?secret_
and then nothing after that

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:58:36 +0000

irtusk,
OK lets go though them one by one…Note that the “>” are the spacewar comment you took exceptio to but provided ZERO evidence to back up ANY of your claims. And the facts which contradict your BS have all been laid out before.
> questionable criteria
Not only was/is some of the criteria questionable to ANYONE who knows much about USAF tanker operations but some is outright alternate reality.
> disadvantage U.S. manufacturers
I would say that disadvantage U.S. manufacturers is the wrong choice of words. It was not that U.S. manufacturers were disadvantaged per se but that foreign manufacturers GREATLY benefitted.
> unfairly award
Some of us are smart enough to figure it out on own own, we don’t NEED the GOA to tell us what is obvious.
> award a huge, militarily critical contract to the European Aeronautics, Defense and Space Co.
The contract was awarded to the NG/EADS team. NG may be billed as the “prime contractor” for legal & other such necessities but the KC-30 IS still an EADS aircraft MANUFACTURED by EADS in Europe — NG is “simply” turning the EADS built A330-200 airframe into a tanker.
> could be unwittingly undermining the very industrial base
I would agree with that point. No US industrial base will be lost.
> The award to Boeing would have supported 44,000 highly skilled aerospace jobs
Nobody actually knows what portion of the “44,000″ jobs are “highly skilled” but keep in mind that NG/EADS has revised its claimed jobs number up to 44,000 as well…
> The award to EADS/Northrop Grumman would outsource most of those jobs to Europeans.
Sorry, but 60% US content DOES NOT translate to 60% of all contract related/supported jobs. But the REAL point (which IS realted the % US content) is that the KC-767AT would support more US & fewer foreign jobs than the KC-30. Quite siply the KC-767AT would be MANUFACTURED & ASSEMBLED in the US were as the KC-30 would be MANUFACTURED in Euorpe & ASSEMBLED in the US. The difference is in the MANUFACTUING jobs.
> EADS also receives some $100 billion in what the U.S. trade representative alleges are illegal subsidies
That is right, that case is pending before the WTO. The point being that ther IS a case before the WTO.
> But even though EADS used $5 billion of these subsidies to finance its tanker airframe
Dance around it anyway you want but EADS DID get ~$5 billion from European GOVERNMENTS in addrion to what ever “tax benefits” it received for use in developing the A330. It may not have been able to have gotten that ~$5 billion any other way or would have had to repay MORE for it.
> and is far too large to operate out of many critical military bases in Asia
Kadena Air Base, the LARGEST American airbase in Asia so you can just imagine how BAD it must be at pretty much EVERY American airbase in Asia. Yes I know I am being a bit extreme since Kadena Air Base undoubtably can support a SMALL number of KC-30 but unless you are going to claim & prove that the LARGEST American airbase in Asia is one of the most operationally restrictive it shows quite clearly just how the large size of the KC-30 restricts its operations even at that LARGE airbase much less the smaller ones the KC-X is also expected to operate from.
How about you come up with any/some where the KC-30 can fully operate from without restriction…
The link DOES work (I just tried it). Are you incapable of doing a simple copy & paste into your web browser?

By: coviepresb1647

coviepresb1647 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:01:37 +0000

Although I am on the Boeing side, I think for the sake of timelines and the stupid ideology of Political Correctness (which includes playing to European egos), the GAO is going to rule in Northrop-EADS’s favor. It is interesting to see the continuing debate between Irtusk and Pfcern (Kudos to Pfcern for his factual, technically sensible basis).

By: Rix

Rix — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:40:13 +0000

As someone who spent some time at GAO (albeit a long time ago and doing something else) I don’t think this contract will be overturned. It would open up a political can of worms like we haven’t seen. Every contract would be appealed. We would never buy anything without huge hassle. That’s why I think GAO will give a nod to BA concerns but not overturn the contract. GAO tries very hard to stay out of politics and do what is right for the country. Which is more than I can say for some other services…er…agencies.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:33:46 +0000

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EADS_Tanker_Woes_Part_One_999.html
EADS Tanker Woes Part One
by Antonio Gil Morales
Washington (UPI) Jun 16, 2008
“Imagine a bizarre scenario in which the president of the United States had to ask permission from foreign leaders to use a critical missile-defense system, starting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ending, hat in hand, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin.
Until recently, that scenario was fancifully unimaginable. The United States has long been the global leader in such vital areas as aerospace and defense electronics. Unimaginable, that is, until now.
Indeed, a recent U.S. Air Force decision may augur the advent of this kind of alternate reality. By using questionable criteria that disadvantage U.S. manufacturers to unfairly award a huge, militarily critical contract to the European Aeronautics, Defense and Space Co. — the aerospace giant controlled by France and Germany — the U.S. Air Force actually could be unwittingly undermining the very industrial base that has defended the United States, Western Europe and much of the free world since the end of World War II more than 60 years ago.
The competition for the $35 billion contract to replace the 1960s-era old Boeing KC-135 tankers was billed by the news media as a clash of the aerospace titans, a trans-Atlantic dogfight between U.S.-based Boeing on the one hand and the Paris-based EADS — and its minority American partner Northrop Grumman — on the other.
Most experts put their money on Boeing; the U.S. firm has produced 2,000 tankers over the past 75 years, while EADS/Airbus has almost no experience producing them.
The award to Boeing would have supported 44,000 highly skilled aerospace jobs, many of which could employ returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. The award to EADS/Northrop Grumman would outsource most of those jobs to Europeans.
EADS also receives some $100 billion in what the U.S. trade representative alleges are illegal subsidies designed to take the market share from Boeing and other U.S. manufacturers.
But even though EADS used $5 billion of these subsidies to finance its tanker airframe, the no-risk funding couldn’t make up for the company’s complete inexperience in building tanker aircraft: Its KC-30 design is 52 percent larger and 32 percent heavier than Boeing’s KC-767, and is far too large to operate out of many critical military bases in Asia.”

By: gp

gp — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:28:32 +0000

The B-70 was a mach 3 conventionally powered bomber that never went to production. The USAF looked at designing a nuclear powered bomber, but it never got past the picture stage.
The B-70 program caused the Soviet Union to spend billions on a new aircraft to intercept it. That aircraft is the Mig 25.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:05:37 +0000

For the poster “Lee”:
No, it wasn’t a metaphor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft