Comments on: Fists Bared In Congress Over Tanker Tango

By: irtusk

irtusk — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:41:59 +0000

> You are WRONG on all accounts.
well then by all means prove me wrong
oh wait, you can’t

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:43:47 +0000

irtusk,
You are WRONG on all accounts.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:25:14 +0000

» the last tanker they delivered to the US was over 40 years ago
>
> The last new-build KC-135 may have been delivered in 1965 but Boeing HAS been & CONTINUES to be involved in maintaining & upgrading them.
in other words, I WAS RIGHT
> McDonnell Douglas DID have tanker experience prior to the KC-10 — most notably for the USN.
i thought it was so blatantly obvious that there was no need to mention it, but we are talking about BOOM tankers
if however you do want to include hose refuelling as your criteria for experience, then you should have no problems with EADS as they have delivered several hose and drogue tankers and are thus very experienced with tankers. Is that what you’re saying?
> NG did not win the KC-X contract, NG/EADS did
let me quote from the first line of the GAO finding
“The Boeing Company protests the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP)“
did you see a reference to EADS there? nope
NG and NG alone won the contract
in other words, I WAS RIGHT YET AGAIN
> The KC-30 IS “made” (manufactured) in Europe, only ASSEMBLED in the US.
wrong yet again
PARTS of the FRAME are manufactured in Europe
parts of the frame are manufactured in America
but a plane is more than just the frame
there is also the engines, the avionics, etc etc
60% of the plane’s value come from the US
if you think 60% of the plane’s value is solely in the ‘assembly’ you are sadly mistaken
and YET AGAIN I AM RIGHT

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:05:31 +0000

irtusk,
Some corrections to your ignorance…
The last new-build KC-135 may have been delivered in 1965 but Boeing HAS been & CONTINUES to be involved in maintaining & upgrading them.
McDonnell Douglas DID have tanker experience prior to the KC-10 — most notably for the USN.
NG did not win the KC-X contract, NG/EADS did & the GOA has confirmed that significant errors were made & the USAF did not follow its own rules in chosing NG/EADS.
The KC-30 IS “made” (manufactured) in Europe, only ASSEMBLED in the US.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:11:42 +0000

> they cut off the airframe supply to Northrop Grumman to screw the US
1. contractually they can’t do it
2. if EADS ever pulled a stunt like that, they would be permanently barred from the lucrative American defense market and plus lots of the parts for Airbus planes come from America (and even Boeing). It would be economic suicide for them.
3. if the cutoff is during the supply phase so we don’t get the agreed on number of tankers it won’t matter because
a) we will still have a sufficient quantity of old tankers
b) Boeing will be happy to start a crash program
c) if worst comes to worst, we can seize civilian A330s and convert them
3. if it’s after the time when we already have all the frames, it’s even less relevant
a) most everything except the frame is sourced from America (engines, avionics, boom, etc)
b) the military buys spare parts. lots of spare parts. years of spare parts
c) they require blue prints/source code/designs of everything so if the OEM ever did go away, they could make their own
d) it’s not realistically feasible to cut off spare parts for the A330 frame as it’s used all over the world so parts will always be available from someone
realistically the GAO can hurt us more than France and Germany ever could

By: coviepresb1647

coviepresb1647 — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:47:44 +0000

Irtusk,
Perhaps I am missing something too. How complex is it? We go to war with the European Union (our Sovereign God forbid), and out of retaliation or to avoid giving aid to the enemy, they cut off the airframe supply to Northrop Grumman to screw the US and give the EU military advantage in the war.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:10:38 +0000

> it should be AMERICAN MADE 100%
i guess that would exclude the KC-767 (which is made in Japan and Italy too)
> If the French get upset with the US or it

By: irtusk

irtusk — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:07:58 +0000

> Northrop Grumman (NG) did NOT win the contract.
yes they did
> The prime contractor was/is EADS of France.
nope
> The A-320 they selected for their tanker.
as previously pointed out, wrong again
> However, it is still MADE in France and EADS gets most of the money.
wrong again
60% of the money stays in the US
> We must never forget this level of support the French gave to the USA.
and this has nothing to do with the tanker contract
> Boeing has been building tanker aircraft for just about 60 years.
the last tanker they delivered to the US was over 40 years ago
i don’t believe many people associated with that project are still at boeing
all that experience didn’t do Boeing a lick of good when the USAF ordered the KC-10, why should it matter now?
how much tanker experience did McDD have when the KC-10 was ordered? none
was that a problem? nope

By: Reader Bob

Reader Bob — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:51:23 +0000

coviepresb1647
Sir, you are correct, and I have scolded my finger accordingly for this blunder. (Nice catch). However, now that we have officially changed a “is” to a “was” the message I was trying to convey stands. This entire goat-rope of awarding the next tanker contract is an embarrassment to the USAF and the DoD of the USA. We should expect more from the DoD and now that it has been confirmed by the GAO, that blunders of unbelievable scale were made it must be corrected. Nothing against EADS but as this is a military weapon system of great importance, it should be AMERICAN MADE 100%. EADS/Airbus make a nice airliner but for the USAF, I feel the politics of foreign relations today and tomorrow must dictate that the manufacturer of this new tanker be AMERICAN, not French, assembled in America. If the French get upset with the US or it

By: coviepresb1647

coviepresb1647 — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:05:32 +0000

Reader Bob,
How did the Airbus A320 enter the picture? Was it not originally an A330-based airframe that EADS considered for a tanker?