USAF picks EADS for tanker

To SIU, I'm not worried about us needing their technical support. For many reasons I'm not gonna delve into here. Simply put making parts out of nothing is huge business in this country. Since we will have all the plans for the aircraft and we will be doing the certification in this country I'm not at all, in the slightest, worried about needing EADS support. ESPECIALLY when it comes to military aircraft. If it was some part 25 certified piece and we may need a STC later to keep the fleet flying legally I'd have some concern. For instance when we did the F-22 project, and JSF, and I think everything in the last 20-30 years including the B-2, the government just laughs when we tell them what would need to be done to get things up to a Part 25 standard.

The 787 and whatever articles going with it will hopefully point out what a coupe this project has been. Boeing had a pretty good idea the WTO lawsuit would be tied up for years without any guarantee of a win. Thank you international law. Their complaint was that a government subsidized industry like EADS/Airbus will blow the doors off a company without direct government aid. EADS said we were outa our mind and we'd better just shut up because the argument is some sort of strawman because Boeing does take state and fed monies. Boeing did the suit anyway, but to hedged their bets when they gave most composite production over to Japan who will do exactly what EADS is doing. Boeing has been laughing all the way to the bank on that one.

EADS can't get a clear victory on this WTO dispute for a few reasons. One reason is a lot of the state and fed aid "going to Boeing" is also being sent right to Airbus through the same project. Perhaps one of the bigger reasons, I'm not a WTO lawyer obviously, is Boeing's ability to compete with Japan subsidizing most of the risk associated with this composite structure.

*cough cough* Not that this is was planned or anything...

Also when you get a couple EADS/Airbus/European gents in the same room and have an open and honest conversation about it, they don't know what to do to even the playing field and neither do we. Neither side wants a trade war thankfully.
 
All tankers will be built at KBFM-Mobile Downtown Airport-my current base-which is already a huge mtx facility for Airbus and Boeing. Up to 8,000 jobs will directly created due to this project. The local economy will bOOM!, and a lot of dollars will be spent here by many governments. I'm glad the production will be Stateside but I also agree that Defense Department contracts should stay in our own country!
 
Do we really need the Mobile, Alabama economy to boom, though?

I'd prefer it be Seattle and American stockholders.
 
frog_flyer said:
Do we really need the Mobile, Alabama economy to boom, though?

I'd prefer it be Seattle and American stockholders.
Click to expand...


Yes. We do need jobs in Mobile (What do you have against BFM other than the trash that lines the streets and the bums?!). We need jobs where ever we can get them. If you want to make some money off stocks buy some NG and EADS.
 
Don't you think the USAF considered all this stuff when they decided to purchase it. It's a freaking tanker not a nuclear bomber
 
Hey if the President of the United States can fly around in an EADS/Lockheed Martin helo, the Air Force followed suit and felt they could fly an EADS/Northrop Grumman tanker.:whatever:

I'm not worried about the outsourcing, but more about the product. Look how long the U.S. Miltary has kept it's aging fleet of aircraft flying. All of which were built by U.S. aircraft manufacturers. The B-52's, KC-135's, CH-46 and CH-53's, and UH-1's. I was amazed at how much crap most of the helo's I flew on had taken. A lot of battle damage from Vietnam and I flew on one that was actually a combination of different two airframes that had crashed in Vietnam. Crazy stuff!:insane: Like Velo said, EADS products work very well when their new but, when they start showing age, things go south quickly. I see the Air Force spending a hell of a lot more money on upgrades and airframe lifecycle extensions, than it would cost them to keep the current aircraft upgraded and in service.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I don't think it's a matter of jobs, I think it's a matter of national security.

This is HIGHLY hypothetical and not fully thought through... but say we have a military conflict brewing with Kosovo that grows into a wider conflict with Russia. We need to ramp up materiel production because it's going to be a doozy. But the EU nations that comprise EADS don't support the conflict and are protesting by ceasing production.

What do you do?
Click to expand...

What we would do is what we've always done, go to some aircraft boneyard and scrap parts from mothballed A-10's for the ones that are already flying, or in this case find a USAirways boneyard :banghead:
 
To hell with Airbus and other Euro-trash in my Air Force. This decision disgusts me. Maybe the government was banking on the idea that the ways things are going these days the US wont be around long enough for it to matter how well the Airbus airframe handles aging...

Might have to take the NKAWTG out of my sig.
 
ian said:
i wanted to fly the kc-767 :tear:
Click to expand...

Off topic

Ian, are you still at the academy? I have a really good friend going to school down there. She is actually on the skydive team there:). If you see a short girl, with brown hair running around with a parachute, it is probably her:D

/off topic
 
Actually, the latest issue of Aviation Week has a long article about some of the technical details about why NG-EADS was picked over Boeing.

Some highlights:
- The AF thought Boeing was arrogant about knowing the requirements better than the customer
- Boeing was focused on replacing the 135 with an aircraft of similar capability, while the Request for Proposal (RFP) specifically mentioned airlift capability. The A330 beat the 767 on range and passenger/cargo capability.
- The AF called the 767 "Frankentanker" - It was a 767, but had a -200 airframe; -300 overwing exits; floors, doors, and wings from the -300F, and cockpit, tail, and flaps from the -400ER. This configuration has not yet been produced, while the A330 design is identical to that just produced for the Australian AF.
- Boeing lost in all five criteria areas: Mission capability, proposed risk, past performance, cost, and assessment in operational scenarios.

Now, I too am disappointed that Boeing didn't win it, but I can tell you from my experience in AF acquisitions, when a company enters the competition with the feeling of "it's ours to lose", they generally will.

I knew Boeing was going to have an uphill battle after the whole tanker lease/Druyan fiasco, and it sounds like they lost this one on technical issues as well as management issues.
 
scramjet said:
As far as the jobs go, I believe the aircraft will be assembled near Mobile, Alabama. Not saying I defend the choice of EADS, but in reality a similar amount of jobs would have been created/maintained with a Boeing contract. Much of Boeing's component work has been shifted to places like Japan and Europe (among European contractors, some EADS companies believe it or not) and even China. There might have been slightly more American jobs than the EADS bid, but not an appreciable difference.
Click to expand...

Just like the Honda vs. Dodge controversy in the late 80's early 90's. Honda ended up with more american parts than Dodge.
 
Mike Lewis said:
Now, I too am disappointed that Boeing didn't win it, but I can tell you from my experience in AF acquisitions, when a company enters the competition with the feeling of "it's ours to lose", they generally will.
Click to expand...

This is not just true of military acquisitions. ANYTIME you're in a bid situation for a govt. buyer, even at the municipal level, you can lose. Mike speaks much truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top