US DOD goes with Airbus

[Guest sandgate]

>>Even so, Gen Arthur J Lichte and his staff think that the>>Airbus option is better.>>>does he, or does he know that if he doesn't say what he does>he can say his pension and job goodbye?>>>>My question still stands.>>The USAF decided before that the KC767 was the better aircraft>by a wide margin.>Congress, under pressure from the EU, told them to reconsider>and suddenly the A330 tanker is better?And your answer seems to be that the earlier decision to select the KC767 was suspect:"The Air Force decision is also a surprise ending to a protracted contracting process that went on for nearly a decade and became mired in scandal and international politics. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, scuttled an earlier attempt by the Air Force to award the contract to Boeing, opening the door for the Northrop-Airbus bid."Personally I am pleased to see this decision because Europe purchases a tremendous amount of military (and commercial) hardware from the US which could have been made in Europe but commercial interests rendered the US the cheapest option. This is now the same scenario, just the other way. In the past, the US has bought the T45 from BAe (formerly the Hawk) and also the AV8B when the US had no VSTOL capability. The B737/747/B777/B787 production lines could be shut down overnight by China, Japan or Korea, throwing thousands of US workers out of work. I haven't looked, but I suspect that parts of the C17 are also made overseas. That is the way the world is now -sure you can sell to the world, but the world has to have the opportunity to sell to you also.Best regardsJohn

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Hehe, let me re-phrase the underlying issue.We do not have confidence nor do we believe our current administration when they make any decision.That's what I'm talking about.If it was really an issue of letting the best bidder win, that would be another story.In this case, the majority of us, simply do not believe that.

[Guest]

And McCain (I've heard him called a lot of other things, the most friendly of which is McCommie...) would do what's right for the airforce rather than for his own district, right?He just happens to have a lot of defense contractors to keep happy, who stand to gain from the Airbus deal and not the Boeing deal.It's not parts being made overseas that were designed and could be produced in the US that makes me, and a lot of Americans, nervous, it's being at the mercy of a foreign nation to provide key components you do not have the design specs and drawings for that does, a foreign nation that's known for its use of such leverage to dictate foreign policy of their clients, foreign policy which often is contradictory to US foreign policy.

[mgh 89]

Given that it was the US Airforce that made this decision I assume you have no confidence in the Airforce either. Also, if the decision had been in favour of Boeing I assume you'd oppose that too on the same grounds of lack of confidence.Who do you (and your "majority") have confidence in?

[Guest]

Size was initially a deciding factor in rejecting the Airbus offer.The A330 is larger than is the KC767 as well as the existing tankers and won't fit a lot of the tanker hangars, adding a lot of base upgrade cost to the purchase price, retraining (also more costly as the 767 is closer to the 135 than is the 330), etc. etc.Boeing had rejected the 777 for the tanker program in part because of the size restrictions.So apparently that was suddenly no longer a factor, another indicator that the decision is more political than military/operational in nature.

[tf51d 284]

Another more important issue by going with Airbus is the current currency exchange rate. This us going to end up costing more than the $40B. Either that, or a smaller number of aircraft will be built then would have if built in the US. Airbus I'm sure is going to take payment in Euros, so that means, if it is $40B Airbus is only collecting 30B Euros. Actually less after Northrop Grumman takes there cut! I don't think there going to to be too willing to reduce their profit margin that much. When we buy European addons these days it costs us 50% more. So I'm sure the same is true here!! In other words, I don't think we are going to get our money's worth! The same though was true with the Europeans buying American, when the situation was reversed, before the dollar dropped like a rock!!

[Paul Golding 92]

>it's being at the mercy of a foreign>nation to provide key components you do not have the design>specs and drawings for that does, a foreign nation that's>known for its use of such leverage to dictate foreign policy>of their clients, foreign policy which often is contradictory>to US foreign policy.Now if this comment were related to the way Tony Bliar accepted US foreign policy (by your comment, he had to because BA uses so many Boeings) it would make sense.Personally, I'll say "well done" to EADS ;-)I wonder what's next, the US buying A400's?

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Well, the one that pulls the trigger is , the Secretary of Defense not the Secretary of the Air Force. my answer is still the same.And had the decision not taken away jobs, then either way I would be ok.

[Mace 1,902]

I say odds are 80% likely that Congress will tell the DoD to go with the Boeing design.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,902]

>>It's not parts being made overseas that were designed and>could be produced in the US that makes me, and a lot of>Americans, nervous, it's being at the mercy of a foreign>nation to provide key components you do not have the design>specs and drawings for that does, a foreign nation that's>known for its use of such leverage to dictate foreign policy>of their clients, foreign policy which often is contradictory>to US foreign policy.True enough, but one thing about it, the French have proven in the past that they will sell ANY military item to ANY country, as long as they can make a dollar/euro.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest]

unlikely with the current congress.They told the USAF to NOT go with the Boeing design when the USAF first made that decision...

[michal 44]

All wrong. The currency exchange had absolutely nothing to do with that and have no bearing on how mant tankers will be built. The contract bid was in USD for a fixed number of tankers. Precisely because of the weak USD Airbus is going to move as much production as possible to the US to shield itself from the weak dollar - they even stated going into this bid that winning this contract gives them even more incentive to move a lot of manufacturing to the US.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[RFields5421 1]

Size is a factor - but not as much as some folks might think.I remember back to ancient history - 1973 - the US Air Force Base on Guam did not have a single hanger which could completely hold a KC-135E or a B-52 aircraft. Now you don't get a much more important base than Andersen was in 1970-72 for those two aircraft - and they did not have a hanger to hold the aircraft. In 1973 the Air Force three times flew aircraft down to NAS Agana because our VQ-1 hanger would hold either aircraft - completely. That's how I got my only ride on a B-52, when they finished with one of the aircraft and managed to get on for a PGUM-PGUA flight.The approximate sizes of the aircraft are:KC135E/R:131 ft wingspan39 ft height137 ft length322,500 MTOWB763:156 ft wingspan52 ft height180 ft length400,000 MTOWA333:197 ft wingspan55 ft height210 ft length478,000 MTOWB773:199 ft wingspan66 ft height242 ft length600,000 MTOWKC-10:166 ft wingspan58 ft height182 ft length590,000 MTOWThe limiting factor on maintenance hangers is frequently not the wingspan or length of the aircraft, but the height of the tail.Neither the B763 nor the A333 are taller than the KC-10. There is only 3 feet difference between the two and the modified design for the tanker version might eliminate that difference.KC-135 aircraft have end up at a lot of bases with hangers built for B-52 aircraft which are very close to the size of the B763 - but the tail on a B-52 is only 41 feet tall. There are very few KC-135 aircraft now stationed at air force bases, or air national guard/ air force reserve bases which have hangers purpose built for the aircraft.The tanker force has been moved around and units moved to the aircraft from many others. Hangers will be an issue, but they will be an issue no matter which aircraft is chosen.Many are at bases with hangers built for C-141 aircraft.The key appears to be that both the B763 and A333 will fit into to most hangers designed to hold the C-17. The B773 will not fit into those hangers. The A333 will be limited in some cases becaue the wingspan is about 30 feet wider.The C-17 has been the size reference for any new hanger construction or rebuilds for over 10 years.However, I do expect this contract to be a campaign issue this year.People from districts with Boeing plants will be forcing the people running for Congress to commit to reversing the decision, and people from districts which will benefit from a Northup/Grumman/EADS contract forcing the folks running for Congress to commit to upholding the decision.I actually think the Air Force did a pretty good punt on this decision - tossing it out into the public arena early enough in an election year for the voice of the voting public to be heard.

[Mats_J 2]

Rhett,I think history can prove the same is true for the defence industry in other countries as well, USA included.Cheers,

[Mats_J 2]

>We do not have confidence nor do we believe our current>administration when they make any decision.As the old saying goes: Any democratic nation has the government it deserves.Cheers,