Tanker contract goes to EADS

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense

Ok define ''entire world's military budget''

The total military expenditures of the nations of the world seems a reasonable definition, don't you think? See attachment for a breakdown.

That may be, but China get's more bang for the buck...er slavery...

That's just "Standing Army". That does not include air, naval or marine forces.

Edit to add navy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7276277.stm

China to increase defence spending by 18%.

Which puts it how far behind the US?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Adriandavies 0]

I wasn't making a point about Chinese defence spending being anything in relation to the USA, instead I was just filling in a little bit of background info about their increasing spend

[BillyVance 34]

There's an article written in the Money section of today's newspaper about the EADS/Boeing comparison, that I found interesting.

It's true that many of the parts for Northrop-Grumman-EADS' KC-30 are not made in the U.S.

Well, the same thing applies to the Boeing KC-767, albeit to a lesser degree.

Here's the breakdown:

Boeing KC-767

US: (85%) Baseline commerical assembly, finishing, propulsion, boom and hose/drogue
Japan: (9%) Fuselage skin panels, landing gear doors, cargo and passenger doors, wing-to-body fairings
Italy: (3%) Ailerons, elevators, spoilers, rudder
UK: (1%) Wing leading edges
OTHER: (2%) international suppliers (does not specify)

Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-30

US: (58%) Final assembly, militarization, propulsion
Germany: (14.9%) Primary fuselage subassembly
France: (13.1%) Fuselage, nose, cockpit
UK: (7.9%) Wings
Spain: (6.1%) Tail

The majority of the work AND militarization of the plane is STILL going to be done in the US. Note the percentages all add up. Plus, Northrop Grumman is an American company, with headquarters in Los Angeles. Not to put down Boeing, but I would like to know where the unspecified 2% comes from.

I don't know what the big deal is. I can understand the uproar in the Pacific Northwest because that region is undoubtedly loyal to Boeing. They just can't claim that their plane is 100% American-made.

Oh and wages in Alabama? All three major auto companies plus this new EADS plant are or will be paying more than $50,000 a year easy to the lowliest assembly line workers.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I think the whole argument is silly. If the US congress overturns this contract (and pays the huge settlement costs) it will lead to Boeing increasing their future bids on projects they know they cannot lose. It may also lead them to make quality compromises as well for the same reason.
The US and especially Boeing are huge exporters of military hardware. Would it be good for them if the Europeans retaliated by excluding them from future contracts. Protectionism is a game for idiots.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Well, the same thing applies to the Boeing KC-767, albeit to a lesser degree.

Here's the breakdown:

I don't know about you, but a company that can promise that 85% of the value of it's product is from US sources, versus 58% is a no-brainer. In the face of slower growth in the economy, the result is a net-loss of jobs.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c7c364f0-e88a-11dc-913a-0000779fd2ac.html

We're not talking about the B-787, which is a true global effort.

USAF simply went overboard to avoid the problems they had a few years ago.

It's an election year, and a contract this size is not going overseas...that's my bet.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[tbrown 26]

It's an election year, and a contract this size is not going overseas...that's my bet.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Not with all of the House, a third of the Senate, and John McCain's bid for the White House on the line, I think you're right.

Sen. Clinton is on the Senate Armed Services Committee too.

Quote

The KC-767 is, as the name implies, built on the 767 fuselage, a 1980's era jet, whose orders have been falling off in recent years. Everybody in Seattle knows the 767 line will shut down and that the tanker program has been heavily promoted by congressman Norm Dicks as a way to save the 767 and the jobs that go with it. The Northrop/EADS KC-30 is built on the Airbus A330 fuselage, a nineties design meant to compete with the Boieng 777. It's a BIGGER plane, a whole different class bigger. If you're going to build a bigger gas station, why not use a bigger gas tank ? Why couldn't Boeing get off their fat ass and design a tanker version of the 777....

My understanding from what I read was that Boeing was prepared to do that, but there was some kind of indication that the 767 series jet was more suitable to the specs.

As to the rest of your post, I agree to an extent. Boeing did as much to f*ck this up as anything...directly. However, it's also a 50+ year relationship. I think the USAF threw the baby out with the bathwater in a knee-jerk attempt to appear on the up-n-up with this announcement.

Despite the net-loss of jobs if the contract remains with Northrup/EADS, it will be a pretty good development for Alabama.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,625]

No no no! You got it ALL WRONG. The entitlement culture is found among poor undeserving people, not big corporations with fat-cat bosses. Just ask mnealtx, he'll tell you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[piper17 1]

I watched a brief bit on C-Span this morning of the house committee questioning those involved in awarding the contract. Norm Dicks made some interesting points...the USAF had wanted a smaller aircraft than the Airbus but it seems that things were changed along the way. Boeing could have bid the 777 but offered what they had been led to believe the USAF wanted. Who knows the truth?

The other interesting thing is Congress, in their writing of the "Buy American" legislation plus other acts, defined various European (and other) countries as fitting into the "Buy American" category including France, Germany, Spain, UK, Turkey, Egypt, Norway etc. So it seems like Congress and Boeing got bit by past ill-conceived congressional legislation. Because of this act, the Airbus is just as American as the Boeing 767.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No no no! You got it ALL WRONG. The entitlement culture is found among poor undeserving people, not big corporations with fat-cat bosses. Just ask mnealtx, he'll tell you.

And evidently cluelessness is propagated from college campuses...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PhreeZone 15]

I watched the hearings for about an hour an a half last night. From the sounds of it the request went through several draft peroids where the Air Force was scoping out the requirements and in some instances the requirements shifted towards the AirBus platform but it seems at some point some of the requirements shifted towards Boeing too. It sounds like the Air Force followed DOD and US Law in putting the primary contractors on equal ground and were right in ignoring the "impact to the industrial base" but now every one wants to get a piece of this money and screw what the end product is as long as its "Made in America"

Congress is going to piss off either Boeing and will probally cost Norm Dicks his seat in Congress if he fails to keep those people employed or its going to cost Alabama its reps since they will lose all those jobs for their state. Either way the Air Force loses since this is delaying the start of the production of the tankers and it will probally need to spend a ton more money to figure out who will get the contract in the end.

I see Boeing since too many people want to stick it to the French and our other NATO allies to keep the money in their district.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Boeing has a pathetic entitlement culture, all the way down from the boardroom to the union labor force on the floor. Nobody wants to do anything that "isn't their job", they just believe heart & soul that the world owes them a living.

That's what I believe too. Hey I worked for Boeing in the past too, in the Space and Defense Group, at the facility that designed the International Space Station. Boeing is a giant company, much much bigger than just one aircraft line. They can suck it up and try harder next time.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[skydiverton2 0]

Quote

Since P&W is not supplying the engines for this aircraft, who is? My guess is GE, a US company.

Also, regarding spare parts for the future - next 30-50 years. These will probably be manufactured in the US by the lowest bidder. This is HUGE business. Either the Air Force will get the drawings for US manufacturers to quote on or US companies will reverse-engineer the various spare parts. I wouldn't think that spares will be coming from Europe unless the part is propietary.

reverse engineering in aerospace???

Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habid.
.
.
Also in case you jump a sport rig!!!

[PhreeZone 15]

Engines are to be Rolls-Royce built out of the UK or France.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

No no no! You got it ALL WRONG. The entitlement culture is found among poor undeserving people, not big corporations with fat-cat bosses. Just ask mnealtx, he'll tell you.

And evidently cluelessness is propagated from college campuses...

That was pretty lame. Here, try again. I'll give you a free shot

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tbrown 26]

The other interesting thing is Congress, in their writing of the "Buy American" legislation plus other acts, defined various European (and other) countries as fitting into the "Buy American" category including France, Germany, Spain, UK, Turkey, Egypt, Norway etc. So it seems like Congress and Boeing got bit by past ill-conceived congressional legislation. Because of this act, the Airbus is just as American as the Boeing 767.

[piper17 1]

During the C-Span testimony I saw, the engines were coming out of GE-Ohio.

One area of great concern is that the Airbus design is way behind schedule in delivering tankers to another country...Australia, I think. They haven't, apparently, ever built tanker aircraft before and there may be issues with the refueling boom system. I wasn't able to watch enough of the testimony this morning (had to get to the gym, then work) to thoroughly understand the issue(s) but the last thing the USAF needs right now if further delays in replacing their elderly KC-135s.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[Gawain 0]

Quote

They're not the perfect setup either, EADS has all kinds of problems. the French and Germans are so mistrustful of each other that Airbus has two parallel sets of managers to keep everybody's national pride in joint. It's a system that's designed to fail. N/G should have all kinds of fun working with them on a real airplane.

EADS has had countless cancellations of orders from the A380 due to the supply mangement.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhreeZone 15]

The reference to GE- Ohio is that GE has a huge presense in the Cinci area, an area that borders David Hobson's district. Hobson's district includes Wright-Patterson AFB and would benifit indirectly if GE was the contractor on the engines but the Airbus platform has never been certified with the GE engines so he has no stake in Airbus getting it. If Boeing wins then GE does have a stake in the game and he stands to win too.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Engines are to be Rolls-Royce built out of the UK or France.

Are you sure? I just looked up 3 different articles and they all said the CF-6 will be the power.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[PhreeZone 15]

I could have sworn that one of the sourcing docs was showing that the engines were an overseas item. I assumed that it would be Rolls-Royce but looking around it looks like GE has a French connection also. I'm not sure now what they are using.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Rookie120 0]

I dont either. I would have thought they would be using RR on it. Didnt GE build the CFM with the French?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[ypelchat 0]

Quote

The reference to GE- Ohio is that GE has a huge presense in the Cinci area, an area that borders David Hobson's district. Hobson's district includes Wright-Patterson AFB and would benifit indirectly if GE was the contractor on the engines but the Airbus platform has never been certified with the GE engines so he has no stake in Airbus getting it. If Boeing wins then GE does have a stake in the game and he stands to win too.

Incorrect. A simple google search.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/cf6/cf6_20021206.html

The A330 can also be powered with Pratt & Whitney engines, as well as Rolls-Royce engines.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2e35288d1c83c010VgnVCM1000000881000aRCRD&prid=eb0f58cb36e28110VgnVCM100000c45a529f____

http://civil.rolls-royce.com/jet-engines-for-the-Airbus-A330/

I can assure you that the KC-45 is going to be a damn good tanker for the USAF, since it can pass all its fuel, and then fly for 20 more minutes, with both engines out, and then land safely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or40TLiP30Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIcOcM8Hk40&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cFhw-GlHQk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVyEXV8xvCs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOs57rNqbm8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHww6JiG4no&feature=related

Yves.

[lawrocket 3]

Not so fast now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_bi_ge/boeing_tanker_fight

Quote

The Government Accountability Office upheld Boeing's protest of the refueling tanker contract and recommended the service hold a new competition. The congressional watchdog said it found "a number of significant errors" in the Air Force's February decision, including its failure to fairly judge the relative merits of each proposal.

While the GAO decision is not binding, it puts tremendous pressure on the Air Force to reopen the contract...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DougH 270]

Too bad GAO has no power to force the airforce to comply. Only congress can do that.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P