Air Force Tanker contract goes to....

I thought Boeing was owned by EADS, who is owned by a Chinese firm owned by a holding company of Northrop GRUMMAN based in the BVI, with money from former KGB now located in Minorca with ties going back to the Templars, and.........

What a cluster. :rolleyes2:
 
Tom-D said:
my humble opinion is the US should build its own war machine at home.
Click to expand...
In general I agree with that statement. The US Government recently refused to let a Chinese company, Huawei, sell telecom equipment to the Sprint Corp because they did not want a foreign power to have that type of access to American communication including infrastructure that carried defense traffic. Huawei, in case people really do not know is not only a Chinese company. It is a part of the People's Liberation Army of China. A lot of Chinese companies are actually PLA owned. China Sports International, a seller of sport guns also is a PLA company.

But I do have to ask, isn't the EADS bid also having a bunch of US input via their partner Northrup?
 
ScottM said:
But I do have to ask, isn't the EADS bid also having a bunch of US input via their partner Northrup?
Click to expand...

I don't think Northrup was involved in the latest round of bids. I think they were previously with EADS though.
 
Boeing has the proven track record of building tough airplanes that last. Only Douglas could rival Boeing. Oh yea, Boeing owns (MacDonald) Douglas now. What is the European track record? The Comet? Dave
 
EADS has 10 days to file a complaint.

Any bets?
 
Ddayle said:
Boeing has the proven track record of building tough airplanes that last. Only Douglas could rival Boeing. Oh yea, Boeing owns (MacDonald) Douglas now. What is the European track record? The Comet? Dave
Click to expand...
You do realize the Comet in the Nimrod varient is still flying today? It is due to retire next month. The Comet 4C flew until 1997. Also de Haviland, who actually designed and built a lot of the Comets, predated EADS by several decades.
 
In a conversation with a friend who is an Air Force fellow, I was told that the Airbus/Northrop entrant was too large for many existing ramps, and that if they went with that design, they'd have to use tugs where now, and with the 767-based entrant, they do not.
 
ScottM said:
You do realize the Comet in the Nimrod varient is still flying today? It is due to retire next month. The Comet 4C flew until 1997. Also de Haviland, who actually designed and built a lot of the Comets, predated EADS by several decades.
Click to expand...
yes, after a few fell out of the sky full of passengers. Airbus tails fall off. our service people deserve the best and that is Boeing.
 
Ddayle said:
Boeing has the proven track record of building tough airplanes that last. Only Douglas could rival Boeing. Oh yea, Boeing owns (MacDonald) Douglas now. What is the European track record? The Comet?
Click to expand...
From what I heard about this, Boeing lost the initial contract because of the entitlement mentality. They expected to win no matter what they offered, so they off-loaded old 767 that airlines no longer wanted. It allowed them to keep the production line open. Air Force procurement people were livid when they saw how Boeing treated them, the customer. In contrast Airbus proposed their newest, most advanced airplane, which could haul more gas and used less gas, so it stayed aloft longer. In the end this was a political decision when the initial resentment passed. Just like Boeing cynically calculated, Airbus did not have a chance.
 
zaitcev said:
From what I heard about this, Boeing lost the initial contract because of the entitlement mentality. They expected to win no matter what they offered, so they off-loaded old 767 that airlines no longer wanted. It allowed them to keep the production line open. Air Force procurement people were livid when they saw how Boeing treated them, the customer. In contrast Airbus proposed their newest, most advanced airplane, which could haul more gas and used less gas, so it stayed aloft longer. In the end this was a political decision when the initial resentment passed. Just like Boeing cynically calculated, Airbus did not have a chance.
Click to expand...
As long as the end result is we fly more proven Boeing planes I don't care about the mechanics's of how the decision was made. If we bought Airbus then we have to buy replacements in ten years. the last batch from Boeing lasted fifty. no comparison. Our pilots deserve to get Boeing's Not POS scarebus.
 
zaitcev said:
From what I heard about this, Boeing lost the initial contract because of the entitlement mentality. They expected to win no matter what they offered, so they off-loaded old 767 that airlines no longer wanted. It allowed them to keep the production line open. Air Force procurement people were livid when they saw how Boeing treated them, the customer. In contrast Airbus proposed their newest, most advanced airplane, which could haul more gas and used less gas, so it stayed aloft longer. In the end this was a political decision when the initial resentment passed. Just like Boeing cynically calculated, Airbus did not have a chance.
Click to expand...

Boeing actually won the initial award. That award was set aside due to improper behavior by Darlene.

EADS - Northrup won the next round. But that award was also set aside due to improper process.

Best two out of three goes to Boeing (subject, of course, to the inevitable protest)
 
Ddayle said:
As long as the end result is we fly more proven Boeing planes I don't care about the mechanics's of how the decision was made. If we bought Airbus then we have to buy replacements in ten years. the last batch from Boeing lasted fifty. no comparison. Our pilots deserve to get Boeing's Not POS scarebus.
Click to expand...
Now I am very happy that Boeing does not build anything that can be plausibly considered a tactical airlifter, so that our pilots can fly the best airplane and not what Boeing's lobbyists hoisted upon them (even if it's designed in Italy).
 
zaitcev said:
Now I am very happy that Boeing does not build anything that can be plausibly considered a tactical airlifter, so that our pilots can fly the best airplane and not what Boeing's lobbyists hoisted upon them (even if it's designed in Italy).
Click to expand...

C-17 isn't a tactical airlifter?
 
Tom-D said:
kinda like the shoe is on the other foot. just depends upon where you live if you are celebrating.

Boeing builds some stuff in China, but it is the stuff the EPA won't allow built here, but EADS builds a bunch of it products in the EU.

my humble opinion is the US should build its own war machine at home.
Click to expand...

The EADS tanker was going to be built in Mobile Alabama. I've vacationing near there right now and the local news coverage is very biased toward the disappointment here. Interesting though that in all the coverage they never once mentioned they were all counting on this bid to go to a French company over a US company for the local win here.
 
zaitcev said:
Of course not. C-12 and C-27J are.
Click to expand...

Are you really thinking transport?

The C-17 provides strategic airlift and tactical airlift capabilities.
 
zaitcev said:
Of course not. C-12 and C-27J are.
Click to expand...
Since when?

The C-17 Globemaster III is the newest, most flexible cargo aircraft to enter the airlift force. The C-17 is capable of rapid strategic delivery of troops and all types of cargo to main operating bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment area. The aircraft can perform tactical airlift
Click to expand...
Those are the words of the USAF.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=86

The C12 is a passenger plane for military pax missions. The C27 is a light transport aircraft.

I think you might be using the definition of tactical airlift differently than what it is actually is:

tactical airlift [′tak·tə·kəl ′er‚lift] (aerospace engineering) That airlift which provides the immediate and responsive air movement and delivery of combat troops and supplies directly into objective areas through air landing, extraction, airdrop, or other delivery techniques; and the air logistic support of all theater forces, including those engaged in combat operations, to meet specific theater objectives and requirements.
Click to expand...
The C17 is most assuredly a tactical air-lifter.
 
Last edited:
Bob Noel said:
The C-17 provides strategic airlift and tactical airlift capabilities.
Click to expand...
The "capabilty" is there, no doubt. And you can use your Maybach to pick up groceries too. In fact, we were sending a C-17 with a few passengers and one pallet of medical supplies quite a lot, because there was no alternative. It's just a dumb and ruinous way to fight a war. Hopefuly with C-27J entering the inventory in numbers we won't need doing it anymore.
 
zaitcev said:
The "capabilty" is there, no doubt. And you can use your Maybach to pick up groceries too. In fact, we were sending a C-17 with a few passengers and one pallet of medical supplies quite a lot, because there was no alternative. It's just a dumb and ruinous way to fight a war. Hopefuly with C-27J entering the inventory in numbers we won't need doing it anymore.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that the C27J program was removed from the US Defense budget.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_JCA_socom_050109/

Even the couple that are rumored to be acquired are not for tactical airlift but to replace AC130 gunships. Teh C17 is to remain, for the time being the primary tacticla airlifter in the USAF fleet.
 
SCCutler said:
In a conversation with a friend who is an Air Force fellow, I was told that the Airbus/Northrop entrant was too large for many existing ramps, and that if they went with that design, they'd have to use tugs where now, and with the 767-based entrant, they do not.
Click to expand...

Which is an argument that magically appeared after the award had been made to Northrop/Airbus, in part based on the fact that it IS a larger plane :wink2: .

The fact that the contest went 1:1 (if you disregard the first round which was decided through graft) tells me that the planes are equivalent.

The pentagon should have ordered 20 of each, put them into service and see how they work out. Further batches could have been awarded based on price and real-world performance. Or even better, lease 20 of each with a maintenance contract included as a package deal. After 10 years, the manufacturer could either sell them off to allies or the pentagon could exercise a purchase option.

As for this nonsense about 'american built' vs 'european'. Airbus and Embraer buy a fair share of their parts (engines/avionics/actuators) from US suppliers, Boeing otoh sources whole subassemblies from China, Japan and Korea. You really dont want to look too closely at the respective US content of either product (reminds me of the idiots who thump their chest in patriotism about their mexican made Ford truck and look down in disgust on people who drive their 100% Indiana built Subarus :rolleyes2: ).
 
weilke said:
As for this nonsense about 'american built' vs 'european'. .
Click to expand...

It is a global economy, I don't care which company you look at, but i like knowing the Boeing company is American owned.

and don't you believe the Boeing company buys the same appliances from the same companies the EU group does?
 
Tom-D said:
It is a global economy, I don't care which company you look at, but i like knowing the Boeing company is American owned.
Click to expand...

So is Northrop, the prime contractor on the competing product.

and don't you believe the Boeing company buys the same appliances from the same companies the EU group does?
Click to expand...

That is my point. Very little difference between the two.
 
weilke said:
So is Northrop, the prime contractor on the competing product.
Except Northrop has the EU as their builder ( Airbuss ) and the worker pay is spent in Europe and does nothing for the American Economy.


That is my point. Very little difference between the two.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Northrop may be the letter head the contract is written to, but the money will end up being Airbuss's.
 
zaitcev said:
The "capabilty" is there, no doubt. And you can use your Maybach to pick up groceries too. In fact, we were sending a C-17 with a few passengers and one pallet of medical supplies quite a lot, because there was no alternative. It's just a dumb and ruinous way to fight a war. Hopefuly with C-27J entering the inventory in numbers we won't need doing it anymore.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand the term "tactical airlift"

Now back to the main thrust of this thread...
 
tonycondon said:
Northrop was not involved in the latest round of tanker bids
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, the latest bid was from 'EADS North America' who was planning to build the KC-45 and a A330 freighter in Mobile, AL.
 
ScottM said:
Ah yes, Mobile, AL. The Toulouse France of the south. :D
Click to expand...

God knows, they could have made use of the jobs in that area.

Cynical me can't help but think that this was the current administrations buckling to the demands of their paymasters in the unions who rather see unionized jobs in Seattle and Wichita than newly created jobs in a state with strong right to work legislation as Alabama :dunno: .
 
weilke said:
God knows, they could have made use of the jobs in that area.

Cynical me can't help but think that this was the current administrations buckling to the demands of their paymasters in the unions who rather see unionized jobs in Seattle and Wichita than newly created jobs in a state with strong right to work legislation as Alabama :dunno: .
Click to expand...

I'm kind of hoping that the DoD finally got the source selection process right and the source selection authority made a good decision.
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm kind of hoping that the DoD finally got the source selection process right and the source selection authority made a good decision.
Click to expand...

I also hope to strike oil next time I place some fenceposts in my backyard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top