Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg  
User currently offlineJMV From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 241 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

EADS announced today that former US Air Force Gen. Silas R. Johnson, Jr. will head up EADS Tanker marketing.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050111/115733_1.html


Google begins where my brain ends! ©
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4997 times:

Not good news.










filler



"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3086 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

Flight international this week has an editorial saying that there will prolly be a 80-20 ( 80 for KC767 and 20 for KC330) split in the taker program...

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

Not sure why it should be 99 to 1 even. What do France and Germany buy from the US? We run multibillion dolllar deficits with each so to add to that seems utterly ludicrous. Unless France and Germany intend to purchase major military hardware from the US? I didn't think so. We should politely tell them to piss off and have a nice day.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4965 times:

I truly believe it to be politically impossible as well as militarily undesireable to purchase such a large number of mission critical aircraft from a foreign supplier.

The A-330 is larger than what we need, and costs more.

As I have said before it makes more sense to have three aircraft instead of two. It affords us more flexiility and staying power on station when we need flying gas stations.

If we wanted more KC-10s we have other options, but the airplane we are replacing are 707 sized birds and the KC-767 will do the job right, and employ more voting Americans.

Can anyone here think of a legitimate reason for the USAF to buy Airbus?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4857 times:

Can anyone here think of a legitimate reason for the USAF to buy Airbus?
We all know that should the government had been running a business it would fail the next day, but this is just ridiculous, i've never heard of a dumber idea, it's makes everything more complicated. Now you need 2 sets of spares, 2 sets of pilots, 2 sets of MX crew. Talk about a waste of Taxpayer's money. if they really want to give it to Airbus, give'em the whole thing... same for Boeing. In any case, should this dumb option be somehow approved, Pres. Bush will no doubt step in to reverse this embarassing decision.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineEhvk From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

maybe you should take a look at the cost side of the story. i don't know if it is true what i am saying but it might be an idea. maybe is the KC-330 cheaper to buy and are it's operating cost lower than the operating kost of the KC-767. as i sad i am not sure if this is so but it could be an reason. well find out i guess

User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4750 times:

KC-330 cheaper to buy
If Airbus would like to make a profit, then NO, the A330 is much more expensive to purchase.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

Can anyone here think of a legitimate reason for the USAF to buy Airbus?

Superior performance, lower costs.

And worse, everybody knows it by now..





User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

Well, he seems qualified on tankers & operational requirements..

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5966




User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4601 times:

I don't trust biographies, there are many officers that seem descent according to their biography, but are complete idiots in real life. The only thing that I could accept, are the opinions of the men who served under him.

And as we have discussed to death in other threads, the USAF is also looking at the size of the aircraft too. But that topic has been so beaten to death, I really don't feel like getting into it.

One thing I find intresting, is that Airbus needs a retired bomber general to "market" their aircraft.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4576 times:

I think it would behoove the Bush administration to shut Airbus out of any talks for producing this aircraft....remember, Washington, Boeing's HQ, is a highly democratic area, at least in the Seattle metro area....if he were to go out of his way to protect the KC767, you'd see a little bit more support from those constituants, I do believe.

I for one don't believe the Air Farce is going to buy two entirely different tankers...that's just a waste of time and resources, and is probably aimed to just keep the Eurotrash happy....why not tell them to flip off, go sell some more planes to NW..end of story. Whenever the topic has come up, every tanker or airline guy I've met is firmly against flying European made aircraft for our armed forces....even if over 50% of it is made here, it's still sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

I think it would behoove the Bush administration to shut Airbus out of any talks for producing this aircraft....
They did & it became very embarrasing! Roche and others are spending more time with their families now.

it's still sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S
personally I'm for buying the best value for money of my tax euro's. Comments like this make me sometimes feel like "pls keep those JSF's, Apaches etc. for yourself.." though I know it's the wrong approach..



User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4565 times:

DeltaGuy -- Boeing HQ is in Chicago not Seattle.....


Hiring a recently retired General when you're trying to sell a major weapon system to DoD is SOP. Why does everyone make it sound ominous?


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

True, but production is still in Washington for many of it's airframes.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4548 times:

..and production of many of it's airframes is still in St. Louis, Long Beach, and Philadelphia, amongst others....

What does that have do with the fact that HQ is Chicago?


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

I think the poster was referring to political capitol that the GOP might get if they gave it to Boeing. Particularly in a state that they just narrowly lost.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

I shouldn't have used HQ to describe that...should have been, major assembly operation lol..HQ seemed easier to type.

But yes, I think it would raise more red out of that state if Bush went out of his way to ensure that Boeing is the winner of this contract. OF course the eurotrash will scream about it, but when was the last time we cared? Big grin

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7808 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4504 times:


Two points, firstly many European Air Forces, including France and Germany operate at least some US aircraft.

Secondly, is the point of the exersize to give the USAF what is needs or just to give a leg up to Boeing.

Finally, the size of the KC135 is irrelevant unless you think that the requirement is the same as 50 years ago.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

The USAF thinks the size is relavent, because they are able to fit more aircraft per a tarmac, that and the KC-330 is bigger than all but one aircraft in it's inventory.

You also forget that one of the major partners in EADs goes out of it's way to purchase home built aircraft when there is a viable domestic alternative. Why should the US be any different, it's a crucial system that the USAF can't live without, and we have a domestic built aircraft that will meet the objectives.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

I think the USAF requirements have now been rewritten after it was proved they were basicly adjusted by Boeing to exclude Airbus.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/137451_tankers01.html


Despite assurances that the 767 aerial-refueling tanker was a major improvement over the existing fleet, senior Boeing Co. officials openly worried in November 2001 that the plane could not perform better on one important criterion than the 40-year-old aircraft they were designed to replace.

So Boeing came up with a solution. In an e-mail to John Sams, Boeing's program manager for the 767- tanker project, another Boeing official, Dick Haff, urged the Air Force to alter its official requirements for the aircraft.

"My recommendations are that (the Air Force) delete anything which refers to the 767's requirement to equal or outperform the KC-135R," Haff wrote to Sams in a Nov. 9, 2001, e-mail. "Recommendation is that the (operational requirements document or ORD) request only a comparison of the fuel offload capability to that of the KC-135R."


I think at this moment Boeing is handicapped because they cannot do a fierce anti Airbus sales campaign. Their credibility is heavily damaged.



User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

"for one don't believe the Air Farce is going to buy two entirely different tankers...that's just a waste of time and resources, and is probably aimed to just keep the Eurotrash happy....why not tell them to flip off, go sell some more planes to NW..end of story. Whenever the topic has come up, every tanker or airline guy I've met is firmly against flying European made aircraft for our armed forces....even if over 50% of it is made here, it's still sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S.

DeltaGuy"

Dear DeltaGuy,

I agree with you that buying two different airframes is just a waste of tax payers money, but you could have put that into better words. I don´t like being referred as "Euro Trash" like you certainly don´t like the terms "Hillbilly" or "Redneck". A lot of countries in the world are flying planes and helicopters made in the US. Germany and the U.S. are developing a new missile defense system (MEADS) and Germany is also very likely to buy the "Global Hawk" (Euro Hawk) and maybe the "Predator" in a few years, of course with some German and European upgrades in it. But that is how it works.
America and Europe were strong partners over the past 50 years, it is a disgrace what happened to the German/American Friendship in the last 4 years (I am not only blaming Bush but Schroeder and the American and German Media aswell).
I have relatives and a lot of friends in the States, I really love your country but comments like yours make me sick !!

Regarding the fact that it is "sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S" as you referred is the dumbest and most ignorant remark I ever read here on a.net.
First of all the A330 is no "p.o.s" but the best selling aircraft in its class, even chosen by the R.A.F. and R.A.A.F over the KC 767, it is much newer than your beloved 767. Like we all now the KC 767 is the only hope of Boeing to keep the assembly line going. A lot of other countries in the world don´t have a problem to put their flag and national markings on a F-16, F-35, Apache, C-130, C-17 and so one, why not the U.S.......you want to sell your stuff but neglect to buy from others. Great Idea !!! That is how you make friends and partners.

Secondly the air force already had -although in a small number foreign aircraft in service -AV-8A (direct buy from the UK), AV-8B (joint MDD/BAe project), T-45 (license built modified BAe Hawk), B-57 (license built Canberra) and T-6 Texan which are based on the Pilatus PC 9.
I don´t think the U.S. should buy the A330, I think they should buy what is best for them and the best solution regardless if it is an Airbus or Boeing. But that is (luckily) whether your decision not mine or others here at the forum claiming to know what is best. All I want is a fair competition between both manufacturers.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

Columbia,

In almost all those cases the aircraft you sighted are not crucial systems like a tanker is, and with exception of the AV-8A, the local manufacturer provides almost full support for the aircraft, while under the proposed deal, the KC-330 would only be assembled here, without full plan and semantics for all parts released to the local US company.

Also many nations, including one of the main partners in EADs, are very protective of their industry, and will buy a domestic product first unless it doesn't meet the specs in any way shape or form. The US is barely keeping it's shipping companies alive, we can't let another crucial field like aviation flounder either.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

First of all the A330 is no "p.o.s" but the best selling aircraft in its class, even chosen by the R.A.F. and R.A.A.F over the KC 767, it is much newer than your beloved 767. Like we all now the KC 767 is the only hope of Boeing to keep the assembly line going.

Of course this is a mighty unpopular stand here on a.net, but the bottom line is neither of these offerings will make suitable military aircraft without very expensive modifications to reduce their battle damage vulnerability...And just to counter the specious argument that we've done fine for the last 50 years with the C-135 never taking hostile fire; its the changing operational employment of this group of aircraft and the changing operational doctrine and threats of potential enemies of the next fifty years that need to be considered...Indeed, significant threats against this whole class of heretofore largely unmolested "support" aircraft are already being fielded.
Besides, by the looks of things, there will be no money forthcoming on any C-135 replacements anytime soon anyway.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/01105wna.xml

While new budget plans are silent on the KC-767 replacement for the aging KC-135s, the need for tactical tankers to support the Navy and Marine Corps is expected to produce pressure for the Air Force to start fielding KC-130Js as a third leg of a more diversified tanker fleet, say Air Force officials. "No mention of the tanker program is bad news, and it means there won't be a new replacement program for at least a couple of years," says one senior Air Force official...
Another battle being played out in the new budget plan is Space-Based Radar versus the E-10 long-range radar ground surveillance aircraft. Proposed SBR funding has been increased by $592 million, while the E-10A program would take a $600-million reduction (half each in Fiscal 2006 and 2007)....






the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

I always wonder why those Americans, who hate Europe so badly that they have to turn any discussion into a bashfest, post on an European forum? (Yes, check your maps, sweden is in europe, and even worse, it's ruled by the social democrats...)

Back to the topic:

Germany, for 40 years the frontline of the cold war, has relied ever since the FRG was founded heavily on American heavy metal to protect itself. Even today, the backbone of the Air-to-Air defense is the Phantom, if I'm not mistaken an American aircraft. We trusted you for all the time, and even when we disagreed about the Iraq war and were heavily insulted by your secretary of defense, we helped your military by having German soldiers protecting US bases here, so that the US Army and Air Force can send more men to Iraq. The Landstuhl military hospital has surely saved many lifes of soldiers wounded during combat.

So, why exactly, can't you trust us, and have to insult a whole continent everytime the word Airbus appears?

Best regards from an Eurotrash P.O.S.

racko


25 Columba : "So, why exactly, can't you trust us, and have to insult a whole continent everytime the word Airbus appears? " Maybe because Airbus dethroned Boeing
26 Atmx2000 : Oh please, European politicians have been insulting Americans for a long time, certainly well before Rumsfeld made his old Europe remark. That's nice
27 Scbriml : I truly believe it to be politically impossible as well as militarily undesireable to purchase such a large number of mission critical aircraft from a
28 Post contains images Scbriml : but when was the last time we cared? About the last time you whined about Airbus loans to purchase home built aircraft when there is a viable domestic
29 LifelinerOne : The money that Europe saved as a result of American expenditures no doubt allowed for the funding of all sorts of socialist experiments like Airbus Ri
30 Columba : "The money that Europe saved as a result of American expenditures no doubt allowed for the funding of all sorts of socialist experiments like Airbus.
31 Wingman : Let's make a deal. The EU scraps the A400M project and buys 100 C-17s. We shut down the 767 line and buy 100 330s. Will Europe agree to fair and balan
32 Atmx2000 : Oh yes, the "you'd all be speaking German" argument. Try a new record, this one's getting worn out. Right! So Europe received money from mr Marshall,
33 Post contains images Contact_tower : And I suppose the US never had any intererst of it's own in keeping the Warsaw pact on their side of the curtain? It sound like the US did what it did
34 Atmx2000 : And I suppose the US never had any intererst of it's own in keeping the Warsaw pact on their side of the curtain? That's why I gave you an 80% discoun
35 Post contains images DfwRevolution : I think it would behoove the Bush administration to shut Airbus out of any talks for producing this aircraft....remember, Washington, Boeing's HQ, is
36 Post contains images Greaser : From what I read, this effort might have been the last nail in the 717... anyone else heard this? I've heard Stonecipher was very frustrated at the Ai
37 BENNETT123 : Why does the DOD work out it's requirement, (without input from Boeing). Then put it out to tender. The point is that this is supposed to be a Milita
38 Columba : German weekly news magazine "Der Spiegel" announced today German Foreign Minister Fischer is demanding the Boeing C-17 for the German Air Force, as Ge
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Plans To Double US Air Force Tanker Deal posted Fri Oct 3 2003 14:31:52 by Kl911
US Air Force, Who Get The Tanker Jobs? posted Mon Aug 2 2004 04:10:43 by Flymia
Air Force One To Changi? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 11:17:31 by Shinkai
US Air Force Interested In VLJs posted Fri Feb 3 2006 02:17:03 by 2H4
India-US Air Force War Games! posted Sun Nov 6 2005 06:19:14 by JoyA380B747
Scott Air Force Base To Remain Open.. posted Fri May 13 2005 15:25:40 by Boeing Nut
Air Force One To Visit FRA 2/23 posted Thu Feb 17 2005 19:52:29 by Indio66
US Air Force Ground Personnel Having A Little Fun posted Mon Feb 14 2005 00:17:58 by Chi-town
Air Force One To Land At ATW Instead Of OSH posted Fri Oct 15 2004 12:31:58 by UAXDXer
US Air Force One posted Sun Apr 11 2004 17:10:00 by Komododx

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format