Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USAF Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5745 times:

AKA "discovery by another means". If Airbus wants the deal, they have to comply; if they comply, what will be the impact on the WTO case? Brilliant negotiating ploy IMO. The U.S. has linked the subsidies issue and WTO case to one of the crown jewels of military contracts--the USAF tanker deal. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Air Force wants details on Airbus subsidies


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5682 times:

The USAF wants this information, not some politicians or lobbyists ? I thought all THEY wanted was the tanker which suits them best. But obviously the USAF don´t thinks this is important anymore, but politics are. Leaving the "subsidies" apart now, maybe the USAF has shot in the foot of Boeing. Watch out for European politicians asking Boeing about their subsidies when there is a military competition running in which Boeing takes part.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5680 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 1):
The USAF wants this information, not some politicians or lobbyists ? I

I doubt the USAF wants it! This is linkage to the WTO case. Like it or not, it ups the ante and puts Airbus in a very uncomfortable position. Will they respond, or tell the U.S. government that they are not interested in submitting a bid under these conditions? If they respond, will that satisfy the tender, or will they be accused of being "evasive" or "not sufficiently forthcoming"? Remember, no good lawyer ever asks a question of a witness in which he/she doesn't already know the answer.

USAF would want the best tanker. However, this is part and parcel of the larger issue. We live in a very political world, and this subsidies issue rankles in Washington DC. One can point the finger, accuse Boeing of the same thing, etc., but the fact remains that the U.S.(AF) is in the driver's seat on the bid. It's their money and they can set the conditions. Where this will lead, who knows? Personally, I hope it leads to a negotiated settlement in the WTO case, and the USAF getting the best aircraft at the best price. However, I'm not that naive....

EDIT: Another question just occurred to me. Given that EADS is also a player for the Future Cargo Aircraft (potentially up to 200 airframes), will the same condition for "subsidies disclosure" show up in that RFP?  hissyfit 

[Edited 2006-04-26 21:12:45]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5666 times:

Airbus could ask a US court to rule that Airbus funding is not relevent to supply contracts and have the requirements removed from the RFP, and the USAF would have to come up with a valid and persuasive reason for requiring the information.

Its like an employer asking what underwear you wear, some questions just arent relevent to the position or contract sought.

Airbus could also create a wholey funded subsidiary company to respond to the RFP producing airframes under license or purchasing a set number of airframes, and thus dodge the entire issue.

There are plenty of ways around this politically based request.

Alternatively, Airbus can simply give them what they want. After all, Airbuses position is that the funding is legitimate and legal, and they would have nothing to hide.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5662 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Airbus could ask a US court to rule that Airbus funding is not relevent to supply contracts and have the requirements removed from the RFP, and the USAF would have to come up with a valid and persuasive reason for requiring the information.

They could, but the counter argument is that the subsidies creat an unfair advantage, distort the true cost, etc., etc. Personally, I think EADS wants to avoid any kind of litigation on this, but I could be wrong.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Airbus could also create a wholey funded subsidiary company to respond to the RFP producing airframes under license or purchasing a set number of airframes, and thus dodge the entire issue.

Don't you mean "wholly owned"? Isn't this what they want to do with their partnership with Northrup Grumman?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Alternatively, Airbus can simply give them what they want.

Probably the best course of action if EADS wants to remain a viable contender, but as I noted earlier, I believe this whole thing is a "discovery" action. How much information will they want to give?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A342 (Reply 1):
Watch out for European politicians asking Boeing about their subsidies when there is a military competition running in which Boeing takes part.

And precisely which airplanes made by Boeing are the European EADS nations trying to purchase, or considering purchasing?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5655 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Airbus could ask a US court to rule that Airbus funding is not relevent to supply contracts and have the requirements removed from the RFP

Airbus can't do squat. It would have to be Northrop as the primer contractor.

And I'm not sure it would go down well because it would look like they have something to hide.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Airbus could ask a US court to rule that Airbus funding is not relevent to supply contracts and have the requirements removed from the RFP, and the USAF would have to come up with a valid and persuasive reason for requiring the information.

Who is funding a supplier of military hardware is of itself a persuasive requirement.

The Government has every interest in knowing that they are procuring from a secure and dependable source. Tracing the money trail back to it's origins helps to determine how dependable the supplier may be in critical situations.

Discovering late in a program that your weapons are being made by your potential enemy is not a happy discovery.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 6):
And I'm not sure it would go down well because it would look like they have something to hide.

On one level I agree with you here. This is going to be a political deal. The politicians are going to want "full disclosure". Remember, the EADS lobby (if there is one) isn't going to have much influence with either party, particularly in an election year.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
And precisely which airplanes made by Boeing are the European EADS nations trying to purchase, or considering purchasing?

Considering that the EADS is bidding the Future Cargo Aircraft they will want to tread carefully. Last I looked, the UK selected the 330 tanker, and I'm not aware of any pending military purchases by Germany, France, or Spain that involve Boeing.

IMO, this is a clever move to link the tanker deal with the WTO case....

[Edited 2006-04-26 22:45:25]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Airbus could ask a US court to rule that Airbus funding is not relevent to supply contracts and have the requirements removed from the RFP, and the USAF would have to come up with a valid and persuasive reason for requiring the information.

Probably, another reason (in addition to the ones I listed in Reply#4) that EADS doesn't want this in court is that this would be an even better discovery vehicle than the RFP. There would be disclosure motions, subpoenas, etc. It would be a first class mess.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5642 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Airbus could ask a US court to rule that Airbus funding is not relevent to supply contracts and have the requirements removed from the RFP, and the USAF would have to come up with a valid and persuasive reason for requiring the information.

There is no assurance that the US court would rule in Airbus' favor.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Airbus could ask a US court to rule that Airbus funding is not relevent to supply contracts and have the requirements removed from the RFP, and the USAF would have to come up with a valid and persuasive reason for requiring the information.

That would be one big-ass mistake. They would open themselves up to reciprocal discovery. The US and Boeing would have access to their most essential documents then, to include individual aircraft prices and other like proprietary information. Don't forget any internal emails that even hint at the word "tanker".

Airbus and Northrup will either give the information or they won't submit a bid. Not many ways around this in the USA on a legal standpoint.


User currently offlineWingman From St. Vincent and the Grenadines, joined May 1999, 2099 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 5571 times:

This whole saga is just pointless. EADS, let's face it, is a consortium of European countries that, excluding the UK's BAe group (soon to removed from EADS ownership), is French, German, and Spanish. Two thoughts come immediately to mind: first, outside of Spain buying a hanful of MD F-18's in the early 1980's, none of these three countries has ever procured such a massive military system (as a % of total annual defense expenditure) from the US. Think about the political firestorm that would ensue in any of these three countries if they had. We have choppers here, missiles there, secondary systems here, secondary systems there...but not a gargantuan "in your face" tens of billions of dollars-type military program. I think it is beyond comprehension for anyone in this day and age, with relations so poisoned amongst the 4 four countries in question to think that Airbus will get a piece of this action. It is politically inconceivable, and I posit that this entire tanker RFP is nothing but a charade, just like France, Germany or Spain inviting LM to respond to fighetr jet RFP's with the F-22 or F-35 would be a charade. Many people will argue that the 330 may be the best overall choice from a variety of standpoints. But have you ever seen a weapons procurement exercise in the US that made any logical sense? It's all about the pork barrel, pass the bacon around, and it's no different in Europe. Just look at at the EU fighter jet situation, the tank situation, the carrier situation, submarines, guns, ammo etc etc. Every country wants their major weapons programs to be their own shit, it's complete economic and military lunacy...but it's reality and it probably won't change much in the 21st Century.

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

Wingman got it dead on. There is no way EADS will even have a off chance of winning this order unless in some political deal, the US would have to give this to EADS as a peace offering to the EU.

I doubt that will happen.

GO KC-787!  biggrin   hyper   laughing 


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 12 months 8 hours ago) and read 5499 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
And precisely which airplanes made by Boeing are the European EADS nations trying to purchase, or considering purchasing?

None at the moment, but in the near future Spain and France will need new tankers. However, I don´t expect Boeing even to take part in the French competition, because the result is quite clear if no funding questions arrise.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 12 months 8 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 1):
The USAF wants this information, not some politicians or lobbyists ? I thought all THEY wanted was the tanker which suits them best. But obviously the USAF don´t thinks this is important anymore, but politics are. Leaving the "subsidies" apart now, maybe the USAF has shot in the foot of Boeing. Watch out for European politicians asking Boeing about their subsidies when there is a military competition running in which Boeing takes part.

Well I was going to say that there is a lot of USAF influence in Washington because there are a healthy amount of politicians who are former Air Force, but EADS North American keeps flaunting in the back of AvLeak this black female with her PhD in Aero/Space Engineering who also is a Major in the USAF, Reserve as their current "Who is EADS?" Personally, I think they are playing the PC card on that one, though.

While I definately want the best product for the USAF, I hope all the A330 does is simply force the USAF to come up with a KC-777 to either supplement a KC-767 buy or outright replace it.


User currently offlineOryx From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 5480 times:

Quoting Wingman (Reply 12):
none of these three countries has ever procured such a massive military system (as a % of total annual defense expenditure) from the US.



Germany: Lokheed F104G, McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom II, Bell UH-1D, Patriot - all big items for our small defence budget.

OK lately most shopping is done at EADS but for the last 50 years Germany bought a lot of equipement in the USA.

[Edited 2006-04-27 17:44:18]

[Edited 2006-04-27 17:44:55]

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (7 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 5471 times:

Quoting Oryx (Reply 16):
OK lately most shopping is done at EADS but for the last 50 years Germany bought a lot of equipement in the USA

Unfortunately, it is a "what have you done for me (us) lately" situation....
 Wink



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 5464 times:

I believe a key point is being missed here. Northrup Grumman/EADS is not required to respond to any portion of the Request for Information (RFI). This is not the a "bid" to build an Air Tanker, it is only a process where by the USAF learns what capabilities are out there.

I personally fail to see how a bidder(s) being subsidized on an aircraft (that is already in production) can have any direct bearing on this procurement. If they fail to answer that question in the RFI sufficiently or even at all does not disqualify them from bidding on the final "Request for Proposals" (RFP) as so stated in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (Sub-part 15.201(e) & 15.202(b)).

The USAF and Congress may not like it but they can still bid on the contract and the price and capabilities will be what matters in the end.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 5450 times:

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 18):
If they fail to answer that question in the RFI sufficiently or even at all does not disqualify them from bidding on the final "Request for Proposals" (RFP) as so stated in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (Sub-part 15.201(e) & 15.202(b)).

Would such failure not lead to them being deemed "non-responsive" and their subsequent bid passed over?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (7 years 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 5446 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 19):
Would such failure not lead to them being deemed "non-responsive" and their subsequent bid passed over?

   Absolutely!
IMO, EADS doesn't have any good choices here. They can either comply or withdraw. A court case is a non-starter for reasons noted earlier.

[Edited 2006-04-27 21:01:05]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 12 months ago) and read 5407 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 19):
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 18):
If they fail to answer that question in the RFI sufficiently or even at all does not disqualify them from bidding on the final "Request for Proposals" (RFP) as so stated in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (Sub-part 15.201(e) & 15.202(b)).

Would such failure not lead to them being deemed "non-responsive" and their subsequent bid passed over?

No..because the law does not require them to respond to the "RFI" to bid on the "RFP". The (2) part process is not tied together.

As I stated before, not submitting a response to the RFI does not disqualify someone from bidding on the contract. It does mean that your idea (aircraft in this case) may not be included only because the USAF is not aware of what you can offer them. I do not see how anyone's ability to provide an aircraft that is fully capable of meeting the contract, will not be considered because they did not answer a question about subsidies (especially since it is after the fact).

I can see where that concern is legitimate [if] EADS had to go out and find financing for a new model aircraft to compete on this contract. However, in this instance, that is not the case. Both EADS's possible candidate's (A330 & 340) are mature aircraft in the commercial sector.

BTW...I should mention that I hope a Boeing aircraft is ultimately selected.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5400 times:

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 21):
No..because the law does not require them to respond to the "RFI" to bid on the "RFP". The (2) part process is not tied together.

While you are technically correct, the RFI will most likely set the stage for the RFP. This is likely to be decided, after a thorough technical evaluation, on best value. The disclosure can come now or later. If they don't respond in the RFI phase, then you can be certain this requirement will be contained in the RFP, where failure to disclose WILL be considered "nonresponsive". Then there is the politics. Should EADS refuse to respond to the subsidies issue in the RFI, you can bet that this will be noticed in the Congress and the press. This can still be "sole sourced".

The FAR is a very complicated document. In my experience you may think you have an answer "nailed down", only to discover there is more info in another Part or Section. Then there is the DFAR, and I'm sure the USAF has their own implementing guidance. If I have some spare time in the next few days, I'll check it out.

Again, as I noted previously on this thread, I believe this is more tied to the WTO case than the tanker competition. You use what leverage you have....



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3309 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5339 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
And precisely which airplanes made by Boeing are the European EADS nations trying to purchase, or considering purchasing

There is still a lot of interest in the JSF, although that is dropping due to tech-transfer and workshare issues. A few countries have shown interest in C-17s. Probably contracts/interest for missiles as well but I am not up to date on that.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
This can still be "sole sourced".

And there it begins to get distasteful. Although sufficient, even elaborate safeguards are in place, there is nothing like good, old competition to bring out the best in a procurement action.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
25 Post contains links A319XFW : I was reading this and it got me thinking - saying the U.S. shouldn't buy planes actively involved in a trade dispute would also mean Boeing's aircraf
26 Poitin : All this is froo-froo. It is the Congress who is pushing the issue, undoubtedly with Boeing lobbyists in the wings. If Airbus does not comply and tri
27 Post contains images Lumberton : There are about 95 senators and 520+ congresspersons in Washington DC that would be inclined to agree with you. IMO, this is simply about leverage in
28 A342 : So you suggest Germany and France should have traded tankers for dead soldiers or what ??? I´m sorry, but the politicians in the government at that
29 Post contains images Poitin : Hey, if you have a problem with the bad feelings that exist in the US Congress and Senate, then I think you should take it up with them. They are the
30 Keesje : Well I think this is a sensible business & the US industry hopes to continue selling billions of there products to Europe. Products like: JSF, C-17,
31 Post contains images Atmx2000 : Well, I would point out that the A330 was subsidized directly using the justification that the US manufacturers received a subsidy through their mili
32 Atmx2000 : EADS is not representative of all of Europe though. It's ownership is German, French, and Spanish, and I expect sales of US defense products to these
33 Lumberton : Absolutely correct. I get the impression that some feel that EADS is somehow symbolic of the EU itself. This isn't personal folks (although Potin has
34 Poitin : Which they no longer are willing to do. The American military is wary of exporting technology which might be sold on to obviously potential enemies.
35 KC135TopBoom : There are several EU, or individual country military contracts that POTENTIALLY could go to Boeing, or any other US manufactuer. There is a thought t
36 Post contains images Lumberton : Somehow I knew I wouldn't get away with that mistake! Let's keep in mind that regardless of the outcome of the tanker purchase, the two-way flow in a
37 A342 : This may be true, but I think I can safely say that most of the world´s population does agree with me.
38 Post contains images Lumberton : Are they bidding on this too? Sorry, but if you note my previous post on the agricultural subsidies, I bet most of the world would agree that the EU
39 TropicBird : What is EADS going to do if the USAF wants a "large" aircraft variant...will the A340 compete favorably against the 777 or even 747 (the Rand study ru
40 RedFlyer : They could, but then that would not play very well to Airbus' advantage. Besides, funding is very relevant and material in a competitive bid if it gi
41 Halibut : True, Germany bought a great deal from the US . However , who was in Europe spending "billions" of dollars $$$ protecting Europe from the "REDS" for
42 Post contains images Contact_tower : And I think most europeans are greatful for that......but, it's not like it was for our benefit only....... A continent in ruins makes for a bad trad
43 Oryx : Actually we were (are still?) paying for (a part of) the rendered services.
44 Post contains links and images Halibut : Apperently you don't appear to be one of those grateful Europeans , by judging from your comment above . You attempt to spin it , to make it look as
45 Keesje : I still think still the fundamental problem in the US Tanker competition is: the best aircraft to meet the specs comes from the wrong side of the ocea
46 Post contains images Lumberton : You may be correct, but unless one has extreme tunnel vision, the issues have expanded far beyond a mere tanker procurement.   Besides, it would not
47 Longbow : Hmmmm.....not sure the USAF knows what their requirements for the new tanker are yet, let alone any of us. I don't think this is a fair statement. An
48 Dougloid : Tell me more about that.
49 Revelation : And the best engine for the A400M came from Canada, but that didn't stop Airbus Military from going with "home cooking". Let's face it: Most of Europ
50 A342 : Sorry, but not only the EU, but also the USA massively subsidizes farming. But you are right, most of the world thinks that's wrong, me included. But
51 Bennett123 : IMO Airbus can save a lot of hassle by working away now. Let Boeing have the order, that they will get anyway. The fact is that this is the way that c
52 Atmx2000 : A key word is part. The total amount of defense spending attributable to the defense of Europe by the US is in the trillions of current dollars. The
53 Post contains links Keesje : What about Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Turkey and who knows more, just like in the past. In the original competition KC30 met the specs mu
54 Post contains links Lumberton : This could portend some positive steps towards resolution of this issue before it becomes a full blown international crisis and threatens to derail th
55 KC135TopBoom : Well, how fortunate for the US, then, that they were not allowed to vote in the 2004 Presidential election. But, if we do that, then can I vote in al
56 A342 : I didn't suggest that they should be allowed to elect the US president, it's not their issue. I just said that since the Iraq occupation, Guantanamo
57 Keesje : Hardly anything leaks, but I have the feeling the KC767 tankers has gone through serious redesign / modifications, after delivery to the Italian Airf
58 Lumberton : "hardly anything leaks", "have a feeling" .... Have there been any reports from the Italian AF? BTW, I have no disagreement with you that the KC-30 w
59 Post contains links Keesje : There haven´t, neither from Boeing. However that doesn´t say much IMO. Rumors are there have been delays & redesigns, 1st aircraft back in the US f
60 KC135TopBoom : Rumors? The air flow problem with the Smith A/R Pods has been resolved, and full speed range has returned. BTW, the #1 airplane is in Italy right now
61 Post contains images LMP737 : Even though EADS has little experience with boom refueling compared to Boeing we all know that it will be smooth sailing for the A330 Tanker.
62 Par13del : How much better is the A330 than the B767 as a tanker aircraft? 5, 10, 15 20% better, what would the US loose if they chose the B767 over the A330? If
63 Lumberton : Exactly the point I tried to make earlier...do you need the 100% solution all the time? I wish this order would be decided on technical merit, but li
64 KC135TopBoom : Make that NO experience...... Until it gets into the turbulant hot air over Washington DC. The politicians there have the most important responsibili
65 Post contains links and images A342 : That's wrong: View Large View MediumPhoto © Pablo Diaz Moreda
66 Lumberton : The photo shows the A310 testbed aircraft. Are any of the KC-30s that were ordered by the UK or Australia in service?
67 A342 : Not yet, but KC135TopBoom said they have no experience with booms which is not true since they have this aircraft. IIRC the same boom will be used on
68 NoUFO : Not Boeing but Northrop (I believe): The Global Hawk. That thing will be introduced to some armed forces such as Bundeswehr. And we still buy missile
69 KC135TopBoom : Hello, the test Airbus air refueling boom on the testbed A-310-304 has not left the "chocks" yet, meaning it has not been lowered and flown, in trail
70 NoUFO : KC135, True, Airbus have no experience in designing booms (refuelling pod: yes, if I'm not mistaken, but not exactly booms), but is that really necess
71 KC135TopBoom : For the USAF, a refueling boom is vital, it has numerous advantages over probe and drogue refueling, a high rate of fuel transfer being the number on
72 Lumberton : This could be decisive in the technical evaluation phase. It could give political cover to the decision makers
73 Post contains links and images Keesje : Are you serious? It has far better range, fuel off load, take-off performance, passenger & freight capability/flexibility & is technically at least a
74 KC135TopBoom : I still think the best, cheapest way for the USAF to go on their tanker program is to upgrade the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs. The USAF already has a trainin
75 A342 : Why not ? I think this was done to make it easier for crews from other tankers to get their training on the A330, right ?
76 Post contains images Lumberton : Maybe it's a "chinese copy"?
77 Post contains links Lumberton : And here is a 'carrot' to accompany the 'stick': Pentagon may buy 15-20 aerial tankers a year Maybe Airbus shouldn't walk away from this after all. Co
78 KC135TopBoom : The RFI said no more than 15 airplanes per year, if the USAF buys no builds. But, I doubt the USAF will replace 400-500 KC-135s with a like number of
79 TropicBird : That is the way I see it. I believe it will be a "large" aircraft and supplemented with existing KC-135's or a new "medium" size. Don't forget the Pe
80 KC135TopBoom : The stealth tanker program may be canceled if a new tanker is bought now. The 10-15 year time frame puts it into the KC-10 replacement program, if th
81 TropicBird : If the KC-X were a dedicated tanker, then I believe the above thought would be a certainty. But since it will also be a transport (think "large" cate
82 KC135TopBoom : You are correct. But the realities of the budget and Congress (does Congress have any realities?), will not develope the stealth tanker.
83 TropicBird : I thought I just read where the USAF awarded a contract to work on the stealthy tanker concept and besides, what good is a stealthy UAV when it needs
84 KC135TopBoom : Making any UAV that would only require a pilot is relitively easy now. The more crew positions an airplane has, the more difficult it will be to buil
85 Post contains images SparkingWave : Funny, this quote sounds vaguely familiar, like someone comparing the 787 to the A350..
86 Baroque : Another option might be to create Holy Owned Subsidiary in the Vatican and this might qualify as a faith-based initiative thus winning many brownie p
87 Lumberton : If it were a competition involving a German, French, Spanish, or UK defense procurement, then why wouldn't these governments be within their right to
88 Baroque : True, but would it not be better to say the issues of funding for both Airbus and Boeing? And that brings up the issue I raised over the status of re
89 Lumberton : If that's the case, EADS should state it. But whether or not there is no aid "outstanding" is not the issue as I understand it. One couldn't focus me
90 Baroque : I agree. It does not appear that there is an argument that they are two different planes. However, the extent to which the KC-30 and the A-330 are se
91 KC135TopBoom : I disagree on the KC-30. The USAF tanker aircraft have always been based on freighter versions of new build aircraft (the KB-29 and KB-50 were conver
92 Baroque : The article in the thread starter refers to launch aid, but the most recent official reference I can find calls these funds repayable launch investmen
93 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : So, politician believe the launch aid, opps, RLI for the A-340/-330 program is fully paid back to the British tax payers? Airbus paid the British Tre
94 Post contains links Baroque : Not only but also!! I like reading your posts TopBoom, and I am confident you have forgotten more about tankers than I will ever even want to know, b
95 Lumberton : Baroque, you have made some very good and informative contributions to this thread. Many thanks. I think that we are missing the real advantage on RL
96 Baroque : Thank you for the kind words. I guess once you has picked your way through the numbers, it emerges that the whole basis of financing is different fro
97 Lumberton : Thanks for the info. No doubt Airbus does internal capital budgeting, but my point was that risk premium is different for a government sponsored loan
98 Baroque : A very interesting question. However, I have no expertise whatsoever on this. The EU seem very confident and so does the US. Reading what is availabl
99 KC135TopBoom : I agree, this WTO question will never have a hearing.
100 Post contains links Lumberton : New article on the tanker issue with a slightly different twist: EADS and its relationship with southern U.S. states. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/bu
101 Baroque : Sounds good to me. Now we are waiting for B to apply for RLI in Europe or the UK. Unless there is some prohibition that is not written on the lines o
102 Post contains links and images Lumberton : An update. Spokesman for Northrop-Grumman says "please, please, don't tie this into the WTO case" Other than the pleading, nothing new.... http://toda
103 Keesje : They should tie it into the WTO case, and the tanker scandal too.
104 Post contains images Lumberton : Just for you...I suspect that they'll give you half of what you want here.
105 KC135TopBoom : Why the "tanker scandel"? That issue is done and over. People got fired from Boeing, and one lady who steered the USAF into that KC-767 deal went to
106 Bennett123 : KC135TopBOOM Just as the US/French relationship have nothing to do with the capabilities of the KC-30A. I understand that for many in the US that the
107 Atmx2000 : Actually, it is my view that given perfectly fine aircraft can be acquired from the US and that there are no significant plusses for that offering, a
108 Bennett123 : It could also be argued that EU taxpayers are subsidising US/NW etc. However let us try not to get political. If the KC767 is the best fit for the USA
109 LMP737 : Well by that logic then I guess they should bring up Noel Forgeard selling a bunch of EADS stock back in March before the s*%t hit the fan over the A
110 KC135TopBoom : Here is part of the answer; It is also about the USAF getting the best tanker, in their opinion (not ours), for the money. The USAF has gotten their
111 TropicBird : A very astute statement from TopBoom.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic USAF Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders
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...
Need Info On (closed) Presque Isle AFB posted Fri Jun 2 2006 21:35:38 by Scintx
Info On This Please posted Sun May 7 2006 20:24:58 by CYEGsTankers
Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22... posted Fri Apr 7 2006 04:49:04 by AirRyan
Airbus To Decide By June 23 On Jet Plant, Tanker posted Mon May 23 2005 23:23:34 by Keesje
Any Info On NAWC/NADC Johnsville. Warminster, PA posted Sun May 15 2005 01:29:30 by Jetjack74
Info On VS-30 "Diamondcutters" posted Wed May 4 2005 18:56:13 by Spartan13
Some Info On That Wet-Leased Lauda B736 (USN) posted Sun Jan 30 2005 19:30:53 by Flynavy
Info On Secret Navy Flight Netherlands - US posted Tue Jan 4 2005 17:58:38 by BuyantUkhaa
Need Info On B-17s/B-24s Of 490th Bomb Group posted Mon Nov 22 2004 02:00:24 by SmithAir747
Info On Avro Fulcan posted Sat Oct 16 2004 16:02:05 by Horus

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format