Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Politics And The KC330  
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10270 times:

Food for thought. Our European allies haven't taken kindly to our invasion of Iraq and that's been a sore spot where relations with the United States are concerned. I have to wonder if the selection of the KC-330, as part of the overall tanker package, might not be an attempt to mend political fences. It definitely would give the Europeans cause to look at the US in a somewhat more positive light.

Yes, I know many of the folks who frequent these forums will argue there's no way Boeing is going to loose even part of the tanker contract, but politics have impacted many a military procurement program before, as we all know.

Consider too that England is supposed to be looking at buying Rafale M fighters for the Royal Navy. Might that be an attempt on England's part to strengthen ties with France? After all, they could just as easily have chosen the Hornet or Super Hornet.

My point, folks, is that military needs aren't necessarily the only considerations when a production contract is being put together. Money and political powers talk ... even if the end result doesn't make sense to us airplane nuts.


Dare to dream; dream big!
146 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10271 times:

I don't think the Europeans will think better of the US just on a KC-30 buy by the USAF. There is already billions of US dollars, and Euros between the US and the EU. Look at all the Airbus airplanes already bought and in service in US airlines. Don't forget about all the BMWs, Audis, Volvos, Coopers, and VWs on the road in the US. Buying 100 tankers won't change anything there.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
Consider too that England is supposed to be looking at buying Rafale M fighters for the Royal Navy. Might that be an attempt on England's part to strengthen ties with France? After all, they could just as easily have chosen the Hornet or Super Hornet.

No, the UK and French relationship will not change because of the Rafales in the RN. Those airplanes are only being bought for use on the joint RN/French Navy CVE, a ship designed for the Rafale. The Hornet or Super Bug will not be able to fly off her deck.

The attititude of the French can not be changed by trade or dollars.


User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10232 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
a ship designed for the Rafale. The Hornet or Super Bug will not be able to fly off her deck.

Looking at their size, weight and setup (catapult and landing systems) the RAFALE and HORNET(incl superH) seem to be fully interchangeable.
I doubt the Hornet couldn't be used on these new vessels.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The attititude of the French can not be changed by trade or dollars.

I think you give them a bit too much credit here.
They have a history of basing their politics on their economic interests.



[edit post]
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10155 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
I have to wonder if the selection of the KC-330, as part of the overall tanker package, might not be an attempt to mend political fences. It definitely would give the Europeans cause to look at the US in a somewhat more positive light.

You cannot buy friends with money. That relationship wouldn't be worth a cent. Ich think putting politics back onto a common value basis is the only mean to return a partnership that is more than just handshakes and sweet talk.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
I don't think the Europeans will think better of the US just on a KC-30 buy by the USAF. There is already billions of US dollars, and Euros between the US and the EU. Look at all the Airbus airplanes already bought and in service in US airlines. Don't forget about all the BMWs, Audis, Volvos, Coopers, and VWs on the road in the US. Buying 100 tankers won't change anything there.

Well, if it ever happened more than 50% of the plane's value would come from the States ... it would be more an American product than a European one. That would include engines, all the refuelling equipment, final assembly and a great share of general minor parts that nevertheless come from the States (like lighting and landing gear from Goodrich, Avionics from Honeywell and Collins and so on and so forth). A Boeing tanker might have 80% local content and an Airbus at least 60%. I don't know if these 20% difference are worth the fuss that is made about it.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10152 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
Well, if it ever happened more than 50% of the plane's value would come from the States ... it would be more an American product than a European one.

Doesn't the proposal call for the A-330F to be built in Europe, then flown to MOB and modified into tankers and redesignated as the KC-30? True, there will still be a lot of US content in the KC-30, but it will still have the basic airplane assembled in France.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10151 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Doesn't the proposal call for the A-330F to be built in Europe, then flown to MOB and modified into tankers and redesignated as the KC-30?

Didn't Airbus offer to open a final assembly in the US if the order is large enough? I think so ...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10146 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
Didn't Airbus offer to open a final assembly in the US if the order is large enough? I think so ...

They have said that in the press, IIRC. But, that is not what Northrupt has said.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10098 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
Didn't Airbus offer to open a final assembly in the US if the order is large enough? I think so ...

They have said that in the press, IIRC. But, that is not what Northrupt has said.

The plant is supposed to be built in Montgomery, Alabama and there's already a lot of excitement there over the prospect of the airplane being built there.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10026 times:

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 2):
They have a history of basing their politics on their economic interests.

 checkmark  Remember the Exocet? Iran and who else? When it comes to money, well, the French seem be such harlots.

I don't want the KC-330 in the USAF fleet, only becasue of the France/NATO shennanigans, and they denied the USAF over flight permission when Reagan bombed Libya after PanAm 103.

For me, yea it is political.

I'd welcome a British made tanker. Short Brothers! What have you been doing lately?  Smile



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10021 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
The plant is supposed to be built in Montgomery, Alabama and there's already a lot of excitement there over the prospect of the airplane being built there.

Mobile, not Montgomery. The location in Mobile is excellent for this as it is an underutilized airport that it also part of a large port complex on Mobile Bay.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Doesn't the proposal call for the A-330F to be built in Europe, then flown to MOB and modified into tankers and redesignated as the KC-30?

My understanding is that fuselage sections, wings, etc. will be built in Europe as now but actual airframe assembly will be in Mobile.

EADS is already building an engineering center at Brookley that will be opening in a few months.

One thing many overlook is the political support the KC30 is likely to get in the US. The plant location chosen will draw workers from three states (AL, FL, MS) so this is likely to put six senators on its side. Add in McCain and a few others and it doesn't look so bad politically.

It's also likely to get some support from other Southern states as its success would add to the progress the South has made lately towards building up its Aerospace manufacturing base, i.e. EADS for helicopters in MS, Boeing for Delta rockets in AL, huge buildup of US Army program offices in HSV along with many vendors, 787 work in SC, etc.

This region is already picking up most new auto plants in the US and definitely has its eye on becoming the preferred solution for aerospace as well. The only major disappointment recently in aerospace was losing the 787 final assembly competition to WA. Incidentally, the EADS/Northrup KC30 assembly site was the runner up in this.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10001 times:

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 9):
My understanding is that fuselage sections, wings, etc. will be built in Europe as now but actual airframe assembly will be in Mobile.

Shipping these components by ship will add a lot to the cost, in both time and money, to the KC-30.


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9998 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Shipping these components by ship will add a lot to the cost, in both time and money, to the KC-30.

I assume the Beluga would be used for most shipments, though I'm not sure if the existing fleet could support expansion to a US plant--especially if any major operations start up in Russia or China in the same time frame. Their oversized airlift fleet would be pretty pressured to keep up.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9991 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 11):
though I'm not sure if the existing fleet could support expansion to a US plant-

There's always the Antonov for rent or.....

They could certainly buy parked 747s and rush the conversions into LCFs, but must first ask (nicely) permission from Boeing and EVA.  Smile



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9987 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Shipping these components by ship will add a lot to the cost, in both time and money, to the KC-30.

If you can design your logistics around the added transit time to bring things in by ship vs. Beluga, the costs would actually be much less. That said, Airbus/EADS hasn't exactly been shining in the precision logistics area lately.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9982 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Shipping these components by ship will add a lot to the cost, in both time and money, to the KC-30.

Costs for shipping are negligible. Especially if you have a multi-year contract with a steady flow of deliveries you can send most parts via ship. That's costs close to nothing compared to the later price. Ships are basically the cheapest mean of transport ever developed ... far cheaper than a truck (per ton/mile).


User currently offlineTancrede From Finland, joined May 2006, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9969 times:

Oh my! I do love my American friends. You are just begging for heated debate with this kind of threads. And don’t say that we started it.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
Our European allies haven't taken kindly to our invasion of Iraq and that's been a sore spot where relations with the United States are concerned.

And you still did not understand why. Have you check the last news from the past week. That will explain everything, why we didn’t want to go in. And I bet that for the next twenty years, you are going to hear more of this kind of news. But, if you are happy to spoil your youngsters and your taxpayer’s money there, that’s only your problem, but don’t blame others, please. We did not ask you to go there.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The attitude of the French can not be changed by trade or dollars.

You are right about that one, but because France is a country rule by realist politics, we are happy to get commercial contracts from whatever parts of the world – even from Iran (BTW like the Germans) – shame on us Europeans.
  

[Edited 2006-10-05 09:26:26]

[Edited 2006-10-05 09:39:04]

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6728 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9958 times:

The tanker deal from the American side is all about the money, the political "gift" to their European Allies was made a few months ago. What exactly do you think it means to have the office of POTUS flying around in a European Helicopter? The SAR troops require the best equipment around, so they get the best, the office of POTUS, however, has a larger political meaning that goes beyond the "best" moniker, are US designed helicopters so unsafe that their leader who represents them can't fly in one?

Regardless of where its made and how much US content is involved, the world will see and know it as a European product, on the plus side, after the Dubai port scandal, it does show how much the US embraces globalism when POTUS personal transport is a non-US product, does give hope to the day that a A380 landing at a US airport will have the call sign Air Force One, after all, the precedent has been set and Americans do really believe in the principle of precedents.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9851 times:

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The attitude of the French can not be changed by trade or dollars.

You are right about that one, but because France is a country rule by realist politics, we are happy to get commercial contracts from whatever parts of the world – even from Iran

I would not call French politicians "realist". But, that discussion is better suited for another board. As for the rest of your statement, I agree with you. There in (your statement) lies most of the world's problems.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9791 times:

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 15):
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
Our European allies haven't taken kindly to our invasion of Iraq and that's been a sore spot where relations with the United States are concerned.

And you still did not understand why. Have you check the last news from the past week. That will explain everything, why we didn’t want to go in. And I bet that for the next twenty years, you are going to hear more of this kind of news. But, if you are happy to spoil your youngsters and your taxpayer’s money there, that’s only your problem, but don’t blame others, please. We did not ask you to go there.

The statement I made wasn't intended to be the starter for a political row. Rather, it was a statement meant to remind readers of this forum that there is a sore spot in relations with our European allies and explain what that spot is. No, you didn't ask us to go in and yes we'll pay for the blunder for years to come. Satisfied? My point was that buying the KC-30 might help a lot to mend relations with our European allies. Plain and simple.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9769 times:

Update:

Newly revised KC-X RFP likely to cause additional controversy. The RFP now contains language specifically requiring "treaty compliance" .....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...-X+tanker+replacement+contest.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9753 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 18):
My point was that buying the KC-30 might help a lot to mend relations with our European allies. Plain and simple.

It's idiotic to suggest that we are going to give huge contracts to mend relations with anyone. Appropriations go through Congress, and they don't care too much about what State thinks (if State ever came up with such a stupid idea). Either the Pentagon gives well justified technical reason for spending a large sum of tax dollars on foreign military gear for a vital , or Congress will wonder why their districts/states aren't getting more

And no offence, I don't believe there is any need to mend relations with Europe, particularly France. After all, this was the country that abandoned their allies out of some combination of cowardice and oil contracts with Iraq. After the Gulf war, they were patrolling the northern fly zone protecting the Kurds along with the US and UK, but when Saddam continued threatening Kuwait and attacking Shi'ites in southern Iraq and Clinton instituted the southern no-flyzone, France used that as an excuse to back out of the northern no-flyzone. Within a year or so, French oil companies signed oil contracts with Saddam.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9700 times:

France in particular has made life difficult for the US inside NATO for a long time, but moreso since the Soviet Union vanished. France was the country that so wanted the EU to have a fighting force so NATO could be pused out. Politically, congress sees any vote that seems to favor a French over a US company (yes I think the US congress sees Airbus and EADS as French controlled, and I think feels that the EU is also a French leaning institution.)

I think also France's behavior before Iraq would make the US military pause over any entity being able to deny spare parts if the equipment is being used to support a mission that France objects to.

Eurocopter did win a DOD contract recently, but that program didn't have political visibility before the award.

Airbus would have some chance if the DOD favored the KC330 sufficiently that it would go to bat for it in Congress. The DOD is very careful though on how it spends its political capitol.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9687 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 21):
yes I think the US congress sees Airbus and EADS as French controlled, and I think feels that the EU is also a French leaning institution

Many in the US and in Congress actually feel the EU is French CONTROLLED.

Apoligies to our German, Dutch, Spainish, Italian, Greek, Polish, Finnish, Norwegion, and Swedish friends.

Oh, did I leave out the Swiss?  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 9062 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 21):
yes I think the US congress sees Airbus and EADS as French controlled, and I think feels that the EU is also a French leaning institution

Many in the US and in Congress actually feel the EU is French CONTROLLED.

Apoligies to our German, Dutch, Spainish, Italian, Greek, Polish, Finnish, Norwegion, and Swedish friends.

Large parts of the EU system ideologically ARE controlled by France and Germany. For instance some economists (inc myself) believe that joining the Euro may not have been such a good idea for Ireland. Several years ago the Irish Govt wanted to stem growth in the economy by raising interest rates. On the other hand, the Germans French wanted to stimulate economic activity's for many reasons such as unemployment. Well you can guess who the ECB acted in favour of.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 9054 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 9):
My understanding is that fuselage sections, wings, etc. will be built in Europe as now but actual airframe assembly will be in Mobile.

Shipping these components by ship will add a lot to the cost, in both time and money, to the KC-30.

That "plant" in Alabama will be the biggest Potemkin Village since...well, since Potemkin first got the idea.

Here's what I think will happen if the KC30 goes ahead. The first few airplanes will be 'final assembled' in Toulouse so as to 'train' the new worker bees. Then someone will 'discover' that they can actually be assembled and ferried a lot cheaper than freighting the parts to Alabama and assembling them there. That is because the people who actually build the A330 know the job pretty well and have all the kinks worked out of the build process. Then what'll happen is that they'll be ferried to Alabama for paint jobs and installation of the air tanker gear and avionics. The whole idea of actually assembling a modified A330 in the US will die of neglect.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 23):
Large parts of the EU system ideologically ARE controlled by France and Germany. For instance some economists (inc myself) believe that joining the Euro may not have been such a good idea for Ireland. Several years ago the Irish Govt wanted to stem growth in the economy by raising interest rates. On the other hand, the Germans French wanted to stimulate economic activity's for many reasons such as unemployment. Well you can guess who the ECB acted in favour of.

George Orwell famously said "All animals are equal. Only some are more equal than others."


25 Post contains images F27Friendship : yippiekayee! the zillionth KC-X thread has arrived! I've been on this forum for one month now, and I guess I can already formulate a mission statement
26 Lumberton : BTW, I listened to a podcast featuring Mr. Mike Belote, media relations director for Northrup Grumman. He stated that if N-G/EADS won the tanker comp
27 Post contains images DEVILFISH : A long time ago! And this thread for more than ten months. Is this why Turkey couldn't get in - because they buy most of their hardware from the US?
28 Post contains images F27Friendship : LOL! don't take my words out of context I was merely referring to a situtation when someone would buy a certain type of plane for political goodwill
29 XT6Wagon : Yet, there is a constant stream of "wispers" that Airbus wants to open the line in the US regardless for civilian poduction to reduce costs. I think
30 PADSpot : IF (Big IF) the KC-30 goes ahead, the place of manufacture and the extent as well as type of local content will be part of the purchase contract. The
31 Post contains images Lumberton : That would be a nice inducement, a significant offset in the way of all A330 production being sourced in the U.S. by 2010, a nice share--say 20%--in
32 Post contains images Dougloid : To be honest, why do you think it's fabricated? What did mother tell you? Follow the money, that's what she told you. There's abolutely no reason to
33 AirRyan : Read an article today that the FAA is adding an A-330 simulator at their HQ in Oklahoma City; Airbus has a nice maintenance facility in Lake Charles,
34 TexL1649 : It's not like Airbus is going to be busy building A330s past a certain point in the 5-10 year future anyway (NOT A FLAME: I am just saying that the A3
35 PADSpot : Its fabricated because the situation you project, namely that Airbus would step back from a US production once they have made some progress into the
36 F27Friendship : I think that would be a very good development for airbus!
37 KC135TopBoom : EADS will build the basic A-330-200F airplane in France, it will be flight tested in France, then flown to MOB to be painted and the tanker equipment
38 Post contains images F27Friendship : There have been different stories on this one. Perhaps things have changed? I like a challenge
39 KC135TopBoom : I think Mr. Belote's statement really says it all. The key words in his remarks are "possibility of production" and "at some point". Now there is a c
40 Greggarious : I think that the question begs to be asked: Which tanker would prove to be more capable for the USAF? The KC-767 or the KC-30? There's a huge amound o
41 KC135TopBoom : The USAF strike tactics are built around the KC-135, a medium size tanker (maximumize the number of booms in the air). Since the B-767 is closer in s
42 Zeke : No, the aircraft will be assembled in the USA. Correct, kind of, not all of the 330 is built in Europe, its built at plants around the world, and som
43 Lumberton : First I heard of this. Do you have a source? AFAIK, EADS through their U.S. partner is mulling the eventual sourcing of production here, but no commi
44 Dougloid : I'll believe that when I see it.
45 Post contains links Zeke : Yes been in many many press releases....e.g. http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/media_center/data/KC30_Alabama.pdf "The KC-30 Tanker aircraft will b
46 Post contains links BigJKU : http://www.governmentexecutive.com/s...icleid=36554&printerfriendlyvers=1 Food for thought "On any given mission, where you want to take the cargo is
47 Texfly101 : Nicely put and so true. Trade only goes so far with the French. Their attitude is one of profit for France, not service to the US. Lets face it, the
48 Lumberton : Good stuff, Zeke. Thanks for providing it. I wonder at what point in the process this would happen in Mobile?
49 Post contains images AirRyan : A lot of variable there, with prices/operating costs being a big variable. The real reason as to why Boeing is playing down the cargo capability is b
50 BigJKU : Say what? One tanker can only cover so much space regardless of how much fuel it holds and the crew can only stay aloft for so long regardless of how
51 AirRyan : I guess my "crazy" icon didn't quite evoke the sarcasm I was trying to convey from it. I know what you all say about the number of booms, but even wi
52 F27Friendship : well, it's a good thing then that tactics never change..
53 Post contains links Lumberton : Seems like the USAF just upped the stakes here. The story broke yesterday, but (at least as far as I can tell) several newspapers pulled it back. USAF
54 Post contains images F27Friendship : good thing the USAF learned to play hard-ball to get the best offers
55 AirRyan : Perhaps, but the A330 has been just long enough as well that Airbus knows how to assemble the aircraft and their accountants are fully capable of del
56 XT6Wagon : Thats a No, somehow people don't understand that the KC-135's rarely carry a 100% fuel load, rarely pump out 100% of what they do haul to the refueli
57 KevinSmith : Final assembly will take place at Mobile Downton, BFM, not Mobile Regional. It is right on Mobile Bay and has a huge runway. I saw it from the air on
58 TexL1649 : Ramp space isn't a joke, it's a pathetic farce. XT6, it is interesting that all of the comments about the desirability of a dual-role tanker/cargo air
59 XT6Wagon : Oh, ok, so you completely ignore that if it hits the fan the US military can grab a HUGE number of civilian airfcraft right off thier gates, thanks t
60 Art : I think it will be 10+ years before A and B get round to delivering new freighters to end the life of the A330F. In view of what you say, I genuinely
61 XT6Wagon : This is very much my opinion. The KC30/KC330/A330ALPHABETSOUP is a very good aircraft, just NOT what the USAF needs. On the other hand they don't nee
62 BHMBAGLOCK : Good point but I was trying to keep it simple. I don't know of any EADS/Airbus hangars being built although it's certainly possible. Better guess IMH
63 AirRyan : So what happens when NG comes through with a bid equal to that of Boeing? Do you buy the larger more capable aircraft at the same price and if not, t
64 Halls120 : Been a long time since I was in Mobile. The old Brookley AFB is where I understand NG/EADS is setting up shop. Hard to believe they will be setting u
65 Art : I presume that the 767 tanker is cheaper to produce than the A330 tanker. On that basis won't Boeing have the brains to offer their product at a pric
66 Atmx2000 : If Airbus wants to build a facility in the US so badly, why sell KC-30's at a loss, which is probably what they would have to do to sell the much lar
67 Art : Seems to me that the result of that would be different states competing to subsidise the federal government's acquisition of foreign (rather than dom
68 JayinKitsap : A good analogy is a parking garage, it was designed and worked well with normal sized cars. However, with the SUV boom (thankfully now ending) it is
69 Post contains links Venus6971 : http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...08/airforce_tankercontract_070819/ The decision has been pushed out until December
70 Post contains links A342 : Just for the sake of it, did you read this? http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...resh-767-line-with-tanker-win.html
71 KevinSmith : Was on deck at BFM today. No new construction.
72 Post contains links AirRyan : Elsewhere as in Mobile, AL? Do you all realize how bad EADS/Airbus wants this deal? Boeing has had to resort to childish and hypocritical xenophobia
73 Halls120 : Really? So which US company is producing all those A300's, A319's, A320's, A321's, and A330's I see wearing the liveries of AA, UA, NW, US, B6, and F
74 Post contains images AirRyan : Without AIrbus wiseguy, Boeing has a monopoly in the world and in the US, Boeing has a monopoly in the commercial airplane business. Happy now?!
75 Halls120 : well, since Airbus seems to be alive and well, where does all this "Boeing monopoly" talk come from?
76 AirRyan : LIke to beat a dead horse do you? Boeing no longer as any competition from another domestic US airplane company and Airbus wants to change that by bu
77 Post contains links Zeke : see http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/benefits/commitment.html "Northrop Grumman has selected Mobile, Alabama's Brookley Industrial Complex as the
78 Halls120 : Just responding to your flatly irrational "Boeing has a monopoly, so the Air Force should buy the KC-30" diatribe. So what if Boeing no longer has US
79 Atmx2000 : Unless EADS is providing the ability to manufacture all KC-30 parts domestically in the US, I don't see how we could guarantee production in the even
80 Post contains links Lumberton : According to this article, significant portions of the aircraft would still be manufactured in Europe. I remain skeptical as to what exactly N-G mean
81 Post contains images F27Friendship : where did this come from?! WW III?! you know not even bacteria will survive that one?! I don't think the French and German taxpayers/workers/voters/p
82 Post contains images EGNR : Couldn't you welcome a tanker with British made wings?
83 BHMBAGLOCK : No, it will be at Brookley right on the water. That's also where they've already opened an engineering center.
84 KevinSmith : Did a touch and go today on runway 18 at BFM. I was there yesterday and we landed on runway 14. Now that I've seen both sides of the airport I can saf
85 Atmx2000 : Came from here: Since I don't see how transfering production of those parts to the US would make economic sense without far greater volume than the t
86 Zeke : The major sub assemblies will continue to be made where the are now, like the fuselage in Germany, wings in England, composites in Spain and Germany,
87 KC135TopBoom : Without Airbus, Lockheed would get back into the commerical airplane business. Embraia would also build a bigger airplane. EADS/Airbus is not needed
88 Post contains links and images AirRyan : And I'm sure they don't like an assembly plant in China, either but that's just the way our one global economy has become. Big Boeing fan I am but I
89 F27Friendship : What Zeke said.. Most parts are already made in the US and we're talking about realizing additional production capability. No jobs will be directly l
90 Post contains images LifelinerOne : Well, if WWIII happens, Boeing will be having trouble building B767's as well as it isn't 100% US content. Finding new capable suppliers will be very
91 KC135TopBoom : I doubt the A-330 will sell a few thousand more aframes in the next few (or even several) years. The B-787 will eventually kill the A-330. Airbus wil
92 Zeke : Reading your post I cannot help to think that you may have the incorrect impression of what I was saying. The parts exported from the US to various p
93 Astuteman : I still find comments like this extraordinary. - And extraordinarily xenophobic too. Is this different for any other US military aircraft (or any oth
94 F27Friendship : nope I understood you correctly, but might have formulated it a bit funny
95 Dougloid : The answer should be obvious O Astute One. Because it's become a political hot button issue. The proof of that is that N-G has had to come up with th
96 Lumberton : Adding further pressure to "keep it simple" and not promise the world on moving production to Alabama is the USAF's recent mandate for fixed pricing
97 Post contains images Astuteman : True indeed, and I guess I understand this. My question, at the next level down, is, again, why? When you've lived with the level of dependence that
98 Par13del : Astuteman correct me if my memory fails. 1. UK wanted the Polaris system, they could have spent billions developing their own, or save funds and buy U
99 Post contains images Lumberton : Although I would argue that the respective capabilities (broadly speaking) are such that the KC-30 will not be able to overcome the political support
100 AirRyan : The Beretta is very similar to the M-16 in this aspect: as long as you keep it clean, lubed, and out of the dirt 9to include the magazines) you'll be
101 BHMBAGLOCK : There is no reason to amortize the costs over only 80 frames. That would be like Boeing amortizing the costs of the 767 tanker program fully over the
102 Post contains images Atmx2000 : It has nothing to do with xenophobia, and more to do with the fact that long distance supply lines would be perilous in a subnuclear WWIII scenario.
103 Post contains images Astuteman : You sort of make my point quite superbly....... Regards
104 Blackbird : I'm glad Boeing won. For all the great lengths politiicans and people at Boeing went to to make sure Boeing won and the Airbus lost, it would be tragi
105 Lumberton : This is an organization that currently "enjoys" a 14% approval rating overall; they are no strangers to poor politics. What is significant is that in
106 Lumberton : Of course not, but it introduces significant risk to one's pricing. Will these companies be willing to carry a money losing program for 5 years or so
107 BHMBAGLOCK : Nobody's won or lost anything at this point. What on earth are you talking about? Absolutely true. It's also where some smart management and innovati
108 Atmx2000 : Not really, the reality of NATO has been that it was always a one sided affair, with the US (and maybe Canada) coming to the rescue of Western Europe
109 AirRyan : Politics in the US have taken on that the likes of the high school popularity contests where the most well funded usually win regardless as to any me
110 Dougloid : At the time, probably not a great deal but consider how things have changed since?
111 Post contains links Lumberton : If anyone has any doubts about how this is going to play politically, read this editorial by Mr. Richard Michalski of the International Association of
112 Zeke : Mr. Richard Michalski seems to be as much a spokesperson for "International Machinists" as the KKK is for the political reform in South Africa. If he
113 Post contains links Lumberton : http://www.house.gov/ http://www.senate.gov/
114 Zeke : " target=_blank>http://www.senate.gov/ Like to point to where they say they believe it ?
115 Lumberton : I should have put a simley in my response. As for proving what they think, the point was that it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks, even
116 Dougloid : Zeeek, I think you're misinformed. There's nothing international about the IAM. It's a union for aircraft workers in the states and it's mostly cente
117 Post contains images JayinKitsap : It appears that the DOD by going to the fixed price on 80 planes and delaying the decision to later this fall has politics in mind. The award will hap
118 Texfly101 : Quote from the referenced article "This aerial refueling tanker decision is about jobs — jobs for machinists, engineers, programmers and thousands o
119 Post contains images Lumberton : Although I'm not sure McCain is as "anti-Boeing" as some would believe. He went after the tanker lease deal because that deal would have set a preced
120 Texfly101 : You are so right on this one. The deal stunk from the beginning...and I work for them. I guess what I am saying with Senator McCain is his rhetoric l
121 TexL1649 : McCain will become utterly irrelevant on the national stage, except for perhaps his role as a Robert Byrd-level oratorical annoyance, in less than 5 m
122 Post contains links TropicBird : A free teaser from WSJ confirms that indeed, they (NG) have remained involved because they did not want to anger the USAF. The full article goes into
123 Post contains links DEVILFISH : More fuel for the fire..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-raise-competition-questions.html Quote: "Arguing it cannot afford to operate two
124 TropicBird : The DoD typically has 2 competitors who will build several test models and compete against each other for the final contract. The losing platform then
125 Curt22 : You started out this thread with the idea of mending fences...and while our relationships with other nations in important, so is the defense of our n
126 Post contains images Lumberton : Leaving the technical and political issues aside for a moment, there are issues with preserving the defense infrastructure. If we bought foreign tank
127 Post contains links Zeke : It is actually very common in such situations for data to be held in escrow, but Airbus has been burnt in the past with the U.S. stealing data via Ec
128 Curt22 : It's very true that nations need to preserve their industrial base, and as for foreign governments withholding support for US military endeavors...an
129 F27Friendship : there is a difference in letting someone use your souvereign airspace for acts of war you don't agree with, than disturbing a commercial contract. Bu
130 Zeke : The governments of France and Spain did not allow over flights, I dont blame them, the are less than 1000 nm from Libya, it was a beef between the US
131 Post contains links and images RedFlyer : Well, I would say it goes both ways... http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/09/14/spy_.php It sure is.
132 Curt22 : My point wasn't is there no difference between politics and business, simply that placing the responsibility for executing ones political agenda at t
133 ArniePie : The idea that the tanker platform will be going to Boeing is very understandable for all I care ,even; -If the KC330 would be the better plane. -If t
134 Atmx2000 : The "data" "stolen" was proof Airbus was breaking the laws of other countries by engaging in bribery, not technical data. I can't see the harm in exp
135 XT6Wagon : nevermind that its apparently still going on from the investgations getting sat on by politicians high up.
136 Atmx2000 : The difference is that the US has had major installations in Europe for a very long time now, and any crisis affecting most European countries would
137 Cloudy : ANY solution to any diplomatic problem can be said to cause problems afterwards. Sometimes it is better to fight earlier than to fight later. Usually
138 Curt22 : Your right...no reason at all to believe the US would not do the same, and this is my point...it is unwise to place one's political agenda at the mer
139 Curt22 : Well said... In the past...there were "empires" in europe who filled thier coffers with riches stolen (or exploited) from others that they could conq
140 Post contains links and images Zeke : Great, you dragged up events over 15 years ago....got something recent and relevant....have a look at how many of the US allies that are involved in
141 Post contains images RedFlyer : 15 years is not ancient, by any means. In fact, it is not only fairly recent, but it seems the French were up to no good first, which, if anything, g
142 RedFlyer : How? Do you have proof? (And I don't mean conjecture from some newspaper article.) Proof? Not really. Europe -- certain countries anyway, in particul
143 Atmx2000 : It supposedly does sniff on everything, but there is zero evidence that they turn over any technical data to US corporations. Please, the NSA doesn't
144 Post contains links Zeke : On US targets or people, and they were also deliberately antagonising them by sitting with a couple of carrier battle groups just off the coast (12 m
145 RedFlyer : While the targets may have been U.S. related, that does not address the fact that European sovereignty was violated. As for those carrier battle grou
146 Atmx2000 : In 1988, the French SIGINT intelligence service intercepted valuable intelligence regarding the new generation Boeing’s plane 747-400. The method t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Indian Army And The HAL Dhruv posted Thu Aug 17 2006 18:51:03 by RAPCON
How The Boeing C-5 Design And The 747 A Like posted Sun Feb 5 2006 01:20:02 by 747400sp
ESA And The Russian Clipper posted Wed Sep 28 2005 11:06:05 by RichardPrice
Ladybower Reservoir And The RAF posted Wed Mar 16 2005 17:28:11 by Planespotterx
Germany And The Flugzeugtraeger posted Wed Mar 16 2005 01:47:08 by Vanguard737
"Iron Eagle" And The Israeli Air Force... posted Fri Nov 26 2004 06:20:51 by USAFHummer
British Aerospace And The Nimrod posted Thu Feb 5 2004 19:10:49 by SpeedbirdHeavy
Gulf War II Air Recon Imagery And The Media posted Wed Mar 26 2003 12:55:38 by Tomh
F-35B And The New UK Carriers posted Sat Feb 22 2003 20:45:05 by Soren-a
C-17 And The USAF. posted Fri Sep 20 2002 14:29:13 by Hkgspotter1