ArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14843 times:
With this second part starting let me put in a "new idea" as to why the USAF decided to go for the EADS/NG combo besides it being the better performer.
Maybe they also are (rightfully) unhappy with the idea of only 2 major suppliers available (B&LM) and now with NG getting this contract they still have the option to choose from at least 2 suppliers when the need arises , B&NG for the larger airframes and B&LM for the fighters and other smaller frames.
This contract gave them the best possible excuse to go for a non-Boeing product, it won on technical merit, it isn't that more expensive and the majority of the money and work will stay in the US.
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1923 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14788 times:
WOW, I spent the evening out rolled into the driveway at 340 AM and decided I might as well check to see if anything happened. This is GREAT news for NG and EADS. Congrats to them, I can only assume they are partying hard tonight! Again this is great news and this will be interesting to follow in the coming months to see what Boeing does in response.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14775 times:
I am totally surprised, however, somehow I have expected this decision, because they were so reluctant to tell what they have decided on. I think they would have presented a Boeing solution to the public earlier.
Nbgskygod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 597 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14776 times:
As a Boeing fan I am a little disappointed that the Air Force went with the KC-45 program rather than the KC-767, however I believe that they made a good decision based on the fact that this will bring more skilled labor to the Mobile area, as well as other locations around the country. Another item I didn't see mentioned was that several other countries have purchased the KC-767 including Italy and Japan. I saw in another post that production was lagging, but this may encourage them to attempt to rectify this issue. Another issue is that in the future, I believe, is that Boeing will receive more orders for C-17s, P-8s, and will have more preference for future projects.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14604 times:
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1): Maybe they also are (rightfully) unhappy with the idea of only 2 major suppliers available (B&LM) and now with NG getting this contract they still have the option to choose from at least 2 suppliers when the need arises , B&NG for the larger airframes and B&LM for the fighters and other smaller frames.
This is a military contract, purchasing equipment to protect and defend the nation, even if two suppliers are demanded, the other US company should have thrown in a US designed a/c rather than going for the money and just building under licence another companies product, if the US Airforce had cut out the middle man - NG - in this purchase, I'm certain the purchase price directly from EADS would have been much lower.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3593 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14532 times:
Fact simply is that the USAF at one point had to order from Airbus as Lockheed and MDD are no longer around in the transport aircraft business and there is only one US supplier left. How can all those denouncing the decision seriously believe that it would be in the best interest of the USAF and the US taxpayer to make the USAF an eternal Boeing slave, no matter what quality and what price Boeing are able or willing to offer. The A330MRTT is the perfect product to make that point to the US mil aviation industry as the product has a competitive advantage and is not a combat aircraft. Apart from that, as probably has been pointed out ad nauseam, the A330MRTT in a way is as much a US product as the Boeing 767 is a non-US aircraft. It needs to be understood that building large aircraft nowadays is always an international process and in the end only the brand under which the aircraft is sold makes it "US" or "European". Nicely illustrated by the way by the reporting on that deal where most US reports fully concentrate on the NG link rather than the Airbus pedigree of the platform.
I guess sooner or later airlines like Delta, American and Southwest will understand the rationale behind this decision as well.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14475 times:
Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 11): How can all those denouncing the decision seriously believe that it would be in the best interest of the USAF and the US taxpayer to make the USAF an eternal Boeing slave, no matter what quality and what price Boeing are able or willing to offer.
reminds me of family, where it is ok for a family member to insult each other but if an outsider tries it??????
I think you need to look beyond Boeing and think American, if the only American company that can build a/c is Boeing what does that say for the industrial capacity of the nation? At the end of the Cold War, the "military industrial complex" was quoted by some as being used to keep the US economy afloat with jobs, funds etc., the more this complex gets out-sourced simply means that US taxpayers will have to put up even more as a greater percentage of their taxes have to go "abroad".
ArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14443 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 7): even if two suppliers are demanded, the other US company should have thrown in a US designed a/c rather than going for the money and just building under licence another companies product,
Sorry but that is just not a realistic option.
A proven design was preferred and besides the 767 there was nothing in the US that would be a viable choice.
It's not as if you can just quickly come up with some new airframe, if that was the case LM might have entered the race too.
The reality is/was that the 330 is the only real contender (and a better one at that) and both NG and EADS had the right idea on how to get the best chance of securing the contract by teaming up.
It is still no crime to out think your competitor and that is exactly what happened here.
As for it having it to be "an American plane" is at best purely patriotically motivated reason.
In history more US defense companies have chosen to join forces with foreign defense contractors because of an already existing platform that would fit the needs for the military.
A wise choice to do and because of the vastness of many defense contracts from the US DOD most are extensively Americanized anyway making it in reality an as good as American product (AV8B, GOSHAWK,LAKOTA,...).
Some of you guys need to realize that there is more than just your own dot on the globe and sometimes it is best to just rely on what befriended nations can offer (I'mcertainly not adressing our American friends alone with this statement!! ).
PS Like stated in other threads, I sincerely hope some (also Belgium) nations go for the C17 as an addition to their transport fleets, lord knows we can use them, and now that the US decided to go for our tankers, maybe we could buy what we need from them.
It won't be as hard to sell to the public because a lot of large weapon system come out of the US anyway but it will certainly be more of a budgetary problem , we are just not always as prepared to pay for what is necessary for our armed forces as people are across the pond.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14397 times:
From part I
You guys post faster than I can read!
Some seem seriously put out. Does Ikra really think this after a few hours to contemplate?
Quoting Ikramerica,Part I reply=13: Seriously, our military has a LONG history of buying the WRONG product, products that don't work, that crash, that explode. So assuming it must be the better choice is a big assumption.
If he did, he should forward his opinions to our Min for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, who is even now examining dominantly US products that the Howard government was desirous of buying.
A more balanced and overall, suggestion that gives greater balance to the outcomes is:
Quoting BHMBAGLOCK,Part I reply=101: I think in the long run this will be the best economic choice for the US as well. We'll get freighter production which is an incremental add to the economy and I think we'll suddenly see a lot more interest in some of our more unique products from Europe such as the C-17 as there will now be little to no political price to pay for buying these US products.
The current balance of US purchases of European military equipment against European purchases of US military equipment has to be heavily in favour of the US. Over time, this tanker decision, provided it is implemented could have a far more favourable impact on US sales of military equipment than if the tankers had been bought from Boeing.
The other balancing factor is that perhaps twice or or more than twice as many freighters will come out of Mobile than this lot of tankers. That will be a huge benefit to the US. The arguments about assembly and building are really strange. Effectively most of what would have been done in Toulouse on these planes is surely now going to be done in the US. And yet for some, this is still not right. What do you want to happen to the French for goodness sake?
With the number of new planes now up over ?300, surely it is time for a new set of engines as Zeke suggests, at least bleed versions of the GEnx, and perhaps later versions of the Trents, if not Lights beloved Pratts?
So far, it appears globalization is alive, perhaps not well in some localities, but alive. Let us see how it fares during the "night".
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9077 posts, RR: 13 Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14340 times:
I have not read the entire previous thread about this but why hasn't Boeing offered a B767-300ER based variant of the tanker to be able to better compete with the A330 Tanker? Were there specific reasons for this? Like others have said, Boeing is still in the running as this is the first order for the tanker replacement. I also wonder what will happen when Democrats will win the elections. Will this order still stand? I assume if it will be cancelled, the US Government will have to pay a very high fine. I don't think NG/EADS will take it lightly if it would be cancelled.
In any case, congrats to NG/EADS for winning this deal.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14327 times:
Quoting A388 (Reply 17): I also wonder what will happen when Democrats will win the elections. Will this order still stand?
there is very little precedent for an incoming administration of another party to cancel a contract to favor another contractor, canceling the whole program is not unknown but not likely to be the case here as the USAF is desperate for new tankers
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2738 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14316 times:
The -200ER was offered over the -300ER simply because both aircraft share the same wing, and lift the same amount of weight. The larger fuselage of the -300 means that though it can carry more cargo volume, it also carries less payload because of the increased weight of thte fuselage.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14272 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 18): there is very little precedent for an incoming administration of another party to cancel a contract to favor another contractor, canceling the whole program is not unknown but not likely to be the case here as the USAF is desperate for new tankers
They thought we were desperate for new bombers too, when Jimmy Carter took office.
Quote: "Boeing will probably try to overturn the result, but that will be hard because the Air Force did not rate their proposal as superior in any measure," said defense analyst Loren Thompson. "Anyone who tries to raise the 'made in America' banner on Boeing's behalf has to explain why they want to force an inferior plane on America's warfighters."
I think he makes some excellent points. He is with the Lexington Institute btw.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3593 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14178 times:
Not sure if it has been mentioned in one of the countless threads here but media quote sources that the Northrop proposal came out on top in four of five categories and the fifth categorie was dead even.
So apparently a 4,5 : 0,5 win and quite clearly a non-brainer.
25 MD-90: And yet if Ron Paul was president and the USAF said "this is the most capable tanker available, and we need it," he'd support the purchase. Even if i
26 MCIGuy: In retrospect, maybe if BIDS realized the USAF wanted to replace apples with oranges then they could have offered the KC-777 and walked away with this
27 Curt22: "An eternal Boeing slave"...That's funny! However the alternative is being a 'Slave" to another nation (France) who has consistently disagreed with U
28 Vfw614: Applying your logic to the US export sales of military aircraft, be it the F15, F16, F18, the C130, the C17, you name them, no nation with a clear mi
29 MigPilot: I wonder what highly classified parts for the A330 the devilish French should withhold? The ‘special’ parts that make it a KC30 will come from No
30 Columba: I have once been told that the Swiss once had problems with the US regarding spares of their F18s.
31 AirRyan: After watching that press conference yesterday it was very clear that Sue Payton and her group had long since came to the conlcusion that the NG bid
32 ArniePie: Probably the coffee machine, the most important piece of equipment anyway.
33 AWACSooner: Ladies and gentlemen, We all know that most of us (myself included) have passionate opinions about this decision. While I'm not trying to incite A vs.
34 Glideslope: A very good opinion , IMO. I agree. I've stated for a while now that IMO, we are putting too many eggs in the B-Basket.