Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal  
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6833 times:

Short and sweet, when do we find out if the USAF are able to stick with the original decision to buy the European designed tanker ? Will true democracy and freedom of choice prevail or will we see a U turn of all that is supposed to be good in the USA.

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6832 times:

Boeing protested. The GAO has until June 19 to review the contract selection. They'll most likely approve USAF's selection, What happens after that is anybody's guess. Howls from the Washington and Kansas congressional delegations, certainly. Political accusations between Obama and McCain, probably.

User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3397 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6707 times:

I won't be counting this as firm until the new president has made themselves comfortable in the oval office early next year as they could always reverse any decision (or cancel the programme altogether!)

User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6657 times:



Quoting Dougbr2006 (Thread starter):
Will true democracy

So I am curious, how is "true" democracy served here if my tax dollars and my neighbor's jobs go overseas when there are two very viable alternatives?

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Thread starter):
freedom of choice

Freedom of choice by who? I am the taxpayer, I elect members of Congress to represent me. It seems to me if Congress decides not to buy the European tanker then perhaps it's because their constituents don't want them to. So far it's really only the Air Force, NG, the Alabama congressional delegation, Airbus and a whole bunch of foreigners that want us to buy this plane. I would suggest you Google news for "Boeing Tanker".

It seems even the analysts who where originally fed a load of Air Force BS are now questioning the wisdom of the deal. See Loren Thompson's about face. http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml

So I wonder, are you just trolling? This is all good in the USA. One way or the other the better tanker overall both in capabilities and what is best economically for this country will be bought. The GAO is just going to give Congress the ammunition to kill the deal. It does not matter if they say it needs to be re-bid.


User currently offlineDecromin From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6650 times:

I don't think it's about democracy. I think it's about placing trust in those that have been elected or appointed to make the best decisions that they can. I think if any decision (be it this, or any other government spending) is overturned simply to pork barrel local industries, then it flies in the face of what I have heard over and over again from many US sources - specifically that the government should stay out of the free market and not interfere. If that is true, then that needs to apply across the board, not just when it suits.

User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4030 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6636 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
So far it's really only the Air Force, NG, the Alabama congressional delegation, Airbus and a whole bunch of foreigners that want us to buy this plane.

Funnily enough, that short list includes what should be the most important - the operators.

Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
The GAO is just going to give Congress the ammunition to kill the deal. It does not matter if they say it needs to be re-bid.

If that happens, say hello to decades of US defence procurement being ass raped by the incumbent and sole supplier, because chances are no one else will bid - other than Boeing, there is not one single supplier in the US that was in a position to bid for the tanker contract, and that situation will hardly change for the next tanker contract, and the one after that.

Its your money, and you seem to be happy to waste it. I just hope you realise that your willingness is long term.


User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6628 times:



Quoting Decromin (Reply 4):
overturned simply to pork barrel local industries,

We are talking about far more than pork barrel local industry. Europe's entire airospace and defense industry has been nurtured and protected by European governments for years. There is no reason why we should not do the same. If you don't like it don't buy F-35s or other defense related items from us but also remember that we may not be there if and when you need us again. Plus I am sure we can stop funding the alternative engine from Rolls Royce and and perhaps we find someone else to make parts of the F-35 other than BAE. Sorry, the implied threat does not work.

Quoting Decromin (Reply 4):
specifically that the government should stay out of the free market and not interfere

Two caveats. First that is assuming that American firms enjoy the same treatment from foreign governments and that foreign governments do not give domestic industry an advantage through tariffs, currency manipulation, subsidies, etc. Second government should be involved where national security is an issue as is here.

Quoting Decromin (Reply 4):
If that is true, then that needs to apply across the board, not just when it suits.

Let me know when the UK takes that approach.


User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6622 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 2):
I won't be counting this as firm until the new president has made themselves comfortable in the oval office early next year as they could always reverse any decision (or cancel the programme altogether!)

If this happens the USAF will have to SLEP the remaining KC-135s, and hopefully they can get funding for that.

Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
So I am curious, how is "true" democracy served here if my tax dollars and my neighbor's jobs go overseas when there are two very viable alternatives?

But isn't NG saying they'll bring some thousand jobs in AL, since the aircraft if being modded here in the states, only the airframe being built in Europe?

Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
Freedom of choice by who? I am the taxpayer, I elect members of Congress to represent me. It seems to me if Congress decides not to buy the European tanker then perhaps it's because their constituents don't want them to.

Ahhhh the catch 22. Here's the problem: just because we elect our officials doesn't mean they know exactly what they are doing when it comes to military. Therefore, these officials hire bureaucrats who (supposedly) have a decent knowledge of the job they are hired to do. Think of a Captain on a cruise ship. There is absolutely no way he can operate/fix/etc everything on such a big ship; thats why there are officers for specific parts of the ship, such as navigation, engine room, blah blah blah. These officers provide the Captain information, and the Captain decides the best overall solution to appease all parties.

The only problem I have is did the USAF change its requirements during the selection process?



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6589 times:



Quoting Decromin (Reply 4):
I don't think it's about democracy. I think it's about placing trust in those that have been elected or appointed to make the best decisions that they can. I think if any decision (be it this, or any other government spending) is overturned simply to pork barrel local industries, then it flies in the face of what I have heard over and over again from many US sources - specifically that the government should stay out of the free market and not interfere. If that is true, then that needs to apply across the board, not just when it suits.

But it isn't a free market. It's a military purchase which is the most regulated form of government sector purchase, as basically the only legal domestic purchaser for most goods is the US military.

The US view is that the government sector should be kept small because its the best way to minimize governmental decisions that are often influenced by pork barrel politics. And regardless, who is to say that this decision has not been influenced by people trying to pork up Alabama?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6511 times:

Here is an interesting statement from Loren Thompson.... Looks like he changed his mind after reviewing additional evidence:

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml

In reference to the pending GAO decision "Whatever it finds, the Air Force has some explaining to do..."



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4030 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6499 times:



Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 9):
Here is an interesting statement from Loren Thompson.... Looks like he changed his mind after reviewing additional evidence:

Theres a lot of hyperbole in that there article.


User currently offlineArluna From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6495 times:

Please point out the hyperbole.

Thanks,

J


User currently offlineTristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 629 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6493 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 6):
Let me know when the UK takes that approach.

What approach are you referring to?

Quoting Alien (Reply 6):
Plus I am sure we can stop funding the alternative engine from Rolls Royce

They are in partnership with GE? How would you stop the funding without damaging a US company?

Quoting Alien (Reply 6):
Europe's entire airospace and defense industry has been nurtured and protected by European governments for years.

That is a huge generalisation. Europe is 27 sovereign nations not one country. All have their own defense policies and of the Euro collaboration projects it doesn't usually involve more than four or five. Of course at times national interests have dictated defence contracts, something you cannot claim does not occur in the US or elsewhere.

Quoting Alien (Reply 6):
If you don't like it don't buy F-35s or other defense related items from us

It amazes me when you write this. I doubt LM, NG or Boeing would agree with this stance. This closed door view will end up costing far more US jobs than what will be created over a fleet of tankers. A protectionist stance dictates a protectionist response.



If you was right..................I'd agree with you
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4030 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6478 times:



Quoting Arluna (Reply 11):
Please point out the hyperbole.

Do you want me to paste the article en masse?


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4030 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6473 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 6):
Plus I am sure we can stop funding the alternative engine from Rolls Royce and and perhaps we find someone else to make parts of the F-35 other than BAE.

And the UK can take their own ball home in the process - bang goes the lift fan technology both F-35 engines will use.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6349 times:



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 12):
It amazes me when you write this. I doubt LM, NG or Boeing would agree with this stance. This closed door view will end up costing far more US jobs than what will be created over a fleet of tankers. A protectionist stance dictates a protectionist response.

That's assuming that the European market is worth it. Given the small defense budgets, it probably isn't.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12160 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6288 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 5):
Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
So far it's really only the Air Force, NG, the Alabama congressional delegation, Airbus and a whole bunch of foreigners that want us to buy this plane.

Funnily enough, that short list includes what should be the most important - the operators.

No, I have talked to current Tanker Crews, they don't want the KC-45A.

Quoting Moo (Reply 5):
Its your money, and you seem to be happy to waste it.

Where is the waste? The extra $40B in fuel burned on the KC-45A, at current oil prices?

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 7):
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 2):
I won't be counting this as firm until the new president has made themselves comfortable in the oval office early next year as they could always reverse any decision (or cancel the programme altogether!)

If this happens the USAF will have to SLEP the remaining KC-135s, and hopefully they can get funding for that.

The KC-135Es don't need SLEP, just re-engine to KC-135Rs.

Quoting Moo (Reply 10):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 9):
Here is an interesting statement from Loren Thompson.... Looks like he changed his mind after reviewing additional evidence:

Theres a lot of hyperbole in that there article.



Quoting Moo (Reply 13):
Do you want me to paste the article en masse?

Of course not, just post the parts you don't understand.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9180 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6278 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Where is the waste? The extra $40B in fuel burned on the KC-45A, at current oil prices?

Can you stop posting that Boeing B/S propaganda, their "$40B" figure was a comparison between the 767-200 passenger aircraft to the A330-200 passenger aircraft

It has ZERO reflection on tanker operations, ZERO reflection on the heavier 767 advanced tanker, ZERO reflection on the KC-30A.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9081 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6253 times:

President Eisenhower said it well many years ago "Beware the military industrial complex" he said this in reference to the US, but I think it is good for all of us anywhere to remember today. I would not want to bet my security on the words of EADS or Boeing or NG. The USAF might have, just might have been influenced by those same people President Eisenhower warned us about, and the US GAO is supposed to protect us from such. Time will tell, hopefully the truth will out, as they say.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineTristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 629 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6213 times:



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 15):
That's assuming that the European market is worth it. Given the small defense budgets, it probably isn't.

In year 2006 (cant find more recent years) according to the EDA, the EU countries spend was 201 billion euros against 491 billion euros for the states.

And this is a market you want to ignore as being too small? What other markets would take up the slack?

http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Facts&id=310



If you was right..................I'd agree with you
User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6129 times:



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 19):
the EU countries spend was 201 billion euros against 491 billion euros for the states.

But you should have looked further. Using your site as a reference it turns out that the EU 26 spent a combined 44 billion dollars against 125 billion dollars for equipment procurement. Of that 44 billion the lion's share went to European companies for basic supplies, ammunition, clothing food etc. There are very few big ticket items being procured and the vast majority of those that are are going to European companies as well. Strip out all of the basics above, Eurofighter procurement, Rafale procurement and shipbuilding. The number is tiny compared to what the US spends.

No put the size of the initial KC-X procurement contract as well as the follow on sustainment and support costs together. It is estimated to be somewhere on the order of 100 billion dollars. Do you honestly think it wise to ship a large portion of that amount along with forfeiting a lot of military/indiustrial expertise overseas when there really is no compelling reason to do so? Would Europe do the same if they had a choice?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
It has ZERO reflection on tanker operations, ZERO reflection on the heavier 767 advanced tanker, ZERO reflection on the KC-30A.

Wrong, the fuel burn is significantly higher for the EADS tanker. It still is 30 percent heavier than the KC-767. It will still burn much more fuel. You can scream zero all you want but the KC-30 will STILL BURN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FUEL THAN THE KC-767.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
The KC-135Es don't need SLEP, just re-engine to KC-135Rs.

Probably the smartest most cost effective option of all.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 15):
That's assuming that the European market is worth it. Given the small defense budgets, it probably isn't.

They will still buy what they can get no where else from us just as we buy from them when necessary.

Quoting Moo (Reply 14):
And the UK can take their own ball home in the process - bang goes the lift fan technology both F-35 engines will use.

Bang - thats wrong. BAE did not invent it. Lockheed Martin did and they licensed the technology to BAE North America.

Quote:
The Lift Fan, a patented Lockheed Martin design, was developed and produced by Rolls-Royce Corp. at its North American facility in Indianapolis, Indiana.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-prop.htm

Frankly, it would not be a bad thing if they pulled out. BAE is burning the candle at both ends and the middle with interests in EF, F-35 and Gripen. The UK invested just a little over 2 billion dollars in a 30 - 40 billion dollar development program and will now reap economic (not mention technology) benefits in excess of 20 billion dollars as well as an alternative engine that they you are getting paid to help develop.

Yeah, let the UK take their ball and go home. I'm sure Boeing, or Spirit, or IBM or a combination of companies would love to take up the slack. What would happen? We sell a few less JSF? We no longer have a need for the model that is causing the most trouble, delay and design compromise, the F-35B? Big deal.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 12):
It amazes me when you write this. I doubt LM, NG or Boeing would agree with this stance. This closed door view will end up costing far more US jobs than what will be created over a fleet of tankers. A protectionist stance dictates a protectionist response.

The facts don't seem to support your view. In the end the one truly large defense program that Europe in general and the UK in particular will be buying into is the F-35 and they will continue to do so because it is unique and it is a good deal for them, especially the UK.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6109 times:



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 19):
In year 2006 (cant find more recent years) according to the EDA, the EU countries spend was 201 billion euros against 491 billion euros for the states.

Acquisition budgets are only a portion of the defense budget, and acquisition budgets are smaller as a percentage of the overall defense budget in Europe.

Quote:
And this is a market you want to ignore as being too small?

The fragmentation of the market amongst multiple militaries means individual wins are smaller, meaning yield on sales efforts are smaller.

Quote:
What other markets would take up the slack?

As far as I can tell the US doesn't run a defense export surplus to Europe, so there would be no loss for the US if there was a boycott.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 629 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6099 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 20):
But you should have looked further. Using your site as a reference it turns out that the EU 26 spent a combined 44 billion dollars against 125 billion dollars for equipment procurement. Of that 44 billion the lion's share went to European companies for basic supplies, ammunition, clothing food etc. There are very few big ticket items being procured and the vast majority of those that are are going to European companies as well. Strip out all of the basics above, Eurofighter procurement, Rafale procurement and shipbuilding. The number is tiny compared to what the US spends.

My point was not about what it is spent on, but rather should the US industry turn their back on a market over a tanker deal not being awarded to an American company. But it could be argued the vast majority of recent big ticket items in the US have gone to US companies.

Comparisons on how much is spent are meaningless. The US by themselves spend the majority of the total global market. Their is still a 250+ billion euro market in arms in the EU (not counting non-EU nations i.e Norway). You own stock in both Boeing and NG Alien. As a shareholder do you feel it is wise to not at least try to increase your companies revenues?

Quoting Alien (Reply 20):
No put the size of the initial KC-X procurement contract as well as the follow on sustainment and support costs together. It is estimated to be somewhere on the order of 100 billion dollars. Do you honestly think it wise to ship a large portion of that amount along with forfeiting a lot of military/indiustrial expertise overseas when there really is no compelling reason to do so? Would Europe do the same if they had a choice?

$100 billion is an awful lot of money, but it is still only one seventh of your defence spend of 2006 and it will be consolidated over the tankers life. If the tankers serve 30 years it is costs of 3.3 billion per year, a tiny percentage of the annual budget. $100 billion will not disappear overnight and some 60% remains in the US paying Americans.

If you were talking about an F-22 type programme, then I'd agree with you it would not be wise to ship expertise abroad. But, at the end of the day, we are talking about a civil airliner modified to pump gas. This is mid 19th century technology. I do not see how it affects the US technological capability.

As for would Europe do the same? The premise itself is wrong. Europe is not one nation. As a UK citizen looking at aircraft currently in service with our armed forces I would say that with Apache, Chinook, AWACS, Predator B, C-17, C-130 as well as the impending F-35 (not including the soon to be retired Sea King and Tristar) we cannot be accused of ignoring US products. That is seven frontline assets from the US with eight currently in-service. If you have a problem with SOME European nations, take it up with their respective governments or defence departments, but if I was one of their representatives, I would ask to be shown the number of non-US equipment in frontline service with the USAF as a comparison.



If you was right..................I'd agree with you
User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6079 times:



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 22):
Comparisons on how much is spent are meaningless.

Not at all. I think for this discussion we are looking at the deal from a purely economic/industrial point of view. The dollars spent are very much relevant.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 22):
Their is still a 250+ billion euro market in arms in the EU

No, not at all true according to the EU site you used as a source. Look at the chart showing the breakdown. by category. Less than 30 Bln Euros, and like I have said, not much spent on big ticket items other than Typhoon, Rafale, and shipbuilding.

Equipment Procurement € 29,1 Bln € 83,0 Bln

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 22):
If the tankers serve 30 years it is costs of 3.3 billion per year, a tiny percentage of the annual budget. $100 billion will not disappear overnight and some 60% remains in the US paying Americans.

Why 60 percent or more accurately 58 percent when it could/should be closer to 85 percent as with the Boeing offering. You say it yourself this is not high tech. Of the 40 Bln procurement cost I am sending 13 Bln of it needlessly offshore.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 22):
I do not see how it affects the US technological capability.

Take a look at the mess NG has made of ship building. Very much low tech but the manufacturing processes have been forgotten and the supply chain disrupted since the business has consolidated. Tell me why should I help one of my country's best exporters competitor? The total lunacy. Now if you said NG was going to license build the airframe here or develop a new airframe I would be the first one on the bandwagon. That is simply not the case. The engineering and manufacturing expertise is staying in Wales and France and Germany.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 22):
As for would Europe do the same? The premise itself is wrong.

Lets not split hairs. European nations all (rightfully) protect their industries. The entire Tornado and EF project and the birth of Airbus is a direct result of European governments protecting and nurturing the local aerospace industry.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 22):
Apache, Chinook, AWACS, Predator B, C-17, C-130

There never was a cost effective equivalent for any of these products when the decision was made to buy them. The US does the same, witness the M240 machine gun and both the 105 and 120mm tank cannons. The F-35 is a joint project with the UK getting significant economic and technological payback. BAE Wharton is building significant parts of the airframe and Rolls has a significant stake in the alternative engine.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 22):
but if I was one of their representatives, I would ask to be shown the number of non-US equipment in front line service with the USAF as a comparison.

Again, that comparison is irrelevant on many levels not the least of which is that there are certain things you could not get anywhere else when you bough them unless you where willing to spend vast sums of money and go the French route. It's not just SOME European nations. In fact I think of all of them the French are at least the most up front about the whole thing.

Keep the tanker. We will buy other things from Europe when it makes sense and Europe frankly can do what they wish. It really does not matter economically for us and it would be better I think if we where a bit less involved with Europe (all of it) anyway.


User currently offlineTristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 629 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6065 times:



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 21):
Acquisition budgets are only a portion of the defense budget, and acquisition budgets are smaller as a percentage of the overall defense budget in Europe.



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 21):
The fragmentation of the market amongst multiple militaries means individual wins are smaller, meaning yield on sales efforts are smaller.

And these comments apply equally to the rest of the world, bar China and Russia. So why bother trying to sell to any foreign countries?



If you was right..................I'd agree with you
25 Moo : LM may have invented it, but they don't have a usable product - the entire current design is from Rolls Royce, not LM.[Edited 2008-05-30 00:42:00]
26 Moo : OF course they don't, its not American. I am impressed that you managed to talk to every crew member in the USAF (and other operators) - did you call
27 TristarAtLCA : The comparison of nations expenditure is meaningless, not the dollars spent on this deal. So not far off the same ratio as total expenditure. And to
28 Alien : I think you may be missing the point. We where talking about (at least I was) whether it really mattered if some European countries decided to stop b
29 TristarAtLCA : My point is totally valid. Bar China and Russia, what other nations don't fulfil the same criteria that was posted. Asia is as militarily fragmented
30 WarRI1 : I do not think of it as a magical aircraft, nor does anyone else, what you have is a learning process, where we have learned to defend ourselves, bec
31 Scbriml : By selecting what they think is the best product for the job?
32 JGPH1A : Since when has that been the issue in defence procurement ?
33 Scbriml : Since they decided to go for competetive bids?
34 WarRI1 : That is the point, what is the determining factors?, how was it arrived at, how come Europe seems to pick by country and region and we cannot? If Eur
35 JGPH1A : Competitive American bids - of course, NG had to upset the apple cart by actually sub-tendering in a foreign supplier with a superior product. Curses
36 Alien : Whether the product is technically superior or not is very much up for debate. What is not debatable is whether it is good for the US overall in havi
37 WarRI1 : NG, should surely have known better, but all those retired AF Generals on EADS and NG's payroll must have thought that the Airbus product would go un
38 Glideslope : LOL, your all missing the point. All we need to do is watch for EADS excecutives to sell stock. Then we will know it's the KC-767 ADV.
39 JGPH1A : USAF seems to think so. It's their tanker, they get to decide.
40 Par13del : It took a while for this to surface but it is the entire key to the entire issue. To NG this is a money issue and nothing whatsoever to do with natio
41 Zeke : The KC-45A provides more capability for a lower cost. As defined under the USAF RFP, the KC-45A is more efficient than the KC-767AT, Boeing does not
42 WarRI1 : We will find out shortly, if they get to decide or not. they made a choice, that is subject to oversight to see if it is in the best interests of the
43 KC135TopBoom : No, Zeke. As usual, you haven't a clue about tankers. They are not airliners that pump fuel to other airplanes. The KC-30/-45 will be significantly h
44 Alien : Amazing. So much for EADS' bigger is better argument. Well it still will be nice to have the extra cargo capacity that the KC-767 brings. I understan
45 Zeke : My posting history on the topic speaks for itself, I have clearly demonstrated that I do know something about tankers, know something about the A330/
46 Alien : Of course with the "facts" according to Zeke. Never mind they where usually unsubstantiated. As long as it's from Zeke it must be true! The USAF reje
47 WarRI1 : I cannot understand how this point gets overlooked by the airbus fans, In most of the history of warfare, bigger was not always better. This flying g
48 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Yes, Zeke, they do speak for themselves. Oh really? Just how do you get that fuel from the center wing tank, to the boom, or WARPs with the already e
49 Checksixx : No...they 'should' get to decide, but thats not how it works anymore. We (the USAF) can tell everyone what we need to do the job, but it usually land
50 Post contains links and images Zeke : Not to mention the numerous private messages we have had on the topic, you have asked me many times privatively for tanker data, and A330 systems inf
51 M27 : So, what are you saying? They had Boeing bid on apples, and EADS/NG bid on oranges! That hardley seems fair! Or, are you saying EADS/NG through in a
52 Zeke : If you were familiar with the RFP it listed numerous options which the USAF could choose from, the USAF was under no obligation to take some or all o
53 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Really? Then why do KC-135Rs or KC-10As take off with less than full tanks? It is different if the planned offload is XX.Xlbs and the receiver reques
54 Atmx2000 : The A333 was the first model. The A332 only came out in the late 90s.
55 Alien : Where have you been? That has NEVER been the case and it never should be the case. There is no tail wagging the dog here. The military serves the cit
56 KC135TopBoom : Opps, sorry. I went back and looked it up, the A-330-300 does pre-date the A-330-200. Both you and Zeke are correct. That's because the USAF (recentl
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal
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...
When Is The Sky The Limit posted Tue Apr 13 2004 23:06:30 by Schweizair
The US Tanker Deal Again posted Sat Dec 13 2003 10:28:57 by Racko
Bad Trouble On The ISS, The Loo Is OTS posted Tue May 27 2008 19:19:56 by L-188
It Sure Is Different In The Air Force posted Thu Jan 11 2007 14:08:28 by Army15P
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
767 Tanker Deal: Bailout For Boeing posted Fri Jun 10 2005 07:52:13 by Scotron11
What Is The F-35? Is It The JSF? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 18:14:33 by AndrewUber
When Will They Retire The Tankers? posted Wed Dec 31 2003 11:33:38 by Duke
Boeing Gets Usaf 767 Tanker Deal posted Fri May 23 2003 20:35:19 by United777
Eads Wins RAF Tanker Deal posted Thu Mar 27 2008 09:06:40 by SINGAPORE_AIR

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format