justloveplanes
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:25 pm

From Yahoo!

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060925/aero_airforce_contract.html?.v=1

"Citing a senior Pentagon official, The Journal said the plan also envisions funding tanker-development efforts by both companies until the winner is selected."

The above story is interesting in that the Pentagon will fund development by both companies, at which point a decision will be made. This just convinces me even more that the EU and the US have made a trade deal that includes:

1) No or Modified Launch Aid for Airbus.
2) Equal footing for Airbus in US DOD.

I think this would be good because launch aid served its purpose to jump start Airbus, but at 50% market share I think it is a dilutive force. At that point injecting subsidies diminishes the value of both Airbus and Boeing as it clouds market efficiencies, which for mature multibillion dollar companies is the best way to ensure growth, etc.

The participation of Airbus in DOD would be good too. The theory behind setting Boeing and Airbus on like footing (open market) should put Airbus in the US DOD market on like footing as well. Airbus can expect to receive its share of the pie as DOD ensures all its strategic big guys (Boeing, Lockmart, Northrup and General Dynamics, and now BAE and EADS) are fed, though some better than others based on merit.

I feel this would be a better arrangement going forward.

JLP
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:29 am

hmm, so the US capitulates to the EU and starts subsidising Airbus so EADS can sell more Airbusses at below cost rates, thus outcompeting Boeing.

Can't see how anyone but the EU gets a good deal out of that.
I wish I were flying
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:52 am

Forgive me, but never gonna happen. This is simply leverage over Boeing to make sure they get a good price on wheatever Boeing decides to offer. The reason is that the Pentagon is keen on keeping this in the US. They are fully aware of political ramifications and that contracts go out the window in time of war. They will never buy their tanker overseas because they don't want to be beholden to the political whims of the nations of the parent company. They won't even take the chance that parts and supplies get cut off because a country or group of countries doesn't agree with the current operations.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:53 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
This is simply leverage over Boeing to make sure they get a good price on wheatever Boeing decides to offer.

My take exactly - although much of Airbus components are US sourced, to begin with, as both manufacturers share some suppliers that it becomes moot. A minimum US content for critical parts could even be written into the RFP so there would be no gray areas.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:06 am

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
hmm, so the US capitulates to the EU and starts subsidising Airbus so EADS can sell more Airbusses at below cost rates, thus outcompeting Boeing.

Can't see how anyone but the EU gets a good deal out of that.

That's why Congress would never let it happen, and they need the approval of Congress to approve such a deal. Look what happened with Dubai Port deal, the Bush Administration gave their approval to let Dubai Ports puchase P&O's Port Operations in the US. Once Congress and the media got a hold of it the deal was off.

Same would happen under the proposed scenarios with EADS.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:25 pm

Why do so many people misspell Northrop with a u?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:46 pm

I just don't see USAF being allowed to order a new tanker. Funding over the F-22 is very tight, and they need more of those airplanes. It looks like Congress is extending the C-17 production, at least for one more year (2009) with 10 additional airplanes. The F-35 production start is just over the horizon, and the USAF is beginning to look at a new bomber beginning in 2018 or so.

Congress knows they can rebuild the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs for a lot less money and still have the same refueling capability. Congress also knows the USAF needs 600 new tankers (to replace all KC-135s and later the KC-10s), and plans to enter a new tanker compitition after the first 150-200 of these tankers are built (around the years 2022-2025, based on production of 15-20 new tankers per year).

Rebuilding the KC-135Es will put off the need for new tankers until that 2022-2025 time frame.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...S&WTmodLoc=HybArt-L2-CompanyNews-2
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:36 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
hmm, so the US capitulates to the EU and starts subsidising Airbus so EADS can sell more Airbusses at below cost rates, thus outcompeting Boeing.

Can't see how anyone but the EU gets a good deal out of that.

I don't see that it is such a strategic fence to climb with the EU. Getting rid of Airbus launch aid will strengthen Boeing's overall position as a company - and that is good. Also, the EU buys a good bit of US stuff, reciprocating might be in our best interests. When I wrote this, I was thinking the order could have been split, which would keep a good portion of the orders B767 based. Also, wouldn't GE engines, Honeywell avionics and spares and program engineering support from Northrop help with the foreign sourcing issue?

Mind you I am not an Airbus fan, but I HATE launch aid. Screws up everything on the commercial side IMHO.

There have been some good points raised though. Now USAF is saying no split and a decision by next summer. I take that to mean the launch aid deal has fallen through and we will see all US tankers and launch aid for the A350XWB.

JLP
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 7):
When I wrote this, I was thinking the order could have been split, which would keep a good portion of the orders B767 based.

Link

Quote:
In January, 2006 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the cancellation of the KC-767 program.

I still don't think Boeing's next offering will be 767-based. They will offer something newer.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:31 am

I still think the USAF is waiting for the 787 to see what that bird can do.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:23 am

 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:08 pm

I don't think the USAF will ever forgive France for not allowing French airspace overflights to bomb Libya. That denial caused about (if I remember) 10 air hours added to the mission.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:36 pm

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 7):
GE engines

Actually the KC-767A proposal to the USAF has P&W engines

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 8):
I still don't think Boeing's next offering will be 767-based. They will offer something newer.



Quoting Echster (Reply 10):
Seems the KC-777 is on tap:



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 9):
I still think the USAF is waiting for the 787 to see what that bird can do.

Hmmm, is the A-330-200F, A-340-500, A-350-800, and B-747-800F out of consideration now? I still think we will see the KC-135Es reengined to the KC-135R
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:19 pm

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 9):
I still think the USAF is waiting for the 787 to see what that bird can do.

You think so?

Boeing hasn't even discussed a freighter version of the 787, let alone a tanker version. And not to mention delivery slots are pretty much taken up to 2011.

What is Boeing or Airbus saying the earliest they could start deliveries? Surely it's well before the a KC787 could be introduced.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:13 pm

Why do people keep thinking Airbus is in the running, Boeing is the only option.
Just because Airbus teamed up with Northrop doesn't make a difference.
I Love HNL.............
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:12 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Hmmm, is the A-330-200F, A-340-500, A-350-800, and B-747-800F out of consideration now? I still think we will see the KC-135Es reengined to the KC-135R

According to the USAF criteria...some of these models are still play. As TopBoom has astutely noted, it is still premature to feel confident what the final offerings to the USAF will be.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):

I understand what you’re saying, but I look at it this way:

If the 787 will be successful as Boeing claims, there are numerous advantages over the 767 and possibly the 777-200 if Boeing goes ahead with the 787-10. Lower operating costs, less fuel consumption, lighter but stronger airframe (less dead weight, more cargo capacity) etc. Hence, just my opinion why the USAF is waiting for the 787. Why replace an aging fleet (KC-135s) with another aging fleet (767s) when you can have a newer aircraft (787) that is superior?

Again, just my  twocents 
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:21 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
I still think we will see the KC-135Es reengined to the KC-135R

With all due respect, much as you like the 135s, those who control the purse strings seem to be prodded to have a new type(s) in service.  scratchchin 

Re-engined 135Rs would take as much time to enter service, as Boeing need to develop and mature a KC-777 design - which makes the prospect of another long wait likely.

Or at best, 135Rs only in numbers sufficient to tide the fleet along until the ultimate winner of the tanker contest are ordered and delivered.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:51 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Boeing hasn't even discussed a freighter version of the 787, let alone a tanker version. And not to mention delivery slots are pretty much taken up to 2011.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington. I'm sure Boeing would find a way to get the USAF airframes when it wants them, even if that means completing the C-17 work and starting a tanker line at LGB.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:57 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 18):
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington. I'm sure Boeing would find a way to get the USAF airframes when it wants them, even if that means completing the C-17 work and starting a tanker line at LGB.

All of that is true. If a second B-787 line is opened, it will be on what is currently the KC/B-767 line. If USAF orders the KC-767, then no second B-787 can open until either the KC-767s are all delivered, or a new facility is built. Boeing wants to sell the LGB plant. That Southern California land is worth more than the production line is, even after the enviornmential clean up.

BTW, I believe that Boeing told the USAF last spring, the B-787 could be built as a KC-787, if that is what they want (out of the current models, the B-787-800 would make the best tanker version of the B-787).
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:51 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 5):
Why do so many people misspell Northrop with a u?

good one...and so true

Quoting Echster (Reply 18):
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington. I'm sure Boeing would find a way to get the USAF airframes when it wants them, even if that means completing the C-17 work and starting a tanker line at LGB.

yes, the 2nd 787 line has been discussed a lot and the 767 line is a prime location in the plant. Also the California delegation is not happy with aircraft manufacturing leaving So Cal. Supporting that move would be well within their wishes.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:30 pm

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 20):
Also the California delegation is not happy with aircraft manufacturing leaving So Cal. Supporting that move would be well within their wishes.

It is common for Congress to direct where new weapons systems will be built, and they will add the additional funding to make it happen. LGB is not out of the running, but I know that Boeing does want to close it and sell the land. If Congress makes the money pot sweet enough, Boeing will change its mind. But I believe the Alabama and Mississippi delagations will vote against any move to build new airplanes in LBG since they want new KC-30s built in MOB. This will be a fun debate to watch. My guess is the new tanker will be built in LGB and some new Navy ships built in the Mississippi/Alabama area as a compromise.
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
It is common for Congress to direct where new weapons systems will be built, and they will add the additional funding to make it happen. LGB is not out of the running, but I know that Boeing does want to close it and sell the land. If Congress makes the money pot sweet enough, Boeing will change its mind. But I believe the Alabama and Mississippi delagations will vote against any move to build new airplanes in LBG since they want new KC-30s built in MOB. This will be a fun debate to watch. My guess is the new tanker will be built in LGB and some new Navy ships built in the Mississippi/Alabama area as a compromise.

Yes, you are so right. As you say, it will be interesting to see how the pols justify their arguments and decisions regarding this aircraft. I would almost want to say that the RFP shouldn't be named the "USAF KC-X" but rather the "Congressional KC-X Re-Election Strategy"
 
bhill
Posts: 1294
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:13 am

Hmmm..not to be nationalistic but..the only Superpower ordering parts from Europe for it's inflight tactical refuling solution? Not to piss off my allied friends, but hey, we wanted to shun "french fries" when THAT tiff started. Fagetaboutit...The DoD and the State Depatment are only going through the motions to make our European friends' feathers smoother after the hard feelings over the last decade. Face it..we are almost 1 trillion...yep with a T..in expenses over operations in the mid east. Seems we are now looking to spread the bar tab around a bit..to wit..NATO Theater Commanders..(non US) will be more in charge of US troops. Mark my words..when the ink is dry on this contract, Boeing, the one in Chicago, USA will be a signatory....

Cheers,
Carpe Pices
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:17 am

Quoting Socal (Reply 14):
Why do people keep thinking Airbus is in the running, Boeing is the only option.
Just because Airbus teamed up with Northrop doesn't make a difference.

Not so fast there, the Sikorsky S-92 was also thought to be a lock to win the contract for the next Presidential helicopter transport. They weren't.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 16):
If the 787 will be successful as Boeing claims, there are numerous advantages over the 767 and possibly the 777-200 if Boeing goes ahead with the 787-10. Lower operating costs, less fuel consumption, lighter but stronger airframe (less dead weight, more cargo capacity) etc. Hence, just my opinion why the USAF is waiting for the 787.

The sticking point here is the 787 could be a victim of it's own success. The USAF won't wait around for slots for the 787 when the 767 line is open. Boeing won't close the 767 line unless they can comit to the KC-787. There's a bit of a Catch 22 here.

Quoting Echster (Reply 18):
I do believe Boeing is already contemplating opening a second B787 line in Washington.

Key word here is contiemplating.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:25 pm

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 24):
The sticking point here is the 787 could be a victim of it's own success. The USAF won't wait around for slots for the 787 when the 767 line is open. Boeing won't close the 767 line unless they can comit to the KC-787. There's a bit of a Catch 22 here.

Very good point, and the way the 787 is racking up orders there might be no other option but to go with the 767/A330/etc.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:02 am

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 25):
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 24):
The sticking point here is the 787 could be a victim of it's own success. The USAF won't wait around for slots for the 787 when the 767 line is open. Boeing won't close the 767 line unless they can comit to the KC-787. There's a bit of a Catch 22 here.

Very good point, and the way the 787 is racking up orders there might be no other option but to go with the 767/A330/etc.

I wouldn't agree with that. There is the B-747, B-777, A-340, and KC-135E options, all still open.
 
User avatar
deltadawg
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:57 am

I was redaing the article below from Northrop-Grumman's website and have to ask, if Airbus/Northrop-Grumman were to win (a long shot) the KC-30 contract would the a/c actually be built in Mobile, AL? I see what the article says but I believe they would actually build the frame in France and ship it to Mobile for outfitting only. Anyone got any real insight into what they would actually do?

From: http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/benefits/commitment.shtml

The KC-30 will be made in America – directly and indirectly creating thousands of new American jobs for the coming decades and generating billions of dollars in economic development across the United States.

The aircraft’s industy team is led by Northrop Grumman, which brings a long history of developing advanced aircraft technology, integrating large complex systems and converting commercial aircraft for military missions. The company is a recognized industry leader in systems integration, with a proven record as the prime contractor for the B-2 stealth bomber, the E-8C Joint STARS advanced ground surveillance and battle management system, and the E-10A multi-sensor command and control aircraft.

As a derivative of the successful A330 airliner, the KC-30 will support the in-sourcing of high-value, high-technology jobs in the U.S. The A330 is part of a best-selling family of fly-by-wire commercial aircraft whose production supports some 174,000 American jobs – bringing in an estimated $8.5 billion annually to American companies with business for parts, components, tooling and services.

Northrop Grumman has selected Mobile, Alabama's Brookley Industrial Complex as the site for its KC-30 production center. Co-located with EADS North America, KC-30 activity at Brookley is expected to employ 1,000 high-tech aerospace workers.

Strategically located near the Gulf of Mexico, the Brookley Industrial Complex has existing runways, a deepwater port and a skilled aerospace workforce. It is considered one of the optimal sites for aerospace industrial development in the U.S., and it met or exceeded all the requirements established for the KC-30 production center.


The Brookley Industrial Complex encompasses more than 4.5 million square feet of industrial space and is already home to aerospace manufacturing, aircraft maintenance and airfreight businesses. The site includes the Mobile Downtown Airport, which has an existing 9,600 foot long runway.


The KC-30 will provide business and high-value jobs at companies and suppliers throughout the United States.
GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:49 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 24):
Not so fast there, the Sikorsky S-92 was also thought to be a lock to win the contract for the next Presidential helicopter transport. They weren't.

With all due respect, the S-92 was anything but a lock. Some of us believe that decision to award the VH-X program to the US101 team was politically influenced. British and Italian pressure was clearly applied during the selection process.

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 24):
The sticking point here is the 787 could be a victim of it's own success. The USAF won't wait around for slots for the 787 when the 767 line is open. Boeing won't close the 767 line unless they can comit to the KC-787. There's a bit of a Catch 22 here.

I agree. That's why I believe that we will see a mixed buy of KC-767 and KC-777 tankers.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5180
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:36 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
My guess is the new tanker will be built in LGB and some new Navy ships built in the Mississippi/Alabama area as a compromise.

Likely should Boeing win.

Quoting DeltaDAWG (Reply 27):

Northrop Grumman has selected Mobile, Alabama's Brookley Industrial Complex as the site for its KC-30 production center. Co-located with EADS North America, KC-30 activity at Brookley is expected to employ 1,000 high-tech aerospace workers.

Strategically located near the Gulf of Mexico, the Brookley Industrial Complex has existing runways, a deepwater port

But a double boon for Mobile, AL in the event Northrop/EADS squeak by.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ral-combat-ships-updated/index.php

Quote:
"Jan 19/06: GD/Austal Lays Keel for LCS 2. Austal USA hosts a traditional US Navy keel-laying ceremony to signify the start of construction on the first Flight 0 General Dynamics/Austal LCS trimaran. The keel laying follows on the heels of the official November 17, 2005 opening of Austal USA's ship construction facility in Mobile, AL."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:10 pm

Quoting DeltaDAWG (Reply 27):
The KC-30 will be made in America

The A-330s will be made in France, then flown to MOB and converted to KC-30s. To imply they will be completely built in the US is deceiving.
 
User avatar
deltadawg
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:35 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
The A-330s will be made in France, then flown to MOB and converted to KC-30s. To imply they will be completely built in the US is deceiving.

That is my take on it as well. It would mean a economic boon to Mobile but to me it is Airbus and Northrop trying to pull the wool over taxpayers eyes. Unless the frame and final assembly is built in the US it is a foreign entity, period.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 29):
Quote:
"Jan 19/06: GD/Austal Lays Keel for LCS 2. Austal USA hosts a traditional US Navy keel-laying ceremony to signify the start of construction on the first Flight 0 General Dynamics/Austal LCS trimaran. The keel laying follows on the heels of the official November 17, 2005 opening of Austal USA's ship construction facility in Mobile, AL."

This I believe is a little different in that the ships are being built in the US, unlike what I think Airbus would do. Still not happy about the Austal contract since my brother is an design engineer at BIW! At least BIW is owned by General Dynamics now.
GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:08 pm

Quoting DeltaDAWG (Reply 31):
This I believe is a little different in that the ships are being built in the US, unlike what I think Airbus would do. Still not happy about the Austal contract since my brother is an design engineer at BIW! At least BIW is owned by General Dynamics now.

I thought the LCS-2 class was going to be built by Bath Iron Works, in Portland, Maine.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:53 pm

Quoting DeltaDAWG (Reply 31):
That is my take on it as well. It would mean a economic boon to Mobile but to me it is Airbus and Northrop trying to pull the wool over taxpayers eyes. Unless the frame and final assembly is built in the US it is a foreign entity, period.

So would that make a KC787 a foreign plane too as it's frame is built almost entirely outside of the US and just snapped together by Boeing.........
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:12 pm

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
This is simply leverage over Boeing to make sure they get a good price on wheatever Boeing decides to offer.

Ditto. No way will Congress ever authorize this expenditure of $$$ for EADS. Too many jobs and too much political pull by Boeing. This is just giving EADS some walk around money so as to make it look like the deal is fair, but in the end the sale will go to Boeing.

Just like the future KC's of the French Air Force will no doubt be built in Tolouse, not in Everett.
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
wingman
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:20 pm

hehe, this is like LH and IB entertaining offers from Boeing. It almost looks real enough to be real but in the end it's always just a farce. Buying a cornerstone defense platform from France is political suicide with a nuclear-tipped bomb belt. Any politicos voting in favor of an EADS might as well just cast their votes, walk upstairs, clear out their congressional offices and go jump off a bridge.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:09 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 33):
So would that make a KC787 a foreign plane too as it's frame is built almost entirely outside of the US and just snapped together by Boeing.........

I'm sorry, but how can you say that? Boeing's site states that 90% of the aircraft is U.S. manufactured.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:05 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 33):
So would that make a KC787 a foreign plane too as it's frame is built almost entirely outside of the US and just snapped together by Boeing.........



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 36):
I'm sorry, but how can you say that? Boeing's site states that 90% of the aircraft is U.S. manufactured.

A very large percentage of the B-787 is made in Witicha, KS, South Carolina, and Washington (state), as well as final assembly in Washington. But, about 40% is manufactured in Italy and Japan.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:55 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 36):
I'm sorry, but how can you say that? Boeing's site states that 90% of the aircraft is U.S. manufactured.

A very large percentage of the B-787 is made in Witicha, KS, South Carolina, and Washington (state), as well as final assembly in Washington. But, about 40% is manufactured in Italy and Japan.

I believe my original reaction to the question involved the KC-767, which if you check Boeing's "Global Aerial Tanker" site maintains a high % U.S. content statement, of some kind, IIRC. Sorry about the confusion. You are quite right about any KC-787, which I personally don't anticipante we'll see anytime soon.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:23 pm

Quoting Wingman (Reply 35):
, this is like LH and IB entertaining offers from Boeing.

Although it is off-topic you can be very sure that some part of the LH order will go to Boeing.
Maybe they will go for the A350 but the 747 replacement will be either the 777-300ER or the 747-8I:

Quoting Bloomberg:
A decision about buying Boeing's 747-8 is ''not affected'' by Airbus's plans, Mayrhuber said. ''That's a different ballgame.'' The company's fleet manager, Nico Buchholz, said then that a decision would probably come in December. The carrier is also considering Boeing's 777-300ER model.

A clear statement by LH management in my opinion.
Sorry for being off-topic but I am getting allergic to the statements that LH will only use Boeing to get a better price from Boeing.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:27 am

A couple questions here:
1. Under what US law / provision is Airbus entitled to bid on a US defense
contract? I am under the impression that the Congress to keep cost down
mandated or required multiple bids, not sure if they specified foreign
and or domestic. If its a case of getting the best a/c, that is still within
the perview of the US military and its politicians.

2. Since these a/c are essentially weapons of war to be used in the defense
of the US, funding them from Boeing should not rise to the WTO level,
after all, they are not for commercial use and hence would not distort
the commercial aviation sector.

As for the B787, it is unrpoven technology, the military does not need the latest and greatest for a tanker. Additionally, I do believe that if a second B787 line is introduced, it will be to take up the slack for delays in the original line to ensure that Boeing does not encounter what Airbus is presently going through with the A380.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:11 pm

Deltadawg

People could only be deceived if they seriously think that 1,000 people could build these aircraft from scratch.

How many work at Seattle or Toulouse.

KC135Topboom

My understanding is that the A330 is assembled at Toulouse, the sections are made in the UK/France/Germany etc.

Interesting point about the B787.

RAPCON

I suspect that the next tanker for the French Air Force will be from Airbus. However, given their past purchases, (DC8/KC135/C130) I think that Airbus would be unwise to treat it as a done deal. I also note that Air France seems to fly a lot of Boeings.

Par13del

Do you mean under what law is it banned?.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:53 pm

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 28):
With all due respect, the S-92 was anything but a lock.

Strange, I was under the impression from some articles that Sikorsky was heavily favored to win the contract.  Confused

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 28):
Some of us believe that decision to award the VH-X program to the US101 team was politically influenced. British and Italian pressure was clearly applied during the selection process.

 checkmark  I actually think it was a better choice since it is a bigger platform for more personnel and/or equipment.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:01 am

Bennett123, unless I'm reading too much into some poster's wordings - not just in this thread -, there seems to be this impression that Airbus has to be allowed to bid on the tanker contract, hence my question if there is some leagal provision for it.

We are talking about the military and the defense of the US so even if a no bid contract is given to Boeing, there are many factors and decisions that the Govt./congress can make to ensure that they don't get fleeced in the deal, one of the prime things the congress came up with was a bidding process, at least for items which are already in the public domain.

Other than Italy, how many EU countries are replacing their old tankers with Boeing a/c and how much of a fuss is Boeing putting up about that?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Is In The Tanker Game

Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:53 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 43):
there seems to be this impression that Airbus has to be allowed to bid on the tanker contract, hence my question if there is some leagal provision for it.

Airbus was "allowed" to bid, through another US aircraft manufactuer because of Senator John McCain's objection to the KC-767A "lease deal" back in 2003. But, Airbus is not allowed to directly bid by Federal Law for large DOD contracts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: spudh and 10 guests