Arniepie
Topic Author
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:33 pm

Just heared on a Bussines channel that Airbus is actively looking for a bussines-partner (Lockheed most likely) to build a new production plant in the US to build its A330 tanker plane (23 billion$-contact).
Looks like they are really competing with Boeing for the contract and who knows they might even start a production line for the civil market too.
[edit post]
 
TW741
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:29 pm

TWA - we showed you how good we have been!
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:33 pm

No matter how much you guys want to believe it, the US government is not going to give a multi-billion dollar contract to a FOREIGN company. Even if they are built here, that would be the biggest slap in the face they could give to Boeing. Now, I'll agree that the tanker contract was corrupted, and maybe even scammed, but this is Boeing's contract to win, one way or another.
 
TW741
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:43 pm

this is Boeing's contract to win

when there is just 1 supplier for the goverment then there is no need to start a bidding process - it would just be a simple message from the White House or Capitol or whoever pays the bill to Boeing saying "build it and give us your bankers details so we can pay you".



TWA - we showed you how good we have been!
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:47 pm

TW741, The US consistently has "contract wars" between the major defense contractors in the US (Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, etc). This IS Boeing's contract to win, unless another US manufacturer is able to come up with something better very soon. I'm not an Airbus hater, but they aren't getting this one.
 
TW741
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:56 pm

I'm not an Airbus hater

Me too Big grin

I am neither an Airbus fanatic nor a Boeing fanatic (well, may be the 707 and 727)....I am neither favouring A nor B in any way since my all time favorite aircraft have always been the Lockheed L.1011, the McDonnell-Douglas DC9-MD80/90 family and the De Havilland Dash-7 as well as a few British Aerospace BAe aircraft.
I just posted the link for the topic starter to get some additional information.

So I am totally neutral in this respect  Smile


=TW741=
TWA - we showed you how good we have been!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:57 pm

This IS Boeing's contract to win, unless another US manufacturer is able to come up with something better very soon

Perhaps the Lockheed KC330, with the preferred Pratt engines, and lots of Honeywell, Rockwell and Lockheed content. Assembled and maintained somewhere in Wichita, creating lots of new long term US jobs there and giving the armed forces a better tool to do their job..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001843766_boeing26.html

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:02 pm

Perhaps the Lockheed KC330, with the preferred Pratt engines, and lots of Honeywell, Rockwell and Lockheed content. Assembled and maintained somewhere in Wichita, creating lots of new long term US jobs there and giving the armed forces a better tool to do their job..

Last time I checked, Lockheed-Martin wasn't a member of EADS and wasn't named Airbus. Think of it this way. If the US bought KC330s, they would be giving money to the EU, who would then give that money to Airbus to develope that A350-thing. Now, not saying this would actually happen, but it could, and we should all be mature enough to accept that. So, if the US bought these KC330s, they would not only be hurting Boeing in the defense field, but possibly in the commercial field as well. It won't happen, and nothing will make me say different. I'm not afraid to be wrong because I know I'm right.  Big grin
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:09 pm

Think of it this way; Europe is buying for Billions of JSF fighters from Lockheed, time to get something back for this tax payer money..

Lockheed is not best friends with Boeing (how many trails running?)

Lets be rational and may the best win..

 Acting devilish


"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
adh214
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:07 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:16 pm

Frankly, as a US taxpayer, I hope the US government gets the best deal possible and not just give this to Boeing as a piece of pork barrel politics. If Boeing competes and wins great. If not, let's get ready for the Airbus.

Andrew
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:18 pm

1) It has nothing to do with giving the contract to a European company. The US has used European contractors in the past for weapons systems and will continue to do so.

2) Rather than starting a new thread on this, why couldn't you have added to the existing threads in military aviation?

3) As I've said again and again and again, a KC-330 is not what the USAF wants for a multitude of reasons. As I've stated again and again and again, a KC-330 would be remarkably bigger than the KC-135, the KC-10, a KC-767 and even the C-17. The USAFhas stated that the footprint of a KC-330 is too big for their liking. Further, there's the lack of an off-the-shelf cargo door. Putting up a nice pretty picture of an artist's conception is one thing. Actually finding one is quite another. I've said it before and I'll say it again - as of right now, the Air Force prefers the KC-767 design to the KC-330. Rather than continue to rehash the same issues, why not instead just sit tight and see where the chips fall?

[Edited 2004-10-19 15:50:40]
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:24 am


I have not seen the Spec for the new USAF tanker, and think that the best place to start in selecting a Tanker, is to see which contender best matches the Spec.

It seems that unless Lockheed re-enters airliner production, that your choice is Boeing or overseas.

If the latter is not acceptable, then why waste time with competitions.

I trust that you will not complain if Europe does the same.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:50 am

Bennett - ask and you shall receive  Smile

KC-135 Stratotanker
Wingspan: 130 feet, 10 inches (39.2 m)
Length: 136 feet, 3 inches (40.8 m)
Height: 38 feet, 4 inches (11.5 m)

KC-767
Wingpsan: 156 feet, 1 inch (47.57 m)
Length: 159 feet, 2 inches (48.51 m)
Height: 52 feet (15.85 m)

KC-330
Wingspan: 197 feet, 10 inches (60.3 m)
Length: 193 feet, 7 inches (59 m)
Height: 55 feet, 2 inches (16.83 m)


And an overlay comparison of the size difference between the 767 and the 330.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
MD80Nut
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:43 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:05 am

I believe the bottom line should be to provide the US Armed Forces with the best possible option, period. That's why I would like to see an open competition, not an automatic award to Boeing. Please understand I am not pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus on this issue, I just want the US Armed Forces to get the best.

The fact is the A330-200 is not just a newer, more advanced aircraft than the 767-200ER, it's also larger and has greater fuel capacity. That means greater efficency, cargo carrying ability and more fuel that can be offloaded to other aircraft. I find myself wondering, why doesn't Boeing offer the 767-300ER? It would come closer to the A330-200 in terms of capacity at least.

If Airbus wins the contract and opens a production line in the US, yes, Boeing would suffer. On the other hand, many new aerospace jobs would be created in the US, plus the many American companies already supplying Airbus would benefit. KC330s with either GE or PW engines would have lots of US made content. Yes, EADS and Europe would also benefit, but given how much they buy from America I don't see that as a bad thing. And lets not forget, Europe buys a lot of US military euipment, if we want them to keep buying our military equipment, maybe we should buy theirs too.

Maybe they could build all KC330s here, not just the USAF models. Means more work here in the long run.

FriendlySkies, I do think you're right. Politics will probably win out in the end and Boeing will get the contract. I just would like to see a fair, honest competiton and evaluation.

cheers, Ralph
Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:15 am

I have not seen the Spec for the new USAF tanker, and think that the best place to start in selecting a Tanker, is to see which contender best matches the Spec

You forgot? Darleen/Pentagon let Boeing rewrite the Spec. to fit the Kc767 and disqually the A330.

 Wow!

I would not be surprised if the size "issue" isn´t coming from the USAF...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/8294037.htm%3F1c

It´s always worse then you think..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
GMUAirbusA320
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:52 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:15 am

No matter how much you guys want to believe it, the US government is not going to give a multi-billion dollar contract to a FOREIGN company. Even if they are built here, that would be the biggest slap in the face they could give to Boeing. Now, I'll agree that the tanker contract was corrupted, and maybe even scammed, but this is Boeing's contract to win, one way or another."

Look no further than the EMBRAER website. It's happening. They're getting a great deal from EMB to make the 145 platform for the U.S. Army. You better get a better grip on your avaition FriendlySkies....j/k  Big grin

Cheers!
GMUAirbusA320

8/3/2004
EMBRAER ERJ 145 PLATFORM SELECTED AS PART OF WINNING BID ON U.S. ARMY AERIAL COMMON SENSOR PROGRAM

Embraer, part of the Lockheed Martin team, will provide its ERJ 145 platform for the U.S. Army’s next-generation battlefield surveillance system called Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) under a Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract awarded yesterday.
Under the US$879 million SDD contract, the team will deliver five certified, mission ready airborne ISR systems, with initial testing planned for 2006. The balance of the effort would be performed under a follow-on low rate initial production contract anticipated in 2007, followed by a full rate production contract in 2009. The full contract has a potential value for the Lockheed Martin team of more than US$7 billion over the life of the expected 20-year program.

“The U.S. Army has chosen a system, and an airframe, that will provide unmatched capability, economics, performance and growth – all of which will directly enhance the performance of U.S. Army ground forces in any part of the world they may deploy,” said Embraer President and CEO Maurício Botelho.“With more than 800 units in operation and 5.5 million of in-flight hours, the well matured ERJ 145 platform has accumulated impressive reliability, dispatch, and safety records, which, combined with its low acquisition and operating costs, make it especially attractive for special applications like the ACS Program. Embraer is very excited to be a part of this team, and also to be moving forward with our plans for opening a new assembly facility in Jacksonville.”

ABOUT THE ACS PROGRAM

ACS will replace current ISR aircraft, including the Army’s Guardrail Common Sensor, the Airborne Reconnaissance Low aircraft and the Navy’s fleet of EP-3 aircraft. Under the System Development and Demonstration contract awarded today, the Lockheed Martin team will combine and enhance the capabilities of the current systems on these platforms into a single ISR mission package on a standard airborne platform.

ABOUT THE ERJ 145 FAMILY OF REGIONAL JETS

Embraer’s ERJ 145 family provides the capacity and flexibility needed by operators to satisfy wide variations in demand and frequency that are typical of regional markets. Embraer aircraft have a rugged, proven structural design developed specifically for regional airline missions. They are well suited for high frequency use and typically operate around 2,800 flight hours per year.

The ERJ 145 family members (the 37-seat ERJ 135, 44-seat ERJ 140, 50-seat ERJ 145 and 50-seat ERJ 145 XR) share 95 percent commonality among all models, with low operating, crew training and maintenance costs. The ERJ 145’s systems and main components can be easily accessed, simplifying maintenance activities and allowing faster turnarounds.

The ERJ 145 family platform has also been used to enhance Embraer’s presence in other aviation segments, including the Corporate and the Defense markets. Embraer’s Legacy Executive and Shuttle aircraft are derived from the ERJ 135 platform, whereas Defense products, such as the EMB 145 AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning and Control), the EMB 145 RS/AGS (Remote Sensing/Air-to-Ground Surveillance), and the EMB 145 MP/ASW (Maritime Patrol and Anti-Submarine Warfare) are based on the proven ERJ 145 platform.

Note to Editors

Embraer (Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. - NYSE: ERJ; Bovespa: EMBR3 and EMBR4) is a major aerospace company with 34 years of experience in designing, developing, manufacturing, selling and providing after sales support to aircraft for the global airline, defense and corporate markets. With headquarters in São José dos Campos, state of São Paulo, the Company has offices and customer service bases in Australia, China, France, Singapore and the United States. Embraer is among Brazil’s leading exporting companies. As of June 30, 2004 Embraer had a total workforce of 14,207 people, and its firm order backlog totaled US$ 10.5 billion.

Contacts

 
iowa744fan
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:46 am

GMUAirbusA320,

There is one major difference between this and the tanker contract though. Who in the US was offering a competing aircraft? No one in the US produces aircraft of this size, hence a major reason why a foreign manufacturer was chosen. The main producers of this size of aircraft would be Embraer or Canadair. I highly doubt it would be worth the investment and time for Boeing to make a new aircraft for this order. In contrast, the tanker contract is for an aircraft of the size that is produced by a major company in the US. Boeing already has a long-standing tradition of building tankers for the Air Force (KC-97s, KD-135s, and KC-10s...via McDD). Boeing, a domestic company, is offering a product for this need. These two deals and the backgrounds are vastly different.

I agree with a couple of people here that the US government will eventually choose Boeing for this contract. After all, what would it look like if the US government went to all this hassle with the WTO about subsidies and arguing how the EU is doing illegal stuff and then turn their backs on Boeing and order from Airbus? I am not saying that one aircraft is better than the other and I have no idea which one the Air Force really prefers, but as a taxpayer, I would rather see my money being spent on a product that is being offered locally. If they look into the Airbus tanker and think about it as a means of getting Boeing to lower the price a bit, great. However, I agree that this is still going to be Boeing's contract. If the Air Force wanted a bigger aircraft, you know that Boeing would offer the 763 or even the 777 to get the contract, so I think that Airbus is going to be left out in the dark on this one.

Also, remember that this stuff does not just happen on this side of the Atlantic. When the UK initially took 4 C-17s from Boeing, they were pressured by the EU to order the AM440 (what is it called?) and so they signed those lease agreements...even though from what I understand, the terms were the most ridiculous imaginable (Boeing was smart and took advantage of the situation). Wasn't there also pressure for a while for the EU governments to purchase the Eurofighter too? If France, Germany, or the UK wants to order a tanker fleet, I would completely understand it if they only ordered the Airbus tanker and not the Boeing model. Their people pay the taxes which will pay for the aircraft, it should be spent on a local product. Did the UK order the 330 tanker? I read somewhere that British Airways was pushing for the 767 model so that they could have their passenger models converted and sold the the RAF. The article said that BA was displeased at the outcome, so I take it that meant an Airbus tanker order? Not sure about this situation.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:57 am

I personally think B will win this one, but to pressure down the price (so B makes less money) A is going to make a serious low bid and add jobs in the US....
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:09 am

Think of it this way; Europe is buying for Billions of JSF fighters from Lockheed, time to get something back for this tax payer money..

Are you saying we owe Europe something?

The fact is the A330-200 is not just a newer, more advanced aircraft than the 767-200ER, it's also larger and has greater fuel capacity. That means greater efficency, cargo carrying ability and more fuel that can be offloaded to other aircraft

The KC-767 and A330-T carry roughly simmilar fuel loads, but the 767 carries fuel in underfloor tanks while the A330 uses its main tanks. Thus, the A330 carries around more empty aircraft. Also, the two aircraft have the same number of refueling booms/drouges, so no aircraft has a significant advantage in terms of offload capability.

The USAF wants a KC-135 replacement... not a KC-10 replacement
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:27 am

The A330 has the same engines as the 767.

It caries significant more fuel further and has superior passenger and cargo capabilities.

It met the USAF original specification better then the KC767

It was offered to the USAF at significant lower cost the the Kc767..

It is an embarrassing story..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
jc2354
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:56 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:35 am

Isn't the A330 tanker being built for the RAF?

As for foreign aircraft purchases, I thought the Marines had Harrier jets.

Jack
If not now, then when?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:38 am

There is one major difference between this and the tanker contract though. Who in the US was offering a competing aircraft? No one in the US produces aircraft of this size, hence a major reason why a foreign manufacturer was chosen

Cough.....Gulfstream....Cough....Gulfstream....

And actually I am a bit surprised that the GV didn't get the contract. I would have though the longer legs would have been the winner.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
trident2e
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:38 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:43 am

Friendly Skies - you very elequently present the case for the defence in the matter of Boeing's whining and whinging about subsidies for Airbus. The very fact that the US would not give such a contract to a foreign company is the very evidence of indirect subsidy that the EU will use against the US at the WTO. Well done!
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:48 am

I think Lockheed ought to dust off the L-1011 plans, scrap the #2 engine, update the essentials, and offer it as a tanker.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:49 am

Why does everybody assume that Airbus would take another airframe maker as their partner in a US A330.

I could easily see a scenario where a component maker for Airbus becomes the primary. For example Sikorsky was not the prime contract for the S-60B helicopter. If memory serves IBM was, they where the ones that developed the anti-submarine mission packet, Sikorsky was a subcontractor that only provided the airframe.

and as far as manufacturing sites. I could see a scenario, where a component make developes say the underfloor tanks (Nothing prevents them from being developed and installed in a KC-330 increasing it's payload) bids the contract and then subcontracts airframe manufacture to Airbus.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:58 am

I never once said that the A330MRTT was a bad aircraft or couldn't meet the specs of the US. But I've accepted the fact that the US government is not going to purchase an aircraft from a foreign country when a domestic company is also making it. Politics wins over all else. Now both Bush and Kerry are going on about how EADS is subsidizing Airbus and yada-yada-yada (I'm not getting into that mess). There is just no way you will see an order for A330 Tankers from the US. Think about it. If it happened before the election, Kerry would be screaming down Bush's throat about how he lost more jobs in the US. After the election, Kerry would be looked at as a liar and Bush would be as well. Politics, people, politics...

*Edited to change A300MRTT to A330MRTT*



[Edited 2004-10-20 00:20:25]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:59 am

If memory serves IBM was, they where the ones that developed the anti-submarine mission packet, Sikorsky was a subcontractor that only provided the airframe and as far as manufacturing sites

I think it was Texas Instruments, and the avionics/weapons package are very much secondary to the airframe. The icing on the cake if you will...

As for foreign aircraft purchases, I thought the Marines had Harrier jets.

Built under liscense by McDonnel Douglas

It was offered to the USAF at significant lower cost the the Kc767..

Analogus to Airbus bidding on a WN fleet renewal.... the USAF makes a move to increase the 767s favor and Airbus respons by chopping the A330s price, if you can't win the order, why not make it scandolus? I still think both aircraft are a poor choice....
 
n685fe
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:14 am



L-188, I was thinking the same thing. We have Cessna, Raytheon/Beech, Lear/Bombardier, and Gulfstream. If they were to choose Lear/Bombardier that would open up the whole Challenger, Global Express, and the CRJ200 family in addition to the Lear line.

psp. lead by example
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:15 am

Could have been TI, but the point stands. In that case the airframe contractor was a secondary.

Well forgein aircraft purchases lets see here.

The Marines have their Harriers, although I though the AV-8A's where built by Douglas from BAE kits.
The Air Force had the B-57, Shorts Sherpa, Slingsby Firefly, Dash-8, PC-9, the G.222
The navy has the T-45
The US Army has Dash-7, Shorts Sherpa, and in the past has had the Beaver, Otter, Twin Otter

I haven't even gotten into non-aircraft systems.

Fact is there is a lot of forgien purchases.

I would also not call the AT-4 a minor system.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
cwapilot
Posts: 1085
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 7:10 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:20 am

"Think of it this way; Europe is buying for Billions of JSF fighters from Lockheed, time to get something back for this tax payer money.."

Something for their money....hmmm....didn't they receive JSF's?! I thought that was what they gave their taxpayer money for....

Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
 
Arniepie
Topic Author
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:21 am

L-188

Just a question ,didn't they also bought some mirages or its israeli derivative at one time to use in an agressor role?
I'm sure iI heared it once a long time ago.
[edit post]
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:22 am

Something for their money....hmmm....didn't they receive JSF's?! I thought that was what they gave their taxpayer money for....

Seeing that the JSF doesn't exist yet, I don't see how this is possible.  Big grin
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:26 am

Your right Airniepie.

They had those F-21's which where IAI Kfirs for agressor training.

They slipped my mind.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:44 am

The problem that A faces is the fact that we have elections every two years and no one in congress would go along with A getting the contract. Why make the voters mad? A knows this (just as they knew the UK would not get the C-17s) and is probably playing the game just to make B look bad.

Maybe the next set of specs will allow B to add the 7E7 as an option.. Unfortunately the 350 will be too "large" . . .
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:26 am

l-188 It was a cost and availability issue for the contract. We do supply engines for the ERJ and there is precedent for the ARL aircraft being foreign make (DhC-7), plus we are talking low volume in terms of air frames. I am sure that Gulfstream would have wanted to contract, but they probably wanted a good bit more per airframe.

Keesje The billions of taxpayer money that Europe has spent on US designed (assembled in Europe at Messerschmidt, Fokker, SABCA, etc) has gotten you something. The military aircraft in the world. The individual nations with the necessary economic base have built their own (France, UK, Sweden) but for the most part getting the Europeans to cooperate effectively is a nightmare and so cooperative efforts (Panavia, SEPECAT, even EADS) takes forever and often does not result in what everyone wants, but is forced to take. Look at the Scandinavian Common Helicopter effort made where 3 different helos were ordered because of differing requirements. When the Europeans bought American airplanes, they got something they were unwilling or financially and/or politically to build themselves, and got it pretty cheap, with the ability to assemble and maintain there. Jobs are created every time, and value is realized simply by having the best aircraft made. It took Europe 20 years before they were ready with something any better than the F-16, and there will be no comparable aircraft to the F-35 when it comes available. The only aircraft that will be its superior will be the F-22, and no one in Europe will buy it due to cost.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
iowa744fan
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:28 am

L-188,

Crap. I have such tunnel-vision towards the commercial sector that I completely forgot about Cessna and Gulfstream.


Keesje,

Let me ask you this question. If the US wanted a bigger aircraft, don't you think that Boeing would have obliged. I remember the initial articles about this deal many years ago and they mentioned wanting a mix of 757s and 767s to provide flexibility. If the Air Force wanted a bigger aircraft, Boeing would offer the 763 or 764 easily as each should be easily developed at minimal cost. With regards to additional fuel, I have not seen specs on each aircraft, so I don't know which carries more, etc so I am not going to say which is better.

Another question is if the US Air Force wants an aircraft of that size. If you look at the US Air Force Tanker fleet (around 500 aircraft?), only 59 are KC-10s (one was lost). If the US Air Force wanted a substantially larger aircraft than one of the KC-135 size, don't you think that they would have ordered more KC-10s along time ago? If you don't want or need the extra space, why bother ordering it? Do you have any source that shows that it met the specifications more closely? Or is this more of your usual spouting out about how Airbus is the greatest thing on earth?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:38 am

Well Cessna and Raytheon (Beech) really don't have anything in that scale.

But I think that Dl021 hit on the head, Embrear probably had the lower bid.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:50 am

The A330 has the same engines as the 767.

Not at all true... while the GE and PW engines are derivatives of models offered on the 767, they're dissimilar in most regards.

N
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:02 pm

Using the JSF as a reason for why the US should buy an Airbus tanker isn't a very strong point. Many of the European countries purchasing the JSF are participating in the program and will receive contracts or subcontracts. Moreover, the UK is the only one of the big 4 participants in Airbus purchasing the JSF, and the UK is the first and most important partner to the US in the JSF program, and will receive a sizable share of contracts and subcontracts. Furthermore, the prime reason that the countries want to buy the JSF is because of the leading edge US stealth, avionics, and weapons technology that will be part of it. In fact, quite a few of the big ticket defense products that foreign countries buy from the US are purchased for their advanced and often unique technology. That is certainly the case for France. The US is willing to purchase advanced defense technology from friendly countries that can't be sourced from the US. The question with regards to the A330 is whether it really offers any important technological advantages that justify sourcing a defense product from a non-domestic source, especially when the contract is so large, even if there is a pricing advantage.

And even if its comes down solely to economic factors, discounts and industrial offsets that Airbus offers to the US for purchasing an A330 tanker that fits the USAF's needs are going to have to offset the loss of the tax base, technology base and employment that will result if EADS takes home any signficant portion of the work and revenue from the program. I don't think EADS can offer the plane at a low enough price with enough offsets to overcome this issue. The only way they could do so is if there are signficant non-US A330 tanker purchases that include signficant US content, perhaps proportional to the US share of the overall A330 tanker market. And even then they are going to have to deal with the mirror image of subsidation issue, which is their argument that US defense contracts for Boeing subsidise the commercial aircraft business. If that is the case, then Airbus is also going to have to give up subsidies and loans that it has received because the US government is not going to further "subsidise" Airbus and harm Boeing.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:08 pm

Sounds like music to my ears with Airbus plant in US  Big thumbs up

Micke/SE
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:42 pm

Ah ha! Maybe Airbus will build the bleedless version of the A330 (aka A350) as part of the USAF tanker contract in the USA using GENX engines rated at 70,000 lb. thrust?

By the way, don't forget that putting a cargo door on the A330 fuselage is not as hard as people think. After all, they can just adapt the cargo door from the A300B4 freighter.

There is a good chance that if the USAF orders the freighter based on the A330-200 design the production line (mostly likely at Palmdale, CA) could also build the tankers for the RAF and various European air forces, too.
 
AFROTC
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:59 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:26 pm

Ummm FriendlySkies the JSF (F-35)does exist and there are prototypes flying now. www.jsf.mil

As far as this whole KC330 thing is concerned it is my deepest hope that it doesnt turn into a political grab-asstic decision and is a choice that is made with the best interest of the airmen flying these birds in mind. Eitherway you choose it ill fly it, but i still have my heart set on the E10 though...
We've Been Looking For You, United States Airforce, Cross Into The Blue!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:24 pm

Not at all true... while the GE and PW engines are derivatives of models offered on the 767, they're dissimilar in most regards.

Neil, they are slightly different versions of the same GE and PW engines.. GE CF6-80C2 and CFf6-80E2 come on the same mainteance line here... fan sizes and thrust differ. Same goes for PW4000 series..


Dl021,
no need to convince the US makes better fighter then Europe. However your rational behind Europe buying JSF's because they are the cheapest and the best seems somehow lost in the KC767/330 trade-off..

"Iowa744fan Big grino you have any source that shows that it met the specifications more closely?" .

Yes.

See article I linked earlier :


Boeing had edge in tanker contract

Air Force let specs be rewritten

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Air Force gave Boeing Co. five months to rewrite specifications for 100 tankers so Boeing's 767 would win a $23.5 billion deal, according to information Knight Ridder obtained.

In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.

The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing, even though Airbus met more than 20 of the 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.


The Boeing tanker deal has been under investigation since it became public 2½ years ago and has been suspended pending the outcome of the inquiries.

E-mails and other documents show just how intent the Air Force was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were more capable and cost less.

In one document, Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for tankers, noted that one objective in rewriting the specifications was to “prevent an AoA from being conducted.” “AoA” stands for “analysis of alternatives” or, in essence, a look at serious competitors.

Among the original Air Force requirements Boeing eliminated was that the new tankers be equipped to refuel all the military services' aircraft, as well as refuel multiple aircraft simultaneously and carry passengers, wounded troops and cargo.

Boeing also eliminated an Air Force requirement that the new tankers be at least as effective and efficient as the 40-year-old KC-135 tankers they would replace.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona demanded the Boeing documents in his role as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Senate investigators made the Boeing documents available to Knight Ridder.


When this all became clear, the Boeing CEO had to resign.
Since then a number of similar new cases has surfaced, ending every credibility to "objective business like negotiations" Boeing does on US defense contracts.

So the tanker requirements/specifications are rewritten now, the A330 size doesn't seem to be a real show stopper.

The advantages of the more powerfull A330 seem to outweigh disadvantages easily..

Expect Airbus to come with some new surprise offerings on the KC330 to soften the more patriotic orientated part of opposition.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:45 am

What I was trying to determine was what the USAF actually wanted.

Clearly both aircraft are bigger than the KC135, but presumably the USAF is happy with that.

What are the 26 capabilities, and how do the two options compare against them.

It sounds as if people are saying that the US will buy from the US except in the most extreme circumstances.

Looking at the examples of Non US airframes, many are decades ago, such as the B57, for types of aircraft where there was no conceivable domestic alternative, such as the Harrier or in instances where US industry apparently opted not to provide an alternative, such as airlifters smaller than the C130.

In other words where US industry was not interested.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:20 am

the B57, for types of aircraft where there was no conceivable domestic alternative,...

The domestic alternative was the Martin B-51, but the Canberra outperformed it in a fly-off.


[Edited 2004-10-21 02:25:49]
 
mNeo
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:12 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:46 am

am I the first to realize this.
IF airbus gets the contract jobs in the US will be created keeping people happy thus keeping senators happy.
A plant on US soil woulr require ALOT of investment to complete. thus making construction companies happy
A plant of that size will pay ALOT of taxes. (keep in mind thats in addition of the taxes Boeing is Already paying) thus keeping Uncle Sam happy

If what the article sais is true " airbus was a better fit with less money) and there is an invsetigation and the goverment comes up with some Bullshit reason to give the contract to Boeing. there will be A lot of unhappy people on the other side of the pond, and in the states with all this corporate corruption going on. unless boeing matches the price of airbus there might be a chance that we will see KC-330s in USAF colors
Powered by Maina
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:10 am

MNeo

No, I don't think your the first to realize this. I think Airbus is aware of it, and thats the game they are trying to play now(Political).

Let them make the investment and build the plant, then let them bid on the tanker! This we will do if stuff can be played both ways.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:04 pm

Besides...no way can EADS justify building a complete line for their A-330 in the US or a contract of this size. They don't have a cargo door and they don't have a flying boom. The KC-767 will be manufactured in Everett and the Airbuses will continue to be made in Toulouse.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:06 pm

What are you talking about? The A330 MRTT does have a cargo door, and does have a refuelling system (at least two drogues, and a boom).

Opening a new line for 500 frames is certainly feasible.

N
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Airbus Production Plant In The US

Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:34 pm

If Airbus builds the plant in the US, and also moves final assembly of the plane to the US, I can see it happening. In fact, I'd be all for it.

Additionally, it could be great PR for politicians who like to talk about "US jobs going overseas" etc.

Aaron G.

Who is online