Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:11 pm



Quoting Wingman (Reply 45):
We're not talking about Europe here, we're talking about France and Germany.

Finally. Yes.

Quoting Wingman (Reply 45):
Neither country has purchased a major, let alone fundamental cornerstone, military program from the US in over 30 years.

And the US have purchased which major fundamental cornerstone military program from either France or Germany?

Quoting Wingman (Reply 45):
Either that changes right now or every sensible American fights as hard as they can to scrap this deal.

So you can purchase a totally inferior Boeing platform. One so inferior your own military doesn't want it.

Quoting Wingman (Reply 45):
France and Germany want a ludicrous trade surplus with the US and now also a ludicrous military surplus?

Against the worlds economic powerhouse, I can't see where your coming from. Can Germany sell that many Mercedes or BMW's? Or France that much wine?

Quoting Wingman (Reply 45):
You guys need to buy 40 C-17s or the equivalent each or have AF and LH buy 50 787s apiece.

Or be the launch customer for the new 747 (LH) or have the bulk of your longhaul fleet built in Seattle (AF).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
We should likely look beyond just the KC-45A program. That 179-plane buy is likely going to be produced at a rate of around ten every six to twelve months, not each month. That's maybe a billion or two a year into Airbus' coffers, and that doesn't include the cost of building the factory and the cost of the plane. Even if the USAF doubles that buy, it's still relatively "peanuts" compared to their other programs. Mind you, I'm not dismissing the importance of 180+ sales, but it still averages out to maybe one delivery per year.

The real benefits of this to the US tax and payroll base is all those A330-200Fs that will be built for commercial customers at that factory. And they will be built at that factory - Airbus is going to want to - need to - amortize the costs of building that new factory over more then just one or two KC-45As a month. So that will be a few more planes a month that will be assembled at that line beyond what would just be coming from the KC-45A program. And, frankly, the A330-200F's long-term sales are likely to be stronger then the 767-300F's and 767-200LRF's.

Stitch, I salute you.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:32 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 46):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 43):
We simply don't have the same relationship between government and industry that exists in the EU.

Simply cannot accept that. Industry are large contributors to political causes/parties/individuals. They sure as hell are not contributing so as to not have a seat at the table.

Of course they contribute. But the US government doesn't directly underwrite Boeing the way France and Germany underwrite Airbus. If a US President made a public pronouncement congratulating Microsoft winning a large EU contract, Apple, Sun, and the rest of Microsoft's competitors would be screaming about it from the hilltops.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 46):
My response to the heads of Germany - France congratulations was I admit a touch cheeky, but the sentiment correct. Highlighting something which is a known fact is hardly controversial.

I wasn't offended by your response in the least.

Here's the bottom line. Airbus, for better or worse, is provided with financial support from governments in the EU. When those governments - arguably partial owners - publicly position themselves in the manner they have in this instance - it makes it doubtful that there is any hope of a US competitor to Airbus winning an EU contract where Airbus is one of the bidders.

Perception is important, and in this instance, Airbus is setting itself up - needlessly - for future conflict.

Quoting Pope (Reply 47):
I don't think we should specify any particular reciprocity. What I think this tanker deal does is set a bar at a level where the usefulness of the product to the specified task is the determinant of the winner and NOT the company that makes it. Our European friends asked for a fair chance. It seems they got exactly that. US defense contractors should get no more no less. Earmarks and specific offsets are fundamentally inefficient

 checkmark 

Quoting Pope (Reply 47):
But US manufacturers don't get a fair chance to allow their products to compete, then the European manufacturers shouldn't expect to continue to receive the same from the US DoD going forward.

Same point I've been making on these threads. Airbus got a free and open competition, and the reciprocation need only be the same thing on the EU side of the pond.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:40 pm



Quoting Cpd (Reply 40):
If the Defence people have truly done their homework and evaluated all the aircraft in a transparent, unbiased way - there can be no reasonable interference, especially from grand-standing politicians who are trying to win votes. There is no way this request for proposals / tenders will have been handled in anything other than the most ethical way, because the result had the potential to be so politically explosive.

Politics is never handled in an ethical way. Fallout is countered with spin

The KC-30 is the more capable aircraft, but it's also significantly more expensive to buy. Only when you are able to take advantage of the KC-30's capabilities will it be the better choice. How often will that be the case? All the time? Most of the time, some of the time? Rarely? Never???

The USAF's original RFP didn't ask for the biggest aircraft, or the heaviest, or the one that could carry the most people, most fuel, etc. - they required an aircraft that could do at least what the KC-135 could do, and both the KC767 and KC-30 fulfill that requirement.

As for Congress reviewing the deal - when are they going to find time with baseball season about to get under way? They've got so much more important things on their agenda!

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 46):
I don't beleive it is when I look at the US inventory. Apart from the KC-45 which does not enter service for a number of years, I cannot see any huge non-US products (again, bar the Harrier) serving your nation in frontline positions. F-15/16/18/22/35/117, A-10, KC-10/135, AH-1/64, UH-60, B-1/2,Awacs, C-17/130, Predator, Global Hawk etc etc in addition to almost all weaponry being US manufactured. Again I ask you is this coincidental or the US protecting its industrial base or National Interest?

I think it would be only fair for you to list the equivalent European models to all the above.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:01 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 51):
Of course they contribute. But the US government doesn't directly underwrite Boeing the way France and Germany underwrite Airbus.

They underwrite Airbus with repayable loans to no more than 33% of development costs. The one side of this which I do not like is that the loan is only repayable if the aircraft is a success. If you build a lemon, you should swallow it. But we could argue (for days!) that R&D costs given to US manufacturers out of Federal pockets for projects are never repaid even if the project is cancelled. I don't however think that is the debate on this thread. Subsidy is unfortunatley a very broad spectrum.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 51):
If a US President made a public pronouncement congratulating Microsoft winning a large EU contract, Apple, Sun, and the rest of Microsoft's competitors would be screaming about it from the hilltops.

Fair point. Europe is slightly different. There is EADS and not much else to compete on the same scale.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 51):
it makes it doubtful that there is any hope of a US competitor to Airbus winning an EU contract where Airbus is one of the bidders.

Friendly request Halls. Please stop saying EU. It is France and Germany the thread is focusing on.

Quoting Pope (Reply 47):
don't think we should specify any particular reciprocity. What I think this tanker deal does is set a bar at a level where the usefulness of the product to the specified task is the determinant of the winner and NOT the company that makes it. Our European friends asked for a fair chance. It seems they got exactly that. US defense contractors should get no more no less. Earmarks and specific offsets are fundamentally inefficient.

But US manufacturers don't get a fair chance to allow their products to compete, then the European manufacturers shouldn't expect to continue to receive the same from the US DoD going forward.

On a personal note - EADS deserves a well done pat on the back because this was a big win for them. But the challenge is not over. In fact it's just begun. Now it's time to perform.

I hope that they deliver the best aircraft possible for our troops, on-time and on-budget

Superb Post.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:22 pm



Quoting Khobar (Reply 52):
I think it would be only fair for you to list the equivalent European models to all the above.

I am sure that you understood the essence of my opinion which was in reply to Skeptics claim of all the non-US products the DoD have purchased. Of course there are models where there is no direct equivalent, as most other forces do not require that level of capability (C-5, B-2 etc). But of the models where there was an option (point defence fighter, transport and attack helicopters etc) the fact that not one of them were purchased (some not even evaluated) by the US is an indication of what exactly? That the only reason of this bias is coincidence. Of course not. Take the blinkers off.

By the way, non-US does not mean just Europe.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:47 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 53):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 51):
Of course they contribute. But the US government doesn't directly underwrite Boeing the way France and Germany underwrite Airbus.

They underwrite Airbus with repayable loans to no more than 33% of development costs.

I realize it isn't a complete subsidy. Partial as it may be, it is still something that Boeing or other US companies get. Outwardly, at least.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 53):
I don't however think that is the debate on this thread. Subsidy is unfortunatley a very broad spectrum.

You are correct. The subsidy debate could go on and on and on.....

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 53):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 51):
it makes it doubtful that there is any hope of a US competitor to Airbus winning an EU contract where Airbus is one of the bidders.

Friendly request Halls. Please stop saying EU. It is France and Germany the thread is focusing on.

Sorry! It is the result of my conditioning at the hands of my UK, Dutch, French and German colleagues. Over the years, they keep beating into my head that in my profession (public international law) I need to think EU first.

To be fair, my UK friends don't ask me to use the term with any great enthusiasm.  duck 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:27 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 54):
I am sure that you understood the essence of my opinion which was in reply to Skeptics claim of all the non-US products the DoD have purchased. Of course there are models where there is no direct equivalent, as most other forces do not require that level of capability (C-5, B-2 etc). But of the models where there was an option (point defence fighter, transport and attack helicopters etc) the fact that not one of them were purchased (some not even evaluated) by the US is an indication of what exactly? That the only reason of this bias is coincidence. Of course not. Take the blinkers off.

As I originally said, it would only be fair for you to list the equivalent European (or other) models.

I Googled "point defence fighter" - got Hawk. Lo and behold, the Hawk was bought by the US (Navy). Perhaps you have other examples?  Wink

Transport - again, which transports did you have in mind?

Attack helicopters - same as above.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 53):
They underwrite Airbus with repayable loans to no more than 33% of development costs. The one side of this which I do not like is that the loan is only repayable if the aircraft is a success. If you build a lemon, you should swallow it. But we could argue (for days!) that R&D costs given to US manufacturers out of Federal pockets for projects are never repaid even if the project is cancelled. I don't however think that is the debate on this thread. Subsidy is unfortunatley a very broad spectrum.

Why should the government be repaid if the government cancels the project? They developed a product for military use, with the government having final say in how many it will buy and which international customers can buy it in general. No contractor would accept that kind of risk if the customer could cancel at its own whim and then demand the funds it paid for product development to be returned. Do you think NG and EADS would like it if the US government went ahead with the initial development contract, and then cancelled it after NG and EADS had spent all of the money, and then demanded to get the money spent back? Would you call that a subsidy then that should be paid back? Most military aviation projects are so specialized that most of the R&D expenditure has no applicability to the commercial side. It just diverts engineering and manufacturing resources elsewhere. And for that applicable portion of R&D, a lot of the expenditure goes to subcontractors who sell to Airbus as well.

The analogous situation is not repayment of launch aid in case of market failure, but cancellation of a customer contract for a customized commercial aircraft after development had started that required payment of a funds by the customer upfront. The customer has no basis to request all funds be returned.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7248
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:07 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
That's maybe a billion or two a year into Airbus' coffers, and that doesn't include the cost of building the factory and the cost of the plane

I would guess that roughly 50% of the $40Bn will end up (briefly) in EADS coffers over 15 years.
NG will take their Prime contractors cut, payment for the assembly process, and the cost of the military hardware will be substantial (if my experience on the build of HMS Ocean is anything to go by) .
So yeah, that should average around $1.3Bn a year.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 50):
Stitch, I salute you.

Always a worthwhile exercise..  thumbsup 

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 53):
The one side of this which I do not like is that the loan is only repayable if the aircraft is a success

Don't think you're correct with that assertion. I think you'll find the RLI has to be repaid whatever.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
To be fair, my UK friends don't ask me to use the term with any great enthusiasm.

Talk about a country that wants to play on both sides.....  biggrin 
Of course, we have a new Prime Minister now.........  scratchchin 

Regards
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:22 pm



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 57):
No contractor would accept that kind of risk if the customer could cancel at its own whim and then demand the funds it paid for product development to be returned.

Yes. The point being a subsidy is a subsidy however it is dressed. Unless receiving funds from an external source to facilitate R&D means something else depending on which side of the pond you are.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 58):
Don't think you're correct with that assertion. I think you'll find the RLI has to be repaid whatever.

I stand humbly corrected.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 56):
I Googled "point defence fighter" - got Hawk.

Selected from a joint bid from McD and BAE. What where the other options? The Hawk a 'point defence fighter'
 laughing  . Is that why they have been deployed to the Gulf and sit on the deck of a carrier in such huge numbers? Its a trainer for the navy with a secondary role for point defence. You may also recall my post stated 'frontline' aircraft. Heard any good Hawk dogfight stories lately?

Quoting Khobar (Reply 56):
As I originally said, it would only be fair for you to list the equivalent European (or other) models.

Typhoon, Tornado, Mirage, Rafale, Gripen, Jaguar, Puma, Cougar, Tiger, Rooivalk, NH-90, Transal, CASA 235/295, Nimrod, Alpha jet. Thats an example (and some are older than others) without Russian involvement. My point being that none of these, bar the Coast Guard CASA's, stood a snowball in hells chance of being selected by previous congress'. Are you arguing that there was not a closed shop mentality to US defence procurement? Bearing in mind half of the mentioned aircraft were developed with cold war thinking.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
To be fair, my UK friends don't ask me to use the term with any great enthusiasm.

I hugely concur with your friends.
 Wink
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:35 pm



Quoting Khobar (Reply 56):
I Googled "point defence fighter" - got Hawk. Lo and behold, the Hawk was bought by the US (Navy).

Try googling T-45 Goshawk Trainer if you want to be accurate. The use of the Hawk as a point defence fighter hasn't ceased to amuse me.That definition fits the Gripen a lot better.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 56):
Transport - again, which transports did you have in mind?

Transall, CASA C-212, C-295, CN-235, EADS A-400M

Quoting Khobar (Reply 56):
Attack helicopters - same as above

Agusta Mangusta, Eurocopter Tiger, not counting the armed versions of the light helos.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 58):
Of course, we have a new Prime Minister now.........

Would that change anything ?  Big grin
Contrail designer
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:52 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55):
To be fair, my UK friends don't ask me to use the term with any great enthusiasm.

You don't have to.
But you'll have to live with its existence.
So far, it's been quite positive for us, preventing each country being rolled over by the US might. Heard of the "Open Skies" agreement, among a lot of others ?
That allows me introduce another point : France, for all it concerns the US psyche is (FACT : ) the smallest contributor / contractor on the KC-45A contract, way behind Germany, the UK - surprise, surprise ! - and Spain, while the US would get around 60% of the work. Funny I haven't seen outcries against the Brits or the Spaniards.
As these two countries are in all probability the biggest European buyers of US weaponry, I have this creeping feeling that the tanker deal doesn't even begin to level the trade balance in military goods.
( just a little exercise in lateral thinking )
Contrail designer
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:58 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
France, for all it concerns the US psyche is (FACT : ) the smallest contributor / contractor on the KC-45A contract, way behind Germany, the UK - surprise, surprise !

So its not just Rugby then  Big grin
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
astuteman
Posts: 7248
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:07 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 62):
So its not just Rugby then  biggrin 

 rotfl   rotfl 
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:28 pm

Oh ! That's the perfidious Albion's way to re-invent new rules to the games.
Rugby is about movement, passes, runs, concerted attacks....in a word, °flair°, until the bloody Poms came out with a trench warfare with some idiot lobbing mortar shells over.
Anybody can beat the Eeynglish, except the French, but c'est la vie. We're ok with everybody else. ( I did ask that the XV de France coaches be publicly guillotined. Alas, only 49.9999999 % agreed. There must be one rosbif-lover left )
Contrail designer
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:32 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 60):
Try googling T-45 Goshawk Trainer if you want to be accurate. The use of the Hawk as a point defence fighter hasn't ceased to amuse me.That definition fits the Gripen a lot better.

I'm just reporting what I found re: point defence fighter, not that it matters. And speaking of trainers, the US also bought the British T-3A Firefly.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 60):
Transall, CASA C-212, C-295, CN-235, EADS A-400M

CASA C-212 was purchased by the US
The C-295 lost to the C-27J in competition (C-27J is an Italian entry).
The CN-235, also purchased by the US and flies with the US Coast Guard.
How many A-400M are currently in service?

So, of the five examples offered, two actually were bought by the US, and a third was rejected in favor of a different "foreign" offering, and one isn't even in service at all and is well behind schedule. I don't know about the Transall - what did it lose out to, the Caribou?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 60):
Agusta Mangusta, Eurocopter Tiger, not counting the armed versions of the light helos.

Seems not too many other countries have much interest in the Mangusta either, but why should the US have bought this copter?

Eurocopter Tiger - same question.

On the plus side, the US government has previously purchased European helicopters - the Lakota and the EH101 (which, incidentally, is facing engineering challenges, delays and cost overruns that could push into the $Billions. In fact, the Pentagon is concerned enough about the promises made to get the contract that they are considering canceling, severely cutting back the program, or even asking Sikorsky to go ahead and produce the S-92 for presidential use. This is interesting because the analysis of the KC-30 win pointed out one of the strong points of the EADS offering was the ability to get the same job done as the KC-767 [i]with fewer aircraft[/i}).
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:01 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
That allows me introduce another point : France, for all it concerns the US psyche is (FACT : ) the smallest contributor / contractor on the KC-45A contract, way behind Germany, the UK - surprise, surprise ! - and Spain, while the US would get around 60% of the work. Funny I haven't seen outcries against the Brits or the Spaniards.
As these two countries are in all probability the biggest European buyers of US weaponry, I have this creeping feeling that the tanker deal doesn't even begin to level the trade balance in military goods.
( just a little exercise in lateral thinking )

Actually, looking at current trade levels, I suspect it will completely wipe out defense surpluses with the UK, Germany and Spain, which are somewhere around $500, $300, and $100 million per year respectively, and we seem to be running a deficit of $50 million with France. 40% manufacturing in Europe over a period of 10 years means $1.6 billion/year, easily exceeding the net surpluses with those countries..

[Edited 2008-03-03 16:02:44]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:04 am

The point was about why we'd chose something outside the EU when we have those models available.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
the EH101 (which, incidentally, is facing engineering challenges, delays and cost overruns that could push into the $Billions

OK, then blame the Brits and the Italians. Serves them right ; they should have joined Eurocopter ! Big grin

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
On the plus side, the US government has previously purchased European helicopters - the Lakota

I forgot that one . So, this KC-30 deal is not the first time EADS scored in the US ? Nice. Even nicer that you bought German AND Japanese technology in one go ; 'copter equivalent of a BMW twined with a a Lexus, Wow !

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
Eurocopter Tiger

I really do not believe for one second that there ever was a plan to sell that one to the US army. Rather a very nice exercise in keeping some know-how in the old Europe. And it's selling rather well to other countries, as well. So, a positive operation.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
I don't know about the Transall - what did it lose out to, the Caribou?

No surprise here, you only see it on the news when it's used to evacuate people out of some mess : Chad was the latest, Lebanon, the Ivory Coast earlier, generally out there in some dark unsung places... where, btw we didn't see too many Hercs...but it led to the A-400M, but that's another story.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
This is interesting because the analysis of the KC-30 win pointed out one of the strong points of the EADS offering was the ability to get the same job done as the KC-767 [i]with fewer aircraft[/i}).

We're obviously not reading the same papers as I was left with the impression that, whatever the outcome of the competition that the MRTT won, the contract was for a fixed number of planes : 179 rings a bell.

All this said, I, for one can't give a fig about that deal . Ten or twelve airplanes a year ? Put in the big picture, that's about 2.6% of Airbus actual production, going down as the total output increases. Nothing to be really hysterical about one way or the other, is there ? On the other hand, I'll start cheering when Mobile rolls out the first of many A-330Fs. That would be worthwhile.

Regards
Contrail designer
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:09 am



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 66):
and we seem to be running a deficit of $50 million with France

What ? I didn't know we were selling that much wine to the US military ! Big grin

Joke aside, thanks for the clarification !
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:10 am

To add some more to the imbalance list, when the F-15 was being developed, how much money was Europe spending on their aviation industry to offer a competitve product, for the F-16 the French may say they had a competitor. The E3-AWACS to this day still does not have a European counterpart in that size and range class, the Nimrod could be a valuable competitor to the P3 or even the new P8 but the UK seems to be having problems which make offering it during the selction of the P8 problematic. In terms of tanks, are any of the European models, Challenger, Leopard, etc. so superior to the M1-A1 that the politicians had to get involved, the M1 uses a German gun too, so that may be a wash.

On a economic note, the US Defense industry dwarfs the European market, hence my assumption in other threads that ultimately, what European firms want is a piece of the action in terms of money pure and simple. The US should be under no illusions that because they are now purchasing billions of dollars from Europe that they will now be a stronger supporter of US foreign policy, unfortunately, there are some US politicians who are that "nuts". The US spends millions to maintain bases in Europe, I hope they no longer pre-position equipment there, after all, who is threatning Europe? The bases have US personel who live and shop on base and off, they also employ locals, so the effect on local economies goes beyond the actual military outlay, but guess what, that is the price the US pays for wanting to be a superpower.

I still to this day do not understand how the Office of POTUS gets to fly around in a EH101, his representation of his country should take precident over the 100% best foreign design versus the 80% local, by all means supply the a/c to the brave souls who volunteer to fight for their country.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:19 am



Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
CASA C-212 was purchased by the US

Odd that the 212 appears under the 'Prototypes, test aircraft and miscellaneous acquisitions' section of the USCG websites history section. It appears one was leased (not purchased) and is no longer in service.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
The C-295 lost to the C-27J in competition (C-27J is an Italian entry).

Well, 'The C-27J has been developed by Lockheed Martin Alenia Tactical Transport Systems (LMATTS). LMATTS is a joint venture company based in Marietta, Georgia, which was set up by Lockheed Martin and Alenia Aeronautica, which is part of the Finmeccanica company of Italy'. Yep, completely foreign that one. Wonder if Alenia could have won by themselves?

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
The CN-235, also purchased by the US and flies with the US Coast Guard.

A point I conceded in my earlier posts.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
How many A-400M are currently in service?

None. But when it comes into service I am sure the US will buy bucketloads.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
Seems not too many other countries have much interest in the Mangusta either, but why should the US have bought this copter?

Eurocopter Tiger - same question.

Considering the manufacturers that took part in the Attack Helicopter program which became the Apache were Bell, Boeing-Vertol, Hughes, Lockheed and Sikorsky were they even considered? And that is all I am asking.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
the EH101 (which, incidentally, is facing engineering challenges, delays and cost overruns that could push into the $Billions. In fact, the Pentagon is concerned enough about the promises made to get the contract that they are considering canceling, severely cutting back the program, or even asking Sikorsky to go ahead and produce the S-92 for presidential use.

Well our Merlin's are going great guns in service in the Gulf and Navy. What the hell are you doing to them?

Quoting Khobar (Reply 65):
This is interesting because the analysis of the KC-30 win pointed out one of the strong points of the EADS offering was the ability to get the same job done as the KC-767 [i]with fewer aircraft[/i}).

This is interesting because it makes what point exactly?
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:22 am



Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
That allows me introduce another point : France, for all it concerns the US psyche is (FACT : ) the smallest contributor / contractor on the KC-45A contract, way behind Germany, the UK - surprise, surprise ! - and Spain, while the US would get around 60% of the work. Funny I haven't seen outcries against the Brits or the Spaniards.

You are making the mistake of assuming that logic has anything to do with the outcry. Remember that here on Anet, the average member is very well informed on aviation matters. That isn't the case with regard to the public at large.

To be perfectly frank, I suspect that if Airbus had located its final assembly plant in the UK instead of in Toulouse, there would be far less outcry. It isn't fair, but the US public at large has a higher comfort factor with our British cousins than with the rest of our Nato allies.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:20 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 71):
To be perfectly frank, I suspect that if Airbus had located its final assembly plant in the UK instead of in Toulouse, there would be far less outcry. It isn't fair, but the US public at large has a higher comfort factor with our British cousins than with the rest of our Nato allies.

Funny how people can see glass half empty and others half full. Airbus supporters at times point to the percentage of US content that goes into their aircraft including the A380, but none of them are willing to say that it is partly American, Americans point with pride to the content of out-sourced parts for their B-787, but none of them are willing to say its a EU product, so can we really not say it is fair to call Airbus a French Company, anyone doubts who call the shots in the boradroom?

Cheers
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:46 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 58):
I would guess that roughly 50% of the $40Bn will end up (briefly) in EADS coffers over 15 years.



Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):
All this said, I, for one can't give a fig about that deal . Ten or twelve airplanes a year ? Put in the big picture, that's about 2.6% of Airbus actual production, going down as the total output increases

It's funny reading some threads on here you get the impression that Boeing gets billions in subsidies from the DOD every year (and that nothing is ever given back to the DOD). Airbus just won what'll probably be the biggest DOD contract for the next 50 years and all of the sudden it becomes insignificant.  Wink

Are people finally realizing that defense contracts and defense R+D spending aren't as lucrative as they seem? Is there the sudden realization that military equipment is very expensive and that is why it costs billions and it simply isn't a blank check given to defense contractors?

Personally I think EADS will make enough money to pay for the A350 development with this contract....it won't be all up front, but over the length of the contract.

I'm not trying to take away from the NG/EADS victory (they deserved to win), but just keep in mind the nature of defense contracts next time some of you bring that into the WTO arguments
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:59 am



Quoting NorCal (Reply 73):
I'm not trying to take away from the NG/EADS victory (they deserved to win), but just keep in mind the nature of defense contracts next time some of you bring that into the WTO arguments

Sarcasm hat on:

Since the US will not fess up to its illegal subsidy activities and provide factual evidence at the WTO to prove EADS complaint correct, the powers that be at EADS cames up with Power 9, get a hugh US defence industry contract to see the true inner working of the US subsidy machine.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:59 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 71):
To be perfectly frank, I suspect that if Airbus had located its final assembly plant in the UK instead of in Toulouse, there would be far less outcry. It isn't fair, but the US public at large has a higher comfort factor with our British cousins than with the rest of our Nato allies.

Which, since you are taking the assembly for 330Fs and military versions from Toulouse - in FRANCE - to Mobile - in the USA, should make the anti-French partisans ever so much happier than if it was just being taken from Limeys - NON?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 58):
Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 53):
The one side of this which I do not like is that the loan is only repayable if the aircraft is a success

Don't think you're correct with that assertion. I think you'll find the RLI has to be repaid whatever.

Other than the actual contracts never being released, that appears to be correct. Even if a project is a total disaster, after 17 years the initial amount, plus interest, has to be repaid.

Nevertheless, it is amusing that a related issue has been totally missed in all the spleen.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7248
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:01 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 73):
Airbus just won what'll probably be the biggest DOD contract for the next 50 years and all of the sudden it becomes insignificant.

Fortunately for me, I've never entered into the "Boeing military subsidies" debate..  biggrin 

Quoting NorCal (Reply 73):
Personally I think EADS will make enough money to pay for the A350 development with this contract

Having read up, NG say that 58% of the revenue will end up in their pocket, and 42% in EADS pocket.

42% of $40Bn is $16.8Bn off the top of my head - and that's revenue, not profit. Even with a double-digit profit margin, that's only ("only"  confused   Smile ) about $1.7Bn over 15 years, little more than $100m a year profit.
Bearing in mind that the A350XWB goes into service in 2013, the same year that the first full production KC45's are due to go into service, virtually none of the returns from the tanker programme can possibly end up supporting the A350 development  no   Smile

Might be handy for the A320RS and the A380SUH, though....  Wink

Regards
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:11 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 75):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 71):
To be perfectly frank, I suspect that if Airbus had located its final assembly plant in the UK instead of in Toulouse, there would be far less outcry. It isn't fair, but the US public at large has a higher comfort factor with our British cousins than with the rest of our Nato allies.

Which, since you are taking the assembly for 330Fs and military versions from Toulouse - in FRANCE - to Mobile - in the USA, should make the anti-French partisans ever so much happier than if it was just being taken from Limeys - NON?

It should. If a real assembly plant is in fact built in Mobile. To paraphrase a few our of Anetters, "the EADS manufacturing plant in Mobile exists only on paper."  

[Edited 2008-03-04 05:12:14]
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:16 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 76):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 73):
Airbus just won what'll probably be the biggest DOD contract for the next 50 years and all of the sudden it becomes insignificant.

Fortunately for me, I've never entered into the "Boeing military subsidies" debate..

Neither have I, and my figures still stand. My arguments, too, and you've never seen them on this forum, so it's very much what I - only I - think.
That the deal astonished me , I have to acknowledge. Put in perspective, it won't change my life whether the congress fights it or not . I say again : I couldn't care less.
I'm on this forum - for the first time since I joined A.net - because of the fun I get from all the Hullll Ah Balll OOOOH! coming from the US of A. The old US of A.
With a wink to a respected contributor, I'm in Stitch es. Big grin
Contrail designer
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:17 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 77):
To paraphrase a few our of Anetters, "the EADS manufacturing plant in Mobile exists only on paper."

I understand, just like the Boeing contestant in the USAF competition then?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:49 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 77):
It should. If a real assembly plant is in fact built in Mobile. To paraphrase a few our of Anetters, "the EADS manufacturing plant in Mobile exists only on paper."

Well EADS just announced they're allocating $500 million USD to begin construction, so that's a lot of paper (and cotton and linen).  Wink
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:07 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):
We're obviously not reading the same papers as I was left with the impression that, whatever the outcome of the competition that the MRTT won, the contract was for a fixed number of planes : 179 rings a bell.

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/printer_1234.shtml

"The review found that the Northrop Grumman proposal could accomplish specified missions with nearly two dozen fewer planes than the Boeing proposal, a big advantage."

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 70):
Odd that the 212 appears under the 'Prototypes, test aircraft and miscellaneous acquisitions' section of the USCG websites history section. It appears one was leased (not purchased) and is no longer in service.

Not really - it's also flown by Blackwater Security. LOL.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 70):
Well, 'The C-27J has been developed by Lockheed Martin Alenia Tactical Transport Systems (LMATTS). LMATTS is a joint venture company based in Marietta, Georgia, which was set up by Lockheed Martin and Alenia Aeronautica, which is part of the Finmeccanica company of Italy'. Yep, completely foreign that one. Wonder if Alenia could have won by themselves?

It's designed and manufactured in Italy and imported into the US where upgraded navigation, communication, and mission systems are installed.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 70):
None. But when it comes into service I am sure the US will buy bucketloads.

If there's a need for them, there's every chance they will. However, since the A400 is designed to fill "the gap"

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 70):
Considering the manufacturers that took part in the Attack Helicopter program which became the Apache were Bell, Boeing-Vertol, Hughes, Lockheed and Sikorsky were they even considered? And that is all I am asking.

Since they didn't have a serious contender at the time, I doubt they were. As I recall, two of the partner nations lost faith in the project and pulled out.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 70):
Well our Merlin's are going great guns in service in the Gulf and Navy. What the hell are you doing to them?

I'm not doing anything to them.  Wink But it does demonstrate the risk of assuming that just because something works one way that it will work in all ways.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 59):
Selected from a joint bid from McD and BAE. What where the other options? The Hawk a 'point defence fighter'
laughing .

I kid you not - Google it yourself.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 59):
My point being that none of these, bar the Coast Guard CASA's, stood a snowball in hells chance of being selected by previous congress'. Are you arguing that there was not a closed shop mentality to US defence procurement? Bearing in mind half of the mentioned aircraft were developed with cold war thinking.

It's fine to list off a bunch of aircraft, but without stating what they supposedly compete with the listing lacks context. No matter, upon closer examination, we find that even if specific types were not selected, the companies behind those types were not excluded. BAe, CASA, EADS, Dassault, Agusta, Westland, Alenia, Eurocopter, etc. ALL have gotten a slice of the pie - in some cases the biggest slices of pie of their lives.

I'm sure there are specific exceptions that support your assertion, but the overall history of US procurement demonstrates that the system is not closed-shop. All that seems to be required is that the right product be matched with the right team and you're in like Flynn.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:10 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 80):
Well EADS just announced they're allocating $500 million USD to begin construction, so that's a lot of paper (and cotton and linen).

Let us pray that it is not subsidised US cotton then and the very best Irish linen.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:47 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 79):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 77):
To paraphrase a few our of Anetters, "the EADS manufacturing plant in Mobile exists only on paper."

I understand, just like the Boeing contestant in the USAF competition then?

Absolutely!  biggrin 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:48 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 76):
Having read up, NG say that 58% of the revenue will end up in their pocket, and 42% in EADS pocket.

I'd say EADS got the raw end of the deal! I would think that since they are partners they would split it 50:50.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 76):
Might be handy for the A320RS and the A380SUH, though....

Or new military programs  Wink
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:26 pm



Quoting Khobar (Reply 81):
Not really - it's also flown by Blackwater Security. LOL.

For a split second I thought you was being serious  Smile

Quoting Khobar (Reply 81):
It's designed and manufactured in Italy and imported into the US where upgraded navigation, communication, and mission systems are installed.

So Alenia would have won by themselves?

Quoting Khobar (Reply 81):
I kid you not - Google it yourself.

Ok and some smaller nations (militarily) do use them in an offensive role (Indonesia for example), but the people on Anet have a better understanding of aviation and know both the UK and US use them as trainers.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 81):
I'm sure there are specific exceptions that support your assertion, but the overall history of US procurement demonstrates that the system is not closed-shop.

I will concede that stating closed shop may have been not totally accurate, but when non-US people read quotes such as :

Fair use from bbc.co.uk

Congressional lawmakers from the state's Seattle area issued a joint statement condemning the "outsourcing" of the contract.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," they said.

Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Wichita, Kansas, called for "an American tanker built by an American company with American workers".

"I hope the Air Force reverses its decision," he added.

You have to wonder how open Congress really want these processes to be and I am aware both Seattle and Wichita are Boeing bases.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:55 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 85):
Congressional lawmakers from the state's Seattle area issued a joint statement condemning the "outsourcing" of the contract.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," they said.

Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Wichita, Kansas, called for "an American tanker built by an American company with American workers".

That is a politician, from a State that stood to gain with a Boeing win. As with most politicians, they don't care what happens to non-constituents, i.e. Alabama might as well be a foreign country from Mr. Tiahrt's POV. He's more concerned that Kansans will take out their frustrations on him and kick his butt out of office. What a terrible tragedy that would be, I'm sure, what with his comments and all.

I'm sure this sort of thing is not unique to the US.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 85):
Ok and some smaller nations (militarily) do use them in an offensive role (Indonesia for example), but the people on Anet have a better understanding of aviation and know both the UK and US use them as trainers.

Well, I was surprised to see the reference, but since it is a valid reference I'm sticking with it.  Wink

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 85):
So Alenia would have won by themselves?

In a sense, Alenia did win it by themselves since it was an existing Italian design with no US input (AFAIK). The US involvement is with the avionics/electronics (the particular planes don't even have US engines, unlike the earlier version).

However, if you want me to say that a US partner company is needed, that's fine.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7248
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:37 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 84):
I'd say EADS got the raw end of the deal! I would think that since they are partners they would split it 50:50.

Prime contracting doesn't tend to work like that.

Airbus are currently believed to be selling A330-200's for around $90m.
42% of $40Bn is $16.8Bn (or about $95m per frame for 179 frames)

(From my experience), I think the costing process may have looked something like this:-

Airbus are providing EADS c. 70% of the content, by value of an A330-200. Say about $65m worth at market rates.
EADS then add to this about $30m worth of refuelling equipment components/assemblies.

NG then complete the A330 assembly, and install the refuelling equipment, and undoubtedly do lots of other "militarisation" activities (someone mentioned EMP, for example). Don't know what these all cost, but the military cost element will always make the commercial cost element look, well, minor.  yes 
NG will also charge for programme management of the entire programme (which will easily be 20% of the entire cost  yes  )
NG will also cream off the contract about 10% of the total value of the EADS as their profit margin on the EADS "material" content. That's what prime contractors do.  yes 

For EADS, the financial impact will be pretty much the same as selling 179 A330's at the current market rate (to EK obviously  Wink ) over a period of 15 years. Won't set the world on fire, but definitely not to be sneezed at, either.
12 A330's a year for 15 years, at market rates, is good throughput.
Throughput which they'd NEVER get without NG.

NG definitely win!
They'll get at least $1.6Bn (over 15 years) just for shaking hands with EADS  yes 

Feel free to dispute, but I've been involved in pricing major prime contracts in a military environment for over a decade now.
The above might not be totally accurate, but it won't be far away...

Regards
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:45 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):

I'm not going to dispute with that well reasoned responsed. That's for the info!

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):
someone mentioned EMP, for example).

I mentioned that, but according to Zeke all FBW airbus are already EMP proof
 
astuteman
Posts: 7248
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:51 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 88):
I'm not going to dispute with that well reasoned responsed. That's for the info!

Many thanks, my friend, although "info" might be a bit of an exaggeration.  Smile

That's just my thouhts on how a typical military prime contract bid like this might be set up.

NG DEFINITELY WIN!
That I've no doubts of (which sort of supports your earlier comment, I guess).
Still EADS wouldn't have stood a hope of ANY business without NG "priming".

Regards
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19544
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:47 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):

By way of comparison, here's Leeham's take on the value to Airbus:
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn030408_1.pdf

Quote:
When you consider that Airbus’ estimated revenue last year was around $44 billion, the
gross Airbus cut represents 1.73% of annual revenues at the low-end scenario.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:57 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 73):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):
All this said, I, for one can't give a fig about that deal . Ten or twelve airplanes a year ? Put in the big picture, that's about 2.6% of Airbus actual production, going down as the total output increases

It's funny reading some threads on here you get the impression that Boeing gets billions in subsidies from the DOD every year (and that nothing is ever given back to the DOD). Airbus just won what'll probably be the biggest DOD contract for the next 50 years and all of the sudden it becomes insignificant.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 76):
Having read up, NG say that 58% of the revenue will end up in their pocket, and 42% in EADS pocket.

42% of $40Bn is $16.8Bn off the top of my head - and that's revenue, not profit. Even with a double-digit profit margin, that's only ("only" ) about $1.7Bn over 15 years, little more than $100m a year profit.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 90):
By way of comparison, here's Leeham's take on the value to Airbus:
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn030408_1.pdf

Quote:
When you consider that Airbus’ estimated revenue last year was around $44 billion, the
gross Airbus cut represents 1.73% of annual revenues at the low-end scenario.

My God, I should write more on Mil.Av as I find myself in the good company of such as Scbriml, Stitch and Astuteman,and others, but also with Scott Hamilton of Leeham and - I pray for the veriest of the worst reasons - with Richard Aboulafia himself !
I think I should have more respect '(checks, please !)
 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
Contrail designer
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:28 am



Quoting Khobar (Reply 86):
I'm sure this sort of thing is not unique to the US.

I would imagine not. Just can't recall any British MP being so openly xenophobic about a defence procurement.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 86):
Well, I was surprised to see the reference, but since it is a valid reference I'm sticking with it.

Ohhh....alright then.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 86):
However, if you want me to say that a US partner company is needed, that's fine.

Then I rest contented in the glow of victory  duck 
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10490
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:30 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 87):
NG definitely win!
They'll get at least $1.6Bn (over 15 years) just for shaking hands with EADS

Market forces at work here as it should be, NG is a for profit company and this deal makes tons of money for them with initial investment kept as low as they can make it. Good for them

The other half of the story is that this is a tax payor project which is being spent on a non-revenue generating product over its entire life time, with some consequences to the country as a whole, we can only hope that the politicians have already paid enough due attention to this project as NG / EADS did and are now prepared to stand behind any consequences both the good and the bad.

Unfortunately, they seem to like monopoly, especially the get out of jail card.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5906
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:42 am



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 46):
I cannot see any huge non-US products

From the " How Much "Foreign" US Military Hardware? " tread:
How Much "Foreign" US Military Hardware? (by ThreeIfByAir Mar 2 2008 in Non Aviation)


Norway


Most of the ammo that US soldiers use in Iraq and afghanistan in their firearms come from Norway ( bullets for machine guns and so fort The " Raufoss Mk 211 " : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211


NASAMS ( (Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System) ) is curently guarding your Whitehouse. US forces has also lent several NASAMS for deployment in Iraq. The US is working on a version of thier own of this equipment in cooperation with the Norwegioan developers. You can read more about NASAMS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS





The Penguin anti-ship missile (U.S. designation AGM-119):





Protector M151:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECTOR_M151


Tank Urban Survival Kit for M1A2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abra...s#Tank_Urban_Survival_Kit_for_M1A2




Se tread for other nations
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:05 am



Quoting Mortyman (Reply 94):
Most of the ammo that US soldiers use in Iraq and afghanistan in their firearms come from Norway ( bullets for machine guns and so fort The " Raufoss Mk 211 " : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss...k_211

Not sure why you are using a quote from a post relating to frontline aircraft in the USAF inventory to say the bullets in machine guns used by US soldiers come from Norway  Confused
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:36 am



Quoting Mortyman (Reply 94):
is curently guarding your Whitehouse

I'm from the UK.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5906
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:06 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 95):
Not sure why you are using a quote from a post relating to frontline aircraft in the USAF inventory to say the bullets in machine guns used by US soldiers come from Norway

The tread title is " How Much "Foreign" US Military Hardware? "


I don't see your problem ?

and I just copied the text from that tread. I know you are from the UK
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:43 pm

I don't have a problem, I am just puzzled why you posted it in the first place.

The White House line was sarcasm. Didn't appear to work.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
milan320
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Tankers: What Reciprocity Should US Seek?

Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:09 pm



Quoting Wingman (Reply 45):
You guys need to buy 40 C-17s or the equivalent each or have AF and LH buy 50 787s apiece. I simply cannot fathom how US taxpayers and politicians tolerate this imbalance any longer.

I didn't know that free-market economics worked like that ... after all the US is all about the free-market.
Europe doesn't need to do anything ... we've been buying American arms for a long long time.
/Milan320
I accept bribes ... :-)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos