Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood. I'm sure it's not that, but the cheap labor that's attracting EADS
And there was I thinking that Huntsville has a pretty impressive aerospace industry?
As for cheap labour, hasn't slavery ended in Allybammy yet?
Anyway, I think the conclusion one can reach is that, whilst Americans might prefer a domestic design, if the competitor is superior and offers the possibility of more jobs within the US, they'd be mad to dismiss it.
But of course the bottom-feeding senators and their good ol' boy lobbyists will win the day - to the detriment of the USAF.
I keep harking back to ol' Bubba Boeing's dismal efforts with the KC-767I for Italy. Their KC-X proposal, the 767NoGo, represents even greater technological risk for the customer, particularly the decision to include the 7-late-7 flight deck. But perhaps those enormous winglets might just fix the flutter/buffet/hose stability problems?
Whereas the A330MRTT with its excellent Cobham Mission Equipment AAR kit goes from strength to strength.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 20,213
Yes, they believed ol' Bubba's spin.....
....and 5 years after it was due to be delivered, they're still waiting for the 767I.
The point being that ol' Bubba's track record on the 767 tanker isn't particularly good, so to trust that an even riskier technology wouldn't be equally delayed, or perhaps even more so, is somewhat naive, to say the least.
As an outsider (i.e. I'm not on either Boeing or Airbus's sh*t/bribe/suck up to lists (delete as appropriate)) it seems to me the choice is of a Tanker that needs a few teeny tweaks and could be slotted into production pdq, from a manufacturer that does both drogue and probe or the goatf**k pole approach OR the not even off the back of the fag packet designs from good ole Bubba. (who, from what I can understand still hasn't got his last project tanker to work)
If it was my money, I'd be going away from seattle. The views spouted by some americans here about the inferiority of overseas products is quite frankly insulting, rude, untrue and has a nasty whiff of racism about it (in my opinion)
It may be true about the quality varying but you get what you pay for and if you consume huge amounts of anything and you don't pay attention then you will find enterprising types will try and move the margins a little.
From my limited knowledge of US seafood (Tybee Island Crab Shack) and that there deadliest catch show, your produce is lovely, local stuff excellent, Alaskan stuff criminally high food miles. I'll bet most of you didn't now they bait the crab pots with Cod!!
No wonder the prices are so high here.
To summarize before the drugs get too bad I think the Buy USA when it is clearly a vastly inferior product is a bad choice.
I suspect Bubba will win though, but I'd like to see a corruption investigation on the process, like t' Baron nearly got caught with ( hope Dave runs it again) or BA got tarred with and like BP seems to be going to get (Nicely avoided by Halliburton)
Just because it says made in USA on the tin does not make it better - but hey what do I know, I bought a car from a cheese eating surrender monkey rather then buy British.
Ummm... Corny-Stormy, the cod used for bait for Alaskan crab is caught there in the Bering sea... often by the crab boats themselves.
And the Italians & Japanese simply let themselves be used by Boeing to pay for the R&D & prototype work, so Boeing could lower the costs on their KC-X bid. "Never buy the 'A' model of anything".
I still think the USAF would have a pretty good tanker with either candidate... its just that the Boeing model might take a few years (& a few billion$) longer to get all the bugs worked out.
Intersting reading that Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan has been closed to tanker traffic, this goes all the way back to the argument based on fuel offload at distance. The got kicked out of Uzbeckistan back in 2005, and this just pushes them further away.
Where is the USAF next nearest base they can use? Muscat?
"Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month,"
the companies name was changed to BP not British petroleum because it actually more American than British these days, oh and the contractors running the rig were American enough!
and do you bother submitting US produced goods to such stringent inspections (GM food, hormones in beef etc)
When they don't pay any taxes on US income, they are indeed foreign devils. That goes for ExonMob as well, the most profitable corp in the history of the world.
I'm glad you're rejecting US frankenfoods. That helps us fight them at home.
Getting a little OT, it is maddening that medics, Toyota, BP and other companies in risky businesses aren't taking advantage of all that's been learned about safety in achieving Cat IIIc by Boeing, Lockheed and Airbus. The BP disaster would probably have been avoided by spending another half $Million for a backup, as required in Brazil and Norway waters.
BEagle, you seem to ignore EADS bet on the wrong horse in 2008. McCain's campaign staff was loaded with EADS lobbyists.
Quote:
And there was I thinking that Huntsville has a pretty impressive aerospace industry?
As for cheap labour, hasn't slavery ended in Allybammy yet?
Get out your old atlas, BEagle. Huntsville is at the other end of the state from Mobile area. I got my first aviation training at Redstone Arsenal - on Nike Hercules missiles.
Wages are on the downhill slide to serfdom. Ala is a right to work state, which means unions have no power. Besides that, Ala government has the best judges money can buy.
Used airliners are the best source of tankers. Screw new.
Used airliners are the best source of tankers. Screw new.
Yeah, the idea worked so well for the USAF's E-8C JSTARS fleet.
Do a little research on what refurbishing them - not counting the fancy electronics, just washing cow sh1t out and corrosion repair fixes - cost as compared to new builds.
Not to mention the unexpectedly large O&M funds in keeping a "used airliner" in service or the fuel burn on those "cheap" engines.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 20,213
brick, on that I would certainly agree!
In contrast to the USAF, the RAF has never bought a new tanker. Victors were converted nuclear bombers, VC10K2s, 3s and 4s were secondhand and thirdhand airliners, TriStars were also someone else's cast-offs and VC10C1Ks were converted from RAF transports.
Buying 'used' is not a cheap solution when you add the cost of through-life maintenance, compliance with current age regulatory requirements, rewiring, sorting out exfoliation corrosion, keeping ancient engine rebuilders in business......
Graybeard, when you referred to Alabama in your silly post:
Quote:
Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood.
Whoopsie! This should make for interesting supporting documentation in the EU case against Boeing before the WTO. That latter is, BTW, a reason why I expect that subsidy rule for the tanker acquisition may yet blow up in Boeing's face.
Last edited by Rengineer; 8th Jun 2010 at 07:55.
Reason: Fixed typo
go back to what you used when wheels were square and dinosaurs ruled the earth!! Fathoms, Chains, Bushels and Pecks I believe??
