Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract

Old 26th Feb 2011, 08:11
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 60
Posts: 729
Well how about you poor losers just suck it up then!

No offence.
None Taken
SRENNAPS is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 08:31
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,147
Wink

They may even be able to de-spec it as it won't have to be able to cope with RAF bootleggers - there won't be any left in 5 years . . .
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 09:13
  #43 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 78
Posts: 3,513
Obviously done to save Boeing from administration over the 787 fiasco.
green granite is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 12:26
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 66
that places aircrews in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability
Oh dear I cannot believe they are still trotting out this garbage.
Tester07 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 14:58
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 475
Well how about you poor losers just suck it up then!
What, just like Boeing and it's political cronies did when they lost the original competition.

Best of three?
Brain Potter is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 18:22
  #46 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,738
For anyone, who in their most drug-crazed moments thought this was ever a competition about capability, here's a little aide-memoire to help you;

1. Voters elect politicians.
2. Politicians get put in charge of military spending.
3. Some military spending is done in the politician's district or State.
4. Some voters get the benefit of that military spending.
5. Go to 1. and repeat as necesary.

This applies equally as well for all those outraged nationalists who wonder how companies (hypothetically from Warton and Toulouse) can continue to produce late and expensive products without ever being challenged.
Two's in is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 18:42
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,815
bootleggers
Wash your mouth out! The new term is 'On Call Receivers' - some utter crap from the US Navy which, regrettably, now infests ATP-56B....

Good luck to the USAF with their second-best Frankentanker from Ol' Bubba Boeing's red shed lot - they're going to need it! Just ask the Italians...
BEagle is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 19:24
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Even if the EADS contract was the most convincing on paper it seems correct to me that the US supports their own. If I was a spam, I would not be enraged if a $35Bn contract was awarded to the rival of one US's largest employers. Boeing is not in great shape just now.
culzean12 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 20:18
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: non zero
Posts: 149
.... if it wasn't for some political/economical BS, let me ask you if it is really needed an AAR asset for future military operations! or let me rephrase a little bit, if a new AAR asset was so important, like everybody wants us to believe why the the US Government decide in 2004 to suspend the investment?

Obviously done to save Boeing from administration over the 787 fiasco
787 is a Boeing Commercial project that has nothing to do with Boeing IDS/military... different budget, different organizations, different revenue, different long term objective etc
non0 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 20:22
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 60
Posts: 729
Brain Potter

Quote:
Well how about you poor losers just suck it up then!

What, just like Boeing and it's political cronies did when they lost the original competition.
Thank you......I did not want to say it.

culzean12

it seems correct to me that the US supports their own. If I was a spam, I would not be enraged if a $35Bn contract was awarded to the rival of one US's largest employers. Boeing is not in great shape just now.
Totally agree with you. Just wish our politicians would do the same instead of sucking up to to the rest of the world in the name of political correctness. Dam, just about the whole world craps on us these days and we do nothing!!!!
SRENNAPS is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 03:27
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Dear EADS supporters:
I still can't really understand your disappointment. Was the smell of the carrots so strong that you've lost your collective heads?
Think of US trade deficit.
Think of history of EADS subsidies.
Think of supply chain management.
Think of airlines getting a steady supply of USAF trained pilots rated for airplanes of the foreign arch-rival.
Etc.
All the things that politician will have to "explain" to its voters with "but we got an aircraft with a better expandability". Or whatever it is that you claim makes A330 such a better choice.

USAF needed a boogyman against Boeing to get a reasonable price. Along the way, it turned out that it needed to address the issue of Boeing's arrogance about being effectively the only reasonable supplier. It took a few tries but job done. USAF will buy a few more Eurocopters, I expect.

I, for one, am rather happy about this outcome since the opposite decision would mean to me that the politicians across the border are loosing basic touch with their voters. Our neighbours being ~10 bigger than us, I don't like to worry too much about the health of American democracy. It's bad for digestion. (Our local problems are enough for my sensitivities.)

On the other hand, I hope Sarkozy wasn't disappointed. Like really. Not what he said. Our cross-Atlantic relations are sad. I must add that I kind of lost the plot when EU decided to build a dependable 2nd source of satellite navigation for anyone who had reasons to worry about his access to the free American system.

SRENNAPS: Just wish our politicians would do the same instead of sucking up to to the rest of the world in the name of political correctness. Dam, just about the whole world craps on us these days and we do nothing!!!!
I definitely don't mean to be crapping on you. You're in a good standing in my crowd. As to your politicians, or our politicians, or the other guys' politicians, ... eh.. I might as well go to JB without the help from the mods.

Cheers! bm

Last edited by balsa model; 28th Feb 2011 at 18:43. Reason: grammar
balsa model is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 03:41
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 40
So the B767 is a 35 year old design! The C-130 is a 56 year old design. The A300 from which the A330 derives is nearly as old as the B767.

Also tanker tasks are not all max range/max payload/max delivery ops. The technical shortfall of capability re the KC-45 is only a technical one on few possible occasions.


Under the current climate if I was a US taxpayer I'd keep the jobs in the USA if I could. Jingoism applies equally around the world...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 04:37
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 50
Posts: 715
It seems everyone agrees that the competition was not about capability, but politics and cronyism.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 06:26
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 898
Second Best Won

Converted half-life airliners would do the job at a fraction of the cost of any new plane. Take your pick: A310, 737-8, 757, 767, DC-10 or MD-11.

Besides, manned fighters and attack a/c are history. Unless some drones need AAR, the present fleet is good enough.

A/B put their money on the wrong pony in 2008, supplying lots of help to the McCain campaign.
Graybeard is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 07:04
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 73
Posts: 706
With a major share holding in Cobham Plc I'm delighted with Boeing's victory.
fincastle84 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 16:25
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Rationale

Who would want a machine made in three or four different European countries with parts that sometimes work together and sometimes don't?

Then again after the problems with the T900 series engines could any serious military person pick the Airbus product?

The spare parts alone would be a nightmare.

Engines that are "iffy" and complex, pitot tubes that ice up, electrical connectors that don't connect. Was there any question apart from the fact that the DoD used the Airbus bid as a negotiating lever?
DERG is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2011, 17:47
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 346
It is not a surprise that the US looks after its own - protection of our own sovereign capabilities has always been high on our own countries agenda for years, so its no surprise that the US does it.

However, doing it on such a scale may well have its repercussions which uninvolved parties will come to regret it, as US manufacturers of other systems are frozen out for not being 'European enough'.

Its also likely that there will be no overseas bidders for any large future procurements leaving US bidders to really overcharge the DOD and then the complaints will really start.

Sometimes the hypocrisy is however quite ridiculous. In a recent case, a UK company submitted a White paper to DARPA for an advanced concept and were after the usual intervening period of work, were paid for a definition study. However, when the US DoD decided to move to the next stage they classified the tender as NOFORN i.e. US companies only.

The contract was not awarded, as none of the US companies had the faintest idea how to make it work in practice and unsurprisingly, the UK company told DARPA where to shove it when they were asked to support the US bidders with clarifications.

Revenge is a dish best served cold .
GrahamO is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 07:32
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by DERG
Then again after the problems with the T900 series engines could any serious military person pick the Airbus product?
The EADS KC-45A was to use US-built GE CF6-80 engines, not European ones.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 08:02
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
"Then again after the problems with the T900 series engines could any serious military person pick the Airbus product?"

t hey US govt seemed happy to buy 737's despite rudder hard overs, lets not go down that route we'd be here all week

What are the odds EADS/Republicans protests this to the point where the air force will take a split buy just so they get something?
knowitall is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 08:10
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by knowitall
What are the odds EADS/Republicans protests this to the point where the air force will take a split buy just so they get something?
There are still the KC-Y and KC-Z tanker replacement programs.

KC-X was just the KC-135E replacement program... KC-Y is for the KC-135R, and KC-Z is for the KC-10.

Lots of chance for Euro-tankers to get a shot.
GreenKnight121 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.