Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that places aircrews in command rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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.
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.
bootleggers
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...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: non zero
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... 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?
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
Obviously done to save Boeing from administration over the 787 fiasco
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain Potter
Thank you......I did not want to say it.
culzean12
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!!
Cheers! bm
Last edited by balsa model; 28th Feb 2011 at 17:43. Reason: grammar
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...
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...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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 .
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 .
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DERG
Then again after the problems with the T900 series engines could any serious military person pick the Airbus product?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.