An Airbus Tanker?

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/...eads_air_force
_tanker

Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.

Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

About time.

Bertie
At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.

Billy wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/...eads_air_force
_tanker

Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.

Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

About time.

Bertie
At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.


About time too.


Bertie

"Airbus" wrote in message ...
Completely agree!
The Europeans showed fantastic bargaining prowess, when the dollar/euro
conjecture should have made their bid nearly untenable. By offering production
jobs in the US they sweetened their offer, while making good on their offer to
their own shareholders of increasing production activity in the dollar zone.
Good show - and a considerable move forward for all.





ahhh, yes, for the coalition...almost forgot...

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/...r_force_tanker

Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.

Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

Yee-ha!

I see an airplane upgrade in my future.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Completely agree!
The Europeans showed fantastic bargaining prowess, when the dollar/euro
conjecture should have made their bid nearly untenable. By offering production
jobs in the US they sweetened their offer, while making good on their offer to
their own shareholders of increasing production activity in the dollar zone.
Good show - and a considerable move forward for all.





In article ,
says...

You can bet that the procurement was squeaky clean, with the previous
scandals during the tanker lease fiasco. Reports are that the
Northrup/EADS bid scored first in every major category: Can carry more
payload, more passengers, uses less fuel, higher availability, lower
maintenance cost, etc. etc. In short, it's a better airplane.

As far as outsourcing, consider that at one time EADS claimed to have
more US content in their proposal than Boeing. Whether you believe that
claim or not, it's clear that Boeing had a substantial international
content in their proposal, and that it wasn't a pure US deal.

Remember that the 767 was originally developed as a partnership between
Boeing, Japan, and Italy. Many of the parts are made in those
countries. Who do you think has already bought some of the 767 tankers,
and why?

Finally, if you expect the Europeans to continue to purchase US arms,
rather than develop their own, then you had better accept the fact that
we need to buy some of their products to keep everyone happy. If they
can compete on capability and price, then it's a good deal. Especially
since they will be setting up passenger aircraft manufacturing in the
US. With the low US dollar, that puts people to work in relatively
high-tech jobs.

What nonsense! The "Europeans" did not submit the bid. The prime
contractor was Northrop Grumman -- an American company. EADS is merely
a subcontractor (aka teaming partner).

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:38:20 -0800, Airbus wrote:

Completely agree!
The Europeans showed fantastic bargaining prowess, when the dollar/euro
conjecture should have made their bid nearly untenable. By offering production
jobs in the US they sweetened their offer, while making good on their offer to
their own shareholders of increasing production activity in the dollar zone.
Good show - and a considerable move forward for all.





In article ,
says...

You can bet that the procurement was squeaky clean, with the previous
scandals during the tanker lease fiasco. Reports are that the
Northrup/EADS bid scored first in every major category: Can carry more
payload, more passengers, uses less fuel, higher availability, lower
maintenance cost, etc. etc. In short, it's a better airplane.

As far as outsourcing, consider that at one time EADS claimed to have
more US content in their proposal than Boeing. Whether you believe that
claim or not, it's clear that Boeing had a substantial international
content in their proposal, and that it wasn't a pure US deal.

Remember that the 767 was originally developed as a partnership between
Boeing, Japan, and Italy. Many of the parts are made in those
countries. Who do you think has already bought some of the 767 tankers,
and why?

Finally, if you expect the Europeans to continue to purchase US arms,
rather than develop their own, then you had better accept the fact that
we need to buy some of their products to keep everyone happy. If they
can compete on capability and price, then it's a good deal. Especially
since they will be setting up passenger aircraft manufacturing in the
US. With the low US dollar, that puts people to work in relatively
high-tech jobs.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

On Mar 2, 8:16 am, John Smith wrote:

Um... have you taken a look at the "domestic" content in Boeing
airplanes in the last 20 or so years?
Boeing has become a "US-company" in name (mostly), with a large
percentage of components and sub assemblies outsourced to overseas
companies to sell airplanes in those countries.

Cessna should have offered the SkyCatcher as an option. Instead of one
big, heavy ship, use the swarm technique. You can't shoot 'em all
down!


plus it's made in China -- good deal all around.

Dan

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:25:54 -0600, Billy wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/...eads_air_force
_tanker

Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.

Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

About time.

Bertie
At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.

Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?

And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US industrial
base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw in an
economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies for a
bonus.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:13:36 -0500, John Smith wrote:

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed, I am currently reading
"FIRST IN LAST OUT: STORIES BY THE WILD WEASELS"
First Person Stories By Wild Weasel Pilots, EWOs and their Associates
The Society of Wild Weasels

I picked it up at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
bookstore.
It's a great read and companion to the other books about the F-105's
that flew in SEA.

Ed Rock compiled the book. He was an instructor of mine when I went
through F-105 training and then became one of the first contingent of
F-105F Wild Weasels that deployed to Korat in the summer of '66. He
finished his 100 mission tour that year, then stayed in the Weasel
business from then on.

He was back at Korat with me in '72 for Linebacker flying the F-105G
Weasel as commander of the 561st WWS. I see him every couple of years
at a River Rat reunion.

The book is a good anthology, but suffers from inconsistency in
writing style because of the multiple sources. It remains, however,
all true and a great source of oral history of the Weasel program.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Mar 2, 9:28*am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:25:54 -0600, Billy wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/...eads_air_force
_tanker

Whooo-weee. *The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.

Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

About time.

Bertie
At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.

Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?

And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US industrial
base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw in an
economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies for a
bonus.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogsp ot.com

One problem might be Boeing being knocked out of the market for
military aircraft. Boeing lost to Lockheed Martin on the JSF contract.
Now Boeing lost to EADS on the tanker deal. Basically Boeing is shut
out of the two biggest air force contract over the next 20-30 years.
Will the blow be severe enough to convince Boeing that it's not worth
it any more to stay in the market? Too much consolidation happened
during the 90s, now we are stuck with less and less competition in the
military contract market, can you imagine how horrible it would be if
the air force had to rely on pretty much everything on Lockheed Martin?