Northrop/EADS wins [Air Force] tanker contract

The Mobile Press-Register ^ | 02/29/2008 | George Talbot

[Crazieman]

Tiahrt is already all over this thing, did an hourlong Q&A on local radio today.

[e_castillo]

“taxpayer’s get screwed by Boeing”

I don’t work for Boeing nor do I own stock. The Boeing proposal is $35 million cheaper per plane than the Airbus proposal. The Airbus airframe is not as strong as the Boeing. On the 101, Just more marketing crap. Not a single 101 has been built in the US. So much for the partnership. The work “may” have ended up here if the Augusta had been chosen for the CSAR mission which it was not. The article you posted is stale.

[af_vet_rr]

why? do you know why Boeing touts working with the Chinese?

Its because working with the Chinese gives Boeing a shot at the Chinese market, which is larger than the European market in terms of potential aircraft sales nowadays. The fact of the matter is, everyone goes rah rah when Boeing wins a big deal over Airbus, but in most of the world, you have to grease some palms to win the order. The grease most used is to put a plant to build some component in a country. Yes, Boeing does it ... so does Airbus. So what is your point. Would you rather Boeing not do it, and cede the entire Chinese market to Airbus?

I don't feel comfortable with the Chinese having their hands in the manufacturing of aircraft destined for the US Air Force (or the Navy for that matter).

Of course, things might have turned out different had Boeing offered the KC-777 instead of the KC-767. Unfortunately Boeing made it clear that they didn't want to allocate the resources for a KC-777 (and who can blame them, they are selling the 777s as fast as they can make them and changing things around to allocate some to the military market probably didn't make financial sense).

Regardless, Boeing works a lot more closely with China than Airbus from a manufacturing point of view (although I'm sure Chinese parts make their way into Airbus aircraft).

[DennisR]

Plenty - but who in Europe builds a fighter expect France (the Mirage). Basically no one else has the capability as far as I know. And it is up to them if they want to buy major military equipment from us or anyone else. I am just saying that we - the United States of America - should not be beholden to any other foreign country for major military purchases such as this.

[plenipotentiary]

The Italians took the money....

[Always Independent]

The Typhoon is one Italy, Great Britain and Germany, I don’t think that we would be beholden to them. Besides, I think after the smoke clears, the airforce is going to be buying Boeing aircraft also for the tanker program. However, If Boeing succeeds and get this award overturned, I don’t think they’ll ever be able to sell another aircraft to the Europeans. Just think, They don’t buy F-18s, F-16s, F-35s, E-2s, C-17s, Apaches, CH-47s, etc.

[DesScorp]

"I hate Airbus. But Airbus offered the USAF the tanker they want."
The Air Force told Boeing that they liked the 767's smaller size, as their tanker tactics were going to change, and that USAF was going to be moving almost completely to an expeditionary force in coming years. That means smaller planes could land at rough strips in forward bases in places like Afghanistan. Boeing told USAF repeatedly that if they wanted a larger aircraft, they'd be happy to make a 777 tanker. USAF told them they wanted the 767 in the competition.

Your post is spot on about who benefits where.

Unfortunately.

This is good news for Mobile and Alabama and many other AMERICAN companies.

This is good news for Alabama at the expense of the United States of America. You do not outsource major defense contracts. Period.

[Conspiracy Guy]

“You do not outsource major defense contracts. Period.”
I guess they do now.

[John Leland 1789]

“They’re (Chinese are) already making copies of our Humvee.’

---

Yes, there are Humvee plants here now. I have photos of stretch Humvee limos. I have no idea how to post them.

[2CAVTrooper]

Cite your sources

[2CAVTrooper]

Oh it’s not just the limos.

The chinese have made a copy of the humvee for their military. The biggest difference is the style of the hood and the headlights, other than that it’s unmistakably a hummer.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Plenty - but who in Europe builds a fighter expect France (the Mirage).”

There are plenty of manufacturers in Europe.

SAAB (Sweden)
British Aerospace (England)
Aermacchi (Italy)
CASA (Spain)

There are other companies but these are what I can recall off the top of my head.

[darkness78]

“However did we get to this point in history that Airbust is building aircraft for the U.S. Military.....”

That’s right! We can tell anything we want, that it will be assembled in the US and will creates jobs here....

but after the food (provided to the US military by the French Sodexho), the tires (Michelin) or the Helicopters (EADS again) .... THAT HURTS A LOT!!!

[magellan]

"I always thought that the 767 was kind of small and too old a design to be a tanker. I think Boeing should have offered up the 777 instead. Yes, it might of been a lot more expensive"

Boeing actually advocated the smaller size of the 767 as an advantage, as it would require considerably less ramp space in deployment situations.

As for the 777, what Boeing really wanted was for the USAF to buy the 767 tanker to replace the KC-135, and later buy a 777 tanker to replace/augment the KC-10.

I think the A330 offered a middle ground. Yes, it is a bigger airplane than the 767, and burns more fuel than the 767, but it also carries 50% more fuel, which is important for a tanker.

[longtermmemmory]

why is EADS ANYWHERE near a US military contract?

[wolf78]

Of course there also is the consortium that builds the Eurofighter Typhoon, which consists of EADS, BAE and Alenia (also a major subcontractor for Boeing).

[John Leland 1789]

“Oh it’s not just the limos.
“The chinese have made a copy of the humvee for their military. The biggest difference is the style of the hood and the headlights, other than that it’s unmistakably a hummer.”

---

Oh, Yes. I know. was just emphasizing that they are visible here on the streets.

[Yo-Yo]

I always thought that the 767 was kind of small and too old a design to be a tanker. I think Boeing should have offered up the 777 instead. Yes, it might of been a lot more expensive, but then maybe a large buy would of brought the unit cost down. And it would have carried a lot more fuel/cargo/pax than the A-330.

The 777 is only slightly larger than the KC-30.