Posted on 05/27/2008 7:50:13 PM PDT by blue state conservative
The first few planes are supposed to come from Europe. That’s understood. The rest are to be made here.
I realize that the Dreamliner wasn’t in the bid. However, it does relate to my point about Boeing trying to wrap the American flag around their planes. They’re trying to act like some big loyal American company that interested in keeping American jobs. Meanwhile, they show their hypocrisy by the Dreamliner being over 70% FOREIGN.
Boeing likes globalization when it suits them. Other than that, they’re against it.
BTW, if there’s another bid process and Northrop Grumman - EADS pulls out as I’ve heard they may do, does that mean that Boeing will then be able to continue to rip off the Air Force and the American taxpayer. They don’t want any competition and that’s exactly what they’re about to have.
Additionally, European companies will know that they were screwed by this political process. They won’t be coming back. They’ll remember it too when they’re considering American goods.
Again, Boeing thinks this is an entitlement program. They think that they’re the only ones that should have the right to build large planes in the USA. Well, I am afraid they’re about to get their wish. The Air Force and the American taxpayer are about to be screwed.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml
“1. The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers, regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus A330. But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. With fuel prices headed for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount to build and operate over their lifetimes?”
Fuel offload at 1,000 nautical miles:
KC-767A: 117,000 lbs
KC-45 : 153,000 lbs
Or just stay longer on station.
Qantas favors A330 as interim solution for 787 over a 767.
Fuel efficiency is not pure fuel burn rate.
“4. The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of programs deemed similar to the future tanker. But Boeing built all 600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the refueling boom the Air Force requires. How can Northrop and Airbus have superior past performance?”
Neither of them tried to build a virtual fence and failed.
GPS satellites, tankers for Japan and Italy years late...
McDonald Douglas build the KC-10 and never has build a tanker before.
How many engineers or workers who build the KC-135 are still working for Boeing?
a) Those are Boeing's figures, and even they couldn't make the Boeing cheaper.
But I agree for a 180 aircraft fleet, it's a wash.
And it also ignores the aforementioned fuel burn difference.
The KC-45A burns 10% more fuel, but carries 20% more. Which means on the average it can transfer a third more.
So it would take 240 Boeings to do the job of 180 EADS. Now I'm sure Boeing would like the Stage two tanker order to be 60 planes greater to cover the gap, but that doesn't help the taxpayer.
And in the small scale using 4 Boeing missions to cover 3 EADS missions would mean 10% more fuel burnt in total
What was that about "With fuel prices headed for the upper stratosphere"?
Boeing's proposal was 85% U.S. content. The rest Canadian-American.
The EADs proposal lies about the content, and its a wild guess how they claim European-made planes become magically 58% US content with a nonexistant Alabama "Assembly" plant.
Not useful capacity. The missions limit the needed capacity. And this "advantage" cannot be salvaged as real.
Oops just noticed your erroneous statement. Actually it burns 24-27% more fuel.
Hoist by your own petard. You got the comparative burn rate wrong...and the actual USEFUL comparative fuel loads. Keep in mind that the Boeing was already going to be substantially more carrying capacity than the existing KC-135. Which has already proven demonstrably that their are diminishing returns on upscaling. We already have the KC-10, and we apportion trips for specific missions. But if every tanker was a KC-10 we would have had a problem. There is a right size, and that is what Boeing mathematically proved. Which is the only reason they didn't offer the fully-American-made 777 (95% + American).
I also note that a significant issue wasn't even raised...but should have been...by the author. And that is the survivability criteria. Boeing passed all eight of them. Airbus failed outright on five. This is the kind of red flag that initially awakened me to the fix having been "in" for EADs.
Then we noted all the spin trying to put an NG face on the Airbus plane...when it was decisively EADS money, EADS lobbying, EADS engineers, EADs PR trying to secure this contract.
Not NG.
Does that at ALL bother you?
Can you seriously contend that GWB wanted an effective fence? That he wanted anything other than a failure?
Boeing delivered what the customer wanted.
GPS satellites, tankers for Japan and Italy years late...
Those are for foreign customers. Not the U.S.
McDonald Douglas built the KC-10 and never has built a tanker before.
McDonald Douglas had the benefit of engineering transfusion required by the USAF. And MD now IS rolled into Boeing and has been for over a decade (which did have adverse affects for US competition, but the White House green lighted it).
In any event the merger would support the superior engineering accumulation of the Boeing team
Bogus. The best plane for forward deployment, the cheapest plane, the most survivable plane, the most fuel-efficient plane...loses? And they IMPUTED the ANCIENT KC-135's costs to spanking new 767s disregarding the civilian experience of costs?
I am not buying for one second that was not the case.
Why should we for "one second" find what you claim to "buy" persuasive?
I read it the first time and see no need to read it again.
Frankly, it appears dubious that you did.
B.S. Maybe Boeing should then eliminate its global model for the 787 eh? Maybe Lockheed should pull back all the F35 production to the U.S. I sure wouldn't shed any tears.
Anyways, EADs shouldn't have been here going for this contract in the first place. Who invited THEM? John McCain evidently? And just why are so many EADs lobbyists working on his campaign? No influence-peddling and appearance of impropriety there, eh?
Sorry that you don’t get my point. Again, Boeing is wrapping their planes around an American flag by pushing some made in USA BS. Meanwhile, their 787 is 70% FOREIGN content. Do you see the point I am making?
The Air Force says that the decision process for the tankers was the most fair in their history. Why do you believe Boeing instead of the Air Force?
For the first time in history, there was an independent third party that was with representatives of the Air Force, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman - EADS every step of the way. Boeing may get this reversed because of political clout but it won’t be because of the process being unfair.
I make no apologies for having far greater trust in the USAF than I do Boeing.
As far as the lobbying group is concerned, big freakin’ deal. Almost every lobbist in D. C. is working on behalf of one political candidate or party.
If you think John McCain had enough clout as a Senator to swing this deal to Northrop - Grumman, there’s no sense in me trying to reason with you because that would mean that you know absolutely nothing about the process. The ONLY thing John McCain did was help expose the CORRUPTION committed in the earlier process. As a taxpayer, I thank him for exposing CORRUPTION that cheats the men and women of our armed forces and the taxpayers.
And this time the costumer wanted a bigger plane with more cargo capacity, with more fuel to deliver, with more...
777?
Well, first look at the price tag:
767/A330/777
$ 150 / 150 / 250 million
MTOM
180 t / 230 t / 350 t
KC-135 150 t
"GPS satellites, tankers for Japan and Italy years late..."
Those are for foreign customers. Not the U.S.
GPS satellites are for the US Military.
And you call the same craftsman your neighbor has called to repair your roof while your neighbor still waits for repair?
The 787 is not being placed in the competition. So your "point" doesn't seem to apply.
Nor should it if you are a globalist apologist. Be consistent.
Meanwhile there is a reason Boeing was forced to do the global schtick for the 787...and believe me it wasn't lower production costs. It was market share, and fighting fire with fire. Don't believe they are in a "fire", a life-or-death struggle of a commercial firm versus a quasi state entity? See here, the very same plane you attacked, is now facing competition from the endless subsidy mill that EADs can tap. More evidence of the situation...you have to apologize for on behalf of EADs and its Airbus arm:
European nations asked to help with A350 costs
Seattle Times 05/28/2008
Authors: Jann Bettinga and Andrea Rothman / BloombergAirbus is asking European governments to help cover the $18.2 billion in development costs for the A350, threatening to reignite a debate about the level of state support for the European jet maker and U.S. rival Boeing.
Airbus approached European nations for aid, and ministers have agreed "in principle" to the idea, Peter Hintze, Germany's deputy economy minister, told reporters Tuesday at the Berlin Air Show. His comments were echoed by Dominique Bussereau, junior minister for transport in France.
Loan commitments for the new A350 wide-body jet may exacerbate a trade dispute between the European Union and U.S. over aid for plane makers.
The U.S. filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization in 2005 about European assistance to aerospace companies. The EU filed a countersuit against the U.S. and the dispute is still being weighed at the WTO in Geneva.
"It's not going to do trade diplomacy any favors, but it's not like they have a choice," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at Teal Group, a consultant in Fairfax, Va. "Delaying the most important product for the company in the name of diplomacy doesn't sound like a smart move."
The A350 will seat 250 to 350 passengers when it enters service, which is planned for 2013. The long-range jet will compete with Boeing's current 777 model and the 787 Dreamliner, due to be delivered to the first customer next year.
For previous Airbus models, the governments of France, Germany and the U.K. have generally provided "launch loans" to cover a third of development costs
Then why can't they prove it? Why did EADS/Airbus not get immediately disqualified over its flunking the 5 of 8 survivability criteria?
Why do you believe Boeing instead of the Air Force?
See above. And to the extent that the USAF is a mouthpiece for EADS, one of the most corrupt "companies" on the planet, as noted by Frank Gaffney:
Plane-WreckGaffney is dead bang on. EADS is simply not "business" this is war, at least for France, and we...the USAF... are simply caving in to the most disgraceful Anti-American entities.
Frank Gaffney | March 10, 2008The Pentagon has had a dirty little secret for years now: Foreign suppliers are an increasingly important part of the industrial base upon which the U.S. military relies for everything from key components of its weapon systems to the software that runs its logistics. With the Air Force February 29 decision to turn over to a European-led consortium the manufacture and support of its tanker fleet -- arguably one of the most important determinants of America's ability to project power around the world -- the folly of this self-inflicted vulnerability may finally get the attention it deserves from Congress and the public.
The implications of such dependencies were made clear back in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. In the course of that short but intense operation, American officials had to plead with the government of Japan to intervene with a Japanese manufacturer to obtain replacement parts for equipment then being used to expel Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.
The obvious lesson of that experience seemingly has been lost on the Pentagon. In the nearly two decades that have followed, it has sought to cut costs and acquisition timelines by increasingly utilizing commercial, off-the-shelf (or COTS) technology. Under the logic of "globalization," COTS often means foreign-supplied, particularly with respect to advanced computer chips and other electronic gear.
Such a posture raises obvious questions about the availability of such equipment should the United States have to wage a war that is unpopular with the government or employees of the supplier. Then there is the problem of built-in defects such as computer code "trap doors" that may not become obvious until the proverbial "balloon goes up" and disabling of U.S. military capabilities becomes a strategic priority to foreign adversaries, or those sympathetic with them.
Even the Pentagon and intelligence community recognized that this sort of train-wreck was in prospect had Huawei, a company with longstanding ties to the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, been allowed to buy 3Com. The latter's "intrusion prevention" technology is widely used by the U.S. government to provide computer security in the face of relentless cyber attacks from, among others, Communist China.
Now, unfortunately, the Air Force has set in motion what might be called a "plane-wreck." Opposition is intensifying on Capitol Hill, on the presidential hustings and across America to the service's decision to make the European Aerospace, Defense and Space (EADS) consortium the principal supplier of its aerial refueling capabilities for the next fifty years.
There appear to be a number of questions about the process whereby the decision was made to reject the alternative offered by the Nation's historic supplier of tanker aircraft -- the Boeing Company. These questions (for example, concerning the ability to operate on relatively short and austere runways) seem likely to result in that corporation protesting the source-selection of a much larger Airbus aircraft over Boeing's modified 767.
Even more telling, however, may be other considerations that argue powerfully against a reliance on the EADS-dominated offering. A number of these were identified in a paper issued by the Center for Security Policy in April 2007 and re-released last week but were evidently not taken into account by the Air Force:
* One of the owners of EADS, the government of France, has long engaged in: corporate other acts of espionage against the U.S. and its companies; bribery and other corrupt practices; and diplomatic actions generally at cross-purposes with America's national interests.These and other aspects of the selection of the Airbus tanker (notably, preposterous claims about the number of American jobs that will be created by contracting out our tanker fleet to the Europeans -- see Michael Reilly's essay -- seem to assure that this decision will indeed be a political plane-wreck.* The Russian state-owned Development Bank (Vneshtorgbank) is reportedly the largest non-European shareholder in EADS with at least a 5% stake. It is hard to imagine that, at a moment when Vladimir Putin and his cronies are becoming ever more aggressive in their anti-Americanism and efforts to intimidate Europe, we could safely entrust such vital national security capabilities as the manufacture and long-term support of our tanker fleet to a company in which the Kremlin is involved.
* The enormous U.S. taxpayer-financed cash infusion into EADS will probably not only translate into more money for the slush funds the company has historically used to bribe customers into buying Airbus planes rather than Boeing's. It will also help subsidize the Europeans' space launch activities -- again at the expense of American launch services.
* EADS has been at the forefront of European efforts to arm -- over adamant U.S. objections -- Communist China, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Iran.
* As the Center for Security Policy paper points out: "Through its aircraft production division, EADS is a huge jobs program for anti-American labor unions that form the backbones of some of Europe's most powerful socialist parties. By purchasing products that employ these workers, we will be feeding those who would rather bite our hand than shake it."
The tragedy is that the replacement of our obsolescent aerial refueling fleet has already been unduly delayed. The further deferral that now seems inevitable may mean that we wind up literally sacrificing aircraft and their crews, or at least the national power-projection capability we need while this mess is sorted out.
B.S. Again.
There is a deal between McCain and Bush. No doubt about it. And it isn't the USAF that made the decision. This was much higher up.
The ONLY thing John McCain did was help expose the CORRUPTION committed in the earlier process.
And cost us an additional $27 BILLION DOLLARS...AND INDEFINITELY DELAY BADLY NEEDED PLANES...and now sticks us with a phoney plane plant and an inadequate flunking plane at that.
As a taxpayer, I thank him for exposing CORRUPTION that cheats the men and women of our armed forces and the taxpayers.
B.S. AGAIN. EADS does all of that...and far more. They endanger all our lives. They are an operational anti-american entity in myriads of ways.
The tragedy is that the replacement of our obsolescent aerial refueling fleet has already been unduly delayed. The further deferral that now seems inevitable may mean that we wind up literally sacrificing aircraft and their crews, or at least the national power-projection capability we need while this mess is sorted out.
. Boeing offered an initial delivery of 19 planes by 2013, compared to Airbus’ offer of 49.
The six months delay means now Boeing will be lucky to delivier any planes in 2013 (have they even started to design the KC-767AT yet?)
Meanwhile U.S. Air Force's Second KC-45 Tanker Airframe Completes Test Flights
MELBOURNE, Fla. - May 19, 2008 - The second aircraft that Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has designated for the U.S. Air Force KC-45 Tanker program completed its final check flight May 15, illustrating the rapid production capability that will allow Northrop Grumman to quickly replace the aging KC-135 Tanker fleet."The Northrop Grumman KC-45 Tanker team is ready now -- and having two aircraft set for modification reinforces our commitment to the Air Force," said Paul Meyer, vice president of Air Mobility Systems for Northrop Grumman. "Our nation's airmen have needed new tankers for nearly a decade now. We cannot afford to delay this replacement program any longer."
You mean the totally foreign-made ones. Not NG, which had nothing to do with their actual manufacture. And now EADS is selling the IDENTICAL plane to England, leasing it for some phenomenal amount. Bet you hadn't heard about that.
EADS is such a reassuring company to entrust our national security with.
NOT!
EADS is such a reassuring company to entrust our national security with.
Ooh! EADS-built tankers will be supporting King George's Redcoats when they invade America!
2. You lose. I had heard about it
3. They are not identical. - I's say you were thinking of the KC-30B, except Boeing supporters appear to know nothing other than what Boeing tells them .
Northrop Grumman - EADS will soon be building planes in Mobile, AL as it should be. GAME OVER.
I know the president of the lobbying firm involved and you’re not even close on so much of this. I see no need to continue because we’re not going to agree.
My best wishes for you.
Northrop Grumman - EADS will soon be building planes in Mobile, AL as it should be. GAME OVER.
I know the president of the lobbying firm involved and you’re not even close on so much of this. I see no need to continue because we’re not going to agree.
My best wishes for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.