Posted on 03/10/2008 4:07:45 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Further, this replacement should have been in the works by the late eighties. And certainly after the first Gulf War. But it's not a sexy platform like an F-22. And having it in the works then would have allowed competition from American sources like Lockheed and MD. Defense company consolidation has its downsides, and this is one of them.
And one more thing. At least Boeing has a lot of experience in building and maintaining tanker aircraft. This is a first ever for Airbus. Let other foreign countries pay for their growing pains.
Put this contract up for re bid. Boeing can add the triple seven to the mix if in fact the AF likes the bigger footprint. From a graphic I saw on another thread, the 777 beats the A330 in the larger AC metrics. BTW: while not as large as the A330, the 767 was cheaper. But hey, since you're paying for it, and you want to go with the bigger bird; why not buy American!
If you sit on your butt for two years after you start losing perhaps you should start thinking it important.
That’s why I want to hear from the oversight board. Nothing personal, but some here seem to be presenting one side of the issue. I want to hear both sides on the technical merits. (I’m not persuaded by the American jobs argument, nor by the military secrets issue.)
Fox said Murtha’s starting his hearings tomorrow. Will the oversight board members make public testimony?
Not this century
This is a first ever for Airbus. Let other foreign countries pay for their growing pains.
Actually we are.
His stepping in during the last tanker fiasco saved the taxpayer one helluva lot. His concern about FCS is well founded as well
His stepping in during the last tanker fiasco saved the taxpayer one helluva lot. His concern about FCS is well founded as well
This will delay the start of the program for at least one year. The Air Force and Pentagon are going to remember this for a long time.
Very true. The KC-767 lost in head to head competition with the KC-330 MRTT in the UK, Australia, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
Japan already operates an AWACS version of the 767, so their selection of the KC-767 is understandable.
His attempted “peace dividend” military cuts and missile defense freeze in the 1990s were the height of stupidity. He’s a chump.
There’s one thing that helps Northrop Grumman: the A330 is a well-tried, pretty reliable design that has been proven in service since the early 1990’s. As such, this means the KC-45 final design has a proven track record of reliable operation and the plane could be a candidate for a modified version of the GEnx engine in the KC-45/A330-200F version.
NGC claimed over 50% domestic, and Boeing was not 100% domestic. There is more than just the airfame in the tanker “System”
And while they [Boeing] haven't built any tankers this century, all eight years of it, they have a hell of a lot more experience than Airbus does. That should actually count for something.
And that means, I don't want to pay a foreign competitor to debug their first ever design for a military asset when we have a home grown company with over 50 years of experience.
The 400 has worse field perfromance compared to the other models. It uses the same engines as the 767-300ER, so it's a little under powered. I can't see why the proposed modifications would have been that dificult to implement. The cockpit has been used for years by Delta and Contintental. Boeing didn't put it in 200 or 300 models, because they didn't want to go to the expense of certifying it. What it really needed was a better wing with a higher aspect ratio like the A330 wing. The 767-400ER was built with a wingspan designed to fit into the same gates that the L-1011 and DC-10 could use, because Delta wanted to use it as a 1:1 replacement for those planes in its domestic network. If it had been built with longer wings, it would have had better runway performance and range.
This will delay the start of the program for at least one year.
That's all it will take.
Betting on Obama. They Hope he will Change the decision.
Exactly right.
Let’s reverse this scenario and make it aircraft carriers instead of tankers and see how NG likes it.
Obviously Boeing is competitive globally in commercial airplanes with 45-55% of the market (depending on how you measure it).
I don’t think U.S. ship building is competitive around the world. Do we build cruise ships? But we still think it is important to be able to build navy ships.
What if Boeing went to a Korean shipbuilder and had them build the hull and super-structure of a carrier. Then Boeing could tow it here and could stuff it with all the electronics and systems and get it to 51% U.S. content by dollar value.
How would that sit with folks around the shipyards? Subs next?
I can’t believe so many Freepers don’t see the strategic value. Not to mention that putting those dollars right back into the home economy spins around and makes more jobs, pays taxes etc. Those Euroweenie jobs won’t do that.
Ok - based on the information available at this point - what part makes you think it was rigged (and I am not saying you are right or wrong - just curious what you base your opinion on).
Because they had to change the RFP criteria, mid bid, to keep NG/Eads from dropping out.
Unfortunately (regardless of if the post is factual or not), this posting sounds just as biased as the pro-Northrup postings and releases.
It only matters if it is true.
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.