Posted on 08/09/2009 11:44:40 AM PDT by AzaleaCity5691
Experts : Tanker dual buy sensible Sunday, August 09, 2009 By GEORGE TALBOT Political Editor
Forget the money. Forget the politics.
The U.S. Air Force could gain a major strategic advantage by splitting its contract for aerial refueling tankers, according to military experts.
A proposed "dual buy" would replace the Air Force's existing fleet of KC-135 tankers with two different aircraft, giving greater flexibility to war planners and speeding the retirement of the Eisenhower-era KC-135s, analysts said.
Advertisement
The compromise would also end a political stalemate between rival bidders Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., spreading jobs across a broader network of states and boosting the nation's defense industrial base.
The tactical benefit to the Air Force, experts said, is schoolyard simple: Two planes are better than one.
"Having two new tankers in the fleet would give air mobility planners more choices for dealing with a variety of scenarios," said Rebecca Grant, a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...
I think a split buy may be a good idea. It gives Northrop the ability and infrastructure necessary to compete with Boeing on other defense and civilian contracts for large aircraft.
Add in the fact that the other tanker will be built in red state Alabama, and you can see where this will end up.
Pity this seems to make no sense. I remember when they were saying plkanes had to be as similar as possile so we can save money if we have to cannabilize parts or something
Disscussion - yes, actual buy - no. If they could be used by Pelosi et al they would be built, if not then go suck eggs military. Hussein has too many homeless to feed and union workers to support. Probably have to have a special income tax provision written to actually buy these planes.
Your post ignores the fact that "Northrop" is really "Northrop Grumman EADS" where EADS stands for European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. Company
From Website:
EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2008, EADS generated revenues of € 43.3 billion and employed a workforce of about 118,000. The Group includes Airbus as the leading manufacturer of commercial aircraft, with Airbus Military covering tanker, transport and mission aircraft, Eurocopter as the world's largest helicopter supplier....
Interestingly at 118,000 employees, EADS is approaches Boeing in size @ 162K. Certainly the combination companies exceed Boeing in total employees.
While I am generally in favor of free trade, giving a European controlled company control over spares and engineering for half of our tanker fleet is problematical at best - catastrophic in wartime if they choose to oppose our war aims.
Many argue that EADS would have no control - I don't know how you guarantee that. I want to see the contractual wording that accomplishes that!! And contracts were made to be broken - just like Treaties!!
Get real. No matter who wins this battle the other party is going to tie it up in the courts so nothing will get built for decades. In the mean time, just put some more duct tape and bondo on those strato tankers. They'll last.
A dual buy makes no sense and Gates is right to fight it. Ask Southwest Airlines how they are so successful. They operate only one type aircraft the B737. Simplicity in scheduling crews, training, maintenance, ground support equipment, and spare parts. The bidder needs to supply what the government wants not the government accepting what the bidder wants to give.
First, by having a dual source, any shenanigans that the Europeans try would result in more business going to Boeing.
Second, if it gets really bad, the manufacturing/assembly site (which will be in Alabama)could be taken over by a US group that would have the modern infrastructure necessary to build large aircraft.
Lastly, components, even for Boeing, are sourced worldwide...only the parent assembly company is here in the US.
I would like to see EADS relinquish the facility (probably when Europe can no longer subsidize them) and it develop into a second domestic source for aircraft.
Ilyushin Il-78MKI Midas.
A proposed "dual buy" would replace the Air Force's existing fleet of KC-135 tankers with two different aircraft, giving greater flexibility to war planners and speeding the retirement of the Eisenhower-era KC-135s, analysts said. The compromise would also end a political stalemate between rival bidders Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., spreading jobs across a broader network of states and boosting the nation's defense industrial base. The tactical benefit to the Air Force, experts said, is schoolyard simple: Two planes are better than one.
EADS is the SUB-CONTRACTOR in this.
Funny how all the people who whine about Airbus and EADS having the nerve to compete for the contract always look the other way when it comes to the fact that our military has always bought weapons from outside sources such as the 1857 12 Pound Napoleon cannon, and the british designed Whitworth cannon both used in the Civil War. During WW1, we bought french tanks and field guns, and british aircraft.
During WW2, we bought british Spitfires for photo-recon work. The M1 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft gun was designed in Sweden.
Modern weapons include the M104 Wolverine with a bridge designed by the Germans. The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, the M240 machine gun, and the M3P .50 machine gun used on the Avenger are all designed by Fabrique Nationale (FN) from Belgium. The 9mm M11 pistol is made by H&K. The RG31, RG33, Buffalo, and the Cougar MRAPs are all designed in South Africa. The Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles are license built trucks designed in Austria. Then you have the M93 Fox, and the M973 SUSV which are both foreign designs.
I only read of one person in the article that might be an “expert”, I don’t know, but then the other clue this is Bullscoot is when Murtha enters the story. The “Logic” used in support of a “dual buy” is asinine as many a FReeper has pointed out in comments already.
This whole thing seems to be Obama ego versus Murtha extortion, and the Military DemocRAT screwed again.
I have a perfectly obvious though probably stupid question to ask. Why not just keep the C-117 line open and build a bunch more of those and equip them with refuling modules that can be removed as needed for additional cargo work?
I’m sure this is a stupid thought.
The US Navy and Marine Corps use Hose-and-Drogue, and use KC-130s for refueling. They could easily also use C-17s.
Is Boeing still capable of designing a tanker? or have all the technical staff been laid off?
Cause they won’t be building those in our area which now has unemployment far worse than the national average.
ROFL. The tanker offered to the Airforce has YET to come off the drawing board where as the A330-MRTT IS flying and IS in service with some of our key allies such as Australia.
“Buying EUROGARBAGE to defend the USA. Don't think so.”
M240 machine gun - Belgium
M249 SAW - Belgium
M3P machine gun - Belgium
M11 pistol - Germany
M9 pistol - Italy
M136 - Sweden
AV-8 Harrier - England
LAV-25 - Austria
M973 SUSV - Sweden
FMTV - Austria
M93 - Germany
Hydrema 910 MCV - Denmark
M68 - England
M256 - Germany
HH-65 - France
MH-68 - Italy
UH-72 - France
HC-144 - France
HU-40 - France
U-28 - Switzerland
T-3 - England
T-45 - England
C-31 - Netherlands
AGM-119 - Norway
Yeah, all that “EUROGARBAGE” that the military has bought over the years has been such a drag on the military. /sarc
Not to mention the aircraft, vehicles and equipment from other countries such as Canada, Israel, and South Africa that we're currently using.
It's obvious that someone like you have either never been in the military, or IF you were you were some REMF desk jockey who's idea of going to the field is setting up the TOC in a softball field across the street from your barracks.
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.