Posted on 12/07/2010 7:43:52 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Thank you for the clarification.
But it cost less than the KC-767 last time around.
(yo-yo) Truism in the industry is that spares and repairs make up for the losses incurred in initial sales.
The problem with your assumption is that the KC-45 is not like a fighter such as the F-22.
The spares you’re most likely to need are avionics, refueling related equipment, and engines. All of which will be US sourced on the KC-45, and in many cases from the same suppliers as the KC-767. Airbus is only providing the airframe, and you don’t often need to buy a spare wing.
The main advantage to Airbus for winning the KC-X contract (again) is that they can then establish a final assembly location in the Unted States. They will use this final assembly point to also build A330-200F freighters for the civilian market, and have labor costs in US dollars.
Aircraft worldwide are priced in dollars, but Airbus has costs in Euros. So when the Euro is strong, the Dollar weak, they lose money on aircraft priced in Dollars. With a US assembly point, they can have both prices and costs in dollars.
This is why Boeing is fighting so hard to keep Airbus from winning the KC-X competition. They want to keep Airbus out of North America.
While this would seems to makes sense on the face of it, it would significantly raise the cost to both the companies and the government.
Bid prices include a significant fixed cost that is amortized over the entire production run. If you buy fewer, the unit price goes up. If you buy more, the unit price goes down.
If the government split the contract, it would have to pay the fixed costs for both companies, driving up the total cost.
This is a non-starter as ideas go.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
And, it costs more to operate per hour.
And it also impacts mission planning terribly, because if you have, say 10 tankers (Boeing) they can cycle more jets faster than 6 Airbus.
That is IF they can deploy to those fields where the runway isn't long enough or stressed to take the Airbus.
Because they didn't have to pay for R&D and initial tooling and manufacture. . . can you say “Illegal launch aid?” I knew you could.
The WTO hasn't ruled yet on Boeing's illegal launch aid yet. And the way I see it, we'd be the beneficiary of European launch aid.
And, it costs more to operate per hour.
Sure, if both aircraft are empty, the KC-45A costs more per hour to operate. But for most fuel loads, the KC-45A delivers a pound of fuel at a lower cost than a KC-767.
And it also impacts mission planning terribly, because if you have, say 10 tankers (Boeing) they can cycle more jets faster than 6 Airbus.
Another way to put it is that you need 10 KC-767 tankers to provide the same coverage as 6 KC-45A tankers, because your KC-767s are scooting off the racetrack back to the barn for more fuel more often.
That is IF they can deploy to those fields where the runway isn't long enough or stressed to take the Airbus.
The KC-45A can take off from a shorter field than the KC-767 when carrying the same amount of fuel as the KC-767. So the KC-45A can operate at a full KC-767 fuel load from fields that would limit the KC-767 to a less than full load.
Add in the fact that the KC-45A can drag fighters across the Pacific more efficiently, and with more support gear and personnel on board than the KC-767, and that might come in handy if the Chinese make any untoward moves on Taiwan.
Both tankers would work. Both tankers meet specifications. Let's see which tanker comes in at a lower cost.
Launch aid from the USG for the 767? Good gawd. . .seriously? “Launch aid” to Boeing? Invented charge by the french and will be dismissed. Bet on it.
So you want the french to have veto over the US and our ability to project power to defend American interests around the world. Learn to eat more cheese and surrender early in every conflict, it's the french way. But hey, The Messiah (Obama) thinks that is a grand way to do business, in a “post American” world..
That statement makes very clear, absolutely crystal clear, you have no clue about mission planning, tanker tracks and scheduling, push and recovery sequencing, among other basics when it comes to an air war.
Have a nice day, sunshine, hope you got a great price for your American soul.
W.T.O. Said to Find Improper Subsidies for Boeing
The French have been flying Boeing KC-135s for years. We've also been flying foreign aircraft for a very long time. What's your patriotic opinion of the C-27J Spartan, for example? Or the USCG Dauphin helicopter? Or the T-6 Texan II? Or the T-45 Goshawk?
The French aren't going to have a veto over a damn thing. the A330 is one of the most popular aircraft in the world, and spare parts are everywhere around the globe. That's the whole point of specifying an OFF THE SHELF commercial airliner as the basis for the KC-X tanker.
The engines will be US made. The cargo handling system will be US made. The refueling hose and drogue equipment will be US made. The military-specific avionics will be US made. The aircraft will be assembled in the US. (Unless you consider Alabama part of France.)
What is the difference between an airframe assembled in Everett, Washington with major subassemblies from Japan, Italy, India, and Korea to name a few, and an airframe assembled in Mobile, Alabama with major subassemblies from France, Germany, the UK and the United States?
Obviously the United States Air Force had no problem choosing the KC-45A the first time around, so why should I?
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.