Makes too much sense. Thus it cannot be allowed to happen.
Ok I have a question...Why if we originally built KC-135s and KC-10s why can’t we just use those molds and make some more. I mean if the United States Taxpayer paid for these airplanes once why can’t we do it again...I mean we do own these molds...don’t we?
I am all for a split buy if they double the procurement budget. The KC-X contract calls for 15 aircraft per year, way too slow.
15 KC-767s and 15 KC-45s would be a nice pace, and easily funded with unspent TARP money.
Only a small difference in load, not enough to split the fleet, however there is a huge difference in quality and reliability. The Boeing product is far superior to Airbus.
The Airbus would be sitting on the ramp broke, waiting for parts. It’s an over engineered, overpriced piece of junk, a throw away a/c that breaks up into tiny little pieces.
The Boeing… a 767 is proven, with much higher reliability and lower maintenance cost. Just make sure to hang Pratts on it.
For the military there is but one intelligent choice… Boeing 767 / Pratts
Why buy new tankers when you can spend the billions on extended unemployment benefits instead? It just doesn’t make any sense! /s/
More jobs with an Airbus ?
More jobs for military mechanics. The dispatch rate is horrible, will sit broken out in the cold, and won’t fit in our hangars. It’s a piece of crap.
The Boeing 767 is a perfect choice.
Goofy, only our government would by a car too big to fit in the garage.
Goofy, only our government would by a car too big to fit in the garage.
Goofy, only our government would buy a car too big to fit in the garage.
I’ve been saying all along that the final solution would be to split the contract between the two companies, thus guaranteeing that the Air Force will get fewer aircraft for more money that had it been a single-source deal.
Oh, I don't know about that. This mechanic says that two parts inventories and supply-chains, two sets of training manuals, two sets of procedures, service bulletins, etc. isn't exactly an unalloyed blessing for military logistics. Then there are start-up costs to disburse over smaller production runs and twice the cost of contract administration and quality control.
The real world is full of trade-offs, always.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn if “Chicago” or something or someone else in the United States will benefit from either deal.
I only care about what would seem best, in the long run FOR THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE and FOR THE UNITED STATES.
I am not concerned about giving too much priority to playing politics with Europeans over our military contracts when they have spent so little on their own military for over 50 years. If they don’t have a robust military equipment industry, without our contracts, that’s their fault.
However, if keeping a semblance of that trans-Atlantic comity alive is really needed, I would make the deal split as is the current inventory - 80/20 - with 80% going to the cheaper to maintain, somewhat smaller capacity Boeing and 20% to the larger capacity Airbus.
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)