-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
RE: Tanker contract awarded to Boeing......
- Thread starter brad kaste
- Start date
- Status
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
Bottom line from the perspective of the force, it really doesn't matter which platform the Air Force bought.
The KC135's and KC10's need to be replace as soon as possible. Their upkeep alone is a significant cost as the airframes age.
As the average tanker crew....they probably don't care. Just get them an airplane that spends more time flying than down for maintenance, and one that doesn't smell like piss from the decaying relief tubes.
The KC135's and KC10's need to be replace as soon as possible. Their upkeep alone is a significant cost as the airframes age.
As the average tanker crew....they probably don't care. Just get them an airplane that spends more time flying than down for maintenance, and one that doesn't smell like piss from the decaying relief tubes.
HvyEng
Charter Member
It DOES matter to the force which platform was purchased, our capabilities are directly affected by it. Would it matter to the force if the Army purchased kids bicycle helmets and said "it creates American jobs, so it’s good for you, just go to work”?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
The contract is to replace the KC-135, not the KC-10. The KC-10’s "upkeep alone" is not part of the picture. I was the "average tanker crew,” we do care, but our voice is not heard and opinion was not wanted by the USAF, this was a political deal from the start. <o></o>
<o> </o>
--Dan<o></o>
<o> </o>
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>The contract is to replace the KC-135, not the KC-10. The KC-10’s "upkeep alone" is not part of the picture. I was the "average tanker crew,” we do care, but our voice is not heard and opinion was not wanted by the USAF, this was a political deal from the start. <o
></o><o
> </o>--Dan<o
></o><o
> </o>
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
Here's an interesting bit of information that some of you will hate, some of you will disagree with but it is what it is...
What matters most is how well the aircraft meets the requirements, not how well it performs overall....A perfect example of this is the F-22 vs YF-23.....The F-22 met the written USAF requirements better than the YF-23.....
What matters most is how well the aircraft meets the requirements, not how well it performs overall....A perfect example of this is the F-22 vs YF-23.....The F-22 met the written USAF requirements better than the YF-23.....
deathfromafar
Charter Member
All those of us who know & realize that there is an immediate need for a new Tanker for the Air Force also know that branch of service has not been well served by the way this entire affair has been handled/conducted going back to the lease scandal up to now. The A330 MRTT won fair and square the first time yet Boeing protested and got the competition reopened and the requirements redrawn to heavily favor them. The latter mention and the lease scandal pretty much amount to Bid Rigging. The politics involved also wreak & this is not a matter of one party vs another party. It's all about a piece of the budget pie and what districts & interests therein get a cut of it. That's nothing new at all in the course of awarding competitive Govt contracts but in this case it is obviously rotten. Here's another issue, Boeing so underbid this contract, not only are they not going to make any significant profit on it but actually face a serious loss which guess what, the tax payers will end up footing the bailout on later. In the end, Boeing will have great difficulty delivering the end product to the Air Force on time, numbers and more. The first new KC-767 won't see first flight until 2015 or later and delivery perhaps even later. The Air Force will end up with a larger number of less capable Tankers at both a higher fly-away cost and long term operational cost.
The company is in serious trouble because of major delays & serious problems with both the 787 and 747-800 and with this Tanker debacle, one has to wonder if the poor management in Chicago will tank the company(no pun intended).
It's mid afternoon and I need something for my headache...
(My soap box is now stowed for the day....)
The company is in serious trouble because of major delays & serious problems with both the 787 and 747-800 and with this Tanker debacle, one has to wonder if the poor management in Chicago will tank the company(no pun intended).
It's mid afternoon and I need something for my headache...
(My soap box is now stowed for the day....)
CWOJackson
Charter Member
Almost sounds as if Boeing is owned by Bill Gates.
As I recall, there were serious issues in the original bid process that unintentionally handicapped Boeing. That was the sole reason Boeing protested and why their protest was upheld, and regardless of who had won this time around there were bound to be disappointed people for their own reasons.
Moving beyond the national/brand biases, political banter and everything else, the 767 is a proven and reliable platform. There's little doubt that Boeing has and continues to build great aircraft for our military.
Congratulations to Boeing and to our aircrews.
As I recall, there were serious issues in the original bid process that unintentionally handicapped Boeing. That was the sole reason Boeing protested and why their protest was upheld, and regardless of who had won this time around there were bound to be disappointed people for their own reasons.
Moving beyond the national/brand biases, political banter and everything else, the 767 is a proven and reliable platform. There's little doubt that Boeing has and continues to build great aircraft for our military.
Congratulations to Boeing and to our aircrews.
I wouldn`t be surprised if quite a few europian politicians, would start thinking if we actually needs a joint Strike Fighter.
On second thought, we can get a eurofighter for half the price, or a swedish grippen for a quarter of the price.
Jen
In the Netherlands there is already a lively discussion going on. Not because there is any doubt about the aircraft, but mainly because the US doesn't keep its promises about return investments. Obviously the economical part and the political part from a deal have become more important than the product you are actually buying.
Huub
Free market??
Europe should rethink the need for overly expensive american equipment, when we can get fine European equipment for far less.
And so much for the so called free market. Apparently over the pond free market means buying american (and in this case inferior) equipment.
So indeed Europe should go Rafale/Eurofighter or Gripen and thus save money and jobs.
*rant mode off*
I wouldn`t be surprised if quite a few europian politicians, would start thinking if we actually needs a joint Strike Fighter.
On second thought, we can get a eurofighter for half the price, or a swedish grippen for a quarter of the price.
Jen
Europe should rethink the need for overly expensive american equipment, when we can get fine European equipment for far less.
And so much for the so called free market. Apparently over the pond free market means buying american (and in this case inferior) equipment.
So indeed Europe should go Rafale/Eurofighter or Gripen and thus save money and jobs.
*rant mode off*
txnetcop
Charter Member
I suppose you believe that all Airbus parts are mfg and assembled in Europe...you have some reading to do. I think the real issue Huub nailed down exactly.
Ted
Bjoern
worst developer ever
I know sarcasm/irony is hard to detect in written form, but I thought being *so* over the top shouldn't leave a trace of doubt that I wasn't being very serious at all.
After all, it mostly works in books.
Also, you should know me by now - at least a little.
How to get a thread locked plus an infraction all in one step!
See clarification above.
I know exactly where Airbus/EADS parts are manufactured Ted. And indeed, Huub was right: america does not keep it's promises (on return investments and other things).
So I stand by my comments that Europe should buy European, instead of overly priced american stuff. At least over here, the price is right, we have full control over the stuff we buy and we have more Europeans working.
And I realise that this is going to cost me an infraction.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
It's bad judgement to put a bit of humour into serious matters?
Not in my book, but whatever, you're the admin here.
txnetcop
Charter Member
Why does this cost you an infraction? You're entitled to your opinion. The industry itself is not even convinced Airbus design or parts are better engineered than Boeing's parts but hey that is based on what I know and have read. Since I am not an expert on such matters I will leave it to the industry. I don't see any way to keep these damn politics out of decisions made on who gets what..not on our shore or yours.
Ted
Well, you surprise me with not giving me an infraction for making supposedly anti-american comments.
But the bottom line of the matter is that the USAF is going to get the inferior aircraft for the job.
As a patriot and ex-serviceman, doesn't that pain you?
txnetcop
Charter Member
Look I bleed Red, White, and Blue but I'm not blind or stupid. I also believe the Airbus would have been the better choice in this case for several smaller reasons but think about this: you are flying an aircraft whether Boeing or Airbus that wins because of a lower bid. You can't tell me they don't cut corners to come as close to bid as possible so as to not get cancelled. Personally I dread the thought of flying military aircraft from any nation today. I'm glad I don't have to. I want Airbus and Boeing to do well because I depend on both when I fly in their aircraft. Whether we like it or not we live in a global economy and can't afford the luxury of buy American or buy European. I would love to see cooperative markets that don't hurt our workforces so terribly...in a perfect world which I have yet to see.
Ted
- Status