• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

RE: Tanker contract awarded to Boeing......

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't get it!

So if Airbus had gotten the contract, there would have been more jobs in the US? The whole process seems to be irrational to me...
 
Sascha66 said:
So if Airbus had gotten the contract, there would have been more jobs in the US? The whole process seems to be irrational to me...
Click to expand...

Possibly. Who know? EADS employs lots of people in this country, and lots of Boeing parts and bits are made outside the country. The criteria should not be the number of jobs created within the borders of this country. It should be which is the better product for the best price, and (same question) does it meet the requirements?

In general it makes sense to me for a country's military stuff to be made by that country. But allies also share military technology, and the US and Europe are, and thus have a long history of sharing military stuff. No big deal there.

I haven't followed the story closely so can't offer an opinion on which is the better product.
 
I think the 767 is a proven airplane, I still have fatih that America will always do what is best for its Air Force...(but I would have liked to see the 757 be a tanker).

Cheers

Casey
 
Before the lock.....

So the US is biased towards Boeing?

Think EADS turboprop, the engine selection (TPE), and timely, on budget delivery.

Having worked on Boeing products (B-52, KC-135) and hearing from an insider at US Airways regarding the Airbus, I'd pick Boeing anytime.
 
IanMCD said:
So I stand by my comments that Europe should buy European, instead of overly priced american stuff.
Click to expand...

allthough the american off the shelf stuff is mostly cheap than 1 paticular BAE systems, who have never done a plane on time or on budget and positivley overcharge on everything possible. Then our goverment throwing more money in to add their own uneeded stuff :monkies:

So if Airbus had gotten the contract, there would have been more jobs in the US? The whole process seems to be irrational to me..
Click to expand...

Yes there would have been, the final assembly plants would have been in the states (somewhere in the middle i belive). If you look at both the specs given by the company the amount of jobs created would have been about the same .. just in different states. Anyway both companys build their planes all over place, so the wing might come from the south pacific, fuse from timbuktu etc, the only thing done in the states by both companies would have been the final assembly and weapons bits.

I think the 767 is a proven airplane, I still have fatih that America will always do what is best for its Air Force...(but I would have liked to see the 757 be a tanker)
Click to expand...

just because its a good civi airliner doesnt automaticly make it a great militray plane *points to nimrod* :monkies:
 
America doesn't buy American all the time....case in point, the C-27...

But going back to Airbus, the original solution during the lend lease period was again Boeing....and you can subsequently make a case that the requirements were rewritten to favor Airbus.....
 
stiz said:
just because its a good civi airliner doesnt automaticly make it a great militray plane *points to nimrod* :monkies:
Click to expand...

The Nimrod was a great military aircraft and was fantastic in both the maritime reconnaissance and ELINT roles.

It was only when they tried to cram it full of even more electronics and turn it into an AEW platform that it started to show its limitations.
 
Panther_99FS said:
America doesn't buy American all the time....case in point, the C-27...
Click to expand...

Which was to be ordered in great numbers to fulfill many different roles but then reduced to 78 and then again to 38, negating the possibility to build the airplane in a brand new factory in Jacksonville (FL). The JCA programme, as it stands now, is a farce. As a matter of fact, who would have put to good use those planes, is still desperately asking for them (NG).

Another example might be the VH-71...

See what I did there?;)
 
Again, the USAF was in favour of the Airbus, and testing proved it to be the superior aircraft.

Thanks to politics and downright protectionism (not free market principles) the USAF is getting an inferior aircraft.

it really doesn't get any clearer than that!
 
IAN,
Read my 2 post prior....Boeing won the original lend lease contact and one can make the debate that the requirements were first modified to favor Airbus..(though I'll be the first to admit that there were some bad things associated with this decision)...but no one here seems to be "objecting" to the requirements being first rewritten to favor Airbus....
 
Panther_99FS said:
IAN,
Read my 2 post prior....Boeing won the original lend lease contact and one can make the debate that the requirements were first modified to favor Airbus..(though I'll be the first to admit that there were some bad things associated with this decision)...but no one here seems to be "objecting" to the requirements being first rewritten to favor Airbus....
Click to expand...


You ARE joking right? An american requirement rewritten to favour a European aircraft? When pigs might fly maybe. But not in this world.

No, the USAF was denied the right equipment, because the "defenders of the free world and free market" saw fit to forget about the free market.

As a result, american servicemen will die in greater numbers than if the right plane would have been bought.

The whole thing smells of disgusting politics and above all lies.
 
IanMCD said:
You ARE joking right? An american requirement rewritten to favour a European aircraft? When pigs might fly maybe. But not in this world.
Click to expand...

No I'm not joking....You need to read up on the lend lease agreement and how things went over to Airbus after that :)

Anyways, food for thought if you choose to learn about the complete history of the USAF tanker project rather than select portions...

And now, I sign off from this thread...
 
IanMCD said:
You ARE joking right? An american requirement rewritten to favour a European aircraft? When pigs might fly maybe. But not in this world.

No, the USAF was denied the right equipment, because the "defenders of the free world and free market" saw fit to forget about the free market.

As a result, american servicemen will die in greater numbers than if the right plane would have been bought.

The whole thing smells of disgusting politics and above all lies.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of published documentation is beyond belief. The Air Force chose Airbus. But for argument's sake let's say that you could be right. Your agenda is obvious. It has nothing to do with being concerned about servicemen. You simply want to bash America. Why do you persist in this foolish bashing? Clearly based on your lack of knowledge you're not an expert. You don't have any more behind the scenes facts than we do and yet you insist on being obnoxious about something you have no real knowledge of. It is all based on conjecture on your part.
Ted
 
I'd like to reiterate a past point. Between the KC-135R and KC-10A, it is well known that crews and the service itself prefer the capability and maintainability of the KC-10 over the 135 hands down. The KC-135 has been a tremendously successful and durable airframe but the two types are very much different classes(size & capability) of aircraft even though they perform the same exact job. Again, the KC-767 numbers are similar to the 135R and without question, the 767 is unquestionably an excellent airframe. The A330MRTT is larger, more rated thrust, greater cargo & fuel capacity than the KC-767. Technically, it is different classification/capability and closer to the KC-10 by a good bit than the KC-767. I've said this before and still stand by it. If Boeing had made an attempt to make a tanker version of the 777F, then they could have not only bettered the A330MRTT but also more closely matched the KC-10's capability which would be preferred. Again, the Air Force would be better off with something with greater capability than the KC-135R which the KC-767 is replacing but it's stepping backwards from the KC-10's capability.

Everything is subject to change and rumor has it, the Boeing contract may be severely reduced in the face of coming budget cuts if not canceled outright so all of this may end up becoming very moot.
 
Airbus v Boeing threads always seem to descend into an intercontinental war of words. However it isn't more important than simming...which is what brought us all here in the first place. No good can come of this debate, here so let's allow this thread to drift off to the nether world of locked and lost threads...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top