Northrop quits tanker bid?

[SIG600]

As for subsidies; Boeing is a gold plated defense contractor and therefore one of the most heavily subsidized businesses in this country.

Airbus was born of gov't money. Boeing was not. Yes they have become a huge defense contractor, mainly because of the companies they've absorbed. Huge difference.

 

[ableone]

Does it really matter how it occurred if they are both heavily subsidized today?

Not a huge difference.

 

[SIG600]

Yes, because Airbus can't float on it's own merit. Boeing isn't SUBSIDIZED. It makes a product, and sells it. Granted, Boeing would shrink a lot of all gov't contracts were cut off. However we wouldn't have a lot of the front line products we rely on either.

 

[ableone]

Boeing is in fact subsidized both by the state of Washington and by the Federal Government through their defense subsidiaries.

Starting with the very first batch of KC135s Boeing has relied upon military orders to subsidize their commercial operations.

Boeing has made a conscious decision to not let commercial operations account for more than 50% of their business. Not really standing on their own is it?

 

[SIG600]

Starting with the very first batch of KC135s Boeing has relied upon military orders to subsidize their commercial operations.

Actually, the USAF said "can you make this happen" in 1948. Boeing developed with B-29's (with their own money), then the USAF bought it. Then came the KC-97 and then later the KC-135. The Air Force said "we want jet tankers." Boeing built it, the USAF bought it. Did they make money? Yes, they're a business. Was Boeing doing just fine before then? I think the 707, 727, 747, 737, 757, etc are all testament to that.

Not like todays programs where the gov't fronts an ass load of money, everyone constantly argues over requirements, capabilities, they keep making changes, cost over runs, testing delays, more cost over runs, etc. Read: JSF. You're obviously bias and selective of your facts and history. I'm not saying Airbus sucks. I'm saying in 50 years, when my kids are tanking off of what we buy today, Boeing has proven they can build a product that will still be around. Airbus, not so much.

 

[motch]

When they can build a product to rival any of those products, get back to me.

Actually, they do-
The EF2000 Typhoon
JAS-39 Gripen
NH 90 and 101 Helicopters

As a matter of fact, the US Army currently flies the UH-72.

The UH-72 Lakota is a twin-engine helicopter with a single, four-bladed main rotor. The UH-72 is a militarized version of the Eurocopter EC145 and is built by American Eurocopter division of EADS North America. Marketed as the UH-145, the helicopter was selected as the winner of the United States Army's Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) program on 30 June 2006. In October 2006, American Eurocopter was awarded a production contract for 345 aircraft to replace aging UH-1H and OH-58A/C helicopters in the Army and Army National Guard fleets

 

[SIG600]

The Gripen and Typhoon have constantly lost out in international sales competitions. the Gripen has been plauged with problems for years, although I think they've hammered all that out and a few countries are buying them or have signed agreements. Have friends that have flown the Eurofighter on exchange. All of them love it, but admit it doesn't stack up.

You forgot the French built Dassault Rafale. A fantasitc platform, but again a constant loser in sales/competition.

 

[Dornier 335]

Boeing has proven they can build a product that will still be around. Airbus, not so much.

Airbus hasn't been around as long as Boeing, and airplanes have become much more "electronic-ized" in the last 25 years. Even the newer generation Boeings IMHO will have a shorter life-span due to aging electronics similar to Airbus. The discussion of which country builds a better aircraft makes as much sense to me as six year olds in the changing room stating that theirs is bigger than anyone else's. Different companies have different design philosophies and different approaches. I cannot stand people hating Airbus because it's French (in their narrow-minded world anyway) or other bs/xenophobic arguments. I don't remember pilots getting this worked up over DC-10 vs L1011 arguments.

I look at how my tax dollars are going to be spent. On a design that's basically already 30 years old. And that has it's own problems. The 767 tanker program is delayed in Japan and Italy. There was a chance to create a good competition to Boeing. One that would have benefit Boeing. Now we're stuck on a design that was created when the design engineers listened to ABBA, Village People and Bee Gees. Time to dust off that disco wig...

 

[SIG600]

I cannot stand people hating Airbus because it's French (in their narrow-minded world anyway) or other bs/xenophobic arguments. I don't remember pilots getting this worked up over DC-10 vs L1011 arguments.

I look at how my tax dollars are going to be spent. On a design that's basically already 30 years old. And that has it's own problems. The 767 tanker program is delayed in Japan and Italy. There was a chance to create a good competition to Boeing. One that would have benefit Boeing. Now we're stuck on a design that was created when the design engineers listened to ABBA, Village People and Bee Gees. Time to dust off that disco wig...

In the dozen or so threads that have covered this tanker debacle, I don't think anyone (or not that many) said "it's French it sucks." However I would prefer to see the tax payers money, build and buy an American product, and benefit an American company.

As far as the using the old design of the 767 (we're still flying planes that were designed when Glenn Miller was popular), supposedly the new Boeing bid is for some kind of 787 based platform. If you asked me (and I'm not a tanker guy) I'd say buy, upgrade and convert MD-11's and DC-10's. I've never heard a bad word spoken of the KC-10 and with 300K some odd #'s of gas the 10's always had a retarded amount of give. Throw some WARP pods on them, and done. The single hose was the only thing I ever thought could be improved. Again, coming from a guy that dosen't fly it.

 

[TheSulaco]

I cannot stand people hating Airbus because it's French (in their narrow-minded world anyway) or other bs/xenophobic arguments. I don't remember pilots getting this worked up over DC-10 vs L1011 arguments.

Funny you should say this, my favorite aircraft to fly was made in France, the Dassault Falcon 20. In fact I think Dassault makes some of the best quality machines in the air today.

My problem is with the quality of the products Airbus produces and how they will stand the test of time with the Air Force. Their track record is less than stellar in regards to quality and reliability.