Northrop quits tanker bid?

[ableone]

My problem is with the quality of the products Airbus produces......Their track record is less than stellar in regards to quality and reliability.

You have stated much the same at least three times now with absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim. Where does Airbus have a poor reliability track record? The airlines who buy and operate their airplanes would differ.

 

[flyguy75000]

Another uninformed reply.

European built airbus airliners have more than 50% U.S. content by value.

The 330 tanker would have been built at an assembly line in Alabama.

Are you smokin rocks? The 330 was going to be built in Alabama? By all 2500 proposed employees? Before you come on here spoutin off and speaking jibberish, get your shiite together.

Like someone else mentioned, the 330 would be built in Toulouse, etc and then flown here for Northrop to install the refueling equipment. I'm all for 2500 people in AL getting jobs, but 15,000+ jobs in WA and KS created/saved for a U.S. built aircraft to be flown by THE U.S. MILITARY is the only option for the U.S. GOVERNMENT. You think Claude and Normand will be spending their hard earned american funded paychecks at DisneyWorld? Think again. This is simple economics...Besides, say what you will about Boeing. But from what I've been told, the current fleet has quite a few KC-135's. I've been told those were built in the 1950's. And they're still flying? Damn, why buy from a proven company? Let's keep being pussies and bow down to the rest of the world to please the bleeding hearts.

 

[ableone]

Are you smokin rocks? The 330 was going to be built in Alabama? By all 2500 proposed employees? Before you come on here spoutin off and speaking jibberish, get your shiite together.

Yes genius, they were going to build a complete line in Alabama. Only the first eight 330s would have been built in Europe, the rest would have been built on an American assembly line.

Like someone else mentioned, the 330 would be built in Toulouse, etc and then flown here for Northrop to install the refueling equipment.

Again, WRONG. There would have been an assembly line in Alabama.

I'm all for 2500 people in AL getting jobs, but 15,000+ jobs in WA and KS created/saved for a U.S. built aircraft to be flown by THE U.S. MILITARY is the only option for the U.S. GOVERNMENT.

Oh, the pentagon is a works project, getting the best equipment to the warfighter is not the primary consideration. Now I understand.

You think Claude and Normand will be spending their hard earned american funded paychecks at DisneyWorld? Think again.

The workers in Alabama who would have built this airplane would have spent their dollars in the U.S. Then again facts are not your friend. Don't let them get in your way.

This is simple economics...Besides, say what you will about Boeing. But from what I've been told, the current fleet has quite a few KC-135's. I've been told those were built in the 1950's. And they're still flying? Damn, why buy from a proven company? Let's keep being pussies and bow down to the rest of the world to please the bleeding hearts.

We should buy the best equipment for the warfighter. That was probably the more capable 330. However people such as yourself seem to be more interested in corporate wellfare. Therefore the warfighter will get the frankentanker. Hopefully it will not be as many years late as the 767 tankers Japan is finally getting.

 

[bagasticks]

I wouldnt exactly say that the 330 was/is a more capable airframe. . There are a few aircraft that are very abundent in theatre that can't fly fast enough to refuel off of it (not have trouble. . .they cannot no matter what weight/configuration). This alone would be a show stopper for me if you cannot get CAS assets because they have no gas close by. .

I personally think they are both a little big, there is something to be said for a "small" tanker that can get around dynamic airspace at .85. I would like to have seen them make new 717's (-135's) but i realize 4 engines, no TR's and the inability to haul a bunch of pallets is not fashionable. Also FWIW, most of the -135's have less than 20,000 flight hours on them so they are still very capable for many years to come pending avionics mods. I am not saying we dont need a new tanker, just that it is not the dire situation as presented by some. .

 

[MarineGrunt]

I wouldnt exactly say that the 330 was/is a more capable airframe. . There are a few aircraft that are very abundent in theatre that can't fly fast enough to refuel off of it (not have trouble. . .they cannot no matter what weight/configuration). This alone would be a show stopper for me if you cannot get CAS assets because they have no gas close by. .

I personally think they are both a little big, there is something to be said for a "small" tanker that can get around dynamic airspace at .85. I would like to have seen them make new 717's (-135's) but i realize 4 engines, no TR's and the inability to haul a bunch of pallets is not fashionable. Also FWIW, most of the -135's have less than 20,000 flight hours on them so they are still very capable for many years to come pending avionics mods. I am not saying we dont need a new tanker, just that it is not the dire situation as presented by some. .

+1

I may be alone on this, but I think aircraft footprint is a big issue as well. Yeah, the bus might be able to offload 200k and carry 75k of cargo, but there is only so much ramp space at deployed locations and # of tails matters. I can't count how many times I have been haulin butt across OIF/OEF, trying to be 5 places at once. Not saying the Boeing is better because it is smaller - I don't have the #'s handy, but there is more to the equation than amount of gas/cargo one tanker can carry. Bottom line - When it comes to fighting wars, I'd rather have 20 Boeing's than 15 Busses at a forward location. Now routine AMC missions... that's another story...

The 135 is still going very strong, and will continue to be a reliable platform for some time, but you can only fly it so long before the wings start comin off. I just wish they could open the production line again!

 

[AvroGuy]

+1

I may be alone on this, but I think aircraft footprint is a big issue as well. Yeah, the bus might be able to offload 200k and carry 75k of cargo, but there is only so much ramp space at deployed locations and # of tails matters. I can't count how many times I have been haulin butt across OIF/OEF, trying to be 5 places at once. Not saying the Boeing is better because it is smaller - I don't have the #'s handy, but there is more to the equation than amount of gas/cargo one tanker can carry. Bottom line - When it comes to fighting wars, I'd rather have 20 Boeing's than 15 Busses at a forward location. Now routine AMC missions... that's another story...

The 135 is still going very strong, and will continue to be a reliable platform for some time, but you can only fly it so long before the wings start comin off. I just wish they could open the production line again!

forget that, reopen the 707-300 line. would have more offload and just a little bigger.

 

[KCPilot]

Airbus back in??

Looks like EADS is back in the process as long as it's fair. (BTW- A fair is where cowboys go to throw cow paddies!)

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/200085.asp?from=blog_last3

Oh if you believe this quote from the article:

Obama reportedly said Tuesday that he would not "meddle" in the contest.

I'll have some ocean front property to sell you in AZ!


Good luck to both, may the overall better product win......

 

[Nado]

How many Boeing Exec went to jail over the previous tanker deal that was a ripoff to the military? Do not be blinded by blind patriotism. At Boeing it is all about the Benjamins.

Hypothetically if they were to offer half the plane at twice the price would you still want to 'buy American'? The question addresses at what point, would you the taxpayer want the better plane vs. the Boeing product?

 

[KCPilot]

How many Boeing Exec went to jail over the previous tanker deal that was a ripoff to the military? Do not be blinded by blind patriotism. At Boeing it is all about the Benjamins.

Hypothetically if they were to offer half the plane at twice the price would you still want to 'buy American'? The question addresses at what point, would you the taxpayer want the better plane vs. the Boeing product?

Sorry to hear you hate Boeing so much! To answer your question if memory serves me correct it was one Boeing- former financial chief Michael Sears and one DoD- senior procurement officer Darleen Druyun. So it seems both parties are a fault!

But I do have to say as a former tanker driver and boomer, the newer KC-767 seems to a plus over the KC-45 as Boeing finally got a clue and added a better boom (like the KC-10) and winglets to improve fuel economy, plus some warning/defense gear. http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/

And yes, the KC-45 is bigger and might carry more gas, but the issue is just that, it is too big! The AF needs more booms in the air to support the flight, not bigger airplanes and that is where I think the KC-135 is a good fit.

The AF I feel really screwed up way before this deal and should have instead of re-skinning the wings, putting new engines and upgrading the cockpit to PACER CRAG, they should have taken the Boeing deal back in the late 80's of buying a new tanker based on the 707. (For those that might not know or care, the KC-135 was the 1st a B-717 as the tube and a couple of other things are not the same as the B-707, but close). That deal as I was told would have been about the same cost as the re-skinning and new engines program and this would not even be an issue right now. But things seem to work out this way in the DoD!