Petition the Air Force Tanker Contract

[bagasticks]

Just like the C-17? Politics and generals, unfortunately, aren't mutually exclusive.

You are correct. . . what about the C-17? it is a VERY capable aiframe as it proves day in and day out, in theatre. .

 

[Oh-ryan]

Look, for this argument, the most important point is our national security. If the crap really hits the fan in this world, in the end, the only people we can totally count on is ourselves. It's foolish to hamstring ourselves by supplying our national defense with foreign products. Especially for a program as enormous and important as our air-refueling capabilities. What if we need replacement parts, etc. in the future, but the supplying country is at odds with our foreign policy objectives; then what happens?

You make some valid points in your argument, but I am gonna have to take issue with this paragraph. First off, no one really had a problem with the multi-national F-35 JSF. Last time I checked, every nation except North Korea, Candyland, the Kingdom of Lesotho, Venezula and the Neverland Ranch have a piece of that pie. Seems the Pentagon isn't worried about pissing off any of the partner nations for that program. Why should they care about EADS and this program then?

Secondly, do you really think that if the crap really hits the fan (your words) that the US won't be able to reverse engineer essential parts for the KC-45 if our French and German "buddies" tell us to piss off? I give our workers and our government the benefit of the doubt on this one. Please don't compare our aerospace industry to the bafoons over in Iran. I just can't imagine the POTUS/SecDef telling the USAF COS, "Sorry General. The French hate us and they aren't gonna be selling us any more widget valves for the tankers. I guess we'll have to ground the fleet. War is over. We lost."

If the situation is truly that dire (and it would have to be- we're talking WWIII every man for themselves kinda stuff), the message coming from the Pentagon will be, "General, phook the French and their A330 patents. Tell our boys at Boeing/Lockheed/General Dynamics that we need more widgets! If they can't figure out how to make them widgets, tell Boeing that the next 200 KC-767s will be for us and not Japan or Italy! And while you're at it, tell the chef down in the cafeteria to put Freedom Fries back on the menu! In the meantime, I'll have the Army COS come up with a plan to invade France so we can confiscate any remaining widget inventory- but that will be the easy part."

Reverse engineering ain't that hard to do. The Soviets pretty much built indentical replicas of a B-29 and a space shuttle during the cold war. If we contract the work to MacGyver and Chuck Norris it will be done before lunch.

 

[highsky]

You are correct. . . what about the C-17? it is a VERY capable aiframe as it proves day in and day out, in theatre. .

Don't get me started...

Yes. It is very capable. But at what cost?

When Lockheed was in competition for the contract, Lockheed was offering the C-5D for $180M; much less than the $3-400M per copy that the C-17 has cost the American taxpayer.

The C-5D would have had a 1.5M# GTOW, compared to the C-17's 585,000# GTOW. The C-5D would have burned only slightly more fuel. And short field capability? Not much different. That was a rape of the American people. I have 12 years in the C-5, so yes, I know a little bit about it. I won't denigrate American military capabilities on a public forum, but I do know a bit about the differences between the C-5 and C-17.

 

[highsky]

You make some valid points in your argument, but I am gonna have to take issue with this paragraph. First off, no one really had a problem with the multi-national F-35 JSF. Last time I checked, every nation except North Korea, Candyland, the Kingdom of Lesotho, Venezula and the Neverland Ranch have a piece of that pie. Seems the Pentagon isn't worried about pissing off any of the partner nations for that program. Why should they care about EADS and this program then?

Secondly, do you really think that if the crap really hits the fan (your words) that the US won't be able to reverse engineer essential parts for the KC-45 if our French and German "buddies" tell us to piss off? I give our workers and our government the benefit of the doubt on this one. Please don't compare our aerospace industry to the bafoons over in Iran. I just can't imagine the POTUS/SecDef telling the USAF COS, "Sorry General. The French hate us and they aren't gonna be selling us any more widget valves for the tankers. I guess we'll have to ground the fleet. War is over. We lost."

If the situation is truly that dire (and it would have to be- we're talking WWIII every man for themselves kinda stuff), the message coming from the Pentagon will be, "General, phook the French and their A330 patents. Tell our boys at Boeing/Lockheed/General Dynamics that we need more widgets! If they can't figure out how to make them widgets, tell Boeing that the next 200 KC-767s will be for us and not Japan or Italy! And while you're at it, tell the chef down in the cafeteria to put Freedom Fries back on the menu! In the meantime, I'll have the Army COS come up with a plan to invade France so we can confiscate any remaining widget inventory- but that will be the easy part."

Reverse engineering ain't that hard to do. The Soviets pretty much built indentical replicas of a B-29 and a space shuttle during the cold war. If we contract the work to MacGyver and Chuck Norris it will be done before lunch.

I don't doubt our ability to reverse engineer if the crap hits the fan. But why let it get to that point?; obviously you are missing mine.

When a foreign firm gains an American contract, an American firm loses one. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you, but it does to me.

Speaking of MacGyver...

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=164353

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=103583

 

[LJDRVR]

This is really pretty simple:

Boeing saw that the 767 line was coming to an end. Much like the 707 production line and the AWACS, they hoped they could continue to sell the airframe to the military. So, without a request from the Air Staff, they put together a huge piece of illegal, corporate welfare. Careers were ruined, people went to jail.

Fast forward a couple of years, and the GWOT has accelerated the aging of our existing tanker fleet. An RFP is issued. Boeing could have responded with an airframe that actually met the requirements in a competitive manner, but the production backlog on the 777 is substantial, so they dressed up the 767, hoping that Northrop-Grumman wouldn't get the nod with their EADS product. Turns out the KC-45 spanked the 767 in all major areas of the competition and now all we have is politicians making political hay.

NG won the competition, they deserve the business and the USAF deserves the best tanker.

Those who are caterwauling about those "frenchie" airplanes and their horrible autopilots who don't really let the pilot have control? Are you guys serious? Did you read that on airliners.net? Probably not, even those nerds understand automation better than that.

 

[Bavarian Chef]

No, I haven't flown tankers. I see you haven't either. I have spent 12 years in the Air Force refueling behind them, and as such have developed an impression of their capabilities and limitations.





Yes, I do all of those things. Believe me, if I had a choice, which I don't anymore, I wouldn't.



Good for you. You teach those pesky and foolish union American workers a lesson and don't buy their "inferior" products. Tell the 100,000 UAW Americans that have been laid off in the last year that you're not about going to buy their crap and support their inflated wages when you can get something foreign that's better. Tell that to their families too. Tell that to all of the vendors and lenders who depend on those people for a living. Have you heard of the "Trickledown Theory?"

Then, don't cry foul when all of those people don't feel like supporting your union and high wages. Don't be surprised when they have no sympathy for your working conditions or compensation. As in, "F___ all you high priced primadonna pilots. Bring on the low cost carriers. Go Skybus!" Seriously dude, you're in the wrong business to be making those assertions.

Unfortunately today, we don't have a choice to support American workers with many things, such as "computers, TVs, MP3s, DVDs, and VHSs."

However, with cars and airplanes, we do have a choice. How does it do America a favor to watch these two stalwart industries fade like the aformentioned?



The real profits are going overseas, where all the executives, engineers, and major shareholders live and pay taxes.

They place their plants in the U.S. simply to avoid U.S. import tariffs and create the illusion to Americans that we are buying American. Just check out their advertising. They make a big deal about that. They aren't fooling me.

Look, for this argument, the most important point is our national security. If the crap really hits the fan in this world, in the end, the only people we can totally count on is ourselves. It's foolish to hamstring ourselves by supplying our national defense with foreign products. Especially for a program as enormous and important as our air-refueling capabilities. What if we need replacement parts, etc. in the future, but the supplying country is at odds with our foreign policy objectives; then what happens?

Take for example Iran. They bought a lot of F-14s from us back when we were friends. Now we don't sell them any parts, rendering their aging F-14s impotent. Would you like the same thing to happen to us in reverse? Do you really think we can count on the Germans and French to "watch our six" and support us on ALL of our foreign policies in the future? Have they done it so far???

Wow. Not even sure where to start. But, if you want to have a debate, throw some actual info in that profile of yours. You might as well tell us which probe you're using to molest those tankers.

I guess I am un-American because I bought my wife a Honda Odyssey. I am gonna go turn in my commission tomorrow morning and maybe my college degree as well -- I am both stupid and a traitor.

Thanks for setting us all straight.

 

[bagasticks]

Don't get me started...

Yes. It is very capable. But at what cost?

When Lockheed was in competition for the contract, Lockheed was offering the C-5D for $180M; much less than the $3-400M per copy that the C-17 has cost the American taxpayer.

The C-5D would have had a 1.5M# GTOW, compared to the C-17's 585,000# GTOW. The C-5D would have burned only slightly more fuel. And short field capability? Not much different. That was a rape of the American people. I have 12 years in the C-5, so yes, I know a little bit about it. I won't denigrate American military capabilities on a public forum, but I do know a bit about the differences between the C-5 and C-17.

Yeah the C5 may haul twice as much but there are four airworthy C17's for every C5 that is not on jacks.

 

[McGillicutty]

If we contract the work to MacGyver and Chuck Norris it will be done before lunch.

Strong.

This is the gut check Boeing needed--buy the better product.

 

[KCPilot]

From what I've heard- lowest bidder= Airbus

So if it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!

 

[Steveair]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UwgH18tPDxc&feature=related

 

[embraerjetpilot]

Somebody should really question John Mccains involvement in the decision.

I mean really question? what kind of patriot he really is!

 

[dtfl]

http://murray.senate.gov/tankers/index.cfm

FYI there is another link for another senator from AL FOR the tanker.

NEITHER online petition or email chain will make the USAF change their mind.

 

[dtfl]

Don't get me started...

Yes. It is very capable. But at what cost?

When Lockheed was in competition for the contract, Lockheed was offering the C-5D for $180M; much less than the $3-400M per copy that the C-17 has cost the American taxpayer.

The C-5D would have had a 1.5M# GTOW, compared to the C-17's 585,000# GTOW. The C-5D would have burned only slightly more fuel. And short field capability? Not much different. That was a rape of the American people. I have 12 years in the C-5, so yes, I know a little bit about it. I won't denigrate American military capabilities on a public forum, but I do know a bit about the differences between the C-5 and C-17.

Apples to Oranges. The USAF wanted an airlifter that could bridge the gap. They got one. THe C17 is both a strategic and tactical airlifter. It can land on crappy runways in the middle east and still fly around the globe with refueling support. Seems to me they made a good choice.

 

[flyguy75000]

Actually you have it backward. The airbus has more "usability and functionality" because of its FBW control system.

The airplane can be flown right to its limits immediately and held there indefinitely. The Boeing's can not.

Really? Ever been to Jamaica Bay, Queens? Grab your diving gear.......there still may be some evidence of "an airbus flown right to its limits, immmediately."

 

[Mamma]

Don't get me started...

Yes. It is very capable. But at what cost?

When Lockheed was in competition for the contract, Lockheed was offering the C-5D for $180M; much less than the $3-400M per copy that the C-17 has cost the American taxpayer.

The C-5D would have had a 1.5M# GTOW, compared to the C-17's 585,000# GTOW. The C-5D would have burned only slightly more fuel. And short field capability? Not much different. That was a rape of the American people. I have 12 years in the C-5, so yes, I know a little bit about it. I won't denigrate American military capabilities on a public forum, but I do know a bit about the differences between the C-5 and C-17.

You may know the differences but you sure are out in left field on the price of the C-17. As the AF keeps buying them the unit price goes down. We are well below $200 million per copy now. I also think the C-5 would be hard pressed to do the same mission the C-17 does. Then again I don't know what the conversion would have allowed it in terms of capability. Also, I don't think the taxpayer got raped. The C-17 is a great aircraft.

 

[ableone]

Really? Ever been to Jamaica Bay, Queens? Grab your diving gear.......there still may be some evidence of "an airbus flown right to its limits, immmediately."

Cross controlling is a different issue. The Boeing fleet is equally susceptible to this type of failure.

My original statement still holds true. The bus is designed to allow the pilot to select an extreme flightpath with automatic stall protection. The Boeing is not and the pilot is not as free to maneuver as a result.

 

[ableone]

You may know the differences but you sure are out in left field on the price of the C-17. As the AF keeps buying them the unit price goes down. We are well below $200 million per copy now. I also think the C-5 would be hard pressed to do the same mission the C-17 does. Then again I don't know what the conversion would have allowed it in terms of capability. Also, I don't think the taxpayer got raped. The C-17 is a great aircraft.

Keep in mind that the original C-5 contract was not clean.

There were three bidders, lockheed's design never got a higher mark than third.

Lockheed agreed to move production to Georgia and presto their proposal became the best.

The taxpayers have continued to pay for this since the airplane was delivered.

What is the current dispatch reliability of the fleet? Last numbers that I saw were around 50%.

How is that modernization program going? Oh yeah, so over budget and behind schedule that it is in danger of cancellation.

Sooner or later the airforce is going to have to buy more C-17s. They just don't want to admit it because they have a very expensive wish list.

 

[Steveair]

Rallying Against the Tanker Decision​

On March 19, I was joined by Congressman Rick Larsen, Governor Christine Gregoire and leaders from the labor community, together with Boeing workers, their families, and concerned citizens to protest the Air Force's misguided decision to award a $40 billion tanker refueling contract to Airbus.
Over 500 workers crowded into the Machinists Hall in Everett.
I led off the rally, detailing the many reasons why we should not be outsourcing our national security capabilities, particularly at a time when our country is trending towards recession.
This was one of the loudest, most energized rallies that I have ever attended. You could feel the passion and the pride that our 767 team has for their tanker. I spoke with dozens of workers, all echoing the same message: We have the better tanker, we have proven we can provide a quality product, let us do our job.
I agree with them, and will continue working to make sure that in the end we make the right choice for the tanker contract.

Murray's Rally Remarks ​

....................................................................................​

In the News... ​

“Boeing Machinists say tanker decision is 'outsourcing our future” – Everett Herald
“Airbus tanker contract needs more scrutiny” – Tacoma News Tribune
“Air Force hurts itself with tanker contract” – Tri-City Herald

....................................................................................​

If this was forward to you, please join this fight to ensure our economic and military security. Sign up today so that we can keep you involved and informed as the effort moves forw

 

[erj-145mech]

Those workers can have all the pride that they want, but in the end, the taxpayers and the servicemen are getting the best product offered.

There will be a lot of work on the aircraft and components taking place in the US on this aircraft still.

 

[Steveair]

Those workers can have all the pride that they want, but in the end, the taxpayers and the servicemen are getting the best product offered.

There will be a lot of work on the aircraft and components taking place in the US on this aircraft still.

Ohh so the petition worked and Boeing is getting the contract now? You are so far smokin' crack if you think the airbus is the best bang for the buck.