The French are coming!!!

[mzaharis]

In 2004, Congress, led by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, banned the Air Force from working out a lease and purchase deal with Boeing after a federal investigation uncovered improprieties at the highest levels of the Air Force procurement process.


He just lost my vote....

In his defense, I will point out that the original contract he objected to was so crooked, two Boeing executives went to jail (Darleen Druyun and Michael Sears).

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears

 

[AirBadger]

Doesn't most of the blame for this lie on Boeing? I'm not an expert on this issue, but between the scandal and the fact that apparently the A330 has better specs, isn't it Boeing that failed to produce a better product? I might be outraged if the tables were turned and Boeing made a better product but EADS was chosen out of political motivation, but that doesn't really seem to be the case here.

 

[jke406]

If the Airbus is the best solution for getting gas to the fighters supporting the guys on the ground (or refueling bombers nuking the Chinese), then it was the right choice to buy it.

 

[KCPilot]

Who is running this country, a bunch of foreigners?

We let foreign investors take over our credit problems and then let them build our military jets for up to $100 billion. I'm I taking crazy pills or is this the end of the USA as we know it?

What is next???

 

[propsarebest]

Boeing should have offered the 777 instead of the 767-2.

It would be a much better platform, but alas, Boeing went with their cheapest widebody platform.

 

[tlax25]

Boeing got what is deserved

First, I am not in the military and have no expertise regarding refueling operations. Having said that, on the surface of things, it seems that EADS/NG simply offered a much better product than Boeing. I think the blame falls squarely on Boeing's shoulder for losing this deal. Besides, what product has Boeing defense designed and delivered in the last 20 years that has not been either bought through an acquisition or a rehash of an old, existing legacy airframe? Every new, white board product they have tried to design in the aircraft area has lost to its competitors. Boeing needs to get its sh*#% together when it comes to its defense division, particularly when it comes to aircraft development.

Secondly, EADS is not a French company. It is a multinational company. As far as I know the tail of the A330 is built in Spain, the wings in the U.K., the fuselage in Germany, engines are U.S and final assembly will be in the U.S, with major subsystems build and delivery by NG. So on the whole, this cannot be a bad thing for the American worker. In fact, while we might lose some aviation skills from the people in the 767 line, a whole new generation of skilled aviation workers will be trained in the south. Bad for the people on Boeing's 767 line? Absolutely, but the 767 has been a dying program for a lot of years now. I do feel bad for them.

Finally, why are people complaining that we are buying a foreign product for our military? Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't European countries been buying American military hardware worth many, many billions of dollars for a lot of years now? And why did they do it? Probably because the products they bought were superior to the home grown option. Shouldn't the men and woman serving in our military be given the same option?

 

[JFReservist]

The real reason

The A330 won in the end because of the Air Force's inability to recapitalize their strategic airlift capability. The A330 can haul crap, oh and by the way, may pass gas every now and then - like the ten.

This is seemingly a great idea, until you study the need for AR. Bigger is not better. We don't have the infrastructure at many Tanker bases or FOBs to support the size of the A330 as a -135 replacement. A replacement for the ten, maybe, but not for the 530 kc-135s that are getting burned every day.

Oh, and to say that the 330 is a better platform than the 767 is asinine. Can anyone tell me the last time a 330 actually gave an offload of fuel?

The sound of crickets is deafening.

 

[tankerswede]

Define capability...

Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask), but didn't we see something like this with the C-17 when the Starlizard was retired? It can carry more stuff, but half the stuff needs to go this way and the other half needs to go that way - we now need to have two different tails or find a void in the space-time continuum.

We started picking up the AE mission in the -135 about the time the 141s started going away and that's the reason that was given at the time. I will say that it was sourced through the deployed crew dog rumor mill and not through anything official.

Still, will we potentially see some of the same thing with one big tanker instead of two smaller ones?

 

[mzaharis]

Still, will we potentially see some of the same thing with one big tanker instead of two smaller ones?

My understanding is that both offers were for the same number of tankers - 179. Boeing, argued, however, that since the 330 took up more ramp space than the 767, it would be harder to deploy the same number of tankers. Boeing also made the argument that, while the 330 could carry more fuel, and do so more with lower operating costs "per gallon", it had cheaper operating costs "per boom".

Apparently, the evaluators didn't see those considerations as primary. You're in a much better position than I am to decide if that's correct.

 

[bagasticks]

In his defense, I will point out that the original contract he objected to was so crooked, two Boeing executives went to jail (Darleen Druyun and Michael Sears).

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_M._Sears

You are spot on. .the original deal was screen doors for submarines. . This was boeing's deal to screw up. . and that, they did. .