Comments on: Top OSD Officials Think Tanker Deal Can Go Ahead

By: Oldest391

Oldest391 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:04:16 +0000

Yes, SuzyQ is a Boeing employee. Of course she will take the Boeing standance. Her Job is at stake. SuzyQ, lets see if you can answer these few questions.
1. What was the last date that Boeing delivered a KC-135 tanker to the Air Force? A full production model off the assembly line. Do not count aircraft out of Depot Maintenance.
2. Why didn’t Boeing offer it 767–300 or –400 as their tanker? Why sell the Air Force the same plane, almost, that they sold the Japanese and Italians?
3. It it not true that Japan and Italy builds a lot of the Airframe for the B767?
4. Why is it all the other countries, Great Britain, Australia, UAE and others bought the Airbus Tanker?
5. Did Boeingu not get whipped by Lockheed when it came to the FX fighter?
6. Why is it that the Airbus tanker can carry more fuel and still take-off in less runway than the –300 and –400?
7. The B767 is considered a medium size aircraft. The A330 was built to complete with the 767 so that makes it a Medium size aircraft too.
8. Will Boeing and Dicks ever stop crying like babies.
9. Didn’t Boeing start whining when the SOD said the Tanker would be rebid?
10. Why doesn’t Boeing let the Air Force think for themselves when it comes to what the Air Force wants not what Boeing wants the Air Force to buy

By: MESS

MESS — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:25:02 +0000

One of the items in the GAO report stated that the estimated overun cost the airforce used to estimate Boeings side of the contract was too high. In GAO recent reports however it looks like Boeings cost overuns are very high. Looks like the GAO’s left hand doesn’t know what the GAO’s right hand is doing…

GAO says Boeing overruns totaled billions

By JOELLE TESSLER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Three multiyear military contracts with The Boeing Co. cost the government at least $3 billion more than projected, a federal watchdog agency said Friday.

In one instance, the Air Force paid $16.6 billion — $2.3 billion more than originally estimated — for 80 of Boeing’s C-17A Globemaster aircraft. Another Boeing contract, to deliver 232 Apache helicopters to the Army, cost $2.1 billion, exceeding the original projection of $1.6 billion. And the Navy paid Boeing $9.2 billion, or $381 million more than the original estimate, for 210 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet attack aircraft.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/350687_gaoboeing09.html

By: MESS

MESS — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:16:49 +0000

Interesting #‘s

Federal Instances Misconduct
Contract of $‘s
$s Misconduct Since 1995
BoeingCompany $19718.2m 24 $ 863.1m
NorthropGrumman $15111.3m 23 $ 450.0m
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:06:45 +0000

And the Tanker is important to the USAF, trust me i know. The Airforce chose what it says is right for it now, like i said before, if Boeing is worried about losing ground in the Tanker world, for the next round they should come out with the KC-777, until then time to move on and accept the fact right now the KC-45 is the best product for the USAF, not because i say so, but thats what the Airforce said so.

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:19:04 +0000

Dave - I agree this discussion has become pointless. Frank's commentary that "freedom of speech" is great, but some here in the US no longer have that "right" or as I should state "luxury" due to the left PC and secular progressive movements... Too bad. I've only answered with my knowledge of the Tanker program from other's comments and been blasted for it. Trust me, Dave and Frank, I am highly involved in politics here and unfortunately study every aspect every day and will fight not to become a "SOCIALIST" nation whom always FAIL and end up counting on other countries! Part of that is keeping some of our products and PRIDE here in the US - especially within our own Military. That is why this Tanker is so important to us.

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:36:06 +0000

Frank,
I created no “muslim phobia”. There is, here we go again, an active Jihad against the US/UK/ISRAEL and any allies thereof (remember how quickly Spain backed out of Iraq after they were attacked?). Oh, and about the personal attacks against me? They are well noted and swayed this “discussion” far from the main point of the Tanker Deal — I’m not upset about them — if people want to call names instead of discussing the facts I actually find it juvenile and somewhat humorous, although I must say that it is unneccessary and makes the person saying such things look pretty immature. And the US supports so many other countries via our IMPORTS and loans/etc. that if we did not exist and do so, half the countries in the world would not exist (just an estimate). Comparing the size of France and other European countries, had the 911 bombing occured there, it would wipe out entire cities and who would come to their aid? THE USA. So yes, I am a bit disturbed at the general attitude of other countries regarding the US. So back to the Tanker, yes, it is a Boeing win or a huge loss if the bid goes to NG/EADS/AIRBUS. Study the facts again.

By: DaveGood

DaveGood — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:39:08 +0000

I’m sorry but most of this “discussion” is pointless.

America needs that tanker but it will not get built because America can’t\won’t pay for it.

Just so you guys know.…the bulk of America’s military expenditure in the last few years ( Signed off by republicans) has been funded by loans from The Chinese and middle east Governments.….. don’t count on that continueing.… and start hoarding every penny you’ve got to repay the loans.

DaveGood

By: DaveGood

DaveGood — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:02:45 +0000

SuzyQ.…

You want a Boeing “Solution”… at any price and at any cost.

You’ve failed to explain why but the rest of us have worked that out.

DaveGood

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:56:26 +0000

I have to say I agree with Michael, who I think highlighted well that this a matter of what the USAF thinks is the best for her to fulfill its missions. However I have to say that I'm not involved in this program and therefore like many people do not have the full picture to appreciate which deal is the best. I don't think Susy you should take things so personnaly like an "attact" to you; you have no prob to say that we don't what we are talking about. I can understand that as an American citizen, you would trust only US made equipment under the name of national security. I respect that point of view if I was American, I would be certainly disappointed to see a European manufacturer winning such a big contract over Boeing. But for example in France, as a tax payer I would have rather prefered to see a F-18 Hornet deal in the French navy instead of the French made Rafale that cost far more to acquire. Susy, I'm sure that many other people will adhere to your strong convictions on Boeing being the best choice; however when you replied to me "in this day and age where the muslim extremists have come close to taking over not only France but many Europeans, etc..." here you are completely wrong I'm sorry; you should spend a little bit of time in Europe. Here, People will laugh and consider this statement as purely "muslim phobia" prone by the far right to scare people or just ultra nationalist media's brain washes articles. We have problems with immigrations like many other countries or riots in gettos etc but I can reassure you that they are not taking over yet...It is a bit like a European saying to you that America is going to be taking over by Mexican! just because you have millions of them in the Southern states or in Californa. There is a danger of terrorism anywhere nobody denies that but Europe is not Libanon! I just don't get it when people create virtual "treath" just to convince people what to believe or what is best for them or their country. I have no problem people being patriotic and prefering their own country to other (here manufacturers, jobs, etc...) But creating fears that don't even exist. America is one of the best allie to France, French navy pilots train in the US for many years at Pensacola and President Sarkozy has reinfforced his ties so there is no worries at that level. I do realise that I veered a bit from the main topic (tanker deal) but I found very difficult not to reply to nationalist "propaganda". I had the impression to hear "narrow mind" medias blaming decisions, actions from another country just by looking at its own country point of view not by looking at the full picture (refer to US raid to Lybia or Iraq War veto). Anyway it is from the past and again I respect your opinion. I hope you don't feel "personnaly attack" as it is not the aim of this forum I think. Freedoom of speech is great especially as we can all learn something from others

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:58:22 +0000

Mis-spelling COUGH yikes!

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:55:44 +0000

Goodness — sorry for the so called monopoly Mess but I just realized that you “caugh caughed” at my “involvement” and yet you at the same time stated “Well I’ve been involved with it as much as you have I suppose” — that is funny since you put me on even ground with you at that point — my intention is not to insult you — I just find it funny when people state things that are so, well, I do it myself (guilty as charged) absurd and burn themselves.……Again, back to the subject — I just needed a little laugh

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:03:37 +0000

Michael, No sorries necessary. Your sentiments are very well intended about the AF knowing what they want/need. And I also know about the FCS programs that will be in cooperation with many countries in Europe and otherwise and was exposed briefly to those programs (the next generation of military equipment including UAV’s etc.) and we will have a need to work together developing those systems. However, at this moment in time, we are at a crisis stage, again, given the Iran/Korean threats of nuclear armaments. I was never the one to bring up POLITICS in this discussion — I only answered those who did and asked them to get back to the subject of the tanker program. So, I am neither ignorant of the fact that we have already done business with EADS and MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.….. but can we please focus on this particular issue instead of personal attacks?

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:47:08 +0000

Oh, and I love being called "stupid" and a "protectionist".... I don't lable people like that, and perhaps you can identify what ITAR is, along with naming the airstrips that the ABus will not be able to land on? I won't do it for you. And furthermore, I never claimed to KNOW IT ALL, I'm just pointing out facts that many DO NOT KNOW. Personally I had to sign an ITAR document which was explicit that I could share ZERO info about anything to do with any US technology, which I have not. I'm only trying to point out what needs to be done in this case.

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:41:21 +0000

Well good afternoon Gentlemen,

Anti Suzy/Anti Boeing — too much!
The next time you step foot on and fly on the majority of any US Domestic planes, consider this — they are predominantly produced by Boeing. And every time you land safely please take that into consideration as well. No monopoly here intended in spite of your comment to that effect Mess, and I daresay you did not read once again (sigh) the side by side comparison of the 767 vs. Airbus planes — but apparently “I”, one person am now the target of the subject, rather than the facts.…..

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:55:22 +0000

Sorry about that, iam stationed in Florida, so when i mean you guys, i am talking about the ones protesting the buy. And yes i am one, have been for along time, you cant still in the military after so long with out becoming one. People die everyday wanting that right, that you were lucky and born with. AS for the best, right now the Airforce thinks the KC45A is the best. Only the Airforce should decide whats best for them, not people with a invested intrest in thier product, that only taints the process of a fair and balanced run off. The Airforce decided the KC 767 does not meet thier needs. If they felt it did then they would of picked it. News flash Suzy Q, we have bought from EADS before, and we continue to buy from the Europeans. We are not selling ourselfs to them, if we did we wouldnt have a need for Boeing. This isnt a fight between them and us, its a fight whats better for the USAF and i am sorry, and you will have to learn to live with it, the KC-767 is not the right product at the moment. Unless you wear the uniform and work and on and fly what we have to fly out in the real world, you can not decide whats best for the armed services. Why dosnt Boeing fix the 787 and then for the next round of tanker run offs, offer the KC-777, i am sure Boeing will win with that. Then we can feed the Boeing hand again.

By: MESS

MESS — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:17:30 +0000

Wow all I see is SuzyQ trying to monpolize this board with no credible facts and saying that she “having been involved with the tanker program”(COUGH COUGH!!) knows everything about it, but has yet to come up with real credible information? Well I’ve been involved with it as much as you have I suppose and have seen very few points where the Boeing aircraft is superior. Davegood made some great points above on why the NG plane is better and they are factual. Other than political rhetoric and american protectionism I have seen nothing credible that you have said? The protectionism is part is stupid because equally so the parts will come from all over the world regardless of the winner. If your involved with the program you should already know this. The job numbers are estimates and NG says they will create more jobs in the US than the Boeing, maybe high estimates on one side or the other. I’ll say no big advantage there either way. It’s the plane, the NG plane does more, carries more and has more flexibility in use. Boeing offered only what the Airforce was asking for. NG offered that and more. SuzyQ: the comment on the runway gave away your credibility.…

By: Steven Skovranek

Steven Skovranek — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:17:22 +0000

This is the third wave era, not the second wave era. Our jobs should come from designing the planes and maybe the machines that build them; not building them.

I heard that NATO struggled to replace several helos that were shot down.

By: SuzyQ

SuzyQ — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:19:20 +0000

Michael, I know all about the Mobile Alabama situation, once again I will reiterate I am unfortunately past knee deep in this controversy but feel as if I'm in quicksand up to my neck at this point! And since you mentioned "we" and "you" in your answer, I'm assuming intuitively that you are also not a US citizen. May I state, for the record, that it's not a matter of not hoping for jobs for those in Alabama - fine people. However, starting from ground one via Airbus equipment and training etc. etc. etc. when there is the ability to deliver at this moment in time to the ITALIAN AF why do we, the people of the US need to sell ourselves out to EADS/AIRBUS and pretend it will "create" jobs in Alabama? Jobs in every sector of business here are in jeopardy due to the US's lack of business sense - and as a born citizen I'll be the first to admit that. But taking jobs from one group and giving it to another to the benefit of yet ANOTHER FOREIGN country, which most people do not understand is not RIGHT! I know of vendor upon vendor upon person (both individually and as entire companies)that stand to LOSE HEAVILY as the MFG process is already a GREEN LIGHT and has been for the past several years on the tanker for the ITAL AF. And, I want the AF to be equiped with the best of the best as well as the other branches of the military, so I still don't understand what the argument is? It is apparent that no one understands you don't take from the right hand to feed the left hand (literally)

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:34:25 +0000

I dont think the Muslims were every as close as you think they were to taking over France, lets be real here, that will not happen no more then it can happen here. Also, behind the doors, NATO (including France) do alot more for the war on terror you will every here, dont mistake the Iraq mess with the war on terror, NATO does alot behind the scenes you WILL NEVER HEAR about in the news.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:30:42 +0000

Both companies are worth slamming, to a extend. they both also build good products sometimes as well. Each one has thier faults and thier costly delays. EADS with the A400 and Boeing with V-22. Also alot of little programs with hugh price tags as well. The way technology is these days nothing is cheap or without delays. I am not saying anything bad about Boeing when I say, let the first one go, work on the two other orders with a better product, the KC-777, anymore delays and now YOUR HURTING THE USAF REFUELERS. The GAO report was not all daming to the KC-45A as well as Gates hinting the KC-45A may still go through. Also dont forget you are messing with Mobile Al peoples lives as well, they are looking forward to the 2500 jobs it will create here, go to the city website, check it out. They are doing alot of stuff in the area and town and this is part of it to make thier lives better as well. Its not all bad news if Boeing loses this order for everyone. Its not all about the guys in Washington. It would be more good news for Ala Iam sure. Ohh NKATWG, the KC-10A was built by McDonnell Douglas and production for the KC-135 was from 1957–1965, the KC-10 1981–1987 (before Boeing bought MD). I dont think anyone considers these designs modern anymore. Remember you guys up there are fighting for Boeing, the guys in the south are fighting for the NG/EADS. I dont think its about the best winner anymore, if it was the winner would be making the tanker here soon.