Comments on: Southern Guvs Start Tanker Group

By: Steve real

Steve real — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:02:59 +0000

also the dollar is now 50 cents to the Euro

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:10:20 +0000

“if you take a look at most of the Govt contractors today they are in mostly democratic states”

This is simply not true.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:43:45 +0000

“The first planes under NG/EADS contract were to be built in France, bet that number would grow significantly due to fabricated false claims down the road. Boeing builds the best, the 767 is a proven commercial platform that has been flying for many years. The mods for use as a tanker are in place to satisfy the changes in airflow/draft affecting the trailing acft.“
——————————————————————-
Actually, Airbus will probably build A330 Freighters in Alabama if they win or get a split buy. More long term jobs in the South. Boeing just announced they will build their second 787 line in South Carolina where BMW already builds cars. Multiple foreign businesses are moving to the south to exploit the weak dollar and less expensive labor: Toyota and EADS helicopters in Mississippi, Theisenkrupp Steel, Berg Pipe, NG/EADS, Hyundai, Mercedes in Alabama, Kia just across the border in Georgia.

The 767 is old technology that barely surpasses KC-135R capabilities at C-17 prices. But it would have value in a split buy if Boeing would bid reasonably. Competition from NG/EADS/Airbus would force them to keep prices acceptable on the worldwide market not just now, but over the long term.

By: twintwo

twintwo — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:47:01 +0000

The first planes under NG/EADS contract were to be built in France, bet that number would grow significantly due to fabricated false claims down the road. Boeing builds the best, the 767 is a proven commercial platform that has been flying for many years. The mods for use as a tanker are in place to satisfy the changes in airflow/draft affecting the trailing acft.
2nd: Efficient utilization requires an acft that can land on shorter runways and operate on smaller ramp footprints as afforded by many current facilities around the globe. This equates to big savings as the larger platforms would be required to commute further to reload prior to returning to service areas.
Boeing’s platform and experience brings more plus’ to the table, plus more American Jobs. If there was just some way to dismiss the politicians and lawyers from the process and instruct the SECDEF (Gates) to stop trying to impress Obama and let the Acquisitions Team do their work. He is the one who led the drive to kill the F-22 production citing it as too expensive in favor of the cheaper, less effective F-35 (single engine) whose real cost is just now being revealed. Engine failure in the dual engine 22, only cost another engine as the pilot could safely return to base, whereas an engine failure in the single engine F-35 will result in loss of an entire plane and most likely the pilot. Where is the Logic?

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:00:42 +0000

Because it is not cost-effective to do so.

By: glasshole

glasshole — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:35:52 +0000

Northrop Grumman has been building aircraft since 1939 up through the B-2 bomber, how’s that for past performance?

By: Aurora

Aurora — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:28:48 +0000

Great post, Reach Pilot. I would add that the C-17 is the best military air transport every made. Have the French and Germans bought that? No, they prefer to grow their own, the A400M. Years behind schedule and significantly over budget. However, we will see the return of the next ice age before they abandon that effort and lose the jobs.

By: lordlochwood

lordlochwood — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:08:50 +0000

Why don’t they just go down to Tucson — at the air force bone yard — and modify what’s down there to meet a ‘throw-away’ mission capability…use them, abuse them, them scrap them. That sure would reduce an eye-sore, as well as, reduce what is an obvious, visual waste rotting away in our deserts…

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:05:44 +0000

Be it known this is all politics, if you take a look at most of the Govt contractors today they are in mostly democratic states, if they cant get it then it goes out of country. This has been going on since they took control. I currently work for the Government as a QA inspector and my responsibilities have shifted greatly to the north east and California on new contracts. A lot of these contractors dont even have the capability to do the work, they farm it out to a numnber of subcontractors and then have it shipped to thier warehouse. it is total BS. You would be supprised how many times we spend months doing a source and selection to decide who can really do the job only to have it rejected and told who to give the contract to. I dont blame the Govs from protesting this fiasco thats occuring.

By: lordlochwood

lordlochwood — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:05:38 +0000

I just wish Congress would focus on fixing our country FIRST, and keep their grubby little hands, and money-lined pockets, out of the Pentagon decisions…vote for ‘two-term maiximum’ and get them all out of there!

By: Help

Help — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:57:10 +0000

That shows you how poor Boeing’s offering was the first time. Now that they have been provided access to NG/EADS cost and performance info, maybe they can make a better offer this time. U.S. Defense companies are not used to having to compete for real.

By: angery taxpayer

angery taxpayer — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:29:15 +0000

The fly off is a great idea. Boeing is already deliverling 767 tankers for Japan and Italy.……Do we have to wait 6 years for EADS to build one to compete? Boeing already has a production line established with a trained work force and can start building 767 tankers for the US very quickely. Why must the Air Force wait for EADS to build a factory before they can start building planes?

By: Reach Pilot

Reach Pilot — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:19:50 +0000

Very interesting reading of the replies posted. However buying strategic weapon systems of this nature from foreign sources is for the rest of the world– not the U.S. All this globalization mantra is so much P.C. chaff. The KC45 is not NG. It is Airbus. Made by the same European “friends” who supplied Iraq with Sams during the arms embargo and built Saddam’s bunker. While our NATO allies are trustworthy enough to send token forces alongside U. S. troops, we all know who does the heavy lifting. The Japanese and the Italians are flying the KC767. If the A330 tanker is such a great product why aren’t the French and Germans flying them? Surely if they are good enough for the USAF they are good enough for the French and German Air Forces. Affirmative Action has no place in American defense.

By: max headroom

max headroom — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:23:43 +0000

Oops. I hit the submit button too fast.

I’m for a bakeoff too. Both companies claim to have something. Bring them forward…as they are.…today. Lets walk through them and kick the tires. Let the execs grovel. Put the AF back in control. It’s clear both companies would make every effort to comply. Lets be real.

By: max headroom

max headroom — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:14:37 +0000

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery If Boeing wins it won't be because they deserve it.

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:13:19 +0000

I would love to have a well paid government job and health care.

The questions we have to ask are: 1) Is delivering a weapons systems just about jobs or about delivering performance on the battlefield? We saw lobbyists game the parts manufacturing process for the F-22 to 41 states and that created production problems that in part helped to end the program. 2) Would it be better to single source a weapons system to a company that has no domestic competition, or act in the spirit of capitalists who expect a company to have to compete by making a better product for a lower price? 3) Why not have a fly off? It makes so much sense and probably wouldn’t drag out any longer than the current procurement process. Only difference would be that we have proof. Take the theory off the table and demonstrate it with a couple of models.

I don’t profess to have the answers and frankly it’s easy for me to be an armchair general. But I truly believe it’s more complicated than just jobs.

Phyzz, I suppose you’re right. Politicians muck up the process no matter what the nationality.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:50:05 +0000

If the perception arises that EADS was eliminated unfairly, watch what happens to JSF. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the partnership shrink, the price go through the roof and the total US procurement dwindle and spread over a longer period of time.

Weapons Systems procurement is going to be more of a two way street amongst NATO and other allies than it has been previously. The deals LM has offered partner nations is just like what EADS is doing.

Were the choice mine alone, I would select the B-777.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:02:04 +0000

I realize that most people here have well-paid government jobs and health care, but using American taxpayer funds to buy an American product from Boeing, would create three times more American jobs, than importing French airbus parts and assembling them in the deep South.

By: L Berry

L Berry — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:39:09 +0000

(Cont) Having served on large scale Source Selections for DoD I would have serious issues with this approach. Just because Airbus are working in Europe doesn’t mean a totally new company will work.
What about the dollar exchange rates? It is my understanding that the bid is in US Dollars and if exchange rate changes we could pay more. Lets see Euro was at even rate with dollar when introduced. This week it was @ $1.50 for a Euro. Thats a huge swing, and the dollar isn’t looking any better with our current Administrations spend, spend spend mentality.
Lets see Past Performance Risk-Red, Cost Risk-Red, Ability to produce with totally new organization Risk-Red. But political backing and USAF P.O. because of a few wayword Government employee’s violating law with Boeing will amke Risk for Boeing RED.
This should be a no brainer to anyone with a brain. But some people are working RFP to give NG a big advantage in Technical to counter the obvious Risk to NG.
Go Figure.

By: L Berry

L Berry — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:38:44 +0000

How can Air bus be competitive? They will have to build in Europe, ship parts to USA, build facilites in US to assembly, hire and train totally new workfoce. The new facility will have zero years of experience on issues such as Quality, Safety, economic performance etc. All of these are called Past Performance. How can NG be considered a low risk to total performance when they are a paperwork Company without even a manufacturing base of Operations.