Comments on: EADS Fires Across Boeing’s Bow

By: Eng

Eng — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:29:07 +0000

All of this is the wrong approach. DOD should instead fund X-48 and get a BWB built for a new tanker. Why do that? Because that same aircraft once developed for hauling Fuel, then cargo, could then serve as the new bomber that we want for around 2020.
It would have MUCH lower operation costs than any of these crafts. In addition, in the production lines wanted for Tanker, they could make a civilian version for Cargo. Having the costs of flying cargo drop 33 to 50 % would be a huge factor for the private cargo world.

By: bill

bill — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:10:37 +0000

I’ts all about jobs dummy! You notice when the EU decided to build an airlifter they didn’t let boeing compete for the job. I lived in europer for 30 years from 1966 — 1996. Germany has created the 4th reich over there.
Now’s the time to go to war with thos s.o.b.s before it’s too late.

By: Jay Citizen

Jay Citizen — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:24:22 +0000

Don’t forget that one of Airbus’s largest and most successful manufacturing plants is on US soil. Chances are, that with the jobs,jobs, jobs attitude of congress now; all they would have to do is promise to build the fuselage sections on US soil too, and they would probably be a good contender to Boeing.

By: Dorothea Melvina

Dorothea Melvina — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:08:35 +0000

I know there is a divide between Boeing commercial and military divs, but the latest FUBAR of the 787 schedule should cast doubt on Boeing’s ability to deliver a tanker, even one based on a 30 year old design. It can’t get its R&D, its testing, its logistics and its management of subs in order. It has lost its ability to integrate smoothly, which once was its cachet. It has also screwed up just about every non-aircraft contract for the government this decade–FCS, SBInet, MDA support. It no longer has cojones. The Europeans, who will go all out to make its tanker a real star, should be able to walk over Boeing, except for the political conniving.

By: Shail

Shail — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:29:50 +0000

Funny how people harp on this whole Made In USA broo-ha-ha over the tanker program.
But where are the NIH naysayers now to cry foul about the latest episode in the US Army’s Stryker upgrades (the “new” V-bottom hulls), where 70% of that work is going to be done in Canada, NOT in the USA.

One standard for me, one standard for thee, eh?

Personally, I think Boeing is just fearful of Airbus building civil freight aircraft in the US just as much as the USAF tankers.
Especially if it slaps Boeing’s union workers in the face when non-union workers at Airbus eventually prove they can build the same Made In America quality at lower than union prices.

It wasn’t the Japanese that killed the American auto industry.
It was greedy, piss-poor American leadership and unions.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:51:54 +0000

Gray Eagle,

1. Tankers refuel MANY more ‘tactical’ (aka fighter/attack) aircraft than ‘strategic’ (aka bombers & airlift) aircraft.

2. Even the KC-135 has had plenty of fuel for B-52s & other ‘strategic’ aircraft.

3. Those comparatively few instances where you actually ‘need’ more fuel offload is what the ‘large’ KC-10/KC-Y are for.

***

CT_Woods,

KC-Y won’t be 767 vs A330. It will be 777 (or 2020s equivalent) vs A350.

By: sferrin

sferrin — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:01:10 +0000

Blame the politicians, they’re the ones looking for votes. If we had honest politicians (yeah, I know, an oxymoron) this kind of crap wouldn’t be possible. The politicians set the rules, everybody else just plays the game, and the military gets the shaft.

By: JMN

JMN — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:24:31 +0000

Obalt, unfortunatly last weeks final WTO ruling is too late for tens of thousands of U.S. workers who built commercial jets for Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, which Airbus took down. I hope the U.S. will now take steps towards a more pragmatic trade policy. The U.S. has lost fifty thousand factories since the mid 1990’s and today has a 17% unemployment and underemployment rate or 26 million people effected. One in three manufacturing jobs (6 million) have recently gone.

This Air Tanker contract ought to be the first major step for the rebuilding of the U.S. military industrial complex.

It is time for Americans to wake up and pay attention. Lets start by letting the two parties know that we are watching them and will vote out any and all nonrepresnting, representatives. Boeing should win the contract. U.S.A. all The Way!

Best regards, JMN

By: JMN

JMN — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:09:50 +0000

Oblat, the troubles of U.S. aviation is also part of a larger trade problem, which is, the U.S. lacks a pragmatic national trade policy!

85% of America’s $40 billion dollar a month trade deficit (estimated half a trillion dollar this year) is with 5 countries not including OPEC. Those countries are China, Japan, Canada, Mexico and Germany/EU.

One quick example, China uses trade barriers and currency manipulation for massive trade advantage against the U.S.. So does Japan. In 2008 Japan exported 3 million cars to the U.S.A. and produced another 3 million cars inside the U.S for a total of 6 million cars but because of trade barriers the U.S. managed to send only 16,000 cars to Japan. A few years back TRW tried to open an auto supply chain inside Japan and was refused. There are tons of other examples.

The U.S. has a liberal free trade policy that our trading partners are exploiting. This has been going on since 1967 and has gotten a lot worse since the U.S. got into the WTO in the 1990’s.

By: Oblat

Oblat — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:35:53 +0000

The DoD should be overjoyed that the Europeans are subsidizing their purchases.

The U.S. aviation industry is in trouble because it is uncompetitive and giving it contracts because it is uncompetitive will just drive it lower.

By: JMN

JMN — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:12:59 +0000

The EADS shot across Boeing’s bow sound more like a media blitz and could end up a bid fat dud. Boeing just won a major victory at the WTO last week. The WTO ruled that the European aviation firm Airbus received 40 years of impermissible subsidies and this ruling should help level the playing field for Boeing now and in future disputes against state-subsidized carriers.

The trade body focused on the support that Airbus has received from European governments to help develop and launch virtually all of its large civilian airplane models. Now the U.S. Air Force says that it won’t take into account the WTO findings, but Congress undoubtedly will, and it should!

I’ve been saying for a year or so that Boeing should win the Air Tanker contract and the U.S. should begin the process of rebuilding it’s military industrial complex. The U.S. aviation industry is in trouble. The WTO just gave all of us the major reason way it’s in trouble. Wake up America!

JMN

By: Gray Eagle

Gray Eagle — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:13:32 +0000

pfcem–

Sorry to disappoint you. I have more hours, more connects, more disconnects and more fuel transferred (over an 8-year period) from the old KC-97 and the KC-135 into my B-47 and B-52 than I care to think about. And, BTW, my comments referred to the selection of the next tanker,not to any specific model.

By: CT_Woods

CT_Woods — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:10:53 +0000

I agree with William C.: Let’s just buy the one that’s cheaper over the lifecycle — and gets the job done. And it’s likely that taken over the full range of tanker needs, the newer Airbus design will way out perform that late 1970s design of an all heavy metal Boeing. But the deck is stacked by the RFP, to
favor the smaller footprint of the 767. Which might be lower cost to build, just because it is (a bit) smaller.

I think Airbus is on a two part strategy here:
1) Bid low on this round (KC-X) to make it as painful as possible for Boeing. If they ain’t gonna win, they make the other guy feel the pain. Boeing is stuck with very high cost union labor, Airbus can hire an all new, non-union workforce. Worked great for Honda and Toyota, who damn near destroyed GM and Chrysler.
2) Set themselves up for the KC-Y round, where the size and range of the KC-330 will beat the pants off the undersized, aging design of that tired old 767. Of course by then, Boeing might have a little excess capacity on it’s just-a-little-too-big 777 line, space they could afford to divert to some govm’nt-priced tanker birds.

Airbus would like to win this round. But they are in this for the long game, and the long game is: Cause pain to Boeing, denying profits and volume where ever possible.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:03:27 +0000

What a turnaround! When the RFP came out EADS droped out because it ‘could not win’, now EADS is ‘confident it will win’.

***

Gray Eagle,

You have clearly not spoken with any pilots (combat aircraft or tanker).

If you were even remotely close to correct, this would not be KC-767 vs KC-30 (BOTH of wich are larger & more capable than the KC-135 to be replaced) but KC-747X vs KC-380.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:55:01 +0000

That’s what they did back in 2006, and you see how well THAT worked out…

By: Taxpayer

Taxpayer — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:31:10 +0000

Finally, some relevant commentary (compared to all the chattering about attacking Iran).

By: Oblat

Oblat — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:02:01 +0000

The tanker process is a shameful example of corruption and special interests in the military industries perverting what is best for the nation. The fact that it is a relaitively simple deal has just made the corruption all the more obvious.

If Obama could use it to put a shot across their bow that the good old days are over, by buying the better deal and telling Boeing to come back with a bid in 3 years for the second tranche.

By: William C.

William C. — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:02:02 +0000

At this point I no longer care which tanker we get, just whatever is cheaper, gets delivered on time, and does the job.

By: Gray Eagle

Gray Eagle — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:58:24 +0000

To any pilot who has to refuel in order to carry out his mission, there is a primary consideration for tanker support: “Maximum fuel at maximum range.“This is especially relevant when the tanker has to refuel several aircraft at the downrange point.