You asked the question I wanted. The cost first, $150 million per plane, no extras, the AF can chose between five air frames, R&D is in the price, a new factory will be built and The Russian Federation today announced they also would buy tankers that are compatible with what the USAF buys.

This would give the DoD the option of using Russian tankers for refueling US aircraft or for the US to refuel Russian Federation aircraft on missions in some of these land locked countries.

The Russian bider left open delivery, giving the USAF the call on when and how many they want and the time duration of the contract, also the number of 179 for the Russians is not a hard number. If the USAF wants more or less they say they will hold the price.

Of course there is a word for this, it’s called Capitalism.

Boeings Plan B it appears is to play the “Buy American” card, I would hope they have some adults in the company that realize that they do a lot of business with foreign governments and airlines and this won’t go over well with them.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

On the tanker bid, I just got my second source on the number and it appears that $29.5 billion was the low number and of course it wasn’t Boeing. It look like “Sleepless in Seattle and Chicago”

The fun has has begun.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

To StopRastingMyTax$. On your suggesting of have the defense industry spend its own money and develop products and offer them for sale to the government, much the same as a capitalist market works, take some risk, make or lose some money.

I’m all for it, but because of structural ineffcienies, very bad management, to high debt service, to high cost of long term pension and retiree healthcare benefits, a government that will pay what evey bill is handed to them with out questions asked, some really bad mergers, a declining world economy and reduced defense expenditures by all countries but the US, all of the major (big ten) US based defense contractors have very shakey balance sheets and the business models projected into the future are not good.

The GM solution might be the only option for the US defense industry. The 2–3% annual increase that Sec. Gate told them a forthnight ago will not keep them in business

It is of note that BAE is in house funding A UCAV for the Anglo/French market, but it is not for it’s largest market the United States. Of course why should they when they can get the DoD to write them checks for R&D it appears the Brits and French don’t pay that expensive game.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The time to build a new plant ‚train a new staff and translate and verify the internal Airbus processes from French to English will sink the built in America but if EADS gets the contract they will come back in 3,6 and 9 years to say we need more money or we cant build this in America. We will walk away and you have no choice. So pay us more.

‘Just’ ~30% of the 767 airframe is manufactured overseas vs >95% of the A330. AND Boeing has the capability to manufacture 100% of the 767.

A report that I git this AM from a source that is not 100% reliable and I wouldn’t put any money on but the source on the type of issues is batting about 800 says Boeing came in third place on price. The AF has already indicated that it is intending to wheel and deal with those 372 “requirements”.

Their is some discussion now about Boeing ability to take the contract. Models about the financial stability of Boeing are not showing a robust company. Boeing is betting all of it future on the 787 while the market is downsizing and looking at more basic no frills smaller regional and mid range aircraft.

Boeings other efforts at foreign sales have been much lest the expected. New players in the fighter market including India, The Ukraine, South Korea and Brazil are all low cost countries with out the huge debt service and future retiree obligations that Boeing has.

Getting this contract might be a “Poison Pill” that brings Boeing down, sometime it’s best to fold ‘em and pass.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I agree with the commenter about the mountains of paperwork. The RFP response from one contractor for a new weapons system 20 years ago filled TWO tractor trailers; 30 tons of paper. Who at DoD was going to read that material? In the infamous $600 hammer debacle of years past, the hammer cost $14.95 and all the rest was administrative cost generated form the paperwork requirement of the DoD procurement system.

The cost of military equipment development and procurement will not change until the culture that has grown up with it changes. Good luck on that one now that the Supreme Court has codified corporations as people with the same rights and privileges. Corporations are pieces of paper in filing cabinets whose rights and privileges can be modified by state legislatures as is proven by the fact that so many corporations are registered in Delaware because of their “corporate friendly” registration requirements.

The tanker contract is all about military careers and corporate profit, national security is secondary. If these companies were really concerned about national security they would stop undermining the US economy be ending their outsourcing of US jobs to foreign countries, one of which, China, has been an adversary of the US since it’s founding.

The Anatov tanker “proposal” is absurd. I don’t think there is anyone who is taking that seriously.