DoD Ready For Tanker Protest

DoD Ready For Tanker Protest

ORLANDO – No one will say there will be a bid protest when the $35 billion KC-X tanker contract is awarded in the next few weeks. Neither Boeing nor EADS NA will rule out a protest either. So if — as most observers believe — a protest is filed is the Air Force ready? Does it have a plan? “Let me say right off we have assumed there might be a protest,” Air Force Secretary Mike Donley told reporters today. “We have taken a lot of care and extra time in our source selection process.” Donley, speaking at the Air Force Association winter conference, said “we certainly hope the offerors will not decide to protest but we recognize it is their right to do so.”

Word here at the conference is that the contract is likely to be awarded a week from now, almost three years after the last protest. A few sources says it may be the week after. Regardless, the contract will be awarded very soon. And a protest is likely. Boeing believes it has an ace in the hole in the extent of its congressional support. And that matters because most observers pin the win on EADS. While EADS has a solid block of supporters in Alabama and several other southern states, it lacks the broad support Boeing can draw on from its large web of plants and suppliers scattered throughout the country. “You just have to look at the map,” one source here said.

Meanwhile, Boeing lashed out yesterday afternoon at EADS, accusing the company’s chairman of making a “reckless statement,” one of “a series of false and misleading claims in its tanker campaign…” The statement, from Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barskdale, came in reaction to Ralph Crosby’s claim that the tanker Boeing built for Italy has not been “certified.”


“The fact is… the Italian KC-767A tanker is fully qualified — including the aerial refueling systems (Wing Air Refueling Pods; Hose Drum Unit; Universal Air Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation; Boom) — by The Boeing Company and was subsequently certified by the FAA. In fact, the Italian Ministry of Defense also has issued a Military Type Certificate to Boeing for the KC-767A tanker aircraft. Their first KC-767A tanker has been delivered and is capable of operational air refueling,” Barksdale said. “Boeing also takes exception to his saying that Boeing has been ‘irresponsible’ to warfighters. The fact is, Boeing has been responsibly serving U.S. warfighters since the 1920s, including over 60 years of aerial refueling experience. This stands in stark contrast to EADS’ relatively recent and limited experience in serving U.S. warfighters.”

Join the Conversation

I hope the DoD does the responsible thing and picks Boeing for the air tanker contract!

Let the EU buy their own Airbus!

Boeing should win the contract and this should be the first step towards a U.S. national industrial policy. 50 thousand U.S. factories have either shutdown or left the U.S. since the year 2000.

U.S. free trade policies have been a disaster! In this economic climate is it would be insane to further damage the U.S. industry.

U.S.A. all the way!

JMN

I agree. This bid should go to Boeing. End of Discussion. Any bid by EADS is meaningless in terms of dollar amounts after the A400 fiasco.

boe-fiasco-ing.

I agree that the AF can expect a protest. They have repeatedly shown that they are completely incompetent to administer an acquisition so they have every right to expect a protest. If DoD thinks the Air Force needs new tankers they should ask the Marines to manage the acquisition.

It is fair to say that Boeing has shot themselves in the foot several times with this tanker deal, BUT, having a foreign country with ransome potential over our military capabilities down the road just isn’t the answer, IMHO.

Lets get this 10 year overdue project moving down the road with an American company with the 60+ years of experience building aerial refueling tankers for the United States Air Force.

Amen Chuck. People don’t realize that with the Tanker comes a lifelong umbilical of spare parts, technnical support and services and training. To be beholden to an often less than cooperative foreign entity for such strategic capability is beyond rediculous.

The Air Force should let the desk auditors at GAO make the choice–no matter who they choose GAO will fault the service. There are just too many thousands of rules to comply with all of them.

Put our warfighters in the best plane. Period. It’s just as patriotic to protect our warfighters as it is to protect Boeing’s factory workers. Warfighters first. May the best plane win.

And I echo the sentiment: U.S.A. (warfighters) all the way!

You mean the spend $3 billion over 20 years to mismanage and have no product Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Marine Corps?

this is bad reporting. there is no such thing as a 35 billion dollar contract . govt funding laws do not allow an agency to obligate the taxpayer to such a long term effort . please review bona fide needs and full funding and antidrficiency . the contract winner will be in the driver seat but there is no guaranteed 35 billion .

Gentlemen are you paying attention? The American industrial base is in serious trouble!!!

Since the year 2000, 50 thousand factories have shutdown or left America due to series of really bad liberal free trade deals. Millions of U.S. jobs have been lost and now American R&D is leaving too.

As of 2009, 13 out 16, major U.S. defense support industries are currently in trouble.

The U.S. economy has not only been hit with the 2008 meltdown but also with $10 trillion dollars in trade deficits since the mid-1990’s.

A 10% unemployment rate (15 million people) and another 10% underemployed people (another 15 millon people) and pretty soon it becomes clear why there are 43 million Americans on food stamps.

Give the air tanker to Boeing. Let’s the EU buy Airbus.

Americans must start start a serious debate about a national industrial policy.

JMN

If the EADS plane wins the tanker, and I am sorry to say they have a fine a/c, it will be a glaring example of how America gives away its industrial base to other countries. Congress passed a LAW which gives foreign bidders equal access to DOD bidding !! Now that turkey may come home to roost. US taxation and financial conditions virtually force US companies to go overseas. fFrance, China and India don’t steal our jobs — we give them away. That bidding law should be changed as well as reams of tax laws /regulations. Incentives which go to foreign purchases of capital equipment, vehicles, ships, planes, etc. should be “adjusted”.

You’ve got the Airbus talking points down — do you work for them? The A330 is not better, it’s just bigger. USAF is trying to replace tha smaller KC-135s with this buy, so the A330 is overkill. If they really wanted a bigger tanker, Boeing would have competed the 777. No point in doing that since USAF already has plenty of KC-10As in their inventory.

Um, correct me if I am wrong but they will eventually be built in Alabama and last I checked that is the USA, now Boeing’s Italian tanker is 5 years late and let’s not talk about the money issues and they want to purpose a new version, EADS is in the air and flying now…I think Boeing just wants to win and delay as they have the contract to re-furbish the KC-135s out there so no hurry for them…

The ills of the American industrial base, unemployment, factory shutdowns, Washington or Alabama.…all secondary arguments in my opinion. Repeat: put our warfighters in the best plane. If the Seattle/Boeing plane is the best, pick Boeing. If the Mobile/EADS plane is the best, pick EADS. Don’t make the warfighters secondary to the discussion. This decision should be based on what’s best for them, and not based on where the plane is built.

I Repeat: May the best plane win.

You’re not stating any facts. You’re being purely subjective.
All listed things like unemployment, shut down factories, trade deficits, the present state of economy … don’t matter. The AirForce (desperately) needs a new product. You won’t buy any crap product, only because it’s “American”. Where would we be now if we had done that in the past?
Lufthansa just ordered 20 new Boeing 747–8. You don’t hear a word from European … people, politicians or so-called newscasters … that a German airline is supposed to buy only German (European). Although Germany employs 30.000 Airbus workers. No, Lufthansa needed new planes … so they ordered the best plane for their needs.

LOL ! You really think that after E.A.D.S. wins this contest (by any means), it will EVER take its foot out of the door again?

Cute!

Wrong: Technical criteria are completely irrelevant for military vehicles, weapons and ammunitions. That’s why I say: Let Boeing win!

You could be right and you could be wrong. They (EADS) have so far agreed to make a conversion facility in Alabama, since that is all that is required. They have made statements to the effect that they would build a final assembly facility in Alabama but have not made any commitments to it.

I dont work for neither, I just find issues online and address them after I research them, i’ve been on countless websites from Washington to Alabama and read the information on the planes(not on news sites but companies sites) It just seems that EADs ultimately has the better plane.

I do say even 2,000 more jobs, Boeings 50k to EADs 48k matters but EADs planes will be assembled by Americans, that’s 48,000 American Jobs.

I would not be pissed if Boeing won but rather disappointed that the USAF made a choice solely on where the company is from and not the necessary criteria needed.

If the contract is awarded in accordance with the request for proposal, it won’t matter if it is protested. The last contract award was so riddled with errors, it was almost painful to read the GAO report. Assuming the USAF has its act together, we won’t have to worry about the award being protested. Of course, that is a huge assumption.

SoCal, are you for real? You ought to start doing your homework, America is in trouble.

America’s well being in matters of finance, industry, technology, education, research and development, her workforce, her balance of trade, and a whole lot more, are all very, very, important!

Most of the numbers I use come government starting with the trade deficit. Everybody be advised, America has been deindustrilization mode for quite a while and the damage is really getting ugly. It’s time to wake up and do something about it.

Let the EU buy the Airbus. Let USAF buy Boeing. Let’s start the debate about rebuilding America economic base.

U.S.A. all the way!!! JMN

Right on freefallingbomb.

JMN

For all the smoke and mirrors being presented by EADS, it is important to remember that an EADS tanker has never done a refueling in a combat environment. Ever.

Additionally, the tankers they are building for other countries are not the same as what the AF is requesting. US requirements are simply different so they can’t honestly say that their tanker is ready to go.

They can talk all they want about doing it in test situations, etc. but the simple fact is that they have never done what Boeing planes have done thousands of times.

It is a bad idea to keep talking about not buying from EADS, because its foreign. If they lose for that reason, the U.S. military industry could suffer greatly, by having countries that buy our equipment, turn around and say we’ll look elsewhere, i.e. The F-35 as a prime example. Of course the F-35 is a bad example, ’cause it is killing itself with cost over runs, and delivery delays.

To the poster “retired462”

You wrote: “It is a bad idea to keep talking about not buying from EADS, because its foreign. If they lose for that reason, the U.S. military industry could suffer greatly, by having countries that buy our equipment turn around and say we’ll look elsewhere”

But judging by the chauvinistic, xenophobic opinions here in this forum, you have to admit that it would be a rare, almost beautiful moment of syntony ( = of unanimity, of unity) between the government and the masses. Imagine the White House explaining a shamelessly patriotic pro-Boeing decision to all E.A.D.S. member countries with letters that start like “To the President of frogville”…

I would pay to see that!

The airbus a/c will be built in Europe,retro-fitted in ‘Bama

Nice grammar!

Split the contract with a competitive split award.. Create 100,000 US jobs and give the Air Force 2 production lines in the US, one in Seattle and one in Mobile, to meet its greatest need. Competition almost always produces the best product.

and our tankers do not do combat refuelings. Tankers are kept far from actual combat. It may soon be getting closer since the F-35 can’t go to Burger King without atleast two tanker hookups.

“Let the EU buy the Airbus. Let USAF buy Boeing.” Wow … that’s some very deep thoughts. You are either 12 years old or you’re obviously living in a different world.

Name one western European nation that doesn’t operate American technology or has done in the past. Scandinavia, Benelux, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey … they all use American planes, helicopters, vehicles, weapons … or can you still name one that doesn’t?

1. Boeing gets tanker, then…
2. USAF buys A-400s without a competition as payoff for playing the tanker competition game.

@JMN @ Tom The problem is if every country would adapt this policy of buy local no international trade would exist. And if the World would do so the US is out of business. Traditionally a lot of European stuff is already from the US. The only way to to win is offering a better product at a better price without all these politics. Made your industry the best again like it used to be …

@retired462 I love you comment about the J-35 and how they mess up themselves. I used to be pro JSF but now with all these overruns the Netherlands will probaby buy only 40 or so instead of the 100+. I now believe they should buy the (Swedish) Gripen : a clear fixed offer without risk. Again stop messing around and make your industry the best again …

The best value at best price ignores labor issues, subsidies, government provided health care, etc.
I think it is very hypocritical of the Europeans to come and demand competition but at the same time, when possible lock the US out of contracts like the A400 or portions of it.

Boeing could do this too, but I suspect Airbus is going to lowbid the offer, get Boeing out of the competition, and ten com back later to the table asking for more money just like they did on the A400.

The Europeans are great at playing this game of saying to the US that we need to open up markets, but they play te same game of of opening up markets selectively.

This is our US Taxpayer dollars. In times of recession, needs for jobs, etc, I think we need to keep this kind of spending at home if possible, if we truly need to support this many tankers. It is far better than te billions being spent on frivolous stimulus (political payback) packages.

Part 1 / 2

The U.S. patriots here (yuck) simply “want it all”. And leave nothing for the rest of the World.

Fair, isn’t it?

They completely gave up questioning the technical superiority of all Airbus / E.A.D.S. planes over all U.S.-made planes for the same rôles (doubts? Then ask the U.S.A.F. why it chose the E.A.D.S. / N.G. tanker in round ONE !), now they only resort to economical pseudo-arguments to buy a lousy tanker for their Airforce (“the present Depression”, “our jobs”, “the trade deficit with China”, etc.).

But would the U.S. patriots hum a different tune about the E.A.D.S. KC-45 tanker if the U.S.A. were going through an economical bonanza instead, say: Like in the ‘80s? Let’s simulate:

(Continued)

Part 2 / 2

The U.S. patriots’ opinion about the E.A.D.S. KC-45 tanker

– after World War I: “European Empires discriminate fledgling democracies.”

– after World War II: “Euros are on Marshall Plan Welfare. Beggars can’t compete.”

– during the Cold War: “We save you from the Russians. Don’t weaken our M.I.C. .”

– after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact: “Special Hyper-Power / Global Cop prerogative” or “victor’s justice”.

( – and after the collapse of the U.S.A.: “Free market decisions are illegal. They ruined our Economy.”)

Buy American!!! It may or may not cost more but we need our country to have this contract to save jobs and keep money here.

You guys dont understand how the US procures. The new tanker will be built in the US, supply chain and spares in the US. Do you really think the US government is that incompetent?
Do the many users of Berettas among the armed and security forces have to go to Italy to buy spares?
Do you have to go to the UK to buy spares for the AV8-B?

If no one outside the US bought Boeing planes, it would have been out of business a long time ago

Then it is a misnomer to call this a competition. According to your criteria there is no reason to submit bids at all. Sweet sweet deal for Boeing and its shareholder$$$$$$. Poor taxpayers.…

Whichever tanker wins, it will be built in the US, as clear as that. Anything else is false.

until aircraft 30, when the Alabama Airbus inal assembly line will be operative. Then the aircraft will be fully built in Alabama (A330-Freighter) and retrofitted there.
Take into account it will be 120,000 hours to retrofit an aircraft, from the first one. That is a lot of jobs in alabama.
Is Boeing building an assembly line in Europe anytime soon????

Most know that 85% of the aircraft parts, including engine parts for Boeing Aircraft are manufactured overseas in China and Japan. This is scary when there is such a problem with “Bogus Parts” including engine parts. So most of Boeing aircraft parts are built over seas , with not much over sight by anyone. So both, Boeing and Air Bus (EU) would not asertain many jobs for Americans.….Who is to blam for all this ?
All present and past leaders in Washington making trade deals.

“lousy tanker” is it? Boeing built the tankers that the American government’s been using for decades… I think that’s a testament to their quality!

Wrong. Only the Boeing tanker would be built in the US. The EADS tanker would be MANUFACTURED in Europe just like all other Airbus aircraft (the difference from other Airbus aircraft being that the KC-X would be ASSEMBLED in AL rather than France).

Wrong. Only ~30% of the 767 & 777 PARTS are manufactured overseas. And Boeing is fully capable of manufacturing each & every part if need be.

Wrong. Boeing has the better plane.

No the EADS KC-X has NOT been built — it is NOT the same tanker as the Australian KC-30. There are 5 OPERATIONAL KC-767 (not including conversions from existing airframes) and ZERO operational KC-30/A330-200 MRTT (Australia’s are now 2 years late). It is true however that the Australian KC-30 (which SHOULD become operational some time this year) is closer to the EADS KC-X than the Italian & Japanese KC-767s are to the KC-767NG.

More than 95% of the A330 parts are manufactured outside the US vs only ~30% of the 767. The EADS KC-X is neither tested (there are not even any similar KC-30 operational) nor better.

It is the USAF/DOD which has shot themselves in the foot, not Boeing.

Amy, the Boeing plane has never flown, it is just all on paper so what is your point?

The Airbus MRTT has made refuel runs in combat and to US Forces F-15E’s which I fly and have hooked up to one over Afghanistan so unless you now what you are talking about then please don’t post to the board…

Boeing has yet to transfer a drop of fuel from their design as it is only on paper and the Italian and Japanese KC-767s that are in the air have yet to do so too…

It is a global world and we are all on the same side last I checked…

Please keep your opinions to yourself and if you have facts then please post them, but your Boeing Talking Points are not working here.

You are wrong. The EADS tanker would be MANUFACTURED in Europe just like all other Airbus aircraft (the difference from other Airbus aircraft being that the KC-X would be ASSEMBLED in AL rather than France).

EADS’s Australian tanker is now 2 years late & MUCH of the delay in Italy’s tankers are due to Italy insisting on doing much of the conversion work themselves.

Might not be doing that in Europe but they exported all the 787 wing design to Japan a few years ago and I doubt you were supporting that now were you James…

Oh one last thing, the tail cone to the 787 is made by Airbus so you see Boeing already uses that European technology only problem is that plant is in CA and is that in-sourcing Airbus and its partners have brought to America, so while Boeing and Cessna export US jobs, EADS and Airbus plan to in-source them and I think I heard POTUS in his state of the union address ask for just that.

Facts that is all we want here

Wrong. The EADS tanker would be MANUFACTURED in Europe just like all other Airbus aircraft (the difference from other Airbus aircraft being that the KC-X would be ASSEMBLED in AL rather than France). The 4 SDD aircraft plus how ever many years worth of procurement it takes for the AL FINAL ASSEMBLY PLANT to com on line manufacture & assembled in Europe.

Tanker conversion would occur in Wichita, KS with the KC-767NG. The BIG difference being that the 767 would be MANUFACTURED in the US (~70%) rather than in Europe (>95%) like the A330.

Two problems.

1) Congress won’t provide enough funds to procure enough tankers each year to make a split buy economical for Boeing OR Airbus.

2) The KC-30 is the WRONG tanker for the US. The US tanker fleet is already planned to be split between the medium KC-X & KC-Z (KC-135 replacement) and the large KC-Y (KC-10) replacement. Adding the larger & heavier than KC-10 but with 110,00 lbs less fuel capacity KC-30 to the mix is a BAD idea that would REDUCE overall fleet capability while INCREASING overall fleet costs.

The KC-767NG is built on the 767 airframe, not the 787 airframe.

To the poster “James”

——————————-

Part 1 / 7

(Sorry if I had to create a new thread to answer you, but if I didn’t and our previous thread got too long, then the last posts would end up squeezed like tinsel strands to the right)

You wrote: “You guys dont understand how the US procures. The new tanker will be built in the US, supply chain and spares in the US. Do you really think the US government is that incompetent? Do the many users of Berettas among the armed and security forces have to go to Italy to buy spares? Do you have to go to the UK to buy spares for the AV8-B?”

I know, but

1) it’s not M-E who insinuates that E.A.D.S. will run home to Europe after the last KC-45 falls off the assembly line in Mobile, Alabama, leaving the U.S. Airforce entirely without spare parts for them. It’s the poster “Russ” who believes that.

(Continued)

Part 2 / 7

2) Nevertheless, I think the U.S.A. shouldn’t be tooo proud of ordering foreigners to produce every darn, military-looking object in their country: I can’t remember a single European, Middle Eastern or Far Eastern country that orders the U.S.A. (for example) to build U.S. jets or self-propelled U.S. howitzers in their foreign countries either, in some “purpose-built factories” ! Everybody just imports U.S. weapons, straight and simple, so why don’t you?
And so far we Euros never had problems with depending on U.S. arms makers for the logistics of their weapon exports / our weapon imports, so you shouldn’t have any problems with depending on our arms makers either. They may be “merchants of death”, but some of them still care about their global reputations, their old brands.

(Continued)

Part 3 / 7

Stop seeing “untrustworthy partners” or “potential rogues” or even “future enemies” in us at every moment, while simultaneously asking us to help you fight your criminal wars! It’s clearly affecting your sense of reality.

Or like when you refuse to sell us your best (and most expensive) weapons, too, even technologically watered-down, for example dumbed-down F-22s to Japan or nuclear subs to France, something we’ve NEVER done with you!

(Continued)

Part 4 / 7

In my paranoid mind, the TRUE reasons behind this U.S. law which obliges foreign military arms makers to build their chosen products in the U.S.A. are:

1) Slapping the price of a SECOND factory ( = that in the U.S.A.) on foreign weapons, to drive up their unit prices World-wide, thus making them less competitive everywhere against the inferior U.S. weapons,

2) industrial espionage. At least in the shape of obligatory, partial technology transfer to U.S. workers.

But: By deliberately refusing to IMPORT absolutely any (military) weapon from abroad, forcing every individual foreign arms maker to open a factory in the U.S.A. first, can you imagine how much the U.S.A. are cutting their own flesh because of all the good stuff from abroad ( NEARLY EVERYTHING !!! ) that they’re forfeiting for the U.S. Armed Forces?

(Continued)

Part 5 / 7

One example: The U.S.A. once refused to buy two E.H. 101 helicopters (formerly one of Europe’s finest models) as their new “Marine Ones” (“Marine One” = the U.S. President’s helicopter) because they insisted on AgustaWestland opening a factory in the U.S.A. first! A whole factory only to build TWO helicopters of a specific model on U.S. soil, and then to stay open forever and operate empty, only to produce eventually a few more spare parts for these two helicopters!

Imagine if every single military arms maker in the World had to build a NEW factory in EVERY different country again, just to sell a small amount of the same weapons there, too!!! Complete madhouse. That’s why this system works only ONCE (incidentally for you), because NO OTHER country in the World imitates you U.S. Americans, so that you can do things your way… Still, I think the idiocy of your system is crystal-clear.

(Continued)

Part 6 / 7

So, since

1) nearly every (other) country in the World simply imports the majority of its foreign-made weapons directly from abroad,
2) and ironically the ONLY problems with imported military weapons are the ones which
Y-O-U ,
N-O-N-importing
U.S. Americans create to other countries (the blocked Pakistani F-16 deal, the U.S.A.‘s refusal to supply spare parts for Iran’s F-14s and for Venezuela’s F-16s, the Apeface-ordered interception of the North Korean cargo ship “Sosan” with its LEGAL freight of 15 Scud missiles to Sudan, the U.S.A.‘s pressure on Russia not to deliver the pre-paid Iranian S-300s, etc., etc.),
3) and bearing in mind what a large customer the U.S. Armed Forces are
4) and since we haven’t the slightest illusions for what war crimes you’re gonna use our weapons (sometimes we even become your accomplices)

(Continued)

Part 7 / 7

5) and especially when only a SMALL amount of foreign military products is to be ordered
and / or
6) when a specific, foreign, military item is simply the World champion in its category, making it impossible to hold contests against any comparable U.S. products,

why don’t you do your languishing arms acquisition process a HUGE favour, ask for the best on the foreigners’ “menu cards”, test it, have it modified, and then simply IMPORT those Russian monster-size Space rockets or cargo planes, British air-to-air missiles and sonars, Italian fully-automatic ship guns, Swedish anti-aircraft guns, stealthy corvettes, carrier planes (“Gripens”) and carrier-killing “Gotland”-class submarines, Brazilian COIN planes or German sniper rifles, whatever, as if they were just one in a million other, civilian ship containers being offloaded each day at your ports, instead of insisting on an “extra factory” first for every trifle??

I absolutely agree: There should never have been any KC-X “competition” in the first place, no “submission of bids” at all, even less so any “technical criteria” that define a good tanker.

Boeing should have stomped right into the court house.

about the same as boeing, except that it will be built in japan and china…

look what the AF has planned to buy in the near future: f-35, NGB, KC-X, overhaul of f-15,16 (possibly) and i don’t know what else. bottom line, there won’t be any money left for the kcy or kcz for the foreseeable future…

The Air Force has every right to sole source the contract to Boeing, or EADS NA for that matter, but they chose a competition. They did try in 2001 remember and how well did that work out? The problem is the U.S. industrial base. In the 1990’s at the encouragement of the Clinton Administration it shrunk greatly and there is no other U.S. competitor for the contract. In order to meet acquisition policy and regulation and Congress’ desires to be good stewards of the tax dollar they have to let EADS NA bid and really if the US Aerospace and Antonov had their act together they would have had to consider that one to.

Unfortunately for Boeing if you have a competition then there is a chance you may lose. One has to assume of course that the Air Force will do the source selection correctly but I am betting another protest and a good chance of a fourth attempt.

Maybe if there is a next time the Air Force will do the necessary paperwork to sole source the contract but when there are cost overruns, delays and performance issues Congress and others will raise Holy Hell.

can’t they have the contract verified (by gao probably) to be free of the bigger errors at least prior to its release?
but the release of the data (accidentally being the IFARA data — good for boeing, shit for eads) is a perfect starting point for a protest (moreso by eads, since they have reportedly scored better in the ifara) and a very strong one too (read: hello attempt 4).

but on the other hand can’t AF can say (instead of the #4) to boeing give us the same terms as in the #3 attempt (or slightly more expensive) and you have the contract. is there anything to stop them from doing that?
except maybe F-35-style overruns (read: 787 cockpit, new wings, engines etc.) that’ s waiting to happen or an expensive maintenance deal (similar to what we’ve seen in the 2001 attempt)?

Part 1of 2

SoCal, without you doing your homework concerning the serious erosion of America’s economic and industrial base since the U.S. signed on the WTO, and since the 08 meltdown, your the one who sounds like a shallow 12 year old living on Venus. Down here, America is in real touble.

It’s not the past anymore pal. The new EU is now the largest single economic block on the planet. It is not the liberal free trade zone to “outsiders” that you think. The EU is very pragmatic and they practice protection and subsidies, lots of them!

SoCal, what’s your spin concerning the U.S. signing onto a nonreciprocal WTO agreement that gives foreign competitors unfair tarriff advantages? Why are U.S. tarriffs so much lower?

SoCal, in 2008 Japan sold 6 million cars in America. 3 million cars were exported in, and another 3 millons cars were built in, Japanese transplants over here. In 2008, the U.S. was only allowed to sell 16 thousand cars in Japan. Why is this imbalance not being challenged?

SoCal, in 2010 the U.S. trade deficit with China was -$273 billion. Are you good with this?

Part 2 of 2

SoCal, there are tons of other examples.

At the current rate, this years U.S. trade deficit will surpass 2010’s which was almost half a trillion dollars. 50 thousand U.S. factories are already gone. Deindustrialization is continuing and now American R&D leaving.

SoCal, how can you say like you do above, …things like unemployment, shut down factories, trade deficits, the present state of economy … don’t matter?

With the federal and state budgets bleeding so much red ink and America’s debt so high how can you justify giving the air tanker to the EU/Airbus?

SoCal, signing onto more liberal trade agreements are not very deep thoughts. It’s insane.

Let the EU buy the Airbus and let the USAF buy Boeing. It’s time for America to look at a national industrial policy.

U.S.A., All The Way!!!
Regards, JMN

japan is overcrouded (with cars also) already as it is.

I was referring to the A330 MRTT and should have been clearer.

To the poster “JMN”

—————————–

Part 1 / 13

You wrote: “The new EU is now the largest single economic block on the planet. It is not the liberal free trade zone to ‘outsiders’ that you think. The EU is very pragmatic and they practice protection and subsidies, lots of them!”

(Continued)

(Here I go again… my first post disappeared as soon as I posted it)

————————-

To the poster “JMN”

————————-

Part 1 / 13

You wrote: “The new EU is now the largest single economic block on the planet. It is not the liberal free trade zone to ‘outsiders’ that you think. The EU is very pragmatic and they practice protection and subsidies, lots of them!”

(Continued)

Part 2 / 13

1) Do you know a single 100 % “liberal free trade zone to outsiders” ANYWHERE in the World, despite all sanctimonious G20 pledges? Even the U.S.A.?! Before you spew any more Propaganda: Just try to install a single PIPE or ELECTRIC WIRE in your house that doesn’t fully comply with the U.S. American I.S.O. and A.N.S.I. industrial standards, etc., worse: Even causing an injury to someone with it, even to a burglar (real life cases!) ! You’ll lose all joy in life…

2) Funny, here in Europe we say exactly the same about our China agreements: That they’re scandalously unbalanced and unilateral! AND NOT EVEN THESE DEALS ARE ENFORCED !!!!!! Even whole Chinese ship cargoes that break our agreements and that get seized in our ports are simply released again!

Why?

Me too I want to see the clean-faced politician who signed that act of CONTINENTAL TREASON !!! I bet he’s a descendant of British or U.S. Americans. (“Our allies”…)

(Continued)

Part 3 / 13

You wrote: “…what’s your spin concerning the U.S. signing onto a nonreciprocal WTO agreement that gives foreign competitors unfair tarriff advantages? Why are U.S. tarriffs so much lower?”

1) “Tariffs” in THIS context?! If E.A.D.S. builds a factory somewhere inside the U.S.A. to build the KC-45 tanker over there, then this argument of yours does N-O-T apply in any way. Stop throwing sand in our eyes!

I would really love to see the faces of all you U.S. patriots, if Boeing got this contract and then outsourced the KC-767s to China, just as it did with (parts of) its 787 jet, teaching the Chinese how to compete properly with everybody! Couldn’t happen to E.A.D.S. .…

(Continued)

Part 4 / 13

2) I ENTIRELY agree that reciprocity (for better or worse) should be the basis of ALL international relations, diplomatic, scientific, economical, political, military and otherwise.

You cry because other nations enjoy unique privileges? Then JUST INSIST on reciprocal rights! The U.S.A. are (still) a Hyper-Power, it should be easy for them.

(Continued)

Part 5 / 13

(Although most rich nations open lots of exceptions for small, weak, rural Third World economies, since the vast majority of the Earth’s economies is poor,
1) to use this “generosity” later for political “leverage”, speak EXTORSION in the first degree
and
2) because you just can’t force all economical weaklings to play hard-ball with developed nations on an equal basis. Soon you would find yourself completely isolated with your dear, savage Capitalistic ideology. But all exporting U.S. industries – from Coca-Cola to Microsoft to Boeing – WANT to have as many clients as possible. It’s a tight rope walk, where even free trade hawks have to be as pragmatical as possible not to lose the game.)

(Continued)

Part 6 / 13

You wrote: “…in 2008 Japan sold 6 million cars in America. 3 million cars were exported in, and another 3 millons cars were built in, Japanese transplants over here. In 2008, the U.S. was only allowed to sell 16 thousand cars in Japan. Why is this imbalance not being challenged?”

1) Because of very real quality issues. But besides that, I believe that the Japanese government is indeed using playing foul to keep U.S. cars out. Get even with them – sink a Japanese whaler every now and then.

(Continued)

Part 7 / 13

But here in Europe all U.S. car brands except Ford always had a hard time to sway customers (their uhh… uhh… “strange” design, awful fuel economy, low safety ratings, etc.), no protectionistic measures at play.

U.S. trucks and civil construction machines (speak: Caterpillar and John Deere) are much, much better represented here, since World War II. Their quality is excellent (a company can really grow and grow old with them) and they’re especially popular for their raw engine power (good for rocky soils), but even they are incomprehensibly more expensive than their direct Scania, Volvo, MAN, Komatsu, Daewoo, Hyundai, Kawasaki, Kubota, Liebherr, JCB, Potain and Fiat, etc., counterparts. I hear that complaint all my life from purchasing managers, dealers, civil construction engineers and seasoned machine operators.

(Continued)

Part 8 / 13

2) Anyway: Why does a government have to solve ANY problems of the civilian, private Economy, like bailing out fat, rich Wall Street bankers, or by subsidizing incompetent car and aircraft makers ( HELLOOO , my “free-trade / no-subsidies” preacher “JMN”…!) ? To avoid picking up the shambles ( = the social costs) of the decisions of ruthless, sociopathic C.E.O.s?

Does a government not have a completely different mission? (For that purpose: How much do the rich spend in schools and hospitals for the poor, either?)

(Continued)

Part 9 / 13

And as dramatic as the general decline of the U.S.A. may be for its population (as a Frenchman, even I see the eclipse of the hated U.S.A. as a bad sign emitted to the barbarian masses south of our borders, who will see the penultimate bastion of the Whites fall into their hands. Believe it or not – that’s how these critters think about us), do you really think that your U.S. government is acting with the slightest sense of national emergency, either?

For example: Why is the U.S. government still spending TRILLIONS in two perfectly lost, utterly useless, criminal wars, or > 300 billion $ in acquiring thousands of F-35 flying humiliations, all that even at the nadir of a global depression? This biblical folly is costing you probably nothing less than your existence!!!

So, what does the winning KC-45 design have to do with any of this?

(Continued)

Part 10 / 13

You wrote: “…in 2010 the U.S. trade deficit with China was -$273 billion. Are you good with this?”

U.S. Defense budget (in 2010) : 663,8 billion $ .

U.S. arms I-M-ports (in 2009) : 0,8 billion $ = only 0,1205 % of the above figure!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​A​r​m​s​_​i​n​d​u​s​t​r​y​#​W​o​rld.…

GUESS “IN WHICH COUNTRIES” THE REST OF ALL MILITARY U.S. WEAPONS ARE / WERE PRODUCED !!!! (And then whine about “trade imbalance” again, you hypocrite…)

Value of the KC-X tanker deal: Only 35 billion $ = only 5,2 % of O-N-E YEARLY U.S. Defense budget!

YOU’RE JUST G-R-E-E-D-Y , THAT’S THE WHOLE TRUTH !

(Continued)

Part 11 / 13

You wrote: “At the current rate, this years U.S. trade deficit will surpass 2010’s which was almost half a trillion dollars. 50 thousand U.S. factories are already gone. Deindustrialization is continuing and now American R&D leaving.”

Join the E.U. . It’s your only chance.

Ok, kidding. Just scaring you.

Why do you want to adjudicate a mere 179 (repeat: 1–7-9 ) middle-sized planes to an U.S. aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) that already lost 10.080 (repeat: 1–0-0–8-0 !!! ) similar-sized airplanes to Airbus before, because of its incompetence??? Proof:
http://​www​.airbus​.com/​c​o​m​p​a​n​y​/​m​a​r​k​e​t​/​o​r​d​e​r​s​-​d​e​liv…

Friendly tip: Do you know who’s among Airbus’ MANY – and BEST – clients? U.S. American airlines!!! Yet you think you should appeal only to the “U.S. Airforce” not to buy Airbus / E.A.D.S. …

(Continued)

Part 12 / 13

Do you really think that this overblown tanker deal will somehow turn the U.S. Economy miraculously around ? At best it will give a tiny boost to one declining U.S. aircraft company, Boeing – but it won’t solve all its present and future problems either!

You try to talk smooth and convincing, but you’re just sounding factious to me, like a real patriot! (Patriots: Yuck)

(Continued)

Part 13 / 13

You wrote: “signing onto more liberal trade agreements are not very deep thoughts. It’s insane.”

Then get out of the World Trade Organization to see what good it does to your Economy.

And don’t ever come back to us again with another Capitalistic monster invention like “globalization” (your Bretton Woods agreements). You’re causing Global Depressions enough as it is to EVERYBODY !

“It” is beginning to get a major problem for us…

————————-

Inescapable conclusion of all the above: E.A.D.S. gets the tanker, Boeing gets fined.

There should be spam filters on this

How many parts for the Boeing 767 are manufactured out of this country?
how many of the parts are manufactured in China?
I’m just curious!

They may as long as the follow FAR Subpart 6.3. Doing this for a contract this large is certainly possible but it won’t be easy.
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%206_…

Last I saw, something like 70pct of a commercial 767 is manufactured in the US, with the balance largely made in Japan (which not coincidently was and is one of the biggest markets for the 767). However, for a military 767, they could easily have 100pct manufactured in the US since the 787 pretty much killed the 767 line and the commercial side is closing down. I don’t believe any of the parts are made in China since the chinese markets was pretty small when the 767 was developed.

To the retired poster “462”

——————————–

Part 1 / 2

You wrote: “How many parts for the Boeing 767 are manufactured out of this country? how many of the parts are manufactured in China? I’m just curious!”

Allow me to ruin your day, or at least your breakfast, or at least your love affair with Boeing. This shocking text here, called “Boeing in China”, should turn even paid Boeing poster “JMN” against Boeing and its KC-767 tanker!!!
http://​www​.mraaviation​.com/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​?​l​a​y​=​s​h​o​w​&​a​m​p​;​amp…

It’s as if Boeing NEVER wanted to get out of China again, like Wal-Mart, Microsoft and Unilever!

(Continued)

Part 2 / 2

(I especially loved such phrases like “Boeing is pleased to have been invited to help Chinese companies develop skills, achieve certification, and join world aviation and supplier networks. China has an increasingly sophisticated and expanding part to play […] on all of Boeing commercial airplane models — 737, 747, 767, 777 and the newest and most innovative airplane, the 787 Dreamliner.” …)

What next: Lockheed Martin moves all its arms factories to China?

AND SOME OF YOU STILL PROTEST IF E.A.D.S. MOVES TO THE U.S.A. AND OPENS FACTORIES THERE ??

freefallingbomb, have you ever been told you tend to bloviate.

If politics stay out of the Air Force’s choice this time; hopefully we will have bought the best for the mission! Either way; a follow-on tanker is way overdue!

To the poster “retired462”

——————————-

Part 1 / 2

You wrote: “If politics stay out of the Air Force’s choice this time…”

It’s not “Politics” that’s interfering in this contest, even less so any technical or tactical evaluation aspects, it’s pure Economics…

From the same company that claims to protect the West from “threats” like Iran and North Korea… while simultaneously outsourcing all work to Communist China. Only your politicians prevent the rest of Boeing from moving to the other side of the Pacific. As I said: Won’t happen with E.A.D.S. . We Euros still know on which side of the field we’re playing.

(Continued)

Part 2 / 2

E.A.D.S. is about to open a new, large factory in the U.S.A., and no matter if it uses it to build 100 % or only 1 % of the KC-45: This is something which Boeing and Lockheed Martin NEVER did in Europe, and NEVER will do!!! So much only for “poor, unfairly treated” America!

And that disloyal, multinational company, which only cares about maximizing its own profits, not about creating jobs at home, even less so about building good and cheap products, still finds cheerful supporters among ingenuine, flag-waving U.S. Americans…

No comment.

Did you know that they invented “Twitter” (140 characters maximum per “tweet”) exactly for people like you?

more then 330 for now, but you have to take into account, that the line there will be a major service center + 330 freighter assembly (+ local outsourcing of parts) and the 767 it’s on its way to the can anyway (if it wins, the line will close permanently probably after the planes are built, since it’s a VERY old design anyway).

why don’t you just type everything in a single post, separated by empty lines?

(Mr. Colin Clark should be forced to answer that, but he won’t even show himself!!!)

——————————————————————————————————

Part 1 / 2

You think I like doing that???

OFFICIALLY
1) each commentary we write here
or
2) each part of a longer commentary
must have 2.500 characters and spaces, or less.
Above that size, we have to continue writing in a new post, normally addressed to the previous one (as in “Part 1 / 4”, “Part 2 / 4”, “Part 3 / 4”, etc.).

(Continued)

Part 2 / 2

In reality – and for reasons completely unknown to all of us – the Grand Censor doesn’t even grant us HIS ANNOUNCED allotment of 2.500 characters & spaces per post! He just doesn’t, and he never explained why.

So we break down our longer commentaries into several parts of ~ 980 – 1.000 characters and spaces, TOTALLY UNDETERRED OF COURSE , and these normally “go through”.

Just one detail: To paraphrase the famous last line from George Orwell’s novel “Animal Farm”

“Some p p ppposters are more equal than others”,

don’t be surprised to find some dear little friends of The Grand Inquisitor here whose uncut posts coolly exceed 4.000 characters.

It’s an ignominy, we all know, but it’s simply the spiritus loci.

Its time to let the best plane win… that’s what our uniformed force deserves. If it’s the KC-45 so be it. “Buy American” didn’t work very well for the auto industry when all the foreign cars were superior. US automakers are finally getting it and are now in a resurgence mode because they’ve made their products better and can now compete. If Boeing can offer a better product then that’s the path to their winning NOT political base in Congress. Do we want a competitive America or not?

why did boeing select pratt&whitney as their jet engine source?

Why not? In this case P&W must have offered the better deal.

pratt&whitney political hacks have been screwing ge since 1962 when they received contracts for their lousy tf30 engine. they received contracts from 1962 through 1997 and ge finally had to replace the pratt engines on the f14,f15 and f16 fighter planes. and, i’ll be damned if the military didnt select a derivative of the tf30 engine for the f35 jsf without allowing ge to bid for that business.b

Third time pfcem, Mabey people should read your posts first then comment.

Boeing’s 767 Tanker version for the USAF has never been built — completely different than the Italian or Japanese version. So, it has not flown in a combat theater either. Boeing has successfully demonstrated that it no longer possess the engineering expertise to build a Tanker — it’s long gone in its multiple layoffs since the KC-135 was built over 40 years ago.

The difference in the American requirements is in the internal avionics, not the airframe, engines or refueling systems. This is driven by a combination of US military requirements and Congressional “Buy America” provisions — both Tankers versions need to comply to these requirements.

Focusing on “protectionism” like this will cost the US Aerospace Industry more jobs than this one contract will provide if awarded in the manner you propose.

American Aerospace Industry exports at 4x more equipment to Europe than we import. So, if we go down the path of your protectionism we risk much more in trade and jobs than your idea will create. Dumb idea

EADS can deliever a quality product but when it comes to tankers, there is no company on this planet that comes remotely close to Boeing. There are differences in the two aircraft bids submitted and yet Boeing seems to be closer to what the Air Force is calling for. I understand points being made about the F-35 and that the assembly plant will be in Alabama but there are definately alot of U.S. Dollars that would end up in Europe. With todays financial issues in OUR Country lets stay with the American Company. The company that brought the world air refueling and the company that has a proven track record. Take a look at the KC-135’s that have the brunt of the mission and you will realize that most of these aircarft have been doing the job for 35 plus years (many longer than that). Now that’s proven. Stay with Boeing

opel is actually GM, as are some of the korean brands (daewoo/chevrolet)

I agree that Boeing should get the tanker but are you serious about the A-400? With the likes of the C-130J and the C-17. You would pick the A-400 over either one of those aircraft. Seriously ?

yes, BUT both the italians and the japanese have had problems prior to the introduction (italy’s were delayed for 4 years i think).
on the other hand so are australia’s a330. i don’t know about the UK.

the c130 should never have been alive until this point. and the J got only 500 hp increase in engine power for example.

the 400m purchase would probably be to silence eads from protesting and would probably not be unjustified due to several good features that this ac has (price is not one of them, but it’s hard to find a cheap plane nowadays. even the 130 and 17 have had their share of budget overruns).

the euros have been using the us arms since the ww2 basically.
the dod itself wanted a competition and we all know why.
as is the BAE now more or less an american firm (it’s formerly known as british aerospace), who knows what could happen in the future…

The Airbus is NOT the better aircraft. Nor has their proposed aircraft ever been built (The KC-30 is NOT the aircraft they propose to build, and even that aircraft is not in service yet). The KC767 is at least flying, albiet not in the version it would be for the KC-X project. The point being this internet myth that the EADS aircraft is flying, tested, and ready for production is utterly false.

You say you want the AF to pick the aircraft based on the criteria, yet you’re ignoring the fact that the EADS plane was FAR outside the constraints of the original RFP due to the 330’s size. You’ve also said these companies are identical in their government subsidies, also totally false.

The A400 is fine example according to the press release graphic simulations

Will the French Army upgrade from all old woodland camo and wear US MARPAT or DigiCam?..Will the French AF fly anything other than Renault? Shoot anything other than FN?…doubt it…it’s called keeping a domestic industrial base. And even sophisticated Europeans do that too despite having castrated their military.

Fail to see the economics of the deal working if EADS-AIrbus has to create and train up a brand new assembly line for a brand new untested aircraft…

There will be too many old and decrepit people in Europe in the next 30 years, I guess that’s why they will import the manufacturing to Alabama.

Now FFB thinks he is a political prisoner in addition to serial spammer

Citroen is a hot car I hear. There is a GM conspiracy to hold that back from the US.

Remember part of the 767 is made overseas too so what is the difference in which overseas company, Boeing or EADS build the airframe parts, they will end up being assemblied in the US. Remember if it said made in USA check the parts inside, when you find a chip or a board from another country in it the label should read Assemblied in America

Another “honest” add brought to you by Boeing.…… Thanks Army Wonk

well, in recent times yes.

I would call a boom falling off of a aircraft a problem as well. and the A330 for Australia is 2 years behind

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement