In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Boeing wins A/F tanker contract
Warbirds
Member Posts: 16,925 ✭✭✭✭
Just in-
I have followed this contract with interest for years. I expect EADS will protest again, but congress is going to release an initial payment of 900 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25tanker.html?src=twrhp
I have followed this contract with interest for years. I expect EADS will protest again, but congress is going to release an initial payment of 900 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25tanker.html?src=twrhp
Comments
Don't need a crap load of tankers when the planes are at home.
This is a big deal as there is the potential for this to be a 100 BILLION dollars over the life of the contract.
Sorry to see the Mobile area miss out on all those jobs, but I really don't want any of our money going to Airbus. Don't like their planes.
+1, hated for Mobile, but...
well, they gutted the CVBGs (as far as I know there is no replacement for the KA-6, and they are probably getting rid of S-3 also) so now the Navy have no option but to rely on Chair Force tankers, probably flying ALLLLLLL the way from the Continental US...nice...
They already phased the S-3 out. They are using buddy-stores equipped F-18's to fill the role.
I was working at NG when the tanker contract was being debated. Yeah, a lot of folks get riled over the concept of a euro/USA project, but the cost of the Boeing design was greater. See, their bird would have to be BUILT from the ground up as it was a new design, and the AF would have had to build/retrofit their ground support facilities to match the new design as well. Meanwhile, the Airbus platform already exists, it will fit in the AF hangers, the euro portion is essentially just the airframe, while the US would be in charge of everything inside (avionics, fuel/hydro systems, etc), and it isn't like US based airlines aren't buying the airbus planes already. There are a lot more civilian Airbus aircraft than there would be military versions.
So, it comes down to our taxpaying dollars being spent on a costly new plane, or on a retrofit of an existing plane.
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
well, they gutted the CVBGs (as far as I know there is no replacement for the KA-6, and they are probably getting rid of S-3 also) so now the Navy have no option but to rely on Chair Force tankers, probably flying ALLLLLLL the way from the Continental US...nice...
They already phased the S-3 out. They are using buddy-stores equipped F-18's to fill the role.
I was working at NG when the tanker contract was being debated. Yeah, a lot of folks get riled over the concept of a euro/USA project, but the cost of the Boeing design was greater. See, their bird would have to be BUILT from the ground up as it was a new design, and the AF would have had to build/retrofit their ground support facilities to match the new design as well. Meanwhile, the Airbus platform already exists, it will fit in the AF hangers, the euro portion is essentially just the airframe, while the US would be in charge of everything inside (avionics, fuel/hydro systems, etc), and it isn't like US based airlines aren't buying the airbus planes already. There are a lot more civilian Airbus aircraft than there would be military versions.
So, it comes down to our taxpaying dollars being spent on a costly new plane, or on a retrofit of an existing plane.
So the new taker will not be made with the 767 platform?
We currently use the KC-10 and KC-135. Old but still working well.
Anyone who proposed that the government-subsidized company who makes Eurocrapters and Scarebuses be allowed to make our military aircraft is a moron and deserves to be shot for treason.
In addition, I, at great personal expense, offer parts I've paid from my own pocket to research, design, produce, wring-out and offer for sale to upgrade and improve an already fine rifle. I rarely make more than 20% on any part I offer. It's done for the love of the design and admiration for the folks who also enjoy the weapons system.
Logic: fail. Better luck next time.
Besides, the contract is going to Boeing which is still a US company.....and it's pilot can make it do things an Airbus would think are impossible.
That's a handy characteristic for any military aircraft.
Does anyone else smell a racket or is the fact that's it's wrapped up in an American flag too distracting?
Rant over.
Military preparedness in a day and age when we can hardly afford a military.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's the military getting everything they wanted in the name of preparedness that helped dig us this deep in the first place. You'll pardon me if I take their requests with a grain of salt.
We cannot allow a tanker gap!
catpealer,
Military preparedness in a day and age when we can hardly afford a military.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's the military getting everything they wanted in the name of preparedness that helped dig us this deep in the first place. You'll pardon me if I take their requests with a grain of salt.
There are a lot of other programs that need to be whacked before this one monkeyboy. NEA DOE (Energy And Education) Welfare etc etc. The planes are very old maintenance and upkeep far exceed the replacement cost. The military has been trying to award this for almost a decade now and the euroweeny surrender monkeys keep raising a stink every time they loose and the enabling libs reboot the whole process meanwhile pouring more and more money into the black hole of a dead end mechanical system.
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
catpealer,
Military preparedness in a day and age when we can hardly afford a military.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's the military getting everything they wanted in the name of preparedness that helped dig us this deep in the first place. You'll pardon me if I take their requests with a grain of salt.
There are a lot of other programs that need to be whacked before this one monkeyboy. NEA DOE (Energy And Education) Welfare etc etc. The planes are very old maintenance and upkeep far exceed the replacement cost. The military has been trying to award this for almost a decade now and the euroweeny surrender monkeys keep raising a stink every time they loose and the enabling libs reboot the whole process meanwhile pouring more and more money into the black hole of a dead end mechanical system.
NEA budget for 2010: $161 million.
For the tanker program alone, you could fund roughly 5 NEA's.
I've heard the argument "maintenance exceeds replacement costs." Okay... what about when one adds the cost of maintenance for the new planes? When one replaces items, they need to be maintained, don't they?
Some people will make any excuse they can for anything in uniform. It's a fetish not unlike what Japanese businessmen have for little girls in sailor suits.
Go BOEING!!! Buy American for the American Military. Now when we get Chevrolet Corvette-built humvees I'll REALLY be happy.
Doesn't a Chinese company make Hummers now? Or do they only make the soccer mom version?
Congress has no idea what's needed to maintain any branch of the Military; that's why we have Brass Alley to teach them how wars were fought back when we used to win them.
I wouldn't want to be on the team EMM wants to abandon in the field while the FAC is begging for just one more Danger Close pass, and the pilot says he has to go to the base to top off first; be back in an hour or so......if they take the card, it's tough getting credit way over here.
I'm sure you've heard, but the economy is in the toilet right now. New tankers are not going to lay the foundation for an economic recovery since they only benefit a slender portion of the population - namely that one $#!t out of luck FAC.[;)]
But seriously, in this current economy, we have to ask if we can afford to do without these? Can the military compensate for the lack of these or will it damage our preparedness on a fundamental level?
the old tankers have gone way past the ELD
the time on air frames is unbelieveable.
just like some would scape the space program.
the B52 have lasted years past their expected life dates.
the shuttles could be certified for more flights.
the KC-10 and KC-135 are aging alot due to the
extend flights, if you track any flights to Europe
they tankers they fly to keep our men and women
with supplies and equipment.
gunnut505,
I'm sure you've heard, but the economy is in the toilet right now. New tankers are not going to lay the foundation for an economic recovery since they only benefit a slender portion of the population - namely that one $#!t out of luck FAC.[;)]
But seriously, in this current economy, we have to ask if we can afford to do without these? Can the military compensate for the lack of these or will it damage our preparedness on a fundamental level?
You are right on the issue of how much the military spends already, but it is actually cheaper to buy a new plane (that will work 9 flights of 10) than to continually fix the old plane (that only works 6 flights out of 10).