KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

[brn2fly]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Stainless Skills
	Get this, Boeing needed to build a new plant a while back and John McCain told them that if they did not build it in his home state, Arkansas that he would make life hell for Boeing. Boeing DIDN'T built it in Arkansas. I think I am going to be a Boeing fan for life and now McCain has made good on his promise again like he did in 2001 when he messed around in the legalities of the no-bid contract the AF had going with Boeing. McCain has it out for Boeing and to me it seems that he is responsible.

"Who on earth is responsible for this travesty? Bush? Cheney? The Air Force Chiefs?"

Sen MaCain who's office has ties to AirBus (Scarbus) is responsible.

Sen MaCain is from Arizona not Arkansas.

[3DHobbyShop]

I'm not particularly happy about this, either, but it is worth noting that winning proposal is for a joint Northrop/EADS airplane to be built in Mobile, Alabama. I'm sure it didnt make financial sense to build Airbuses in Mobile, so that concession, to keep the assembly jobs in the USA, has already been made. It's unfortunate that all the economic activity from the components is basically lost...and it's also unfortunate that we've given responsibility for something as critical as the tanker fleet over to a company based in our most unreliable ally, which is also a country on an inevitable path to becoming a Muslim nation during this century.

In any case, it looks like this is already a political hot potato. The deal may not even happen as it is currently written.

[RH1N0]

[madmax]

Very interesting and cool discussion fellas, I think there are a number of us in the aerospace sector who can bring good commentary to this discussion, let's keep it in the right direction fo sho. Thanks dudes.

MD

[50%plane]

Ok ok, let's not get political here. It's not Bush's fault, McCain's fault, etc. The second article I posted quoted the honarable Michael Wynne, so I suggest that the issue be taken up with him.


My biggest concern is OPSEC.
Concern #2 is the availability of critical parts.

Obviously, the USAF liked the Northrop Grumman proposal better, so there must be something there, whether it's the said reasons of being safer and less risky, or money.(probably money)

As far as American jobs go, it really doesn't matter. If you have an issue with that, take it up with all the companies who outsourced.

	Quote:
	Hey 50% they should promote us to Generals. Myself I am not going the Senior NCO route; I think I'll switch over to officer soon. There is a lot of great equipment out there that the US Military does not use. Good to know I am not the only one who feels the same. I hear you on the OPSEC issues but seriously on most military equipment with the internet you can find out all sorts of things.

I hope the officer corps goes well for you! I too have been considering that route. Enlisted gives me all I ever wanted though.

50%

[airborneSGT]

I will say this, at least with the VA when you build something for them everything most be American sourced. I mean down to the last screw or piece of hardware.

I really think Ike summed it up the best when it comes to what controls and drives this country. The main weapons we have to worry about usually end up being the ones we sold to other countries.

[castlebravo]

	Quote: Originally Posted by 50%plane
	Ok ok, let's not get political here. It's not Bush's fault, McCain's fault, etc. The second article I posted quoted the honarable Michael Wynne, so I suggest that the issue be taken up with him. My biggest concern is OPSEC. Concern #2 is the availability of critical parts. Obviously, the USAF liked the Northrop Grumman proposal better, so there must be something there, whether it's the said reasons of being safer and less risky, or money.(probably money) As far as American jobs go, it really doesn't matter. If you have an issue with that, take it up with all the companies who outsourced. [/font] I hope the officer corps goes well for you! I too have been considering that route. Enlisted gives me all I ever wanted though. 50%

Your two concerns are certainly valid and one of them was a very large concern to the AirForce and was a big reason they chose the aircraft they did.
As far as operational security goes.....I really dont think that the US Airforce is going to hand over any classified equipment or information to a foriegn government regardless of who is actually building the airframe.
A major concern for the Airforce was support after the production run was completed. Boeing's proposal aircraft was based on the 767. This aircraft is currently out of production. It raised some eyebrows that Boeing would only be re-establishing and maintaining its 767 production lines for the run of the contract. So I ask....which part is going to be cheaper and more accessable......the part from a manufacturer that has production lines ramped up and producing parts for the government and the commercial sectors on a continual basis or the part that comes from a manufacturer that has to re-start production lines on an as-needed basis? I think the AirForce was thinking the same thing.
Lastly, I think we need to see this as a gain for Northrop/Grumman rather than a loss for Boeing. This will keep another manufacturers labor base current and skilled rather than consolidating the manufacturing pool with one or two mega-contractors.
As for the opinion that one manufacturers aircraft is better than the other one........I only have one opinion........that is that they both suck when your stuck in the middle seat on that 5 hour cross country trip.......and I've had plenty of personal experience in that respect

Chris Elliott
OMAS

[brn2fly]

	Quote: Originally Posted by castlebravo
	A major concern for the Airforce was support after the production run was completed. Boeing's proposal aircraft was based on the 767. This aircraft is currently out of production. It raised some eyebrows that Boeing would only be re-establishing and maintaining its 767 production lines for the run of the contract. So I ask....which part is going to be cheaper and more accessable......the part from a manufacturer that has production lines ramped up and producing parts for the government and the commercial sectors on a continual basis or the part that comes from a manufacturer that has to re-start production lines on an as-needed basis?

Chris I have to disagree with your statement. Let's look at what the Air Force has now. B-52 first flew in 1955 still able to get parts. Boeing 707 (E-3 and E-8) first flew in 1955 and the last one off the assemble line was in 1991; which was the E-6A Navy TACAMO aircraft. No problem getting parts. Boeing 717 (KC-135, RC-135, and C-135) first flew in the mid 50s for the first time and was produced for around 10 years. I think the newest one I have seen was a 64 or 65 model. The plane has flown more than 40 years with out the assembly line being open. Boeing 757 (C-32) was purchased after the assembly line was closed and there has not been any problem there. The A330 was started in 1987 and first flew in 1993. The A330-200 which is the tanker version flew in 1996 I think. So it is already 10 years old. How long do you think the civilian version will be available? From the news and press releases the net gain/loss of jobs with Grumman/EADS getting the contract is a loss of 16,000 jobs.

“If it ain’t Boeing I’m not going”

[50%plane]

	Quote: Originally Posted by brn2fly
	Chris I have to disagree with your statement. Let's look at what the Air Force has now. B-52 first flew in 1955 still able to get parts. Boeing 707 (E-3 and E-8) first flew in 1955 and the last one off the assemble line was in 1991; which was the E-6A Navy TACAMO aircraft. No problem getting parts. Boeing 717 (KC-135, RC-135, and C-135) first flew in the mid 50s for the first time and was produced for around 10 years. I think the newest one I have seen was a 64 or 65 model. The plane has flown more than 40 years with out the assembly line being open. Boeing 757 (C-32) was purchased after the assembly line was closed and there has not been any problem there. The A330 was started in 1987 and first flew in 1993. The A330-200 which is the tanker version flew in 1996 I think. So it is already 10 years old. How long do you think the civilian version will be available? From the news and press releases the net gain/loss of jobs with Grumman/EADS getting the contract is a loss of 16,000 jobs. “If it ain’t Boeing I’m not going”

There are some good points there, but acquiring parts isn't always easy. For instance, the plane that I work on. There are a number of parts that should really be manufactured in a factory, but haven't been in production for years. I'll say, for instance, an antenna bracket. We spent much time trying to locally manufacturer this particular part. I had the greatest success, but still it wasn't perfect enough.(think double joggle a flange out of .090" aluminum) All the places that fly this airplane had stocked up on the manufactured part and not ordered any. So now, when everyone's running out of them, there are none to be had.(and yes, it's a Boeing plane)

In the case of the '52's '135's etc. From what I hear, they're always breaking. Plenty of reason to keep the parts in stock.

my .000002 cent's worth.
50%

[Pittsflyboy]

Don't wory about spares for military aircraft produced in this country, I spent 36 years in the aircraft industry for Boeings largest supplier and I know for a fact the Boeing beats Airbus any day. Heads need to roll that made this lame desision. The very old KC-135 was maintained as well as the KC-10, no problem to maintain the 767, spares will be produced for many uears to come. Airbus sucks......

[brn2fly]

	Quote: Originally Posted by 50%plane
	There are some good points there, but acquiring parts isn't always easy. For instance, the plane that I work on. There are a number of parts that should really be manufactured in a factory, but haven't been in production for years. I'll say, for instance, an antenna bracket. We spent much time trying to locally manufacturer this particular part. I had the greatest success, but still it wasn't perfect enough.(think double joggle a flange out of .090" aluminum) All the places that fly this airplane had stocked up on the manufactured part and not ordered any. So now, when everyone's running out of them, there are none to be had.(and yes, it's a Boeing plane) In the case of the '52's '135's etc. From what I hear, they're always breaking. Plenty of reason to keep the parts in stock. my .000002 cent's worth. 50%

Chris, what Boeing do you work on? Was it a McDonald Douglas first? You are right about part availability, there are some that are next to impossible to get. However, parts that are specific to fighters, E-3, tankers, etc. can be hard to get. I would hope that parts that are common to airliners would be reality available to the Air Force.

[mavacpjm71]

Brn2Fly is spot on its a travesty.....i think the National Security Risk is high for a foreign built Air Force Tanker....that requires 90% foreign built parts....i think its absolutely counter americana.....