logo
Thread Tools
Old 03-06-2008, 03:48 AM
madmax is offline
Find More Posts by madmax
The Michael Jordan of RC
madmax's Avatar
United States, CA, Aliso Viejo
Joined Jan 2006
22,515 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

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
madmax is offline Find More Posts by madmax
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old 03-06-2008, 07:49 AM
50%plane is offline
Find More Posts by 50%plane
Suspended Account
North Mexico
Joined Jan 2006
21,385 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

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%
50%plane is offline Find More Posts by 50%plane
Reply With Quote  (Disabled) Quick reply to this message (Disabled)
Old 03-06-2008, 08:00 AM
airborneSGT is offline
Find More Posts by airborneSGT
Pimpalicious
airborneSGT's Avatar
Germany, BY, Bamberg
Joined May 2006
2,241 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

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.
airborneSGT is offline Find More Posts by airborneSGT
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2008, 04:34 PM
castlebravo is offline
Find More Posts by castlebravo
It's the Summer Of George
castlebravo's Avatar
United States, OR, Hillsboro
Joined Mar 2007
2,331 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

Quote:
Originally Posted by 50%plane View Post
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
castlebravo is offline Find More Posts by castlebravo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2008, 06:37 PM
brn2fly is offline
Find More Posts by brn2fly
Fly It Like You Stole It!
brn2fly's Avatar
United States, FL, Hobe Sound
Joined Jan 2006
219 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

Quote:
Originally Posted by castlebravo View Post
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”
brn2fly is offline Find More Posts by brn2fly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2008, 06:54 PM
50%plane is offline
Find More Posts by 50%plane
Suspended Account
North Mexico
Joined Jan 2006
21,385 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

Quote:
Originally Posted by brn2fly View Post
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%
50%plane is offline Find More Posts by 50%plane
Reply With Quote  (Disabled) Quick reply to this message (Disabled)
Old 03-06-2008, 06:59 PM
Pittsflyboy is offline
Find More Posts by Pittsflyboy
Registered User
Pittsflyboy's Avatar
Arlington, TX USA
Joined Dec 2006
1,592 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

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......
Pittsflyboy is offline Find More Posts by Pittsflyboy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2008, 07:07 PM
brn2fly is offline
Find More Posts by brn2fly
Fly It Like You Stole It!
brn2fly's Avatar
United States, FL, Hobe Sound
Joined Jan 2006
219 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

Quote:
Originally Posted by 50%plane View Post
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.
brn2fly is offline Find More Posts by brn2fly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2008, 07:17 PM
mavacpjm71 is offline
Find More Posts by mavacpjm71
Registered User
mavacpjm71's Avatar
Washington
Joined Jun 2006
497 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

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.....
mavacpjm71 is offline Find More Posts by mavacpjm71
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-07-2008, 06:19 AM
RustyTumbles is offline
Find More Posts by RustyTumbles
Time for something New......
RustyTumbles's Avatar
Newcastle NSW, Australia
Joined Jan 2006
5,050 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

You guys are not the only ones.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafn...es/story12.htm
RustyTumbles is offline Find More Posts by RustyTumbles
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-07-2008, 07:35 AM
50%plane is offline
Find More Posts by 50%plane
Suspended Account
North Mexico
Joined Jan 2006
21,385 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

Quote:
Originally Posted by brn2fly View Post
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.
Yes, it was origionally a McDonald Douglas.
50%plane is offline Find More Posts by 50%plane
Reply With Quote  (Disabled) Quick reply to this message (Disabled)
Old 03-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Stinger1 is offline
Find More Posts by Stinger1
Registered User
Stinger1's Avatar
New Lisbon, New York USA
Joined Feb 2006
343 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

If anyone here has an issue with this as I did, go here
http://murray.senate.gov/tankers/
Stinger1 is offline Find More Posts by Stinger1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 04:36 PM
Al Lewis is offline
Find More Posts by Al Lewis
Registered User
Al Lewis's Avatar
Port Orchard, WA
Joined Nov 2007
6,911 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

I hate to upset anyone over this but where do you think Boeing is building their planes??? It sure isn't Washington anymore. They have the major assemblies manufactured in South Africa, Japan, and several other countries and only do final assembly here. They went to this scheme a few years back and really haven't been able to keep a delivery deadline since. As far as jobs, they are trying to hire every machinist and past employee they can lay their hands on. They can't get the people because a large number of them left after they moved operations out of state and layed them all off. I don't particularly like the idea of airbus getting the work either but Northrup's bid was lower, ability to provide planes on time 4 times higher, and their plane was better for its intended use. Let's also keep in mind that when this bid first went out one of Boeing's people, a former Air Force contract officer, got caught trying to secure the deal under the table which should have put them out of the bidding completely. What I would like to see is for the Air Force to get the best aerial refueling platform available....period.
Al Lewis is offline Find More Posts by Al Lewis
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 04:54 PM
50%plane is offline
Find More Posts by 50%plane
Suspended Account
North Mexico
Joined Jan 2006
21,385 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Lewis View Post
I hate to upset anyone over this but where do you think Boeing is building their planes??? It sure isn't Washington anymore. They have the major assemblies manufactured in South Africa, Japan, and several other countries and only do final assembly here. They went to this scheme a few years back and really haven't been able to keep a delivery deadline since. As far as jobs, they are trying to hire every machinist and past employee they can lay their hands on. They can't get the people because a large number of them left after they moved operations out of state and layed them all off. I don't particularly like the idea of airbus getting the work either but Northrup's bid was lower, ability to provide planes on time 4 times higher, and their plane was better for its intended use. Let's also keep in mind that when this bid first went out one of Boeing's people, a former Air Force contract officer, got caught trying to secure the deal under the table which should have put them out of the bidding completely. What I would like to see is for the Air Force to get the best aerial refueling platform available....period.
Well said Al.
50%plane is offline Find More Posts by 50%plane
Reply With Quote  (Disabled) Quick reply to this message (Disabled)
Old 03-13-2008, 05:02 PM
brn2fly is offline
Find More Posts by brn2fly
Fly It Like You Stole It!
brn2fly's Avatar
United States, FL, Hobe Sound
Joined Jan 2006
219 Posts
Re: KCX decided. USAF's new French tanker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Lewis View Post
I hate to upset anyone over this but where do you think Boeing is building their planes??? It sure isn't Washington anymore. They have the major assemblies manufactured in South Africa, Japan, and several other countries and only do final assembly here. They went to this scheme a few years back and really haven't been able to keep a delivery deadline since. As far as jobs, they are trying to hire every machinist and past employee they can lay their hands on. They can't get the people because a large number of them left after they moved operations out of state and layed them all off. I don't particularly like the idea of airbus getting the work either but Northrup's bid was lower, ability to provide planes on time 4 times higher, and their plane was better for its intended use. Let's also keep in mind that when this bid first went out one of Boeing's people, a former Air Force contract officer, got caught trying to secure the deal under the table which should have put them out of the bidding completely. What I would like to see is for the Air Force to get the best aerial refueling platform available....period.
The Northrup's bid was not lower. The Airbus cost 40 million more per plane. The Airbus is bigger, closer to the size of a KC-10 than a KC-135. There are several logistical problems the bigger plane brings to the table. Food for thought.
brn2fly is offline Find More Posts by brn2fly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message


Quick Reply
Message:


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools