Airbus wins....
- Thread starter philbob
- Start date
Half of the Airbus tanker will be built in the U.S. as opposed to 80% of the Boeing tanker.
I haven't care for Boeing designs in some time now.
I think both planes are good craft but im a fan of boeing cuz my aunt works there and buys me model planes.... but really i just want the product built mainly in the US
I wonder if design age had anything to with it - the A330 is 11 years younger than the 767 (first flight for the Boeing was 1981 vs 1992) and the production probably nearing the end. Going on the wiki entries, as of July last year, Boeing had 48 units left to built to complete all existing orders while Airbus has 300 odd to go.
Airbus will be building an assembly plant in Alabama for the tanker project. That should help.
Thats very true... I also live in Washington so the economy issue does concern me but i wonder how many of those 44000 jobs will go to the 737, 777, and 787 production lines.?I also wonder how many new jobs (in the US) would be created for the A330. Im talking actual new jobs not people being reposted in other lines?
Also even though the 767 is smaller and dosent carry as much fuel i belive it fits into our combat requierments better because it is smaller and can operate off dirt airstrips in SE Asia, Africa and Russian Central plains... all areas where our forces are going to be committed for the considerable future.
Also even though the 767 is smaller and dosent carry as much fuel i belive it fits into our combat requierments better because it is smaller and can operate off dirt airstrips in SE Asia, Africa and Russian Central plains... all areas where our forces are going to be committed for the considerable future.
Are we talking the tanker's own fuel or it's refuel capacity? Although the ability to operate off smaller strips has it's advantages I'm not sure it would outweigh the disadvantages of shorter time on station or refuel capacity.
Well, considering it's a brand new plant I'm guessing most of the jobs would be new ones. I'm not sure that Northrup Grumman (the contract winner) has vast numbers of workers on other lines to be moved to Alabama.
I just read this at the BBC. Here is the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272272.stm
There protest offends me has a European. Are we not Americas friends? We use American companies why shouldn't they use European companies? This smells of protectionism and bigotry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272272.stm
If they really loved their country they wouldn't be complaining. The American military is getting a superior plane. Didn't JFK say "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"
There protest offends me has a European. Are we not Americas friends? We use American companies why shouldn't they use European companies? This smells of protectionism and bigotry.
Im not trying to start a flame war or what ever its called but its more then that... US engineers should be designing the item and US manufacturars should be producing the item that will be used by US military forces for several reasons, one the US economy is in the shiter even if its not the best product it is designed and built by our citizens for our citizens, and its still putting money back into our local economy. two, it creates a dependency on a foreign company and country and that creates a unacceptable risk esspecially if we get caught up in a war that Europe dosnt want us to fight...they could easily slap a trade embargo on us and before you know it spare parts dry up.
The KC-45 is a good aircraft dont get me wrong but its not designed for the mission at hand, and that is the US mobile lighter force doctrin. the fact it cannot be based at small combat airstrips outways the fact it carries 20% more fuel. Plus the supporting mechanism of the airforce it self has to be modified to support the A330/KC45 airstrips need to be reinforced and hangers need to be remodeld for the increased size.
whereas the KC767 can use many common spare parts from both comercial 767 and 707's or KC135's... its approxmattly the same size as the current tanker so the support mechanism dosnt need to be changed either
truthfully alot of congressman and senators are pissed so i would not be supprised if this gets overturned
The KC-45 is a good aircraft dont get me wrong but its not designed for the mission at hand, and that is the US mobile lighter force doctrin. the fact it cannot be based at small combat airstrips outways the fact it carries 20% more fuel. Plus the supporting mechanism of the airforce it self has to be modified to support the A330/KC45 airstrips need to be reinforced and hangers need to be remodeld for the increased size.
whereas the KC767 can use many common spare parts from both comercial 767 and 707's or KC135's... its approxmattly the same size as the current tanker so the support mechanism dosnt need to be changed either
truthfully alot of congressman and senators are pissed so i would not be supprised if this gets overturned
read your comments on the draw back for the KC-45 and think about it
The fact it's Boeing would be the most common feature the 777 has with the the 767 so they'd have to get just as many new parts etc.
Plus the Air Force would probably have to wait for it's order to come through depending on the number of orders awaiting build.
Actually, reading down to the bottom of that, it sounds like Boeing have made their own bed on this one.
Please remember, Stormrage, those protesting the decision were a small group of Boeing employees, most likely machinists who are worried about the long-term viability of their jobs. Their protests are not a reflection of the general population’s perception (nor, I would assume, Boeing’s executives) of the quality and reliability of the Airbus tanker.
Your notion of “being offended” seems a bit odd since as you stated above; those “qualified to judge” picked the superior aircraft regardless of the company’s national affiliation.
As much as I love Boeing, the 76 is showing its age and the Airbus is probably the better platform. I think it's very likely that if Boeing hadn't tried to play dirty with that Darleen Druyun business a few years back, they would have got the contract a long time ago. That nonsense made Congress and DoD procurement sit up and take notice, and I'm afraid it looks an awful lot like Boeing was trying to get big new money for warmed-over old products. So maybe this will be a lesson.
The B767 does have a shorter takeoff distance, but this is offset by having a longer stopping distance, which means you need more runway length so you don’t over-run in an aborted takeoff. So a shorter takeoff roll doesn’t automatically mean more usable airstrips.
Boeing will be OK, the 787 is going to be a market-changing aircraft, and there are rumors of new C-17 orders for the USAF and NATO.
--Justin
The B767 does have a shorter takeoff distance, but this is offset by having a longer stopping distance, which means you need more runway length so you don’t over-run in an aborted takeoff. So a shorter takeoff roll doesn’t automatically mean more usable airstrips.
Boeing will be OK, the 787 is going to be a market-changing aircraft, and there are rumors of new C-17 orders for the USAF and NATO.
--Justin
What pissed me off was the way the Americans in that article seem to treat Europe like an enemy to be.Thats never going to happen. If anything Europe is to dependant on America. Especially the british. We let American companies take care of our nuclear submarine.
Similar threads
