maybe thats a mistake on your part.... No one is treating anyone like the 'Enemy' people are just pissed that the goverment which is always talking about buy american and help the economy would go with a foreign contract. Plus these people also have jobs to worry about
Airbus wins....
- Thread starter philbob
- Start date
Given the antics various U.S air craft companies have gotten up to over the years in order to sell their products you're not going to get much sympathy outside of the U.S. Some of them have played very dirty (read up on the bribery scandal over the F-104 for starters).
But when it comes down the fact that the A330 will be better platform the 767 there are times when buy from a local company just isn't a good move.
And if the reports are true that the aircraft are going to have manufacturering work in the U.S (which will mean jobs and taxes) the net effect for not buying American is going to be limited.
Yes, we're friends. Cheers.
The KC-45 isn't the first example of a European aircraft finding its way into our inventory. We've got the Harrier, the T-45 Goshawk, the T-6 Texan II, the C-27J, the UH-72 Lakota, the VH-71 (Marine One!). That's just off the top of my head.
Personally I'm also happy that Northrop-Grumman/EADS won the competition, and I hope the decision doesn't get reversed. Their plane is better, plain and simple.
Maybe it's shocking to some people because this is the type of contract Boeing should win. I mean nobody makes heavies better than Boeing, right? And yet they dropped the ball on this one. Well, there's another tanker competition coming up in a few years, so they can dust themselves off and come up with something better.
Here's a good pdf document comparing the two aircraft:
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/080222af_tanker.pdf
Well as I said earlier its not a big deal if the the boeing jobs are absorbed into the 737/P-8A, 777, 787 lines and acutal new jobs are created in Alabama. But if 19,000 Americans are going to be put out of work because of it its not a good thing for the country stateigclly even if the product is superior....Also again how many of the 25,000 jobs in for EADS will be new employment and how much already exsits.
( I hope im not coming off as hostile please let me know if Iam)
( I hope im not coming off as hostile please let me know if Iam)
I currently work on 50 year old aircraft that the Navy flys! Service Life is not the issue with the 767. They would be buying brand new aircraft in either case.
No service life isn't the issue but in terms of the starting point (aircraft design, construction methods, avionics etc it's a whole new ball game - same as if you did say the 787 vs the 767 - you'd still be buying a new jet but the design (such as the use of composite fibre and the more fuel efficient engines would make a big difference).
The avionics don't matter either, that's my area of skill and the military is always up-grading to something better. If Boeing had put together the right package for the 767, the military would have picked it. It's obvious that Airbus put together the better offer, end of story.
First thing, the “Americans” in that article are a small group that is bitter due to the potential impact this may have on their jobs; they do not represent the majority opinion of Americans both within and outside of the Defense industry.
The European and American Defense industries are so intertwined that on the weapon system and platform levels there is seldom any differentiation when discussing components or products.
As for the British Boomers your observation is not entirely correct. Although the strategic weapon system and D5 missiles were developed by the US, the Royal Navy has adapted it for their use and deployment style. The Vanguard class boats are amazing pieces of hardware that are nearly all British/European from the ground up. To say that these boats are maintained by US companies is an offense to the diligent and steadfast dedication of the Royal Naval personnel, their civilian support counterparts, and the engineers and shipyard builders that brought them from paper to deployment.
It has been my privilege to work alongside many of these people on the program and count many of them as my personal friends.
With this in mind, I have never seen a conflict in the military of one nation choosing or adapting an ally’s weapon system for their own use over something homegrown. In the end, despite the hype that makes the Defense industry out to be a bunch of vultures (only some of us are
), most of the rank and file are former military and have the best interest of the end user in mind, which, of course, is the soldier, sailor, or airman.There's some speculation that EADS/Airbus will actually start making civilian planes in Alabama as well, at least if the EUR/USD rate stays where it is or goes even higher.
I think I heard this on a CNBC video discussing this contract.
First thing, the “Americans” in that article are a small group that is bitter due to the potential impact this may have on their jobs; they do not represent the majority opinion of Americans both within and outside of the Defense industry.
The European and American Defense industries are so intertwined that on the weapon system and platform levels there is seldom any differentiation when discussing components or products.
As for the British Boomers your observation is not entirely correct. Although the strategic weapon system and D5 missiles were developed by the US, the Royal Navy has adapted it for their use and deployment style. The Vanguard class boats are amazing pieces of hardware that are nearly all British/European from the ground up. To say that these boats are maintained by US companies is an offense to the diligent and steadfast dedication of the Royal Naval personnel, their civilian support counterparts, and the engineers and shipyard builders that brought them from paper to deployment.
It has been my privilege to work alongside many of these people on the program and count many of them as my personal friends.
With this in mind, I have never seen a conflict in the military of one nation choosing or adapting an ally’s weapon system for their own use over something homegrown. In the end, despite the hype that makes the Defense industry out to be a bunch of vultures (only some of us are
Other countries adapting purchased weapons systems isn't anything new. The P-51 blew chunks till they put the Rolls Royce Merlin in it (though putting the RR engine in the F-4 Phantoms wasn't as hot).
I believe the Japanese have done work with their F-15s and E-3C's
Numerous contries (including Australia) are putting in work on the JSF.
Don't suppose anyone noted the break down of where components came from between the two contenders? While EADS is European 58% of the aircraft is going to be Manufactured in the U.S. Okay it's not Boeing's 86% but it's still over half the aircraft.
Your military doesn't agree with you. They'd rather have the larger, more efficient plane with a greater cargo capacity.
Giving Boeing's corrupt dealings in 2002 that saw the original order scrapped and the tender re-issued combined with the Airbus having larger capacity could mean they are pissing into the wind.
Similar threads
