Posted on 03/08/2010 11:28:46 AM PST by jazusamo
The problem with that thinking is that there is just as much money in foreign sales. They were already required to use a U.S. company, which is why NG was involved, but if you require major contracts to be entirely US-owned, not only will other governments stop buying our planes and ships, but the US companies won’t win a bid for a foreign contract again. And our major defense contractors all make a significant amount of money in foreign sales.
I searched the web, and found these numbers, but I didn’t do any real work on them, so I present them as possibly correct:
For example, Boeing is 16%, and is expecting to expand foreign defense sales to 20%-25% of their defense totale.
LM is about 15% foreign, or about 5.5 billion (in 2006)
I couldn’t find a number for Northrup, but read things that suggest it’s pretty low.
I don’t know if these numbers include pass-thru sales to our government for delivery to foreign governments.
My point is that if everybody only buys defense stuff from their own country, we will lose out.
Which is why we don’t write the bids to preclude foreign involvement.
In the end, it all came down to airframe. The government new from day one that there were two different sized airframes, and they could write the RFP to favor either one, as neither company could afford to build an entirely new sized airframe for the competition.
If we really needed the smaller plane, then this was a good move. If we end up spending MORE money for the smaller plane, and have to order more because we need more to do the same refueling, we will come out behind.
Someone had to make that decision, and that person essentially chose Boeing through their action.
I guess because in every competition where both Boeing and NGrumman bid, Boeing’s plane won.
Oh wait, the NG plane won EVERY competition, including the one here in the United States.
Boeing has only won twice. Once when they were sole-sourced and bribed the procurement official with a job, and the other when they sued and cajoled the government into re-writing the RFP to give the award to a plane with their smaller airframe.
I guess all of our allies could just be dolts. As could the fine people in our own military who determined, against political arguments, that EADS/NG was a better bid than the “all-american” Boeing bid.
I certainly don’t know which bid would have been better, or which of the previous bid was really better, I can only judge based on results, and the results clearly suggest EADS is better than Boeing —
That is, unless you absolutely need a tanker that can land at smaller airfields, and don’t care that you need to take off and land more often because you carry less fuel. Not like takeoff and landing is really dangerous in a war situation or anything.
From a "go america company" perspective, that subsidy annoys me.
But from a "I'm a taxpayer, and want the least expensive plane that does the job", having some foreign country pay for part of my plane for me doesn't seem like a bad thing.
When Target puts an item on clearance, I don't get mad because I'm getting it cheaper than it costs.
Your post proves that point.
Why did the GAO, the Government Accounting Office decide that the last round was not fair to all parties?
You seem to have left out the fact that Airbus EADS provided a product that did NOT meet the specs, in the last go-round.
It was the GAO which made them start the entire process over.
BTW, “it takes fuel to carry fuel” -— so, after a certain level of capacity, you find that a large portion of the fuel that you must carry is devoted to the job of transporting more fuel.
The Boeing Tanker can be based in more places, since it does not need as much run way, and does not need as much in the way of hangars and storage space.
The EADS tanker could not be based in as many places, so it would have to waste fuel to carry fuel as it would often be forced to travel a longer distance, on its mission.
It was also a lease deal which would have cost the USAF more money.
The entire system needs to be re-examined.
Could you cite your source on this? I believe you are doing nothing more than pushing Boeing propaganda. I work at 2 AF bases (Eglin and Hill) and I see KC-10s parked at these base all the time.
I believe that I was responding to why the GAO shot down the last EADS contract.
In THAT situation, the EADS plane did require larger hangers and longer run ways.
I suggest that you find that GAO report, and read it.
Look at the size of a KC-10 versus a Airbust.
KC-10 is 165 wing span, 181 length
KC-45(Airbus) is 197 wing span, 192 length
KC-767 is 156 wing span, 159 length
KC-135 is 130 wing span, 136 length
Air bust is bigger than a KC-10 takes up more room.
Actually it needs more. On of the reasons the 767 lost to the 330MRTT in the UK competition was that the 330 could operate from every required RAF airbase, the 767 couldn't.
In the mean time, here is my Congressman, Todd Tiahrt, and he will cure you of your ignorance:
http://tiahrt.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=90§iontree=5,90&itemid=908
The EADS design would cost more, for maintenance.
The EADS design would NOT be able to use all existing facilities.
The EADS proposal was shot down, as well, due to illegal subsidies from the European Union.
Because the production facility in Everett is currently building 767's (in the largest building in the world by volume), the workforce and supply chain are in place, of course, and the process has been highly refined in the 30 years since the prototype airframe began construction.
Sure, it's possible, but it certainly would not be profitable.
That's in addition to Everett, where the 787 is currently produced.
Given a choice between the Machinist Union in Washington and the non-union Charleston, SC... How long with that last in Everett?
It was a tongue-in-cheek question.
Everyone knows it’s a poltical——not a business-—decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.