Posted on 03/15/2008 3:52:13 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Please it's a tanker. For the latter half of the 60s the French Nuclear deterrent relied on Boeing built KC-135Fs to get its bombers to Moscow. That didn't seemd to bother them.
Americans, they make the French look manly.
Was that before they pulled out of the military part of NATO in '66?
Were the French producing long range strategic tankers back then?
” Please it’s a tanker. For the latter half of the 60s the French Nuclear deterrent relied on Boeing built KC-135Fs to get its bombers to Moscow. That didn’t seemd to bother them.”
What do fighters and bombers need to reach their targets, why they need fuel. Tankers are critical.
“Americans, they make the French look manly. “
Thats only cause we Americans shower on a regular basis.
Anything that keeps strategic assets in the air and circumnavigating countries (and so called allies - Like France) that won't allow flyovers for political/military reasons IS a "Strategic Asset".
We up to speed on that now, OB?
“I would also add... and C-17 & C-5A ‘s ....”
Didn’t mean to exclude those. Pretty hard to drops bombs if some cargo plane hasn’t hauled them across the ocean. Not to mention all the other stuff.
To be sure: My Browning FN Hi-Power and Shotgun are prized possessions.
Small arms, and Radios are commodities. Too many home grown companies could replace them in a heart beat. Hell, IBM even produced arms for the War Department in WWII!
Large Multi Million (a piece) strategic military assets cannot be so quickly replaced with domestic suppliers if the need arises.
>>BTW: Did you know Russia owns at least a 5% stake in EADS, and would like more?<<
I agree with you.
The point is that awarding the contract to EADS increases the risk that unfriendly nations could be involved with our defense suppliers. Russia has long standing relations with Iran. In 1943 Stalin insisted that Roosevelt and Churchill meet him in Tehran.
If you could add to your tagline: ... and they’ll sell out our military capabilities to any foreign government.
while, I disagree w/ Sinister Juan "Keating Five" McCranky, on many things.....Boeing did try to bribe (or did bribe) gov. officials and the "deal" would've cost taxpayer 6 billion on a leasing agreement....
this "article" smells...badly. *is it from $hrillarys' DNC*
A good acquaintance of mine is an ex Boeing executive (he was a VP in charge of the 767 for a decade). He was shocked that Boeing even got the chance to bid again, considering the criminal acts when the bid first came up in 2002-2003 (for which Boeing staff actually served time in prison).
Boeing in this case lost fair and square, and its incumbent upon our DOD to get the best they can for the dollars equipped. IF we went to war and France did not want to supply us, Boeing would be called upon to get new tankers rolling. We’d use the existing fleet for the year or so until replacements were needed/ready. It’s why you maintain a standing force and supplies - to hold you until you can get more production ramped up.
Too true, much of what Boeing sells in made in China for example....
If EADS and thier American partners land this and produce the A/C, the Boeing slime machine will find something else to complain about.
They already have a massive number of FedGov contracts - mostly disasters, the latest, the ‘border’ fence. Sorry Boeing, you lost. Man up and move on....
>>If you could add to your tagline: ... and they’ll sell out our military capabilities to any foreign government.<<
I don’t like McCain at all, but in this case, as I understand it, he wanted to open the bidding to Airbus, but the Air Force made the decision. If it turns out that McCain twisted arms to get the contract for Airbus, he could be in trouble. Boeing and Airbus both claim that their aircraft are cheaper and better. The dilemma is: How to ensure that our military buys from US producers without allowing some companies to overcharge the taxpayers?
Meanwhile, our industrial base capable of supplying the military continues to decline, as the Air Force admits, and I don’t think that is good.
Boeing vice president and general manager for global mobility systems Ron Marcotte wasn’t impressed by size, however. “In the final request for proposals, it became clear that the Air Force wants an agile, medium-size tanker,” he said. “It’s all about the number of booms in the sky,” he added.Maybe the Air Force thinks also it's all about the booms but not about the sole number in the sky.
(http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/tanker-competition-a-real-dogfight)
Boeing displayed a KC-767 here two years ago and had a head start with orders for four each from Italy and Japan. But development ran into aerodynamic problems with the wing-mounted refueling pods and the digital fuel-transfer system. Deliveries of KC-767s to both countries are seriously behind schedule, though Boeing said that fixes are in hand and about to be flight-tested.
IMHO, Part of the problem we're seeing is a result of the consolidation of our defense industries. I'm not sure allowing Boeing to buy MD was such a good idea. Both Northrop and Lockheed are capable of building a tanker, and Lockheed actually has some experience there, while Northrop's larger aircraft have been limited. Of course Northrop never really had a viable commercial offering, and Grumman's larger aircraft are not large enough. Leaving just Lockheed with any experience with large commercial airframes that lend themselves to this application.
I'm all for competition, but I'm also for keeping large strategic assets "in-house" so to speak, and one of the reasons for that line of thought is that which you mentioned.
As for McCain, yea, he may have an ax to grind with Boeing, and Boeing (former MD execs IIRC) along with people in the Airforce, were responsible for that debacle. People are in jail, heavy fines have been paid, and Boeing's CEO at the time resigned in disgrace.
And there's the so far alluded to changes in the RFP for various reasons. A whisper here, a whisper there, money talks, and future funding requests for other (AF) projects can be put in doubt if certain political games are not played. Some here have expressed doubts about such things, but there is actually a lot of precedent for it when Billion dollar contracts are at stake.
The whole thing smells.
And I put much of the blame for that on an Administration that's really not too interested in a border fence. Perhaps by failing, Boeing did right (if you catch my drift).
Now aircraft on the other hand...
Boeing is a major pig at the FedGov trough.
They squeal the loudest when they get the slops (pork) they think is “theirs”.
But, that just my view of a lot of the beltway bandits.....
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.