Posted on 03/05/2010 8:42:47 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Boeing unveiled the plane it will offer for the KC-X competition today, including a little movie and a press release.
There was no mention of a 777 tanker, just the long-xpected 767. One of the more intriguing adds to the new bid was the news that the new tanker will boast “a digital flight deck featuring electronic displays” taken from the 787, Boeing’s most advanced civilian plane. It will “show all flight attitude, navigation, engine indication and crew-alerting information on screens 75 percent larger than on a commercial Airbus A330.” One can almost hear the Boeing folks crying: Take that EADS!
Boeing said in its release that the new tanker “will meet all of the Air Force’s 372 requirements” and will rely on “a low-risk approach to manufacturing.” For members of Congress and their staff, as well as lobbyists everywhere, the release notes that it will be built in Washington and Kansas, as well as by “suppliers throughout the nation.”
And in a finally flurry of blows against Northrop Grumman and its partner EADS, the release claims the Boeing plane will be “more cost-effective to own and operate than the larger, heavier Airbus airplane” and will “save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel.” Not only that, but the Boeing program “will support substantially more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe.”
OK, we won’t go into just who relies more on foreign suppliers or who will generate more jobs. After all, it’s not clear yet whether Northrop plans to bid on the tanker and risk the substantial costs
(Excerpt) Read more at dodbuzz.com ...
The Airbus tanker will require new hangers.
The Airbus tanker will require longer run ways.
The Airbus tanker will not employ as many American workers, which means it is MORE ESPENSIVE by definition.
“One can almost hear the Boeing folks crying: Take that EADS!”
Well it wasn’t part of the deal what Northrop/EADS won the bid on last time. The only reason it was pulled is because of politics and unions.
Northrop/EADS and the communities that were going to build the tanker that won the bid were screwed.
No need to go back and forth about it. The folks with boeing must find it difficult to keep a straight face when they defend boeing on this deal.
Again, no need to go on. It just the “Take that EADS!” comment keeps it going. We know we were screwed and treated unfairly by this nation that requires us to pay our fair share of taxes.
How much cargo capacity is actually used by the current KC-135 fleet on a regular basis? Are they doing more than self-deploying their own tanker units?
I’ve got a strong feeling that the larger planes will just be wasted space during most missions.
” .... and will “save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life.”
What a freakin’ joke. $10 billion over 40 years the way were whizzing through trillions. Big freakin’ deal.
I wouldn't blame NGC if they now sit out this charade.
Correct
Correct
Correct
Three reasons why Congress WONT give Boeing the contract.
The RFP is out about now. If NG/EADS said they would sit this one out immediately Boeing could offer a proposal at a significantly higher price. There would be no competition then. That is exactly what Congress does not want but that could be exactly what they get.
I wouldn’t blame NGC if they now sit out this charade.
They should sit it out and just tell the government to go ahead and give boeing their “blank check.”
No way the politicians and unions are going to let Northrop/EADS win fairly or under any circumstances.
Foreign nations should take note before buying anything made by Boeing or other USA weapons manufacturers. They need to realize that they will not be treated fairly in the USA.
The crash in Newark where the tail came off an airbus,,, air france fell apart over the atlantic. I just believe we ahould always opt for a Boeing over a Euro plane,,(even if they take on an american partner)
Always creeps me out to fly an airbus. (except that little 737 looking mini model. I have a few drinks and pretend it’s my personal executive jet, and the other passengers are my guests.
Yeah maybe, but on some training missions they could be used to fly Pelosi's entourage and family members to and from California and Washington D.C.
...and it would be able to carry enough fuel for her longer junkets. The smaller KC would make a great botox tanker.
That's the same mentality that got us into this ditch in the first place.
>>>Big freakin’ deal.<<<
That’s the same mentality that got us into this ditch in the first place.
The Northrop/EADS plane was going to save us over $3 Billion up front. If you consider the net present value of the $10 Billion over 40 years, you’re not saving a dime.
Tell that to the hundreds of NGC s/w engineers in Florida, to the thousands of assemblers in Alabama and the many thousands of parts suppliers scattered across the US, who would have worked on the NGC tanker.
This entire mess has to be one of the larger military procurement debacles of the last 20 years. Add it in with the MV-22, F-22 and the yet to be produced F-35.
Most Definitely. The plane should of been in production years ago. I blame the DoD for making a mess of this.
KC-X ping
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.