Skip to comments.
New Air Force Tanker [Vanity]
04/22/08
| Dene Leach
Posted on 04/22/2008 7:58:17 AM PDT by scooter2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
1
posted on
04/22/2008 7:58:17 AM PDT
by
scooter2
To: scooter2
Probably not- the successful bidder is a joint venture with a US firm and a lot of the work will be done in the USA.
2
posted on
04/22/2008 8:16:00 AM PDT
by
Squawk 8888
(TSA and DHS are jobs programs for people who are not smart enough to flip burgers)
To: Squawk 8888
The KC-135 Stratotanker has four engines. Why go to a platform with only two engines?
3
posted on
04/22/2008 8:19:47 AM PDT
by
wastedyears
(The US Military is what goes Bump in the night.)
To: wastedyears
Why go to a platform with only two engines?Cheaper to operate.
4
posted on
04/22/2008 8:49:51 AM PDT
by
BfloGuy
(It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect . . .)
To: wastedyears
Those two engines put out lots more power than the 50ish year old designes on the KC135. And the are far easier to maintain.
5
posted on
04/22/2008 9:28:07 AM PDT
by
TalonDJ
To: scooter2
No. That’s why it is the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45A, not the EADS KC-45A.
6
posted on
04/22/2008 9:40:15 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: wastedyears
The A330 has two engines. The A340 uses the very same fuselage and wings, but has four engines. The A330 outsells the A340 10 to 1 because it’s cheaper to operate. The A330 has more than adequage one engine out performance.
Why go with four engines with it’s added expense, complexity, and operating costs?
7
posted on
04/22/2008 9:42:03 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: wastedyears
I haven’t researched the contract in depth so I’m not sure. My guess would be that, generally speaking, more engines means less efficiency (which is why airlines prefer twins).
8
posted on
04/22/2008 10:22:17 AM PDT
by
Squawk 8888
(TSA and DHS are jobs programs for people who are not smart enough to flip burgers)
To: scooter2
This AF team did a huge amount of homework this time and any legal argument or challenge....is going to find a mountain of effort to prove their points. The Boeing folks will find some military professionals are better than any they ever messed with before. My guess is that legally...this deal can’t be tossed. Only congress can stop or screw the deal up.
To: pepsionice
10
posted on
04/22/2008 1:17:55 PM PDT
by
pissant
(THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
To: wastedyears
The Boeing 767 based proposl only has two engines, so what’s your point? Two big engines are less expensive and cheaper to operate.
To: wastedyears
The KC-135 Stratotanker has four engines. Why go to a platform with only two engines? Because if they had asked for 4 engines, The only contender could have been the Airbus A340.
Boeing and its tame politicians would have started whining sooner.
12
posted on
04/22/2008 1:21:38 PM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(NO I don't tag sarcasm. Why are you asking?)
To: pepsionice
This AF team did a huge amount of homework this time and any legal argument or challenge....is going to find a mountain of effort to prove their points. Actually, Boeing is charging that the AF team did a huge amount of homework in order to keep the Northrop/Airbus team in the running, and then got so proud of their homework that they forgot to play by the rules. I can see that happening. One need not charge the selection team with malice aforethought -- a loss of focus on the objective selection criteria would explain it.
All we've seen is the press releases, of course. but the GAO saw enough to at least say "wait a minute...."
13
posted on
04/22/2008 1:23:50 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: wastedyears; Yo-Yo
14
posted on
04/22/2008 2:19:14 PM PDT
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: MHalblaub
I'll see your gliding A330 and raise you a gliding 767:
Gimli Glider
15
posted on
04/22/2008 2:25:40 PM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: TalonDJ
Those two engines put out lots more power than the 50ish year old designes on the KC135. And the are far easier to maintain. The KC-135A a was re-engined with CFM-56 turbofan engines in the 1980's to create the KC-135R...but I get your point.
16
posted on
04/22/2008 2:32:32 PM PDT
by
Fundamentally Fair
(There was once consensus that the world was flat.)
To: scooter2
Pardon the vanity, but I have a question that I can not seem to determine the answer to. Did the Air Force, in choosing the Airbus A330 as the new refuelling tanker platform, violate the "Buy American Act" originally signed into law in 1933?
To quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_American_Act
The Buy American Act (BAA - 41 U.S.C. § 10a10d) was passed in 1933, mandating preferences for the purchase of domestically produced goods in direct procurements by the United States government. Other pieces of Federal legislation extend similar requirement to third-party purchases that utilize Federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.
In certain government procurements, the requirement purchase may be waived if purchasing the material domestically would burden the government with an unreasonable cost (the price differential between the domestic product and an identical foreign-sourced product exceeds a certain percentage of the price offered by the foreign supplier), if the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is in the public interest.
The President has the authority to waive the Buy American Act within the terms of a reciprocal agreement or otherwise in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Government Procurement Code, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and the WTO 1996 Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), the United States provides access to the government procurement of certain U.S. agencies for goods from the other parties to those agreements. However, the Buy American Act was excluded from the GPA's coverage.
In short: Many European industries do not fall under / are exempt from the Buy American Act, as there are reciprocal agreements. Thus, European or partly European products are treated as being American made. Of course, this also applies the other way round: Lockheed Martin will sell lots of F-35 Lightning IIs to Europe, just like it has F-16s before.
Exempting European entries from competitions for government contracts would of course trigger retaliatory measures, meaning it would probably cost the American economy more than it would help.
17
posted on
04/22/2008 2:41:58 PM PDT
by
wolf78
To: Yo-Yo
18
posted on
04/22/2008 3:24:17 PM PDT
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: MHalblaub
Pants back up! From your first link:
While Pearson is modest about the piloting skills he used to bring Flight 143 to a safe landing, his experience as a gliding and aerobatic instructor was essential when it became apparent that the aircraft was travelling too fast to land on the runway at Gimli airbase near Winnipeg. Pearson needed to lose altitude fast. The only way was to sideslip the giant aircraft on the final approach so it would touch down close enough to the beginning of the runway that it wouldnt run out of tarmac. This manoeuvre was unprecedented. Fortunately, it worked, and Flight 143 touched down safely.
But Pearson is relieved that he wasnt flying an Airbus. You cant sideslip an Airbus aircraft, the computers wont let you, he says. Boeing aircraft are capable because theyre a hydraulic-controlled aircraft and you can cross control.
They had excess energy, and who knows if they could have made a glide ratio of 13.7:1, and if it were an Airbus the landing might well have been a little more messy.
19
posted on
04/24/2008 5:46:19 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: r9etb
There is no way the USAF team passed on Boeing without being very careful to cross their T’s and dot their i’s.
20
posted on
04/24/2008 5:55:50 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(Let's win Congress - the Presidency is lost!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson