Pentagon Projects Tanker Program Award

[Second Air Force]

To expand jtramo's post a little, isn't the plan to build the airframes in Europe and fly them to the U.S. to put the tanker-specific equipment in?

I agree with 262crew, especially with regard to that unnamed former presidential candidate.

I've had a fair amount of experience turning wrenches on the 767, 777, and a little on the other candidate's older brother, and I send my condolences to the maintenance troops when they pick the foreign machine.

Scott

[muddyboots]

262crew, you're right. I read your reply and thought "I wouldn't really say taht would I? Then I'd sound like all those jerks complaining about GM and Chrysler etc." and so I read back and realized, I sound like all those jerks whining about the auto companies...

I apologize. All I can say is: I must have been having one of my moments...Obviously it is important to keep our aeronautics jobs in country, and not to throw away decent people's jobs simply to get back at a company for playing the game as it's been set up. But we darn sure need to find a better way to run this ballgame than this.

How the hell do we take all the craziness out of our procurement system? As it is, one would think the military best at setting it's goals and needs. But that system produces the Bradley. The Bradley, as originally envisioned, was a means of getting troops from A to B without getting them killed by artillery, ground fire, IED's, or NBC. Today it is all of those, and only midling good at any of them. Why? Every General Officer in the Army at the time who had any way of screwing with the demands added his own doodad to it so he could say he had a hand in it. You know, when kids play with fingerpaints, how if they get too many colors togethe rthere in one spot how it looks like a sort of sh1t brown smear instead of anything cute and happy? Well that is the Bradley: sort of crappy but you don't have the heart to tell the troops who operate it, or ride in it, or work on it, that there was once a nic ething there, if their leadership hadn't screwed it up. It seems like every single tim ethe army has tried to build a new system the generals got their fingers onto it and screwed it up. Then cliamed it was the bestest thing EVAR!!1! and anyone who questioned taht was called a traitor, stupid, or demoted...

Bah! I'm glad I'm out of it. To me the M16 is the perfect example of military stupidity. Perfectly good weapons out there off the shelf taht were better than the 16 and could have been picked up quite easily (FN FAL anyone?) and instead we dump billions into a piece of crap taht is a pain in the ass to clean, has to be cleaned constantly, and is takes three rounds to actually kill somebody (anyone remember my old sig about three rounds?)

Why? Good old Army Pride.

[262crew]

boots no worries no need to apologize for an opinion! I don't know how to fix all of the BS we are going threw. I hope we can fix it soon! This tanker situation is my first dealings with a government contract (I dont have anything to do with the contract directly)so its all very new to me. I hear Boeing's side first hand. I also hear NG-EADS side via the media so views are siding more with Boeing (in the media) especially here in the north west. Who ever the winner may be I sincerely hope the purchase is exactly what our USAF needs! At the end of the day that is the most important thing!

[cco23i]

All I know all is I will be retired when they get the new tanker. So if it's a foreign made one I won't have to work on it.

Scott

[Iclo]

jtramo: you can't hope that american companies can sell product in all the world and don't accept that companies from the outside the USA come to sell their product. Number of countries buy armement from USA, where's is the trouble that the USAF buy some equipements from the outside ?

The world market must reach a point of balance with inport and export between the differents countries.

No to be sarcastic but I'love the remarks about the risk to buy equipement for the army from foreign countries: Where dit the Mustang engines came from during WWII ??

[JDK]

Iclo, sadly some of our American friends regard 'free trade' as a one way deal.

No to be sarcastic but I'love the remarks about the risk to buy equipement for the army from foreign countries: Where dit the Mustang engines came from during WWII ??

Well, the USA, Packard built. British design. It's probably important to remember that winning W.W.II was a co-operative success; no one country can claim to have 'won' the war. Canadian, Norwegian and British input to the Manhattan project would be one example, the fact that the 'democracies' need the support of one of the 20th centuries most evil, non-democratic regimes (Stalin's Russia) to prevail by 1945 would be another reality check over whose help you need.

Believing that the home-grown product is by definition 'the best' is as dumb as believing your own PR or propaganda. Sometimes it is - but it needs to be a qualitative evaluation, not a xenophobic one.

As I said before, the US' tanker program makes a great case study of how to screw up without any outside interference - drivel about un-completed projects and equipment being horrible because it wasn't invented here is just that - drivel. Boeing and Airbus produce airliners that do the job.

Sure, long lists of 'why I don't like Airbus or Northrop Grumman products' can be trotted out (again) but true or not, that's got nothing to do with how the decision process has worked so far, or looks likely to work in the future.

Regards,

[CAPFlyer]

jtramo: you can't hope that american companies can sell product in all the world and don't accept that companies from the outside the USA come to sell their product. Number of countries buy armement from USA, where's is the trouble that the USAF buy some equipements from the outside ?

The world market must reach a point of balance with inport and export between the differents countries.

No to be sarcastic but I'love the remarks about the risk to buy equipement for the army from foreign countries: Where dit the Mustang engines came from during WWII ??

First - the US does buy foreign-designed equipment, actually they've been buying a lot of foreign designed equipment in recent years, but it's all built by US contractors or US subsidiaries. For example, FN-USA for example builds all the M240s and M249s which are almost exact copies of the FN-FAL Minimi and GPMG. Also, we (the DoD) just awarded the contract for the new helicopter to carry our President to a consortium that is building the US-101 (Lockheed & Eurocopter), which is a modified EH-101 from Eurocopter but will be built in the US with modifications for the US VHX specification it's being built for. But in all of these cases, the US manufacturer of the product has all of the blueprints and provides all of the support. The KC-X contract, EADS wants to keep the blueprints, build the planes, and provide the support from EUROPE. This is what a lot of people have problems with, including me. While the Boeing components may be built all over the world, the aircraft itself and all of the design authority is here in the US. EADS wants all the design authority to be in Europe, and also build the planes in Europe and only modify them with their tanker parts here in the US.

Second - The Mustang engines came mostly from Packard Aero Engines, here in the US. They also had a copy of all of the blueprints and made their own refinements independent of Rolls Royse. It was arrangements like this during WWII that were subsequently used as the basis for US acquisition strategy after WWII. We've built and operated many foreign designs over the years, but almost all were built by US manufactures with full license to take the design and modify it as they saw fit.

[CAPFlyer]

Also, to help dispel the myth that the US doesn't buy foreign or use foreign designs, let me list a few of the planes we've either licensed to build or bought from foreign manufacturers -

deHavilland Canada C-7 Caribou (DHC-4)
deHavilland Canada C-8 Buffalo (DHC-5) - Yes, didn't see service with the US for long, but still, we bought it.
Martin B-57 (licensed and modified version of the English Electric Canberra)
Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) AV-8 Harrier (joint program with British Aerospace, but originally a BAe/Hawker Siddeley design)
Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) T-45 Goshawk (licensed development of the British Aerospace Hawk)
Raytheon T-6A Texan II (Licensed development of the Pilatus PC-7)
Raytheon T-1A Jayhawk (licensed development of the Mitsubishi DiamondJet)
Short Bros. C-23 Sherpa (hybrid of the Shorts 330 and 360 aircraft)
Alenia C-27A Spartan (Alenia Aerspace G.222 modified to US specs)
Lockheed C-27J Spartan (licensed development of G.222)
British Aerospace C-29 (BAe/Hawker HS.125-800)
Fokker C-31A Troopship (Fokker F.27 Mk.400M) <- Golden Knights jumpship
Augusta MH-68A Enforcer (Modified A-109E Power for the US Coast Guard)
Pilatus U-28 (PC-12)
Dassault HU-25 Falcon (US-assembled Falcon 20G)
CASA C-41A (Army variant of the CASA C.212-200 Aviocar)
Pilatus UV-20 (Pilatus PC-6 Porter)
deHavilland Canada UV-18 (DHC-6 Twin Otter) <- US Air Force Academy Jump Plane

And I could go on. The US operates 2 DHC-8 variants for Range Control out of Eglin AFB, there are several other helicopters of foreign design and manufacture that have been operated by the US over the years (not the least of which were the Mi-2s, Mi-24s, and Mi-6s the US Army operated for OPFOR purposes). Some were large procurements, many were small procurements, but the point is, the only thing the US has been adamant about with any large procurement of weapons systems (i.e. aircraft on the front line) is that the design authority and control of the aircraft and its spares be a US company. But the US also isn't so blind as not to look outside its borders to see if there's something available out there that fits the need and license the rights to the aircraft if needed.

[Iclo]

the design authority and control of the aircraft and its spares be a US company

Imagine, how many planes US companies would sell if all the foreign countries apply the same rules...

Sincerely, when we read in the US press the political issues with this bid, the trouble is more the work in Washington state than in the strategical or technical issues...

Regards

[jtramo]

jtramo: you can't hope that american companies can sell product in all the world and don't accept that companies from the outside the USA come to sell their product. Number of countries buy armement from USA, where's is the trouble that the USAF buy some equipements from the outside ?

The world market must reach a point of balance with inport and export between the differents countries.

No to be sarcastic but I'love the remarks about the risk to buy equipement for the army from foreign countries: Where dit the Mustang engines came from during WWII ??

I understand what you are saying but the companies that buy our products find them to be the best through whatever trial they go through.

Not only that, Im gonna have to venture a guess that most if not all of the countries that buy our stuff are unable to produce their own modern front line aircraft at all. We spend trillions on the development of an aircraft and they just line up to buy it.

Israel is an example of a country that may be able to build their own stuff but choose to purchase American and other counties aircraft and improve upon or at the very least adapt the aircraft to their needs.

At the end of the day, we ARE building the best of the best and in my opinion do not need to look overseas for major fleet purchases unless the type just isnt offered here by US companies.

With regards to the Merlin, the Brits were our allies. We didn't go with a Daimler engine for the 51 did we? Europe and the US dosent always see eye to eye. That could be an issue during a long delevery and support contract like this.

Plus I have heard stories from Airbus drivers about how the designers don't hold pilots in high regard and design the aircraft to save itself if it goes outside of parameters. Needless to say this isnt good for a combat aircraft that may at some point have to operate outside the "civil" envelope. Just look at the KC135 thats been operating for 50 years. It is a pilots airplane.

Last edited by jtramo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[jtramo]

One example, A "severe" hard landing specific to the 330

Neither the identity of the carrier involved in the landing, which occurred in September, nor the location has been disclosed. The specific A330 variant is also unclear.

But the aircraft struck the ground hard after its elevators failed to respond to a pitch-up sidestick command from the pilot, who was attempting to flare the aircraft before touchdown. Instead of deflecting upwards, the elevators remained at their neutral position for several seconds.

[Bill Greenwood]

Iclo, The Mustang, Merlin engine came from the gods. Haven't you ever heard one run, it sounds like angels singing.

[Iclo]

most if not all of the countries that buy our stuff are unable to produce their own modern front line aircraft at all.

I suppose that you never heard about Saab, Dassault, Bae and lot of more ??

[Iclo]

Iclo, The Mustang, Merlin engine came from the gods. Haven't you ever heard one run, it sounds like angels singing.

Of course Bill

The Brits made a fabulous engine, that's true...

[jtramo]

most if not all of the countries that buy our stuff are unable to produce their own modern front line aircraft at all.

I suppose that you never heard about Saab, Dassault, Bae and lot of more ??

You are only proving my point. Lets look at Saab and the Swedish Air Force. Sweeden builds Saabs and their Air Force only uses SAABs. They ARE able to produce front line fighter aircraft, and as a result DO NOT import American built fighter aircraft. They do buy American cargo aircraft, because they do not produce capable aircraft domestically.