EADS A330/Northrop New US Tanker??

[plan_D]

How is your nation's defence at stake ?! You are basically saying that any country that buys foreign military equipment is stoo-pid and everything should be homegrown. Best tell the army to rid themselves of the M1 Abrams 'cos that's a combination of European countries that made that thing a reality ... !

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with pD here. We expect other nations to buy our products we can buy other peoples products.

The question should be what is the better product. I am not sure, but if EADS is offering a superior product for less money, who cares.

[Matt308]

You guys aren't reading my posts carefully enough. Or I'm not making them clear enough. The two products are virtually identical in technical performance. So much so that the decision became as arduous as it was. Therefore, why reward such a large contract to a foreign entity. And countries do it all the time.

And Pd, your stoo-pid comment was beneath you.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why not?

I understand what you are saying Matt but if EADS is offering it for less money then that is why they did it. I am sure there is more involved, probably politicians that own stakes in certain companies or something like that.

[plan_D]

"Stoo-pid" comments for stupid arguments. I don't see your problem Matt, really it's an open market. You say that the two designs are almost equal, but you've handed no specifications that back up your assumption. If the A330 is superior to the B-767 for the job - then good on the DoD for using some sense. If it's not, but the A330 is cheaper then again - good on the DoD for using some sense. If Airbus are easier to deal with then good on the DoD for using some sense. If, however, Boeing are easier to deal with, the B-767 is better and cheaper - then there's a problem.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Matt, are you privy to the specifications to both designs, in final product form? I'm not, but the USAF did say that the NG/EADS design offered: "The KC-30 tanker allows for more passengers, cargo, fuel to offload, patients to be carried, "more availability, more flexibility and more dependability". They also stated that the chosen design met their criterions on more points than the one offered by Boeing.

Obviously the two designs were not nearly as identical as you suggest. Basing their tanker design on the 767, most likely the sole motivation to keeping the assembly line on the aging aircraft open, was not a smart move. More than one forum discussing this issue has many members knocking their heads against the walls in disbelief that the 777 design wasn't pushed. Many feel this could have given the edge for Boeing.

The Airbus design won this competition fair and square. No doubt Boeing and even members of congress will push for an invetigation on the decision making and challeng it in the process. I only hope that the USAF digs in their heels and stick to their guns. This should be a warning to companies who previously felt safe under the DoD umbrella. To suggests that buying a foreign design will somehow compromise national security is only age-old attempt to stray from the real issue at hand: if Boeing and others continue down the same old road, offering old designs in the belief they will be accepted in no-competition environments, they may find themselves in the same position as the US auto industry vis-a-vis Toyota, Honda, etc.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by plan_D

"Stoo-pid" comments for stupid arguments.

Hey Pd. A year or so of school does not aviation expert make. That's the second time. Keep your personal attacks in check or take your posts off my thread.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Arsenal VG-33

Matt, are you privy to the specifications to both designs, in final product form? I'm not, but the USAF did say that the NG/EADS design offered: "The KC-30 tanker allows for more passengers, cargo, fuel to offload, patients to be carried, "more availability, more flexibility and more dependability". They also stated that the chosen design met their criterions on more points than the one offered by Boeing.

Actually yes I am quite privy to both designs in final product form. All the way to the proprietary level. Structural, mechanical, electrical, avionics, powerplant, and ops specs. What I am not privy of is the mission critical equipment requiring security clearance, but those did not serve as the basis for the bid. All your points Arsenal are valid. With the exception of the "availability, flexibility and dependability" which is pure poppycock and conjecture and whose basis cannot be founded.

Certainly the DoD believes that they can collectively argue in favor of their decision. My point is that the rankings are so close as to be meaningless. And the areas that they do differ are an artifact of the procurement spec that has been rewritten based upon congressional inquiry whose reach into the procurement process was hugely overrstated. Sure it can carry more cargo and has more internal space. However, it also is more expensive, thus fewer tankers can be purchased. It also cannot operate from some of the shorter fields thus requiring a greater operational range and less fuel to offload at point of station. And the refueling system on the A330 is new, novel, and unproven. That's kinda mission critical me thinks.

But all in all, I think Airbus has a solid product. The question is if one ranks a 91-out-of-100 and the other a 93-out-of-100, do you choose the 93 at the expense of losing an indigenous manufacturing base critical to national security? Perhaps not the Air Forces job, since that was not a weighted parameter in the procurement, but certainly rationale that must be discussed.

So how's that for a stoo-pid argument Pd. Please.

[Glider]

I do not know or pretend to know the details beyond those published. However the DOD are not fools, they would have known the response to the decision and would make sure that they could support the decision against scrutiny. Both aircraft are very capable but if as it seems Boeing based their offer on a smaller aircraft and the airforce preferred a bigger one, then that was their mistake.
I also do not believe that this is the end. The USAF have a huge requirement and a lot more aircraft will need to be replaced. They have used the KC135 with the KC10 for some years, there is time for Boeing to learn the lessons and go for the rest of the requirement.
I was always suprised that they didn't build a lot more KC 10's its a very capable aircraft and the 135's were getting long in the tooth in the 1980's

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Glider

I do not know or pretend to know the details beyond those published. However the DOD are not fools, they would have known the response to the decision and would make sure that they could support the decision against scrutiny.

That is the telling statement, Glider. There are politics at play here and I suspect with both airplanes being virtually equally mission capable, there might also be some play involved in the animosity the Pentagon and Congress continually display. And especially in this procurement. So throwing aside the Boeing scandal for a minute...

* Pentagon is pissed that Congress (and especially McCain) got in their knickers and introduced such a long postponement to such a mission critical system replacement.

* The scandal fallout resulted in a rewriting of the procurement specs. Some claim that the rewriting introduced new parameters that emphasized and more heavily weighed the A330 strengths. This being claimed to be much beyond the correction needed for the scandal and some even claim as punishment for same.

* Pentagon recognizes that no matter who is chosen, both sides have intimated that a challenge would result, putting yet a further third delay into the ability to field such a mission critical system. And this was known before the latest request for proposal was intitiated.

* Pentagon's primary directive is to ensure the war fighter has the best capable system. Since both are virtually ranked equivalent in performance based upon procurement spec, they choose A330.

* While pure conjecture, I suspect that choosing the A330 will certainly satisfy the Pentagon's needs, but also sends Congress a message to stay out of the Pentagon's business. Because now, if there is going to be any change in the proposal selection, the USAF/DoD can wash their hands of it and smile knowing they justed pissed in Congress' coffee.

[pbfoot]

according to something I believe I heard (I had just woke up 530hrs) on the dreaded NPR a lot of the airfield infrastructure will have to be changed to accomodate the Airbus
They have a few good articles here
NPR: Examining Airbus' U.S. Military Coup

[Matt308]

Christ, Pb. Don't use NPR to back up my argument.

[pbfoot]

[quote=Matt308;329788]Christ, Pb. Don't use NPR to back up my argument. [/QUOTlisten to the broadcast on the link , I heard it this am so I don't know if its included yet, .
Do you think I want to wake up to the ranting oxy boy.

[Matt308]

Well certainly its a mess. Perhaps our Canadian brethren can remember the CF-105 and the analogies that might present with respect to the ultimate choice of the CF-101. Certainly not the same by any stretch, but the results were equally disasterous for the indigenous Canadian fighter plane manufacturing. Like those few CF-18s Canada? I wouldn't.

[plan_D]

Someone's certainly got a little ferret burying itself inside his ass. Matt, it's not YOUR thread - if you wanted to keep the discussion private you shouldn't have placed it on the world wide web; or maybe just kept it to e-mails.

Since you were the first to use "stoo-pid" in this 'discussion' (rather a rant of yours) then I feel obliged to continue to use the childish spelling for your benefit - we have to stay on the same level here.

You continually rant about how they're both so similar that it makes no difference but have yet to provide those special numbers that back that up. Your argument seems to be that the U.S should be buying an inferior design for a cheaper price instead of the foreign, superior, design.

If you want to lay down the basis of your argument in facts (i.e. your statement that the superiority of the Airbus is irrelevant could be back up because maybe the Airbus can travel an extra 20 miles) then maybe your argument that it's all politics could be brought to light with greater ease.

I have to say though I almost lost interest when someone who claims to be the know all of the subject refered to Airbus as being solely French...