Warbird Information Exchange

Lou Dobbs posted this web address last night to protest the Air Force decision to go with Northrup Grumman/ European Aeronautic Defence KC-X tanker.

http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/tanker_survey.htm


Here is the survey.

I am outraged by the recent Air Force tanker contract decision.

I am outraged by the recent Air Force decision to award the KC-X Next Generation Air-fueling Tanker contract to a foreign competitor in the name of the Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Team.

An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers. America must not outsource its national security. This decision shockingly creates French jobs in place of Kansas jobs. This is unacceptable.

I believe that the Tanker Competition was unfair and poorly evaluated, and if not overturned will negatively impact the United States for generations.

If allowed to stand, this contract award to a foreign company will:

1) Hurt American workers by the loss of U.S. jobs;
2) Outsource an essential military asset to Europe;
3) Force the United States to be dependent upon Europe for our national defense;
4) Result in an inferior tanker for the United States Air Force; and
5) Result in the US being more vulnerable at a time when we must be less vulnerable

I am urging the Air Force to reverse this dangerous decision to award the KC-X Tanker contract to the Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Team.

I invite you to take the following survey.

Todd Tiahrt
Member of Congress

Survey results as of 2:45 p.m. (CST)
33,131 -- outraged and oppose the Air Force tanker decision
246 -- support the Air Force tanker decision
39 -- no opinion about the Air Force tanker decision

How do you feel about the Tanker decision?

Name:

I don't think I've ever seen such an uproar over people who are so ill-informed about an issue in aviation.

Try this one on for size: Boeing had an inferior product.



Even better, 767s aren't all built in the US anyhow. Numerous parts are made by NON NATO ALLIES.

On top of that, all of the parts on the Airbus ARE. Remember NATO? Remember allies to whom we've shared a LOT of other time, money, effort, and technology toward mutual protection over the last 50+ years?

As an end-user of this future tanker, I want the one with the best capabilities.

1) Hurt American workers by the loss of U.S. jobs;

The 767 line is slated to close anyway, and Boeing had all ready planned to move the workers somewhere else in the company. Northrop is bringing 2,000 NEW jobs that did not exist earlier.

2) Outsource an essential military asset to Europe;

Again, we all ready have so much going on with NATO that it's ridiculous to think that this tanker suddenly tips the scales.

3) Force the United States to be dependent upon Europe for our national defense;

Apparently all of the Harriers and T-45s of European design don't all ready make this critical enough.

4) Result in an inferior tanker for the United States Air Force; and

Absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. See above chart.

5) Result in the US being more vulnerable at a time when we must be less vulnerable

Again, this is hyperbole base on some false assumptions.

The Boeing proposal closely followed the bid specifications. If the Air Force wanted a bigger tanker, Boeing would have gladly provided a B-777 proposal.

valdez25 wrote:Boeing would have gladly provided a B-777 proposal.

No, actually that is not true. There is not enough capacity in the 777 line to produce the aircraft on the Air Force's timeline, so they did not offer that option.

EDIT: Note, this is what I've heard through AF channels, so if someone has additional info on this, then I'm interested in hearing it.

Has anyone sent this to Tihart??

When the last Airbus is parked in the desert, the crew will ride home in a 737.

Randy Haskin wrote:

valdez25 wrote:Boeing would have gladly provided a B-777 proposal.

No, actually that is not true. There is not enough capacity in the 777 line to produce the aircraft on the Air Force's timeline, so they did not offer that option.

EDIT: Note, this is what I've heard through AF channels, so if someone has additional info on this, then I'm interested in hearing it.

I read somewhere that orders go out to 2012 for the 777. Will see if I can find that info again.

Mike

Randy, the way I read it was that it was Boeing who decided to stick with the 767 instead of bumping up to the 777. Don't know why, you might be right on with the lack of production capability.

Give 'em h*ll, Randy! It's nice to hear an informed viewpoint from someone who is a genuine first-hand stakeholder.

I'm all about buying American-made products, unless the foreign product really is the better way to go. Looking at the chart that Randy posted, it's clear which one's more capable. It remains to be seen how reliable the Airbus will be, but I have a feeling that was taken into account in the decision-making process. The 767 is a good airplane, but it's an ancient design. In just a few years, that design will be as much a dinosaur as the 707 line.

Randy Haskin wrote:Apparently all of the Harriers and T-45s of European design don't all ready make this critical enough.

The current USAF/USN joint primary trainer, the Raytheon T-6 Texan II, is an Americanization of a European aircraft, the Pilatus PC-9 from Switzerland. I have yet to talk to a T-6 pilot who doesn't absolutely love the aircraft, American or not. It won the JPATS competition fair and square by being the best airplane for the job.

The US military has operated many non-US aircraft: SPAD and Nieuport biplanes (French) in WW1; DeHavilland Mosquitos, Beavers, Otters, and Caribous (Canadian); Supermarine Spitfires (British); Pilatus Porters and Turbo Porters (Swiss); IAI Kfir jets (Israeli) and MiGs (Russian) as aggressors; Hawker biz-jets as trainers (British, bought before Raytheon took over Hawker). The Coast Guard currently operates foreign-made helicopters.

The US military using non-US aircraft is NOT a new concept, folks.

Cheers!

k5dh wrote:Give 'em h*ll, Randy! It's nice to hear an informed viewpoint from someone who is a genuine first-hand stakeholder.

Absolutely. I'm open to be convinced of this being a 'good' or 'bad' decision by reasoned, fact based argument. What we have heard is lots of nationalistic hysteria, built around outright misinformation (lies if you prefer, see Randy's comments) and discomfort. (Newsflash: Most of the rest of the developed world has been through this issue, and wonder what all the fussing is about.)

Not that I'm interested in these plastic 'planes.

BTW, we have a Boeing factory here in Melbourne. They don't make complete aircraft (who does, except warbirders?) They make parts for various aircraft, including bits for Boeing airliners, and watch my sleeves, nothing clever here, Airbus airliners. This Boeing factory probably does more Airbus work than Boeing work.

As to the loads of shovelled bull about Airbus being an inferior product, it's just that. It's clear from sales, safety, seat-mile revenue etc. that both Boeing and Airbus are building more-than-adequate airliners, and hyperbole about which brand is better is just air. The worst scenario would be one airliner company; where we'd see the lack of competition affect price and quality for certain. They are keeping each other competitive.

I thought Americans liked free market economics? (Ducks, runs...)

Randy, there were 2 primary reasons the 777 wasn't offered -

1) Boeing already had 2 KC-767s flying.
2) The original RFP released said it wanted an aircraft roughly the same size as the KC-135R and could operate out of all of the same airfields as the KC-135R (at minimum).

The Air Force revised the RFP after the initial release and removed the requirement that the aircraft be roughly the same size as the KC-135 which allowed Airbus to "legitimately" offer the A330 MRTT instead of the A310 MRTT which would have been the aircraft which fit the original RFP requirements. Add to that the issue of the 60-day deadling for the RFP's to be submitted (EADS had prepared plans for both models if the RFP wasn't changed in their favor), and Boeing didn't have time nor money to submit a totally new RFP and begin plans for a totally new program when they'd already put so many hours and so much money into the KC-767 program for both their foreign customers of the project and the Air Force.

As for the 777, based on their production in the last 12 months of 154 777s, they will deliver the last currently ordered 777 in 2.4 years, or approx. August of 2010 (360 unfilled orders as of today). However, I'm sure that there will be a fall-off of deliveries as the order book thins out, so 2012 sounds about right.

Hummm, welcome in the party !

This sounds just the same as when Air Canada (emphasis on CANADA) went ahead and bought regional jets from Embraer (competitor from Brazil) instead of Bombardier...

Money talks I guess, even for the big ol' US of A !

Oh, one more thing.

The USAF is one for not really caring about the RFPs it puts out anyway in recent history. It put out an RFP for the CSAR-X that specifically spoke of replacing the HH-60Gs with a "similar" medium-lift helicopter and then went and awarded the contract to the HH-47, which is a heavy-lift helicopter. Did the HH-47 out-perform the HH-92 in that competition? Yep. Only problem was that it was almost 1/3 larger than the HH-92 and cost several million per copy more. Sound familiar?

It sure does. It sounds like the KC-X competition...

Michel C-GNCJ wrote:Money talks I guess, even for the big ol' US of A !

Funny... I coulda sworn the Airbus proposal cost several million more per copy than the Boeing proposal...

Well ... all I know is that I wouldn't want to be part of a crew in an airplane that was decided by Congress ... either side of the aisle ...