Boeing win tanker contract.. What a surprise!

[thatone1967]

Was this the same contract eads previously won and Boeing cried foul?

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/02/24/1884300...

[FourWheelDrift]

US Senate official congratulates a Boeing representative for winning the bid.

[johnfm]

Why would the US contract with the French instead of a US company?

[FourWheelDrift]

johnfm said:

Why would the US contract with the French instead of a US company?

It was a combined Airbus/Northrop-Grumman bid. Planes to be built in Alabama.

But Boeing did what they always do.


And France are the USA's biggest ally according for the idiot in charge - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100...

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 24th February 22:54

[davepoth]

johnfm said:

Why would the US contract with the French instead of a US company?

Northrop were going to be prime contractor as I understand it.

[Eric Mc]

The US will buy foreign if they think the foreign aircraft is the best. They have done that on a few (rare) occasions.

[HarryW]

Eric Mc said:

The US will buy foreign if they think the foreign aircraft is the best. They have done that on a few (rare) occasions.

or they will borrow one for assessment phase and then copy the best bits after they hand it back.........

[Mojocvh]

Eric Mc said:

The US will buy foreign if they think the foreign aircraft is the best. They have done that on a few (rare) occasions.

You are so far off the mark it ain't even funny.



Now guess what system of the currently delivered 767 tankers actually doesn't work?

The hint is in the "tanker" bit.

Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 24th February 23:35

[Eric Mc]

Mojocvh said:

Eric Mc said:

The US will buy foreign if they think the foreign aircraft is the best. They have done that on a few (rare) occasions.

You are so far off the mark it ain't even funny.

Why?

I can think of a number of foreign designs they have adopted over the years straight away. Of course, if at all possible they will try and include a co-production or licence production deal.

WW1

Various SPAD fighters (French)
De Havilland DH4

WW2

Spitfire
Mosquito

Post WW2

Canberra
Harrier
Hawk
Short C-23 Sherpa

[Shar2]

I think what really gets up peoples noses is the way Boeing went about the whole thing. To litigate because they lost a competition, and that was after alleged corruption. But it's just the same old same old, Boeing and the US doing what they do best. Although it would have been nice if this country had had such protectionism, we might still have a thriving industrial base.

[SamHH]

Eric Mc said:

Why?

I can think of a number of foreign designs they have adopted over the years straight away. Of course, if at all possible they will try and include a co-production or licence production deal.

WW1

Various SPAD fighters (French)
De Havilland DH4

WW2

Spitfire
Mosquito

Post WW2

Canberra
Harrier
Hawk
Short C-23 Sherpa

The fact that some non-American planes have been bought by America doesn't prove anything about the fairness of this procurement though, does it Eric?

[Smiler.]

I heard an item on R4 the other day & wondered which way this would go.

Then I wondered why they were bothering.

[Eric Mc]

SamHH said:

Eric Mc said:

Why?

I can think of a number of foreign designs they have adopted over the years straight away. Of course, if at all possible they will try and include a co-production or licence production deal.

WW1

Various SPAD fighters (French)
De Havilland DH4

WW2

Spitfire
Mosquito

Post WW2

Canberra
Harrier
Hawk
Short C-23 Sherpa

The fact that some non-American planes have been bought by America doesn't prove anything about the fairness of this procurement though, does it Eric?

Skulduggery has always been a factor in these large contyracts - from all sides. The Americans just happen to have more muscle.

However, if a an aircraft really is technically good, the US will look at it carefully.
The Boeing contract was axed originally more because of sharp parctice in the background rather than becaase of technical shortcomings with the proposal.

[Mojocvh]

Eric Mc said:

Skulduggery has always been a factor in these large contyracts - from all sides. The Americans just happen to have more muscle.

However, if a an aircraft really is technically good, the US will look at it carefully.
The Boeing contract was axed originally more because of sharp parctice in the background rather than becaase of technical shortcomings with the proposal.

Like being able to transfer fuel on the pods, that's a bit of a winner wouldn't you say Eric?

So why did the USAF want the Airbus?

Because it outperforms (it still does and still will) any 767 tanker in All departments but most importantly in the critical weights/runway lengths criteria (and that comes from the British designed/manufactured wing, so thanks for supporting the last bit of British civil aerospace design/manufacturing BTW).

As Boeing as struggling with the 7never7 how long will the USAF crews have to continue to operate 45+year old flying petrol stations??

[Eric Mc]

I don't know, to be honest.

[aeropilot]

Mojocvh said:

Now guess what system of the currently delivered 767 tankers actually doesn't work?

The hint is in the "tanker" bit.

Yup, just ask the Italians what they think of Mr Boeings 'non-tanker tankers'

[coanda]

aeropilot said:

Yup, just ask the Italians what they think of Mr Boeings 'non-tanker tankers'

Ah yeah, but to be fair - the Italians are doing a decent number on Boeing regarding the 7hate7.....

Why have a competition? So that process can be seen to be done.