Northrop + Airbus = new tanker?
Cub Driver
thinking to team up with EADS to offer a modified Airbus 330 to the
Air Force as a tanker replacement.
"Northop is betting that the Air Force will divide its tanker
purchases between Boeing and EADS, enabling it to get a foothold in
the Pentagon market and a springboard for overseas customers..."
However:
"A tie-up with EADS could exacerbate friction with Congress over other
Northrop programs under intense scrutiny because of tight budgets."
Mentions the Global Hawk as one such. Says that "some prominent
congressmen have urged Northop to forget a deal" with EADS.
Interesting notion that the USAF might buy both Boeings and Airbusses.
That would satisfy John McCain's evident need to punch Boeing in the
nose.
-- all the best, Dan Ford
email war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
d.scottferrin
<war...@mailblocks.com> wrote:
>The Wall Street Journal today (Wednesday) has a story about Northrop's
>thinking to team up with EADS to offer a modified Airbus 330 to the
>Air Force as a tanker replacement.
>
>"Northop is betting that the Air Force will divide its tanker
>purchases between Boeing and EADS, enabling it to get a foothold in
>the Pentagon market and a springboard for overseas customers..."
>
>However:
>
>"A tie-up with EADS could exacerbate friction with Congress over other
>Northrop programs under intense scrutiny because of tight budgets."
>Mentions the Global Hawk as one such. Says that "some prominent
>congressmen have urged Northop to forget a deal" with EADS.
>
>Interesting notion that the USAF might buy both Boeings and Airbusses.
>That would satisfy John McCain's evident need to punch Boeing in the
>nose.
>
>
>-- all the best, Dan Ford
At the same time though it seems the worst possible choice.
Introducing two types of aircraft and their maintanance / supply needs
simply for the sake of having two? Not to mention the adding insult
to injury of paying money to Airbus for tankers while they thumb their
noses at us over subsidies.
Ed Rasimus
>At the same time though it seems the worst possible choice.
>Introducing two types of aircraft and their maintanance / supply needs
>simply for the sake of having two? Not to mention the adding insult
>to injury of paying money to Airbus for tankers while they thumb their
>noses at us over subsidies.
A good demonstration of the danger of letting politics interfere with
military requirements. What do we know?
1.) The USAF needs tankers.
2.) The KC-135 fleet is at the end of useful life.
3.) Tankers are essential to AF employment doctrine.
4.) Airbus gets subsidies.
5.) Boeing gets tax incentives, offsets, research funding, AKA
subsidies.
6.) John McCain is a sensationalist seeking "face time" and appealing
to the GUM while not really contributing much in the way of positives.
7.) A RFP and competitive bidding would insure a quality product.
8.) Even if buying Airbus, the spares, maintenance, etc. could easily
be handled within US defense industry capabilities resulting in no
foreign dependence.
Let's see what each company has to offer, when they can deliver and
what it would cost.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Paul J. Adam
<rasimu...@adelphia.net> writes
>Let's see what each company has to offer, when they can deliver and
>what it would cost.
Unacceptably rational and sensible. Take that man outside and shoot him
at once.
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Joachim Schmid
>>Let's see what each company has to offer, when they can deliver and
>>what it would cost.
>
> Unacceptably rational and sensible. Take that man outside and shoot him
> at once.
ROTFL
Yeah, real expertise is only disturbing when it comes to politics.
Cheers
Joachim
D. Scott Ferrin
<rasimu...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:35:39 -0600, D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
>
>>At the same time though it seems the worst possible choice.
>>Introducing two types of aircraft and their maintanance / supply needs
>>simply for the sake of having two? Not to mention the adding insult
>>to injury of paying money to Airbus for tankers while they thumb their
>>noses at us over subsidies.
>
>A good demonstration of the danger of letting politics interfere with
>military requirements. What do we know?
>
>1.) The USAF needs tankers.
>2.) The KC-135 fleet is at the end of useful life.
>3.) Tankers are essential to AF employment doctrine.
>4.) Airbus gets subsidies.
>5.) Boeing gets tax incentives, offsets, research funding, AKA
>subsidies.
If they were getting money to research commercial aircraft I'd agree.
I'm not sure how getting money to build Hornets and space vehicles
translates into subsidies for commercial aircraft though. I wouldn't
be against them at least entertaining the thought though if for no
other reason than to light a fire under Boeing.
Eunometic
can be US in origin.
It's a compelling aircraft as a tanker/transport since its larger
airframe allows sufficient fuel to be carried without adding additional
tankage or if additional tankage is installed it can be restricted to
the cargo bay while the main deck remains usable for passengers or
cargo. Unlike B767 it can ship standard "jumbo" LD3 shipping
containers. It's not as big an issue with the USAF but smaller
airforces are attracted to the idea of a multi-role tanker transport.
Cub Driver
Thanks for interesting post, Jan.
But about that SALT WATER ENVIRONMENT? Eek. I live across Great Bay
from the NH Air Guard group of KC-135s. If this ain't a salt-water
environment, I don't know what is. We have an onshore breeze every day
in the spring and early summer.
I wonder if they salt the runways at Pease in the winter? I bet they
do!
Downriver in Portsmouth there are two great piles that are known
locally as the Portsmouth Alps. One consists of imported salt, which
will be spread across New Hampshire's roads over the coming winter.
The other consists of rusted auto bodies being shipped to Japan for
scrap. A perfect cycle: salt in, rust out.
-- all the best, Dan Ford
email war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
Helowriter
said for protecting the US aerospace industry in much the same way
Europe protects EADS.
Market share is the name of the game to Airbus, and EADS may indeed
give us a better price on needed tankers - with direct subsidies and
some loss-leader accounting from European governments. That doesn't
mean the best deal for the US industrial base.
However you play the game with offsets, US content, and build-to-print
jobs, we lose something if a big chunk of US defense dollars and
engineering investments go offshore. The danger is we're less able to
meet future requirements with our own industry if our engineering and
manufacturing base fades away.
RFPs and competitive bidding do not ensure a quality product. We
already made that mistake with the Presidential helicopter -- I hope we
can figure a way to keep the tanker contract here.
HW