Why all this fuss?

You congratulate every other country buying US weapons (yes even Le French have i.e. Hawkeyes and Hellfire missiles!) but when the US government opts for non-American weapons "no, they're traitors".

Primary example was the Harrier. The MArines got it since there was no other option. And got it. British plane.

Another one? How many German and Swedish made guns and anti-tank missiles respectively are in the US arsenal?

Didn't the US Army buy G-Klass and Unimogs?

Even the LCS is partially foreign technology, or the HSV which is Australian (Austal Marine).

What about Lakotas and the US-101?

Even the F-22 Raptor has foreign materials (Martin-Baker instead of the Zvezda ejection seat, yes they were thinking Russian technology).

You even operate the 6 engined An-225 Mryia, the largest airplane man has ever made.

Or maybe the KC-30. This is going to be a BIG blow for Boeing. They thought they would supply endlessly the US Armed forces because of "patriotism". Arrogance at its glance!

Posted by: Nassos at February 5, 2008 05:27 PM

send me all new pictures about air crafts

Posted by: mihindu ranaweera at January 15, 2008 11:16 PM

How about that new dble decker Airbus for AF1.
Now thats luxury BUT need more EW pods & counter heat missile chaff units etc..
Maybe carry Limo in the Rear cargo area vs waiting @ airport by C141.
Nice.
Then sell the AF1 747 for Pvt Group use under Virgin America airlines???

Posted by: stephen russell at December 30, 2007 06:39 PM

"...the only thing that should matter is that the best aircraft wins, cost and nationality should not come into it." (Posted by: Wren Mandagorn)

-----------------

LOL...that was sarcasm, right?

Posted by: Mike S at October 28, 2007 11:07 AM

I beleve that most want AF1 to be the best aircraft, regardles of borders. A380 or 747 - put them to competition and pick the best. And for cargo transportation - same thing.

Posted by: dvortex at October 25, 2007 01:43 AM

My dad was a US Army officer stationed in France when I was a child and we lived in France. Many Americans still remember in the late 60's when France decided to step out of NATO's military arm (they stayed in the political part) and kicked us (Yes, the liberators of France and the rest of Europe) out of France. Rumor has it that the US President instructed the commander in France to ask the French President Charles Degaul (he was a general during WW2) if we should take our fallen soldiers with us.

Posted by: Huertgen Digger at October 24, 2007 11:24 PM

I am a german, living in Belgium, used to live in italy and also 3 years in the US. I am starting to feel more like a western citizen and I am a bit irritated with all the comments here.

We are living in a globalized world where you cannot isolate a single country from your purchases. The global sourcing departments buy stuff whereever they get the best consitions and the companies themselves are owned by multiple countries (e.g. the new Daimer company is owned I think 20% by kuwait, the same with Deutsche Bank). Question: Who owns Boeing? Who owns IBM?

Also, just look at all planes and military equipment. There are fewer and fewer models in the past 50 years taking over more and more roles and tasks. They also last much longer. At the same time the development cost, time and engineering requirements completely go through the roof. This means, a single country (not even the US) can develop everything they need within the country. I mean, half of the military equipment of non-US Nato Countries is com ing from the US. F16, F35, Tanks, C-130....
On the other hand the US buys Mercedes G-models for the Marines, MP-5 submachine guns, EH101, UH72 Lacotas and potentially A380. What is the big deal??? If the US tries to isolate their home markets, maybe the rest of the world will do the same with US products!!! We all depend of exports. Just imagine if just a handful of countries would ban Boeing imports. I am pretty sure there are more Boeing imports into Europe than Airbus imports into the US. Wake up and take your patriotic sunglasses off.

Regarding C5:
Maybe they are not at the end of their lifetime, but the US simply does not have enough of them.
Did you ever think about the realistic consequences if the US Air Force would replace/supplement their C-5s with A380 Freighter? They would immediately become the by far largest customer. In such a case, I would be almost 100% sure, that there would be a second production line for freighters built in the US (and maybe even producing the regular A380 Freighters for the rest of the world).

Also, ever thought about the future world with China as a dominating country? With the current US trade deficit, they have the US balls in their hands. And if they start squeezing them, you all would feel it drastically.
The western world has to overcome the old thinking patterns. We have one common denominator: Democracy and Freedom. Commong enemies will force us pretty soon to cooperate much more than in the past.

I would not be surprised if in a few years, Boeing would subcontract the A380 and start selling it as a Boeing 797 and on the other side Airbus would start selling a future B737 as the new A320. Why not? The development cost of the A380 (excluding the freighter version) was around 12Bil € which is roughtly 18Bil US$. Future planes will be even more expensive. Airbus as well as Boeing will not be able to stem these kind of investments (and growing) for 4 or 5 different product lines.

And BTW: get over this silly French bashing. They were against the Iraq war. As was 90% of the european population. And as it looks right now, the US population is on its way to get to similar "approval" levels of this dangerous operation down there.
Yes, the US helped to free europe 60 years ago, but dont forget: Without the french, the US could still be a UK colony. France sent large numbers of troops to the US to fight the UK.
Back to the topic: Airbus is a european company which happens to have the HQ in France, but most employees work in Germany

Posted by: Tobi at October 21, 2007 10:30 AM

Could anyone of you please explain to a non-american-citizen like me why, one one side, everybody in the rest of the world should buy military products from your american manufacturers (as it is done currently) but on the other hand you just refuse to do the same from other allied countries?

Sorry but I just don't get your point of "God bless America" "Only buy from american manufactuers" and all this stuff.

Just remember that you are not alone on the planet, there are loads of other smart, itelligent, creative, open minded people inventing and creating great things.

In the end we are all human and should treat each other like this.

Thanks for your attention.

Posted by: T. S. at October 21, 2007 10:05 AM

First, I think the govt. just get's tired to being screwed over bloated bills by always same US monopolists. Showing them that there IS an alternative will certainly wake up Boeing and others.
Second, Lockheed has never be on the target in financial terms, that's why DoD thinks the final bill will be 100% over budget. For that money ($17Bn) you "can has shiny new BIG Airbus!".
Would you invest ten thousands of dollars in your aging Oldsmobile?
Third, the majority of DoD shipping are palettes of food, equipment and other small stuff for our folks in the Gulf. The Airbus Freigher would be perfect for the thousands of parcels. That's why Fedex and UPS wanted them. And both have announced, that in near term they would re-order their freighters from Airbus.
Forth, what is "made in America?" Your Nike shoes, your IBM Thinkpad, your Dell, your new Boeing Dreamliner? Nope, most parts come from all over the world. The Boeing Dreamliner is only a small fraction "Made in America". Would you resist buying a new Toyota (made in N. Dakota) or BMW (hello from Illinois), because they sound un-american?
Fifth, Airbus is not French, it is 40% German. And Boeing was founded by Wilhelm Böing from Germany about a century ago. Good German quality (I guess, thinking of my new Mercedes)!
Sixth, I could imagine for DoD to order the Airbus A380, but the STRETCH VERSION!! That would be the largest airplane on earth, the biggest and baddest!! Only the best for our president. Haha!!

Posted by: Michael at October 21, 2007 09:05 AM

The american people should get over the "Buy american" meme. In a globalized economy this somewhat nonsensical. Look at the vast majority of companies building the 787. Many of them are not really from the US. They are from Japan, Italy, France, Sweden, Germany, Austrialia and so on. Any industrial project of bigger size is a global project. Large multinational companies (like Boeing) doesn´t think in national categories (okay, they do, when the want to keep a competitor out of governmental business)

Posted by: Joerg M. at October 21, 2007 08:41 AM

First I have to apologize for my bad english, but it isn't my first language.

Airbus isn't merely a french company. Germany and France are the big players, but a lot of other european countries participate too.

I don't understand why a lot of americans see such a big problem in buying planes, etc from their NATO-ALLIES and friends.

Although some european countries refused to follow you into Irak , because they didn't see any sense in eliminating one of Bin Ladens biggest enemies (Saddam) and risking to destabalize a country with difficult ethnic und religious circumstances, they are nevertheless your allies and there is no alternative to the USA-EU partnership.
Or do you see in the Russians or the Chinese possible allies for the future?

What would you say, if we stopped buying your military products only because of patriotic feelings? If America wants open markets, it also has to be an open market.

Decide on the quality of the product and what serves your purpose best. Perhaps its Boing...but the A380 is a really impressive plane.

Posted by: Jakob Meissner at October 21, 2007 08:33 AM

As a French expat having lived in the US since 94, I find it rather shocking that the US, birthplace of aviation, would buy foreign planes for its government. Boeing is perfectly able to manufacture quality planes (not that the Airbus is not a fantastic plane).
I think the image of the US president coming out of a anything else than a US plane projects a rather sad message: a country that has given up on sovereignty, albeit in a symbolic way.
Of course, if Boeing had not abused its position and overcharged its services on so many occasions, things might be different.

Posted by: Pierre Buret at October 20, 2007 11:34 AM

First thing first. To correct one post, the Looking Glass is operated by the NAVY. So the validity of the article shouldn't be question because of that.

More importantly, I'm fine with using foreign products if they are better than American products. Might as well give the military (and president) the BEST protection and equipment possible, even if it means buying from a foreign source. If the pentagon believes the Airbus is better equipped, then we need to buy it. The problem I have is if the decision is based on money. If money is an issue, then the contract should always go with America.

Posted by: John at October 19, 2007 04:23 PM

I have a problem with the facts given in this report. First, unless things have changed drastically recently, the Navy doesn't own E-4's and doesn't own Looking Glass. The E-4's, are maintained by AF maintainers and owned and tasked by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If the author can't get these simple facts straight, how can one begin to believe anything else in the report? Get the facts straight before printing anything this blatant, please.
Obviously, in my opinion, we should not obtain a foreign aircraft of any type for the President of the United States to fly in.What kind of a statement would that make?

Posted by: W L Coon at October 19, 2007 02:55 PM

I can't see our American President circling the globe landing in foreign lands in anything but an American made aircraft, if that takes us dismantling a few B2s than we must do it. Also, if we are hurting that bad I would suggest we have worse things to worry about. President Bush you are a Texan by God!!! How could you even be entertaining flying in anything but an American aircraft, how could anyone in government? A French plane with United States of America painted on the side of it. No, don't see it and hope I never do!!! It is sad. I’d rather see Lockheed or another American contractor get billions in subsidies than have a French Airbus house our President on long overseas journeys; it’s embarrassing. It shows, it declares to the world we are unmotivated to do anything difficult. I use the example of the failing space program. The new campaign slogan for this year should be new priorities and that doesn’t mean quit fighting AQI or protecting against the real threat of irresponsible nations developing nuclear capability (or weapons it doesn’t matter they naturally come next). I wish I had enough money to quite what I’m doing and really get involved but all we can do right now is study the issues and VOTE the right people in. Maybe I should run for mayor or something. Maybe that is the answer we must all do our little part to ensure our nation does not die. VOTE. Out.

Posted by: James (USAF Ret.) at October 19, 2007 09:54 AM

ENOUGH!!!!!Why do we debate an issue like this? We have no scruples in buying things at ChinaMart and want to gripe about the treason at government procurement???Enough tripe about talk of the "free market" dictum you prattle on and on about so you buy American and what do you do? You buy goods for yourselves and your families made in China, Vietnam, Russia, but thats not treason? You buy foreign cars made in the United States, but thats not treason? You roll your eyes when you hear about unions wanting their rights against scum who want to outsource their jobs, but thats not treason? We are the most creative people on the planet, yet we talk of buying scrap from the French? NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON, BUT IT IS!!! The GAO mollycoddles American companies that are using dubious business practices, motivated by greed, and none dare call it treason, BUT IT IS!!! Long live the United States, and forget about the rest. But spew that putrid puke about one global village at me and dont call that treason? IT IS TREASON!

Posted by: Dave Hazelton at October 19, 2007 06:29 AM

Just think about this one - The US president parking his little 747-8i, 777-300 or even 787-10 next to the french/german/brithish presidents/prime ministers immense A380...
what about amarican pride then???

On the C-5 replacement. The C-5 is an verry old design in need of extensive rework if it is to stay flying within even an amarican army budget. ($17 billion needed for re-engine work I believe)
Using that 17 billion you cuold buy a lot of more efficient C-17's for the outsized cargo and a couple of A380's to get a lot of troops far away quickly (853 commercially certified max)

Posted by: ikkeman at October 18, 2007 04:17 PM

What - are the ashtrays full? Give me a break! Our Govt should buy AMERICAN - Second - I find it hard to believe that the VC-25s are worn out - third - There is nothing out there than can do what the C5 fleet can do - soooo what is going on here... But given the fact that as a nation we are allowing our manufacturing base to disappear we will soon be fighting the Chinese with Chinese made goods to support our negative balance of trade and our purchase of Ipods. geezz!

Posted by: G Price at October 18, 2007 02:22 PM

Being a veteran first, and a patriot. Even though I run my own business, I still think our President should fly in NOTHING but American made. There's way to much outsourcing going on here folks. If you think this doesn't matter, and it doesn't effect you personally, then you need a wake up call because it does. Many men and women, have died for the freedom, and democracy we enjoy. And what do we do, we turn around and sell it to the lowest bidder. And then we praise and uplift the other country, and talk about how they are better than us. Well if you feel that way go live there. But of course you wont, THATS WHAT I THOUGHT!! God Bless America!!

Posted by: G at October 18, 2007 12:50 PM

There should be no need for any discussion on this matter. The United States should only...only, purchase any item for it's military or governmental use, from a manufacturer in the United States that produces it's products only in the United States. That also means that if a company produces any or all of a part outside of the US then that company is completely excluded until they meet all, not all or most, but all of the single requirement of being completely manufactured, not just made, for there is a difference, in the United States. We as a country need to support our country and it's manufacturers and that is a completre way to also bolster our country.
Given that requirement, all manufacturers need to find many ways to reign in costs and if that means doing away with unions then so be it. If one company that is non-union and can produce a part for less than a union shop, then they get the bid. Plain and simple. We reign in cost, build it for less an keep jobs in the US and keep our companies afloat. These stringent requirements will force companies to produce parts and products for what a foreign company is able to produce the same part or product for.
Support our country.

Posted by: Stephen R. Hendrickx at October 18, 2007 11:18 AM

The fact that the AF is considering the Airbus doesn't concern me as much as them even considering replacing the C5 or VC-25.

I don't believe the term "aging C-5 Galaxy" is quite correct. The C-5 began delivery around 1970 with the last being delivered around 1989. As aircraft go that's not so aged (especially considering that the A.F. is planning on flying the B-52 until 2040 or later). The Air Mobility Command itself estimates that the C-5 fleet still has 80% of it's airframe life remaining. So why replace a purpose built, supremely functional, heavy lift STOL, slightly used fleet with a commercial design that would require a huge amount of re-engineering to meet half of the C-5's fantastic load handling and STOL capabilities?

As for replacing the VC-25 (Air Force One), geeze, the two current VC-25's (AF-1 and AF-2) were delivered around 1992. That ain't exactly what I call old, especially considering how little they are flown. So what if commercial carriers are retiring their 747-200's because of age and fuel inefficiency? The VC-25's aren't flown every day like commercial aircraft, they don't make a dozen or more landings every day, they have a huge team of maintenance personnel for just the two aircraft to keep them in top shape, and since when did the Air Force worry about fuel efficiency, especially for just two aircraft?

Now maybe feigning interest in replacing the C-5 might be intended to light a fire under Lockheed to get their act together on the C-5 modernization program, or maybe this is all about aircraft manufacturers trying to drum up business by conniving with A.F. high up's to wrangle a replacement for aircraft that are perfectly serviceable and not in need of replacement.

Which do you reckon it is?

DS

Posted by: Dan Smith at October 18, 2007 10:54 AM

I think it is wrong to buy from a foreign country without an agreement for license of future parts to be made in the USA. It worked with the Harrier and could work here.

Ask Iran about the danger of buying a military airplane from a foreign country. They have a bunch of F-14's and can't get parts to keep 'em flying.

Maybe it is a good idea to get bids from any company that can do the job. Keeps the US companies from getting too comfortable with the government money.

Posted by: Herb at October 18, 2007 10:47 AM

As a 55 year old former Marine I am not amazed an anything anymore.
I myself am trying not to buy anything made overseas,but it is getting harder and harder.
I still buy Ford Cars and Trucks for me and the Mrs.but even some of those Parts are made at Points bejond.
Actually I am getting sick at seeing anything with the "American Logo",like Figuerines and the American Flag made in Country's like Mexico,Phillipines,Taiwan etc.,but talk about adding "INSULT TO INJURY",when "UNCLE SAM" whit the American Flag Logo is made of all places but "CHINA".And sold at Walmart.What ever happened to Sam Walton's saying made in America.See it is all about Greed and Money,those Walton Kids are no differend then so many other Corporations out there.It's not about America anymore,it's the Money.
It's just like Corporate Salaries these Days,and I'm asking myself how many Millions,and Million Dollar Bonuses are ever enough!
Look where for the most Part our Jobs are going.Look at the Middle Class that is twindling at an Alarming Rate.
A "MAN" used to be able to take care of his Family for the most Part,and now it takes "TWO",and that isn't enough anymore for a lot of us.
What I am saying here is we the American People had better wake up out of whatever slumber we are in before it is to late.
To start we need a House and Senate again that is,"FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOTHING BUT THE PEOPLE",and special interests and kick backs be damned.
Our MRE's are made in France and our Soldier are on Wellfare and Foodstamps.
I think I've said enough,but nothing that isn't the "Truth".
And Frankly it sickens me to my Stomach.
That goes for the Lax immigration that Washington doesn't seem to really do anything about.

Semper Fi and God Bless our great Nation,a very concerned former Marine and Vietnam Vet.

P.S.I really do think it is time to wake up before Hollywood for that matter is giving us too "Iran or China".
I'd Laugh if I thought for one Minute it was Funny...

Posted by: Eugene Wiedemann at October 18, 2007 08:53 AM

Forgive my error of ommision - that was 30 per room, including the secure rooms. Of course the wire, fax, and redio taps were in place. (Standard option, no extra fees.)

Posted by: SSG_Conner at October 18, 2007 08:33 AM

Have we turned into a country of freaking security idiots? We know the French have ties to Putin and, any country with oil.

Does anyone remember the beautiful Embassy the Russians built for us in Moscow? Our security experts passed it as clean. It was later found out that there was an average of 30 listening devices and cameras built into the walls.

For God's sake and for our own - WAKE UP AMERICA. Our "Allies" are not well intentioned.

Posted by: SSG_Conner at October 18, 2007 08:28 AM

The US-101 is a Lockheed Martin prime contract. Agusta Westland builds most of the parts (gearboxes, transmissions, etc.)... Bell Helicopter was designated as the assembler (but there are disagreements as to how much will be done). Lockheed Martin is the integrator... putting all the Top Secret stuff inside of the chopper.

Posted by: RR at October 18, 2007 08:17 AM

I don't care what you think of the American manufacturers. That is not the issue here. We should never buy non-American products for our military use. The poin being, you can never trust the loyality of other countries, especially the French. The problems that coud arise from a turn coat country are not worth it. Never, never buy non-American products for or national defense. Cost is not the issue here. If you think you can trust the Federal Government to do the right thing, ask any Native American. Write your representatives often to protest this idiotic idea.

Posted by: Al at October 18, 2007 07:50 AM

There seems to be a lot of grumbleing about not buying american made. This is free trade. The rest of the world dont want to buy american made, but are forced to by the repressive trade aggrements forced on them by the USA.
The fact is that in a free trade world goods will come from many different countries. The political influence is huge. This may be the price that the U.S. have to pay for enlisting the support of europe for the illegal wars it is wageing across the globe.

Posted by: mark at October 18, 2007 04:12 AM

Firstly to Sneem the EH-101 is NOT Eurocopter, it's made by Aughusta/ Westland a British Company, Eurocopter is a Franco/ German company. The version for the US101 is being designed, built and assembled by Westland only (taking out the Italian part), and the aircraft is being entirely assembled in the UK (Lockheed Martin have nothing what-soever to do with the contract)

Secondly all thats had happened with the US DOD is they have asked Airbus for information regarding the A380, this is standard practice in business, they'll then go back and compare the stats with other manufacturers, decide what they want and /or what is technologically possible and go back and ask several companies to tender. Airbus may or may not get to that stage.
Even once companies have tendered the only thing that should matter is that the best aircraft wins, cost and nationality should not come into it.

Posted by: Wren Mandagorn at October 18, 2007 04:06 AM

the new 747 (747-8) is what would be the replacement...not the A-380.11

Posted by: murc at October 18, 2007 12:07 AM

BT...just completed my schooling and I thought that there was more to a purchase than the "best price and delivery date"!!

Us vs. Them is here to stay, and if you don't think that some artificial proping up of AirBus is occuring then I want some of what you're smoking! The market place might be compressed due to cross border acquisitions but as far as major portions of the aviation and defense industry, national lines still exist. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, United Defense (I know now BAE) might have subunits in Europe but they are all with the exception of UD, still recognized as US firms. The point that an American President should fly an American aircraft remains. So until we're flying AN-124's instead of C-5's lets make the president fly American made.

Posted by: Solomon at October 17, 2007 11:14 PM

What is all of this us vs them nonsense. Does no one here have any idea how modern global business or supply chains work? There is nothing that exclusivley made in a single country. NOTHING.

Maybe I got brainwashed in business school, but I prefer the best product at the best price, and the quickest delivery date.

Who knows what the best aircraft will be, but Boeing's airliners are sold out for the next several years.

Posted by: BT at October 17, 2007 10:52 PM

When people complain that the BIG COMPANY makes all the money. That they need to lean up. That it is okay to buy items from other countries. The big companies hire us. The engine mechs thatleave the service can get hired by the BIG COMPANY. The big evil companies hire evil Americans!

Posted by: Jeff at October 17, 2007 10:35 PM

Nothing new here. Last year the DOD decided to buy a Eurocopter helicopter to be the next Marine One Presidential helicopter. They called it the US101 and Loc-Mart is assembling it. But it is the Eurocopter EH101. It was designed and built in Europe and many of the major componants will be built in Europe. Tough luck Sikorsky. If I were President I'd tell them to use it to fight forest fires and I'd take a cab. But I'm just an idiot American who likes to see his government and my tax dollars support American jobs.

Posted by: sneem at October 17, 2007 10:30 PM

What happened to our services keeping things American. Sorry Our planes and black beret should be American made period. Sorry old school, the butter had to be Wisconsin Butter. What are we fighting for. IBM use to take care of their employees that went to war. Now China is making IBM lap tops. Make componants that fit inside our security devices. Bennedict Arnold is laughing in his grave at us.

Posted by: Jeff at October 17, 2007 10:20 PM

I also don't see the A380 filling the role of the C5. C5, C17, AN124/225s have a similar configuration witn the high wing, single large cargo deck, massive main landing gear (that keeps cargo floor low to the ground).
I'd think an A380 would need such massive mods it would be a different plane.

An A380 Pres plane? How big does AF1 have to be?
Give a Pres that and Camp David and sell the White House!

I agree with Zimmerman that it may be a shot at Boeing.
My more cynical side says this proposal is because US companies are forbidden to bribe DOD officials...

Posted by: Mitch S. at October 17, 2007 08:48 PM

Roy Smith, I assure you (and other interested parties) that the advent of the giant airship is just over the horizon. My company was considered as potential prime contractor for "walrus"; and even though the Pentagon has shelved it, for now; we have not.

airship speeds of up to 250mph, however, will not be deemed sufficient. Although, modern RIGID SHELLED, AMPHIBIOUS, SOLAR/BIO-DIESEL, VTOL, 200mph airshps offer considerable advantages over either 747s...or 380s.

Posted by: campbell at October 17, 2007 05:37 PM

Looks as though we want to export jobs to our staunch ally France instead of China or Mexico. Build it in US or dont build it at all.

Posted by: James Friedline at October 17, 2007 05:30 PM

Didn't the Russians once build a U.S. embassy that was so full of bugs (listening devices) that it could not be used.
Granted the French are not the Soviet Union, but using a plane built overseas for AF1 just gives me the security "willies."

Posted by: Jeff at October 17, 2007 05:26 PM

Great, does it come with reverse for full retreat upon a moments notice.

Posted by: Don Walker at October 17, 2007 04:45 PM

I think it's a pretty good idea to consider replacing the 747 with the A380 as the new Air Force One. However, I strongly disagree with the idea of the A380 replacing the C-5. I'm an aerial porter, and I've had lots of experiences with C-5s. Sure, they have lots of mechanical and structural problems, but they can carry a wide range of outsized cargo. They can carry ship screws, radar stations, and numerous other outsized items which could only be carried by either the C-5, AN-124, or AN-225. I don't really see the A380 as a good replacement from the aerial port viewpoint. The C-5 is a great asset, and it gets the job done. Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Posted by: OEFvet at October 17, 2007 04:39 PM

The assembly lane might be in France but Airbus is actually a European Company not French.

Here is the employee repartition / country
Germany 38,5%
France 31%
UK 17,7 %
Spain 5,6 %

Posted by: ND at October 17, 2007 03:13 PM

The day any president boards a French AF1 will be the day his or her party writes off Washington state electoral votes for a very, very long time. Therefore, it will not happen. While the A380 may be excellent for a C5 replacement, thats not gonna happen either for the same reason. Reality is that politics are just as important as capacity in this. Not only corporate america but also the unions will fight together tooth and nail for an American product.

Posted by: Rix at October 17, 2007 02:46 PM

The 747-800LR would be a good 1-on-1 replacement for the E-4 Kneecaps and VC-25s wouldn't it? Please no A380. ;)

Posted by: Benjamin Fan at October 17, 2007 02:43 PM

If they have worked the bugs out of it,you can't argue with a plane as big as the Airbus A380.I'm trying to visualize it as a replacement for the C-5 Galaxy though.Could it carry the M1 Abrams & how many. I was still psyched out about a gigantic air ship being used to carry heavy equipment,but that all must have been just fantasy scams.Maybe Boeing could sign an agreement with Airbus to license build the A380s here for American use.Are we having a "Not Built Here(or at least,a not thought of it here first)" pride issue here on this?

Posted by: Roy Smith at October 17, 2007 01:42 PM

I have no problem with the US military buying from European companies.
Even though the Europeans continue to annoy me with there socialist BS, the behavior of the Military Industrial complex the last decade or two has annoyed me more.
The fifteen Billion it took to create the Bradley Fighting vehicle; the problems the Coast Guard is having with their contractor run boat building contracts; the money for the Raptor which due to a data problem cannot open it's canopy. The list goes on and on.
Even though you can argue we will be loosing jobs and money, I disagree. This may make Boeing, Sikorsky and all the others actually have to get on the ball and run lean, like the rest of the country.
These guys have been on the gravy train too long, they are starting to resemble Federal agencies in their inefficiencies.
I really do not think it is going to happen though. The Senators will not let their "constituents" lose those contracts.....

Posted by: Dennis at October 17, 2007 12:08 PM

Will- if you're concerned because our manufacturers have trouble building on time and on budget, and those are important to you, then the A380 should pose no worries for you at all. :-) :-)

Sorry for the snark, Airbus, couldn't resist.

Posted by: J.B. Zimmerman at October 17, 2007 11:16 AM

I'm confused by a couple of points in here. First, since when does AF1 care about fuel efficiency for anything other than range? Second, is the pressure to recap AF1 due to the actual airframe age, or to the dwindling of easily-available support infrastructure for that model 747 as other operators EOL it?

I have trouble believing that 12-year-old 747s, especially one with the relatively low duty cycle and high maintenance state of the AF1 VC-25s, is in need of replacement other than for 'ooh, shiny!' reasons.

Now, there are several reasons I might be wrong, and I'd be interested to know which if any apply from those who know better. For one, this RFI might be the fore end of a decade-long or more procurement cycle, which would put the VC-25s at 22 years or thereabouts when the replacement is online. This is still quite short of the lifespan of the VC-135s, IIRC. For another, there might be critical spares/support for this particular model of 747 which would mean that as operators retire it it would be difficult/expensive/etc. to keep them going, although I have trouble with that - isn't the VC-25 contract intended to support the aircraft for their expected service life?

Finally, this could just be a 'shot across the bows' of Boeing on the part of the AMC - a 'stop being jerks, you'd hate to see us buy Airbus, wouldn't you?'

Suspicious jerk that I am, that's how it feels to me.

Any edifying responses appreciated!

Posted by: J.B. Zimmerman at October 17, 2007 11:12 AM

On one hand I think it's great that the military is looking at buying the best possible product. Competition is always good for the free market.

On the other hand I am very concerned that the United States has to look outside our borders for a suitable Presidential aircraft. In our aviation heyday, we had numerous companies building great aircraft. Now it seems we have a few manufacturers that are so poorly run, that then can not build and aircraft for anywhere near what the estimate, or even in the time they say.

I really am proud to be an American, and I just want whats best for the Country.

Posted by: Will Wheeler at October 17, 2007 11:10 AM