Haw-haw ！It is a very beaufitul writing! The moderator is really a man of intention. I

really appreciate his wisdom and philosophy of life
replica watch

http://www.watchinstyle.com/rolex-datedate-white-diamondsswiss-eta-2836-p-768.html?

zenid=teg6g8jtnlurrhkmbomsugkuj7
http://easyforbuy.com/002-puma-shoes-all-black-p-4029.html
http://lowestmall.com/9826-nike-king-black-sapphire-p-5367.html?

zenid=iu1fq75j2cmr6534iltfb807i5
http://onestoptown.com/

Posted by: replicawatches at October 9, 2008 01:41 AM

replica rolex watches

http://www.watchinstyle.com/chanel-j12-white-chronograph-fully-high-grade-ceramic-p-910.html?zenid=9m7rdns1qli5ntbq2uevks5ve0

http://easyforbuy.com/nike-air-zoom-lebron-c-49.html?zenid=c0enle2a7n4rgumpq0g5t9bqb6

http://lowestmall.com/nike-air-max-c-44.html?zenid=e62d2m88ej0b70vn97n4e9pkd6

Posted by: instylewatch at October 8, 2008 08:07 PM

Haw-haw ！It is a very beaufitul writing! The moderator is really a man of intention. I

really appreciate his wisdom and philosophy of life. I wonder that the moderator must be a

excellent guy. Your article is reall a great food for thought. And I got many

inspirations from it. Thanks for the charinesses of the moderator. It seems like that I

must vist the moderator's blog often, It is really run into an old friend in a distant

land. It was really a pity that we didn't meet each other earlier. And my blog is not as

good as the mederator. It is really a shame.

NIKE AIR JORDAN Air Force Ones Nike Air Max Nike Dunks Nike Shox NIKE NASH NIKE King

Nike Air Zoom Lebron Women shoes Ape Bape Sta Children Shoes DG shoes Ice Cream Lacoste

Shoes Lv Shoes Puma Shoes Timberland Shoes Bag jeans Tie Hat Belt Watch Sunglass Clothes

Others Shoes Big size shoes speacial items SANDALS beach shoes ADIDAS Nike Rift Prada Mauri

Shoes Football Shoes New Balance women http://www.watchinstyle.com/2007-redesign-classic-

ss-black-swiss-eta-28362-p-752.html?zenid=8lk0tmr2dpk1v4untadkvrp731 clothes Nike James ATO

Shoes SUPRA Shoes http://lowestmall.com/nike-air-jordan-c-1.html?

zenid=iu1fq75j2cmr6534iltfb807i5
Gucci Shoes Affliction Shoes Alessandro Dell Aqua shoes Raf simons shoes ecommerce, open

source, shop, online shopping http://easyforbuy.com/

Posted by: sellbestshoeseasyforbuy at October 8, 2008 03:40 AM

replica watches

Posted by: replica watches at August 23, 2008 03:09 AM

rolex watches

Posted by: rolex watches at August 23, 2008 03:06 AM

Players can kalonline Geons , fight monsters! In order to eliminate the game play online games suffer from the inconvenience of learning and difficult, the right of the public play methods of the game, intuitive interface and a variety of learning tools allow players to adapt and easy to learn games.

Posted by: kalonline Geons at August 20, 2008 01:52 AM

WithArua ROSE zuly, 50-Lake to be around a wild boar strange, to see wild boar-Korean defectors, or the all-around monster the go.

Posted by: Arua ROSE zuly at August 20, 2008 01:30 AM

I cheat when you help me is the defense, finding evidence,contact customer service,I also spent a lot ofcheap wow gold.

Posted by: cheap wow gold at August 20, 2008 01:24 AM

Game time on the request is also very higher, to complete a task requires a very long time, and so cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold is also a good choice! A chocobo quest, I spent more than six hours.

Posted by: cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold at August 20, 2008 01:21 AM

together to earn the fiesta Gold, together to go to the abroad.

Posted by: fiesta Gold at August 16, 2008 03:03 AM

The girl only wants to use his money to buy the Archlord gold, so the boy was very sad.

Posted by: Archlord gold at August 16, 2008 02:53 AM

I only know that in the game the 2moons dil is very important.

Posted by: 2moons dil at August 16, 2008 02:12 AM

I do not have the flyff penya to bought the medicines.

Posted by: flyff penya at August 16, 2008 02:02 AM

In my opinion, this is another example of how screwed up our government is. How could we even consider awarding a multibillion dollar military weapons system contract to a foreign entity??

Posted by: mesa bookkeeping at August 11, 2008 07:08 AM

But I know it was a good game in people's mind. I could remember the thing which I asked the other role sold the cheap last chaos gold to me to buy last chaos gold. And then I play lots of different role, when I saw the beautiful role, I was very happy. I like the feeling that everybody wear own beautiful cloth. One time I saw a girl, wearing a white skirt.

Posted by: cheap last chaos gold at August 6, 2008 01:53 AM

I was so poor when I began to the Last Chaos, so I needed the last chaos gold. Someday, one of my friends asked me to go to a new place, we felt very happy when we saw the scene which was very sublime. We think that if we stayed there, we can earn more last chaos gold. And then we can use them to exchange the last chaos money.

Posted by: last chaos gold at August 6, 2008 01:49 AM

I could remembered that when I first to the commercial city to buy cabal online alz clearly, I was so stupid, I could not entered the commercial city succeed and it always appearance mistake, so I bought the cabal alz instead.

Posted by: cabal online alz at August 6, 2008 01:46 AM

My RO all is did by wave, upgrade, decorations, equipment, pets and even sufficient ragnarok online zeny so that I did not worry about the same. Wave helped me to practice a CK and a M4, I did is I see the role that I like, I told the wave, and I also regardless if he is agree. Most unfortunately, I like the role of the auxiliary are, looking but useless.

Posted by: ragnarok online zeny at August 2, 2008 12:50 AM

nice Article

Greetings Bodenmais

Posted by: Bodenmais at April 23, 2008 06:21 AM

Northrop is a GREAT American company with GREAT American employees. Northrop's Tanker HAS defined the future and the best capability won! It's rare that the DoD gets innovation and that is what they have selected here. It's very simple. THe rules were followed as much as all Dod contracts....Who is protesting for Boing? I thought a few of their folks were in Federal Prison because of the last attempt. It is clear who cheated and it WASN"T Northrop!!!

Posted by: Bill at March 23, 2008 05:47 AM

The reason why the criteria were changed was because of a corruption scandal in which the tankers were to be leased so that Boeing would be guaranteed the contract. If I remember correctly, one Boeing executive went to jail and Boeing CEO forced to resign over thev scandal, and the contract that was awarded to Boeing was eventually scrapped.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26924
.
I believe the initial proposals for a revised contract that were drafted in a way that was intended to disqualify Northrop-EADS (WTO references included in the contract terms with regard to Airbus but not Boeing, despite the WTO dispute being a separate issue and still being investigated), and so EADS refused to waste their time and money tendering. The contract was then revised to remove the discriminatory clauses so that a competitive tender, awarded on technical grounds was possible, Northrop-Grumman/EADS won.
. http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn092606.pdf
"The inclusion of the WTO matter in the RFI was viewed by many as a way to essentially
disqualify the Northrop (Airbus) bid, or at least raise political hackles over it in Congress.
Remember that whatever the Air Force decides on the merits, Congress ultimately writes
the checks and this competition is as much if not more a political battle than a technical
one.
By keeping the WTO matter alive when the Final Request for Proposals (FRFPs) is
issued, the political pressure is kept on Northrop (Airbus).
Understandably, Northrop has strongly protested inclusion as irrelevant to the technical
evaluation and selection by the Air Force of the winning design.
Aside from the appropriateness of including the matter in the RFI/RFP, or not, we
wonder how either Northrop or Boeing (which also has to answer this question) can even
remotely predict the result of the WTO investigation or any penalties that might be
imposed. Recall that we previously pointed out that the penalties don’t even have to be
imposed against Boeing or Airbus—under WTO rules, any other industry of the host
country of the offending business may be penalized.
Thus, Sen. John McCain, who single-handedly sank the original Air Force award of the
KC-767 to Boeing when he uncovered a host of improprieties, is at it again. On
September 8, he wrote Gordon England, a deputy defense secretary, asking why the
WTO matter was expected to be a part of the Air Force RFP. McCain’s letter has been
posted on our website.
England responded, essentially, “Because I said so.”
Not surprisingly, McCain found this unsatisfactory. He responded on September 18 with
another letter (also on our website) objecting to England’s response and threatening
Senate hearings on the matter.
Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Jeff Sessions, both of Alabama, joined McCain. Their
interest? The KC-30 will be built in Mobile, Alabama, after EADS (not Northrop)
awarded Mobile an engineering site and anticipated assembly plant following a national
competition.
Why is McCain so interested? He has taken no position on whether the Boeing or Airbus
products are best for the Air Force. He wants the best deal for the taxpayer, and this
includes fair competition. If the Northrop bid gets disqualified or marked down because
of the WTO dispute—which observers believe is the objective by its inclusion in the RFI
and RFP—then competition won’t be, in the minds of many, truly fair and competitive."
.
Bear in mind that the WTO issue affects both Boeing and Aitbus as both are accused of receiving illegal subsidies. However the WTO clauses seems to have been written into the contract to only exclude Northrop-EADS.
.
Some people have mentioned that the KC30 costs $35 million than the KC767. However it should be noted that the KC30 is bigger and more capable and fewer are required than the KC767. In addition the KC30 beat the KC767 on every single performance parameter, and has far greater flexibility. It will also be cheaper to maintain in the long term, because the A330 is still in full production and has a huge backlog of orders, whereas the 767 is at the end of it's production cycle with no order backlog.
.
I think the question Americans should be asking themselves is whether they are happy with Boeing as a monopoly supplier for large transports, tankers, and bombers, and letting out government tenders without competitive tendering, which is what those who are opposing the award of this contract are advocating. There if no other American company that can tender for the contract if EADS is excluded from acting as a subcontractor. If on the other hand Northrop-Grumman is awarded the contract after winning the tender, then you have the prospect of competitive tendering which will spur Boeing to produce competitive designs, and the prospect of Northtop-Grumman eventually growing in size to the extent that they can challenge Boeing in the future with their own designs.

Posted by: MS at March 9, 2008 09:00 AM

Northrup should build spook airplanes. Grumman should build Navy Carrier airplanes.
Airbus builds flying corrosion traps. I won't get on any airbus, period. When they get cycles and hours, watch the mission capable rate. corrosion maintenance is time consuming. 20 years in tailhook airplanes. Yes, I am passing judgement, so Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot. Just for the blue suit zoomies!

Posted by: GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET at March 8, 2008 03:31 PM

SMSgt Mac,

Criteria were CHANGED!

Both teams asked for clearification OF THE NEW CRITERIA after they were changed.

Posted by: pfcem at March 5, 2008 01:42 PM

No requirements were changed. NG hesitated to join in the competition until some things were CLARIFIED and that was before the proposals were even drawn up (NG's anyway - Boeing probaly changed the cover sheet on the one they already had submitted.)

Dang it Defense Tech Guys! Can we have this on one long thread instead multiple threads so the errors aren't multipying faster than they can be corrected? LOL!

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 4, 2008 06:46 PM

irtusk,

Yes the USAF did change the criteria. They were forced to when NG/EADS threatened to not submit a bid until the criteria was changed so that they would/could be competative (& politics dictated that Boeing COULD not be given the contract without a competition).

The KC-X is not expected to be delivered until 2013, PLENTY of time to make whatever changes would be needed to the 787. Also note that a large portion of the KC-X developement contract is much the same reguardless of what airframe it is based on.

Still living in a dream world where airlines would not be HUGELY effected by a 787 failure...

I didn't say anything about Boeing's desire to sell 787 to the military. I said that based on the criteria that the USAF was forced to change to, that the 787 would have been better.

No the USAF did/does not SECRETLY want the 767. The simple fact of the matter is that for a new aircraft (whether it be tanker, AEW, or whatever) to replace existing aircraft based on the 707 (C-135, E-3, E-6, E-8 et cetera) the 767 offers the right size & capability - it is only when the USAF is forced to change its criteria to accommodate larger aircraft (which could not compete otherwise) that larger aircraft are/would even a realistic consideration.

Posted by: pfcem at March 4, 2008 05:06 PM

"To be fair, its not just 'rednecks' and protectionists who didn't remember the AF cast about for a plane back in the 50's and came up with the B-57. I read a Reuters piece today quoting Richard Aboulafia (Teal Group)who called this the first time that the US or possibly any nation selected a foreign A/C over a domestic one."

Using foreign planes was rather common in Europe even before that. Primary reasons for this were either urgent need (Italy 1916-1918, France 1939-1940, UK 1940-194x), a small aviation industry or outdated indigenous designs.
The USA used the Mosquito in WW2 (UK plane) as well.

Well, this doesn't mean that the B-57 was an especially exemplary decision.
The 3rd condition applied; all U.S. designs for the role were crap.
The Canberra had completely superior characteristics. It was almost an aerobatics bomber, while the American counterparts of that time disappeared on the horizon before they could do a 2nd pass during a demonstration.
The agility of the Canberra even at high altitude made it almost invulnerable to fighters, whereas American models were merely aerial targets.

The Teal group guy might still be partially right if he talked about the USAF, as I am not sure that the USAF was already formed out of the U.S.A.A.F. before the B-57 decision.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at March 4, 2008 01:43 PM

I think it is important to note that last year commercial overtook IDS for the first time since MD was bought. Also, the Darlene affair, the JSF loss, and the CSAR-X recompete have left a distinct distaste in Boeing's mouth. My guess: Boeing decides to get out of defense, and NG ends up biting off more than it can chew on this one (primarily because Europeans are crafty and unmanageable), adding to its woes with Deepwater, etc. I see another round of consolidation ca. 1993 coming up. The question is: can/will LockMart buy everything? Do consider in your thinking that LM and Boeing have decided to team on the next strategic bomber, leaving NG to repitch Airbus as a laughable alternative.

Posted by: tebuan at March 4, 2008 01:17 PM

To "Pedro": Why does your "off-your-head" list feature ONLY planes?

Posted by: freefallingbomb at March 3, 2008 10:35 PM

To "SMSgt Mac" : I certainly recognize you from our other ("special"...) discussion board, despite your understandable need for new nick-names here on "defensetech". If you at least were more professional, more interesting where ever you work, uh post...

Posted by: freefallingbomb at March 3, 2008 10:33 PM

> When politics FORCES the USAF to change the criteria for the KC-X just so that NG/EADS could/would compete for the contract

1. the USAF did NOT change the criteria, they simply clarified it

2. that is only one criteria, the KC-30 won or tied ALL FIVE criteria

the clarification was about the value of the cargo capability

in the end, whether cargo is rated highly or not, the KC-30 still wins, it's simply undeniable

> As I said, they could have based their proposal on the 767-400

which still would have lost to the KC-30 on all the same metrics the 767LRF did

> I also said that a tanker based on the 787 would be even better.

I also said that a KC-787 wasn't technically feasible (requiring new wing and having various other issues)

> I don't know what you are smoking to think that a tanker based on the 787 would/could not be ready by 2013

i think it probably would be

but there is a difference between 'probably would be' and being willing to risk $2+ billion that it will be

> And the risk to airlines in the 787 were to fail is MUCH greater that it would be for the USAF.

how so?

if the 787 fails, they aren't out any money and in fact will probably receive compensation

if the USAF invest $2+ billion in the 787 and it doesn't pan out, they never get that back

> My GUESS is that Boeing did not change its proposal because it new that it more closely represented what the USAF wanted

i thought you just said Boeing was at fault for not changing the proposal even when they knew the RFP had changed?

my guess is that Boeing went with the 767 because they wanted to keep the already-paid-for-but-not-being-used 767 assembly line open as a cash cow.

If by some miracle, the 787 had been offered and selected, it would have simply been counter productive

they are already selling more 787s than they can make. Selling some to the USAF simply steals slots away from their commercial customers and doesn't gain them anything.

BOEING HAS ZERO DESIRE TO SELL THE 787 TO THE MILITARY, it's as simple as that

maybe in 20 years when production catches up with sales, that will change, but until then they are more concerned with keeping their commercial customers happy

> thought that in the end it would choose what they really wanted rather than have politics dictated what they were to choose

lolol

so the USAF 'really, secretly' wanted the 767 but politics 'forced' them to choose the KC-30!

have you seen the storm that has erupted because of this selection? all the congress people threatening investigations? all the labor unions and governors threatening lawsuits?

how can this POSSIBLY be the 'politically expedient' solution

no, the politically expedient, safe decision would have been to stick with the hometown team and you are beyond blind if you can't see that

Posted by: irtusk at March 3, 2008 09:40 PM

To be fair, its not just 'rednecks' and protectionists who didn't remember the AF cast about for a plane back in the 50's and came up with the B-57. I read a Reuters piece today quoting Richard Aboulafia (Teal Group)who called this the first time that the US or possibly any nation selected a foreign A/C over a domestic one. Aboulafia is weaker on Military programs than he is on Commercial ones, but he's hardly a 'rube'.

Interestingly, the same article pointed out that there was probably no real difference in US jobs between competitors, citing the percentage of the 767 built overseas and the apparent disconnect between the Boeing claim of 40,000 jobs, when they only claimed 25,000 jobs when they were going to do the job the first time, and the 25,000 jobs claimed for the C-17. I question the ability to accurately estimate numbers from one big program to the next anyway because I've seen how wide headcounts vary depending on the oddest of programmatic decisions and from bonehead beancounter influences.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 3, 2008 08:31 PM

"Canberra's rotary bomb bay "

The canberra didn't have a rotary bomb bay! it was a later B57 addition.

That is exactly why I introduced the B51 vs B57 subject... (and in order to educate the rednecks!) it is a classic case of a 'non-world-class' domestic product being properly rejected by the US military while the 'world-class' alternative gets adopted, improved and upgraded to make it better than 'world class'.
The winner is the US military and in this case they have 'won' with the A330.

The only difference is that with the A330 they seem to have allowed the Europeans to make the air-frames, but bending Aluminum is such a 20th century task :-).

Posted by: Pedro at March 3, 2008 07:56 PM

Coming at this from an international perspective (I’m and Aussie) I think you guys got the better deal with the KC-30.

I base this on a number of points.

1. We had a competitive tender process for our fleet of tankers between the same two aircraft and against a very similar set of specs and the KC-30 won hands down. I acknowledge we don’t have the same level of institutionalised protectionism that exists in the American defence industry (mainly because we don’t have the capacity to support a indigenous aircraft industry), but the advantage for us is we get to shop around on the world market for the ‘best of breed’. Over the years we have bought from Europe the USA and Asia, and while we have had a few ‘lemons’ (super Sea Sprite comes to mind) we get a good product more often that not.

The fact the a the UK, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have all selected the A330 MRTT (KC-30) as their next tanker over the 767 tends to prove that in a fair fight the KC-30 offered the best 'bang for buck.

2. From the Aussie perspective EADS is a more reliable and transparent contractor that Boeing. Our Tankers (first of type) are on time and on budget (the first are flying now in Europe) and we should have them in-service next year. Our AEWC aircraft (based on a Boeing 737) is years late and getting later all the time (due for delivery in 2006 now not due until 2009/10). Now I accept that the complexity of the AEWC is such that maybe this should have been expected, but what is damming about Boeing as a contractor is the lack of honest about the delays. Even days before the first delay was announced (and only 6 mths before the first delivery was due) Boeing was still releasing press releases and telling the Australian government all things were great and that ‘on time and on budget’ was not a problem. Then over night we get lumbered with a two year delay that is extending by the day.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not a "Boeing Basher", they make some great products (the CH-47 being one that springs immediately to mind, but just because they are American does not mean they are not as prone to delays and cost over runs as any other international company.

Posted by: Doohan at March 3, 2008 05:13 PM

so much for economic stimulation.

Posted by: Davila, S at March 3, 2008 03:44 PM

The U.S version Canberra did indeed incorporate XB-51 technology, which only makes sense since the company who produced the XB-51 (Martin) was tasked with building the Canberra. The Canberra's rotary bomb bay was the same as the XB-51's, for which it had been designed. It was a revolutionary design which significantly reduced turbulance when the bomb bay doors were opened and ordinance released. Another feature of the XB-51 which would be incorporated into future aircraft (like the C-17) was the T-tail. There is an excellent article in Air Classics Magazine on this subject. The Martin Canberra, designeated the B-57, was heavily modifed from the British version and was far superior, with a higher service ceiling, bomb load, and loiter time.

Posted by: C4Casey at March 3, 2008 03:29 PM

This is what all of those liberals want. For you to just sit back and cry! How many are you active in preventing the outsourcing of American jobs and products. I serve my country, and see nothing but talk and red faces. Americans have the power to chose, but fail daily on the right choices. Allied country entities are right for America, only if it's support ours. But, so many companies and individuals fail to see the big picture here. Think, next time when your at the store, check the label. Is it American? Or cheap enough for you to buy?

Posted by: Gman at March 3, 2008 03:06 PM

irtusk,

It is you who are wrong.

A 787 based KC-X would have been possible (& still is - if the KC-X turns into another CSAR-X debacle).

When politics FORCES the USAF to change the criteria for the KC-X just so that NG/EADS could/would compete for the contract, Boeing should have changed its offering to better reflect the new criteria. They did not & that is one of the reasons they (at least at this point) have lost the contract. As I said, they could have based their proposal on the 767-400 (which is about half way between the size of the 767-200 & the A330). I also said that a tanker based on the 787 would be even better. I don't know what you are smoking to think that a tanker based on the 787 would/could not be ready by 2013 whn Boeing expect to deliver more than 100 787 to airlines by the end of 2009. And the risk to airlines in the 787 were to fail is MUCH greater that it would be for the USAF.

My GUESS is that Boeing did not change its proposal because it new that it more closely represented what the USAF wanted & thought that in the end it would choose what they really wanted rather than have politics dictated what they were to choose.

Posted by: pfcem at March 3, 2008 02:53 PM

U.S. allies in Australia, Canada and Europe are participating in the $300+ billion Joint Strike Fighter program, and Oz, Canada and the UK have purchased the C-17. It's reasonable to expect that the U.S. should procure some of its aircraft requirements internationally, as these nations have done. If not, a lot of work done in the U.S. for the F-35 and C-17 would never have occurred as the "foreign buyers" (actually, the USAF) would have bought a French or Euro-aircraft.

Boeing ought to be questioned as to why it proposed a 30+ year-old aircraft that had significantly less cargo/fuel capacity than what NGC and EADS offered. Why not a military variant of the 777? And let's not forget Boeing's questionable track record concerning it's attempt to rip off the U.S. taxpayer under a "lease" program. Hopefully, the next phase of this contract (USAF intends to replace 400+ tankers) will generate a better proposal from Boeing.

Posted by: BTorbik at March 3, 2008 02:09 PM

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR ECONOMY? SO WHAT IF THE BOEING BID WAS HIGH,AT LEAST THE MONIES STAY IN THE STATES. SHAME ON THE PENTAGON!

Posted by: DAN at March 3, 2008 01:51 PM

First private industry outsources to foreign countries now our Government outsources job's and funds to other countries. Why don't we just hand the country over to the mexican's.

Posted by: Rohug at March 3, 2008 12:49 PM

First off, American car manufactures had to result to outsourcing work to compete with many times unfair competition. Some foreign manufacturers have the full financial backing of their government to ensure an economic edge. The same thing happens with Airbus. Japanese auto manufactures get 1% loans, US manufactures get 13%. This adds up to billions. Everytime a foreign manufacturer decides to build in the US, they demand the US taxpayer help pay for it, leaving less tax money for our schools, etc. Mercedes-Benz in Alabama cost the taxpayers $169K per job created. I believe it was Nissa in Tennessee that demanded $200 million. US manufactures never did this. Also the foreign manufactures for their employees to fund their pensions out of their pockets and that is a regressive move for workers in general- less money going into our economy- more money being taken out of the country. This is the same with Airbus. There will be far less tax moneys taken in to the US also as the amount of taxes collected on the profits of the planes will be limited to the "added value" of what is done here in the US rather than the entire value. This all adds up to lost revenue to our government and the taxpayer will have to take up the slack. Maybe this is why we have such a huge trade and national deficit. The comment about foreign cars on Boeing's parking lot in St. Louis was interesting as although I think it is very short-sighted, in my visits to military installations the overwhelming amount of cars are foreign. We will all be working for foreign entities soon as they will own us lock, stock, and barrel. I can't wait to retire, it will be someone else' problem (if they don't steal my pension in an effort to compete with Red China workers who don't have one).

Posted by: Petey at March 3, 2008 12:08 PM

American Military has a long and proud history of occasionally selecting and modifying a foreign product when the locally produced one isn't "world class" (list below). It aids US war-fighting capability and stimulates the industial base to make better equipment. Its probably a good thing, but it doesn't feel like it at the time for some folks.

List - off the top of my head
DH9 WW1 biplane
A36/P51
Merlin engine
Nene engine (aka P&W J42, aka "the needle engine")
Sapphire engine (aka Wright J65)
EE Canberra (aka B57)
AV8
BAe Hawk Trainer (AKA navy T45)
Casa C27
EH101 (jury's still out on this one !)
and now the A330.

Posted by: Pedro at March 3, 2008 11:22 AM

WOW, HERE WE GO AGAIN. JUST LIKE THE "AMERICAN" HARLEY-DAVIDSON, MOST OF THE PARTS WILL BE MADE IN A FORIEGN COUNTRY. SOME PARTS WILL BE MADE AND THEN FINAL ASSEMBLY HERE. I'M ALL FOR 100% US MADE STUFF, BUT CAN YOU FIND ANYTHING OF SIZE THAT IS? OUR COMPANIES WANT TO SAVE MONEY AND GET SOME OR ALL STUFF OVERSEAS. PRETTY SOON EVERYONE IS GOING TO BE WORKING IN A WAREHOUSE OR FAST FOOD PLACE.
SEMPER FI

Posted by: DONALD HEINKE, Sr. at March 3, 2008 11:04 AM

Just three questions. Where are the 787 subcontractors,where is it assembled and who tried to influence the first contract?

Posted by: G. Hartley at March 3, 2008 10:54 AM

alright sounds to me like some money changed hands.what retired gen or adm.that was hired and given a vise president position in that company got a big bonus at the expense of the american people and our econamy.that sounds about like lee iacoca and the rest of the big car makers back thirty years ago when they went on a fact finding mission to evaluate the european and japanese cars . and ended up getting rich and selling the american car menufacture down the drain. wake up people smell the roses.some body out there is getting rich.and its not you. keep big business in america. other wise you will have to move to some other country to support your family

Posted by: ron pond at March 3, 2008 10:25 AM

Posted by: Michael Portier at March 1, 2008 08:54 AM

"But first to those that think that EADS/ Airbus is 100% French: it is not. It's main facillities are based in Germany, France and Spain with sub-contractors in Poland, Czech-republic, the Netherlands (where also the EADS HQ is based) and several other countries acting as minor sub-contractors. "

How come you missed the UK..the Third largest.

Employees by country - 2006

22,966 - France
22,663 - Germany
9,673 - UK
2,932 - Spain
approx 2,200 - other

Posted by: marrandy at March 3, 2008 09:48 AM

Well I am a little disappointed with the EADS win. But only a little and here is why. When I drive by ST. Louis and look at Boeing parking lots and I see a majority of foreign cars in them I loose all sympathy! My first thoughts are, "I hope you choke on your foreign cars," too bad you never thought buying foreign would bite you in the rear!

Posted by: pro_USA_UK at March 3, 2008 09:23 AM

Solomon said: "WTF??? The XB-51 has no connection whatsoever with the Canberra. Your facts are in error as is your thinking on this subject. Crawl back under your rock and do not return until permission is granted."

The XB51 WAS the loser in the flyoff against the Canberra (which became the B57) because the B51 WAS an inferior domestic product. That makes them connected n'est ce pas?. My facts are NOT in error and my thinking is NOT defective and you have no rights to mention rock-houses .
In fact, you have joined Firebrand on my list of ignorant rednecks with a revisionist tendency.

C4Casey wrote: "In fact, many elements of the XB-51 were incorporated into the Canberra"

Which elements ?? - As far as I'm aware Canberra was an entirely British design that evolved at the same time.. It did not rely on ANY XB51 technology.

Posted by: Pedro at March 3, 2008 09:16 AM

Last thing we need right now is another war. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see our beloved air force put Chavez in his place, but yet another war may finally force Congress to re-instate the draft. We should finish up in Iraq and Afghanistan before we worry aabout fighting another war. Unfortunatly Chavez might not give us a choice.

Posted by: C4Casey at March 3, 2008 08:59 AM

Everybody,
I should probably alert you to the possibility that a pernicious little troll with the calling card of 'freefallingbomb' might show up. You wil be able to recognize it by the disjointed perspective on reality (there's been some debate as to whether this is drug or stupidity induced, but I'll leave that to others)combined with the Anti-American bile it spews. Don't worry, while it stinks up the place , it is completely harmless. And the bile is pretty lame as well.

Just ignore it. That drives it crazy. If you want to have some fun, make oblique references to it without aknowledging its existence.

Christian,
Can you verify that we do not have some sock puppetry going on here? A few of the less-familial posters have some interestingly similar writing styles.

Well, off to work. Have a good day everyone! And I do mean everyone.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 3, 2008 08:25 AM

Any thread going to start on Hugo Chavez threatening war with Colombia? he wants to try out his new Su-27s. NOW THIS IS TAILOR MADE FOR OUR F-22s!!!! Now we'll find out how they'll perform against each other. Yesssss,bring it on!!!!!!

Posted by: Roy Smith at March 3, 2008 07:27 AM

> You are GREATLY exaggerating the risk/probablity of failure of a 787 based KC-X while at the same time GREATY underestimating the risk to airlines if the 787 were to fail

i guess i don't really understand why you're arguing this point

besides the fact that
1. you're wrong

there is also
2. Boeing didn't offer it, so who cares?

if they feel like offering it for KC-Y then we'll talk about it

untill then, *shrug*

Posted by: irtusk at March 2, 2008 11:50 PM

irtusk,

You are GREATLY exaggerating the risk/probablity of failure of a 787 based KC-X while at the same time GREATY underestimating the risk to airlines if the 787 were to fail. I guarantee that airlines are MUCH more adversely effected by risk. And if you think Boeing will not have fixed the risk & production ramp-up issues &/or be unable to add 10-15 787s a year for the KC-X 4 YEARS after it started delivering 787s to airlines you are dreaming.

It does not/did not matter if the KC-X is/was based on the 767, 777, 787, A330, A340, A350 or whatever, the majority of the neccessary developement is/would be essentially the same in order to create a USAF tanker out of an airliner.

Posted by: pfcem at March 2, 2008 11:36 PM

I think that the decision to declare Northrop as a winner for this massive contract was also a sign from the U.S. government that it is prepared to drop (possible vague phrasing: "Not to support wholeheartedly"...) Boeing in its lawsuit against Airbus over illegal subsidies the latter allegedly received for the development of new airliner models (the so-called "launch aids". One such example for illustration's sake: "Private" company Boeing's CIVILIAN AIRLINER research is funded by none less than by... N.A.S.A.! Go ahead: Confirm it!! So much only for the vaunted U.S. American "embracing and preachings of the self-regulating market"...). After all, the U.S. government also didn't support Microsoft minimally when it was fined 1,4 billion dollars a few days ago by a E.U. court in a very protracted antitrust law-suit. But why does such a nationalistic, unilateralistic, populistic government like the Neocons already abandon now its second most famous company "on the battle-field" = in economical competitions against foreigners at home and in legal struggles abroad? Because the U.S. government CREATED Boeing (as in: "Creator") in the first place during the Second World War and during the Cold War and generously fed its creation since, but now that creation has grown into such a behemoth that it embarrasses, even threatens its own creator:

1) Everybody knows that Boeing's claim against Airbus is COMPLETELY PREPOSTEROUS , LAUGHABLE , because Boeing itself A-L-W-A-Y-S received vital estatal (= completely competition-distorting) subsidies in all guises for DECADES before Airbus was even created in 1970 - and Airbus NEVER even grumbled a single word against ANY of those SINCE (before Boeing's ridiculous lawsuit, that is...).

2) My guess: Even this lunatic, trigger-happy U.S. government is still clear-headed and wages its priorities and proportions still correctly enough to know that there is INFINITELY more at stake with the whole European Union than just defending ONE or two giant U.S. companies' cry-baby whims or even their perfectly legitimate rights (all airplanes together account only for 0,2 % of all goods sold each year across the Atlantic, in both directions, and pure money-wirings even top that value by a MAGNITUDE OF DOZENS !), especially now, while the U.S. Economy is heading for a recession or even for a record-size Depression. The U.S.A. couldn't possibly do its re-appointed enemy Russia a greater political favour either...

Now, after Boeing lost that contract to Northrop / E.A.D.S. (speak: Airbus) and especially if (when...) it loses its subsidies-lawsuit against Airbus, it could well try (and succeed) to rally the U.S. government through powerful lobbies to "retaliate" economically against Europe as a whole with sanctions, boycotts, more protectionism, violation of World Trade Organization rules, etc. . That's why I believe that with the attribution of this sizable contract to Northrop (a conspicuous divorce with Boeing, in my opinion) the U.S. government might very well just have ruled to disinherit Boeing as its historical "eye apple" and to nominate Northrop as its next "heir", maybe even bottle-feeding it already with this mega-deal, as a pet project for the long future... ( IF Northrop behaves, of course, otherwise both go down the same rain gutter as all the U.S. American helicopter industries!) Enough is enough, even for Emperor Bush, it seems, and just wait until a less W.A.S.P., less genocidal, more internationalist Barack Obama arrives at the White House!

Boeing already reads the signs at the wall. Have you noticed that they're not bellowing like mad in court-rooms and in the Press against their huge defeat, not even trying symbolically ("firebrand"'s endearing posts here on "defensetech" apart) ?

P.S.: BUT OF COURSE we French invented that whole "Airbus" consortium only to steal the best, most emblematic industry, the aerospace industry, from the U.S.A. . And we're almost achieving our objective, right on schedule. You U.S. Americans just have no way to prove it!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at March 2, 2008 11:15 PM

So, some of you are saying that Boeing is an American company, but Airbus is controlled by unfriendly French and German politicians.

Such thinkers should be informed a little better. Here is a deal that Boeing inked last summer.
========
ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), August 21 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. aircraft-manufacturing giant Boeing signed an agreement Tuesday with Russia's VSMPO-Avisma, the world's largest titanium producer, to set up a joint venture to make components for the Dreamliner passenger aircraft.

According to the document signed at the MAKS-2007 air show near Moscow, the new company, Ural Boeing Manufacturing (UBM), will be owned on a parity basis by Boeing and the Russian titanium maker, which is 66%-owned by state arms exporter Rosoboronexport.
It will primarily manufacture pressed titanium components, which will undergo finishing at Boeing's factory in Portland, Oregon, before assembly, VSMPO-Avisma said.

The deal, originally announced in August 2006, has been met with apprehension in the West, which fears the leading U.S. aircraft maker could become too dependent on a supplier effectively controlled by the Kremlin.
==========

How do you like this twist?

Posted by: Mike_88 at March 2, 2008 10:34 PM

> I'm still shocked Boeing didn't realize in advance that the CG for this contract would hinge on cargo space

it wasn't just cargo space, it was also refuelling ability, risk, past performance and cost

> How could Boeing miss the importance of this and not propose a larger aircraft.

to get bigger than the KC-30, they would have to offer the 777, which is far, far more expensive and would have still had higher risk than the KC-30 as it had never been converted to a tanker (unlike the A330) and Boeing still would have lost the past performance metric for their blunders with Japan and Italy's KC-767s

in other words, they still would have most likely lost (although it certainly would have been closer)

Posted by: irtusk at March 2, 2008 10:29 PM

I'm still shocked Boeing didn't realize in advance that the CG for this contract would hinge on cargo space - at list this factor appears to be such in all the news releases I've read. How could Boeing miss the importance of this and not propose a larger aircraft.

I must confess I thought the NG/EADS proposal would lose out partly because of the falling dollar. This can only hurt the US on these purchases unless they have an absolutely guaranteed price (like there's a chance of that).

Posted by: nb at March 2, 2008 10:10 PM

These planes are being assembled in America, using American powerplants, American avionics, and outfitted by an American company. If some of your ignorant rage would subside for a moment you will see that this is creating jobs along the Gulf Coast where it is desperately needed. Sorry for the Pacific Northwesterners who will now only make 250K instead of 400K in equity from their overpriced homes, but try receiving sympathy from the poor sucker in Mobile, AL who can now afford to fix his leaky roof from Hurricane Katrina now that he has a new job.

This whole arguement against this contract is nauseating and really shows why America is so hated by others. I am an active duty military pilot with over 10 years of service and I can still read between the lines here.

Also, you must have forgotten just how much money is being invested by the Europeans in the U.S. Before we start to consider France-bashing we might want to look at the facts:

European firms account for 70% of direct investment in the U.S. The UK is the largest single foreign investor in the U.S., with some $252 billion invested (16% of the total stock of foreign direct investment in the U.S.)
Asia and the Pacific firms had the next highest level of investment in the U.S., at approximately $219 billion (14% of U.S. investment).
Japanese investors account for 12% of foreign direct investment in the U.S., and rank second to the UK. The Netherlands, followed closely by Germany and then France, hold the next biggest positions.
Direct investment from Latin American investors totals some $86 billion; while large absolutely, this is 5.6% of total foreign investment in the U.S.
Investment in the U.S. from Africa and the Middle East is less than $10 billion, only 0.6% of the total foreign investment in the U.S.

Specific Countries
Six European countries -- France, Germany, Luxembourg (a financial center), the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK – each hold U.S. investments worth over $100 billion dollars.
The UK's $252 billion investment represents almost a fourth of total European investment in the United States.

So before we start complaining about a few aircraft being built in the U.S. by EADS, we might want to look at the entire picture.

Posted by: BJB6521 at March 2, 2008 06:01 PM

Oh right, how could I forget to mention Boeing's performance delivering tankers to Japan and Italy?

they were delayed OVER A YEAR while Boeing tried to resolve pod flutter and various other issues

my point isn't that the US companies are bad, it's that ALL companies suffer delays, it's to be expected

and getting back to an earlier comment:

> And do you not realize how small an increase
> the 10-15 KC-X a year is to the current 787
> production/delivery schedule?

do you realize how much pressure they are currently under to increase production?

if they could easily do 10-15 more a year, they would have already committed to it and sold the slots

Posted by: irtusk at March 2, 2008 04:28 PM

> Meanwhile, the Marine One replacement, the EH-101, is stuck in limbo because of cost-overruns and delays to production

the VH-71 is having problems because they keep deciding to add more and more and more junk to it

the Sikorsky bid would have fared even worse

> We're supposed to think that a company who has never produced tankers before

that would surely be news to the Germans and the Australians

> The EADS A-400 military transports also experienced significant cost-overruns and time delays, and the Airbus A380 has so far been an economic disaster for Airbus and EADS.

well those are completely new programs which aren't the same as an adaptation of an existing program

nonetheless, let's look at how US contractors have performed on new programs

Boeing
- 787 is experiencing massive delays
- border fence. need i say more?

LockMart
- F-22 was substantially behind schedule and overbudget
- F-35 development was halted for a year to implement weight saving measures
- C-5M program triggered a Nunn-McCurdy violation and got scaled back

NG
- got their LCS CANCELLED because of budget overruns

i don't see how the US contractors are performing any better

> But we're supposed to trust EADS will not experience similiar delays with the KC-30?

no, we trust that ALL military contractors will have delays

Posted by: irtusk at March 2, 2008 04:21 PM

Oops ... sorry for the dual comment.

Posted by: C4Casey at March 2, 2008 03:25 PM

You can't compare the XB-51 and Canberra. First of all, the Canberra was British made. They were our closest allies and we had flown British-made planes before. (American squadrons were equiped with Hurricanes and Spitfires during WWII before the P-51 went into full production) Secondly, the reason the competition was held between the XB-51 and Canberra was that it was in the middle of the Korean War and the only effective medium-range bomber we had was the piston-driven, WWII era B-29. We needed a new, jet-powered aircraft which could either outrun or out-clime Mig-15s. And finally. The Canberra won because it was already in production by the British and it would be manufactured completely in the U.S, by the loosing bidder! In fact, many elements of the XB-51 were incorporated into the Canberra. A large portion of the KC-30, on the other hand, will be manufactured overseas by a company that so far has a terrible track record when supplying the U.S. military. In fact, many people (including myslef) aren't so much upset that the choice is a foriegn designed plane as that the choice is an EADS/Airbus designed plane. The EADS-owned Eurocopter supplied the army with the UH-72 Lakota, which overheated so much that avionics systems bagan to fail, prompting the Army to add costly, heavy, and performance-reducing air-conditioners. Meanwhile, the Marine One replacement, the EH-101, is stuck in limbo because of cost-overruns and delays to production. The EADS A-400 military transports also experienced significant cost-overruns and time delays, and the Airbus A380 has so far been an economic disaster for Airbus and EADS. But we're supposed to trust EADS will not experience similiar delays with the KC-30? We're supposed to think that a company who has never produced tankers before will deliver an on-budget, on-time aircraft? An aircraft which is supposed to be built at a plant that doesn't even exist yet? Maybe this is actually a good thing, since if the KC-30 experiences delays and cost-overruns it will finally convince the Military to NEVER buy EADS shit again.

Posted by: C4Casey at March 2, 2008 03:24 PM

You can't compare the XB-51 and Canberra. First of all, the Canberra was British made. They were our closest allies and we had flown British-made planes before. (American squadrons were equiped with Hurricanes and Spitfires during WWII before the P-51 went into full production) Secondly, the reason the competition was held between the XB-51 and Canberra was that it was in the middle of the Korean War and the only effective medium-range bomber we had was the piston-driven, WWII era B-29. We needed a new, jet-powered aircraft which could either outrun or out-clime Mig-15s. And finally. The Canberra won because it was already in production by the British and it would be manufactured completely in the U.S, by the loosing bidder! In fact, many elements of the XB-51 were incorporated into the Canberra. A large portion of the KC-30, on the other hand, will be manufactured overseas by a company that so far has a terrible track record when supplying the U.S. military. In fact, many people (including myslef) aren't so much upset that the choice is a foriegn designed plane as that the choice is an EADS/Airbus designed plane. The EADS-owned Eurocopter supplied the army with the UH-72 Lakota, which overheated so much that avionics systems bagan to fail, prompting the Army to add costly, heavy, and performance-reducing air-conditioners. Meanwhile, the Marine One replacement, the EH-101, is stuck in limbo because of cost-overruns and delays to production. The EADS A-400 military transports also experienced significant cost-overruns and time delays, and the Airbus A380 has so far been an economic disaster for Airbus and EADS. But we're supposed to trust EADS will not experience similiar delays with the KC-30? We're supposed to think that a company who has never produced tankers before will deliver an on-budget, on-time aircraft? An aircraft which is supposed to be built at a plant that doesn't even exist yet? Maybe this is actually a good thing, since if the KC-30 experiences delays and cost-overruns it will finally convince the Military to NEVER buy EADS shit again.

Posted by: C11Patrick.Casey at March 2, 2008 03:23 PM

> With the 787 you are still missing the element of time. Production for the 787 will have already been ramped up (& more than likely all the risk & ramp-up issues resolved) years before any KC-X are expected.

1. that's all speculative (and risky)

you say that it's more than likely all the risk will have been resolved before delivery is expected

sorry, that doesn't cut the risk NOW

they have to start development of the tanker NOW

if it does fail 2 years down the line, that's 2 years of wasted time and money

2. Boeing didn't offer the 787 so it's a moot point
3. apparently there are other issues like the wings are too flexible for the refuelling pods and would have to be redesigned and the composite fuselage would cause problems with attaching the boom and various other accoutrements

> And you are dreaming if you think that if the 787 failed that the customers could quickly replace it with another aircraft.

well what other choice would they have?

Posted by: irtusk at March 2, 2008 02:17 PM

Pedro,

WTF??? The XB-51 has no connection whatsoever with the Canberra. Your facts are in error as is your thinking on this subject. Crawl back under your rock and do not return until permission is granted.

Posted by: Solomon at March 2, 2008 01:48 PM

irtusk,

The previous program was not due to any USAF requirements. At the time the USAF said they did not need any new tankers for a decade (but of course would gladly take new tankers if the government wanted to pay for them).

With the 787 you are still missing the element of time. Production for the 787 will have already been ramped up (& more than likely all the risk & ramp-up issues resolved) years before any KC-X are expected. And do you not realize how small an increase the 10-15 KC-X a year is to the current 787 production/delivery schedule?

And you are dreaming if you think that if the 787 failed that the customers could quickly replace it with another aircraft.

Posted by: pfcem at March 2, 2008 01:41 PM

The isolationists whined exactly the same when they selected the English Electric Canberra over the Martin B51. Canberra was plainly the better aeroplane and history proved it

I couldn't quite see Chuck Yeager doing interdiction in the whale-like underpowered B51.

Firebrand has proven himself to be an offensive, ignorant fascist. The founding fathers must be turning in their graves knowing that his kind get to VOTE.

Posted by: Pedro at March 2, 2008 09:28 AM

> Sorry irtusk you are confusing programs. Your link
> refers to the previous deal for the USAF to lease
> 100 KC-767. The KC-X program is a later program
> started up after that one fell through due to scandal

um yes, i know

you said

> No, Boeing did not write the ORIGINAL USAF
> requirements

and well, they did write the ORIGINAL requirements

if i had looked closer, i would have realized you were referring to the second competition, not the original competition

> I see, you are so ignorant that you think that NG/EADS
> can build a totally new assembly plant from the ground
> up to assemble A330s & Boeing can keep an existing production
> line open to produce 767s (just for the KC-X program)
> but nothing can possibly be done to build more 787s.

au contraire, i am very familiary with the issues of a 787 rampup

the bottleneck of 787 production is NOT the factory/assembly line, it is the ability of the suppliers to produce segments with those massive autoclaves

Boeing has been under tremendous pressure to increase production, and if they easily could, they would

they have repeatedly said that any attempt at increased production will have to wait until they get production stabilized and then take a look at what additional investment (autoclaves) would be needed to make it faster

if there was a magical 'increase production' switch for the 787, they would have done so long, long ago

> I already said that the 787 represented more risk than
> the 767 or A330 but if you think airlines around the world
> would order over 850 787 even before the 1st production aircraft
> rolled off the production line if it was too risky you know NOTHING
> of the aircraft business & risk.

no, it shows you no nothing of the difference between the civilian and military worlds

in the civilian world, they put down a small deposit and get a slot. If there is a major problem with the plane they get compensation or if it's really bad, a competitor is happy to immediately sell them an equivalent product

it doesn't work that way in the military world. So much customization and development goes on, that it is a major investment of time and money. If it fails, there is no off-the-shelf competitor you can just jump to, you have to start the entire development process all over again, which is a huge waste of time and money.

this makes the military very risk averse

While the 787 itself is risky, there is little risk to airlines to order it. If it doesn't meet expectations they can easily get their money back and quickly get an equivalent plane.

It just doesn't work like that in the military world.

> the KC-767 is not the same aircraft as any other 767

this is true

> the KC-30 is not the same aircraft as any other A330

this is false (as far as the actual airframe is concerned, of course civilian models don't have a boom ;)

> if Boeing doesn't get more tankers then they will certainly ask for and get more F-22s and C17

Boeing doesn't make F-22s, that's LockMart

Posted by: irtusk at March 1, 2008 08:55 PM

Does anybody think this procurment will go through, if Boeing doesn't get more tankers then they will certainly ask for and get more F-22s and C17, also expect the F-22 to be sold overseas and the F-35 reduced even more. Look Out folks this is going to get ugly and for the AF even worse. I expect one or both of the Democraces to say this is why they should be president they wouldn't allow american jobs to go overseas epecially jobs for defense issues.

Posted by: Charles Spiegelman at March 1, 2008 08:44 PM

Has anyone seen this story? Interesting, even though it apparently didn't affect the outcome.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2863030520080228

Posted by: wicker at March 1, 2008 08:11 PM

Quit blaiming the defence industry for cost overruns.

Posted by: pfcem at March 1, 2008 08:06 PM

Sorry irtusk you are confusing programs. Your link refers to the previous deal for the USAF to lease 100 KC-767. The KC-X program is a later program started up after that one fell through due to scandal. Nice try though. :)

I see, you are so ignorant that you think that NG/EADS can build a totally new assembly plant from the ground up to assemble A330s & Boeing can keep an existing production line open to produce 767s (just for the KC-X program) but nothing can possibly be done to build more 787s...

I already said that the 787 represented more risk than the 767 or A330 but if you think airlines around the world would order over 850 787 even before the 1st production aircraft rolled off the production line if it was too risky you know NOTHING of the aircraft business & risk.

The KC-767 is based on the 767-200 airframe & the KC-30 is based on the A330-200 airframe but the KC-767 is not the same aircraft as any other 767 & the KC-30 is not the same aircraft as any other A330.

Posted by: pfcem at March 1, 2008 08:00 PM

1. I think generally a country should try to keep the industry necessary for its defense from shutting down. Although in this case there's no risk of Boeing going anywhere so it's not quite that bad (in fact Northrop's probably in a worse position)

2. Nevertheless, I also think the American arms industry really needed a shot across the bow.

3. But I'm not that sure that this project will proceed smoother than if they had chosen Boeing. But the N/A offer was better so perhaps the American taxpayer's actually saving a few billions (a man can dream =)

4. But even if N/A were led by saints the military won't be able to reign in runaway costs until they also stop the constant feature creep and changing specifications and demands that were the death of so many projects.

Posted by: bleh at March 1, 2008 06:36 PM

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/01/7398/

HAHHA that socialist liberal bs of a website. whats even funnier is if Boeing wrote the spec and they still lost the bid? wow the 767 must be a POS.

SAY IT WITH ME IT NOT THE RESPONSIBLY FOR GOV TO PROVIDE WELFARE TO US CORPS. it is the responsibility of the government to chose the best product for warfighter WITHOUT WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY.

frankly all you do is repeat the same bs over and over without any real dialog. so regardless of how many facts that we give you your decison is already made.

Posted by: slntax at March 1, 2008 06:04 PM

> It is irresponsible of them to chose an aircraft that would be so controversial

no, it would be irresponsible to select the inferior plane

> because the political fallout over this could delay the delivery of a new Air
> Force tanker even further.

if congress decides to play politics and delay and stall this, then they are the ones being irresponsible

> But don't place the blame on Congress.

why not? if they think that getting their piece of the pie is more important than serving the needs of the warfighter, then they most definitely are being irresponsible and deserve all the blame they can get

Posted by: irtusk at March 1, 2008 05:33 PM

Stop posting this shit about "the military selected the best aircraft" in response to why the Air Force chose to pick this fight with Congress. Whenever you have 100 billion dollars at stake, of course it's going to be made political, and the Air Force knows that, or should know that. It is irresponsible of them to chose an aircraft that would be so controversial, because the political fallout over this could delay the delivery of a new Air Force tanker even further. If Congress scraps or even delays this deal, it could be a decade before we get a new aircraft. But don't place the blame on Congress. Place the blame on the stupidity of the Air Force acquisitions leadership chosing such a controversial airframe. This type of controversy is exactly what the Air Force doesn't need at a time when it's pushing for more F-22's and C-17's, both controversial proposals as well but still vital for our nation's defense. This decision could very well make some Congressmen very hesitant in dolling out more cash for these aircraft, which would degrade the Air Force's capabilities and readiness even further.

Posted by: C4Casey at March 1, 2008 05:26 PM

> > why the hell did they pick this fight with Congress?

because they want the best equipment for the warfighter, not the most politically expedient equipment for the warfighter

> SO WHY DO THIS NOW?

because we need new tankers now?

> Congress won't let this fly

if they care about our military, they will

Posted by: irtusk at March 1, 2008 04:58 PM

Regardless of how powerful a senator is, we shouldn't let them tell the military whats best for them. If there has been no fowl play involved, and the air force can prove that the airbus is the better aircraft, then nothing should change about this deal.

Posted by: raul at March 1, 2008 04:37 PM

Why do this now and this way? Because this way they get congress to do everything for them. No dirt on the procurement arm of the AF, 'the numbers back up the decision, but we bend to the will of the people' and all that load of stuff.

Posted by: TulsaTime at March 1, 2008 03:38 PM

Someone answer me this...with the Air Force already pushing for more F-22s, have arguments with the DOD over the number of C-17s, fighting the other services for control of UAVs and reaching the smallest number of active duty members since before WW2, why the hell did they pick this fight with Congress???? The American people are under financial strain, the Democratic Presidential candidates are already signaling that globalization is being conducted unfairly and at the cost of American jobs...Bush is generally disliked by the majority of the public...SO WHY DO THIS NOW? Congress won't let this fly. Boeing has too much clout having Chicago, Washington state and even members of the California Congressional Delegations supporting them so I really don't understand the move.

Posted by: Solomon at March 1, 2008 03:23 PM

> No, Boeing did not write the original USAF
> requirements - although it does appear they could
> have been written specifically for the 767...

read it and weep

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0328-09.htm

"The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100 aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal, according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

In the process, BOEING ELIMINATED 19 OF THE 26 CAPABILITIES THE AIR FORCE ORIGINALLY WANTED"

> BS on the 787 not being an option ready in time. Airlines are expecting deliveries of the 787 years before the USAF is expecting deliveries on any KC-X and both the 767 & A330 proposals

yes, but see they already have those slots, there aren't and slots available near the front of the line, they are already sold

plus there is massive risk with a completely new program with a completly new material and manufacturing process, and one of the key criteria is risk reduction

> and both the 767 & A330 proposals require an almost completely new aircraft only based on the "existing" airframes with both developing all-new fuel/boom (& many other) systems for them

no, that was only the 767 that was getting a new model (the LRF), the KC-30 was based on the standard A330 frame (+ cargo door)

Posted by: irtusk at March 1, 2008 03:22 PM

I have only one question, My understanding is previous Air Bus aircraft have thin skin, will this KC45A Tanker support the added weight over time and continued heavy use that will be a primary requirement for this Aircraft. wcarter41

Posted by: wcarter at March 1, 2008 03:11 PM

irtusk,

No, Boeing did not write the original USAF requirements - although it does appear they could have been written specifically for the 767...

BS on the 787 not being an option ready in time. Airlines are expecting deliveries of the 787 years before the USAF is expecting deliveries on any KC-X and both the 767 & A330 proposals require an almost completely new aircraft only based on the "existing" airframes with both developing all-new fuel/boom (& many other) systems for them. The 787 would represent a greater risk but there are plenty of airlines who have already accepted that risk (there are already 857 firm orders - making the 787 the "quickest" selling airliner in history).

It is Boeing's fault for sticking with an airframe that better met what the USAF originally wanted rather than switching to one that better fit what politics changed the criteria to.

As you said yourself, NG/EADS needed to win this conctract but Boeing will survive without it...

Posted by: pfcem at March 1, 2008 02:41 PM

its crazy to see Roy outdone in a thread here....

i was going to post something but Mac pretty much covered what i was going to say

Posted by: Goatrat at March 1, 2008 01:19 PM

Irtusk

i can hear the gnashing of your teeth (or was that hitting your head against the wall) when you posted that ; sadly around the internet it does seem that `fanboyism` is so apparant - very few people are saying the reality - that the best aircraft for the job actually won.

my question about why not use a bigger 767 or 777 was rhetorical - i knew the answer allready - any sized 767 cannot compete with the A330 effectively (as you said right sized) and the 777 (when the engines arn`t shutting down on there own - happened again 3 days ago on an AA flight) is not cost effective.

lets hope all the threats of law suites (from washington senator) are just hot air.

Posted by: S Hughes at March 1, 2008 12:51 PM

> Air Force requirements under this contract were so sketchy that
> Boeing wasn't aware that cargo/personnel carrying would be so important.

AF requirements were NOT sketchy

they had THREE rounds of proposal submissions and discussions and feedback

plus the cargo capability was only ONE OF FIVE criteria

the KC-30 won or tied ALL FIVE, not just the cargo one

> Their was a big debate inside Boeing about whether the 777 should be offered instead

the KC-777 would have been more capable BUT it was far, far more expensive

EADS/NG could offer the larger KC-30 for a price comparable to the smaller KC-767 but Boeing could not do the same with the 777

> If it were not for that Boeing would have won this contract hands down as it MUCH more closely matches the original USAF requirements.

proof?

you could say the only reason it won the original contract over the superior KC-30 was because Druyan and friends were bribed to make it win

in fact, if the KC-767 was so superior in the original contract, why did Boeing feel it necessary to bribe anyone in the first place?

answer me that

> Hell, the USAF had to change its entire criteria for the KC-X just so the NG/EADS team could/would compete

well if you remember, the criteria was originally drawn up by Boeing so i don't really see the problem here

plus the cargo component that was changed was only one of the five criteria

> Better still would have been to change to the 787

not an option, it wouldn't be ready in time, they didn't have any slots and something about the composite hull causing problems

as an interesting point of fact, the KC-30 has a higher american content than the 787

> When the criteria was changed, Boeing should have changed
> its proposal to the 767-300 airframe & 767-400 wing to better
> fit the new criteria but instead stayed with the 767-200
> airframe (which better fit the original USAF requirement/criteria
> but not the new).

well whose fault is that?

however looking at all the criteria they lost, i don't believe such a change would have resulted in a win

> In the end though (as some of us are aware) the final
> choice is based as much if not more on politics than
> the actual merits of the aircraft

are you suggesting the USAF chose the most politically difficult option for political reasons?

fascinating

> This wasn't a competition. This was rigged by Northrop and Airbus

proof?

the only competition we have proof was rigged was the first one where Boeing was doing the rigging

when EADS/NG executives go to jail for this, then you'll have a point, until then, lol

> when the RFP was issued back in 2001 (I think, maybe earlier), the KC-767 fit the needs exactly

and the KC-30 fit it even exactlier and betterer ;)

don't forget that it was BOEING that drew up specs and then they STILL weren't confident of winning against the superior KC-30 so they had to bribe officials to ensure the win

when you can draw up the specs and you stil have to bribe people, it doesn't speak very well of your product

> Do you think it is normal that your money have lose more than 50% of its value since 2 years?

inflation for the last 2 years has been under 10%, not 100%

> this competition is now looking more and more like it was rigged in Northrop/Airbus's favor

how's that?

> it seems like Northrop/Airbus rigged the competition in their favor

because your preferred option didn't win?

that's pretty slim grounds on which to make such a major accusation

> VH-71 Kestrel, a monstrosity of a European helicopter that is
> going to cost (as of right now) over half a billion per
> helicopter. Half a billion for your Eurotrash helo!

if you actually followed it, you would know that the cost overruns aren't on the euro side, it's in all the junk they keep adding more and more and more of

> I care about jobs staying here in the U.S.!

if you did, you would support the EADS/NG proposal as it results in MORE AMERICAN JOBS

> I don't want to see them outsourced

funny how building a shiny new factory in america equals 'outsourcing'

are you sure you're not french and complaining about your manufacturing being outsourced to america? because that's what it sounds like you're saying

> Capitalism works just fine in the U.S.; in fact, we're a hell of a lot more capitalist than you are in Europe.

right, so why are you criticising the most capitalist of decisions?

choosing the best product for the best price is the capitalist way

choosing the domestic product no matter what is the socialist way

are you saying we should be more socialist?

> As for rigging, the more information that comes out of this deal,
> the more it seems like Northrop rigged the competition against Boeing!

i do not think that word means what you think it means

getting the win by offering a superior product for a superior price is not rigging, it's called winning fair and square

> Changing criteria at the last minute

the criteria change HURT THE KC-30 so you have no complaints there

> The cost differences between KC-767 and the Airbus 330 have been well publicized in the press so far

the difference in LIST PRICE has been well publicized

and as i've shown, that has no relation to actual price

one of the five criteria was price. the KC-30 won or tied ALL CRITERIA INCLUDING PRICE

if it was dramatically more expensive, please explain how that is possible

> Airbus is presently a more expensive aircraft

false

> that guzzles more gas, plain and simple.

very much mission dependent

> All that extra space, for what?

flexibility

airlift is hugely important

right now we're using C-17s for aeromedical evacuations back to the states. Do you have any comprehension of how monumentally STUPID that is?

Do you know how much of the C-17s everyday cargo is simply pallets that would be far more efficiently hauled by the KC-30?

> These are tankers - what the hell else do they need to be doing BUT refueling??

the days of unipurpose planes is going away

planes are so expensive, they have to be able to fulfill multiple roles

that said, the KC-30 is a superior refueller to the KC-767 in every metric

it can carry more fuel and offload more fuel farther away

how is it a good thing to be able to offload less fuel and have less range?

> Now imagine the cost-overruns that are bound to happen. Instead of paying $160 million per plane, how about $200 million? Or $250 million?

all military contracts have cost overruns

> It's happened with other European contracts, and it's guaranteed to happen with this one.

it's guaranteed to happen with Boeing's also

> All your teeth-gnashing trying to defend a crappier aircraft won't change the fact that it's crappy

how is it crappy? it was more capable than the KC-767 in every single metric

if it's crappy, what does that make the KC-767?

your only justification that it's crappy is that it's not American, which has to be one of the stupidest positions i've seen today

> Had the competition played out fairly, Boeing would have won

you keep telling yourself that and you might actually start to believe it

> so why did boeing not use the bigger 767 or even a 777 variant?

if they make it bigger to compete with the KC-30, they can no longer claim the 'right sized' advantage and it would still be inferior to the KC-30 to boot

because a 777 wouldn't have been affordable, it is much more expensive than either the 767 or A330

Posted by: irtusk at March 1, 2008 12:14 PM

This comment thread is really getting silly.

First- whatever you say about made in US versus EU- the Airbus is a fine plane. Most US airlines use them- the market will prevail.

The airforce has rarely bought foreign aircraft- so they must have had their reasons- like performance, cost etc.

I have always been suspect about Boeing's 767 offer- no one is buying that plane anymore- it reeks of goverment subsidy.

Posted by: Mastro at March 1, 2008 12:02 PM

I would like to add something - a question to the polar opinonated people:

boeing fully well knew what the re-specced requirements were , but still pushed ahead with the original aircraft , knowing NG would collaberate with EADS for the bigger A330 ; so why did boeing not use the bigger 767 or even a 777 variant?

Posted by: S Hughes at March 1, 2008 09:45 AM

None of this talk matters anyway. The KC-30 still has no chance in hell of ever being built in the U.S and will never serve as a U.S tanker. If anybody in Congress wants to be re-elected, they will kill this contract in a hurry. This is an extremely unfortunate choice by the Air Force. Whether or not they made the right choice is mute. The political fallout is huge, and there is no way that the Air Force gets its tanker by 2013. You're going to see tons more protests and COngressional inquiries before this if over. And no matter what spin people put on this, there is no way you can eliminate the impression in the public mind that the Air Force bought a foriegn aircraft, that they gave the second biggest defense contract in history to a foriegn company, and that billions of dollars that could have landed in the U.S will instead head to Europe. And it is the public opinion that will ultimatly decide if this tanker gets built, since both Congress and the Military serve the public.

Posted by: C4Casey at March 1, 2008 09:43 AM

RE: Air Force requirements under this contract were so sketchy that Boeing wasn't aware that cargo/personnel carrying would be so important

That is incorrect. NG/EADS hesitated in joining in the competition until the AF clarified the requirements in that respect-upfront and long before anybody submitted propoal.

All this anti-EADS rhetoric is odd. You'd think EADS was the prime contractor or something. This is more of a 'NG' and 'EADS North America' operation that most people realize. Even a lot of EADS money will not leave the US before going through an American's paycheck. I'm on record elsewhere as not being a fan of Airbus/EADS, because they do not really have a proper aircraft culture. But I am also on record elsewhere saying that if anyone can make the plane a good one (like the AF 'fixing' the DC-10 with the KC-10 effort) it is NG.

I have only one question for 'firebrand'. Is your presence here part of an organized union effort to stir 'buy America first' emotions to subvert the contract and support a protest of the award-- or are you an 'independent' moron?

The people here have been extremely tolerant of you. Since a lot of what you've posted would get your head popped like a zit in my presence, I can only conclude you are a frustrated little man of somewhat limited capability, lashing out perhaps over a beer-can covered keyboard. Coping skills: get some! And please, be original in your response this time; try using words I haven't heard before.

Christian: Great red-meat post eh?

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 1, 2008 09:21 AM

The following article explains that last minute criteria changes actually worked against EADS/NG...not Boeing.

Bottom of second page shows the criteria and weighting used:

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2863030520080228

Firebrand, your profanity and name-calling does not earn you points.

Posted by: Cole at March 1, 2008 08:54 AM

Looking beyond this initial procurement it is safe to say that the geo-politcal and economic spin-off is huge.

But first to those that think that EADS/ Airbus is 100% French: it is not. It's main facillities are based in Germany, France and Spain with sub-contractors in Poland, Czech-republic, the Netherlands (where also the EADS HQ is based) and several other countries acting as minor sub-contractors. But having the plane built mainly in the US doesn't provide them with a lot of benefits from this deal. The only reason foreign defense contractors are awarded a US deal is when they include building a manufacturing site in the US like Beretta/ FNUSA/ BAE/ Eurocopter had to do adding no increased work for foreign workers in their parent countries.
Second: EADS only provides the platform which will be militarized by Northrop-Grumman which will be entirely done in the US.

Third: With the USAF setting standards in the NATO/ Allied infuence-sphere it will mean a that future tanker procurements will most definatly mean more tanker buys for NG.

Fourth: With finally having a US/foreign team winning a major contract the presure is on the tradional defense contractors in the US. With the procurement horror stories with the Navy (JCS and DDG-100), CG (DDG-25) and the murky dealings leading up to the KC-X procurement it will definialty be a US taxpayers win in the long haul.

Fifth: With finally having a US/Allied team win a major contract it gives Allied governments a feel of being a worthy partner of the US. A gratitude which could last a long time.

And please forgive my mis-spellings or grammar because I'm Dutch.

Posted by: Michael Portier at March 1, 2008 08:54 AM

Firstly, Philip McEuroWeenie:

Of course it isn't worth your time trying to point out anything. Your shitty aircraft company is trying to foist its shitty aircraft on us with the help of a backstabbing American defense contractor, plain and simple. The military obviously has its head up its ass, because if it were thinking straight the contract would have been awarded to Boeing without a second thought. Better engineered products like Boeing aircraft are typically what you would want to buy over aircraft that fall apart in the sky, as Airbus aircraft are prone to do.

I do indeed review the purchases of the military quite often, and what I've seen with regards to the European equipment bought is massive cost-overruns for sub-par machinery, such as the Kiowa, or the VH-71 Kestrel, a monstrosity of a European helicopter that is going to cost (as of right now) over half a billion per helicopter. Half a billion for your Eurotrash helo! I have plenty of problems with outsourcing American manufacturing overseas, and I've taken action in that regard with respect to the federal, state and local levels, and I'll continue to do so, because better that products are manufactured HERE in the U.S. than in China, Mexico, or anywhere else - especially Europe! I don't doubt that there are many in Europe who feel exactly the same way I do about their manufacturing sector, and I don't begrudge them for it. Yet you have the gall to attack me for giving a shit about the manufacturing base in my country? I care about jobs staying here in the U.S.! I don't want to see them outsourced, especially to sub-par manufacturers producing a worse product (for example, AIRBUS). America is certainly the best for Americans, and I've seen nothing to change that viewpoint. Your idiocy in fact reinforces it IMO. And yes, the dollar isn't what it used to be. No reason to get nasty over it, however. Our defense industry, by the way, is quite top-notch. It's much more streamlined than European defense, where every country that can think of has a production line for a single product, massively duplicating production where it isn't necessary, and driving up costs as a result (see, for example, Eurofighter). Our industry needs to be policed better, but it sure as hell runs better than yours. Boeing gets plenty of competiton from Lockheed Martin, and Grumman could be competitive if it bothered to actually sit down and develop more aircraft. We're certainly giving them more than enough cash over CVN-21; you'd think they could put that towards development of a locally-produced aircraft rather than a foreign one. Capitalism works just fine in the U.S.; in fact, we're a hell of a lot more capitalist than you are in Europe. So don't throw stones in glass houses. As for rigging, the more information that comes out of this deal, the more it seems like Northrop rigged the competition against Boeing! Changing criteria at the last minute, revising the RFP to bias the criteria heavily in Airbus's favor - now THAT is rigging a competition.

And no, nothing so far has debunked anything of what I've said. The cost differences between KC-767 and the Airbus 330 have been well publicized in the press so far; go look them up if you doubt them. Airbus is presently a more expensive aircraft that guzzles more gas, plain and simple. All that extra space, for what? These are tankers - what the hell else do they need to be doing BUT refueling?? Now imagine the cost-overruns that are bound to happen. Instead of paying $160 million per plane, how about $200 million? Or $250 million? It's happened with other European contracts, and it's guaranteed to happen with this one. All your teeth-gnashing trying to defend a crappier aircraft won't change the fact that it's crappy. And as far as the military is concerned, this botched contract is just another in a long line of military screw-ups. Had the competition played out fairly, Boeing would have won. Simple as that.

And as for being an uneducated redneck, well, ANYTHING is better than being European!

Posted by: firebrand at March 1, 2008 08:13 AM

I will be honest with you Firebarn, It isn't worth wasting time trying to point out your lack of knowledge and experience in matters such as this, frankly when you started quoting Wikipedia you lost all creditbility that you just managed to gather from the rubble of your earlier comments. All I can say is thank god that wiser men are in positions of your military.

If you had even any military experience of for that matter commonsense, you would take your time to actually revisit the purchases that your countries military arms have made, The USN Jayhawk, a British/EADS advanced trainer, your M1 Abram's Armour is licensed COPY of the early British Cobolt Armour not to mention the german gun but hey, after living in the states for a few years, its facts like this that people like you like to brush over and ignore. I wonder were most of the parts for those amazing DELL pc's are made... china, Taiwan etc. I guess that your elitist America is Best is going to run your economy into the ground... oh wait that is already happening, I guess the F-22 really does have a role in insurgent warfare... oh wait... :) As for the French man, he does have a valid point, the dollar isn't what it used to be, sadly that is a fact of your countries military spending and questionable leadership. Frankly your industry needs a kick in the ass and NG and EADs will do it and you know what, it will force Boeing to produce better products for your military, I thought you guys were all for captalism, or is that just when the result is rigged?

So far all your comments such as bigg planes cost more have debunked by the more knowledgable members of this board so far, you points smash of cluching at straws, next thing you will be telling us is that because its a bigger aircraft it won't fit in current USAF issued painted stands OH the horror... or that the new plane has useless features like a wine rack of some other item which you hope you can rant about, the USAF picked the aircraft which will meet its needs fairly rather than the boeing superking paying off USAF personnel to get the contract... As for your president comment, no not every one hates him or dislikes him, its people like you that seem to raise blood pressure in the EU or the UK for that matter. Frankly your comments have come off as nothing more than the rants of an uneducated yocal, thank god for wiser men in the USAF.

As for being Eurotrash, I would rather be considered that, than an uneducated redneck.

Posted by: Philip McC at March 1, 2008 07:50 AM

I will be honest with you Firebarn, It isn't worth wasting time trying to point out your lack of knowledge and experience in matters such as this, frankly when you started quoting Wikipedia you lost all creditbility that you just managed to gather from the rubble of your earlier comments. All I can say is thank god that wiser men are in positions of your military.

If you had even any military experience of for that matter commonsense, you would take your time to actually revisit the purchases that your countries military arms have made, The USN Jayhawk, a British/EADS advanced trainer, your M1 Abram's Armour is licensed COPY of the early British Cobolt Armour not to mention the german gun but hey, after living in the states for a few years, its facts like this that people like you like to brush over and ignore. I wonder were most of the parts for those amazing DELL pc's are made... china, Taiwan etc. I guess that your elitist America is Best is going to run your economy into the ground... oh wait that is already happening, I guess the F-22 really does have a role in insurgent warfare... oh wait... :) As for the French man, he does have a valid point, the dollar isn't what it used to be, sadly that is a fact of your countries military spending and questionable leadership. Frankly your industry needs a kick in the ass and NG and EADs will do it and you know what, it will force Boeing to produce better products for your military, I thought you guys were all for captalism, or is that just when the result is rigged?

So far all your comments such as bigg planes cost more have debunked by the more knowledgable members of this board so far, you points smash of cluching at straws, next thing you will be telling us is that because its a bigger aircraft it won't fit in current USAF issued painted stands OH the horror... or that the new plane has useless features like a wine rack of some other item which you hope you can rant about, the USAF picked the aircraft which will meet its needs fairly rather than the boeing superking paying off USAF personnel to get the contract... As for your president comment, no not every one hates him or dislikes him, its people like you that seem to raise blood pressure in the EU or the UK for that matter. Frankly your comments have come off as nothing more than the rants of an uneducated yocal, thank god for wiser men in the USAF.

As for being Eurotrash, I would rather be considered that, than an uneducated redneck.

Posted by: Philip McC at March 1, 2008 07:50 AM

I will be honest with you Firebarn, It isn't worth wasting time trying to point out your lack of knowledge and experience in matters such as this, frankly when you started quoting Wikipedia you lost all creditbility that you just managed to gather from the rubble of your earlier comments. All I can say is thank god that wiser men are in positions of your military.

If you had even any military experience of for that matter commonsense, you would take your time to actually revisit the purchases that your countries military arms have made, The USN Jayhawk, a British/EADS advanced trainer, your M1 Abram's Armour is licensed COPY of the early British Cobolt Armour not to mention the german gun but hey, after living in the states for a few years, its facts like this that people like you like to brush over and ignore. I wonder were most of the parts for those amazing DELL pc's are made... china, Taiwan etc. I guess that your elitist America is Best is going to run your economy into the ground... oh wait that is already happening, I gues