U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Funny you should mention trade secrets, because Airbus has a history of actually ripping off Boeing's planes. They take Boeing's plans and tweak them slightly to make their own product. Few people know this, but the double-decker plane that Airbus just launched was actually discussed and drawn up at Boeing decades ago...but Boeing rejected that idea in favor of the 787, which they believed was a better solution to airlines' needs. So far, that bet looks to have been the smart one.

So how did NG/Airbus get the contract is EVERYBODY knows they bootleg chit off of Boeing? Be creative, make your own chit!

Folks wonder why some planes fail to work, especially military planes...

[PeppyGPhiB]

It's gettin' political! John McCain might get a question or two about this as the election approaches.
Words of warning from D.C.: Expect "firestorm of criticism"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...olitics01.html

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

It's gettin' political! John McCain might get a question or two about this as the election approaches.
Words of warning from D.C.: Expect "firestorm of criticism"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...olitics01.html

Originally Posted by from Seattletimes

It was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who first questioned whether Boeing had received favoritism in that deal. Under fire from McCain, the Pentagon rescinded it in 2004.

Wow!!!

Wow!!!

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

So how did NG/Airbus get the contract is EVERYBODY knows they bootleg chit off of Boeing? Be creative, make your own chit!

Folks wonder why some planes fail to work, especially military planes...

Well, the essential difference here seems to be that Airbus just chose a bigger plane as its base. You'd think the Air Force would have concerns other than just size...how stereotypically American. A guy from the Pentagon is on record as saying that the Airbus option supposedly delivers better reliability, too, but I fail to see how they could possibly know that when this plane (with its systems) has never even been built before!

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

A guy from the Pentagon is on record as saying that the Airbus option supposedly delivers better reliability, too, but I fail to see how they could possibly know that when this plane (with its systems) has never even been built before!

One - the A330 MRTT airframe which the KC-45 basically is has been selected by the UK, Australians, USA, Saudis, United Arab Emirates so far so I think it's safe to say that the airframe has advantages to off-set the slightly smaller size (aside from cost).

Reliability and durability being the main one (at least from talking to the airline pilots): airframe and systems like engines and such - more reliable, easier access for repairs and higher stress tolerances for loads thanks to carbon fiber re-enforcement that is a standard introduced into Airbus frames since the mid-80s.

[UGAalum94]

I don't know a lot about it, but at some point if we're bidding out government contracts, it's based on being a competitive process. If Boeing is the only US company in the running, it makes sense that international bids would be considered, or the military is just at the mercy of whatever Boeing wants to build and charge, right?

Going domestic is absolutely worth something, but if you only have one viable domestic bidder, you've got a problem.

[shinerbock]

Scenario #1, Boeing gets the contract- "More no-bid contracts by Bush and his gang to fatten the pockets of political allies."

Scenario #2, Boeing doesn't get the contract- "The Pentagon is once again selling out America."

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Scenario #1, Boeing gets the contract- "More no-bid contracts by Bush and his gang to fatten the pockets of political allies."
Scenario #2, Boeing doesn't get the contract- "The Pentagon is once again selling out America."

Tough to win in the "court of public opinion" under either, isn't it?