May be they didnt need the extra size and cost that the EADS airframe involved? According to what criteria? And isnt Europe's defence procurement at least as protectionist? The main complaints about the article seem to have nothing to do with the article, but are about the lack of real competition in defense procurement. Yes, some european governments act protectionist when buying arms and the like, but is that any reason for other governtments to buy second best?
Why should the armed forces waste funds on substandard equipment, just to satisfy some nationalistic streak? How is the A derived tanker a better airplane in the case of the KC-X competetion? It is larger and holds more cargo, but not a significant amount more of fuel. The primary mission of the airplane is as a refueling platform. The competetion was close before. From the GAO - Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.
The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. This would be required of not only US bases, but overseas as well.
The Value of Time for the Department of Defense - Article - Germany - A.T. Kearney
The derivative can be adapted to existing facilities far better. Also as noted there was no reasonable evidence from Northrup-Airbus that the plane could refuel all the USAF and associated assets. Boeing, who originated with the USAF the airborne tanker was able to provide that information that satisfied that requirement. In the end the larger airbus did not lose the competetion, it simply withdrew from the competetion. If they had the better plane, then bid for the KC-X. I find no evidence in the article to justify the Airbus as the better choice.
Thank you. The loss from a slightly worse product is well-compensated by the jobs and profits that stay in America. Some argue that favoritism is justified for military aircraft because it supports a strategic industry. Who cares? Even if the government was just buying mail trucks, a measure of favoritism is absolutely okay. In theory you could argue that everyone might be better off long-term if all governments mutually procured products irrespective of nationality.
But the incentives for governments to meddle are so huge that notion will never work.
The theory is so profoundly unviable that it is not worthy of support. The only time to bang the drum is when favoritism runs amok and a government is buying domestic junk. Because the Boeing KC offers the best price value ratio and is closer the the size and footprintof the KC Because it build in USA unlike the KC45 or Airbus KC which fuselage barrels, wings, tails, landing gears and flying boom would have been built in Europe where security screening of employees would have not been under US control.
Because it would have stripped US of an essential expertise and would have encourage foreign customers to let down Boeing tankers. In fact due to the fact that no commitment have been made to the KC by the Pentagon until now, sales have been lost in favor of the Airbus counterpart UK, Australia and Saudi Arabia. Because the KC means ten of thousands of jobs in the US in manufacturing, in engineering at Boeing and its suppliers.
Because it would have been fooling to give this contract paid by US taxpayers to an heavily subsidized aircraft manufacturer, Airbus which received between and billions dollars help since Doing otherwise would have permantely harmed the US aerospace industry which already lost jobs since While I've always respected the Economist, this article is simply biased.
As an Air Force Aviator myself, I can tell you that tankers go nowhere near the "front lines" or do they carry troops to the "front lines. I'm guessing most USAF pilots that will fly the new tanker are pleased. Most didn't want to fly an Airbus product as they've not proven they can make a capable military airplane. The AM is a disaster. I for one am pleased that I'll never have to pull up and get gas from an Airbus airplane.
And I'm glad that the KC won't be on ramps where space is at premium. I was thinking of Europrop's "winning" the AM order and saw the comments here. And why is it important that the A tanker carry passengers? We have quite a few C's. Not much for me to state after reading MMHastings. Boeing won't bid competitively without any competition, the US taxpayer will be rorted once through the inflated cost and twice because of Boeings tax breaks. How eagerly will they consider bidding on future military contracts? Or any other non-US competitor for that matter? This is just bad news for the US military efficiency going forward.
Employment numbers is not a written requirement for winning the contract - but it turns out either contract would have supported tens of thousands jobs on American soil. So arguments saying Boeing would have done far better here are specious. History will mark this as the contract that Boeing won by default, tarnishing their competitive image. The procurement process was handled badly. It was costly, and many changes caused unacceptable time to pass. This process needs extensive revision so this does not occur again. The procurement process can be organized to distribute contracts fairly by allocation between contractors to ensure that a core of successful competing companies are available for key tactical and strategic purchases.
Having open market competitions can involving "betting the farm" on big ticket items, with the loser having only an expensive prototype and a huge expense. In event of war, foreign supplies may be disrupted for a number of reasons. This will also keep key defense industries and technologies within the United States Security unbrella. Interesting perspective but we must be careful when we start quoting Europeans talking about protectionism. Also, what aircraft has EADS produced recently that have been a success?
Both the A and Typhoon are about to be cancelled due to massive cost overruns resulting from EURO-zone production-sharing and manufacturing problems. Although the EADS tanker probably looked better on paper, going with Boeing is a better decision at the present time given the current US trade and budget deficit. On the bright side, assuming you voted for Obama, this Pentagon decision is perfectly aligned with the Obama economic strategy; less spending on defense despite sustained overseas US force levels and more spending on domestic social programs designed to support primarily untrained, unemployable Americans.
Both the A and Typhoon are about to be cancelled. In my opinion, although the EADS tanker probably looked better on paper, going with Boeing is a better decision at the present time. One only has to look at cost increases on the F program, when the productions numbers decrease. Fair enough Uwe, but that initial customer price is not what a foreign customer would have to pay…You can be sure of that! And there is still the sustainment bill. Observer : Fair enough Uwe, but that initial customer price is not what a foreign customer would have to pay…You can be sure of that!
Interesting question. Should be quite flexible depending on customer and politics of the day. Just like the US does, right? Just a box carrier to begin with… And more funding will be required to bring it to the originally contract specs. So no, not like the US so much…. The cost at which the aircraft is being supplied to India is commensurate with the cost at which C aircraft is supplied to the United States Air Force and its allies.
All ten C aircraft and their associated equipment are expected to be delivered to the IAF between June and June Sales through the US FMS program are either government to government sales including sales of military equipment purchased by the US for later sales to forign militaries , or approval by the US Government for sales directly from the vender. They provide contract compliance, oversite, support at the FAL and most importantly the ability to invoke DAR Defense Acquisition Regulations which require the contractor to open their books to audit.
It also results in lower contract profit on the contract. The choice of buying through FMS or a commercial contract is the customers. Commercial contracts do require permission of the U. Government to sell arms to another country. Sorry for the duplicate answer to the FMS question. I must have been typing when KC was posting. A couple of recent examples are the Mi helicopters purchased for Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the customers want the planes, which at this point is somewhat questionable, they will have to cough up additional money. Since Germany and France are the controlling shareholders they really have no choice but to pay something more since they would be litigating themselves in case of a default.
At this time the unit airframe cost of an AM is about the same as a C, which then brings up the question of value for the money. When the initial frames block is delivered.. C I have doubts that FMS is just a clearinghouse activity. Often zero for political reasons. It looks as if the AM is the target of the same vitriol as was directed at the A, and unsurprisingly coming from the usual culprits.
EADS must certainly have hit a sensitive nerve somewhere….. So, the mere mention of the AM is the catalyst leading to all this ridiculous vitriol being spewed in response. You have many contacts Among the lumberjacks To get your facts When someone attacks your imagination But nobody has any respect Anyway they already expect you To all give a check To tax-deductible charity organizations. Just looking at the competitive landscape. They left on their own. Its turn away the attention from the C17 prices anyway. So you are saying the French government is lying?
Some people seriously need to get a life…. It is amazing the amount of reaction, though. But as long as everyone obeys the Reader Comment rules, we let it go. Note to Mr. Ever heard about ITAR? Munitions List. Information and materials associated with any items on the list may not be shared with foreign countries without authorization from the US State Department. The method of control with ITAR in the US when it comes to defense related technologies, is in practice to ensure no transfer of technology by any means, whereas in the EU where the AM is largely based, the transfer is licensed and controlled while exports of the product is normally allowed.
This would restrict the market to a point where the business strategy would fail Yes, there was a business strategy for the AM when the programme was launched. Germany has a quite strict law in fact. OV : LOL. Let me see? EADS signs a fixed price contract with the consortium and agrees to specific mission requiremens of different customers. France decides an AM engine built anywhere but within the EU is unacceptable. EADS realizes it cannot build some of the required mission versions for some customers Germany and delays other mission requirements air refueling for several years after the basic box carrier version achives IOC with all its EU customers.
Additionally those customers cannot cancel more than 15 airplanes combined. It receives a worthless civilian certification from the EASA, even though there is no commerical version of it. TheAM is still awaiting its military certification. The TP engine turns out to be a trouble prone dog. The UK and Germany use up all of the canceled airplane slots.
EADS is furious because Gerany will sell 14 brand new AMs upon delivery, and promises not to honor any waranties on those airplanes. Most of those ordered new build US airlifters have already been delivered. As for the production of AM wing cover stringers; composite wing cover stringers on the AM and the A is not really sensitive dual-use technology, is it.
The consequences of Norway selecting the Gripen gravely worried the US embassy, according to the cable obtained by Wikileaks and disclosed this morning by the Aftonbladet newspaper. Please show us references to your claims not fox. Uwe, denying the problems of the AM will not make the airplane more marketable.
All of what I pointed out about the AM is well documented. Asking not to use FoxNews as a reference only continues your denial of the problems. But here are just a few references, including one from your own Germany. However, I gave up on page 10, actually only the fifth printed page of the report, where there is a misplaced apostrophe. His Lordship the moved on to abuse the substance of the report, with vehemence that reached a crescendo when confronted with the expert advice of Pierre Vimont, Secretary-General of the European External Action Service and former French ambassador to the US.
This is what he is summarised as saying:. I have never seen such a waste of public funds in the defence field since I have been involved in it these past 40 years. Then Lord Gilbert will burst his spleen when he is asked for commentary on the british F35 procurement ;-? Uwe : Mitt, is that you!? Uwe : ROFL. The AM……the best airlifter no body wants outside of Europe and Indonesia , or needs.. Sure I am anti EU, I voted against. And I hope Gripen steals any sale from the EF. Resistance is futile..
I think some folks see the AM is a great multirole platform with little competition. One of the sloppiest formation flying I have seen in a very long time, keesje.
- ISBN 13: 9781579060176.
- Catalog Record: The DOD C versus the Boeing : a | HathiTrust Digital Library.
- Subdominio Disponible para Registro.
- Material Information.
- Force-Directed Layout.
- Looking for other ways to read this?.
Why was 5 always out of formation? Why did 3 begin his turn to early? Apparently it cannot fly in formation as military forces would need it to. Should I go on? Little competition? It is at best a nich airplane with a max capacity between the CJ and the CA, at the price of a C South Africa canceled their order and options for the AM because of the run away price.
They decided they are better off with their 50 year old CBs than they would have been with their AMs.
Defense acquisition research journal ( 01-2016 )
Both US produced airplanes have out sold the AM, in the case of the CJ by more than , in the case of the bigger, more capable C, by about 1. How exactly has this hurt US sales? You mean the EU would be buying the hell out of US products without it? We have The meek shall inherit earth.
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis. A bunch of blustering imbeciles trapped in the constraints of their language. When your arguement falls apart — use obtuse obfuscation and oblique references to philosophy…. GT62 : When your arguement falls apart — use obtuse obfuscation and oblique references to philosophy…. Please feel free to add your own relevant argument to any of the above topics… Or do you feel philosophy qualifies?
Rather then trying to show us how smart they are… Just saying.. The C and C will do great. Meanwhile Boeing and LM can think, draw up concepts, talk to customers, to fully understand their needs, they have time. Just sit back, everything will be just fine. The C and CJ are rolling off the production lines on time and on or in some cases, under-budget. There is a good model for trans-atlantic cooperation in the CJ.
Yes, the Cs and C keep rolling of the production line. The C-2 is a very capable plane and Japanese law can easily be changed to enable export to e. The KC seems a very good 20t aircraft for replacing similar sized aircraft all over the world. The An was a very ambitious design indeed. Now the Oekrainians are modifying it with new avionics and other engine upgrades, after minor issues during development. And you are totally right, the AM will maybe never be suitable for soft terrain! There is no proof it will, see.
No value at all. That life would have been great to have, cover the rest with the AM. When the C17 is EOLed there is no more chanse to get it, Boeing will never sell the blueprints or transfer it. And when its gone there is no more heavy transporter to buy anywhere, Antonov does not build either anymore.
And a program to replace it would cost a lot more than ordering one coming off the FAL right now. I am sure some maniac politician would salivate about it..
The biggest lifter for sale would then be the AM, 37t and not that roomy cargo hold, the range with a IFV is horrible, multiple stops to Afghanistan, as they weigh about max weight anyway. In 20 years the C17 will be worn, there will be less ANs and C5s too, lets just hope no big disaster strikes.
Civilian freighters are no good even if they could carry a lot of weight, they need an airport. No, I doubt the C will be worn out in 20 years. I expect a SLEP program for the C sometime within the next 10 years, or so, maybe including a reengine progam. If any more C-5As are converted to the C-5M, they will be approaching 60 years old. In 20 years time the AM will be a memory for the production line as the last airplane finally rolls off the line.
A major campaign puts a lot of wear on the gear, much more than calculated average. Still got your EU issued blinders on, Uwe? Why not put this in your sales brochure? So nothing to fear. Boeing and LM will be just fine for the foreseeable future. They are transport aircraft with actual, legitimate dual use roles and there is a clear market for them.
The KC has a lot of support from many foreign primes including Boeing and the Brazilian government. Prototypes crash and test crews get killed during aircraft development. The sad loss of a G and its entire crew during testing has not materially impacted that program. The C has very impressive STOL capabilities but it puts a lot of stress on the airframe and so is only rarely used. Risking a very expensive AM on primitive runways is not advisable for the immediate future. Yes, I guess Boeing and Lockheed are just fine.
Nothing happening. They can simple shrink or expand the cross sections of their stil young platforms a. Very High agility and wide off boresight target aquisition. And the insight that BVR Standoff may have significant limitations. The US here seems to follow agressor strategies unexpected and silent Blitzkrieg while the EU works from a defensive arrangement. Or perhaps such a label is implicit in your posts….
You want that all the time Very High agility and wide off boresight target aquisition. I disagree about AIM-9X and its implications for US doctrine; the emphasis was definitely on reaction shots from an aircraft forced to go defensive hence the high initial agility and — degree in block II spherical engagement zone.
If there was any doubt as to the viability of BVR Standoff, Meteor never would have been commissioned and produced. Topbeam AM will outlast C17 pretty easily unless US decides to shaft the taxpayer and order of these old junks for usaf. I think the C line will be kept warm like the F line was until new orders perk up or a new variant is developed or both. Boeing Defense seems quite keen on advanced variants and new designs. It has yet to carry its first military cargo on a military mission.
A. Lee Battershell
For all those C cheerleaders, aka A trashers, I think you all forget about the initial problems with the C It was looking like a real loser in the first few years of its existence. Uwe : Assume that he is holding a mirror. The AM can take-off from Europe fly high and fast to a short mud strip in Afghanistan. With a LAV or other outsized load. Apart from a An no other aircraft can do that. Now the AN is a great innovative design but the Russians will absorb it for the next 2 decades.
Redesigning and producing. The C is a 80t strategic transport, moving a single LAV in it is a crime against taxpayers. Some export and political driven US orders prevented the line from being closed. Some might say it might be stretched, reengined to become a C5A replacement. A little fact checking and you will find you have no argument against the C or C On a possible AM buy by the US, there is no requirement for that aircraft, and even if there was, there is no money to buy it.
Related The Dod C-17 Versus the Boeing 777: A Comparison of Acquisition and Development
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved