Airbus Build in the USA! The Tanker Wars Continue

[MIKE JG]

Let's keep it friendly and respectful gentlemen.

[Firebird]

The second part is where we differ. The size of the contract being awarded to a single source without any competition(should Boeing donkey out) will raise eyebrows and could put the selection off further. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion inside the five sided wind tunnel. The AP reported it as well.

I was all for Boeing filing the protest to begin with but if they A. don't submit a bid, the American people should be up in arms, or B. don't submit a bid that meets the new RFP the American people should be up in arms.

Fair points there, Chris.
I am not saying that the size of the contract wouldn't or shouldn't raise eyebrows but the fact is that it is an open competition. I would also agree with you that the selection might be delayed, but as it currently stands that could only be because of political pressure as this time the framework is going to be absolutely squeaky clean, rules wise.

I think that you are also right that the American people should be miffed with Boeing if they don't bid, as all they would have done is waste time and tax payers money.

Another interesting thing in Flight this week, is that an advisory board to the Secretary of Defense has proposed several changes including opening up defense contracts to foreign companies as some quarters feel that there are now too few American companies left to be competitive amongst themselves.
Putting this in context with the topic of this thread, if the US enacted a buy American policy the next USAF tanker would be whatever Boeing wanted to sell them, as there is no other competitor.

Now I am not saying that this means that a far higher percentage of contracts will go abroad, but there will likely be a higher enough percentage to force down the costs of contracts that do stay at home.

I don't think that its a coincidence that these proposals come at exactly the same time that there are calls for wholesale re-equipment of the USAF due to age and wear and tear.

Just my opinion there.

[MIKE JG]

I'm an American taxpayer, and yea I will be pissed off if Boeing has dragged this thing out for no good reason.

I'm sure they'd love to have the contract, but the last time I checked, Boeing isn't exactly hurting for aircraft orders.

[Ford Friendly]

Putting this in context with the topic of this thread, if the US enacted a buy American policy the next USAF tanker would be whatever Boeing wanted to sell them, as there is no other competitor.

Now I am not saying that this means that a far higher percentage of contracts will go abroad, but there will likely be a higher enough percentage to force down the costs of contracts that do stay at home.

I disagree wholeheartedly with both of these points.

1. RFP and specs define what gets bought - not what the manufacturer says is possible. To dispute that statement is to argue that American car manufacturers are unwilling and/or incapable of responding to car buying trends and will sell the same gas-guzzler, muscle car next year that they sold in the 1960s & 70s.

2. American industry can, and I believe should, make whatever parts are necessary for American military products - at economical costs which still allow for profit. There was a time when American industry was the undisputed technological and manufacturing leader of the world - free or otherwise.
The government should not allow domestic industries to successfuly argue for the continual rise in unjustifable profits just because they ARE domestic industries is another discussion completely. Military manufacturers don't hold all the cards - if it's too pricey, the government can and should hold open, competitive bidding. How to accomplish that on an unbiased basis is actually beyond me - but I am an idealist.

[SMOC]

Fair points there, Chris.
I am not saying that the size of the contract wouldn't or shouldn't raise eyebrows but the fact is that it is an open competition. I would also agree with you that the selection might be delayed, but as it currently stands that could only be because of political pressure as this time the framework is going to be absolutely squeaky clean, rules wise.

I think that you are also right that the American people should be miffed with Boeing if they don't bid, as all they would have done is waste time and tax payers money.

Another interesting thing in Flight this week, is that an advisory board to the Secretary of Defense has proposed several changes including opening up defense contracts to foreign companies as some quarters feel that there are now too few American companies left to be competitive amongst themselves.
Putting this in context with the topic of this thread, if the US enacted a buy American policy the next USAF tanker would be whatever Boeing wanted to sell them, as there is no other competitor.

Now I am not saying that this means that a far higher percentage of contracts will go abroad, but there will likely be a higher enough percentage to force down the costs of contracts that do stay at home.

I don't think that its a coincidence that these proposals come at exactly the same time that there are calls for wholesale re-equipment of the USAF due to age and wear and tear.

Just my opinion there.

Agreed, Steve... the only reason it would be delayed is because it would HAVE to be reviewed(not rebid) to make sure that everyone had a chance to bid and no one but one company did. That's just the way the process works for some reason or another.

I also agree that America doesn't really have enough companies to bid against each other. It's really just LMCO, Boeing and throw in Grumman for most USN contracts and that's it. I guess you can count General Atomics in there but they really only build UAVs... slowly. The only problem with that is they're going to run into the whole idea of out sourcing the building of US military aircraft when there are American companies willing to do so. Plus, if you look at Boeing aircraft(KC-135, B-52), those aircraft last through wear and tear. Aside from maybe the Lockheed C-130 I'm not sure what military aircraft puts in as many hours.

How do other countries look at buying outside their country(if they do)? Do the companies in their country compete against outside country companies or do they only go outside the country when no one bids internally?

[GrahamS]

How do other countries look at buying outside their country(if they do)?

I don't believe you said that!

Does USA not sell aircraft of ALL types to other Countries then?

[SMOC]

I don't believe you said that!

Does USA not sell aircraft of ALL types to other Countries then?

What are you talking about?

I'm asking a genuine question; I don't live in other countries(obviously) so I don't have my finger on the pulse of the public in those respective. How does procurement work in other nations? And how do those who live in those countries feel about it?

[Firebird]

@Chris
Don't get me wrong I am not saying that Boeing don't build planes that last they do. What I was referring to was the amount of aircraft types that are really struggling with serviceability issues that we have read about this year.
Now how much of this is accurate I can't tell, but we all know about the F-15s, and I believe I read about P-3's are really struggling now and that early F-16s are starting to be retired.
Most other countries don't have industries at all, even Britain has to team up nowadays due to the development costs. What these countries do is demand industrial offsets. For example there is an competition to supply India with multi-role combat aircraft going on now apparently worth $12bn. India is demanding that 50% of that contract is re-invested by the winning bidder in India.

@Ford
I don't think that we are as far apart as you think. You give some good examples of what you mean, and I wouldn't dispute what you say about the car industry.
The problem is that the aircraft industry can't react as quickly. The fact is that the USAF wants an off the shelf aircraft to meet its tanker requirement. This means that that aircraft must at least be in series production, for the US this means Boeing with 767/777 or DC10. Lockheeds Tristar must be discounted due to the development time for adding a boom.
You are right though, that a key thing is the RFP and specs but you have to take into account that nobody is going to design and build an airliner purely in the hope that the USAF will buy tankers in 10 years time. For this contract you are stuck with a choice of 2 manufacturers, if you discount the Russians.
I know it works out differently for combat aircraft, but their RFP's are handled with a far larger lead time and the numbers required make it worthwhile for a true competition.

Now when it comes to industrial offsets you tend to get a distorted worth as well. I think I am right in saying that whether the USAF chooses the A330 or the 767/777 it will be worth about the same amount to the US in both jobs and money due to the amount of industrial offsets that Boeing has abroad and the offsets that Airbus would have in the US.
So you could, not saying that you should, argue that does this make the Airbus option any less American?

[GrahamS]

@Chris - I would suggest that all civilised Countries have a purchasing system for equipment of a very similar nature to that used by USA. That is, a specification is published calling for tenders, tenders are submitted and a winner is selected.

Occasionally there are rumblings from some areas that the contract should be given to an in house company but most of us have long since accepted that generally no one Country can now provide for all equipment requirements and so out-sourcing is a necessity. In general terms the USA has benefitted from this to an enormous extent, in that in some areas the USA product meets and sometimes exceeds the requirements at a better cost than would a similar in-house product. It should not be assumed by anyone, however, that that is true for all products, and occasionally the USA will have to, and already has, outsourced equipment requirements to other Countries.

I recognise that you do not, and cannot live in all Countries and thereby have first hand knowledge of procedures and requirements in those Countries. Nevertheless, it is becoming a necessary requirement that all of us living in this new International Society, become more aware of what is happening outside our own back yard.

[SMOC]

@Chris - I would suggest that all civilised Countries have a purchasing system for equipment of a very similar nature to that used by USA. That is, a specification is published calling for tenders, tenders are submitted and a winner is selected.

Occasionally there are rumblings from some areas that the contract should be given to an in house company but most of us have long since accepted that generally no one Country can now provide for all equipment requirements and so out-sourcing is a necessity. In general terms the USA has benefitted from this to an enormous extent, in that in some areas the USA product meets and sometimes exceeds the requirements at a better cost than would a similar in-house product. It should not be assumed by anyone, however, that that is true for all products, and occasionally the USA will have to, and already has, outsourced equipment requirements to other Countries.

I recognise that you do not, and cannot live in all Countries and thereby have first hand knowledge of procedures and requirements in those Countries. Nevertheless, it is becoming a necessary requirement that all of us living in this new International Society, become more aware of what is happening outside our own back yard.

Which is why I was asking... so I can somewhat be in the loop of the "new world." I imagined the process was similar in other countries I was just curious if the public demand was similar to the US where they want as much "in-country" as possible.

@Steve,

I knew what you were saying, I wasn't trying to put words in your regarding the current status of the US military air fleet. For the most part(in particular the aircraft you mentioned) the replacements have been selected. And to go back a bit there was the shocking selection of the US101 for Marine One. Currently the big acquisition programs, in terms of aircraft, seem to be the tanker and CSAR helo.

[sprocky]

Chris,
just my two cents from the German side.

IIRC, Germany prefers its own industry (well, in combination with other EU partners.

Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe

In the early years there was almost no other choice than to order the F-104 or the F-4. But today... See the A-400M. Russian aircraft would have cost the half. But there were concerns about the political situation in Russia in the future. And the C-130 did not meet the requirements - thats what you heard from the officials. I do not really believe it as it sounds strange when many other nations use that type.

[Ford Friendly]

I think there are some fairly simple issues here.

1. American military -> American product (design, built, profit). Seems pretty straightforward in terms of both the situation as I see it and my preferred outcome.

2. Profit is not the concern of the government - except in terms of not insisting that domestic industry operate at a loss and that taxpayers are not extorted by business costs, practices, etc. Maintaining a certain number of domestic jobs with a certain level of technology and manufacturing capability is a concern of the government. Again, pretty simple to see and consider from my armchair at my computer.

3. Foreign sales of American made weapons. This is the most complex of the three issues. Short version - Not my major concern, but I would prefer no arms sales of 1st line equipment to anyone from the US.
Longer version 3a, 3b, etc.
3a. I don't believe in authorizing the sale of 1st line American military spec equipment to foreign countries - allies or not - for anything bigger than a rifle. Period. Too many reasons to go into here.
3b. I believe that providing weapons to allies/others in the past has created a sense of military-industrial complex entitlement. This is bad for too many reasons to count. I'd like this to cease.
3c. South Africa and other countries have shown that they can develop their own weapons. Why should America - government or industry - continue to escalate the technology level of non-superpower military forces - allie or not? We don't benefit from it. No one else does except the military industrial complex as far as I can tell. We have better tech than anyone else - with just a very few individual technology exceptions; overall, I'd stack US military up against anyone anywhere right now or for the next two decades. So, there's no reason to continue to support exporting weapons or weapon designs to foreign countries. There's a much longer argument....

But I'm already tired of my own voice - as I am sure you guys are.
So, I'll end my participation here.

Like I said.. my opinion. That's all.


Edit: Ooops, missed a semi-key point of a comment I wanted to respond to.
Design time length. Off-the-shelf? Pffft. The P-51 was designed from scratch in, I think, under 4 months. 10 years to design todays planes? Pfft. That's because too much complexity and too many regulations are involved. Strip out the bs, the quintuple redundancies that even the designers end up saying are superfluous and go for "good enough" (not "absolute perfection") and design time plummets, costs go down and everyone ultimately wins. I don't need the absolute latest and greatest to take on the technology of what opposes me today - or even tomorrow. What we have ready to roll now can be modified/redesigned in under a year to meet the needs of the forseeable future. (for instance, why are the B-52s still using the engines they do rather than something much more fuel efficient which is being used on modern commercial airliners? I'm sure someone can/will make some technical argument that would drown me in engineering data... My response.. has it been tried? Is the B-52 as fuel efficient as it could be? Why/why not?)

Okay.. really done now.

[GrahamS]

Probably just as well other Countries did not follow the same policy - but this really is getting far too political and far too USA against the rest.

When this site started there were genuine fears that it would become USA dominated - I fear that is starting to happen and others will eventually become alienated.

This site is good for Military AI, it would perhaps be best to keep it at that and avoid raising the hackles of others who don't like this USA is the best at everything stunt by certain quarters.....

My opinion - nothing further to add!

[SMOC]

Probably just as well other Countries did not follow the same policy - but this really is getting far too political and far too USA against the rest.

When this site started there were genuine fears that it would become USA dominated - I fear that is starting to happen and others will eventually become alienated.

This site is good for Military AI, it would perhaps be best to keep it at that and avoid raising the hackles of others who don't like this USA is the best at everything stunt by certain quarters.....

My opinion - nothing further to add!

I don't believe that gives enough credit to the visitors of the site. I mean, does anyone's opinion on where the next USA tanker is built really hurt the feelings of anyone else? It appears Ford only wants a US tanker but that shouldn't get the dander up of anyone else. A point to point debate perhaps but no one should be getting upset by it.

I'll admit(not much of an admission, it's noticeable just by the posts) that the majority of posters seem to be US so we get a bit of US centric board going on but when there are posts on other topics we feel we can contribute to, I think we try. Maybe not though...

[Jumpshot724]

Regardless of who wins most of the parts will be outsourced (yes, Boeing too just not quite as much). There are very few if not zero major US countries who don't outsource at least SOME of their parts or labor. The argument of "Boeing should win it's a US company" is only valid because your buying the label "Boeing"


By the way:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/ ... ng_081208/

[SMOC]

Regardless of who wins most of the parts will be outsourced (yes, Boeing too just not quite as much). There are very few if not zero major US countries who don't outsource at least SOME of their parts or labor. The argument of "Boeing should win it's a US company" is only valid because your buying the label "Boeing"

This isn't really true... if Boeing holds true to what they responded with in their initial bid only about 15% will be outsourced while the Airbus version has over 40% being outsourced.

[Ford Friendly]

If stating my opinion about a US military purchase and my reasons for future US military sales/purchases and developments has offended anyone, that any offense was taken is beyond me.

No offense was intended. I didn't and don't claim US superiority OVER others in terms of "we are better, so there". I opined that "our" weapons are and should be made "by us, for us" because **I** feel they are the best and supplying others with the fruit of the costs we have paid to "be the best" is a cost that I am no longer personally willing to pay. That I also don't feel that other US taxpayers should pay to improve/maintain foreign manufacturing facilities in the guise of providing for US military needs should not be offensive either.

The issue of a Boeing tanker versus an Airbus tanker for the US military is simply one obvious example of this "argument" in action in the real world. F-16J and F-16K licensing are other examples. Taken to the extreme, why don't we supply everyone with nukes/nuke designs? They are "just" weapons.

Seriously, no intention on my part to offend anyone. I've just seen too much American manufacturing capability outsourced to want Airbus in "my" military regardless of it being in bed with Grumman for this project.

Okay, I really, really am out of here now.

[BadPvtDan]

My hemorrhoids bleed.

[MIKE JG]

I like girls........

[sprocky]

Ford,

speaking for myself - I do not feel offended. But you got your opinion and I got mine

Tankers are no weapons - at least not in general. I can imagine that you have concerns about transferring money outside US if you have the capabilities to build such an aircraft using your own workers which are taxpayers, too.

I doubt the US will ever select a fighter aircraft from a different country except for comparison purpose (see second-hand MiG-29 purchase in the early nineties). I also doubt the F-22 will see service in other air forces soon if ever. So much for your fear about selling out US high tech.