Simviation Forums

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413217

Airbus should NOT be supplying the AF with tankers.  Boeing has built the aircraft that are used today, and have lasted 50 years.  Airbus hasn't even been a company for that long.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413217

Airbus should NOT be supplying the AF with tankers.  Boeing has built the aircraft that are used today, and have lasted 50 years.  Airbus hasn't even been a company for that long.

Perhaps they based their decision on what aircraft they thought was best, not on what companies people prefer.

Just a thought...

I'm a little surprised, just because the US government will be buying a foreign made aircraft when an American one is available.  At least it isn't a Chinese plane I suppose.

I thought that was the point I was trying to make- Boeing makes better aircraft (767 is a stable platform for sure, and undoubtedly more tested and tried than the N.G. plane).  More likely it had something to do with an AF official going strait from active duity to being a Boeing big wig.  That wasn't looked upon very well.

I supposed I'm biased though, being from a city that would gain 2,000 jobs from a Boeing contract.

From my understanding, this isn't a new Airbus product, the RAF and RCAF have them as well.  The airport I used to work for was in the running to get the manufacturing facility for it if this deal went through, but they were beat out by another facility.  

I have no idea what kind of backdoor politics went on in this deal (as it does in almost every military aircraft purchased in the US) and I don't want to know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413217

Airbus should NOT be supplying the AF with tankers.  Boeing has built the aircraft that are used today, and have lasted 50 years.  Airbus hasn't even been a company for that long.

So Air Bus is only 38 years old, but what has company age got to do with it.

Matt

Regardless of the politics involved this is excellent news for me and lots of my friends....

Maybe airbus will think again about making a quarter of Filton's workforce redundant now...

.mic

Just read it in the news - wohoo, good news. So they based the      decision on the "what you get for your money"-factor.

Higher payload, greater range, just to mention a few....,

And as you know they'll be build in the US.

And Northrop is back in the business, I just read that it'll be 2000 jobs in Mobile, Alabama created!

US military have flown a lot of foreign made planes....(copied together from a arliners.net thread):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1290767/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0990517/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1312490/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0790659/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1042336/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0233886/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0232232/L/

So with the 787 near to its first flight - how long will the 767 line stay open?

Just read it in the news - wohoo, good news. So they based the      decision on the "what you get for your money"-factor.

Higher payload, greater range, just to mention a few....,

And as you know they'll be build in the US.

And Northrop is back in the business, I just read that it'll be 2000 jobs in Mobile, Alabama created!

US military have flown a lot of foreign made planes....(copied together from a arliners.net thread):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1290767/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0990517/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1312490/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0790659/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1042336/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0233886/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0232232/L/

So with the 787 near to its first flight - how long will the 767 line stay open?

But they are all from North America and Northern Ireland, So they are practically home grown too

Matt

As we can see in this thread, someone who is pro-Boeing for their own reasons is furious whilst someone who is pro-Airbus for their own reasons is delighted to hear the news. At the end of the day the USAF has chosen the aircraft it think best serves thair purpose, that's all that matters to them.

As we can see in this thread, someone who is pro-Boeing for their own reasons is furious whilst someone who is pro-Airbus for their own reasons is delighted to hear the news. At the end of the day the USAF has chosen the aircraft it think best serves thair purpose, that's all that matters to them.

True, but it is still the cheapest of three bits

Matt

At the end of the day the USAF has chosen the aircraft it think best serves thair purpose, that's all that matters to them.

If the USAF is anything like the RAF they rarely get what they actually want. There is usually a lot of politics involved in these decisions.

I'm surprised that Boeing didn't get the contract as it would make sense to produce military hardware "in-house" & not rely on other countries in time of conflict. The USA would be one of the few countries capable of doing that these days.

I thought that was the point I was trying to make- Boeing makes better aircraft (767 is a stable platform for sure, and undoubtedly more tested and tried than the N.G. plane).  More likely it had something to do with an AF official going strait from active duity to being a Boeing big wig. That wasn't looked upon very well.

Lets look at the facts. Who has ordered the Boeing 767 tanker. Well the Italians have, and the Japanese (who have an interest as they already operate a 767 derivative). Lets look at the A330 tanker, based on a decade newer airframe and developed slightly from Airbus' initial tanker projects based on the A300/310 airframes. The RAF has stated it will lease them, the RAAF has bought them, the Royal Saudi Air Force has ordered them and the UAE has just announced an order.

The A330 tanker has been in development for about a decade. Maybe it's just a better tanking platform, just in the same way that th VC10 has its advantages over the KC-135 and vice versa (and is often preferred by the USN, but the VC10 struggles with boom tanking ), and KC10 is better than both in some respects.

However I fear that some nasty things will be said now that a European built aircraft (wings from the UK) has won a contract supported by a major US company - just as when the EH101/US101 won the Marine One (or whatever it's called) contract. I seem to remember we were all our workers were branded terrorists when that was announced.

Perhaps they based their decision on what aircraft they thought was best, not on what companies people prefer.

At the end of the day the USAF has chosen the aircraft it think best serves thair purpose, that's all that matters to them.

Good point, well made.

If the USAF is anything like the RAF they rarely get what they actually want. There is usually a lot of politics involved in these decisions.

For once I think the A330 deal for the RAF is a good one. It appears to be the best product available in economic (even if we're doing a daft PFI) and operatoinal terms.

Airbus hasn't even been a company for that long.

Airbus may not have been around as long as Boeing, but some of the companies that make up Airbus have been around for around the same time, if not longer.

For once I think the A330 deal for the RAF is a good one. It appears to be the best product available in economic (even if we're doing a daft PFI) and operatoinal terms.

It might be a good deal for the RAF but you have to face facts. With all these orders in the pipeline can they deliver the goods? I don't know offhand how many units are involved but the USAF contract is for up to 179 aircraft. Winning the contract is one thing but delivery is a completely different matter. British/European manufacturers could never hope to match the production capability of the large US corporations. The sheer scale of the Boeing operation is staggering. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/facilities/

For once I think the A330 deal for the RAF is a good one. It appears to be the best product available in economic (even if we're doing a daft PFI) and operatoinal terms.

It might be a good deal for the RAF but you have to face facts. With all these orders in the pipeline can they deliver the goods? I don't know offhand how many units are involved but the USAF contract is for up to 179 aircraft. Winning the contract is one thing but delivery is a completely different matter. British/European manufacturers could never hope to match the production capability of the large US corporations. The sheer scale of the Boeing operation is staggering. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/facilities/

I think they'll be able to cope. They've obviously thoroughly planned the US (dedicated) assembly line, and I imagine suppliers will be ramping up as soon as the deal is finalised. The other joy is that most of the orders are relatively small - the RAF's will be the second largest after the USAF at only 14, and these will come out of Toulouse, as have/will the other orders so far - a total of around 30 is no more different to a medium sized airline order.

The RAF's won't be built for another 5 years anyway. The PFI (designed to make the goverment's account look good) is suffering as the banks aren't keen on shelling out the cash at the moment due to the current "credit crunch". At this rate the 10 (VC) will have its 50th birthday in service.