Printable View
Here are 2 nice shots I came accross on the net of the aircraft OPF the RAAF.
http://www.ausairpower.net/EADS-A330...6122007-1S.jpg
http://www.militaryaviation.eu/image...RTT_EC-330.JPG
I think it looks pretty snazzy expecially with the refueling probes installed.
Senga
That was Airbus' designation for the aircraft, just like Boeing called their aircraft the KC-767. It was never the USAF designation, which follows certain numbering conventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
Yes,the strong euro has been hurting European manufacturers' competitiveness, especially in the US market but also in any global market where pricing is dollar-based like commercial airplanes. It's why Euopean automakers have been considering setting up more US assembly plants (BMW and Mercedes are already here, VW is in Mexico, etc.) The fact that this tanker contract volume makes setting up a US assembly line for commercial Airbii economically viable levels the playing field and eliminates whatever exchange rate cost advantage a US competitor would have over them. However, that it encourages export sales by US companies is pretty much the main reason given by our government for telling us not to worry about the sinking dollar. So, in sum, our government encourages export sales of US companies, but also encourages foreign companies to move their production here so they can better compete with US companies. Globalization really mixes things up, but it's also inevitable. You have to figure out how to benefit from it, because none of the potential successors to the W administration are protectionists either.
I'd have liked to see this contract go to Boeing as a shareholder and someone who has generally tried to buy American in recent years (even though I've lived overseas and worked for foreign entities), but even Boeing has globalized with the 787 to the point that it's hard to say that product is any more 'American' than an Alabama-assembled A330. The WSJ had a good article not long ago about how a US-assembled Toyota Camry by some measures had more US content than a Ford Mustang (I'd rather drive the latter, but not my point). Anyway, I do hope from this tanker situation that a) people will have a better understanding of the increasing globalization of projects like this and b) the 'Scarebus' bashers in the A vs. B forums finally shut up, because it was good enough for Uncle Sam.
Ryan to be blunt I read your last two posts and both are just without merit... In no way did the US Airforce slap the U.S.A in the face and two, often times in business you choose to offer products at great discounts and even take a one time lose upfront in order to capitalize on the other streams of revenue that will come in from this contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by hiss srq
It would have been a slap in the face for the USAF to have gone with Boeing who proved it couldn't deliver on a product which in the long run would have cost the U.S tax payer more money in the end.
I think everyone here needs to drop this entire BS complaint "Oh poor us." Here's the deal boys and girls we are in a global economy now and deals like this just don't flow back to France...this deal will create tons of jobs right here in the U.S and contracts like this serve to also benefit our relations worldwide. We can't afford to isolate our economy from the rest of the world. So drop the BS and accept that Airbus won this deal fair and square. If you want to be pissed at someone write Boeing and ask them why they sat on their a$$es and didn't come to the table with a real solution.
Damn, I hate when I have to agree with Tommy :wink: :mrgreen:Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Viva France!!!
OH, GOD! MY inner evil twin brother took control for a second. How unpatriotic could this buy be? American economy tanking? I think so. Au contraire, good day for France, but still, Airbus?
http://bp0.blogger.com/_7vlWajAXeJs/...ngVsAirbus.jpg
After picking my jaw up off the floor my knee jerk reaction was how could the USAF do this? The patriotic side of me says with the economy in recession (face it people) we're forking over tens of billions of dollars to Airbus and costing thousands of US jobs. Not to mention the mental stigma of the of the backbone of the USAF's logistcal fleet for the next 50+ years wil be basically a European aicraft.
But after soaking it all up for a few days my sense of reason comes up with a far different answer. The fact is that the A-330 is far more capable of meeting the needs of the USAF as a whole. I believe the biggest impact on the decision may well have been the current crisis the USAF is facing with strategic air lift. 40-50 year old KC-135's, 30+ year old C-5's with a upgrade program for them in limbo and C-17's pushed to the brink after their 1 for 2 takeover of the C-141 fleet. The Airbus will carry more fuel and cargo than the 767. Multiply that difference by the projected 400 aircraft fleet and the final numbers were fat too much for an already overstretched USAF to overlook.
To sum it up I'm OK with deal but will not believe the final assembly taking place in Alabama story until I see the aircraft rolling off the line and rotating for take off. Had Boeing submitted a serious 777 proposal 4 years ago and pursued a flying example as Airbus did the outcome may have been very different. In closing I say what about some USAF heavy lift AN-225's? They would look pretty nice lined up at Dover AFB!
I agree , If there was a B777 tanker prototype , it may have swayed the brass a little better? That is not to say the B767 based tanker isnt a good product. I imagined a mixed order. In some cases a 767 can operate into places the -330 cant because of it's size. In the end , would it have been better to order both? I guess time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by MORS-AB-ALTO
BTW . Its not uncommon to see an A124 sitting on the ramp at Dover or Charleston , flying under contract to the AMC...
I would love to get my hands on the US Air debrief :mrgreen:
Boeing to File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080310/aqm146.html?.v=30
I would love to get my hands on the US Air debrief :mrgreen:
Boeing to File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080310/aqm146.html?.v=30
Additional information:
Now I can see the risk factor that the US Air Force was speaking about, the A330 is the same aircraft that the Aussies have...Quote:
The team has been criticized for offering too complex an aircraft, with the 767-200 airframe; over-wing exits from the -300; floors, doors and structurally enhanced wings from the -300F; a cockpit, tail section and flaps from the -400ER. However, the Boeing executives said their model of building in as many of these features as possible, limiting the military modification work, was less risky than the Air Force rated.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense
It's flat out WRONG.
I fail to see the risk in the 767's design, I'm no expert in that, It would seem by using components of aircraft already built and in service would not add risk but reduce it.
Seems like Boeing has valid points regarding how the USAF changed the ramp and runway requirements.
Im sure there will be many more twists and turns to come...
The risk has to do with the proposed 767 model has never been built before, the Boeing proposal had parts of the 767-200, 767-300, & the 767-400, so, there was some risk. The A330 proposal has already been designed.....Quote:
Originally Posted by DHG750R
The Aussies have them on order but I don't think any have been delivered yet. Delivery is set for early 2009, which is a few months delayed from the original schedule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Mike
If delivery is set for early 2009, that means the aircraft has been designed, constructed & has had the various test flights, which reduces the risk......Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
The 1st 2 KC-767's have already been delvered to the Japanese Air Force. So in that regard the Boeing is ahead of the Airbus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Mike
By the 767 sharing the -300F's wings is no differrent than what Boeing has already done with the BBJ / C-40.
Since the -400 is merely an evolution of the -200 . Why would the flightdeck be a risk?
Boeing took out a full-page color ad in the New York Times yesterday titled "THE TANKER DECISION: WHY IT DOESN'T ADD UP.". I would scan and post it, but I can't seem to find a copy of the paper around here :shock: