A scary scenario.

[filmoss]

Well if this aint a form of protectionism I dont know what is !! It stinks to me ! Like I said dont bite the hand that feeds you ! Another stab in the back for one of Americas allies !!

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/09/...-2010mar09

[Spitfire]

Not only is the pitch anything but level, the goalposts appear to have been moved on more than one occasion.

[rocketmanjohn]

Could'nt agree more Phil, this is/was a disgrace. The strange thing is that a lot of the Boeing contract will be built abroad, Northrop were going to build their effort on the gulf coast from Airbus assemblies. Not much difference, politicians rooting for Boeing have won the day.
John

[anacortesdamp]

The contract hasn't been let yet. EADS or even Antonov (partnered by a US company) could still win.

It was my understanding the first 20 or so Airbus airplanes would have been completed as "green", which has nothing to do with their ecological status, but means flyable but covered in the green film used to protect the skin instead of painted.

The Mississippi (?) assembly plant was only programmed to employ 300 people. There's no way 300 people can assemble an airplane from sub-assemblies.

Whether the long-term plan was to bring in large parts from Europe and actually assemble the airplane at the EADS/Northrop-Grumman plant in the south has never been explained. Now the effort is planned purely as an EADS project without a US partner, there has been no clarification of where the assembly into a flyable airplane would occur. The Airbus Business Jet (A320-based) is built as a flyable empty shell and then goes to specialist contractors to put the executive interior in. I was expecting the same plan for the tanker - flyable airplane out of France, US labor doing the mission-specific stuff.

FYI, Boeing builds the entire wing of the 767 at Everett. Fuselage panels are built in Japan and then assembled into the "barrels" and joined to make a fuselage at Everett. Other countries have minor parts (leading edge slats in Australia, trailing edge flaps in Italy). The forward fuselage is built in Wichita by what used to be a Boeing plant but now belongs to another company. I can't remember if the tail feathers are done overseas or not.

A major issue for a many in this country is the on/off, love/hate relationship with the French that the US has. The spectre of a critical strategic program being held hostage to the sort of petty political squabbling that breaks out fairly regularly scares a lot of people, including me.

Another hidden cost that hasn't been addressed in any of the press reports is that all the hangars on the various bases that house the existing KC-135 fleet would require major mods to house the A330-based airplane, which is a lot heavier. The 767-based tanker would fit and weighs about the same as the -135 - no mods necessary.

The Airbus ship would be a valid replacement for the big tankers the USAF has, which are based on the Douglas DC-10. It's a much smaller fleet, but hauls a lot of kerosene and can refuel multiple airplanes simulataneously. Those airplanes are probably coming up for replacement in the next 5 years or so.

Yeah, I've got some bias as an ex-Boeing engineer, but I don't think the USAF should be pumping all that money into the European economy when things are so dodgy at home.

Let's face it, EADS doesn't have a sparkling record for keeping on budget with its military programs (e.g., the A-400M) and I have to question why the European miltary needed a Hercules on steroids in the first place. Their argument was to keep European miltary hardware procurement within the EU, so why so ticked off when the US decides to keep its major military procurement within the US?

The US military has bought systems from Europe - AV-8 Harrier (a joint McDonnell/BAE program), the Coast Guard SAR helicopter - the Aerospatiale AS-360, the T-45 (a derivative of the Hawk used by the Red Arrows), the Short Skyvan (AKA the C-23). I think there are some militarised Dassault Falcons out there too. They also buy from Canada - the Border Protection agency has a big fleet of DHC-7 airplanes for stealth surveillance and the USAF and Army both have DH-Canada STOL transports.

I think the bottom line really is whether or not you put a very large, high cost, strategically important program in the hands of a foreign, government controlled contractor. I was surprised the USAF even opened it to foreign suppliers.


Frank

[Spitfire]

`I was surprised the USAF even opened it to foreign suppliers.` Just what I`ve been saying.

[rocketmanjohn]

Frank, it's not a film it's zinc chromate primer, I believe it's MIL STD. MIL-P-23377. The space shuttle external tank uses the same primer. It's always amazed me that a coat of paint is the only thing that holds the foam on, but it's never failed yet.
When foam comes off it's a failure of the foam itself due to minute trapped air bubbles expanding due to the outside air pressure dropping on ascent.
John

[anacortesdamp]

Sorry, John, but the green film is exactly that. It's an anti-corrosion plastic film that's sprayed on to the completed airplane to protect the skin if the airplane is going to be flown before it gets its airline paint scheme. It's soluble in a special soap-based wash-off that is used in the paint hangar before they start to do the airline decor. It's a completely different kind of green than zinc chromate. After the wash-off the skin is back to being "aluminum colored".

I saw a lot of "green" airplanes being flown away from Boeing at the height of the Business Jet program. They were painted in the customers' exterior decor schemes by the vendors that did the interiors.


Frank

[Alan Marsden]

The Wichita company previously owned by Boeing ,that Frank refers to is Spirit Aerosystems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_AeroSystems

which in turn is owned by the Onex Corp (CEO Gerry Schwartz ) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onex_Corporation

Note that Spirit Aerosystems has business connection with BAe Salmesbury !

Frank also refers to the Boeing 767 , the very reason I came to work with Boeing and live in Canada, designing final assembly tooling for that aeroplane being built in Everett in 1980.

Aviation Weekly ( July 12 ,2010 ) quotes EADS stating the first three or four development aircrft for the KC-X program would be built in Toulousewith military modification in Spain.
The fourth development aircraft would roll off the A330 line in Tolouse but would be modified with mission systems in Mobile Alabama .
The KC-X aircraft will replace the existing 179 Boeing KC-135 tankers.

The EADS proposal is based upon the Airbus A330 and is a derivative of a configuration in development for Australia.

Boeings proposed B767 based option is a deviation of the design made for Japan and Italy.
EADS state that their offering would be a boon to the Alabama region as it struggles with the BP oil spill,this however is not a factor i the Air Forces source selection process. Each bidder must satisfy 372 requirements in order to qualify, and the winner will be chosen on price , not best value. That will make it tough for EADS'larger airplane . Rep Todd Tiahrt ( R-Kan) one of the lawmakers proposing legislationcalling for the Pentagon to penalize the EADS offering .figures $5million per airplane is about right .pentagon officials say the WTO rules prevent them from imposing penalties.
Tom Enders CEO Aibus states ' we are disapointed by the last minute announcment of yet another delay by the Boeing subsidies panel. we have said time and again that the complexity and interconnectedness and industrial significance of the Boeing and Airbus cases would stretch the capabilities of the WTO'

[Peter Harris]

Talk about getting away from the point - what has all this lot got to do with the massive oil spill in the GoM. I was in the US the other week talking to rig and oil company guys. Their take on the future is that the wonderfully prescriptive system administered by the MMS but not policed, will be fully brought to bear in it's entirety. Funded of course by the oil companies, but ultimatley by the consumer. With some professional knowledge of these matters, I was amused to hear the speculation about the cause and effect of this earlier in the discussion. A lot has come out of the Congressional inquiry and some of the issues raised were extracted rather than offered, but that is always the case when a large piece of s#it hits the fan as it did in this case and people have to justify their positions in the causal chain. Interestingly, an identical incident occurred earlier in the Timor Sea spewing heaps of barrels of oil onto the pristine shores of many Indonesian Islands, given their relative insignificance to the GoM, nothing really was said internationally - for those interested - google "Montara Commission of Inquiry" on the Australian Government website. As usual all the plans for the work were over-ridden by low level people thinking they were doing the bosses a favour and all procedures in place not were followed. We never seem to learn.

[filmoss]

Hey Pete hows it goin mate ? As for this topic digressing, it seems to have digressed fairly early from oil to petrol to car performances ! I added my two penneth when the opportunity arose to stick the boot in where the yanks were concerned ! Have you seen Team America Pete ? It is everything the yanks stand for and more !! If you aint seen it make the effort to get a copy it is so funny !