TopHatter

I like this quote from that TIME article:

scorefour

Tophatter has a great point. I never heard any complaints while the competition was going on.

I think most of us in the USA can understand the emotions at work here. It seems that everyone's gunning for the US and if our own government doesn't support our companies, who will?

The reality, however, is that the dynamics of a global economy are so much more complicated than that. 60% of this tanker will be built in the US. Hundreds of US companies will work on this plane in almost every state.

Once the dust settles, I think most people will agree that the airforce had to go this direction because the A330 was so clearly superior. This plane is a game-changer. It opens up possibilities never before imagined. It's versatility will be huge.

It will carry more pallets than a C-17, it can carry 185 passengers with a full load of fuel, it can refuel airforce and navy planes at the same time without any equipment changeover, it will carry substantially more fuel than the 767, and it has a greater range than the 767. What part of this is bad?

The emotional firestorm this has generated I think is understandable, but given time, I think most people will get used to the idea.

__________________
I want what I do not have.

Jimmy

For me, the issue isnt "Why didn't the AF pick the American plane?"

Its "Why wasnt the American plane the best in the competition?"

Tin Man

Excellent line. One that Boeing should now be asking of themselves.

On the 787 as a tanker, lifted from another site I see that Boeing has said that it isn`t within the 787`s structural margins to offer it as a tanker. This is without the production slot issue.

Another question I have seen....
What are the implications for a JSTARS/AWACS/RC-135 future replacement?
Can Boeing sit easy after the KC-45A decision?

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

BenRoethig

Because that plane is still in the testing phase. First it clearly tells Boeing that they will not dictate terms. With Lockheed out of the airliner business and their purchase of McDonnell Douglas they had no competition. That basically allowed
a) Boeing to potentially be able to demand sweetheart deals
b) as an unintended consequence let Airbus into the US domestic market big time.

With no MD-80/90 series in the Market to compete with the 737 a lot of Domestic airlines are choosing the Airbus a320 and similarly A330/40s are replacing the MD-10/11 series on the transcontinental side. Hopefully mobile could be a partial replacement for long beach.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

BenRoethig

If the 787 can't be adapted to the cargo and defense markets, it could be a huge blunder for Boeing.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

JAD_333

I'm on the fence and don't know dick about the technical aspects. This much I do know: it took incredible political courage by the USAF to go against Boeing. That leads me to suspect that they made an objective choice based on future military needs vs a purely "buy American" rationale. I am always uncomfortable with decisions weighted more heavily toward domestic economics than military requirements.

One argument that seems to fly is the replacement parts issue. What if France, for example, refuses to supply a crucial widget because it disagrees with us on some foreign policy issue?

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Tin Man

In my opinion, no chance. France has way too much to lose. They want back in NATO for starters.

As has been said, Boeing outsource big time anyway, to Italy, Japan, etc...

JAD_333

I am inclined to agree with you. Besides I expect we'd keep a pretty good backlog of spare parts on hand or be able to replicate them in a pinch.

Chunder

Yeah, a protracted falling out causing a loss of supply is pretty small given the cross links of interests a retalitory embargoe would critically hit Frances economy hard. A refusal to supply parts would also endanger other partners in UK Spain & Germany, and the fines that it would attract from the EU would be major, as well as from other invested interests.

But, all the high maintenance stuff will be manufactured in the USA - the Boom, the hoses, the engines and about 60% of the plane. And there is also the commercial market available to source parts from.

Jimmy

I suspect that the US would simply contract a domestic company to manufacture anything being withheld by a foreign country. Regardless of the chance of offending an ally or not, the US will do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of national security. I dont see that France can really afford to pull that kind of string, but if they tried it the US would snip it and work around it without too much trouble anyway.

scorefour

Let's be serious, France would stand to lose far more than they would gain by denying the US spare parts. France uses American components and weapons systems throughout its military. Any reciprocal action by the US would shut them down. It's not just France that controls EADS. Germany is the other major player, so they would both have to agree to such a move, and both are major customers of US military goods.

HistoricalDavid

It's also highly unlikely that NATO navies and AFs cannot secure the sealanes and air routes between us should the s- hit the fan.

__________________
HD Ready?

FOG3

Despite both sides playing things up this seems to simply be the old story about the engineering interns.

Once upon a time there was a group of engineering interns grouped with a task. The interns all worked diligently doing what they were supposed to do. One day, one of the interns redesigned the process rendering all the interns unnecessary. When it came time to hire the interns as full-fledged engineers he was chosen and the rest were not.

The moral of the story:
Provide the customer what they need and will want to buy.