Northrop wins the KC-45A tanker contract

FromTexas

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Larry Gude said:
...Tex, by definition, a foreign nation winning a US military contract is always gonna stink to high heaven unless it's the Brits and even then...

EADS is in court right now, aren't they, over subsidies? Didn't DoD exclude EADS subsidies from the contract profiles???

I just don't like the idea of looking up and seeing an Airbus in our military.
Click to expand...

Northop wanted to use an EADS airframe instead or reinventing the wheel. They jointly bid with them. Big deal. We have been using British jet engines (Rolls Royce in the Blackhawk), foreign airframes on helos (including the new presidential helo), tons of internal equipment by foreign companies, etc... for decades. This isn't new or different. The system has to be built here, the parts are pretty much all bought here, any sensitive technology for internal systems is maintained here... etc... etc...

As for being investigated over subsidies, they would have to include any funds used to lower their bid in the proposal. In addition, what defense contractor hasn't been through the ringer here with unethical contract treatment? Boeing? Northrop? Lockheed? Halliburton? Not being appropriate with contracts is pretty much a given in this industry.

What caught the attention was people heard EADS and never got the Nortop side of the equation or what it really means in the scheme of anything. Politicians blowing smoke because they aren't getting all the work in their districts. They guys in Alabama are sure happy, though. So are the parts manufacturers in 40 other states.

Products & Services - BAE Systems
Rolls-Royce: Defence Aerospace
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Look...

Kerad said:
Your question is bogus. You own Boeing stock, don't you.
Click to expand...

...I don't know the truth of this BUT if the spec was thrown out and Airbus already had a frame that, just coincidentally, fit the bill, and Boeing did not, then that is at least a pink flag if not a red one on my BS detector.

These decisions, this big, are not made on some mid level. I would think that Bush and what's his face, the new head Frog, at least touched on this over the last few years.
 
FromTexas

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Larry Gude said:
...how much more American happiness could be had if the whole thing was built here.
Click to expand...

I guess we could cut them all out of our military spending. Then they could cut us out of their military spending. Whose economy do you think will take the bigger hit? :yay:
 
Kerad

Kerad

New Member
Larry Gude said:
...I don't know the truth of this BUT if the spec was thrown out and Airbus already had a frame that, just coincidentally, fit the bill, and Boeing did not, then that is at least a pink flag if not a red one on my BS detector.

These decisions, this big, are not made on some mid level. I would think that Bush and what's his face, the new head Frog, at least touched on this over the last few years.
Click to expand...

Your argument is that the Air Force custom tailored it's needs to what Airbus already had, and Boeing could not deliver. I think that's immensely improbable...if not completely ridiculous. They don't care where the plane comes from, as long as it meets the mission.

Tanker contract award announced

The KC-X source selection used a "best value" determination to select a winner based on five factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, cost/price and an integrated fleet air refueling assessment -- performance in a simulated war scenario. These five factors were developed after consulting with industry and were finalized prior to starting the competition. Considered together, these grading criteria ensured the Air Force maximized the capability delivered to the warfighter while optimizing the taxpayers' investment.

Air Force officials followed a carefully structured process, designed to provide transparency, maintain integrity and promote fair competition. Air Force officials met with offerors on numerous occasions to gain a thorough understanding of their proposals and provide feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Officials also provided insight into government cost estimates throughout the process instead of waiting until the post-decision debrief. The competitors indicated they've been very pleased with the degree of communication.

The evaluation team comprised experts covering a broad spectrum of specialties from acquisition to operations and was hand-picked from across the Air Force and other government agencies.
Click to expand...
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
FromTexas said:
I guess we could cut them all out of our military spending. Then they could cut us out of their military spending. Whose economy do you think will take the bigger hit? :yay:
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: We get a lot of R&D money and costly R&D data from foreign nations piggy backing onto our programs.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Someone...

Kerad said:
Your argument is that the Air Force custom tailored it's needs to what Airbus already had, and Boeing could not deliver. I think that's immensely improbable...if not completely ridiculous. They don't care where the plane comes from, as long as it meets the mission.

Tanker contract award announced
Click to expand...

...posted the specs earlier in this thread and, lo and behold, Airbus has a plane that fits it very well, better in all regards than the Boeing plane who would have to build a brand new bird to meet what Airbus already has.

You just go to sleep tonight thinking about where the Easter Bunny might put your basket and that this is a coincidence.
 
FromTexas

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Larry Gude said:
...easy ones; theirs.
Click to expand...

Really? I guess a couple hundred million that actually flows into their economy is much less than the billions they spend on our technology. :yay:

At $100k average a person, I guess we can employee thousands or keep them from employing hundreds.

Next thing you are going to tell me that if we did it all in country this would be more productive and have better technology always since we only have three or four real players in defense tech at the full system level therefore bringing such a wealth of competition and inovation - or they could just act as they have in the past and join up and guarantee who gets certain bid and not so much worry about the product. :shrug:
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
If you honestly...

FromTexas said:
Really? I guess a couple hundred million that actually flows into their economy is much less than the billions they spend on our technology. :yay:

At $100k average a person, I guess we can employee thousands or keep them from employing hundreds.

Next thing you are going to tell me that if we did it all in country this would be more productive and have better technology always since we only have three or four real players in defense tech at the full system level therefore bringing such a wealth of competition and inovation - or they could just act as they have in the past and join up and guarantee who gets certain bid and not so much worry about the product. :shrug:
Click to expand...

...think the only reason they spend billions with us is because we're gonna get airframes from Airbus, go on wif' yo' bad self. I'm really bored with us incessantly downplaying our advantages.
 
Kerad

Kerad

New Member
Larry Gude said:
...posted the specs earlier in this thread and, lo and behold, Airbus has a plane that fits it very well, better in all regards than the Boeing plane who would have to build a brand new bird to meet what Airbus already has.

You just go to sleep tonight thinking about where the Easter Bunny might put your basket and that this is a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Then it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they went with Airbus, does it?


Your conspiracy is every bit as real as the Easter Bunny. When you can prove one exists, I'll expect to see the other.
 
FromTexas

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Larry Gude said:
...posted the specs earlier in this thread and, lo and behold, Airbus has a plane that fits it very well, better in all regards than the Boeing plane who would have to build a brand new bird to meet what Airbus already has.

You just go to sleep tonight thinking about where the Easter Bunny might put your basket and that this is a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean Northrop was smart enough to look at the specs and figure it was much better to align with a foreign entity who had a similar bird and bid with them? Gosh darnit! It must be a conspiracy!

Actually, Boeing could have bid better but chose not to. They would rather try to hump a dieing production line to death to bid cheaper than use one of their upgraded airframes and win on specs.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
There...

Kerad said:
Then it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they went with Airbus, does it?


Your conspiracy is every bit as real as the Easter Bunny. When you can prove one exists, I'll expect to see the other.
Click to expand...

...is no conspiracy; I'll type slow;

We, for our military, are getting a key component of it from a foreign nation. I don't like that. I think it is a bad idea for out national security.

Again, if you think anyone was oblivious of the specs compared to what the mob of potential manufacturer's, both of them, had available, you're being silly.
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Pete said:
Ah because this book on the Bradley M3, page 97 and 98 says the motorcycle and the ground radar were dropped during development because of "expense, stowage space and the safety issues involving gas for the motorcycle".

The Bradley and How It Got That Way ... - Google Book Search
Click to expand...

And at the time I was working at the Armor Engineeer Board..


The GSR (Ground Surveillance Radar) wasn't even part of our MOS, and basically was a worthless piece of equipment. The vehicle would have lost two of the scouts to be able to carry the equipment and the operators. I've worked with the GSR... we used it overwatching the East/West German border during inclement weather, and it would be silly for a scout or recon team (5 or less soldiers) to carry one.

NONE of the Bradley's I've been on had any place for a GSR (it's sizable it would have needed special storage). The GSR may have been somebody's brilliant idea, but it was killed well before the Bradley went into production. I've never even heard of the GSR being put on the CFV.

The motorcycle on the other hand, we did have mounts for (NEVER saw the bike). The only fuel concern at the time was it was gas, and the army was going to all diesel.. (the M151 was gas, replaced by the Diesel powered HMMWV).. even our tank recovery vehicle the M88 originally came with a gasoline engine, but due to logistics it was switched out for a 12 cylinder diesel, BUT we still had a supply of mogas that the bike could run on, fuel wasn't a concern.

When the turret of the Bradley is surrounded by almost 200 gallons of fuel.. (if I remember right) 75 gallons underneath, and another 150 along the side and in front of the turret, do you really think a 2.5 gallon gas tank is going to be a concern??

No, that is the politically correct answer..

The GSR was still used, and was transported by it's operators in their own vehicles.. the bike was history.
 
Last edited:
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I have no dobut...

FromTexas said:
Actually, Boeing could have bid better but chose not to. They would rather try to hump a dieing production line to death to bid cheaper than use one of their upgraded airframes and win on specs.
Click to expand...

...in my mind that Boeing didn't even want the contract. Why, they probably thew together a bid that morning on a napkin and sent it in. Let the dripping sarcasm part of the conversation commence.
 
FromTexas

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Larry Gude said:
...think the only reason they spend billions with us is because we're gonna get airframes from Airbus, go on wif' yo' bad self. I'm really bored with us incessantly downplaying our advantages.
Click to expand...

I'm bored with people so flippantly isolationist without thinking through what it really matters. The world has moved on - I guess we can let them all buy from each other instead and sit here and group grope by ourselves - no one has any technology like ours. :rolleyes:
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
FromTexas said:
I'm bored with people so flippantly isolationist without thinking through what it really matters. The world has moved on - I guess we can let them all buy from each other instead and sit here and group grope by ourselves - no one has any technology like ours. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He's been told this all day. I'm getting the impression he's just a tad stubborn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top