Jump to content


Photo

Airbus And Lockheed Martin In Air Refueling Partnership


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,289 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 1251 PM

Not sure what the grand scheme is here. Maybe to offer supplemental services to the USAF/USN in the event that the new KC-46 can't handle the workload?

 

https://www.airbus.c...-Agreement.html


  • 0

#2 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 05 December 2018 - 1343 PM

Or erase the NIH syndrome that prevented a great tanker from serving in the USAF.  ;)


Edited by sunday, 05 December 2018 - 1344 PM.

  • 0

#3 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 05 December 2018 - 1548 PM

I'd say it's not so much NIH, but not built here.  Congress critters are very responsive to complaints from the largest employers in their districts when it comes to complaints about defense contracts.


  • 0

#4 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 05 December 2018 - 1557 PM

International marketing to Lockheed customers maybe? Or backdooring sales that would could be banned in the EU, because of the buyer. 


  • 0

#5 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 05 December 2018 - 1712 PM

International marketing to Lockheed customers maybe? Or backdooring sales that would could be banned in the EU, because of the buyer. 

 

I do not know. The MRTTs are common planes that had the refuelling equipment installed in Spain. As those are not weapons "per se", I think there would be no problem exporting them.


  • 0

#6 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 06 December 2018 - 0939 AM

There was also the small ;) point that USAF gas-passers prefer the Boeing product.


  • 0

#7 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 06 December 2018 - 0950 AM

Or perhaps they could have a post-service career in Boeing, but not with Airbus...


  • 0

#8 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,289 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1024 AM

Judging from recent history, the KC-45 may have been more problem-free than the KC-46.


  • 0

#9 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1029 AM

There was also the small ;) point that USAF gas-passers prefer the Boeing product.

 

A Boeing product that up to 60 percent is built abroad anyway. :)


  • 0

#10 beans4

beans4

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1036 AM

Don't know how much of this is legit and how much BS, but the 767/KC-46 was said to have a smaller ramp footprint more in line with the KC-135, which could be a factor at some deployed fields.

 

But yeah, the number and severity of problems with the KC-46 are inexcusable.  There was a time when I looked forward to the day when I had enough excess cash to invest in Boeing stock.  But as time went by it was plain their senior management was/is atrocious.


  • 0

#11 beans4

beans4

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1039 AM

duplicate :angry:


Edited by beans4, 06 December 2018 - 1040 AM.

  • 0

#12 beans4

beans4

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 368 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1049 AM

 

There was also the small ;) point that USAF gas-passers prefer the Boeing product.

 

A Boeing product that up to 60 percent is built abroad anyway. :)

 

And that's part of it - there was gobs of top expertise in airframe manufacturing in the Seattle area, and in order to show up their union, they outsourced from all over the world.  Who knows how much extra cost that added to the 787 program, but I'd think 50% would not be unreasonable.


  • 0

#13 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1056 AM

I certainly know the airliner was split like that, there was a surprisingly large amount of it made in Japan. I would think that the communications equipment would swing things back towards the US, but probably not as much as people think.


  • 0

#14 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,289 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1143 AM

Not sure when the KC-46A will be flying operational missions, but apparently not any time soon with testing still underway:

 

https://www.janes.co...ication-testing


  • 0

#15 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1236 PM

Or perhaps they could have a post-service career in Boeing, but not with Airbus...


Air National Guard; many fly Airbus for airlines. They like how Boeings fly better.
  • 0

#16 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1257 PM

 

Or perhaps they could have a post-service career in Boeing, but not with Airbus...


Air National Guard; many fly Airbus for airlines. They like how Boeings fly better.

 

 

Not the case for flag officers.


  • 0

#17 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1549 PM


 

Or perhaps they could have a post-service career in Boeing, but not with Airbus...

Air National Guard; many fly Airbus for airlines. They like how Boeings fly better.
 
 
Not the case for flag officers.
Granted; just noting that my source was actual flight crews. :)
  • 0

#18 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 06 December 2018 - 1713 PM

Well, that changes things.


  • 0

#19 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,659 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 08 December 2018 - 1831 PM

Well, for Boeing to keep up with the economics, they're having to implement exactly the sort of things that the old-school pilots don't like. See the MCAS system implicated in the Lionair 737 MAX crash.

 

I believe that there is no measurable difference between the accident rates of contemporary Boeing and Airbus products, but the numbers are so low that a single accident is likely sufficient to skew such an analysis.


  • 0

#20 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,289 posts

Posted 08 December 2018 - 1838 PM

Boeing has reportedly had to shell out a lot of it's own cash to correct ongoing deficiencies, as they exceeded the contract ceiling.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users