BS: The Airbus deal

Subject: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM

Isn't anyone else here upset about this? The Pentagon wants to export AT LEAST 20,000 high paying jobs to France. Where is the outcry? I thought there were union supporters on this site. It looks to me as if the government sees busting American unions as more important than the medium term strength of the economy. And you conservatives out there, don't you see that this deal negates any psychological benefit from Bush's so called stimulus package?

This is serious stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:26 AM

Guardian article
Jack I don't think that many jobs will be going to the French, Airbus Industries is a multinational, and as you can see from the article I linked to, a lot of work is coming our way too. Also note that Northrop Grumman a US company, is a partner in Airbus industries.
Interesting to see the bit about John McCain in the last section of the article.

G

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:38 AM

I guess it depends on whether you want the best chance of winning a war, or the most jobs til the war arrives...

It is of course now ILLEGAL for UK military or police forces to prefer one EU based widget over any other EU based widget on grounds of nationality.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Ernest
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:54 AM

I suppose if Boeing had won the contract someone would be complaining that the current government had given a big deal to its supporters - and/or how immoral it is to make money building military equipment...

Apparently Airbus made the better offer this time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: number 6
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM

I thought the 20 k jobs were going to Hunstville Alabama. Correct me if I'm wrong. In fact most of the jobs in this project will be ilocated in the U.S.

With the drop in the U.S. $$ corporations are going to do their manufacturing there.

The U.S. will become the best 3rd world nation to live in.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: number 6
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:31 PM

Last week I heard the governor of alabama raving on CNN how this contract would create 20 k jobs and how most of the actual assembly will be performed in the Alabama, not France ... surfing the net it looks more like 1300 jobs .... if anyone else can verify this and if one can verify if the most of the jobs will be in the U.S. not France I would be interested.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM

The final assembly with be in Alabama, a "right to work" and thus anti-union state. Airbus says 25,000 jobs. Boeing says that if they had received the contract 45,000 jobs would have been created in the US. Boeing is highly unionized. I did the math. I think that Boeing figures aren't too far off. A lot of high tech, good paying work would be involved in component creation and assembly.

Of course the issue of the "best chance of winning a war" is a red herring. The 707's they are using now are quite serviceable. They are only tankers after all. Personally, as a US tax payer. I'd like to see US workers get all the work.

Its insane for the government to be trying to create jobs in short term with stimulus and exporting them for the long term with outsourcing. Airbus, until fairly recently, represented everything the republicans stood against economically. They were big government and big subsidies going against the free market to create and industry. It is a shame to see them now, embracing this company as a way to shift union jobs in Seattle to Non union workers in Huntsville. To see them shifting wealth and ultimately voters from blue state Washington to Red State Alabama! It is cynical and callous that they would see so many net jops lost to achieve this dubious end.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: gnu
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:37 PM

I wonder if Brian Mulroney had anything to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: bobad
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:40 PM

The Air Force side of the story:

"According to Air Force officials, the refueler developed by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., or EADS, the parent company of Airbus, in partnership with Northrop Grumman, will perform better than Boeing's in many ways. Based on the Airbus A330, it is bigger and can transport more fuel, cargo and people than Boeing's 767. Boeing's delays in delivering tanker planes to Italy and Japan likely also hurt its bid.

Defense procurement is a global business. Boeing sells military aircraft and other defense systems all over the world. It and other American companies could suffer if a move to wrest the tanker contract from EADS and Northrop provoked a protectionist backlash in European capitals.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/07/opinion/edairbus.php

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:41 PM

On NPR I heard final assembly would be in Alabama. I take that to mean Bolting on the wings and fins and painting the plane.

How does 1300 get inflated to 20,000? I would not be surprised if the good Governor was counting all of the so called "spin off" jobs that would be created Cabe drivers, cooks waitresses etc. as well as the short term jobs of preparing the site, many of which would probably go to illegals.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:51 PM

Is the International Herald Tribune's editorial staff based in Europe? If so, then it is only right that they support this import of jobs to their own countries.

On the other hand. I pay taxes here, and I think that the process was idiotic. We can't remain viable if we keep taxing ourselves then pumping the money overseas!

The technology arguments seem dubious. Are they saying that no Boeing design is as capable as the A330? Or are they saying that the the particular bid was the problem. There are plenty of manufacturing workers in Michigan and Ohio who have been laid off who would love to build airplanes. Shouldn't we consider them?

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: number 6
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:52 PM

Military government contracts are all shady (even downright illegal) albeit Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop, Airbus or Hyandai.

In my surfing I did read something about Airbus being rather two faced when it comes down to the acutal production after winning a contract.

Good point Jack ... "how did the 1300 get inflated to 20,000" ... it probably does mean all the spinoffs ... lotsa work for the lowest paid workers in the country.

gnu ... yeah, I'll bet Mulrony is one of the back room boys in somewhere in this deal.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 12:53 PM

The simple fact is that much of US Air Force procurement in recent decades has been "political" and in several recent cases has shown a distinct "anti-Boeing" bias.

The "corruption" case cited in the article has been commonly claimed as a justification. The real complaint is that Boeing wasn't very clever about their "kickbacks" to "buy into" the program and got caught, while Northrop Gruman - in and outside the Airbus partnership - has more successfully "spread the wealth" and hasn't embarrassed anyone.

A common "method" used in this procurement and in several others with which I've had specific and intimate contact has been for the Air Force to issue a very specific and rigidly defined specification that constrains the proposal design. Then when the specification splits between the proposal that meets the spec and the proposal that ignores the spec and builds "something better" the AF has the option of citing the better - if that suits them - or of citing the "spec compliance" if that better fits their agenda.

In this case, the Air Force demanded a smaller tanker, so the Boeing proposal was based on the 767. Had the Air Force asked for a bigger airplane, it would have been quite simple for the Boeing proposal to have been based on the 777 instead of the 767.

Now the AF says they like the Airbus proposal better, "because it's bigger," even though it does not meet the requirements of the proposal.

The Specification also demanded landing field capability to permit operations in fields smaller¹ than can be met by the "chosen airplane." During proposal it insisted these requirements were "mandatory and not subject to waiver." The 767 proposal complies with the short-field, "unimproved runway," and landing load requirements demanded in the Specification and the "Northrop" airplane DOES NOT.

¹ "Small fields" includes both runway length and load bearing capacities. Some fields theoretically long enough to land "large" aircraft do not have "thick enough concrete" to carry the loads of heavy airplanes. And most marginally suited planes can use "short field" procedures to compensate if a runway is less than ideal length - but only if "high impact" landings and higher than normal braking loads are usable.

The apparent method used by the Air Force here, as in several other recent ones, was to write a specification for something they didn't really want, and then "leak the real spec" to the favored company so that they could "invent creative evaluations" to make the choice intended at the onset.

Another possible factor that's less commonly known is that the Air Force has shown a bias against US aircraft manufacturers (one of the reasons their aren't more of them any more) because aircraft designed and built in the US, even if intended only for military use, are required to comply with FAA (civilian/commercial) safety regulations. Foreign designed/built aircraft are not required to be in full compliance, AND DO NOT GENERALLY MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS. This allows a "certain flexibility" that a US manufacturer is not permitted. This isn't really much of a problem for competent designers, but "certain elements" of AF procurement have perceived it to be one.

The complaints about a "foreign maker" are pretty much a smoke screen. Not much of the 767 is actually "made in America." The real complaint is about an Air Force procurement system that acts as if it's "above the law" on the direction of an Administration that itself ignores the law.

Of course, this is all just personal opinion based on a few decades of personal experience with military (and civilian) aircraft design, proposal, development, testing, production, and maintenance.

John

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:35 PM

If France doesn't do something about it's immigration problem, it will be a Muslim country before the contract is completed. At that point, we will look back and rage about how the Bush Administraction compromised national security.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: bobad
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:47 PM

Airbus has (reputedly) been known to generously grease the palms of Canadian politicians as part of the contract negotiation process.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:58 PM

That's a lot of bullshit John.
When the military specs out a bid, they get back a bid on what's been spec'd. If they want someting else or in addition to they're required to add on an alt or issue an addenda. Or if any bidder comes up with a question that need clearification & addenda goes out to all bidders addressing that question. You don't just toss in a bid based on what rumor or leakage might lead you to believe they might want. That's an after the is won process. Everyone bids to the spec & everyone better have read the COMPLETE spec before bidding. There's plenty of time & opportunity to question every aspect of the bidding doc's before submitting the final bids, including any & all addendas & alts.
What I heard reported was that there were 5 critia on which the bids would be judged by, I don't know what that critia is but I'd guess that some of it would be 1. Lowest bid, 2. Capable resources to complet the project, 3. Capable fininaces to complete the project, 4. Workforce on hand to complete the project, 5. Safety record in completing past projects. Not knowing the critia I could go on with guesses but the Air Force stated that Boeing failed on all their 5 critia.

That's like the Army having to buy Chevys when Toyotas are better, cheaper, more economical, more enviormental friendly, has a longer life & a higher resale value.

Boeing has it's chance to state it's case legally, let's hear what they have to say 1st. If it's politcial, sack who ever is at fault & either leave it to the courts or do a rebid which isn't all that uncommon. If it's based on merit than Boeing should be held to shame for not making a better bid for it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:28 PM

At one time, Seattle was pretty much a "one-industry town." Boeing.

I worked at Boeing in the late Sixties and into the early Seventies. I was a production illustrator (like drafting, but different) in the commercial airplane division, working on installation drawings for the 727 (the No. 2 engine firewall is mine!), and 737, and eventually on original production drawings for the 747. I was there in Everett at the roll-out ceremony for the first 747.

At the same time, Boeing was working on prototypes for the TXF fighter, and the SST. Both of these planes were designed with variable-sweep wings. The advantage of the variable-sweep wing, especially for the SST, was that it could fly efficiently at both supersonic and at subsonic speeds; supersonic over the oceans or uninhabitable areas, and subsonic over populated areas to avoid sonic booms. And it could land and take off from smaller airports because with the wings fully extended, it could take off and land at slower speeds, not requiring the long run-out that the fixed delta-wing designs require.

Boeing got neither government contract. The TFX went to another company and the American SST was just cancelled, despite the fact that it was a far superior aircraft for the purpose than the Concorde.

The result of these cancellations was that there was a genuine depression in the Seattle area. Boeing had to lay a lot of people off, including me. The production illustration department dropped from 125 illustrators to 35, on the basis of seniority, and I didn't have much (4+ years). Local unemployment rate rose to 15%. This was when someone put up a big roadside sign on one of the freeways our of town that said, "Will the last person out of Seattle please turn out the lights?"

Fortunately, I had been working as an announcer at a local radio station on weekends, so I was able to move directly into a new job as an announcer and newscaster. Not everyone was that fortunate. Seattle still depends a lot on Boeing for local employment, but the city has diversified a lot since the Seventies. We'll feel the loss of the contract here, but not as much as when I was working at Boeing.

I agree with Jack the Sailor that the Boeing-built KC-135 Stratotanker (built on the 707 airframe) is perfectly serviceable for any military, or, for that matter, civilian use that it might be needed for—unless, of course, the Bush administration (and potential future Republican administrations) is planning on launching far more extensive military actions that require long-range air support. Sure, the KC-135 has been around for fifty years, but for what it is used for, it works just fine, and there is no real point in replacing it, other than spending more of the taxpayers' money.

Even if it actually did need to be replaced—I don't know all the ins and outs of this yet, but Washington State Senator Patty Murray is royally ticked off and has said that after putting out the call for such a new tanker, along with desired specifications (upon which the new Boeing design was based), the government moved the goal-posts.

From what I've heard, I think JohnInKansas has the right of it.

One of the "perks" of living in a "blue" state under the current administration. The whole deal has a kind of rank smell to it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:56 PM

Hell's bells, at least the AF is gonna buy 'em. They were first going to lease them -- from Boeing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: number 6
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:26 PM

Off topic (somewhat) ... sorry .... but I have to mention this in this thread ... back in the 1990's the Canadian Government was suggesting that the Canadian Airforce (no, not the Royal Canadian Air Farce) have private contractors supply the tanker aircraft and perform the duty of air refueling.

I wonder if Irving was behind that one ... you east coasters will know what I mean by that statement.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:30 PM

Don Firth and John in Kansas have made some good points. If the Air Force did want bigger, the 777 and indeed the 747 air frames are there.

There are a couple of good reasons for replacing the 707's in the long run.

1. The planes are getting old.
2. That newer planes with the new Ge engines are more fuel efficient.

Then again there is at least one good reason for not replacing them.

1. I think we need to rethink this whole "projection of power" thing and the whole way the Navy and Air Force seem to like to use sledge hammers to crush ants. Do we really need 300 billion dollar B1 bombers flying out of the US midwest and refueled over the Atlantic and 2 billion dollar submarines that were originally designed to carry ICBMs to carry smart bombs and cruise missiles to the mid east.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship the munitions over there in freighters and then reuse much cheaper tactical assets like Harrier    Hawks and f18's and ground based launchers to carry out such attacks.

If the Pentagon were put on a sensible budget. They wouldn't need or really be able to use so many tankers. It must cost a fortune just to keep those things in the air. And think about global warming for a second. Its wasteful! Its nuts!

2. Most high tech weapons systems, including the bulk of this one, are just corporate welfare and pork and don't really make us much safer. Try spending the money on special forces and Military Police trainers so that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan can police their own oil and poppy fields.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 05:43 PM

In addition to refueling big bombers on long trips, tankers are also used to extend the on-station time of tactical aircraft. Something like an A-10 is a lot more useful to the crunchy on the ground if it is available than if is returning to base because it is out of fuel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM

During the more nervous parts of the Cold War, a percentage of the Strategic Air Command (mostly B-52s) was kept airborne at all times, so that a surprise nuclear attack wouldn't catch SAC on the ground and destroy it. Keeping the planes in the air helped to convince the Soviet Union of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (with it's apt acronym, MAD), and were being refueled in the air by fleets of KC-135s. I believe that B-52s, refueled in flight by KC-135s, were used in carpet-bombing Vietnam. And KC-135s have been used to extend the range of other military aircraft in other operations, such as in the Balkans.

The military usually starts out at least, fighting any new war with the tactics it used more-or-less successfully in the previous war. It often takes them awhile (and usually costs a lot of lives unnecessarily) for it to sink in that this is not the same war. It's a whole new ball game and it may call for entirely different tactics.

The "War on Terrorism" is such an example. If one acknowledges that it is a "war" at all, there are various ways that it could be handled. With the present administration, any attempts at a diplomatic solution are off the table. But if one wished to take direct and (one would hope) effective action, it should involve small-scale precision strikes, not massive military forces. Terrorism is more in the nature of criminal activity than military action, and should be treated as such. Invading an entire country makes little sense, especially if the terrorist group, characteristically quite mobile, is only using that country as a temporary base and the activities of the terrorists are neither known to that country's government, nor particularly condoned by that country's foreign policy.

And it's downright insane to invade the wrong country entirely, no matter how much we may dislike its leader!! (Hello, George!)

Are there any other countries in the world right now that are building up massive military forces? How, for example, is a fleet of nuclear submarines armed with city-buster missiles going to be effective against a small group of terrorists? How many Trident submarines, for example, would we need off the coast of North Korea in order to pave it with fused green glass? Fleets of flying tankers are going to be refueling what airborne squadrons on their way to attacking which al Qaeda cell hiding in what cave in the Hindu Kush or sitting and plotting in some sidewalk café in Marseilles? If an al Qaeda cell (or some other terrorist group) is assembling a dirty nuclear bomb somewhere deep in the Brazilian rain forest with the idea of blowing up Crawford, Texas with it, do we nuke Brazil?

Inquiring minds (taxpayers) want to know. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 06:27 AM

"the Air Force has shown a bias against US aircraft manufacturers" - JohnInKansas.

If that is the case John their inventory has got a funny way of demonstrating that point. What foreign aircraft does the US Air Force fly?

I know your USMC flies the US designed and built version of the Harrier, the last foreign aircraft your airforce bought (IIRC) was the Canberra way back in the 50's and that was purely as a stop-gap.

If you are sensible (Unlike UK Governments) you provide your armed forces with what they actually need, you give them the best equipment. You do not equip them with stuff just because it is politically advantageous in the short term to place orders in various parts of your own country.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 07:10 AM

"You do not equip them with stuff just because it is politically advantageous in the short term to place orders in various parts of your own country"

In Australia, we place the orders in OTHER countries!


"We can't remain viable if we keep taxing ourselves then pumping the money overseas!"


In Australia, we place the orders in OTHER countries...

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:36 AM

Ordering the refueling plane from out of country ignores the reality that a manufacturing base is very much a part of national defense in the first place.



       "In Australia, we place the orders in OTHER countries..."


                How many major airplane manufacturers are there in Australia, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM

Australia is like Canada. For military equipment, it mostly ships out the raw materials and ships in manufactured goods.

As far as some Boeing components being made out of country, I'm sure that is true. But it is also smoke. I think that the 44,000 Boeing jobs vs the 25,000 airbus jobs IN THE US is probably close to reality. I also think that the Boeing Jobs are probably more lucrative because of the union factor. As I asked when I started this thread. Where are the unions on this issue?

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM

I dunno. Ask 'em. Ronnie Raygun did a job on 'em, though.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Claymore
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 03:16 AM

1. Reagan dealt only with the spoiled Air Controllers Union (PATCO) and as one of the police officers who dealt personally with the head of the Union, and many of its senior staff in it's headquarterters in Leesburg, VA, I can tell you they were assholes to a man. No one deserves what they got more. (By the way I'm not anti-union, having worked in several of my jobs with the senior members of the Brick Masons, Cement, Painters and Carpenters Unions, as National Training Contractors for the Job Corps).

2. According to the newspapers and media (for what its worth) the Boeing did not meet ANY of the criteria (some of which were classified) while the Airbus met them ALL. One was fuel cargo capacity, which was double the amount the Boeing could carry. This is especially important for loiter-time and fuel staging for stealth aircraft, in or out of a mission. They could also deliver a greater number of these aircraft in a much shorter time.

3. One thing the conspiracy theorists should understand, is that the Air Force officers who have made this decision, as well as all general-grade officers in the Armed Forces are vetted by Congress, and each knows of a certainty that this decision will need to be defended on the facts alone.

4. Don Firth is wrong when he states the KCs were used to refuel the B-52s over Viet Nam as they were quite capable of making the Nam from Kadena, Okinawa and neighboring Thailand. They were used to refuel the fighters, and the larger helos though. And Don, we don't need to nuke anything in Brazil or North Korea , we just send a Predator whose controller is in Nebraska to pop a couple of Hellfires into the latrine. And green glass is a drag on the recycle market right now...

5. As for the idea JtS makes, of using our current inventory, the idea is to allow our forces to use assets which do not require human on-scene control or at least to reduce their exposure. As I have often said, a million dollar missle has a lousy retirement program, where as I personally have cost the US Government about that amount of money in medical expenses in the 40 years since 'Nam. And we also reduce the chance of newer Hanoi Hiltons.

5. Finally you also reduce the spectacle of the so-called up-armored HUVEEs which are now too heavy and slow to stay up with the conveys the are supposed to protect, and whose motors are now breaking down in attempting to move weight they were never designed for. In the Nam we had double metal plates under the seats of our Jeeps... they were called gas tanks...

6. As for whether "it makes us safer," that will be determined if the Dems win and pull out the troops. I don't believe that the Islamofacists will hit my little town of Shepherdstown, WV, but I do believe that either of the Democratic strong-holds of New York or DC will be a target. In point of fact, I'm not sure that any so-called red states are in danger, and I plan to sit back and watch.

7. What is even funnier is the fact that this part of West-By-God Virginia is the epicenter of the COOP movement for alternative government sites. It now goes under the subheading of the "Third Mission", the "Shadow Government" or COOP (Continuity Of Operations Plan). This is the plan to allow the various US government agencies to relocate out of Washington if it is hit again, and continue to mintain whatever services to the citizens they were originally tasked with. I don't know about your housing market, but ours is busting loose, and they are paying a starting wage of $11.25 ("PLUS BENEFITS") at the Sheetz gas station.

And all because Hillary had to wait to put on her liptick and have her hair done before she answered the phone, and Barack needs to learn you've got people in the White House who answer the phone on the first ring...

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 03:52 AM

"How many major airplane manufacturers are there in Australia, anyway?"

None - now... but do you remember the names, Victa, and especially Nomad?.... :-)

Oh, and the 3rd local Car manufacturer is just about to close...

But then we just blew many millions of dollars waiting decades on a US company to make our Sea Sprite helos fly... and it will cost millions more to 'cancel the contract for non-performance'... funny if _I_ stuffed up that bad, _I_ would have to pay....

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 09:27 AM

Suppliers for the German Leopard Tank:

* ASTRUM - Tank Tracks and Armour
* Behr Industry - Cooling and Air-Conditioning Systems
* Diehl Remscheid - Armoured Vehicle Tracks
* FFG - Armoured Vehicles, Equipment, Upgrades and Maintenance
* GMT - Anti-Vibration Mounting Specialists, Suppliers of Rubber-to-Metal Bonded Products and Moulded Rubber Components
* Honeywell-LMB - Fans and Motors for Aerospace and Defence Applications
* Kappa opto-electronics - Day and Night Sight Systems, Barrel Inspection, Marksmen Training and X-Ray Detection
* Nitrochemie / Rheinmetall Weapon Munition - Artillery and Mortar Charge Systems, Propulsion Systems and Components
* Peli - Weapons Cases and Military Lights
* RENK - Tank Transmission System
* Rheinmetall Waffe Munition - Large Calibre Weapon Systems and Ammunition
* Rheinmetall Waffe Munition - Medium Calibre Weapon Systems and Ammunition
* Rheinmetall Waffe Munition - Protection Systems and Pyrotechnics
* Saab - Fire Control Systems
* Tamor - Wheels, Tracks, Fuel Tanks and Suspension Parts for Military Vehicles
* Theon Sensors S.A. - Night Vision Sights and Night Driver's Viewers
* ZARGES - Hi-Tech Containers for Electronics and Defence Equipment

The Leopard has been purchased by Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Chile, Singapore, and Spain among other countries. The US Army evaluated it but decided to develop the XM1 (now the M1A1) instead -- the main gun system on the M1A1 is essentially that of the Leopard.

Note that the above list of suppliers is by no means all-German.

Note too that Colt firearms licensed production of the M-16 rifle to Israel, among other places.

The armament industry is international, countries buying what seems best to them.

The Unions should be on top of this Airbus deal; it's their job.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 09:52 AM

The reason WV is the center of the so-called "Shadow Government", Garg, is because Senator Byrd promised WVians that he's bring billions to the state -- and he has, including that FBI facility.

If the government TRULY wants some security, decentralize it. Put it in different areas around the country and connect 'em with a high-speed, multiply redundant, fiber optic network.

Turn DC into a historic and museum center.

I suggest the geographic center of US for the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Claymore
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 02:24 PM

Actually Rapaire, Byrd did that first. Someone on Marse Bob's staff figured out a long time ago that what goes up to a satelite can come down in West VA. So we have the largest Coast Guard facility in the world, 8 miles away, and every ship in the worlds oceans is tracked in this massive complex, which is right across the streeet from one of the Nations largest computer systems (the IRS).

And Rockefeller's contribution, Homeland Security's Training Center, is four miles in the other direction, EMSHG (the action arm of the VA) is up the road a mile or so. The Forest Services National Conservation Traning Center (NCTC) is just outside of Shepherdstown and was where Clinton met Assad and Barak in '00, so all of the very helpful security staff carry M-16s. (I have played there many times, but I still have to get out of my sound van to let the dogs check it.)

As for dispersal, most of those locations are eminently defensible, as are the microwave towers in the ajoining hills. Remember that these are fallback positions after the Democrats are wiped out in DC. They are not particularly worried about a nuclear weapon, as the one device will be hand carried over the boarder and used on NY or DC.

When that happens we will be inundated with some very determined suvivors, who speak my language...

By the way, the towns plan is to wait for two days, then blow the bridges and shoot the ones that glow, in the water.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 02:57 PM

Union labor at Northrup-Gruman have long felt that they have been short-changed as contracts seemed to favor Boeing heavily.

Air Force Secretary Wynne says that based on nine key criteria, "the Northrup Gruman airplane was clearly a better performer." I will accept that, grumbling politicians not withstanding.

The engines on the plane will be made by General Electric in Ohio and North Carolina.

The real issue is whether the U. S. A. will join with its logical partners in NATO and the EU. Xenophobic isolationism is no longer viable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 03:08 PM

I stand corrected regarding KC-135s used in the Vietnam war.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:43 PM

My brother flew Airborne Voice Intercept for the 6990th Security Squadron out of Kadena in an RC-135M for platform Combat Apple during the ealy '70s. He also flew in RC-130s over Laos and Cambodia during this time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:57 PM

Ooops. I meant to mention that they were refueled by KC-135s, including during air intelligence coverage for the Son Tay raid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 04:57 PM

"Xenophobic isolationism is no longer viable."


                     Without xenophobia you lose culture!

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM

Thanks, Rapaire. I take it back!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:49 PM

Ever heard of multiculturalism?

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM

>>5. As for the idea JtS makes, of using our current inventory, the idea is to allow our forces to use assets which do not require human on-scene control or at least to reduce their exposure. As I have often said, a million dollar missle has a lousy retirement program, where as I personally have cost the US Government about that amount of money in medical expenses in the 40 years since 'Nam. And we also reduce the chance of newer Hanoi Hiltons.<<

I'm not sure we understand each other. I meant two things about the current inventory.

1. For Tanker Planes we do not need to make great strides in technology.
2. Modern missions, and economic prudence probably mean that we need fewer tankers.

We certainly do not need a constant fleet of B52's B1's or even B2's in the air to deter the Soviets. Claymore I think that you correctly pointed out that Drones and cruise missiles are a safer, and cheaper way to go. I also think you will agree that the Russians are not nearly the thermonuclear threat that the Soviets were thought to be.

Military considerations aside. The Airbus deal, to me, seems like an economic mistake for Unionist and Bush supporters alike.

>>2. According to the newspapers and media (for what its worth) the Boeing did not meet ANY of the criteria (some of which were classified) while the Airbus met them ALL. One was fuel cargo capacity, which was double the amount the Boeing could carry. This is especially important for loiter-time and fuel staging for stealth aircraft, in or out of a mission. They could also deliver a greater number of these aircraft in a much shorter time.<<

As a point of order, what I heard and read in the media said that the A330 Bid beat the Boeing 767 bid in all five areas not that Boeing did not comply. Both planes complied. It was that the larger, airbus plane out performed.

Boeing is not so stupid that they could not look at the specs of the two planes and see that the Airbus was larger. Why did they not bid the 777? Perhaps the link below will provide some insight.

McCain Hates American Jobs!

BTW the above link title Is meant to be sarcasm. I imagined myself as Fox News if it had been a Democratic Senator.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 08:55 PM

By the way, as I wrote my last post there was an ad at the bottom of the page advertising great deals on Boeing 767s and low low prices on 747s. Either someone is wasting their ad money , or I really do not understand the demographics of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:36 AM

JTS

You do not understand just who in the CIA reads this forum..... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:10 AM

I believe my brother about the refueling during the Son Tay raid, as he was in the plane that was refueled. He also told me that he called in B-52 strikes (Arclights) when appropriate; the planes were already in an airborne holding pattern. They arrived "about 30 minutes" after being called.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: MaineDog
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:05 AM

If we are really planning to go to war, we should import as much stuff as possible while we can, and save our own resources for after it starts.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM

Yes, but if all your steel mills and airplane factories have been dismantled and sold for scrap, what are you going to do with all that ore?



b

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:40 PM

Is Boeing's object to drive Northrup Grumman out of business, leaving them the sole manufacturer?

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:46 PM

>>>Is Boeing's object to drive Northrup Grumman out of business, leaving them the sole manufacturer?<<<

That horse left the barn when Boeing bought McDonnel Douglas and Lockheed stopped making passenger jets.

Northrup Grumman is a front for Airbus.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:47 PM

Well, I do have some sympathy for the argument that Boeing shouldn't be the only game in town.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: number 6
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:04 PM

I'm with you regarding that statement Rigin.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:25 PM

>>Well, I do have some sympathy for the argument that Boeing shouldn't be the only game in town.<<

So do I. But the solution to that is not sending gushing streams of Tax dollars out of the country.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 05:42 PM

Has anyone bothered to look into EADS North America? The American branch of this company of several parts, including Airbus, Ariane, space vehicles, etc. EADS is a major operator in the ESA group whose 'space tug,' launched from its Guiana site, is on its way to supply the space station; it will be the major carrier of supplies.

EADS is delivering on schedule the U. S. Army's UH-72A Lakota helicopters, some 20 received and accepted so far.

Its military tanker is state of the art; not only will it supply the U. S. long range flights with fuel, but has been selected by the UK and Australian airforces as well as by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The tanker has been selected on the basis of mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, cost/price and an integrated fleet air refueling assessment.
Looking ahead to the future, this tanker may supply fuel to new design long range air cargo planes.

The EADS Combat Support Hospital is being evaluated by the U. S. Army.

EADS operates in 31 cities in the U. S. and supports 190,000 jobs in the States. Fairchild Controls is an important adjunct.
EADS North America-
EADS

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:46 PM

Okay, I went to the website, and I still don't know what EADS stands for.

                   But remember when somebody jabbed Ronald Reagan with a cattle prod and he promptly signed an order to allow Berretta to make hand guns for American Armed Forces, leaving Colt to lay off people in Connecticut?

                   I mean, to me it doesn't seem like it even matters what an officer is carrying for a side-arm. If the enemy gets that close it's probably curtains anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:24 AM

The current favorite hand gun in the military may be the Glock regardless of what is issued, according to a military person I know in Iraq. This may just be a personal preference and he is blowing it up- he tells some tall tales from time to time.

EADS- European Aeronautic Defense and Space

Subject: RE: BS: The Airbus deal
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:25 AM

I don't claim to know all that much about hand guns, but no larger role than they seem to play in the overall scheme of modern warfare, why would our government go to an Italian manufacturer and cause a loss of jobs in the US?