Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Air Force Generals wanted the Airbus???? >

Air Force Generals wanted the Airbus????

Notices
Military Military Aviation

Air Force Generals wanted the Airbus????

Old 04-03-2008, 04:15 PM
  #1  
La Familia Delta
Thread Starter
 
ghilis101's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Posts: 2,467
Default Air Force Generals wanted the Airbus????

I was surprised to read this kind of letter. These Generals are accusing Boeing of some pretty bad stuff. I still cant believe they chose the airbus, but i guess when it comes down to it, cost is everything.



------------------------------------------------------------------


March 31, 2008
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000



Dear Secretary Gates:


U.S. Air Force refueling aircraft are critical to joint U.S. power projection capabilities. The backbone of the current tanker fleet — the KC-135s — average 47 years of age, and must be replaced as expeditiously as possible.
We, the undersigned, have devoted years of service and sacrifice to this great nation and the United States Air Force. Accordingly, we are very troubled by the vitriolic attack on the Air Force by those who disagree with the outcome of the KC-45 Tanker competition.
From an objective perspective, the Air Force is prevented from using U.S. industrial base issues, U.S. employment issues and U.S. component content issues in making decisions about weapons systems. By law and by directive, they must consider which system gives best value for our Warfighters. But despite those facts, the Air Force is being attacked by Boeing and their special interests clients by:
  • Impugning the integrity of OUR Air Force in the conduct of the KC-45 source selection
  • Claiming OUR Air Force abandoned the interests of America and the American people during the selection process
  • Questioning the patriotism of the men and women of OUR Air Force
  • Claiming there is a problem with manufacturing by not-to-be-trusted foreign nationals, when all military modifications made to the aircraft will be done by Northrop Grumman under the strict standards of the Air Force — a fact Boeing supporters fully understand
We are unwavering in our support of the military and civilian members of the Air Force team, and know that they embody a commitment to integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all they do. The Air Force team rightly focused on delivering the most capability to the Warfighter — and their integrity, honor, and truthfulness should not be denigrated without factual information to the contrary, by those serving other interests.
Delays in the tanker program will only serve to put the lives of crews flying these aging systems in greater jeopardy. We fully support the Air Force in its desire to provide the best and most capable tanker to our Warfighters, and urge you to continue to stand up and help defend them from scurrilous and politically motivated attacks that have no basis in the source selection criteria for our next tanker.
Michael E. Ryan
Gen, USAF (Ret)

Ronald W. Yates
Gen, USAF (Ret)

Thomas McInerney
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)

Walter Kross
Gen, USAF (Ret)

Leroy Barnidge, Jr.
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

Silas R. Johnson, Jr.
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

David A. Nagy
Brig Gen, USAF (Ret)

Charles A. Horner
Gen, USAF (Ret)

Richard E. Hawley
Gen, USAF (Ret)

John W. Hawley
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

Robert C. Hinson
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)

Dr. George Peach Taylor, Jr.
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)

John D. Becker
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

Timothy J. McMahon
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

William J. Jabour
Brig Gen, USAF (Ret)

Gregory S. Martin
Gen, USAF (Ret)

Robert F. Raggio
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)

Charles H. Coolidge, Jr.
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)

Everett H. Pratt, Jr.
Lt Gen, USAF (Ret)

William Welser, III
Lt. Gen, USAF (Ret)

John W. Brooks
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

Timothy A. Peppe
Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)
ghilis101 is offline  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:20 PM
  #2  
No one's home
 
III Corps's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Default

Originally Posted by ghilis101 View Post
[I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]I was surprised to read this kind of letter. These Generals are accusing Boeing of some pretty bad stuff. I still cant believe they chose the airbus, but i guess when it comes down to it, cost is everything.
And then again, maybe they know more than the average poge and maybe they agree that the superior airplane won the contract and maybe they are not parochial and maybe they put the best interest of the country in front of jingoistic rhetoric. Maybe....
III Corps is offline  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:27 PM
  #3  
La Familia Delta
Thread Starter
 
ghilis101's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Posts: 2,467
Default

Originally Posted by III Corps View Post
And then again, maybe they know more than the average poge and maybe they agree that the superior airplane won the contract and maybe they are not parochial and maybe they put the best interest of the country in front of jingoistic rhetoric. Maybe....
thats a pretty idealistic thought, but if the airbus contract wasn't $25 million cheaper, it wouldn't have won.
ghilis101 is offline  
Old 04-03-2008, 05:13 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Tanker-driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 295
Default

I may be wrong, but I think there was an article on AFTimes.com yesterday that stated that most or all of these former officers are employed as lobbyists for either Northrop-Grumman or EADS. That said, yes, AF generals did want the KC-30. It was Air Force senior leadership that decided the KC-30 was the winner, and SecAF has backed that choice. Ghilis, I'm not sure that the EADS/Northrop bid was much cheaper, but it did offer more capability for roughly the same price. The best analogy I've seen is that the AF "went shopping for a Ford Explorer, and wound up with a Range Rover for the same price. Personally, I think that the AF would have been foolish to pick the Boeing, and I grew up in Seattle and I prefer the more pilot oriented Boeings. But you really can't argue with more capability for the same price.
Tanker-driver is offline  
Old 04-03-2008, 05:30 PM
  #5  
La Familia Delta
Thread Starter
 
ghilis101's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Posts: 2,467
Default

yea but they ended up with a 1992 Range Rover... granted thats due to the process and all airplanes are old technology and on the verge of being obsolete before they even get to the ramp... but whats the point of all that capability? Slightly better range, fuel economy, payload? If they wanted that, they should have asked for that in the Bid proposal (B-777 Tanker would have blown both of those airplanes out of the water, but its way too big, too capable and too expensive for a 135 replacement).

It still comes down to cost. If the A330 came in at a much higher cost than the 767, the Air Force would have said, "we dont need all those bells and whistles" and it would have been an easy choice. It ALWAYS comes down to the bottom line. Yes, I agree with you, they are getting more airplane for the money. But you gotta be careful what you wish for.

On a totally different note, Im going to guess that receiver A/R in the R/T version of the A330 will be nothing short of a nightmare, along with training new Co-Pilots in an airplane where you cant "ride" the controls as an instructor, you can essentially only take over with that sidestick priority logic.
ghilis101 is offline  
Old 04-03-2008, 05:40 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Default

Originally Posted by ghilis101 View Post
On a totally different note, Im going to guess that receiver A/R in the R/T version of the A330 will be nothing short of a nightmare, along with training new Co-Pilots in an airplane where you cant "ride" the controls as an instructor, you can essentially only take over with that sidestick priority logic.
Good point...didn't even think of that!
blastoff is offline  
Old 04-04-2008, 05:58 AM
  #7  
No one's home
 
III Corps's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Default

Originally Posted by ghilis101 View Post
thats a pretty idealistic thought, but if the airbus contract wasn't $25 million cheaper, it wouldn't have won.
I must assume then that you have iside information of a kick back or some skullduggery going on with the selection for the selection group to buy the worse of the two.

Also, fwiw, the 767 offered by Boeing was not the one sold to Japan or Italy but a cobbled together machine sometimes referred to as "Frankentanker"

A cartoon for your consumption.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/liem/2224074677/

article
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...daybuzz27.html
III Corps is offline  
Old 04-04-2008, 06:00 AM
  #8  
No one's home
 
III Corps's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Default

Originally Posted by ghilis101 View Post
On a totally different note, Im going to guess that receiver A/R in the R/T version of the A330 will be nothing short of a nightmare, along with training new Co-Pilots in an airplane where you cant "ride" the controls as an instructor, you can essentially only take over with that sidestick priority logic.
Gee.. wonder how all those airlines got their F/Os checked out with that flaw?
III Corps is offline  
Old 04-04-2008, 06:10 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
c17heavy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 129
Default

Originally Posted by III Corps View Post
Gee.. wonder how all those airlines got their F/Os checked out with that flaw?
yeah, along with F-16 pilots and their sidestick. or what about c-17 pilots and their 'fancy' fly by wire.
c17heavy is offline  
Old 04-04-2008, 07:47 AM
  #10  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

I would have loved to see a Boeing product in this role as much as anyone, but they blew it with the underhanded dealings the first time around. Then having lost the high ground, they didn't seem to listen to what the AF wanted. I wouldn't feel too bad about it...hopefully they learned some lessons for next time.
rickair7777 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Deez340
Regional
160
05-06-2008 09:41 PM
ToiletDuck
Hangar Talk
26
03-03-2008 11:35 AM
weasil
Military
10
12-29-2007 05:30 AM
Jurassic Jet
Cargo
26
11-15-2007 07:16 AM
Lbell911
Major
29
07-31-2007 05:02 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices