From a jobs standpoint, It will be great for the US because Airbus will also build the A330 Freighter there, and I expect that they will sell a couple hundred more airframes in the future. This will also be good for Airbus, as they will have less exchange rate risks because they sell their aircraft in US dollars.
This should be the end of the line for the 767, with Boeing more interested in pushing the 777F.
Before all you EADS/Airbus lovers start celebrating the US Congress is pretty upset about these developments and it is very likley they will axe the deal and hand it Boeing anyway.
Last info I heard was that Washington congressmen are very upset, Alabama congressmen are very happy and everybody else is more concerned about november elections, and I am nobody's lover, to put it simply KC30 is a better aircraft than KC767. Anyway a split buy may be eventually the final solution
This is a travesty. I cannot believe the Pentagon was so stupid to have done this. Why in the sam hell was a foreign company even allowed to bid on a US military contract?
Congress seems to be outraged. Rightfully so. Whats next? Are we going to buy Eurofighters and Rafales to replace F-15s and F-16s?
Um.... well..... F-15s falling out of the sky and F-35 delayed... maybe a Nothrop-Grumman F-24 Typhoon with AN/APG 80 AESA radar...... No that will never happen. But don't rule out Super Hornets as Plan B
Stupid to have done this? You mean, stupid to have bought the clearly superior plane? The plane that has now won ALL of the last five KC-30 vs KC-767 competitions (UK, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and USA)? Oh, and if they wouldn't allow a foreign company (not even really true, as Northrop Grumman was the co-bidder) to bid, the only possibility would be Boeing, and they would have raped the USAF, without any competition. In fact, you're now getting a NEW widebody assembly line!
Plane for plane it may be a better tanker than the 767 BUT that is not the point. The New tanker would replace old KC-135Es so the requirement was for a replacement that required minimal infastructure changes, such as hangers and runways ect. Boeing complied and made a plane desgined around the 767 and not the much larger 777 for that reason. Airbus did not, and used the larger A330. So Boeing complied with the reqirement, Airbus did not and yet won the contract? That is stupid.
1) Airbus didn't 'use' the A330, Northrop Grumman / EADS did.
2) The Air Force (you know, those people who know far better than you and me what it is they need) found the KC-30 to be the far superior plane FOR THEIR NEEDS.
It's pretty simple really: if NG / EADS was not supposed to ever be awarded the contract, they shouldn't have been allowed to compete for it from the start, and the planes should have come fropm Boeing, at their terms and prices.
You're right NG/EADS should not have been allowed to compete, I don't know why they were in the first place. Competition is important but I don't know why Lockheed-Martin couldn't have been the other competetor.
"You made your bed, now lie in it."
Fortuneately we have a Congress that's capable of axing the deal and handing it to Boeing anyway, and they may do just that.
Lockheed Martin? With what? They don't have a plane to base the tanker on, and designing a completely new one from scratch is no alternative: it's prohibitively expensive, and a much higher risk. Face it, there simply was NO "all-American" alternative for the Boeing. And even the Boeing isn't all-American.
If Congress overturns this decision, they'll be telling Boeing: 'look, you're going to get the contract no matter what, so charge whatever you want. Rape us. Please.'
Boeing will from that point on have no incentive to offer the best possible product, at the best possible price: they'll get the contract anyway.
With this deal, you'll get a brand new widebody assembly line in your country, and a foreign aerospace company creating jobs, while your own Boeing moves jobs AWAY from the US. Did you know the NG / EADS tanker will have MORE US content than the new Boeing 787? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
You do have a valid point. Boeing was idiotic at the start of the deal when they tried to bribe their way to get this contract back in 2002 I believe. Competition is important.
I would feel better about the deal if Airbus released all cad drawings and computer models of every part of the A330 giving the US the ability to independently produce the entire aircraft and spares if nessisary.
The second Lockheed Martin releases all blueprints and cad drawings of the F-16 and the C-130 to all the countries who bought those, and Boeing does the same with the F-15, F/A-18, Apache, C-17, Chinook, etc, all of which have been sold to other countries.
Seriously, why would they do that? Airbus is situated in Western European countries, you know, your closest and most reliable allies?
If they don't I can promise Congress WILL axe this program. The US is not a postage stamp country like Sweden, we cannot be dependant on a foreign power for military hardware.
Cloest and more reliable allies? More like occasional allies, but don't get me started on that.
Trust me, releasing the blueprints on the A330 will not even be asked for by the US. It's a completely crazy idea, koo-koo crazy even. Funny you picked Sweden, the one 'postage stamp' country that still actually builds its own fighters. As for you being 'dependant' on a foreign power? Give me a break! You guys have been using Harriers for decades, just who do you think invented those? And yes, your closest and most reliable allies. Can you name any that are closer and more reliable?
Oh, and on the allies: being an ally means supporting each other in times of need or when under attack. Like when we helped you (and are still helping you, with boots on the ground) in Afghanistan, the country where those who attacked you were trained and protected.
It does not mean helping you fight an illegal offensive unprovoked war like Iraq.
Ally = helping and supporting in time of need, NOT blindly supporting each other's every move, no matter how stupid. Many don't seem to get that.
Why are you people keep comparing the 787 and KC30? If it is military programs, paid by American taxpayers, it should be majority DESIGNED and BUILT in the United States. Because no jobs mean no taxpayments and mean no defense budget, and not to mention national security implications of outsourcing this very important military asset.The 787 is a commercial airplane and majority of the customers are foreigners. So stop comparing those two. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Neither Lockheed-Martin nor Northrop-Grumman could win the competition when building up on a boeing airframe if boeing is also a competitor. Building a own airframe from scratch is not an option, because boeing could use it's existing airframes to reduce cost.
Who else other then boeing has a airframe suitable as a tanker aircraft in the world ? Airbus/EADS. Anybody else ? Nope.
Decission done. Compete with Boeing on a EADS airframe base or drop out off the competition that's it. - FACT -
I know this is an ad but it's rather dishonest. First Airbus has announced that the KC-30 will most likely be based on the under development A330-200F not the passenger model. Which means the airframe shown in this video isn't likely to be the first USAF tanker if Airbus wins the contract. Second the KC-767 has also been chosen by our allies.
No its not, the assembly line for the A332F will be in Mobile, Alabama if they win. So they can't show a model of the A332F because it doesn't have an assembly line yet. Apart the KC-30 is much more capable and advanced then the patchwork(different parts of 767 models) called KC-767.
Yes it is. EADS and Northrop had won the competition from Pentagon. EADS factory will create 1500 jobs for Alabama's soon. But, only eight Boeing KC-767 will be built and none of them purchased by USAF or Pentagon.
Wrong, the A332F was decided recently the KC-30 was always declared as an A332 derivate. Apart the A332 and A332F are very similar. The F only improves the cargo loading capabilities. The KC-30 has won 4 from 5 competitions and will fly for the UK,RAAF and others. Its clearly much more capable then the KC-767. Do you want for your military the inferior product?
From a jobs standpoint, It will be great for the US because Airbus will also build the A330 Freighter there, and I expect that they will sell a couple hundred more airframes in the future. This will also be good for Airbus, as they will have less exchange rate risks because they sell their aircraft in US dollars.
This should be the end of the line for the 767, with Boeing more interested in pushing the 777F.
Avantime 4 years ago 2
anyone know the music of this video?
kousto 4 years ago
The new plain is pretty good for alabama .....
Illuminatus1982 4 years ago
Before all you EADS/Airbus lovers start celebrating the US Congress is pretty upset about these developments and it is very likley they will axe the deal and hand it Boeing anyway.
Antiworld23 4 years ago
Last info I heard was that Washington congressmen are very upset, Alabama congressmen are very happy and everybody else is more concerned about november elections, and I am nobody's lover, to put it simply KC30 is a better aircraft than KC767. Anyway a split buy may be eventually the final solution
grtorrest 4 years ago
Or maybe the Europeans will buy the F-35, the F-16 and/or the F-18. Nah that will never happen...oops.
bagotc 4 years ago
If you were not so ignorant you'd know they( those ...Europeans) allready bought a lot of your military hardware. So it's time to return the favor.
proudbelgian 4 years ago
That's exactly what bagotc was saying, proudbelgian. It's called sarcasm...
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
Sorry, I didn't understand your remark was "sarcasm".LOL
proudbelgian 4 years ago
This is a travesty. I cannot believe the Pentagon was so stupid to have done this. Why in the sam hell was a foreign company even allowed to bid on a US military contract?
Congress seems to be outraged. Rightfully so. Whats next? Are we going to buy Eurofighters and Rafales to replace F-15s and F-16s?
Antiworld23 4 years ago
Um.... well..... F-15s falling out of the sky and F-35 delayed... maybe a Nothrop-Grumman F-24 Typhoon with AN/APG 80 AESA radar...... No that will never happen. But don't rule out Super Hornets as Plan B
grtorrest 4 years ago
Stupid to have done this? You mean, stupid to have bought the clearly superior plane? The plane that has now won ALL of the last five KC-30 vs KC-767 competitions (UK, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and USA)? Oh, and if they wouldn't allow a foreign company (not even really true, as Northrop Grumman was the co-bidder) to bid, the only possibility would be Boeing, and they would have raped the USAF, without any competition. In fact, you're now getting a NEW widebody assembly line!
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
Plane for plane it may be a better tanker than the 767 BUT that is not the point. The New tanker would replace old KC-135Es so the requirement was for a replacement that required minimal infastructure changes, such as hangers and runways ect. Boeing complied and made a plane desgined around the 767 and not the much larger 777 for that reason. Airbus did not, and used the larger A330. So Boeing complied with the reqirement, Airbus did not and yet won the contract? That is stupid.
Antiworld23 4 years ago
1) Airbus didn't 'use' the A330, Northrop Grumman / EADS did.
2) The Air Force (you know, those people who know far better than you and me what it is they need) found the KC-30 to be the far superior plane FOR THEIR NEEDS.
It's pretty simple really: if NG / EADS was not supposed to ever be awarded the contract, they shouldn't have been allowed to compete for it from the start, and the planes should have come fropm Boeing, at their terms and prices.
You made your bed, now lie in it.
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
You're right NG/EADS should not have been allowed to compete, I don't know why they were in the first place. Competition is important but I don't know why Lockheed-Martin couldn't have been the other competetor.
"You made your bed, now lie in it."
Fortuneately we have a Congress that's capable of axing the deal and handing it to Boeing anyway, and they may do just that.
Antiworld23 4 years ago
Lockheed Martin? With what? They don't have a plane to base the tanker on, and designing a completely new one from scratch is no alternative: it's prohibitively expensive, and a much higher risk. Face it, there simply was NO "all-American" alternative for the Boeing. And even the Boeing isn't all-American.
If Congress overturns this decision, they'll be telling Boeing: 'look, you're going to get the contract no matter what, so charge whatever you want. Rape us. Please.'
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
Boeing will from that point on have no incentive to offer the best possible product, at the best possible price: they'll get the contract anyway.
With this deal, you'll get a brand new widebody assembly line in your country, and a foreign aerospace company creating jobs, while your own Boeing moves jobs AWAY from the US. Did you know the NG / EADS tanker will have MORE US content than the new Boeing 787? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
You do have a valid point. Boeing was idiotic at the start of the deal when they tried to bribe their way to get this contract back in 2002 I believe. Competition is important.
I would feel better about the deal if Airbus released all cad drawings and computer models of every part of the A330 giving the US the ability to independently produce the entire aircraft and spares if nessisary.
Antiworld23 4 years ago
Yeah, I'm sure that'll happen.
The second Lockheed Martin releases all blueprints and cad drawings of the F-16 and the C-130 to all the countries who bought those, and Boeing does the same with the F-15, F/A-18, Apache, C-17, Chinook, etc, all of which have been sold to other countries.
Seriously, why would they do that? Airbus is situated in Western European countries, you know, your closest and most reliable allies?
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
If they don't I can promise Congress WILL axe this program. The US is not a postage stamp country like Sweden, we cannot be dependant on a foreign power for military hardware.
Cloest and more reliable allies? More like occasional allies, but don't get me started on that.
Antiworld23 4 years ago
Trust me, releasing the blueprints on the A330 will not even be asked for by the US. It's a completely crazy idea, koo-koo crazy even. Funny you picked Sweden, the one 'postage stamp' country that still actually builds its own fighters. As for you being 'dependant' on a foreign power? Give me a break! You guys have been using Harriers for decades, just who do you think invented those? And yes, your closest and most reliable allies. Can you name any that are closer and more reliable?
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
@Smoznizjev - Australia
smeary10 1 year ago
Oh, and on the allies: being an ally means supporting each other in times of need or when under attack. Like when we helped you (and are still helping you, with boots on the ground) in Afghanistan, the country where those who attacked you were trained and protected.
It does not mean helping you fight an illegal offensive unprovoked war like Iraq.
Ally = helping and supporting in time of need, NOT blindly supporting each other's every move, no matter how stupid. Many don't seem to get that.
Smoznizjev 4 years ago
Why are you people keep comparing the 787 and KC30? If it is military programs, paid by American taxpayers, it should be majority DESIGNED and BUILT in the United States. Because no jobs mean no taxpayments and mean no defense budget, and not to mention national security implications of outsourcing this very important military asset.The 787 is a commercial airplane and majority of the customers are foreigners. So stop comparing those two. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
pinoyaggie 3 years ago
Neither Lockheed-Martin nor Northrop-Grumman could win the competition when building up on a boeing airframe if boeing is also a competitor. Building a own airframe from scratch is not an option, because boeing could use it's existing airframes to reduce cost.
Who else other then boeing has a airframe suitable as a tanker aircraft in the world ? Airbus/EADS. Anybody else ? Nope.
Decission done. Compete with Boeing on a EADS airframe base or drop out off the competition that's it. - FACT -
mountainman1977 3 years ago 2
I know this is an ad but it's rather dishonest. First Airbus has announced that the KC-30 will most likely be based on the under development A330-200F not the passenger model. Which means the airframe shown in this video isn't likely to be the first USAF tanker if Airbus wins the contract. Second the KC-767 has also been chosen by our allies.
timbovayt1 4 years ago
No its not, the assembly line for the A332F will be in Mobile, Alabama if they win. So they can't show a model of the A332F because it doesn't have an assembly line yet. Apart the KC-30 is much more capable and advanced then the patchwork(different parts of 767 models) called KC-767.
techdefined 4 years ago
Yes it is. EADS and Northrop had won the competition from Pentagon. EADS factory will create 1500 jobs for Alabama's soon. But, only eight Boeing KC-767 will be built and none of them purchased by USAF or Pentagon.
Donz5885 4 years ago
Wrong, the A332F was decided recently the KC-30 was always declared as an A332 derivate. Apart the A332 and A332F are very similar. The F only improves the cargo loading capabilities. The KC-30 has won 4 from 5 competitions and will fly for the UK,RAAF and others. Its clearly much more capable then the KC-767. Do you want for your military the inferior product?
techdefined 4 years ago