Originally Posted by Flashman_already_taken!

One thing to remember is that as fas as most americans are concerned Airbus is french (though its only partially french). And france is associated with cowardice and surrender in the eyes of a lot of americans, especially over Gulf War 2: A Sons Vengence

So there will be all sorts of senators and what not demanding the american planes should be built by american people with american money. Woe betide any politician over there that wants to see american jobs go to french people.

Then again, how many procurements have the MOD done to secure british jobs? An example would be rather than upgrading Pumas and Lynxs why not just buy bloody Blackhawks! That would get choppers to the front a lot quicker than buying british, but no polititian want to sacrifice british jobs.

However dont accuse me of siding with the yanks on this one! Personally I think its a shame and could possibly have an affect on me. I used to work in the Airbus Broughton factory where they make the wings and have been looking at the possibility of returning, however with fewer orders this might not be good. Also i run my own business and have had many Airbus customes use my services and obviouslty the more there are, and the more secure their jobs are, the more chance I have of gaining work. Airbus and other support companies must be pretty much the biggest employer around here.

One of the early Blackhawk offers included a fair amount of British factory work, which MoD turned down for whatever reason they came up with......

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

One of the early Blackhawk offers included a fair amount of British factory work, which MoD turned down for whatever reason they came up with......

Wastelands even have a licence to build the Blackhawk and actually churned one out…

The Merlin won the H-71 competition. The problem came afterwards as, following best practice straight from the MoD handbook, the Americans started adding extra bits of kit and capability to the airframe. To top it all, they then refused to give AugustaWestland information about the kit (for security reasons) which meant that trying to integrate it became... problematic.

Also bear in mind that if Boeing hadn't engaged in activity which led to two people getting prison sentences and John McCain and other senators sticking their oar in, the 767 would've ended up as the USAF tanker anyway.

There are lots of reasons to suspect that this may not be the end of the matter, though - senators whose constituents lose out because of the withdrawal of the KC-45 at a point when Barack needs all the friends he can get in Congress; Obama's stated opposition to single-source contracts as being bad for the taxpayer, and the likelihood that on present form, the KC-767 will be more expensive, late and have problems with the probe-and-drogue refuelling pods (= one unhappy US Navy and USMC) as is currently an issue on the Italian KC-767s and you get the feeling that there may be more to come on this...

Of course, the MOD waste etc is a whole other story. Cant say im suprised at this decision from the Septics given how many defence procurements have 'politics' written all over them?

Back in the mid 90s I remember a unit I was in was issued RB44 trucks (Reynauld Boughtons or something, about halfway between a LR and a 4 Tonner). These things where a bag of shit. In fact the company went bust part way through suppyling them and most of our trucks only had a drivers seat in the cab! I remember as a youngster driving our PSAO to an exercise or something in one of these, and he was sat in a plastic classroom chair in the cab!...Still he was wearing his seatbelt. Now I heard at the time that these trucks where not selected on the basis of quality (they had none!) but because RB was the only british firm, in fact IIRC they came last in the army trials*

SO how much kit is selected purely on the grounds of quality and need? Im sure there are sooo many more examples...


*flashy disclaimer: the above story about it coming last in the trial etc. might be entirely bollocks, im simply repeating what i was told at the time...15 years ago....

This is a quality stitch up by Northrop Grumman/EADS. Boeing may have used US domestic political chauvanism to skew the competition their way but the withdrawal of the opposition means they face accusations of profiteering, and probably a serious wire-brushing of their costs - and hence profit margin - as a result.

The other thing the delays have done is underlined the obsolete nature of the 767 airframe and the fact that by today's standards it's really not very good and a poor choice for something supposed to be in service for decades to come. But,as Boeing have spent years trashing the A330 on the grounds of size they cannot offer a (say) 777 based alternative without admitting they were lying through their teeth.

So the only people to get it in the shorts will be USAF and the US taxpayer.

The Yanks used to buy overseas kit, Canberra and that 155 Mil Howitzer.
But on a megga project National Pride does get involved.
john
That's life.

The boeing plane was cheaper then airbus plane burns less fuel per hour of flight is cheaper to house in existing US tanker bases and meets all the contracted requirements for the tanker contract.

The outcome was going to be boeing based on the above factors. Airbus knew this and dropped out because it was going to lose on the merits.

Now that US has decided this contract its game over for airbus in tanker market for next 20 years.

The main problem here is that europe doesnt buy enough tankers to keep airbus in the bussines not US protectionism.

not surprising airbus had won the orginal contract boeing complained, they have some big support in congress, this is nothing more than a political move to secure jobs under the current world situation, nothing to do with value for money or what the boys wanted in the way of new toys, its protecting there defence industry something we would do well to consider considering whats left of it.

Originally Posted by Semper_Flexibilis

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

One of the early Blackhawk offers included a fair amount of British factory work, which MoD turned down for whatever reason they came up with......

Wastelands even have a licence to build the Blackhawk and actually churned one out…

So no actual job losses then....Win-Win all round. Army gets a fairly good heli at a decent price in a decent time frame and there's still work in the UK. Hell, the Trrop carrying role could have been taken off the Lynx and that knackered airframe retired sooner.....

RAF reduced acquisition of A400M cut:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ah_5Eota1Rw8