Boeing looses

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Bodhi
See Rule #7

wow

[Lumpy]

The contract was awarded Northrop Grumman, who will also build the aircraft. Why are you people whining?

[eagl]

Originally posted by Lumpy
The contract was awarded Northrop Grumman, who will also build the aircraft. Why are you people whining?

Northrop will be 'assembling' the aircraft.  Building implies actually creating something from raw materials.  The 6000 jobs created in whatever state gets the assembly plant will not do anything to keep critical national infrastructure (R&D, engineers, etc) going in the US.

And that's why the politicians are going nuts.  Yea some are worried about their constituents, but the rest are wondering why we will be sending all that money overseas when in return, we get "offset" work in the US that require little more talent than needed to assemble a toyota camry.

And of course, if things go to hell, we'll find that we don't have any engineers left that know how to build tankers, booms, or any of the other specialized critical tidbits of knowledge that go into this sort of thing.

Oh yea, outsourcing the tanker also will KILL the "smart tanker" concept, because there is no way in hell we'll export the comm gear and intel technology we wanted to have as an option.  It's the same problem we're having with the Brits balking at not getting the source code and stealth validation technology with the JSF, except in reverse - we'll have technology we want integrated into that tanker, and we will find it tough to do it because the people doing the work won't be allowed to have the tech.

Call to tech support:
USAF:  Our comm gear doesn't work.
EADS:  What kind of comm gear is it?
USAF:  I can't tell you.  But it doesn't work.
EADS:  What antenna did you plug it into?
USAF:  The pointy one near the front up on top.
EADS:  That's only good for UHF.
USAF:  We know.  It doesn't work though.
EADS:  Have you switched the comm gear on?  I mean, is the on/off switch in the on position, and is it plugged into the electrical system?
USAF:  Hang on, lemme go check.
USAF:  Yes it's plugged in and it's on, but it still doesn't work.
EADS:  If you'll just fax us the specs...*click* hello?  hello?

I'm not a "decider" but it's not hard to come up with a dozen or more really good reasons why we shouldn't rely on another country for a military capability that is so absolutely critical as air refuelling.  Everything we do in modern joint warfare relies on tanker support.  It is the proverbial long pole in the tent...  Our entire logistics flow in pretty much every potential theater relies 100% on tankers, because it's too expensive to pre-position both equipment AND people.   And so we're outsourcing it?  No wonder Congress is throwing a fit.

This is little different than if stratcom announced they were outsourcing the next generation of nuclear warheads to Germany, or the Navy outsourcing their next nuke missile sub to Japan...  There is a saying the tanker guys like repeating...  NKAWTG (Nobody kicks a** without tanker gas).  That isn't just a flippant remark, it's the absolute truth.  You just don't outsource critical resources like that.

Well, I guess we do now.

[Nilsen]

Hmm i see your point eagle sorta..

But it should go both ways dont you think?

[Lumpy]

Boeing works with nearly 500 companies in 21 European countries. About half of Boeing's planes usually bear the "Made in Europe" stamp.

Boeing has about 1,000 suppliers outside the United States:

Europe 495
Americas 236
Asia/Pacific 147
Middle East 39
Africa 3

Likewise Airbus has suppliers in America and the rest of the world. Buying from Boeing does not get you an American plane. Just like with Airbus you get an international plane, only with final assembly done in Everett instead of Mobile.

So, what�s your point again?

[eagl]

It *should* go both ways, except that *most* countries would either go bankrupt or fall far far behind in capability if they wanted to develop everything in-house.

USSR tried to keep up and went bankrupt.  Look at how many countries went after next generation fighters, and look how those match up against the F-22.  Heck, how many countries are buying the eurofighter, how many years was it in development, and how many are actually operational?  Compare that against the F-22.

That's not intended to be bragging, it's just pointing out that there is a time and a place for developing specific capabilities in-house.  For critical capabilities, it is very perilous to allow the R&D to be done elsewhere.  In this case, the US is actually giving up a capability that nobody else can match, but which is absolutely essential to our basic warfighting gameplan.  That's a bit different than outsourcing production of something that can't possibly be done in-house to begin with.  As an example, it appears that it is simply not economically or technically feasable for the UK to design and build their next carrier.  The barriers are insurmountable.  But by going in on it with a partner, it becomes possible.

There is nothing like that for the US.  We have zero critical capabilities that we cannot produce ourselves.  Giving up one is therefore much more than a question of budgetary efficiency.  Does the EADS proposal give us a capability that we cannot get by ourselves?  If so, we not only have a procurement problem, we have a national technical infrastructure disaster on our hands.

[eagl]

Originally posted by Lumpy
Boeing works with nearly 500 companies in 21 European countries. About half of Boeing's planes usually bear the "Made in Europe" stamp.

Boeing has about 1,000 suppliers outside the United States:

Europe 495
Americas 236
Asia/Pacific 147
Middle East 39
Africa 3

Likewise Airbus has suppliers in America and the rest of the world. Buying from Boeing does not get you an American plane. Just like with Airbus you get an international plane, only with final assembly done in Everett instead of Mobile.

So, what�s your point again?

You should check your sources again, this time ensuring that military spec requirements are in mind.  Congress passed a law a long time ago that stated military procurement will not rely on components that can be only built off-shore or using materials (mostly expensive or rare metals) that cannot be procured in the US.

This requirement drives up the cost of a lot of things, but it ensures that we do not lose critical capabilities in the event that we lose our sea/air lines of commerce/communication.

And the design for those boeing planes is still done right here.  The 787 is a bit of an exception since some design work was in fact handed off to reliable industry partners, but the USAF isn't considering buying any 787s.

[Lumpy]

What part of an Airbus cannot be built in the US later on if need be?

And I wasn't talking about the 787. I was talking about Boeing planes in general with the numbers representing the B717 (MD-95).


As for your Eurofighter vs. Raptor argument. As of December 2007 four countries operated a total of 137 Eurofighters, with 707 on order as of January 2008.

As of October 2007 only 91 Raptors were active with a planned total of 187.


What you were trying to illustrate with this example is not clear though.

[rpm]

I wonder how long before Northrop starts assembling A380's?

[LePaul]

I see your point, Eagl.  But there's a lot of exceptions to the rule.

The "analogy" you have created is interesting but I also want to point out that we sell F-16s to lots of governments.  Some, such as Israel, put their own avionics and weaponry in there.

What's stopping us from putting our own avionics and such in there?  I mean, if the new KC is built as described, then the USAF would have the ability to modify and load it up with whatever they contract for, yes?

As has been said all over the media, this was Boeing's to have or squander.  Personally, I think the bird they produced is an excellent product.  I haven't seen the reporting on why the Air Force chose who they did.  That would be an interesting read.

[Nilsen]

I would think that any country that can produce planes can make tankers... They are not that complex.

 If everything goes to hell and Northrop Grumman in the US refuses to produce spare parts or services for your tanker fleet i would bet that Boeing would be right there. In a time of (real) war i would suspect that the US government would just take control of the factory just like any other nation would if they were at war.

This should not be a big deal, however if the US did decide to buy boeing JUST because its american and there are no other benefits then it would open up a bag of trouble in regards to international trade.

[eagl]

Aviation Week did some industry analysis on the issue of adding features after delivery...  They pointed out several recent projects that failed for no reason other than the capabilities being added were not included in the original design, so the integration was either prohibitively expensive or physically impossible.  There was a high visibility intel gathering platform that was cancelled because the chosen airframe was too small.

And none of this gets around the fact that outsourcing R&D and core engineering for a military capability that is a critical national asset is generally a really bad thing to do.  In fact, it can be relatively easily argued that if the capability can be maintained in house, it should NEVER be outsourced because the risk level is unacceptable.

I don't mean "threat"... I mean "risk".  As in the consequences for being wrong are absolutely catastrophic, even if the chances are 1 in a million.

Losing the ability to make more tankers due to not having the blueprints or even the engineers to re-do the work, or immediately procure spare parts, would be catastrophic because almost everything we do in modern joint warfare relies on air refuelling.  It is a force multipler, and our entire force structure is based on (among other things) the assumption that we will have tanker support.

[eagl]

Originally posted by Nilsen
I would think that any country that can produce planes can make tankers... They are not that complex.

 If everything goes to hell and Northrop Grumman in the US refuses to produce spare parts or services for your tanker fleet i would bet that Boeing would be right there. In a time of (real) war i would suspect that the US government would just take control of the factory just like any other nation would if they were at war.

This should not be a big deal, however if the US did decide to buy boeing JUST because its american and there are no other benefits then it would open up a bag of trouble in regards to international trade.

First, it IS that complex.  It really is not easy.  I've been there, done that, and I'm glad I didn't explode.

Second, nobody is keeping extra engineers sitting around waiting for something to happen, so Boeing can't "be right there" if we don't buy enough stuff from them to keep their staff on the payroll.

Third, no country in the world outsources critical capabilities that they can build themselves.  Not one.  If they need it and they can build it themselves, they do so, pretty much without exception.

Another example - Saddam thought everyone was his friend when he bought his air defense system.  Then he made a few countries mad, and his gucci KARI IADS got picked apart with the help of the same people who sold it to him.  Whoops.  Can you honestly predict that the US will always be beloved around the world, and none of the EADS partners would give out information on a critical US military capability, if properly coerced?  Heck, we couldn't even keep F-117 operations secret in the Kosovo campaign, and we weren't even fighting the people who leaked our ATO every night.

[Nilsen]

So the US defence industry actually decides future policies and not those who are elected and pay for it?

Isnt that abit... risky?

Solutions to these problems if they should arise are usually solved by the industy if money and contracts are offered. Its the nature of supply and demand.

[Lumpy]

Just to add a few nuggets of info on the Eurofighter vs. Raptor thing:

Eurofighter has been in development since 1979. Raptor has been in development since 1981.

Eurofighter first flight: 1994. Raptor first flight: 1997

Eurofighter went operational in 2003. Raptor was operational in 2005.

Eurofighter development cost: $41 billion (14% over budget and 54 months late). Raptor development cost: $62 billion (127% over budget and 117 months late)


As for comparing the capabilities of both aircraft the only man known to have flown both is General Jumper, former US Air Force chief of staff. According to him the two planes are "neck-and-neck".