An AP/McClatchy NS story…
WASHINGTON – The leaders of France, Germany and Britain personally lobbied President Bush over a controversial $35 billion contract for U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers that was originally awarded to a team that included a European aerospace firm but is now being re-competed.
The White House confirmed Wednesday that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had all raised the tanker issue with Bush.
But White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush made clear to all three that the decision was up to the Pentagon.
“All three leaders at various times raised the issue,” Johndroe said. “The president told all three the same thing, he has nothing to do with the contracting process and the White House has nothing to do with the contracting process.”

European newspapers have reported for months that Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel have lobbied Bush, writing letters and raising the issue in direct talks. Initially the leaders lobbied for the contract and more recently, according to the latest reports, they have expressed concern that the Pentagon decision to reopen the tanker competition could jeopardize Airbus jobs in Europe.According to a report in the International Herald Tribune, Tom Enders, a top EADS executive, accompanied Merkel to one meeting with Bush at the White House.”

Emphasis added….
If this is accurate, it seems that EADS wants the US to consider more than just the qualities of the aircraft.
If EADS and the EU see it as a Eurojobs program, why shouldn’t Boeing and the DoD? 🙂

It’s wonderful that the leaders of the other countries are finally coming right out and showing what it’s all about: they want the jobs. Isn’t it ironic that the Euros’s have their political leaders involved directly, while claiming that the U.S. politicians are the ones gumming up the works? They have the audacity to appeal to the political process by asking the U.S. politicians to just step aside and watch the U.S. industrial base further erode!

Thank God W is taking the high road (as he always does). It must have been hard for him to resist the human urge for a quid pro quo and ask where they were when he needed them in Iraq, or at least ask if they felt any guilt about directly contributing to the 4,000 U.S. deaths.

The A330 is too big. It’s NOT the responsibility of the U.S. tapayers to prop up the bloated and flawed EuroSocialist system (The Marshal plan should finally be over). The French have to answer for 1986 (El Dorado Canyon) and Casablanca 1942 when they fired on U.S. liberators.

Boeing hires people to build airplanes……Airbus builds airplanes so they can hire people. Let em eat cake!

[B]In all seriousness, what’s this about a 737 tanker? I know Boeing hasn’t considered it, but would a 737-800/900 variant equipped as a tanker work? Would it be big enough?

I don’t have the data right in front of me, but I believe the NG payload range chart compares favorably with the KC-135A, and perhaps even the R. And they keep saying they want a large number of booms, and the NG would be perfect for filling up tactical aircaft, with their lower demands.

As for the trade deficit and the budget deficit, this is no fault of anyone but the US itself, and can only be solved by a fiscally responsible administration in the White House.

I was referring to the trade deficit. The trade deficit is due to the unselfishness of the U.S., no other country has spread it’s wealth so thin to help out others. I don’t think it will be easily solved, by any administration, especially not with the “friends” the U.S. has in Western Europe.

Their greed is catching up to them though. The dollar falling is a great help to this problem. Meanwhile the protectionist, socialist, Old Europe countries see their goods and services get more and more expensive. This is the true reason Airbus was gonna build the plane in the U.S.

AWho’s throwing anybody under a bus? .

In case you haven’t noticed the USA is tettering on the edge of financial collapse…..fuel at record high…..mortgage foreclosure at record levels….housing market collapsing……many high wage union jobs gone or going…..the country over-run with illegal immigrants (who get free health care by the way)…..etc. etc. etc. If you think that protectionist Democrat politicians (that control the House and soon the Senate) funded by unions are going to stand by aimlessly and let what is widely seen as a French run consortium put more American workers out of work, well then I guess we just have to agree to disagree. BTW, the Chinese are funding U.S. debt, not the French!

If only Boeing hadn’t gotten greedy to the tune of 6-8 Billion extra dollars. Thank God McCain called them on it.

Europe continues to buy American on a large scale – more than the other way. The tanker selection is evidence that the playing field is levelling out, which is a good thing for both sides of the Atlantic.

Are you referring to balance of payments with regard to defense or the overall economy? I believe the U.S. has a significant overall negative trade deficit with Europe. Now the U.S. is expected to sacrifice it’s one remaining leadership industry, Aerospace, in the name of fairness when the balance for the remainder is already negative??? Fairness for the French? Things won’t “even out” till the protectionists in Europe adopt a more market driven approach IMHO.

Hey, I’m not just making this stuff up. And yes, everyone else should be concerned…..I believe the old cliche is that when the U.S. catches a cold, everyone else catches pneumonia.

Would anyone care to reset the clock and comment on a very abbreviated overview of the process to this point?

Correct me where I am wrong and/or add as needed.

1. USAF had a shortage of tanking assets during DS and OIF. A large part of this is due to it’s responsibilities to coalition and USN/USMC aircraft.

2. By some measures, USAF internal tanking requirements have decreased since end of cold war with hundreds of B-52’s and thousands of tactical aircraft being parked. USAF needs more booms because of the decentralized nature of operations, not larger tankers due to high offload requirements.

3. In spite of their constant whining, USAF does not have an extreme shortage of tankers right now.

4. The R’s are good till 2040, the current bid is only to replace 100 or so E’s. An unspoken assumption by some is that whoever wins the current bid will have a leg up on replacing the R’s at some future date.

5. A major limitation of the -135’s as opposed to the KC-10’s is that the -135s cannot receive fuel.

6. USAF does have a current shortage of airlift assets, thus it would be nice to have a tanker that is useful as a freighter also.

7. USAF has also indicated they might put some sophisticated electronic gear on future tankers, an officer was quoted in Av. Week as stating, “we will never buy a dumb tanker again.”

8. Boeing tried to fleece the taxpayers in the original, flawed lease deal. People went to jail.

9. Airbus has never built a boom-type tanker.

10. Airbus in incentivized to provide a good product, on-time, due to this opportunity to get their foot in the door.

11. Boeing never seriously considered submitting a 737NG, 777, or 787 based aircraft. (Seems to me the NG would be a GREAT way to get a lot of booms in the air, I can’t take credit for this, I originally read this proposal by Rene J. Francillion in AI.)

12. The 767 has a uniquely sized fuselage cross section which some feel is optimal for the current need. Similarly, production is winding down and Boeing can quickly produce 767 frames.

13. GAO has now indicated that the revised (post Druyun) bid was flawed.

14. It’s an election year in the U.S. and Democrat politicians are in the back pocket of the labor unions, whereas the states who would gain from NG/Airbus winning the bid are predominately Republican.

15. USAF tanking fleet is going to get more non-standard. No matter who wins, USAF is going to end up operating a very mixed fleet of -135’s, -10’s, -new tankers.

I don’t disagree at all. Part of my point was that the government is overhyping certain nations as “threats” when there is no logical basis for doing so apart from economic reasons (i.e. building more weapons). When they do that, then the military is equipped to fight those wars. My argument is that they’re picking the wrong wars to plan and equip for, and it’ll end up biting us in the rear at some point down the road.

He shoots! He scores!
or another way to say it: EGGZACHARY

Ok, I’ll give the humor attempt a break…..The political right in the U.S. loves to trump up the “threats” and seems to that think no one will notice the fat defense contractors swilling at the trough…..all the while castigating welfare programs as unnecessary.

Ooops, I forgot, its critical to keep up the (defense) industrial base, no matter the cost.

Be careful SOC, personal insults and attacks are sure to come your way since you challenge the status quo.

By the way, where is Sea Lord Lawrence? He seemed to be quite eloquent in arguing the lack of a Chinese or Russian threat in another thread.

The B-1A was suppose to have a run of 244 aircraft as I recall. There’s no reason the last 100 couldn’t have been B-1Bs. Besides there have been studies that suggest they’d like to give the B-1B BACK it’s Mach 2 performance (B-1R for instance).

There are studies for everything. Just because someone studied a contingency doesn’t make it a good idea. I’ll go on the line and state that the Mach 2 B-1 mod will never take place. BTW, you never really answered his question.

Which would required having kept an additional 100 B-52Gs active to compensate for the lacking 100 B-1s.

And saved billions in the process (not building the B-1)

With all the talk and studies of engine replacement on the B-52H how much more would they have wanted to replace them on the Gs?

And that would have been a wise deicison, ala the CFM56 mod on the -135s, a mod that has paid for itself in fuel savings. (I admit thats a WAG, I have never seen it in print, but if you run the numbers, it makes sense. In fact I’ll bet its paid for itself several times over.)

touche. i just thought it sounded like fun and we had divolved into a discussion about col. riccioni.

i will desist. thank you for you patience.

(it was chuck yeager who said the f-16 did nothing in the GW)