It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

French Now in Control of U.S. Military

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The French/European EADS/Airbus corporation funded by the nations of the EU may soon win a contract for providing in-flight refueling planes for the U.S. military.

The French often disagree with the U.S. on military actions, and are likely to refuse new parts for planes used in a military action they don't want to participate in.

Why is the U.S. selling out its sovereignty to the French?




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
There's nothing wrong with this. We currently use KC-135 (Boeing 707) for the majority of in flight refueling needs. These planes have quite a bit of age on them and will have to be replaced eventually. The US military will own and operate the planes, they are just shopping around for who they want to buy them from.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I have no problem with it as long as the U.S. Air Force has no inherit dependence on the French government for replacement parts or new planes in an emergency. But I find the French to be totally unreliable partners.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
dont forget that in the near future the US government will be operating CENTCOM from a suborbital nuclear powered aurauro super craft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

muahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

playing with the french toys are fun too though



[edit on 23-6-2005 by sturod84]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The French/European EADS/Airbus corporation is obviously out to make some money through the US military. Judging from the French multi-billion dollar contracts with the former regime of Saddam Hussein (which is why France did not want to ally themselves with the US, UK, and others for the invasion of Iraq), this comes as no surprise.

But the key question arises...

How does an agreement to have US planes refueled by a French company equate to French domination of the entire US Armed Forces?

It doesn't.

I agree that the French are unreliable partners.


[edit on 23-6-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
They will never win that contract, plain and simple.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
How does an agreement to have US planes refueled by a French company equate to French domination of the entire US Armed Forces?

It doesn't.


If we get in a war the French don't agree with and we rely on these French planes, the French government could withold extra parts and support for these planes, inhibiting the U.S.'s ability to wage war.

That's the problem. The U.S. has never disagreed with any French or UK military action.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
This is a logistics problem and I am sure that there would be back-up refueling options that will be used in a time of war, if need be.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
They will never win that contract, plain and simple.


Under your WTO charade it has to be a open process of tender - are you suggesting the US doesn't play buy its own rules?

No reason at all why US military shouldn't buy Airbus, BTW more than just the French involved in EADS / Airbus. If it's best for the job I hope you do buy it - it'd break the subsidy you give to Boeing etc.

French can be fair-weather friends but sure US military will lay-in enough spares for any short-term eventuality.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Hmmmm
What's the punchline? The French? They have proven more than once that they are not a true US ally. Sorry, no disrespect intended, but it is true.
Whether or not one agrees with US policy, allies are allies. The UK for one. The UK has proven that they have their allies back, even though they may not agree with the policy.
Yhe French? Maybe they offer cheese and wine to the AF brass........



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
The USAF is going to buy the KC-767, however the initial contract would have had them leasing 100 aircraft for 10 years, before having to pay millions more to buy them. By saying they might buy Airbus instead, it's a ploy to help get a better contract during the renegotiations. There were many irregularities in the initial contract for the KC-767. The only reason there IS one flying now, even if it IS for the Italian Air Force, is because the USAF said they wanted them. However, shortly after the contract came out, one of the lead negotiators for the USAF went to work for Boeing. As of right now, there are only orders for 8 aircraft. The only other Boeing built with that small an order were the E-767s for Japan, and the hopes for that design were that other countries would see how successful they were and replace the E-3s with them.


www.airforce-technology.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Why do we have to take the risk of being denied parts and equipment to support the air refueling fleet when we can by other jets that can do the job from U.S. companies.

Also I got a question doesn't the Pentagon have to ask congress for the contract? And who controls both chambers? I don't think the republicans have much love for the French, so there is a slim chance this deal will happen.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The law is that whenever a contract is renegotiated, or is about to be started it MUST be opened for bids to any company, anywhere. There is about a 99% chance they'll go with the KC-767 but they HAVE to open it for bids from Airbus, Lockheed, Boeing and any other company that makes aircraft. If they don't follow the law, then one of the other companies can come back later and cause problems about it.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I dunno, but seems to me Airbus has no chance in hell on the US Military scale.

Airbus is just another Liner not an originator such as (american) Boeing.

Dallas
P.S.: Congress seems slow on a lot of issues but between Oil and foreign buyouts of American big-business, watch how fast they react..


[edit on 23-6-2005 by Dallas]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Airbus won't win, or at least not the entire contract. It might win 50% if it's lucky.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
thats plain dumb propaganda, typical for yankees...
you say:
1. they control the US Military, cuz they sell one type of plane to the us forces...
2. they are a french company
3. they wont give you spare parts if the french dont agree with your plans for a war

main owners of EADS (European Aeronatuic Defence and Space company): 30.2% DaimlerChrysler, 30.2% french SOGEADE Holding, 5.5% spanish state owned holding SEPI

the other stocks are owned by private persons



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
These aircraft would be DESIGNED by the French. They would be MANUFACTURED in the United States. Thus, the French cannot deny parts. The planes would not be manufactured in France and then shipped to the U.S.

Not every piece of equipment utilized by the U.S. military is American-designed, but most is American-made, and most is American-designed. For example, with the exception of the M-16 rifle, a good majority of the firearms the U.S. military uses are German-designed. They are American-made, but German designed. The reason for this is because in WWII, Germany had the best guns in the world. After WWII, they still had the best guns. Thus, it was just considered better economically to let the Germans continue designing guns, and to buy them (the irony to this is that the U.S. was the first to create the sub-machine gun, but the U.S. gov't was stupid and didn't take to the idea; Germany did, so by WWII they had far superior designs then everyone else).

The 120mm smoothbore cannon on the M1 Abrams battle tank is German-designed. It was specially custom-designed for the Abrams tank, though. the armor on the Abrams was originally designed by Britain, though I the current armor is somewhat American-designed in that it has been modified by the U.S. military I believe. I think Britain is still the best at armor, though.

The engines utilized on certain U.S. aircraft are French-designed. The Coast Guard uses French engines in a lot of their aircraft. They had switched to the U.S. engines, but the French ones were a much better design, so they switched back. These engines are manufactured, I believe, in the U.S., however.

Certain U.S. aircraft also utilize French avionics systems.

Now don't get the impression that the U.S. doesn't use its own engines as well, or can't design decent engines or anything. U.S. fighter planes utilize American-designed engines, and certain U.S. helicopters. It just depends. For the Coast Guard, the best engines available were the French ones.

The U.S. and France also designed together the new type of engine used on a certain aircraft (I forget what it is, but I think it is a cargo/transport aircraft). These engines were joint-designed by an American and French company and are very good engines.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I don't mind the U.S. using certain parts or anything from other countries. It is economical. The main advanced pieces of technology, like the engines of fighter aircraft and the Abrams tank, the electronics, computer, and guidance systems, missles, satellites, etc....all the very advanced, important stuff is all U.S.-designed, U.S.-made, with a few exceptions.

For example, the Harrier jump-jet uses a Rolles-Royce engine; but this engine was co-designed between America and Germany or American and Britain I believe (could be wrong there) and the Harrier is due to be replaced soon. Also, the Harrier originally was a British jet. America took it and made some modifications. The current Harriers in the U.S. are American-designed in terms of the modifications made to them; the original design was started by the British, but the current Harriers aren't literally British jets bought by America; the design was modified by an American company (or maybe a joint-venture by an American and British company---look it up, as I forget) and then manufactured in America.

I don't like the idea of the French getting the tanker contract for a few reasons. One, NATIONAL PRIDE. If there is one thing America is known for, it is making great aircraft. We make the best jetliners, fighter aircraft, missiles, etc....in the world. Some countries, like Russia, make great fighter planes, the French have some great helicopters (though not attack helicopters), etc... but no single country makes everything the way the U.S. does: stealth planes, fighter planes, missles, jumbo jets, helicopters, etc.....all great designs the way America does. To have our Air Force use French tankers just doesn't seem right to me.

Second, JOBS. It will take away jobs from Boeing, an American aircraft company. The tankers would be manufactured in the United States. If Airbus gets the contract, they intend to build a plant here in the U.S. This would take away jobs from Boeing, who would have to lay off people.

Third, I do not like French foreign-policy at all.

Fourth, that's American money going to France, not America.

So I do not like the idea of the Air Force's new tankers possibly being from a country who's foreign-policy I hate, when America itself could design its own aircraft for the job, with American money also going to this country, and money being taken away from other American aircraft companies, and jobs being taken away as well, all for a country that doesn't even support the U.S. in the war on terrorism.

The French can design some great things, but aircraft are something America is known for.

***As a side note, many things are not owned by who they appear to be owned by. For example, certain American rifle companies are partially owned by European corporations.

The Jeep brand is owned by Chysler Corporation, but Chrysler Corp. is part of Daimler-Benz now, the owners of Mercedes. So the irony there is that the very vehicle designed to help America defeat Germany now is partially owned by the German corporation that helped make things to help Germany defeat America.

On the flip side, the Landrover brand, a British vehicle brand, is now owned by FORD. Ford is as American as you can get. So the trademark British vehicle brand is American owned and its American counterpart is a good bit European-owned.


[edit on 25-6-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   


now is partially owned by the German corporation that helped make things to help Germany defeat America.


1. why do you say just partially?

2. Germany defeated America?
COOOOOOL

..... dreamed enough now...
where did germany ever defeat america in a war?



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Actually the biggest reason Boeing will probably get the contract is that they are already producing the KC-767, whereas everyone else would have to develop, build, and test their platforms. The plan was that the USAF WOULD buy tankers from Boeing, but the way the contract was written was that they would lease for 6 years, paying something like a billion dollars during that time, then they'd have the option to buy them at the end of the 6 years, which would cost another probably close to $20-30 billion as they were going to have 100 planes. With Boeing already having the plane in production they're way ahead of everyone else. The USAF can't afford to wait 15 years to have another plane developed to replace the KC-135s. They'll OPERATE them for that long, but they really need a new platform being built NOW to start replacing them.

www.boeing.com...
www.defenseworld.net...
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan



now is partially owned by the German corporation that helped make things to help Germany defeat America.


1. why do you say just partially?

2. Germany defeated America?
COOOOOOL

..... dreamed enough now...
where did germany ever defeat america in a war?


No no, you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that Daimler-Benz made equipment to help Germany TRY to defeat America in WWII. Actually that is wrong as well, somewhat, because it was to defeat the Allies. But America was one of the countries Germany was trying to defeat.

C'mon man, you know what I meant!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join