U.S. Gives Plane contract to Airbus, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 12:32 AM by bg_socalif
reply to post by barmshadow84



It's Northrup Grumman and AirBus on the contract. Their design had larger fuel capacity, larger palate carrying capacity and larger troop carrying capacity. They had a better and more favorable design than Boeing. And it will be assembled in the U.S.

As for Boeing's 787, most of the parts are made in Japan and Italy, yet assembled in the US.

What's the difference? Where's the outcry on that?



reply posted on 2-3-2008 @ 10:35 PM by barmshadow84
reply to post by BoomerX



BOOMERX Thats why I asked this question, With ATS here an open forem we can as members ask & find out true info, and make rational descisions. We in the general public have no idea whats realy going on untill we hear it in the liberal press & we have to figure out whats really going on.
I didn't have the oppertunity of talking with someone like yourself till now.
I'am gald you posted & your here.
Also thank you for serving in the Military it's men like you helping to keep our freedoms.


reply posted on 24-3-2008 @ 11:04 AM by JoeinTX
Posting as a patriot as well, the worst thing for our forces would have been a competition "cooked" from the start with a fix in for Boeing.

The USAF told Boeing that the 777 was too big for their requirements, but they NEVER told Boeing that the 767 was just right......only that it was closer to what they wanted. Boeing took that to mean that the 767 was a shoe-in and their own internal analysis had determined what the USAF wanted before even the USAF knew it themselves.

The KC-30 is bigger than the 767, but not near as much larger as the 777 is to both of them. NG-EADS banked that the USAF might be looking for something that could replace both the KC-135 and the KC-10 with a single airframe, that the additional cargo ability of the -30 would be appealing, and that the USAF was not attempting to forward-base their tankers to the degree the requirements might suggest because, well, they had never done that.

Boeing's protest sounds week and whiney, like the smart kid in school who got bested on a test by the class underachiever, and the GAO should by all rights uphold this decision and let the USAF and NG-EADS move on with the business of replacing our 4-decade old tanking airframes.

Besides, adding another first-rate aircraft assembly and manufacturing base in the U.S. can't be anything but good. EADS is now contemplating moving additional production, over the KC-45 order, to the Mobile facility for other military and commercial customers for the A330 series. Tell me how that is a bad thing......


reply posted on 7-4-2008 @ 09:10 AM by dave420
reply to post by barmshadow84



"Liberal press"! Hahahaha! People still believe this rubbish? Get real.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Sno-Trains..A short History..(with short video)
  Posted 13 days ago with 16 member flags
Pictures: Civil War Sub H.L. Hunley Finally Revealed
  Posted 7 days ago with 5 member flags
Neuroscience the new face of warfare: experts
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags
Congress Passes Bill That Opens US Skies To Unmanned Drones
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags
The Latest in Terminator Tech
  Posted 2 days ago with 3 member flags
U.S. Navy to test 32 megajoule EM Railgun in the coming weeks
  Posted 1 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Stop Bashing Us Military Folks.
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 184 replies
Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 101 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 6 hours ago, 69 replies