The American Spectator

A. C. Santore| 10.28.09 @ 11:37AM

Anyone who genuinely cares to serve the airmen "whose lives will be on the line," and simultaneously cares for the security of this country, and simultaneously cares for our U.S. economy must first recognize that we cannot allow the dead central element of our ability to project air power to be in the control of any other country (or, in the case of the E.U., whatever they are calling themselves now).

Without air tankers and replacements and spare parts over many decades to come, we would be unable to project air power beyond a single fuel load.

And, although he didn't repeat his argument about the projected shill tanker being assembled in the U.S., somebody out there must begin to care about the flight of capital (paid in by U.S. taxpayers) to another country (or whatever the E.U. is calling itself now).

In sum, we are paying for it with U.S. taxpayer money, so the benefits of the profit/capital must remain in the U.S.

We are paying for it, so we must maintain control the production of the tanker and the spare parts that we will need for decades to come.

Go ahead, then. Hurt our economy. Put our war-fighting capability in the hands of the another country.

Play the shell game and you will lose.

John - TMF| 10.28.09 @ 12:24PM

You can thank the Clinton Administration for allowing Boeing to buy up McDonnell-Douglas (its last viable large aircraft manufacturing competitor) and the Democrat 197o's evisceration of Lockheed's large aircraft manufacturing capability for the situation that we currently face.

There is no other aircraft manufacturer to turn to BUT Boeing.

1) It is the height of sovereignty destroying insanity for a nation to farm out its major defense systems to foreign governments. The Northrop-Grumman sham deal with EADS is (if embarked upon) DOOMED to fail. AIRBUS is a hyper-expensive government subsidized multi-national manufacturing and assembly scheme that uses the relatively centralized location of Toulouse France to serve as a hub for its suppliers.

Alabama is hardly central to the European manufacturing centers, and I hardly think that the Airbus delivery system which depends on European rail, and "Guppy-ized" aircraft to deliver aircraft sections to the assembly factory.

I seriously doubt that the Alabama assembly point could be maintained and supplied with parts for very long. The logistics and supply chain just don't work. The cost of transporting the sections of the A330 across the Atlantic are going to be insane with low oil prices, the insanity goes through the roof if the cost of jet fuel once again sky rockets.

The contract proposed logistics are essentially fanciful and will eventually dictate that all of the aircraft be assembled in Toulouse, and self-transported whole to Alabama for final fitting of military modifications.

2) There is also a fundamental reality in play. We have an increasingly shaky as our relationship with Europe. The EU increasingly fancies itself as a counterweight to American power. We are therefore putting ourselves at risk for international-political blackmail.

To think that France will hold up its end of the "contract" regardless of the international politics of a situation is er.. um... silly. (See the attack on Libya for proof that the French are on the side of the French in all things.)

3) Boeing is and was the only logical, practical, and sovereign choice to manufacture the new tanker. Boeing invented the flying boom air rueling system, and owns its updated version fitted to the KC-10. It can do booms in its proverbial sleep.

I don't accept that any Airbus is better. I don't want US Air Force pilots flying any Airbus gear. (And slapping a N-G label on an AIRBUS doesn't make it a Product of neither the Iron Works, or Jack Northrop's shops.)

The reality of the choices taking in allowing a monopoly to form for US large aircraft manufacturing means we live with the consequences. The 767 and its updated version are excellent stoutly designed, long lived airframes. Boeing is probably more than willing to "tankerize" the 777 if the Air Force wants it... And frankly nothing in the world comes close to the Triple 7 for what it does.

Let the Euroes keep their Airbus. The USAF needs to fly US manufactured airplanes. It is a matter of national security and sovereignty.

Regards,

The Mighty Fahvaag

John - TMF| 10.28.09 @ 12:31PM

Grammar hit...
' (And slapping a N-G label on an AIRBUS doesn't make it a Product of neither the Iron Works, or Jack Northrop's shops.)'

Should have been:
(Slapping a N-G label on an AIRBUS does not make it a product of the Iron Works, or Jack Northrop's shops.)

Though come to think of it... GM slaps a Cadillac badge on an Chevy and sells it for twice the price... so we are pretty good at fooling ourselves...

r/John - TMF

rssg| 10.28.09 @ 1:00PM

Sorry but I don't agree Mr Hillyer. I am a former Air Force man and worked in aerial refueling with the Boeing KC-135. I am in favor of returning to Boeing for it's replacement, they are the experts in such aircraft and also from a national sovereignty point of view, it would be prudent to keep such manufacturing/engineering domestic for national security reasons and for stimulating employment among Americans.

The practice of outsourcing US Defense needs is unwise in the extreme.

wjc| 10.28.09 @ 1:52PM

mp4 player

Oldefarte| 10.28.09 @ 4:20PM

Of course, the 'FIX' has been 'IN' since day 1. Let me CONNECT -THE-DOTS for everyone: Boeing, formerly HQ'd in Seattle, has operations in Washington; is currently HQ'd in CHICAGO, which is home to Obama, Emmanuel, Axelrod Jarrett,etc; Boeing is completely UNIONIZED, which contributed huge amounts of money and time to get Obama elected; Northrup wants to build its tankers in Mobile, Alabama which is located in the 'SOUTH' which historically votes Republican and voted for McCain in November; the Mobile manufacturing operation would not be UNIONIZED; and lastly, Obama has recently attempted to apply his CHICAGO-WAY politics to Fox, Limbaugh, a Chicago cop, the MSM, the insurance industry, the financial industry,etc. Does any half-sane individual really think that Mobile Alabama has a snoballs chance in HADES of winning a military contract against Boeing??????