Usaf...wtf?

[TheMason]

What are we thinking?

The economy is going into the shitter, so we're going to give a sweet defense deal to a Northrup/EADS team-up where the US company is only making the tail boom? Granted Boeing is not anticipating lay-offs...but this means additional jobs will not be added. Furthermore, Northrop isn't building the planes...just the boom.

Furthermore, the USAF will have the additional cost of re-tooling for metric rather than the ANSI tools our maintenance units already has. Argh.

[wwwyzzerdd]

Maybe all those people who could've worked for Boeing can find a job by joining the Air Force.
BTW: Northrop Grumman is an American-based company.

[TheMason]

At 3/8/08 01:55 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Maybe all those people who could've worked for Boeing can find a job by joining the Air Force.

Nope...we're cutting our force to buy new planes with a budget that is being reduced and given to the USA and USMC.

BTW: Northrop Grumman is an American-based company.

Hence the reason I complained about the fact that they are only building the boom. The aircraft will be the Airbus A330 made in Europe. (The EADS part of the consortium.)

[MobilnaReakcija]

At 3/8/08 01:55 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: Maybe all those people who could've worked for Boeing can find a job by joining the Air Force.

Ridiculous

BTW: Northrop Grumman is an American-based company.

He made that clear. The thing that should upset people is the fact that Boeing could have made all that $40 billion by itself and recycle it back into the US economy instead of giving a big portion of it to EADS and have them send it back to Europe. It doesnt make perfect sense does it?

[EndGameOmega]

At 3/8/08 01:48 PM, TheMason wrote: What are we thinking?

Since when do politicians think?

[Elfer]

At 3/8/08 01:48 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, the USAF will have the additional cost of re-tooling for metric rather than the ANSI tools our maintenance units already has. Argh.

Your country needs to fucking switch to metric already.

Any system of units which requires a conversion factor to work with itself is bullshit.

[TheMason]

At 3/8/08 02:26 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 3/8/08 01:48 PM, TheMason wrote: What are we thinking?

Since when do politicians think?

I was about to say that it is not the politicians making this decision...it is the Air Force generals and civilian leadership making this decision.

But then again, at that level they are not warfighters...but politicians.

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 3/8/08 07:48 PM, TheMason wrote: But then again, at that level they are not warfighters...but politicians.

At that level, they make contract decisions largely based on who was the lowest bidder and who has the best track record, not where they're based.

Also, EADS employs Americans. Not as many directly as Northrop Grumman or Boeing, but not zero either. And many, many of their indirect jobs (contract work, suppliers, etc) are held by Americans.

Next you people will be up in arms about the US armed forces buying products made by the blind.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/8/08 01:48 PM, TheMason wrote: What are we thinking?

The economy is going into the shitter, so we're going to give a sweet defense deal to [UROP].

You're right. Why have a tendering process at all?! Boeing should just write a whole bunch of zeros with a 1 in front of it on a paper plane and call it a defence contract = )

[cellardoor6]

I've read that 60% of the plane is going to be American-built. Maybe the tail boom is just the only Northrop part of the plane that is completely proprietary.

Anyway, I think this issue is getting blown out of proportion. Boeing also regularly subcontracts airplane production to other countries, including Japan and several EU countries. The Boeing plane would have only been 85% American parts... not that big of a difference, especially considering that the fuselage and the tail would be made in Japan and Italy respectively. Who made what is not something to emphasize when people should be focusing first on which plane is BETTER.

The Northrup/EADS plane is simply better than the Boeing plane. It has longer range, stores more fuel, and also stores more secondary cargo. It would be better for our military, and that is what they should emphasize instead of pleasing certain selfish companies.

And you didn't hear that from me, I just started working for Boeing, and I have several friends that work in the factory and are pissed off at the deal. It's almost mandatory in lunch-time discussion to talk trash about Airbus, Northrop, UTC, BAE, Raytheon... basically any other defense aeronautics corporation that competes with Boeing.

[Bolo]

At 3/8/08 10:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you didn't hear that from me, I just started working for Boeing,

Kind of a sidebar, here, but I'm curious; What, exactly, do you do for Boeing?

[AdamRice]

At 3/8/08 10:31 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 3/8/08 10:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you didn't hear that from me, I just started working for Boeing,

Kind of a sidebar, here, but I'm curious; What, exactly, do you do for Boeing?

He refills the coffee machine when it's empty.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/8/08 10:31 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 3/8/08 10:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you didn't hear that from me, I just started working for Boeing,

Kind of a sidebar, here, but I'm curious; What, exactly, do you do for Boeing?

I'm in business support, in communications/data-sharing. It's a multi-disciple job, but what I'll be doing specifically for at least a year is just supervising some of the maintenance and operation of the Boeing business networks at the factory in Everett. I'll be one of the several people in charge of making sure the servers and computers are working correctly. I'll also analyze and report power consumption and net usage and shit like that. I don't work directly on the servers and computers though, I supervise the technicians that do and compile the information they give me and pass it up the ladder, so to speak. Some of them will be Boeing employees, some of them will be from other companies that are working on maintenance subcontracts.

It doesn't seem like that interesting of a job, but Boeing has an insanely efficient and high-tech business set up. The plans and instructions for the assembly at Boeing are done almost entirely via computer, there's almost no paper involved at all. The servers at the factory are connected to several PDAs and station computers throughout the factory, and that's how the average assembly mechanic gets his/her info. So without people like me the planes don't get built, even though I don't directly have anything to do with the planes themselves.

Or maybe that's my cover story and I really work on an ultra-secret military project.

[TheMason]

At 3/8/08 08:29 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 3/8/08 07:48 PM, TheMason wrote: But then again, at that level they are not warfighters...but politicians.

At that level, they make contract decisions largely based on who was the lowest bidder and who has the best track record, not where they're based.

Next you people will be up in arms about the US armed forces buying products made by the blind.

Actually skunky, I was a USAF maintainer and in my professional opinion I think it's a bad idea because there are significant, unexpected cost involved with purchasing a foreign made aircraft. Thats what I'm looking at, I think there are hidden costs here that will bite us in the ass.

Furthermore, the Airbus is made using relatively few American parts...so they're not employing as many American components as one would think.

[TheMason]

At 3/8/08 10:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The Northrup/EADS plane is simply better than the Boeing plane. It has longer range, stores more fuel, and also stores more secondary cargo. It would be better for our military, and that is what they should emphasize instead of pleasing certain selfish companies.

I've got a buddy in the Tanker fleet (a maintainer) and from what I understand from him the maintenance community is a little irked because from logistical point of view this is a nightmare. Conversion of tools as well as whole bunch of supply issues go into this. So while range, cargo capacity are important things to consider there is this whole other side of the operationalbility of the aircraft that is going to get hosed...so I think in the end the two somewhat even out. In terms of flight characteristics the Airbus may be better on paper. But keeping it in the air may be more problematic (thereby increasing cost and showing a decreased reliability).

As for the boom I understand that it is a fairly untested system whereas the Boeing was 5th or 7th generation. What if the Northrup boom proves unreliable operationally? That blunts our capability.

[TheMason]

Another thing I just thought about is that a large part of our tanker fleet is Guard/Reserve which means these pilots and maintainers in their civilian life are also working for the airliners, mostly flying and maintaining Boeing products. This means that a significant portion of these guys keeping these aircraft flying are getting free experience in Boeing platforms...including the 767 (which was the Boeing competitor). So there are going to be significant training costs with the A330 that are not associated with the Boeing product.

I cannot speak of the others who are irked at this, but for me my opposition (which would include me in the "you people" catagory) is based upon a plethora of unforseen problems and costs with the Northrup/EADS platform.

[ForkRobotik]

Maybe the government is thinking that this is a good way to keep the EU onside when dealing with Iran ;) FYI, they're also letting russia "reprocess" american nuclear waste.

[cellardoor6]

At 3/9/08 01:11 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/8/08 10:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The Northrup/EADS plane is simply better than the Boeing plane. It has longer range, stores more fuel, and also stores more secondary cargo. It would be better for our military, and that is what they should emphasize instead of pleasing certain selfish companies.

I've got a buddy in the Tanker fleet (a maintainer) and from what I understand from him the maintenance community is a little irked because from logistical point of view this is a nightmare. Conversion of tools as well as whole bunch of supply issues go into this.

People have complained about stuff like that every time the military adopts something new. Kind of like everyone freaked out when the military switched small arms to metric in order to have commonality with NATO.

That brings up what you mentioned before; converting to metric. I don't see that as a big deal because the military uses mostly metric now anyway. Almost all vehicles and items of equipment in the US military are made to metric specifications. The only thing I can still think of that hasn't gone metric is distance measurement in the navy and airforce because they still use nautical mi. and knots, oh and a few things that are just nomenclature.

I'm pretty sure that the Air Force uses predominately metric measurements, because the military as a whole mostly does. I may be wrong, but if they are complaining about having to convert to metric, then it's about time they make the switch.

So while range, cargo capacity are important things to consider there is this whole other side of the operationalbility of the aircraft that is going to get hosed...so I think in the end the two somewhat even out.

I don't think so.

I don't think that using metric for the new tankers is an issue at all. If anything, it's nothing but a nuisance and something that boils people's blood for no reason.

In terms of flight characteristics the Airbus may be better on paper. But keeping it in the air may be more problematic (thereby increasing cost and showing a decreased reliability).

You don't think the appropriations committees contemplated that before making the decision?

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 3/9/08 12:58 AM, TheMason wrote:

I'll admit there are plenty of reasons not to do it from purely mechanical and logistical standpoints. I'm just saying that it's probably not as politically motivated as everyone keeps assuming. I have a number of friends and family members who were in aeronautical/aerospace technology and other relevant service areas, and they made decisions that probably pissed off the mechanics on the ground.

And there are definitely officers at very high levels who are little more than politicians. But most of the guys I have met at that level, or at any level really, were as apolitical as you get. Admittedly all but one or two of them were retired, so hell, maybe the cadre is full of squabbling bureaucrats now.

[TheMason]

At 3/9/08 05:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/9/08 01:11 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/8/08 10:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

That brings up what you mentioned before; converting to metric. I don't see that as a big deal because the military uses mostly metric now anyway. Almost all vehicles and items of equipment in the US military are made to metric specifications. The only thing I can still think of that hasn't gone metric is distance measurement in the navy and airforce because they still use nautical mi. and knots, oh and a few things that are just nomenclature.

You are correct, and you are wrong at the same time. In terms of caliburs of weapons we use metric (5.56mm instead of .223 for the M-16 and 20mm for the F-16's cannon).

However, our vehicles are not assembled using metric nuts and bolts. Everytime I had to use a socket on the aircraft I used a ANSI (fraction of an inch) socket...not metric.

Your assertion that the military uses metric predominately is incorrect. We measure speed in NM, we measure altitude in feet, gas is in pounds or gallons.

So while range, cargo capacity are important things to consider there is this whole other side of the operationalbility of the aircraft that is going to get hosed...so I think in the end the two somewhat even out.

I don't think so.

My Lord Cellar, have you met a US weapons system you don't like yet? Bloody apologist! :P

I'm pretty sure that the Air Force uses predominately metric measurements, because the military as a whole mostly does. I may be wrong, but if they are complaining about having to convert to metric, then it's about time they make the switch.

Very little of our tech data for maintaining the aircraft is in metric. I'm also fairly certain that the other branches equipment is assembled using ANSI, not metric components. Furthermore, I think you're conflating the use of meters in range-finding with all defense related activity. You're talking operations here, I'm talking about nuts and bolts.

Furthermore, it is an impossible switch. The majority of our support vehicles are Chevys or Fords which require ANSI tools...Detroit is not going to assemble vehicles for DoD use using metric components.

A second furthermore, is there is a training expense involved because now you have to educate all of these maintainers, the vast majority of whom have never had to deal with the metric system.

In short, the military cannot make the switch to metric before the larger American society makes the switch. It would be insane to think we could be on the fore-front of that bit of social progress.

I don't think that using metric for the new tankers is an issue at all. If anything, it's nothing but a nuisance and something that boils people's blood for no reason.

It is an added or unnecessary expense that units are going to have to eat. You work for Boeing, you get to see the fat side of the defense budget. The USAF has been cutting airmen, not just the excess non-er types that don't ever see an aircraft up close but the maintainers as well. That is why when I made the switch from active duty to the ANG I left maintainence for an AOC (Air Operations Center), front line units such as F-16s are struggling to get spare parts, and fix the aircraft flying the same amount of hours with less people. This is not some infantryman in peace time grousing over his next gun being an intermediate range round rather than a high powered round (which was really the issue with the 5.56mm conversion, power NOT that it was a metric round)...we can see the effects of the wars and procurement of weapons systems that are going to be obsolete in the next ten years. This is not academic for me my friend, these are all things that I've experienced.

In terms of flight characteristics the Airbus may be better on paper. But keeping it in the air may be more problematic (thereby increasing cost and showing a decreased reliability).

You don't think the appropriations committees contemplated that before making the decision?

I have my doubts, the US military has a long and established history of making stupid procurement decisions. I can see many hidden costs that will probably bite us in the ass...hell this could be the USAF's Chauchat!

[cellardoor6]

At 3/9/08 02:04 PM, TheMason wrote: You are correct, and you are wrong at the same time. In terms of caliburs of weapons we use metric (5.56mm instead of .223 for the M-16 and 20mm for the F-16's cannon).

And 7.62x51 in medium MGs, 120mm tank cannons, 60,80, 120mm mortars etc... Missiles are measured in mm etc...

Metric measurements are used extensively. And many of those weapon systems are manufactured in the US.

However, our vehicles are not assembled using metric nuts and bolts.

Hmmm.

Your assertion that the military uses metric predominately is incorrect. We measure speed in NM

The Army and the Marine Corps don't. They use km, or "klicks" as far as I'm aware.

The Army adopted the metric system in 1957, and I'm pretty sure I remember hearing the Marine Corps did in the same year, I'm looking for a link for that.

we measure altitude in feet, gas is in pounds or gallons.

Yes, and several other things in metric.

I may be wrong that vehicles are made to metric specifications, but I remember reading that vehicles after a certain date had measurements that were equal to an even metric number for NATO. I'm looking for links though.

My Lord Cellar, have you met a US weapons system you don't like yet?

Yes, the XM8 was notably a piece of crap, of course it was just a prototype.

Furthermore, I think you're conflating the use of meters in range-finding with all defense related activity. You're talking operations here, I'm talking about nuts and bolts.

Well I guess I figured that the use of metric systems in a lot of equipment and operations would mean that it is manufactured in metric.

In short, the military cannot make the switch to metric before the larger American society makes the switch. It would be insane to think we could be on the fore-front of that bit of social progress.

Well, a lot of things that are innovated based on military necessities end up benefiting the civilian population. Adoption of the metric system for a single plane, I don't think, would be that big of a deal if it was worth having a better, more capable plane.

I don't think that using metric for the new tankers is an issue at all. If anything, it's nothing but a nuisance and something that boils people's blood for no reason.

It is an added or unnecessary expense that units are going to have to eat.

I'm sure the extra expense, if it exists or is significant, has been analyzed and dealt with. Maybe part of the budget for the tanker deal includes any expenses for the conversion and what not.

You work for Boeing, you get to see the fat side of the defense budget.

Not really. Unless I work up the ranks over a protracted period of time, I won't be seeing anything concerning defense at all.

You don't think the appropriations committees contemplated that before making the decision?

I have my doubts, the US military has a long and established history of making stupid procurement decisions.

Depends on how you interpret it.

But yeah, a lot of contracts have been complete jokes. But I think a lot of this is because the companies that get those contracts due to favoritism like to do pull crap like lowballing the estimates for price and deadlines. They do this knowing that even if they are way over budget and way past the deadline, Congress won't cancel their contract because too much would already have been invested.

Boeing is guilty of that.

I can see many hidden costs that will probably bite us in the ass...hell this could be the USAF's Chauchat!

Haha, and both could be blamed on the French.

[MobilnaReakcija]

One notable example of a shitty investment by the military was the RAH-66 Comanche armed recon chopper. That thing was sick! Military cancelled it with $8 billion invested and an additional $500 million in cancellation fees. That chopper had a lot of promise. I dont know the true purpose behind its scrapping.

[Al6200]

At 3/8/08 01:48 PM, TheMason wrote: What are we thinking?

The economy is going into the shitter, so we're going to give a sweet defense deal to a Northrup/EADS team-up where the US company is only making the tail boom? Granted Boeing is not anticipating lay-offs...but this means additional jobs will not be added. Furthermore, Northrop isn't building the planes...just the boom.

Yeah. But you have to consider that those nations which do build the plane are our allies, so there might be a sort of tit-for-tat relationship building process going on.

Like, French communities that benefit from the new contracts start to think better about the American people, because of the trade and the contract.

Just a thought...

Furthermore, the USAF will have the additional cost of re-tooling for metric rather than the ANSI tools :our maintenance units already has. Argh.

US military units seriously use English units and not metric. Wh...wh... why?

[TheMason]

At 3/9/08 04:59 PM, MobilnaReakcija wrote: One notable example of a shitty investment by the military was the RAH-66 Comanche armed recon chopper. That thing was sick! Military cancelled it with $8 billion invested and an additional $500 million in cancellation fees. That chopper had a lot of promise. I dont know the true purpose behind its scrapping.

Not really, that is more of an example of forward thinking generals. There is not really anything out there that is comparable with the Blackhawk and Apache. Furthermore, one may think a stealth helicopter is really awesome and would give the USA one helluva advantage on the battlefield. But not really. The USAF and USN does a great job of nuetralizing the adversary's air defenses so a helio's main threat comes from line of sight small arms (something stealth does not defend against).

So what the Army did was looked at the cost/benefit of the system and realized the only necessary advancement was in its avionics so they decided to save money by incorporating the electronics into existing airframes. The promise was not that great. The R&D money could then go to places where it is most needed.

[TheMason]

At 3/9/08 03:12 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/9/08 02:04 PM, TheMason wrote: In short, the military cannot make the switch to metric before the larger American society makes the switch. It would be insane to think we could be on the fore-front of that bit of social progress.

Well, a lot of things that are innovated based on military necessities end up benefiting the civilian population. Adoption of the metric system for a single plane, I don't think, would be that big of a deal if it was worth having a better, more capable plane.

At 3/9/08 05:57 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 3/8/08 01:48 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, the USAF will have the additional cost of re-tooling for metric rather than the ANSI tools :our maintenance units already has. Argh.

US military units seriously use English units and not metric. Wh...wh... why?

I think I can answer both of you with the same argument. Our equipment comes with English not metric nuts and bolts.

The US military is dependant upon US industry to build most of our equipment. So the DoD cannot just switch over with a snap of our fingers. Entire industries would have to re-tool and re-do how they manufacture defense-related products. Therefore, the military cannot take the lead on America's conversion to metric.

Furthermore, the average maintainer coming into the military has not been prepared for the metric system by our public school system.