Air Force awards Boeing $35 billion contract

[VaYank5150]

Mid air refueling aircraft are not just used for offensive action. They increase the range of not only fighter aircraft, but transport aircraft as well, the same aircraft used for humanitarian missons.

These also enable us to use less fully manned forward bases, as they create the ability to forward deploy stateside assets rapidlty, requiring only a well maintained airport as a destination.

This contract is not an expansion of our mid air refueling capability, but replaces aircraft that have been in use for over 30-40 years.

Ummmm....and why in God's name would we need refueling aricraft for "defense" of our country?

Defense of our treaty partners for one thing (i.e. NATO) as well as our other comittments (Japan, South Korea etc.)

These aircraft actually allow us to do more with less, removing the need for extra aircraft, as we can base more in the US and just ship and support them in forward areas when they are needed.

i.e., not necessarily defense of OUR country, but others.

 

[martybegan]

Ummmm....and why in God's name would we need refueling aricraft for "defense" of our country?

Defense of our treaty partners for one thing (i.e. NATO) as well as our other comittments (Japan, South Korea etc.)

These aircraft actually allow us to do more with less, removing the need for extra aircraft, as we can base more in the US and just ship and support them in forward areas when they are needed.

i.e., not necessarily defense of OUR country, but others.

Defense of our friends is defense of our country, as well as humanitarian needs, or do you think those C-130's we send to crappy airfields after natural disasters have enough range to cover the entire globe by themselves?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm still sad that i'm not making bank like Boeing machinist, and they are getting fat on my tax dollars

Maybe you should be sad that you wasted your time learning to whine and kvetch like a little girl, instead of learning a valuable job skill that people actually want to pay for.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Air Force awards Boeing $3.5 billion contract - Feb. 24, 2011

Meanwhile, in IN and WI, American employees are being stripped of bargaining rights, because our country and it's states cannot afford to pay them what they think they are worth.

Maybe they'll just give the contract to a non-American company. That would show them!

Don't the US taxpayers deserve the biggest bang for their buck? If a non-American company can build these things cheaper, why shouldn't we award them the contract? We are broke, remember?

Maybe because the taxpayers themselves don't want their money going out of the country unless it has to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ensuring Federal tax money is spent to employ American workers sure sounds like socialism to me. Just ask any "conservative".

Since you struggle to grasp the reality of 'thinking', I would suggest you allow conservatives to do their own instead of assuming you know what they think. It just makes you look silly... again.

Thank you for the personal attack. Do you have anything of value to add to the topic?

That was already more valuable than every single word YOU'VE said.

 

[hipeter924]

It's not a done deal. AirBus can still challenge the bid. If it works out as is it will be a huge benefit for Seattle machinists. I am a machinist in Seattle. I make aircraft parts. I would never go to work for Boeing but the subcontractor work will be significant. Boeing will suck up many of the smaller shops machinists and the market for my skills will be very good. Boeing estimates 10,000 hires in Seattle. This will be very good for the Pacific Northwest.

Ensuring Federal tax money is spent to employ American workers sure sounds like socialism to me. Just ask any "conservative".

Since you struggle to grasp the reality of 'thinking', I would suggest you allow conservatives to do their own instead of assuming you know what they think. It just makes you look silly... again.

He probably just sits at home all day watching msnbc rant on about the 'Republican conspiracy' to shut down the government, when all Republicans really want is to get rid of people leeching off the state and bankrupting the country. They are hardly going after low paid paper pushers and salaries below 200,000 of people qualified to do something other than write reports (as MSNBC tries to claim with fear mongering campaigns).

They are going after people who earn far more than what they could possibly earn in the private sector, and those kinds of jobs are the ones 200,000+ which are bleeding the budget dry, and providing no economic return and basically doing nothing at all.

 

[bucs90]

Air Force awards Boeing $3.5 billion contract - Feb. 24, 2011

Meanwhile, in IN and WI, American employees are being stripped of bargaining rights, because our country and it's states cannot afford to pay them what they think they are worth.

One, what the Department of the Defense, a branch of the FEDERAL government, does with its budget has fuck-all to do with what a STATE can and cannot afford to do with ITS budget. Two, wah wah wah! How many of us get paid what WE think we're worth, and how many of us actually feel justified in having a huge, screaming tantrum about it on national television? You get paid what your EMPLOYER thinks you're worth to him, and if you're lucky, it's not too much less than what YOU think you deserve and wish you could get.

It is unfortunate that people like you cannot or simply will not see the bigger picture. Federal/state/local....does not matter. We are ALL Americans and if our elected officials and the people who put them in power could get their heads out of their asses long enough to see and understand this, we would all be much better off. And what else? Boeing is a UNION contractor.

HAHA! But not for long!!! Boeing picked Charleston, SC over Seattle, WA for it's massive Dreamliner plant, bringing 6-10,000 good paying jobs to Charleston rather than Seattle. Why? SC is non-union, low corporate tax.

The shift from high tax, union labor states to low tax, non-union states has begun and will slowly eradicate unions.

 

[VaYank5150]

Defense of our treaty partners for one thing (i.e. NATO) as well as our other comittments (Japan, South Korea etc.)

These aircraft actually allow us to do more with less, removing the need for extra aircraft, as we can base more in the US and just ship and support them in forward areas when they are needed.

i.e., not necessarily defense of OUR country, but others.

Defense of our friends is defense of our country, as well as humanitarian needs, or do you think those C-130's we send to crappy airfields after natural disasters have enough range to cover the entire globe by themselves?

As you should have heard by now, we are BROKE. We cannot afford to send humanitarian aid to other countries using our aircraft.

 

[VaYank5150]

Maybe they'll just give the contract to a non-American company. That would show them!

Don't the US taxpayers deserve the biggest bang for their buck? If a non-American company can build these things cheaper, why shouldn't we award them the contract? We are broke, remember?

Maybe because the taxpayers themselves don't want their money going out of the country unless it has to.

As a tax payer who would prefer to NOT give my tax dollars to union contractors, why was I not asked? Were you asked about sending your money overseas? If so, when?

 

[editec]

I like this part of the article best:

Originally needed to keep B-52 nuclear bombers in the air for long periods of time, the Stratotanker quickly found new missions in Vietnam, where it enabled small fighter bombers to strike targets anywhere in the country. It revolutionized the use of air power, and is continuing to play that role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These refueling aircraft are not needed for defense. They are needed to refuel aircraft operating offensively in other countries. Where is the Tea Party outrage?

I've got this theory. If defense spending is on the table along with everything else, we'll know the GOP/TP is addressing our debt to the degree that justifies the level of campaign rhetoric.

Yeah, but its NOT on the table.

Neither is Homeland Defence on that table.

The ONLY things on the table are social programs that serve Americans.

No big surprise there, eh?

 

[martybegan]

i.e., not necessarily defense of OUR country, but others.

Defense of our friends is defense of our country, as well as humanitarian needs, or do you think those C-130's we send to crappy airfields after natural disasters have enough range to cover the entire globe by themselves?

As you should have heard by now, we are BROKE. We cannot afford to send humanitarian aid to other countries using our aircraft.

So we cut something that will employ US workers, Improve our ability to respond to world events, and modernize our military, instead of cutting some other usless entilement crap?

Here's a better cut, reduce the DOE and return that function to where it belongs, the states.

 

[VaYank5150]

Defense of our friends is defense of our country, as well as humanitarian needs, or do you think those C-130's we send to crappy airfields after natural disasters have enough range to cover the entire globe by themselves?

As you should have heard by now, we are BROKE. We cannot afford to send humanitarian aid to other countries using our aircraft.

So we cut something that will employ US workers, Improve our ability to respond to world events, and modernize our military, instead of cutting some other usless entilement crap?

Here's a better cut, reduce the DOE and return that function to where it belongs, the states.

So, adding private sector jobs with government taxes is now OK? We are broke. If we are going to make cuts, we should maek them across the board. No one is paying us a dime to be the world's police or for our ability to respond to world events.

 

[HUGGY]

It's not a done deal. AirBus can still challenge the bid. If it works out as is it will be a huge benefit for Seattle machinists. I am a machinist in Seattle. I make aircraft parts. I would never go to work for Boeing but the subcontractor work will be significant. Boeing will suck up many of the smaller shops machinists and the market for my skills will be very good. Boeing estimates 10,000 hires in Seattle. This will be very good for the Pacific Northwest.

Ensuring Federal tax money is spent to employ American workers sure sounds like socialism to me. Just ask any "conservative".

The refueling tanker will create about 40,000 manufacturing jobs nation wide with many positions going to Kansas, Missouri and other locations. I am happy about that so there won't be a "gold rush" of hopeful machinists storming into the Pacific Northwest trying to get employed.

As far as socialism goes... It doesn't concern me. My favorite president, Eisenhower, built the interstate hyway system. That was probably one of the more useful "public" projects our country has ever seen. I believe it is critical that we build our own military hardware. The tanker is probably the least noxious armament as it only extends our range to address our military needs. That is something we already have. The new tanker is only replacing aged aircraft.

 

[martybegan]

As you should have heard by now, we are BROKE. We cannot afford to send humanitarian aid to other countries using our aircraft.

So we cut something that will employ US workers, Improve our ability to respond to world events, and modernize our military, instead of cutting some other usless entilement crap?

Here's a better cut, reduce the DOE and return that function to where it belongs, the states.

So, adding private sector jobs with government taxes is now OK? We are broke. If we are going to make cuts, we should maek them across the board. No one is paying us a dime to be the world's police or for our ability to respond to world events.

In this case the government is getting a useful product that replaces an aging asset, that has mulitple military and non military uses.

One of the purposes of our government is to provide for the national defense, which this contract helps do.

 

[VaYank5150]

It's not a done deal. AirBus can still challenge the bid. If it works out as is it will be a huge benefit for Seattle machinists. I am a machinist in Seattle. I make aircraft parts. I would never go to work for Boeing but the subcontractor work will be significant. Boeing will suck up many of the smaller shops machinists and the market for my skills will be very good. Boeing estimates 10,000 hires in Seattle. This will be very good for the Pacific Northwest.

Ensuring Federal tax money is spent to employ American workers sure sounds like socialism to me. Just ask any "conservative".

The refueling tanker will create about 40,000 manufacturing jobs nation wide with many positions going to Kansas, Missouri and other locations. I am happy about that so there won't be a "gold rush" of hopeful machinists storming into the Pacific Northwest trying to get employed.

As far as socialism goes... It doesn't concern me. My favorite president, Eisenhower, built the interstate hyway system. That was probably one of the more useful "public" projects our country has ever seen. I believe it is critical that we build our own military hardware. The tanker is probably the least noxious armament as it only extends our range to address our military needs. That is something we already have. The new tanker is only replacing aged aircraft.

And we need 179 of them, why?

 

[VaYank5150]

So we cut something that will employ US workers, Improve our ability to respond to world events, and modernize our military, instead of cutting some other usless entilement crap?

Here's a better cut, reduce the DOE and return that function to where it belongs, the states.

So, adding private sector jobs with government taxes is now OK? We are broke. If we are going to make cuts, we should maek them across the board. No one is paying us a dime to be the world's police or for our ability to respond to world events.

In this case the government is getting a useful product that replaces an aging asset, that has mulitple military and non military uses.

One of the purposes of our government is to provide for the national defense, which this contract helps do.

With the plethora of USAF/USN/USCG/USMC/USA air bases around our country, why would we need air to air refueling capabilities to protect ourselves?

 

[Oddball]

I like this part of the article best:

Originally needed to keep B-52 nuclear bombers in the air for long periods of time, the Stratotanker quickly found new missions in Vietnam, where it enabled small fighter bombers to strike targets anywhere in the country. It revolutionized the use of air power, and is continuing to play that role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These refueling aircraft are not needed for defense. They are needed to refuel aircraft operating offensively in other countries. Where is the Tea Party outrage?

What's outrageous is that the original contract was nullified by fiat, so that Boeing could undercut the winning bid.

BTW, aerial refueling of B-52s would tend to keep them based on American bases, rather than being deployed on foreign soil. Likewise, all of the B-2 fleet is based in CONUS.

Try again.

 

[HUGGY]

Ensuring Federal tax money is spent to employ American workers sure sounds like socialism to me. Just ask any "conservative".

The refueling tanker will create about 40,000 manufacturing jobs nation wide with many positions going to Kansas, Missouri and other locations. I am happy about that so there won't be a "gold rush" of hopeful machinists storming into the Pacific Northwest trying to get employed.

As far as socialism goes... It doesn't concern me. My favorite president, Eisenhower, built the interstate hyway system. That was probably one of the more useful "public" projects our country has ever seen. I believe it is critical that we build our own military hardware. The tanker is probably the least noxious armament as it only extends our range to address our military needs. That is something we already have. The new tanker is only replacing aged aircraft.

And we need 179 of them, why?

Well ......179 planes will certainly not come on line at the same time. The aircraft will be delivered over at least ten years starting in 2017. They will be stationed all over the planet with some of them being sold to our allies. I don't see it as 179 tankers added as much as replacing those going off line.

 

[Mini 14]

Air Force One runs on obama's charisma and aura.

Why can't we get the rest of our fleet to do that?

 

[VaYank5150]

I like this part of the article best:

Originally needed to keep B-52 nuclear bombers in the air for long periods of time, the Stratotanker quickly found new missions in Vietnam, where it enabled small fighter bombers to strike targets anywhere in the country. It revolutionized the use of air power, and is continuing to play that role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These refueling aircraft are not needed for defense. They are needed to refuel aircraft operating offensively in other countries. Where is the Tea Party outrage?

What's outrageous is that the original contract was nullified by fiat, so that Boeing could undercut the winning bid.

BTW, aerial refueling of B-52s would tend to keep them based on American bases, rather than being deployed on foreign soil. Likewise, all of the B-2 fleet is based in CONUS.

Try again.

And we would need an offensive weapon such as the B-52, stationed within the CONUS, aerially refueled protecting the CONUS, why?