http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/air_force_buys_french_tanker.asp

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/1843181/

___________________________________

Hannity’s mention of “weapons with French labels on them” apparently referred to French Roland missiles, which “U.S. troops and journalists have seen … at some [Iraqi] weapons sites,” according to an October 5, 2003, Associated Press report. But the AP also noted that while Poland initially reported that the French missiles were produced in 2003, the Polish government quickly recognized that the report was “incorrect.” France stopped exporting Roland missiles in 1986 and stopped producing them completely in 1993, according to the French Foreign Ministry.

International human rights organization Amnesty International has documented that both French and U.S. companies supplied weapons technology to Iraq prior to the 1991 Gulf War:

Before the 1991 Gulf War, at least 20 countries were accused of involvement in building up the technological basis for different Iraqi weapons programs, in particular the chemical weapons program. In December 2002, the Iraqi government submitted a 12,000-page dossier to the UN [United Nations] naming companies from the UK, France, Russia, the USA and China as suppliers of weapons technology to Iraq. … The dossier claims that 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons including nuclear and rocket technology and that some “50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US”. … Although most of the trade ended in 1991 at the outbreak of the Gulf War, Russia, China and reportedly Portugal traded arms with Iraq after 1991 in breach of UN resolutions.

A December 30, 2002, report in The Washington Post further chronicled America’s role in providing Iraq with weapons technology prior to the arms embargo: “The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.” The Post also documented that the U.S. provided “billions of dollars of credits” to supply the Iraqi war effort, according to former National Security Council official Howard Teicher, and that upon gaining entrance into Iraq following the Gulf War, U.N. weapons inspectors “compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.”

The Washington Post reported on October 8, 2004, that several French companies have been accused of selling weapons technology to Iraq after the embargo. But the Post noted that “U.S. weapons inspectors found no clear evidence” that French government officials were involved in or aware of those deals, and it is unclear whether reported offers from French companies to Iraq were ever consummated.

All that aside, real problem with this deal is that US citizens will see their tax money go overseas to pay for one of the biggest defense contracts in history. It is madness.

My wife is not even a US citizen, and she is horrified by this deal. Here is hoping congress imposes a little sanity and kills the Airbus taker deal.

It appears that the more capable plane won. Unless the Air Force mission actually requires more, smaller capacity tankers, there is no compelling reason for the Boeing proposal to be accepted.

Typical MSM style reporting. It’s Northrup-Grumman/EADs consortium. Northrup is an American company. The Contract is not with EADS for $35B. The split, from what I’ve seen is 45%/55% respectively.

John Noonan got it right in his opening paragraph, Mr Rosenthal, so why can’t you?

What I’ve read in the trade press, the 777 would have been comparable to the NG/EADS plane, but more expensive and not available as quickly. Plus, Boeing has plenty of orders for the 777 and didn’t want to compromise commercial sales with competing military sales for many of the same components and assembly capacity.

But basically, Boeing screwed up.

Depending on which engines are used, the NG/EADS plane may have way more than 50% of it’s value in the US from avionics, engines, and final assembly, even if 100% of the airframe comes from Airbus and European suppliers.

Boeing doubly shot themselves in the foot, because now, Airbus will be making commercial aircraft in Alabama, negating a lot of the advantage Boeing has with the weak dollar.

I have no idea what they were thinking.

Besides, I dont believe for a second that either France or Germany would be willing to sacrifice that much money to make a political statement.

This is the same Airbus that came out with the A380, after Boeing determined that they could never get their development budget back from a double-decker, even though it would have been a lot cheaper for them to modify a 747 than it was for Airbus to design the A380 from scratch.

Does “Concorde” ring any bells?

Those who are getting mad at the decision should blame Boeing for putting out such a shoddy proposal.