Fully agree with Shinto on this one - for a thread made on a mainly American board it doesn't really seem anti French at all (or German/Spanish) - in fact I'm starting to think you guys have all gone soft!
So far as Airbus goes - if they can sort their management worries out, ride out the issues with the US dollar and rationalise their manufacturing without pissing off unions/owner countries too much then they will be in a good place. Sure the A380 hasn't been quite the instant success they had hoped for but end of the day, they will have a large airframe under their control in a world where there are many large airport hubs that subsist on very large airplane traffic.
Think of it from a passenger pov as well - if you are doing the Europe - East Asia trip are you going to prefer an airline using the A380 where you have a much greater chance of roomy seats (at least for a few years till they all get cheap again) or the 747 where most airlines have long since squeezed all the potential seats out of it?
Kalkino on
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
The thing is tho, if the US actually bows to pressure it almost means that Boeing has a lock on any large plane manufacture for the US military, right? Which could have negative effects in future procurement.
You're forgetting Lockheed Martin and other US aerospace companies. If Boeing does bring the politicians around, it won't give them a meaningful lock on future contracts--it'll just provide a precedent for awarding them preferentially to an American company, not necessarily Boeing.
According to my limited understanding of the industry, that would still be a mistake.
There really aren't any big-name players in aerospace outside of the US. Airbus is about it, and it's getting its ass kicked over the A300 trainwreck.
Not true. BAE, EADS (of which, admittedly, Airbus is a division), and Mikoyan are all major players.
and of course there is China - they have an oft expressed desire to build a national competitor to Airbus or Boeing - and they have the financial/industrial potential plus bloody minded nationalism to do so.
Russia has also recently reorganised it's aeropsace industry in order to make it more competitive to Western companies, but then I think they probably are more strong in small/medium sized planes rather than 747 wannabes.
I think this is unfortunate but not in the way people are casing the issue. The real sadness is that the American airplane industry is subpar in comparison. If they want the contracts, they're just going to have to be the best. Long term I see this as a good thing for our boys in uniform.
You're jumping to conclusions a bit much here. The American aerospace industry is probably the finest in the world. Airplanes are one of the few things we still manufacture and sell to other nations; as I recall the aerospace sector constitutes our largest positive trade balance. In the vast majority of cases, we're selling airplanes to the rest of the world, and only occasionally buying them. That Boeing happened not to create the best design (actually, happened not to create the design that the higher-ups preferred) isn't new, and nor is it indicative of any general "subpar" status in Boeing or the industry.
The only legitimate reason to want military hardware built by the country using it would be Supply issues (namely the supplying country going hostile, Ref Iran's US made aircraft). However, France isn't really known for it's "let's attack america!" bent.
Beyond that, complaining about this casts politicians in a funny light when you look at it.
Protect our jorbs! = You want US troops to use sub par equipment.
Protect our troops! = You want US workers to lose jobs overseas.
I can't see making a stink out of this publicly, either way you go on it you stand to lose out Big in the stupid rhetoric department.
The thing is tho, if the US actually bows to pressure it almost means that Boeing has a lock on any large plane manufacture for the US military, right? Which could have negative effects in future procurement.
You're forgetting Lockheed Martin and other US aerospace companies. If Boeing does bring the politicians around, it won't give them a meaningful lock on future contracts--it'll just provide a precedent for awarding them preferentially to an American company, not necessarily Boeing.
According to my limited understanding of the industry, that would still be a mistake.
There really aren't any big-name players in aerospace outside of the US. Airbus is about it, and it's getting its ass kicked over the A300 trainwreck.
I think all of you are talking about the A380, not the A300 which was the first design by Airbus. Second, the company is not getting its ass kicked over it, actually the books are filled with contracts, but because of the current bickering between Germany and France on who gets to produce which part of the plane the costs of making the plane do not leave a large enough margin - thus the whole company is needs to lay off jobs to get more efficient which is in turn hindered by politicians on both sides of the Rhine to avoid losing jobs in their country.
Yeah, the 380, my mistake. Either way, they've already lost the single largest airline in the world to Boeing (FedEx), and to add insult to injury Fred Smith then public chewed Airbus's ass. The plane was supposed to be in production something like two years ago and they couldn't even provide the technical documentation necessary to set up simulation for training purposes then. The wide-body market will be almost solely Boeing's pretty soon, because there is no competition besides Airbus, and Airbus is mired in bureaucratic bullshit that neither side seems to care about actually resolving.
All things equal, I'd generally prefer government-funded contracts be given to domestic companies. But that's if all things are actually equal. Here, it sounds like Airbus is the better contractor, and so they should get the contract. The only problem I'd have is if we were outsourcing this stuff to, like, North Korea.
Also, if it's true that the whole contract was just a pork-gift to Washington to begin with, then them losing the contract to France is pretty delicious.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Well Boeing is a huge company with the ears of many people in Congress. They're going to do whatever it takes to protect their interests, and starting a flag-waving campaign is the easiest and most effective. I know Northrop is going to build parts of it, but I have yet to see a real breakdown of how and where the planes will be built and assembled. To be honest I'd bet this wouldn't even be a thing if it weren't the French.
That's what I can find on the initial deal that was such a stink ages ago. Basically it was a bullshit deal for the USAF by any accounting standards, and some people tried to call them on it.
That's what I can find on the initial deal that was such a stink ages ago. Basically it was a bullshit deal for the USAF by any accounting standards, and some people tried to call them on it.
I think it turned out that someone near the CEO of Boeing was in bed with a higher up in the military (I think literally...), and it was corrupt as all get out. I believe the people responsible have since been canned.
As for hating on the French, that's all in good fun. I mean, with both Boeing and Airbus plane parts are made from all sorts of different places in the world. The WA powers at be are just pissed because Boeing is in our backyard.
I found Paris quite friendly. I don't speak a bean of French, well, aside from "parle vous Anglais?" and aside from feeling like a mild jerk (like I do in any country I can't speak the language - which is everything outside the 'sphere) I didn't have a bad time. All the French people I spoke to were friendly enough and tried to help me, so far as their abilities allowed.
It's strange that this is really only occurring for this contract. I work in the helicopter industry and Eurocopter has been steadily edging out every American helicopter company (Bell, MD, etc.) pretty much across the board for years now. This includes governmental stuff like mil contracts (like the UH-72), air ambulance, law enforcement...pretty much everywhere. And yet I've never heard a pip from the public about it. I guess maybe because it happened more gradually, perhaps.
It's interesting too - up here in Canada we've had similar issues like this (at least, we used to - I don't know if it's as bad any longer). Except it was usually based around language, rather than nationality. Rumors abounded over military contracts always going to Quebec-based companies purely to "appease the French", and stuff like that. I imagine it had more to do with the stereotypical French vs English sentiment we have up here, similar to this Airbus/Boeing having more to do with unreasonable nationalism.
You've got it all wrong guys, apparently this a big coup for the British! Apparently.
Thousands of British aviation jobs are to be safeguarded over the next 15 years by a £20bn contract from the US Air Force, Airbus owner EADS has said. European group EADS and the US's Northrop Grumman are to build a fleet of 179 in-flight refuelling aircraft.
Business Secretary John Hutton said: "This is a welcome vote of confidence in Britain's highly competitive aerospace industry and is recognition of the world-class skills and commitment shown by our aerospace workers." Howard Wheeldon, a defence industry analyst with BGC Partners, said the contract was the largest single order ever placed by a US buyer for a European product.
Why the hell do people still dislike the French? I thought that bullshit was over a while ago.
This is a pretty good reason for all of New Zealand. I also picked up a lot from my Canadian grandfather missing out on graduating high school because he failed French.
Why the hell do people still dislike the French? I thought that bullshit was over a while ago.
This is a pretty good reason for all of New Zealand. I also picked up a lot from my Canadian grandfather missing out on graduating high school because he failed French.
Yeah we hate the French for that. That and the nuclear testing that was sort of near us. By sort of I mean several thousand kilometres away - but fuck that is closer than most other things so there
Coming from the flightline side of the USAF, and working on these planes, I can tell you one thing: I don't pride myself on where these planes come from. In fact, a lot of the planes I operate fail, miserably, constantly, and I wouldn't mind seeing some of them literally go to the bone yard (it's a mile away from our squadron). The sad thing is that some of the planes I work on might, at some point, have been used in Vietnam, so these things are very, very enriched with American history.
However, they do not suite our current mission, and up until recently, have hindered our ability to perform. Nothing, and I mean nothing pisses me off more about the AF than throwing needless pride into the mix when you can get a job done efficient and quick, because that one second you procrastinate maybe that one second you fail to save a life.
To that, I'm a little offset that the French will be building for us. I can tell you right now, I have no love for them, at all, but if they make a good product, and one that serves us well for years, I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen half-assed ideas like this go astray in the AF.
Why the hell do people still dislike the French? I thought that bullshit was over a while ago.
This is a pretty good reason for all of New Zealand. I also picked up a lot from my Canadian grandfather missing out on graduating high school because he failed French.
Heh, the Americans (to be fair, only a certain "special" kind) hate the French because they're not aggressive enough.
New Zealand hates the French because they're too aggressive.
Poor guys can't win either way.
Anyway, to be on topic - the only question should be the best product for the money. Defence contracts necessitate throwing in the extra clause that the supplier be politically reliable/secure/etc. I think France easily meets both . . . I think.
I can't help but think though that if you're working on the planes to fix them, you're only ever going to see them when they're broken.
they tend to get regular service so people don't die when they break.
He probably sees more stuff in the process of breaking than actually broken, and sees plenty of not broken stuff as well. I assume it is more issues of parts needing to be replaced very frequently.
or my understanding of how airplanes are operated is totally off.
I think there is something to the americans not liking the frence, because we can get away with it. Can't really make fun of minorities outloud anymore, so let's keep kicking the frence because sometimes they have a diffrent political opinion and that's a convenient excuse.
The American hatred of the French is an old thing, with Mark Twain, among other things, saying and writing:
A French married lady cannot enter even a menagerie without bringing the purity of that menagerie under suspicion.
The objects of which Paris folks are fond--literature, art, medicine and adultery.
France has neither winter nor summer nor morals--apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.
France has usually been governed by prostitutes.
A Frenchman's home is where another man's wife is.
In Paris they just simply opened their eyes and stared when we spoke to them in French! We never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language.
There is nothing lower than the human race except the French.
French are the connecting link between man & the monkey.
Trivial Americans go to Paris when they die.
Let us say all bad Americans go to Paris when they die. No, let us not say it for this adds a new horror to Immortality.
An isolated & helpless young girl is perfectly safe from insult by a Frenchman, if he is dead.
And, just for good measure
A dead Frenchman has many good qualities, many things to recommend him; many attractions--even innocencies. Why cannot we have more of these?
I can't help but think though that if you're working on the planes to fix them, you're only ever going to see them when they're broken.
We're not like our civilian counter-parts, thank deity, where we only service and only know a fleet of aircrafts. I've seen those people work, and they're the most miserable lot I've ever seen.
We only have seven aircrafts on the line, and we only do two sorties, or two flights per day, so there is a lot of downtime, and I know each aircraft thoroughly. They all look the same, they're all uniform, but they each have their own little quirks, and that's a given considering how much I time I spend around them.
To that, we have a DCC, ADCC program, where we essentially get assigned to one plane (our names get put on the side, as well, and I'm a ADCC, personally). We do more than make sure it's operational; we customize it, and give it crew perks. We can put in new seats, as opposed to old ones that are falling part, or we can add a new plotter's table, because the old one is missing hardware. These are all things that don't "break" the aircraft on the line, or make it incapable of flying.
The pride issues I referred to earlier was that some of our planes, or at least one, came down with a nasty fuel leak. No one had the knowledge to fix it, not even the fuel cell shop. 90% of the shop wanted the plane gone, and in the end, it hurt our man power and our very limited budget. That thing could have saved a thousand lives in it's day, but frankly, it's not my plane, and at the moment, it's a burden to the mission, and the squadron.
they tend to get regular service so people don't die when they break.
He probably sees more stuff in the process of breaking than actually broken, and sees plenty of not broken stuff as well. I assume it is more issues of parts needing to be replaced very frequently.
or my understanding of how airplanes are operated is totally off.
Most parts aren't required, like screws and bolts, and we have lots of those.
However, yes, the first thing that happens when a plane comes down is that we chalk it, and then do inspections on it. I've never seen a plane just literally break apart, as many would imagine. We tend to fix problems before, they in fact, become problems.
Why the hell do people still dislike the French? I thought that bullshit was over a while ago.
This is a pretty good reason for all of New Zealand. I also picked up a lot from my Canadian grandfather missing out on graduating high school because he failed French.
Heh, the Americans (to be fair, only a certain "special" kind) hate the French because they're not aggressive enough.
New Zealand hates the French because they're too aggressive.
Poor guys can't win either way.
Well I suppose everyone is more aggressive than New Zealand, and America is definitely up there on the aggression scale.
I don't post here often, but this thread got my attention and this morning I saw this:
LOS ANGELES - March 5, 2008 - When the process to replace America's aging fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers began in 2005, the U.S. Air Force made clear that it wanted a full and fair competition. Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) entered the competition with the understanding that if its proposal provided the best value to the warfighter and the American taxpayer, it could win the contract.
Since the Air Force's decision to award Northrop Grumman the KC-45A contract was announced, numerous erroneous comments have been repeated in the media and in Congress. In response, the company wants to make the following points clear:
Industrial Base
* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program will create a new
aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States.
* The KC-45A program helps return competitiveness to the U.S.
aerospace industry.
Jobs
* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program does not transfer any
jobs from the United States to France or any other foreign country.
* The KC-45A tanker will support more than 25,000 jobs in the United
States.
* The KC-45A U.S. supplier base will include 230 companies in 49
states.
* Assembly and militarization of the KC-45A tanker will take place in
Mobile, Ala., resulting in the creation of approximately 2,000 direct
jobs in the United States.
Acquisition Process
* The KC-45A competition underwent the most rigorous, transparent
acquisition process in U.S. Department of Defense history.
* Throughout the process, both competitors in the KC-45A acquisition
hailed the Air Force for conducting a fair and open competition.
Foreign Content
* All modern jetliners are built from a global supplier base and the
two entrants in the KC-45A competition are no exception. The Boeing
tanker includes parts manufactured in Japan, United Kingdom, Canada
and Italy. The Northrop Grumman tanker includes parts built in the
United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and France.
* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A will include approximately 60 percent
U.S. content. It is America's tanker.
Foreign Suppliers to U.S. Military Programs
* There are numerous examples of transatlantic cooperation on vital
U.S. military programs. Foreign suppliers currently play essential
roles in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the VH-71 Presidential
Helicopter. In fact, on the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft program,
Boeing is responsible for producing the Alenia Aeronautica (Italy)
aircraft in Jacksonville, Fla.
* No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe. For
the KC-45A program, a commercial A330 jetliner will be assembled by
American workers in EADS's facility in Mobile. The aircraft will
then undergo military conversion in an adjacent Northrop Grumman
facility. All of the KC-45A's critical military technology will be
added by an American company, Northrop Grumman, in America, in
Mobile Ala.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $32 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide
.
So, the original article is bullshit, and the things are being built in Alabama.
I think all of you are talking about the A380, not the A300 which was the first design by Airbus. Second, the company is not getting its ass kicked over it, actually the books are filled with contracts, but because of the current bickering between Germany and France on who gets to produce which part of the plane the costs of making the plane do not leave a large enough margin - thus the whole company is needs to lay off jobs to get more efficient which is in turn hindered by politicians on both sides of the Rhine to avoid losing jobs in their country.
Wow, Germany and France arguing. Who would have thought? Maybe they should make one big plant in Alsace-Lorraine and then they can share custody every 50-75 years.
Why the hell do people still dislike the French? I thought that bullshit was over a while ago.
It's one of the longest running jokes in history... at least since the Carolingians. There are superiority complexes, assumptions of cultural protectionism, and all sorts of other stuff going on since Rome fell and the Franks took over.
Posts
We could make them better, but then God would be angry. Good schools teach evolution.
[/irrelevant but still pisses me off]
So far as Airbus goes - if they can sort their management worries out, ride out the issues with the US dollar and rationalise their manufacturing without pissing off unions/owner countries too much then they will be in a good place. Sure the A380 hasn't been quite the instant success they had hoped for but end of the day, they will have a large airframe under their control in a world where there are many large airport hubs that subsist on very large airplane traffic.
Think of it from a passenger pov as well - if you are doing the Europe - East Asia trip are you going to prefer an airline using the A380 where you have a much greater chance of roomy seats (at least for a few years till they all get cheap again) or the 747 where most airlines have long since squeezed all the potential seats out of it?
Not true.
BAE, EADS (of which, admittedly, Airbus is a division), and Mikoyan are all major players.
Russia has also recently reorganised it's aeropsace industry in order to make it more competitive to Western companies, but then I think they probably are more strong in small/medium sized planes rather than 747 wannabes.
Beyond that, complaining about this casts politicians in a funny light when you look at it.
Protect our jorbs! = You want US troops to use sub par equipment.
Protect our troops! = You want US workers to lose jobs overseas.
I can't see making a stink out of this publicly, either way you go on it you stand to lose out Big in the stupid rhetoric department.
Also, if it's true that the whole contract was just a pork-gift to Washington to begin with, then them losing the contract to France is pretty delicious.
I don't dislike them at all. There wouldn't be a United States of America without them.
Though my Canadian roommate does honestly hate them, so I dunno.
That's what I can find on the initial deal that was such a stink ages ago. Basically it was a bullshit deal for the USAF by any accounting standards, and some people tried to call them on it.
I think it turned out that someone near the CEO of Boeing was in bed with a higher up in the military (I think literally...), and it was corrupt as all get out. I believe the people responsible have since been canned.
As for hating on the French, that's all in good fun. I mean, with both Boeing and Airbus plane parts are made from all sorts of different places in the world. The WA powers at be are just pissed because Boeing is in our backyard.
Parisians are pretty big assholes in my experience (well back in 2004 at least), aside from that there isn't anything wrong with the country.
But in fairness, it's not like New Yorkers are an international symbol of friendliness.
Or, at least, Boeing wouldn't have as easy a time with the ad copy. Nobody complains that the gun barrels for our tanks are made by a German company.
It's interesting too - up here in Canada we've had similar issues like this (at least, we used to - I don't know if it's as bad any longer). Except it was usually based around language, rather than nationality. Rumors abounded over military contracts always going to Quebec-based companies purely to "appease the French", and stuff like that. I imagine it had more to do with the stereotypical French vs English sentiment we have up here, similar to this Airbus/Boeing having more to do with unreasonable nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#Unethical_conduct
This is a pretty good reason for all of New Zealand. I also picked up a lot from my Canadian grandfather missing out on graduating high school because he failed French.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Yeah we hate the French for that. That and the nuclear testing that was sort of near us. By sort of I mean several thousand kilometres away - but fuck that is closer than most other things so there
However, they do not suite our current mission, and up until recently, have hindered our ability to perform. Nothing, and I mean nothing pisses me off more about the AF than throwing needless pride into the mix when you can get a job done efficient and quick, because that one second you procrastinate maybe that one second you fail to save a life.
To that, I'm a little offset that the French will be building for us. I can tell you right now, I have no love for them, at all, but if they make a good product, and one that serves us well for years, I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen half-assed ideas like this go astray in the AF.
New Zealand hates the French because they're too aggressive.
Poor guys can't win either way.
Anyway, to be on topic - the only question should be the best product for the money. Defence contracts necessitate throwing in the extra clause that the supplier be politically reliable/secure/etc. I think France easily meets both . . . I think.
He probably sees more stuff in the process of breaking than actually broken, and sees plenty of not broken stuff as well. I assume it is more issues of parts needing to be replaced very frequently.
or my understanding of how airplanes are operated is totally off.
I think there is something to the americans not liking the frence, because we can get away with it. Can't really make fun of minorities outloud anymore, so let's keep kicking the frence because sometimes they have a diffrent political opinion and that's a convenient excuse.
:v:
A French married lady cannot enter even a menagerie without bringing the purity of that menagerie under suspicion.
The objects of which Paris folks are fond--literature, art, medicine and adultery.
France has neither winter nor summer nor morals--apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.
France has usually been governed by prostitutes.
A Frenchman's home is where another man's wife is.
In Paris they just simply opened their eyes and stared when we spoke to them in French! We never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language.
There is nothing lower than the human race except the French.
French are the connecting link between man & the monkey.
Trivial Americans go to Paris when they die.
Let us say all bad Americans go to Paris when they die. No, let us not say it for this adds a new horror to Immortality.
An isolated & helpless young girl is perfectly safe from insult by a Frenchman, if he is dead.
And, just for good measure
A dead Frenchman has many good qualities, many things to recommend him; many attractions--even innocencies. Why cannot we have more of these?
We're not like our civilian counter-parts, thank deity, where we only service and only know a fleet of aircrafts. I've seen those people work, and they're the most miserable lot I've ever seen.
We only have seven aircrafts on the line, and we only do two sorties, or two flights per day, so there is a lot of downtime, and I know each aircraft thoroughly. They all look the same, they're all uniform, but they each have their own little quirks, and that's a given considering how much I time I spend around them.
To that, we have a DCC, ADCC program, where we essentially get assigned to one plane (our names get put on the side, as well, and I'm a ADCC, personally). We do more than make sure it's operational; we customize it, and give it crew perks. We can put in new seats, as opposed to old ones that are falling part, or we can add a new plotter's table, because the old one is missing hardware. These are all things that don't "break" the aircraft on the line, or make it incapable of flying.
The pride issues I referred to earlier was that some of our planes, or at least one, came down with a nasty fuel leak. No one had the knowledge to fix it, not even the fuel cell shop. 90% of the shop wanted the plane gone, and in the end, it hurt our man power and our very limited budget. That thing could have saved a thousand lives in it's day, but frankly, it's not my plane, and at the moment, it's a burden to the mission, and the squadron.
Most parts aren't required, like screws and bolts, and we have lots of those.
However, yes, the first thing that happens when a plane comes down is that we chalk it, and then do inspections on it. I've never seen a plane just literally break apart, as many would imagine. We tend to fix problems before, they in fact, become problems.
Well I suppose everyone is more aggressive than New Zealand, and America is definitely up there on the aggression scale.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Since the Air Force's decision to award Northrop Grumman the KC-45A contract was announced, numerous erroneous comments have been repeated in the media and in Congress. In response, the company wants to make the following points clear:
Industrial Base
* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program will create a new
aerospace manufacturing corridor in the southeastern United States.
* The KC-45A program helps return competitiveness to the U.S.
aerospace industry.
Jobs
* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A tanker program does not transfer any
jobs from the United States to France or any other foreign country.
* The KC-45A tanker will support more than 25,000 jobs in the United
States.
* The KC-45A U.S. supplier base will include 230 companies in 49
states.
* Assembly and militarization of the KC-45A tanker will take place in
Mobile, Ala., resulting in the creation of approximately 2,000 direct
jobs in the United States.
Acquisition Process
* The KC-45A competition underwent the most rigorous, transparent
acquisition process in U.S. Department of Defense history.
* Throughout the process, both competitors in the KC-45A acquisition
hailed the Air Force for conducting a fair and open competition.
Foreign Content
* All modern jetliners are built from a global supplier base and the
two entrants in the KC-45A competition are no exception. The Boeing
tanker includes parts manufactured in Japan, United Kingdom, Canada
and Italy. The Northrop Grumman tanker includes parts built in the
United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and France.
* The Northrop Grumman KC-45A will include approximately 60 percent
U.S. content. It is America's tanker.
Foreign Suppliers to U.S. Military Programs
* There are numerous examples of transatlantic cooperation on vital
U.S. military programs. Foreign suppliers currently play essential
roles in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the VH-71 Presidential
Helicopter. In fact, on the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft program,
Boeing is responsible for producing the Alenia Aeronautica (Italy)
aircraft in Jacksonville, Fla.
* No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe. For
the KC-45A program, a commercial A330 jetliner will be assembled by
American workers in EADS's facility in Mobile. The aircraft will
then undergo military conversion in an adjacent Northrop Grumman
facility. All of the KC-45A's critical military technology will be
added by an American company, Northrop Grumman, in America, in
Mobile Ala.
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a $32 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide
So, the original article is bullshit, and the things are being built in Alabama.
So yeah, I hear one of those crashed recently.
PROOF OF DESIGN FLAWS LOL OMG.
It's one of the longest running jokes in history... at least since the Carolingians. There are superiority complexes, assumptions of cultural protectionism, and all sorts of other stuff going on since Rome fell and the Franks took over.