"Matt" wrote in message
...
The UK Advanced Tanker/Transport is going to be leased because we're going
through a competitive bidding process, and the end product 'should' cost
less than buying outright over the product lifetime. Personally, I still
think they should buy outright - if they extend the aircraft's flying
life,
like they've done with the VC-10 and Tristar, it gets expensive fast.
Besides, we tried this with the C-17's - and because of the masses of
extra
time we've put on them through Afghanistan and Iraq, it's going to cost
the
UK taxpayer a ton of cash.

The US tanker program, whilst very nessesary, is really just a sop to
Boeing
because they didn't win the JSF program - and it's going to cost more than
buying outright even if they stick to the projections. Come on, no
competitive bidding process? As far as I know, the USAF is howling that
they
should buy the tankers, not lease them - why, with that extra $5.6
billion,
they could buy one, maybe two extra F/A-22's!

No the extra $5.6 billion would be used to keep the KC-135s flying. The USAF
is saying that if they buy them they will be delivered 2009-2016. If they
lease them they will be delivered 2006-2011. As far as a sop to Boeing. The
767 is the only aircraft in the running. The only way the USAF can get new
tankers in the next five years is to use this aircraft. Period. Since the
lease has a most-favored-customer and a return-on-sales cap for all of
Boeing commercial and military aircraft sales I don't see how the USAF is
going to get them any cheaper. Since the leased aircraft will not be owned
by The Boeing Company but the KC-767A USAF Tanker Statutory Trust which will
sell bonds to raise the capital, feel free to buy a bond if you think this
is such a gold mine.

It is also the only airframe the USAF could buy if they need any more AWACS
in the next five years. Anyone that thinks the USG will assume the risk and
cost to have Airbus develop a competing product in light of Airbus' stated
objective to drive Boeing out of the commerical aircraft market is brain
damaged. The USAF, unlike some in Congress, understands the long term
strategic damage to US interests of buying Scarebus.

Perhaps people should read the report to Congress rather than an OpEd piece
from a source that has had a few making-it-up problems of late.


Matt

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
(John Bailey) wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28BROO.html
(quoting)
U.S. Air Force would lease 100 refueling tankers, modified Boeing
767's, from an entity controlled by the Boeing Corporation.
This whole mess started because the Air Force can't pay for new
tankers up front, so it tried to push back the costs by leasing.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will
cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will
appreciate that the deal also involves the use of "special purpose
entities," the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their
glory days. Speaker Dennis Hastert's effort to ram through an Air
Force tanker deal for the Boeing Corporation. This deal isn't just
shady ? it's the Encyclopaedia Britannica of shady. (end quotes)

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

Gee, who'd have thunk the NYT would oppose something thet the USAF and
DoD want? What is Hastert's big gain in this? This all looks a bit
one-sided to me; maybe the NYT should go investigate why the RAF is
also pursuing a tanker lease program...

Brooks