Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#111

Post by vrganj »

tokai wrote: post #8
Quarrel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s... Which Switzerland then reluctantly agreed was allowed under the terms. As you say, totally being taken to the cleaners, and it is unclear how they escape in the short term. The more this happens though, the more deals like Italy's make senese, irrespective of the performance comparison of the two planes. If the US is going to be an unrelia…

I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens. Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.

The rearmament is mostly happening because the US has shown itself a bad unreliable partner that abuses interdependence.

No lobbying can change the risk assessment where America is the risk factor.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#112

Post by numpad0 »

maxglute wrote: post #70
wolvoleo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economically, fuel costs, i.e. engine maturity makes any entrant that's doesn't have parity engine core tech automatically none viable because simply higher costs due to lifetime fuel costs. Neither Boeing nor Airbus make their own engines. They get them from CFM, GE, Rolls-Royce. Like everyone else. That's not the differentiator. But it just costs insanely much to get an airliner certified. Even Boeing has been he…

>That's not the differentiator. It's differentiator in sense engine manufactures are part of western aviation industrial complex and can limit access, i.e. COMAC sanctions. Unless you're western core, you do not have guaranteed access. I think Embraer is creeping on to bottom end of narrowbody, but they're far from wide body. And with respect to topic, modern strategic tanking are wide body size, i.e. Embraer E190 is…

Boeing spun off United Airlines and P&W for antitrust reasons... Spirit AeroSystems that makes Boeing fuselages as products is likewise a spinoff.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#113

Post by spaniard89277 »

newtonianrules wrote: post #30
tokai wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens. Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.

You have to understand that the smartest people in the US didn’t vote for this administration and are just as horrified as everyone else with how inept and pathetic this administration is. Unfortunately we’re a minority, the senate’s design (Wyoming has the same number of senators as California even though a small city in CA may have more people than the whole state) and the US is so ridiculously gerrymandered. Sorry…

Waiting it out was the first strategy in Europe but it's clearly moving into something else.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#114

Post by numpad0 »

ksec wrote: post #47

This is a noob question but wondering if anyone here could answer. There are plenty of choices for Small and Medium size plane as well as private jet. Why are most commercial airline only buying Boeing and Airbus? And why others aren't making bigger planes to compete?

Cost and complexity of certification? At least that was why Mitsubishi MRJ never went into production. They got the first prototype flying in 6 years, then sought to obtain certification for subsequent 9 years through various means before giving up and scrapping all ~10 examples. Kawasaki P-1 that flew in the overlapping timeframe is in production and in service, with IHI made indigenous engines albeit with teething issues, so it's not like planes and engines can't be made by anyone other than existing players. They just can't be sold, and therefore can't be* done.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#115

Post by oa335 »

ericmay wrote: post #34
newtonianrules wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to understand that the smartest people in the US didn’t vote for this administration and are just as horrified as everyone else with how inept and pathetic this administration is. Unfortunately we’re a minority, the senate’s design (Wyoming has the same number of senators as California even though a small city in CA may have more people than the whole state) and the US is so ridiculously gerrymandered. Sorry…

There are a lot of issues in the American political system but the structure of the Senate is not one of those. It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists. If you are a small state like Vermont, you don’t want to just have California, New York, and Texas dictating all rules and laws for the country by sheer weight of their populat…

> It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists.

that only works if the smaller states are not representative of the larger majority of the population.

instead, nowadays the smaller states are actually over-representative of the populist mass - e.g Wyoming is 80% white.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#116

Post by ericmay »

vkou wrote: post #108
ericmay wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians with similar far-left populist political leanings have won elections in various cities and states. I'm just pointing out that removing the Senate empowers more of these populist groups with destructive and authoritarian ideologies.

When they'll get a president with a subservient congress elected twice, and go on to drive the country into a burning dumpster, I will be willing to entertain the possibility that the existence of the Senate protects us from their destructive and authoritarian ideologies. (Despite it demonstrably failing to do so, twice.) --- (I'm not even going to bother to ask how a movement for police accountability is a 'destruct…

From the prospective of many millions of Americans, and me to some extent (actions that align with my interests and ideology are good regardless of political leadership) the country is going in the right direction.

If you throw the Senate out you'd just further embolden those in power today.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#117

Post by ericmay »

oa335 wrote: post #115
ericmay wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of issues in the American political system but the structure of the Senate is not one of those. It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists. If you are a small state like Vermont, you don’t want to just have California, New York, and Texas dictating all rules and laws for the country by sheer weight of their populat…

> It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists. that only works if the smaller states are not representative of the larger majority of the population. instead, nowadays the smaller states are actually over-representative of the populist mass - e.g Wyoming is 80% white.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Senate, whether Wyoming is 80% white or black or any other random race. The point is that it exists as a sovereignty vote. To take it away would be to cause a civil war or at least a dissolution of the United States because smaller states will walk away.

A lot of the anti-American, anti-Senate, &c. stuff is Russian propaganda precisely because to continue to sow division and encourage populism is to invite destruction and disunity upon the United States.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#118

Post by oa335 »

ericmay wrote: post #117
oa335 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists. that only works if the smaller states are not representative of the larger majority of the population. instead, nowadays the smaller states are actually over-representative of the populist mass - e.g Wyoming is 80% white.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Senate, whether Wyoming is 80% white or black or any other random race. The point is that it exists as a sovereignty vote. To take it away would be to cause a civil war or at least a dissolution of the United States because smaller states will walk away. A lot of the anti-American, anti-Senate, &c. stuff is Russian propaganda precisely because to continue to sow division and…

i understand the purpose of the senate and believe that bicameralism is a good idea and populism is generally bad.

you seem to not understand my point so ill give it one more try:

senate was indeed formed as a bulwark against populism, but the founders didnt anticipate a 68 to 1 population difference between the largest and smallest states (california vs. wyoming), nor the vast differences in composition of their populations. when a tiny fraction of the population holds that much disproportionate veto power, the senate no longer checks populism, it actively empowers a specific, rural populist minority to override the majority.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#119

Post by _DeadFred_ »

Reminder that Airbus pays kickbacks for government contracts.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/airbus-agrees-pay-ov...

When I was in aerospace we lost a not insignificant amount of contracts to Europeans that we had won during the RFP/requirements/evaluation phase because we did not do kickbacks (where we demonstratable win the selection process, but that be told to do a kickback scheme then lose when we said no). The Euros also spread money other ways to make us less attractive. In the US we'd win RPFs/evaluation phase only to lose out in the end due to politics. Sadly aerospace isn't a game of merit. Seemed like Australia, China, Japan, central/southern Africa didn't play games and selected on merit in the contracts we went after.

Re: Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

#120

Post by expedition32 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #98
tokai wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens. Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.

A major issue is that the US manufacturers cannot keep up with demand even as they scale up production capacity. The current order backlog of approved foreign military sales of US weapons systems is approaching $1T and growing faster than they can fill the orders. This is creating secondary fallout as the orders from various countries get re-prioritized. It is not strictly first-come, first-served order fulfillment;…

This is why nations need to have their own industrial capacity. Because when shit hits the fan everyone needs guns- and they have a limited time frame until war breaks out.
Post reply on HN