Airbus tankers for USAF?

[noname]

As of last week, Lockheed Martin and EADS, majority owner of Airbus,
were assembling a tanker proposal that would give Lockheed a 50% offset,
according to the Air Force official. "[Airbus] clearly will jump on this
as an opportunity to compete not only on subsequent buys, but also to
take another whack at the first 100 since Boeing and the Air Force are
arguing over whether there's supposed to be one contract or two.
[Airbus] will come back with a sweetened deal."

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12013wna.xml

[Tarver Engineering]

"noname" > wrote in message
...
> As of last week, Lockheed Martin and EADS, majority owner of Airbus,
> were assembling a tanker proposal that would give Lockheed a 50% offset,
> according to the Air Force official. "[Airbus] clearly will jump on this
> as an opportunity to compete not only on subsequent buys, but also to
> take another whack at the first 100 since Boeing and the Air Force are
> arguing over whether there's supposed to be one contract or two.
> [Airbus] will come back with a sweetened deal."
>
>
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12013wna.xml

Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw quite a bit of political
support; Boxer needs to save her job.

[Brett]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
| "noname" > wrote in message
| ...
| > As of last week, Lockheed Martin and EADS, majority owner of
Airbus,
| > were assembling a tanker proposal that would give Lockheed a 50%
offset,
| > according to the Air Force official. "[Airbus] clearly will jump on
this
| > as an opportunity to compete not only on subsequent buys, but also
to
| > take another whack at the first 100 since Boeing and the Air Force
are
| > arguing over whether there's supposed to be one contract or two.
| > [Airbus] will come back with a sweetened deal."
| >
| >
|
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12013wna.xml
|
| Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw quite a bit of
political
| support; Boxer needs to save her job.

And proposing to put the 50% offset in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina or
anywhere but California could ensure that Boxer loses her job.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> | "noname" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > As of last week, Lockheed Martin and EADS, majority owner of
> Airbus,
> | > were assembling a tanker proposal that would give Lockheed a 50%
> offset,
> | > according to the Air Force official. "[Airbus] clearly will jump on
> this
> | > as an opportunity to compete not only on subsequent buys, but also
> to
> | > take another whack at the first 100 since Boeing and the Air Force
> are
> | > arguing over whether there's supposed to be one contract or two.
> | > [Airbus] will come back with a sweetened deal."
> | >
> | >
> |
>
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12013wna.xml
> |
> | Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw quite a bit of
> political
> | support; Boxer needs to save her job.
>
> And proposing to put the 50% offset in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina or
> anywhere but California could ensure that Boxer loses her job.

Excellent.

A fine slab of Georgia pork.

Then we could kill the F-22 with very little political cost and ramp the
F-35 in Texas.

[Henry J. Cobb]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw quite a bit of political
> support; Boxer needs to save her job.

And Bush will save her?

Boeing, Boeing, gone
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2260617

OK, if by 2010 the Super Hornet is the last tanker platform left in
the US Military, will they put a refueling probe on the front of the
B2? (I suppose the Marines will have some KC-130Js also if the Air
Force can't buy any more tankers. ;-)

-HJC

[user]

Remember the first round of BRAC??? Dellums and Feinstein ****ed
everyone off so much for years that the commission closed down the
whole Bay Area!! I would hope that Boxers' name never even comes close
to the BRAC equation during the next round........

On 1 Dec 2003 21:19:50 -0800, (Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
>> Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw quite a bit of political
>> support; Boxer needs to save her job.
>
>And Bush will save her?
>
>Boeing, Boeing, gone
>http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2260617
>
>OK, if by 2010 the Super Hornet is the last tanker platform left in
>the US Military, will they put a refueling probe on the front of the
>B2? (I suppose the Marines will have some KC-130Js also if the Air
>Force can't buy any more tankers. ;-)
>
>-HJC

[Matt Wiser]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>"noname" > wrote in message
...
>> As of last week, Lockheed Martin and EADS,
>majority owner of Airbus,
>> were assembling a tanker proposal that would
>give Lockheed a 50% offset,
>> according to the Air Force official. "[Airbus]
>clearly will jump on this
>> as an opportunity to compete not only on subsequent
>buys, but also to
>> take another whack at the first 100 since
>Boeing and the Air Force are
>> arguing over whether there's supposed to be
>one contract or two.
>> [Airbus] will come back with a sweetened deal."
>>
>>
>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12013wna.xml
>
>Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw
>quite a bit of political
>support; Boxer needs to save her job.
>
>
Yes, but still, the Not Invented Here syndrome kicks in: The AF (and the
rest of DOD) would prefer to buy a product marked "Made in USA" unless there
is no other choice. (B-57 Canberra and AV-8 Harrier are obvious examples)Even
a proposed Tornado Wild Weasel that would've been built at Rockwell International's
Palmdale plant would have run into this problem.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:19:32 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> allegedly uttered:

> Yes, but still, the Not Invented Here syndrome kicks in: The AF (and the
>rest of DOD) would prefer to buy a product marked "Made in USA" unless there
>is no other choice. (B-57 Canberra and AV-8 Harrier are obvious examples)Even
>a proposed Tornado Wild Weasel that would've been built at Rockwell International's
>Palmdale plant would have run into this problem.

With the USAF you'd have a point, but for the Army and USMC........

M249 - Belgian
M240 - Belgian
M9 - Italian
MK 23 - German (arguably)
81mm mortar - UK
105mm gun - UK
155mm gun UK (the new experimental one)
120mm tank gun - German
AT-4 - Scandinavian (Norwegian?)
Land Rover - UK (Used by the Rangers)

There's probably others, but I can't recall them off hand.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Tarver Engineering]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw quite a bit of political
> > support; Boxer needs to save her job.
>
> And Bush will save her?
>
> Boeing, Boeing, gone
> http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2260617
>
> OK, if by 2010 the Super Hornet is the last tanker platform left in
> the US Military, will they put a refueling probe on the front of the
> B2? (I suppose the Marines will have some KC-130Js also if the Air
> Force can't buy any more tankers. ;-)

The anouncement today that the OSP (space plane) is delayed potentially
pulls another $13 billion out of Southern California.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fccadf9$1@bg2....
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >"noname" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> As of last week, Lockheed Martin and EADS,
> >majority owner of Airbus,
> >> were assembling a tanker proposal that would
> >give Lockheed a 50% offset,
> >> according to the Air Force official. "[Airbus]
> >clearly will jump on this
> >> as an opportunity to compete not only on subsequent
> >buys, but also to
> >> take another whack at the first 100 since
> >Boeing and the Air Force are
> >> arguing over whether there's supposed to be
> >one contract or two.
> >> [Airbus] will come back with a sweetened deal."
> >>
> >>
>
>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12013w
na.xml
> >
> >Completing those tankers at Palmdale would draw
> >quite a bit of political
> >support; Boxer needs to save her job.
> >
> >
> Yes, but still, the Not Invented Here syndrome kicks in: The AF (and the
> rest of DOD) would prefer to buy a product marked "Made in USA" unless
there
> is no other choice. (B-57 Canberra and AV-8 Harrier are obvious
examples)Even
> a proposed Tornado Wild Weasel that would've been built at Rockwell
International's
> Palmdale plant would have run into this problem.

With a 50% offset, it is argueable that the airplanes are American.

[Henry J. Cobb]

Senator John "Insane" McCain is back on the warpath.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2003/12/01/daily18.html?jst=b_ln_hl

-HJC

[Matt Wiser]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3fccadf9$1@bg2....
>>
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"noname" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> As of last week, Lockheed Martin and
>EADS,
>> >majority owner of Airbus,
>> >> were assembling a tanker proposal that
>would
>> >give Lockheed a 50% offset,
>> >> according to the Air Force official. "[Airbus]
>> >clearly will jump on this
>> >> as an opportunity to compete not only on
>subsequent
>> >buys, but also to
>> >> take another whack at the first 100 since
>> >Boeing and the Air Force are
>> >> arguing over whether there's supposed to
>be
>> >one contract or two.
>> >> [Airbus] will come back with a sweetened
>deal."
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12013w
>na.xml
>> >
>> >Completing those tankers at Palmdale would
>draw
>> >quite a bit of political
>> >support; Boxer needs to save her job.
>> >
>> >
>> Yes, but still, the Not Invented Here syndrome
>kicks in: The AF (and the
>> rest of DOD) would prefer to buy a product
>marked "Made in USA" unless
>there
>> is no other choice. (B-57 Canberra and AV-8
>Harrier are obvious
>examples)Even
>> a proposed Tornado Wild Weasel that would've
>been built at Rockwell
>International's
>> Palmdale plant would have run into this problem.
>
>With a 50% offset, it is argueable that the
>airplanes are American.
>
>
Built in the U.S. is one thing. DESIGNED and BUILT in the U.S. is something
else altogether. Another proposed offset-Lockheed Martin is involved with
a proposed U.S. version of the EH-101 helo as a backup to the V-22 if that
fails; Sikorsky's S-92 would be the front-runner for that prospect, even
if EH-101 met or exceeded refquirements, NIH still is a factor in the final
decision. And that syndrome is very hard to cure.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fce29e7$1@bg2....
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

<snip>
> >International's
> >> Palmdale plant would have run into this problem.
> >
> >With a 50% offset, it is argueable that the
> >airplanes are American.
> >
> >
> Built in the U.S. is one thing. DESIGNED and BUILT in the U.S. is
something
> else altogether.

Congress tried to spoon feed the program to Boeing, but this repeatedly
shooting yourself in the foot is likely to advantage Lockheed. Besides
that, the 7E7 has an offset to Thales.

> Another proposed offset-Lockheed Martin is involved with
> a proposed U.S. version of the EH-101 helo as a backup to the V-22 if that
> fails; Sikorsky's S-92 would be the front-runner for that prospect, even
> if EH-101 met or exceeded refquirements, NIH still is a factor in the
final
> decision. And that syndrome is very hard to cure.

BAE systems has a 30% offset of the F-35. I don't believe what you are
claiming is true in a globalized world. Odly enough, we may build F-22s to
counter Eurofighters, while refueling them with EU tankers.

[Matt Wiser]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3fce29e7$1@bg2....
>>
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
><snip>
>> >International's
>> >> Palmdale plant would have run into this
>problem.
>> >
>> >With a 50% offset, it is argueable that the
>> >airplanes are American.
>> >
>> >
>> Built in the U.S. is one thing. DESIGNED
>and BUILT in the U.S. is
>something
>> else altogether.
>
>Congress tried to spoon feed the program to
>Boeing, but this repeatedly
>shooting yourself in the foot is likely to advantage
>Lockheed. Besides
>that, the 7E7 has an offset to Thales.
>
>> Another proposed offset-Lockheed Martin is
>involved with
>> a proposed U.S. version of the EH-101 helo
>as a backup to the V-22 if that
>> fails; Sikorsky's S-92 would be the front-runner
>for that prospect, even
>> if EH-101 met or exceeded refquirements, NIH
>still is a factor in the
>final
>> decision. And that syndrome is very hard to
>cure.
>
>BAE systems has a 30% offset of the F-35. I
>don't believe what you are
>claiming is true in a globalized world. Odly
>enough, we may build F-22s to
>counter Eurofighters, while refueling them with
>EU tankers.
>
>
Not likely. Boeing deal may still go thru, once the probe's finished. Now,
if Lockheed was still building L-1011s, and could do new builds as tankers,
then LM would be in a strong position to beat the NIH syndrome and Boeing.
I'm suprised they haven't tried a KC-17 version of the C-17: Tom Clancy in
one of his nonfiction books noted that McAir had done a study of a KC-17,
but hadn't pitched it to the AF yet.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Brett]

"Frank Vaughan" > wrote:
| In message <3fce5b61@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser"
| > wrote:
|
|
| > Not likely. Boeing deal may still go thru, once the probe's
finished. Now,
| > if Lockheed was still building L-1011s, and could do new builds as
tankers,
| > then LM would be in a strong position to beat the NIH syndrome and
Boeing.
| > I'm suprised they haven't tried a KC-17 version of the C-17: Tom
Clancy in
| > one of his nonfiction books noted that McAir had done a study of a
KC-17,
| > but hadn't pitched it to the AF yet.
| >
|
| Interesting thought.
|
| Question: Does LM have enough manufacturing capacity to build a
| KC-17 in sufficient numbers without negatively impacting their
| ability to supply the C-17 to the USAF?

LM would have more than enough manufacturing capacity if they were
allowed to buy Boeing and get to build a KC-17 :-)

[Matt Wiser]

Frank Vaughan > wrote:
>In message <3fce5b61@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:
>
>
>> Not likely. Boeing deal may still go thru,
>once the probe's finished. Now,
>> if Lockheed was still building L-1011s, and
>could do new builds as tankers,
>> then LM would be in a strong position to beat
>the NIH syndrome and Boeing.
>> I'm suprised they haven't tried a KC-17 version
>of the C-17: Tom Clancy in
>> one of his nonfiction books noted that McAir
>had done a study of a KC-17,
>> but hadn't pitched it to the AF yet.
>>
>
>Interesting thought.
>
>Question: Does LM have enough manufacturing
>capacity to build a
>KC-17 in sufficient numbers without negatively
>impacting their
>ability to supply the C-17 to the USAF?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner"
>Vietnam Veteran -- AC-130E Spectre Gunships
>16th Special Operations Squadron (USAF)
>"We were winning when I left."
>Visit my Gunship page at: www.gunships.org
Believe it or not, but Boeing's McDonnell Douglas division builds the C-17.
McAir before becoming part of Boeing had a concept of a KC-17 on paper, but
didn't feel ready to pitch it to the AF.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!