"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!