Airbus tankers for USAF?

"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/new...s/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!

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

"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/new...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.

"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/new...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!

"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.

"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!