Airbus tankers for USAF?

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

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoen...ml?jst=b_ln_hl

-HJC

"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!

"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 :-)

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!