Re: Airbus tankers for USAF?

  "Tarver Engineering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>   "Tarver Engineering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"noname" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>   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!