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:
>
><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!