Simviation Forums

[QUOTE]

I was thinking about this as a KC-767 flew overhead yesterday evening while I was working.  It was being tailed by what appeared to be an A-4, but I think it was a T-45

IMHO the USAF needs to select from products within the US. just like most other nations would do military business with their own nations. etc

A major in the USAF told me his opinion... if the US gets into some "serious business" and certain governments which are home to airbus dont agree with the military activity all they have to do is embargo parts for our shiny new tanker which then becomes a shiny new paper weight.

not to say boeing couldnt reverse engineer parts, but the entire process is a pain.

Funny, that. the USA were pretty forceful in getting us to buy F-1-11's when the TSR-2 was about to get cancelled. It wasnt the major factor in the TSR-2 cancellation, but the F-1-11 ended up costing billions anyway and we never got it, just ended up with a load of re-engined phantoms!

If only.....

Funny, that. the USA were pretty forceful in getting us to buy F-1-11's when the TSR-2 was about to get cancelled. It wasnt the major factor in the TSR-2 cancellation, but the F-1-11 ended up costing billions anyway and we never got it, just ended up with a load of re-engined phantoms!

If only.....

Because the TRS-2 made the F111 look like something the Wright Brothers had knocked up and would have flown rings around it.

IMHO the USAF needs to select from products within the US. just like most other nations would do military business with their own nations. etc

That is fine to say, but the US is a huge exporter of military hardware. The F16, f18, F15, f14, F4, F104, F105, F111, F20, F80, F86 C130, C17, C47 Chinook, SH-3 Sea King to list a few are/where sold world wide and does not even scratch the surface

IMHO the USAF needs to select from products within the US. just like most other nations would do military business with their own nations. etc

In an ideal world all countries would manufacture their own military hardware. That has always seemed obvious to me. In reality, the USA is one of the few countries where that would still be possible. Even so, the aircraft industry is a global business now & the Boeing KC-767 includes parts manufactured in Japan, United Kingdom, Canada and Italy.  Ironically Northrop Grumman (Boeing's competitor in the tanker contract) is a major subcontractor manufacturing the wing centre-section and adjacent lower fuselage section & fuselage bulkheads. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x-protest.htm

not to say boeing couldnt reverse engineer parts, but the entire process is a pain.

Not sure why Boeing would be involved in any "reverse engineering". Boeing is not the only aircraft manufacturer in the USA & I understand that Northrop Grumman would be the prime manufacturer in this case. As always, this will be a political decision rather than what is best for the armed services.

IMHO the USAF needs to select from products within the US. just like most other nations would do military business with their own nations. etc

A major in the USAF told me his opinion... if the US gets into some "serious business" and certain governments which are home to airbus dont agree with the military activity all they have to do is embargo parts for our shiny new tanker which then becomes a shiny new paper weight.

That would work great if every Nation made their own Aircraft, Ships , Choppers, ect. But in the real World American and Russian companies sell a great bulk to the rest of the world.

And as far as the hold parts from us because of a disagreement, that would not last long seeing as EADS wanted to build the A330F right next to the USAF's A330, so all they would have to do is go next door and get the part, and the Freighter factory would just order more part. Also with both factories being next to one another, it would be fool harder to stop sending parts when your potential world customers are waiting for their planes from the country they stopped sending the parts to, this would make their market share go down and loose billions of Dollars/Euro's.

Also if you notice in the video, when they came out to say the verdict, it was almost like the watching when the Democrats took over the Congress. They came out out in a huge group in big smiles like they just solved world hunger, or cured AIDS. Very self coincided.

Funny, that. the USA were pretty forceful in getting us to buy F-1-11's when the TSR-2 was about to get cancelled. It wasnt the major factor in the TSR-2 cancellation, but the F-1-11 ended up costing billions anyway and we never got it, just ended up with a load of re-engined phantoms!

If only.....

F-1-11, is that an English thing like "US of A?"  lol.  The TSR was a cool airplane, but I believe global economics and politics killed it.  

Funny, that. the USA were pretty forceful in getting us to buy F-1-11's when the TSR-2 was about to get cancelled. It wasnt the major factor in the TSR-2 cancellation, but the F-1-11 ended up costing billions anyway and we never got it, just ended up with a load of re-engined phantoms!

If only.....

F-1-11, is that an English thing like "US of A?"

Ah, the good old TSR.2. This is worthy of a thread of its own. Whether it was actually as good as it's reputed to have been despite being designed by committee is debatable. That became an urban legend & is no longer important. The indecent haste in which the dirty deed was done has become a symbol* of the wanton destruction of the British aircraft industry as a whole by misguided politicians. These are the basic facts.  http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.php

*The Avro CF-105 Arrow became a symbol of the destruction of the Canadian aircraft industry in much the same way. http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/The_Avro_CF-105_Arrow.html

[quote]Ah, the good old TSR.2. This is worthy of a thread of its own. Whether it was actually as good as it's reputed to have been despite being designed by committee is debatable. That became an urban legend & is no longer important. The indecent haste in which the dirty deed was done has become a symbol* of the wanton destruction of the British aircraft industry as a whole by misguided politicians. These are the basic facts.

[quote]
F-1-11, is that an English thing like "US of A?"

F-1-11, is that an English thing like "US of A?"  lol.  The TSR was a cool airplane, but I believe global economics and politics killed it.  

LOL ive always known it as the 'F -one-eleven' rather than the F-111.. The F - One hundred and eleven' doesnt seem to have the same ring to it!

Makes no difference how you pronounce it, the official designation is F-111. I believe 111 is pronounced one-eleven in the US. We would say one-one-one or treble-one in the UK.

The TSR2's performance and wether it could do what was said on the tin is indeed debatable - before its destruction right in front of the very workers that built it!

Obviously it was worrying the americans.....

Whatever the reasons for doing that it caused a lot of resentment that still survives today. The US government certainly got the blame for it. What happened to the Avro Arrow in Canada is a very similar story.

I bet with a little research, it would be easy to show that more of the Airbus would be made in America than the Boeing.  Just like cars these days, which car is more American, Toyota or Ford?

Now let's see them offer the 787's....  ;D


That would make my day.


But really, the KC-767, to be truthful, does look inferior to the KC-45.


Seriously though, I would be much more concerned if Antonov (I'm not being critical to them, it's just that Russia is kinda tense right now) was in the deal instead of Airbus.

I am wondering why the 747 would not be offered, as Air force one got advancements that -200's didn't get until -400's, why can't the air force get -800 advancements integrated into -400's.

I may be completely wrong, but this is just me.