Simviation Forums

Here is the site that keeps popping up every web site i visit now.

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/

Funny Video:(built by Americans, for Americans, in America...lol)

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/video

So a 767, but with a 787 cockpit basically?

Here is the site that keeps popping up every web site i visit now.

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/

Funny Video:(built by Americans, for Americans, in America...lol)

http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/video

And 60% of the parts are foreign made.

This will have some juristic aftermath I'm sure:

Europe and especially EADS & Northrop Grumman-chairmen and France/German politicians aren't quite amused about the new advertisment, that - in their eyes - favored Boeing.

www.eads.com

In the current economic climate it is hardly surprising that governments are doing a bit of "protectionism" to make out how flag wavingly, hand on heart they are.... a very short term view if you ask me....

In the current economic climate it is hardly surprising that governments are doing a bit of "protectionism" to make out how flag wavingly, hand on heart they are.... a very short term view if you ask me....

I think it is stupid how they thought keeping 700-1200 jobs was better then creating 50,000 all over the country, and then a year latter hire another several thousand to work at the newly built plant next to the 1st one, but I guess in the long run the needs of the few

Not to mention, this wouldn't be the first piece of non-American equipment our government has ever bought.  Just look at the Harrier (license built by McDonnell Douglas, but still part of Bae), almost every helicopter in the Coast Guard fleet (Dauphin, the retired Mako).  I could see, front-line, state of the art equipment you might have some security issues with, and would want completely in house in case of war with the country who made it, but a tanker is just a flying gas station, not much to it.  I don't necessarily favor Airbus as a manufacturer, but I think the bid process shouldn't be so tainted with politics.  The end result, the state with more congressmen gets the bid, which is why Airbus lost.  Alabama isn't know for having a large political influence, unlike Washington state.

[quote]Not to mention, this wouldn't be the first piece of non-American equipment our government has ever bought.

[quote][quote]Not to mention, this wouldn't be the first piece of non-American equipment our government has ever bought.

[quote][quote][quote]Not to mention, this wouldn't be the first piece of non-American equipment our government has ever bought.

[quote]The Canberra I am aware of, but I can't say I've ever seen a Spitty or Mossie in US colors.

And a few more......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/ ... fe/sv4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/ ... fe/sv3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/ ... fe/sv2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/ ... fe/sv1.jpg

Some great examples there Lefty, I never realised the USAAF had used the Lizzie (learn something every day around here), but please don't link images from other sites, it slows things down for other users (especially the non-broadband mob)

Sorry about that - I did read your forum rules and thought image linking was OK - put it down to old age....

Now the Russians are entering the fray with what the article claims will be a design "based on the Ilyushin IL-96".

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/19/us.rus ... tml?hpt=T2

This is getting ridiculous. As has been demonstrated, the US military should be no stranger to using "foreign" aircraft.

The Dassault Falcon 20 (HU-25 Guardian) and Eurocopter AS-365 (HH-65 Dolphin) are two French examples that have been in use with the Coast Guard for a couple of decades now, and always receive much praise.

Someone else mentioned the Harrier for the Marines, and the Sherpa for the Army, among others.