No, I was aware the 767 deal went south (deservedly). I as specifically refering to the proposed 777 tanker version mentioned here: 777 Tanker
Posted on 11/18/2004 5:01:04 PM PST by mr. mojo risin
WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The head of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee Thursday dismissed as going nowhere the top European defense contractor's bid to team with a U.S. company to sell refueling aircraft to the U.S. Air Force.
"It's a non-starter to buy foreign aircraft," Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican whose committee must authorize funding for defense programs, said in a telephone interview.
At issue is a possible aerial tanker derived from a modified Airbus, which is 80 percent owned by EADS NV (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) , formerly known as European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co.
Hunter said thousands of U.S. jobs were at stake as well as the health of the U.S. "defense industrial base" -- companies that rely on Pentagon contracts.
In addition, Hunter said, it would fly in the face of U.S. foreign policy interests to reward countries like France and Germany, where much EADS production is based, who have not been "full partners" in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.reuters.com ...
Besides, Mojave, Ca. airport has dozens of mothballed airliners that could be converted.
Really stupid idea to begin with. Let EADS agree to help build a replacement for the aerobus.
" Besides, Mojave, Ca. airport has dozens of mothballed airliners that could be converted."
---
The reason they are mothballed is that they have used up their usefull life and are suitable for parts and scrap mostly.
Our guys deserve new custom made new birds, like the 777 tanker Boeing has announced.
That's the 767, not the 777. And yes, our guys deserve good new tankers. That 767 was probably pretty good...It was the lease/buy deal that stank.
If the Air Force REALLY wants new tankers and Boeing REALLY wants to keep the 767 line running, they should be able to come to an agreement of sorts.
Linda Daschle, was a lobbyist for the American Airline Association? ..not the Manufacturers correct.
We need more tankers, that's for sure, but HELL NO to the idea of buying them from the Euro-weenies.
No, I was aware the 767 deal went south (deservedly). I as specifically refering to the proposed 777 tanker version mentioned here: 777 Tanker
Wow. Hadn't seen that at all. Looks like brand-new news, so thanks for the tip!
I don't know that there was really anything wrong with the KC-767 design. It was the purchase plan that stank to high heaven. The plan has gone south into the nether regions, but it seems to me that if a reasonable purchase deal could be worked out it could still, um, fly. I know that Boeing hasn't given up hope.
I'll be surprised if this gets stopped...As I understand it, the current Administration thinks it's just dandy that military hats and boots are made in China...A lot of the parts of the military jets are made in Europe...
And as far as the jobs are concerned, those Boeing and Lockheed employees will just have to retrain for (better) new jobs...All is fair (and up for grabs) in the Bushs' New World Order...
That's quite a step up from a KC135/B707.
Its doubtfull an airframe that large could be filled with anything as heavy as jet fuel. Not without a large amount of stiffening. Fuel is really heavy.
Yes, this is good. I have a serious hate on for Airbus.
You know, I buy American whenever I can, but I've got to say, it's pretty hypocritical of us to refuse European aircraft while simultaneously beginning the transition of our entire armed forces from Colt to H&K rifles. Especially considering we already switched from Colt to Baretta pistols.
Speaking solely for myself, I was unaware there were tanker configurations for the 6 or the 7. Your colloquy has been very educational. Thanks.
Disclaimer: this information dates back probably 10 years, when the first 777 was still in testing. The secret may already be out...
Of course, the KC-135 and KC-10 have done, and are doing, a great job. We just need more tankers.
Thank you Rep. Duncan Hunter !
It is only irresponsible members of Congress that propose trusting the French or Germans with our security.
Any update on the proposed Boeing blended wing body (BWB) tanker?
I remember that it would allow fueling of two planes at once. It would also help pave the way for a BWB passenger plane that would knock the snot out of the A380 monster..
I don't think that is going to fly at all until 2012 or so, with production several years out from there.
Someone speak up if I'm wrong...
yes, while we boycott Target and walmart, be sure to boycott united, AA, etc, because they use airbus planes. and GE engines.
Boeing claimed that they ran the numbers and demand for a 500-seat aircraft wasn't there. The trend, Boeing concluded, was for smaller aircraft flying nonstop routes instead of monsters that would fly half-full most of the time. Airports aren't set up to handle planes that size or crowds of passengers that large without major renovations.
Rumor had it that BWB was a bluff to force Airbus to commit to the A380, where Boeing hopes they will lose their shirts.
I guess we will see who's right...
Duncan Hunter - "Buy American Bill"
Real hot right now.
A lot of foreign products have more American parts in them than our domestic stuff does. :(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.