Message posted by Magoo on December 23, 2001 at 15:38:00 PST:

Isn't the robotic arm made in Canada? The one on the shuttle certainly is.

I'm not sure the purchase or lease price would be lower if the competition was only "perceived". In order for a competitive price to be negotiated, the products will usually also be competitive. If it's a given that the American product will be bought anyway, then there is no real need on the manufacturers part to negotiate. The only real exception to this is if the lower performing aircraft was also ALOT cheaper, then you need to weigh up cost vs capability (e.g. F-22 vs F-23). If the much cheaper product is also foreign, then it's cost vs capability vs foreign! I don't envy those who have to make these choices sometimes!

Another reason I think the USAF wants KC-767s is because Italy and Japan have recently ordered them, so the development costs will be shared. It's not just a matter of putting a few extra fuel cells and a couple of hoses onto an exiting airframe. There is significant aerodynamic testing to be done with the fittings, and also with ALL the planned receiver aircraft in various close formation positions to ensure there is no adverse turbulence from the tanker which could affect refuelling operations.

Airbus has yet to win any tanker orders, therefore, although some preliminary formation testing has been done by them, the development costs will be worn by whomever places the first order/s (probably the UK or France).

As for the 'buy-American' policy, whether it's written, implied or otherwise, I personally think it's a good idea. In these times when aircraft manufacturers are going to be struggling for the next few years at least, a country almost has an obligation to look after its own first. Rest assured the Europeans will be doing the same for Airbus, and the Russians for their various manufacturers.

Magoo

In Reply to: Re: new tankers for usaf (a bit off topic) posted by gary on December 23, 2001 at 14:35:27 PST:

Replies: