KC-45

bdhill1979 said:
I havent heard anything about that lately....you heard anything?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anything other than the Bush Admin was going to leave the new round of competition for the Obama admin, though I haven't heard any updates. Doesn't mean nothing is going on, I just haven't seen anything publically.
 
The Northrop Grumman KC-45A will include approximately 60 percent U.S. content.
Click to expand...

Well with economic stimulus dust in the air making that number above 90 might just be the deciding factor
 
Isn't it supposed to be built in Alabama as well?

This is awful, but I thought one of those set ups was showing the plane carrying coffins. :(
 
Am I reading that right. It's based on the A330, as in thr Airbus A330? Why not use a 75 or 76 and keep the money in the US?
 
I hope it's an old site. I knew about the contract being up for grabs again, but I didn't know they selected the airbus again...
 
mshunter said:
Am I reading that right. It's based on the A330, as in thr Airbus A330? Why not use a 75 or 76 and keep the money in the US?
Click to expand...

And how much of the 767 is built in America?

For example, the manufacture of a large portion of the Boeing 767, Boeing's third largest commercial aircraft, is outsourced to a consortium of Japanese manufacturers including Fuji, Kawasaki, and Mitsubishi (Hill & Jones, 1995). As a result, only 10% of the value of the 767 is produced in-house.
Click to expand...

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...mylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28503669_ITM

Not as simple of an answer as it seems.
 
At least the profits would come back to a U.S company instead of foreign in the case of the 767.
 
Maurus said:
At least the profits would come back to a U.S company instead of foreign in the case of the 767.
Click to expand...

So, the choice is this:

With the '67, you get foreign workers, foreign management, a few US workers, and US management paid.

With the '45 you get foreign management, a few foreign workers, US management, and US workers paid.

Personally, I don't give a . What I want is a tanker in operational USAF service, and all of this retarded politicking is keeping that from happening.
 
From what I understand, the A330 won because of its ability to carry more cargo than the 767. Had Boeing submitted a version of the 777, they might have won, but they can make more money selling them to the airlines vs the gov't, and the KC-767 would have let them keep the 767 production line open. Boeing screwed themselves, and ended up crying hard enough about it afterwords to have a do-over, and the American people got screwed. The Airbus would have employed 50,000 people in the US. I doubt that the Boeing aircraft would have added that many jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top