Have heard the same thing. And that's pretty bigoted of those that contend that.
The real american tankers..
- Thread starter JohnM
- Start date
Have heard the same thing. And that's pretty bigoted of those that contend that.
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
Actually heard alot of Engineers, etc. would be brought over from Europe as well to build.
ackeight
Well-Known Member
I'm waiting for the World Trade Organization findings about Airbus. Right now it doesn't look to good for them. I agree that job differences between American and foreign are not too far off, but the tax benefits goes overseas to where the company is based and America doesn't benefit as much from that.
Orange Anchor
New Member
Even 'gut feelings' have to be based on something. Australia has taken delivery of their Airbus tankers and no big belches thus far.
And who besides Boeing and Ilyushin has built tankers? Want an IL-78? There's one is Michigan at the old KI Sawyer SAC base.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
I am suprised. I am personally not a fan of airbus as I feel they have left too much to computers and underbuild their aircraft. Also, how well is the proposed tanker meeting its numbers over seas? Is it having any structural problems? Also wasn't there a problem with it not being able to meet the USAF runway requirements?
Lastly, do you want a foreign company building your tankers. Piss off that country and you could be up a creek without a paddle.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Lockheed, with the C-130 and militarized L1011's. But those still American. Hawker Siddeley (now BAe) built the Nimrod, which might be one of the coolest looking tankers out there.
The RAFs Victor tanker (former bomber) built by Handley Page was one of the cool looking tankers too.
Attachments
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
That thing is sweet
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Yeah, why do the British have all the neat looking things. The Victor, the Nimrod, and I'd forgotten about the VC-10.
PK
Well-Known Member
The Nimrod isn't a tanker, it's also a heap of junk. 
You could always buy the L1011's they are American Built, wouldn't trust the French with anything. They will run away at the first sign of a war.
You could always buy the L1011's they are American Built, wouldn't trust the French with anything. They will run away at the first sign of a war.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
The Nimrod isn't a tanker, it's also a heap of junk.
You could always buy the L1011's they are American Built, wouldn't trust the French with anything. They will run away at the first sign of a war.
You know, I think I knew that. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Of course, we could wait until Embraer comes out with that C-390 or whatever its called. I'd imagine they could make a tanker version, if they wanted to.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
How is that any different than Boeing, which outsources a significant amount outside the US?
It's a global economy, regardless of how much some Americans wish that weren't true.
Orange Anchor
New Member
The -130 was adapted to the role of tanker, not designed as one. And neither was the L-1011. The Nimrod traces its lineage back to the Comet and it is, as others have noted, not a tanker.
The gamers are Boeing and Airbus which depend on multi-national participation. Thinking Boeing is American is like thinking Toyota is still just Japanese. Or that there is really a Lockheed F-16 and as one FA recently said on a flight I was sentenced to.. a Boeing MD-9. (Not a MD-90 but a DC-9-50) :laff:
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
I'll have to concede that since they do part of lot of it out. Perhaps they need to bring more of the production in country.
Capability of the tanker would be a nice consideration.
jhugz
Well-Known Member
Obviously it needs to meet the specs they laid out.
But if the non-American one (whichever that would be, realistically speaking) didn't exceed specs and the other one did......
Something thats pure pork for the sake of pork isn't good for anyone. Like the FB-111A....capable plane, but production from 16 major subcontractors and 6,073 suppliers in 44 states is just too much.
mooneyguy
been around forever
true its a global economy, but I think there is a small bit of an argument to having things built/owned in house. At least the ownership is here (US), the plans, engineers etc are all here, not to mention the biggest chunk of our tax dollars will remain here. Fabrication might be done in multiple countries, but in a time of war, or some other event we could bring all the fabrication back home if needed. We would not have to rely on another country like France who does not have the best History when it comes to war. just my cent and a half worth
That may be true, but think about where the big money is going. It sure isn't to the unionized plant workers or their foremen in Alabama. Same thing goes for foreign auto companies that assemble their cars here. In their case it's simply a means to reduce shipping costs and a ploy to allow them to claim "Made in America".