Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/05/2008 1:48:44 PM PST by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Perdogg

Very good information. Thanks.


2 posted on 03/05/2008 1:51:21 PM PST by airborne (For ENGLISH, press '1' . For SPANISH, hang up and learn ENGLISH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
For the KCX competition, Northrup proposed the KC-45 which is derived from the Airbus 330. It is used by the English, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc.:

Boeing proposed the KC-767 derived from the Boeing 767. It is used by Italy and Japan already as a tanker.

The Northrup proposal has been selected, as stated in this article.

3 posted on 03/05/2008 1:52:50 PM PST by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Was there any reason for not considering the C-17 beyond that the Fighter Pilot Mafia wants to steal C-17 funding for the F-22?


4 posted on 03/05/2008 1:56:45 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Loern Thompson is an excellent (if not the best) defense industry analyst.


8 posted on 03/05/2008 2:21:24 PM PST by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
Boeing has the F15 (still built), F22, C17, KC-10, CH47, Osprey, F18SH, F18, AH-64 etc etc etc.

Sometime there are variables that are considered that are not obvious or public. I imagine the risk associated with a single source supplier is fairly large, and for the DoD keeping Northrup Grumman as major player in the game might sound appealing. Boeing is in the realm of large jets pretty much the only show left in town and if NG looses this deal they too fade from the picture. -IMHO

Another consideration is that ultimately airframes intended for the civilian domestic or international markets may be built there. Not only do you have the USAF being supplied, but possibly Australia and others. The US is a highly competitive location for production.

In the end, it's NG that is the system integrator and assembly will be in the US, many of the subcomponents on an Airbus even built in Europe are North American anyhow. The big gripe I would have had, is if this plane were built in Europe. I'm all for free trade, but national security/defense related industry should not be off-shored. Furthermore, those who over years have benefited from protectionism and subsidies keeping US goods and services off their market should not be rewarded with US tax money.

11 posted on 03/05/2008 2:35:32 PM PST by Red6 (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

Go Northrop! I hope this is just the beginning of the “wins”!


15 posted on 03/05/2008 5:46:39 PM PST by CAluvdubya (A good man has come home to San Diego! Thank you Congressman Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg

I have to wonder if Boeing having moved its headquarters away from its manufacturing facilities several years back had something to do with their becoming as out of touch as they were on this project.


20 posted on 03/05/2008 7:31:27 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurtureā„¢)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Perdogg
Boeing was going to offer the 777 but last minute changes in the bidding screwed that up.
21 posted on 03/05/2008 7:47:49 PM PST by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson