SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   USAF Finally Selects KC-135 replacement (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=131957)

TteFAboB 03-02-08 04:38 PM
What dependancy on foreign companies?

You guys mean N-G won't be able to build spare parts by itself if needed? They'll have to be flown in aswell?

bookworm_020 03-02-08 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhat17
MRTT is flying and is in production. I do not believe that the specification currently undergoing qualification with the RAAF will be that much different to that ordered for the USAF so I do not see certification being much of a hurdle.
Buger! You beat me to it!:damn:

I wasn't surprise that Airbus won the Australian Air Refueler contract. Longer Range plane and more fuel. A big plus in it's book over the 767 version. The fact that boeing has been treading on toes of late here in Australia, and the fact that the RAAF want to make sure it doesn't have to depend on just one nation to supply all it's need!

Tchocky 03-03-08 09:16 AM
Ye won't be laughing when we're at war with France...

bradclark1 03-03-08 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TteFAboB
What dependancy on foreign companies?

You guys mean N-G won't be able to build spare parts by itself if needed? They'll have to be flown in aswell?
Aren't all they would be doing is building the wings? All that is is a bone to help secure the contract or it's difficult and problem prone to ship wings (read that somewhere) from Europe to here. Take your pick or a combination of both.

Boeing's stock has fallen 3% and N-G has risen 5%.

Konovalov 03-03-08 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookworm_020
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhat17
MRTT is flying and is in production. I do not believe that the specification currently undergoing qualification with the RAAF will be that much different to that ordered for the USAF so I do not see certification being much of a hurdle.
Buger! You beat me to it!:damn:

I wasn't surprise that Airbus won the Australian Air Refueler contract. Longer Range plane and more fuel. A big plus in it's book over the 767 version. The fact that boeing has been treading on toes of late here in Australia, and the fact that the RAAF want to make sure it doesn't have to depend on just one nation to supply all it's need!
Yep, good for us. :yep: We also have 4 or 5 Boeing C-17's. Finally an aircraft wth some real lift capacity to supplement those old warehorses, the C-130's.

Tchocky 03-03-08 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TteFAboB
What dependancy on foreign companies?

You guys mean N-G won't be able to build spare parts by itself if needed? They'll have to be flown in aswell?
Aren't all they would be doing is building the wings? All that is is a bone to help secure the contract or it's difficult and problem prone to ship wings (read that somewhere) from Europe to here.
It's quite an operation to ship A330 wings from Filton to Toulouse, nevermind across the Atlantic.
Wing construction is quite a bone to get, N-g could take an advantage by getting Airbus airfoil design.

Friedmann 03-03-08 11:14 AM
Seems to me Airbus was providing a better product and the Air Force quite rightly went with what they felt gave them the greatest capability.

Once the aircraft are delivered I highly doubt the US will all of a sudden lose the capability to support them if hypothetically Airbus support was withdrawn.

While I agree that its better for the US economy for the aircraft to be indigenous I think that in the realm of the military. Capability should be considered above most other considerations.

And for those that speak gravely of a coming conflict between the US and France, thank you for providing me with a laugh. Thats the most insanely idiotic thing I've read today :rotfl:

Jimbuna 03-03-08 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedmann
Seems to me Airbus was providing a better product and the Air Force quite rightly went with what they felt gave them the greatest capability.

Once the aircraft are delivered I highly doubt the US will all of a sudden lose the capability to support them if hypothetically Airbus support was withdrawn.

While I agree that its better for the US economy for the aircraft to be indigenous I think that in the realm of the military. Capability should be considered above most other considerations.

And for those that speak gravely of a coming conflict between the US and France, thank you for providing me with a laugh. Thats the most insanely idiotic thing I've read today :rotfl:
A conflict between the US and France http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img231...shockedvi8.gif

Allow me to join yiu in a good chuckle http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img152...aughingly2.gif

Fish 03-03-08 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
[ it's that no military system should be dependent on foreign fabrication or supply.
Oh, and why should the rest of the world buy US stuf then? :cool:

bradclark1 03-03-08 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
[ it's that no military system should be dependent on foreign fabrication or supply.
Oh, and why should the rest of the world buy US stuf then? :cool:
Because it's cheaper then manufacturing inhouse and it does the job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Our budget is larger than all Europe combined. We have the technology, industry and capital to design and build within our own borders


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.