 |
Well, maybe they can increase the number of tankers if that makes the total deal cheaper.frank kramer wrote:The trouble though is that unit prices may soar skyhigh if the number of airframes bought is divided in two.
That is the understatement of the year, BY FAR.tva2 wrote:...."KC-X Aerial Tanker Contract Starting To Become A Farce"....
Withholding tankers, well, as soon as these machines are delivered, they are US, isn't it? Ah and spare-parts, I recall there were these kind of thought once about the Viggen in the Dutch F-104 successor procurement. Once at one of the big aerospace exhibitions (Farnborough or Le Bourget) one of the top brass from Boeing said most spare-parts of the 767 and 777 were made in Europe, most spare-parts for the A 330/340 were US made. Which package will suffer more from these "problems" (if any)?Yet Boeing tried to claim this week that if "foreign governments" disagreed with U.S. policy, they might withhold tankers and spare parts.
Info credit & copyright © 2010 defenseprocurementnews.com , Courtesy of Matthew PotterThe twist of all this though is that Boeing has spent the last four years arguing that EADS‘ (EADS:P) participation in the new KC-X aerial tanker contract is not only bad for America’s economy and jobs but even for its security. It now seems a little ironic that Boeing is doing what Northrop Grumman (NOC) did for the last failed attempt at awarding this contract. Boeing even argues like EADS that the aircraft will be assembled in the U.S. thus creating jobs here.
As a member you get access to all our
premium content and benefits learn more
/usaf.gif)
