Not saying it's a good or bad thing, it just is. I took your orginal statement about foreign made weapons as an implication that it would be something new. Just pointing out there's nothing new in it.

That said, I would argue that no foreign govt could have cut off any of these programs as they are all produced in the USA. I think the whole jobs argument on the airbus was BS, but it's a fact that a North American company was set up to supply and support the planes. It would have been an American controlled company building planes with American workers in America.

The M9 has it's issues no doubt, haven't heard a lot of real complaints against the 249 and 240. Should we have purchased an inferior US designed weapon? Is there any merit to the idea of buying the best design, and ensuring it's built in the US in independant facilities?

I have no idea which aircraft is better, I'll just be happy to see a new tanker before I die. However, I do find the "buy America" argument as a reason for Boeing over Airbus weak at best.

 

Doesn't matter Sputnik, Airbus's airplane wasn't the better choice.

 

I'll take your word for it, wasn't my point.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Love that pic...TACC must have those posters at every computer station and telephone.

 

I don't even think the first unit to get the first one off the line will see it within 5 years. First two go to Altus I heard,...them McConnell,...etc

 

It was a joke.

 

Yeah, can't argue with that. That's a great photo.

 

If you guys don't start behaving pretty soon Jungle may show up with that bunny with a pancake on his head. Just telling 'ya so as to avoid that.

 

I thought Northrop dropped its participation with EADS when the new RFP was released (favoring the smaller tanker design).

The truth is that such large scale manufacturing is by necessity an international business. I wonder how many Boeing parts are made in Europe?

At least Boeing hasn't had a boom fall off yet.