Boeing Awarded AF Tanker Contract
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Petting Zoo
Posts: 2,074
All of which could have been developed and produced in the US creating US jobs. Not to mention the loss of the manufacturing capacity when buying foreign goods for the US military.
Each and every one of those programs could have been cut off (parts, tech support, etc.) on the whim of a foreign government at any time.
And you think that's a good thing?
Each and every one of those programs could have been cut off (parts, tech support, etc.) on the whim of a foreign government at any time.
And you think that's a good thing?
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.
#30
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post