"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:35:14 GMT, "William Wright"
allegedly uttered:

It is also the only airframe the USAF could buy if they need any more
AWACS
in the next five years.

Why, when AWACS solutions are currently being built on 767, 737,
Il-76, P3, and the Embraer version which Brazil is taking? And since
the USAF has no need for an AWACS replacement, the point is moot,
although the 767 has been selected for the M2C2A (If I got that one
right).

Only the 767 is an AWACS. The AWACS is a specific system. The others are
AEW&C. Only the 767 has been integrated with AWACS radar and computers. If
anything happens to the existing fleet, only the 767 AWACS can be built as a
replacement in less than 5 years. It would take at least that to turn any
other airframe into an AWACS. It would take at least that for the Air Force
to field some other AEW&C aircraft. Sure hope none of them are lost in
combat or to terrorism on the ground. How about a tornado that hits Tinker?
Ever see the pictures of the damage to the B-36s at Fort Worth after a
tornado?


Anyone that thinks the USG will assume the risk and
cost to have Airbus develop a competing product in light of Airbus'
stated
objective to drive Boeing out of the commerical aircraft market is brain
damaged.

Indeed, since Airbus has already developed said product, with both the
Luftwaffe and the Canadian Forces signed up to have some of their
A310-300s converted to tanker transport config, and the A330 version
being bid for the RAF FSTA program. So the risk to the USAF would be
minimal.

Since EADS just announced in the last month that they were going to spend
$80m (or maybe it was 80m Euros) to develop a boom, I would say they don't
have a product. And the Air Force said in the tanker pitch to Congress that
the EADS boom development is a risk item.


As for the stated aim - is it a surprise that a company wants to puts
it's competitor out of business? What doing you think Boeing would
like to happen to Airbus now that Airbus has taken over as the larger
company in civil aviation?

No, it is no surprise that is the Scarebus goal. What is a surprise is first
that they admitted it and second they think they have any chance in hell of
selling tankers to the USAF. Why would the USG buy aircraft from a foreign
supplier to help put an American company out of business. I doubt any
Congressperson wants to defend that at re-election time. I believe that the
Air Force would develop a new air frame first (think about $8-10b).

"The war with Boeing will continue to intensify until Airbus has 100% of the
worldwide commercial market" Jean Pierson, former Managing Director, Airbus
Industrie

As much bitching as the EU does about Microsoft makes statements like that a
little eye opening don't you think?

Personally I refuse to ride on Scarebus. If it ain't Boeing I ain't going.
After their dishonest attempt to sabotage the market for the 777, I will
never fly on their products again.



---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster