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?

You really think the Il-76 is a candidate?! And how are you going to
squeeze all that radar and workstation space into an Embraer?
Hint--the E-3 AWACS is quite a bit more capable than your Embraer
AEW&C's...

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).

Just say "E-10"; it is a lot easier. And if you check into the plans
for the E-10, you will indeed find that it is scheduled to replace the
E-3 in the future (remember that the E-3's are a rather low-density
asset which continue to rack up hours, and do not have an infinite
airframe life). Rolling the AWACS mission into a multi-mission
platform is going to be required; versatility is the new watchword, as
purchase of single-mission aircraft is getting prohibitive (note that
we now even have worked on fielding a roll-on communications relay
package for the KC-135's in order to expand their usefullness).


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.

Quite a difference between a flying boom tanker and a transport
trailing a couple of hose/drogue units. How many USAF fixed wing
combat aircraft can be fed by hose/drogue? Zero. How many existing
companies, worldwide, have built boom tankers? One-- Boeing. Where is
Airbus in terms of developing such a system? "Well, we are planning to
develop and test such a system.." All they have done to date was
conduct a couple of proximity trials (more accurately described as
publicity stunts from what I have read), which is quite a far call
from "already developed such a product".


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?

Is it a surprise that the US would be interested in preserving such a
strategic resource? I guess it is OK for Europe to pursue that rather
comical A400 plan because they want to "buy European", but it is
apparently not OK for the US to pursue a similar goal?

Brooks



---
Peter Kemp