It would be quicker to make a shorter list of Queen song I don’t rate extremely highly.

That list consists of ….

….

….

….

Oh hell they are all spectacular in their own ways.

The biggest issue when discussing the C5 replacement is that there doesn’t appear to be a Ro-Ro aircraft larger than the C17 available other than from Antonov.

Mention of the A380F or Beluga might have the capacity, but not the flexibility or quick turnaround of a Ro-Ro design.

Unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be anything in the west on the public drawing board.

Chatting with an American friend this afternoon, the tanker topic came up since we both work in the defence industry.

The suggestion was raised that the reason Boeing is making such a stink might not be so much about the change in the RFP (it seems to be the politicians that are banging the non-Amerincan drum) but rather after Boeing lost the last big USAF aircraft contract the JSF/F35, Boeing felt that they were “due” the next one…that being this Tanker contract.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with that, though three may be an element of truth in there somewhere.

Does anyone else have a view on this?

But then again you armchair folks seem to know more about what goes on in DC then I do right.

I don’t think anyone will claim that

However many people on this forum do/have work either for the military or defence industries.
We do know that it’s a Global industry and to attempt to cut that industry back to US military can only have “Made in America” products would be totally short sighted on the part of US politicians.

Prices for US products would rise killing off export potential, putting in danger entire companies since the USAF could only afford a product at a price that would only be brought down with a large production run…namely exports.

Options may include attaching language to the authorization bill to strengthen laws governing the amount of foreign content in U.S. defense hardware, or a provision prohibiting the Pentagon from awarding contracts to overseas-based companies that receive subsidies from foreign governments, as the Airbus maker does from several European countries, the spokesman said.

It doesn’t say anything about subsides on specific equipment, just manufacturers that receive subsides from non-American countries.
Boeing receives these subsides as mentioned, therefore would be exempt from Military contracts under these proposals.

Such a proposal is fraught with danger, not least because it isn’t future-proofed. The wording would have to be word perfect in order not to cut off your own resources.

Another thought is how do you limit the foreign content in US defence hardware? The current buzz word for the F35 is workshare, this to get other governments to invest in the overall design, and spread the development costs.
Depending on what and where you read, the F35 to stay with that example is becoming more expensive by the day. Is the Congressman prepared to swallow the full development costs just to keep the non-American content to a minimum?

A stop gap for sure, but also a valuable weapons station that would be taken out of use. Not to mention what one of these would do the the RCS of a fighter.

Unbelievable, the US economy is sliding into recession and the IDIOTS at the Pentagon flush 44,000 jobs down the drain by giving the contract to the DAMN French!

Mike44

You’d rather the USAF be equipped with a less capable tanker force?