WT Forums

<b>LM Keeps Options Open Depending on Tanker Requirements</b> (Posted: Thursday, November 04, 2004)
<b>Lockheed Martin Would Consider Teaming With Airbus On Air Force Tanker</b>

[Defense Daily, Nov. 4, 2004]

By Calvin Biesecker

Not foreclosing any options should the opportunity arise, Lockheed Martin's [LMT] top executive yesterday said his company would evaluate the possibility of teaming with Airbus if the chance opened to bid on a new tanker program for the Air Force.

"We haven't pursued that, nor have we eliminated the prospect," Robert Stevens, Lockheed Martin's president and CEO, said regarding a possible partnership with Airbus, which is the commercial aircraft making arm of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS). However, he pointed out, "There is no tanker proposal competition concept in place now in which Lockheed Martin will participate."...


<i>I think we can do a lot better job by designing a purpose built tanker for the USAF. That is all I would be interested to do. If they want 200 of them, we don't need no stinking converted airliners.</i>



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

30MM Jr likes the way you think, stress!

"Live every day like it's the last, 'cause one day you're gonna be right!" Ray Charles (6/10/04 was the day)

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

I hope EADS and LM suck on it and die.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Hey Kap, got a question for ya...

Why do we need new tankers if the KC-135s at AMARC are in good enough shape to be refurbished and sold to several countries over the last few months?

Why do we need to build the MMA if we still have P3s at AMARC that can be refurbished and sold to foreign navies?

I dont see the logic of having to replace these systems if we have sufficient airframes in good enough shape to be sold to other Airforces...

CAG out...



Edited by - CAG Hotshot on Nov 05 2004 10:16 PM

Kap? who dis Kap fella?
Oh well, on to the question. Because other air forces suck that's why.
No big surprise that SOME other armed forces around the world have a lower standard in all things compared to the U.S. I dont have the privilage of sticking my head in these frames and poking around, if the USN says they pull apart P-3s to SLEP them and find them past the point of no return then I kinda believe them. MMA is a chance to take a generational leap ahead in systems with room for expansion in the future. PLENTY of AMARC guys here that can comment on the quality of what's out in the boneyard MUCH better than I ever could. The KC-767 or whatever they were going to call it was a great oppertunity that the pols couldent wait to screw up simply because it took a tiny bit of bugetary power out of thier hands. Any time the armed forces (especially the AF) request a multi-year procurement program the pols act like they wuz smokin somethin funny, I seem to remember the C-17 having similar problems. A locked-in multi year budget for some mil systems would be a boone for the contractors, stockholders and the taxpayers not to mention the services who could actualy depend on something for a change.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.