NATO moves to acquire C-17 strategic airlift aircraft :)

RipPipPip · Post by **RipPipPip** » 25 Sep 2006, 12:59

Hehe,
a good move: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_art ... craft.html

I thought Europe loves Airbus

VulcanDriver · Post by **VulcanDriver** » 25 Sep 2006, 13:17

Its good news that the C-17 plant at Long Beach is still open as the RAF has at least one additional C-17 ordered and the fear was that Boeing's threat to cease production would have affected delivery.

Airbus is not in Europe's good books at the moment due to delays with the A380 and a scandal over the sale of shares.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5138840.stm

John

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 29 Sep 2006, 14:50

Aircraft contracts have some strange add-ons at times. The last buyer usually has to absorb the shut-down costs. The start-up guy absorbs those costs to get it going. They usually quote "unit costs" but the biggies are those production lines elements. There are all kinds of nuances like retraining the work force, storing or restoring assembly jigs, etc. Those become big factors in decisions to buy.

KMTC · Post by **KMTC** » 29 Sep 2006, 22:39

I would love to see some NATO C-17s. They desperatly need any airlift capability they can get right now.

Calvin Gwin · Post by **Calvin Gwin** » 29 Sep 2006, 23:53

Interessting... I am happy too see this happening. I must say I have bee kind of worried lately about Boeing, lately its been Airbus this and Airbus that. Not that I want Airbus to fail, but being from the U. S. I would really hate to see Boeing disapeer.

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 30 Sep 2006, 09:50

KMTC wrote:I would love to see some NATO C-17s. They desperatly need any airlift capability they can get right now.

Not when the member countries of NATO have refused to help the war in Afghanistan. What will NATO do with them? They'll help flying the kit around for the impressive exercises they throw to show how good they are at exercises.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 01 Oct 2006, 02:51

I think the affiliations with acronym names are less important these days. Seems that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and South East Asia Treaty Organization are just acronyms. Looks like alliances are established on the fly these days. More like choosing sides for a ball game than international agreements.