posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:04 AM
These aircraft would be DESIGNED by the French. They would be MANUFACTURED in the United States. Thus, the French cannot deny parts. The planes would
not be manufactured in France and then shipped to the U.S.
Not every piece of equipment utilized by the U.S. military is American-designed, but most is American-made, and most is American-designed. For
example, with the exception of the M-16 rifle, a good majority of the firearms the U.S. military uses are German-designed. They are American-made, but
German designed. The reason for this is because in WWII, Germany had the best guns in the world. After WWII, they still had the best guns. Thus, it
was just considered better economically to let the Germans continue designing guns, and to buy them (the irony to this is that the U.S. was the first
to create the sub-machine gun, but the U.S. gov't was stupid and didn't take to the idea; Germany did, so by WWII they had far superior designs then
The 120mm smoothbore cannon on the M1 Abrams battle tank is German-designed. It was specially custom-designed for the Abrams tank, though. the armor
on the Abrams was originally designed by Britain, though I the current armor is somewhat American-designed in that it has been modified by the U.S.
military I believe. I think Britain is still the best at armor, though.
The engines utilized on certain U.S. aircraft are French-designed. The Coast Guard uses French engines in a lot of their aircraft. They had switched
to the U.S. engines, but the French ones were a much better design, so they switched back. These engines are manufactured, I believe, in the U.S.,
Certain U.S. aircraft also utilize French avionics systems.
Now don't get the impression that the U.S. doesn't use its own engines as well, or can't design decent engines or anything. U.S. fighter planes
utilize American-designed engines, and certain U.S. helicopters. It just depends. For the Coast Guard, the best engines available were the French
The U.S. and France also designed together the new type of engine used on a certain aircraft (I forget what it is, but I think it is a cargo/transport
aircraft). These engines were joint-designed by an American and French company and are very good engines.
Now, don't get me wrong here, I don't mind the U.S. using certain parts or anything from other countries. It is economical. The main advanced pieces
of technology, like the engines of fighter aircraft and the Abrams tank, the electronics, computer, and guidance systems, missles, satellites,
etc....all the very advanced, important stuff is all U.S.-designed, U.S.-made, with a few exceptions.
For example, the Harrier jump-jet uses a Rolles-Royce engine; but this engine was co-designed between America and Germany or American and Britain I
believe (could be wrong there) and the Harrier is due to be replaced soon. Also, the Harrier originally was a British jet. America took it and made
some modifications. The current Harriers in the U.S. are American-designed in terms of the modifications made to them; the original design was started
by the British, but the current Harriers aren't literally British jets bought by America; the design was modified by an American company (or maybe a
joint-venture by an American and British company---look it up, as I forget) and then manufactured in America.
I don't like the idea of the French getting the tanker contract for a few reasons. One, NATIONAL PRIDE. If there is one thing America is known for,
it is making great aircraft. We make the best jetliners, fighter aircraft, missiles, etc....in the world. Some countries, like Russia, make great
fighter planes, the French have some great helicopters (though not attack helicopters), etc... but no single country makes everything the way the U.S.
does: stealth planes, fighter planes, missles, jumbo jets, helicopters, etc.....all great designs the way America does. To have our Air Force use
French tankers just doesn't seem right to me.
Second, JOBS. It will take away jobs from Boeing, an American aircraft company. The tankers would be manufactured in the United States. If Airbus gets
the contract, they intend to build a plant here in the U.S. This would take away jobs from Boeing, who would have to lay off people.
Third, I do not like French foreign-policy at all.
Fourth, that's American money going to France, not America.
So I do not like the idea of the Air Force's new tankers possibly being from a country who's foreign-policy I hate, when America itself could design
its own aircraft for the job, with American money also going to this country, and money being taken away from other American aircraft companies, and
jobs being taken away as well, all for a country that doesn't even support the U.S. in the war on terrorism.
The French can design some great things, but aircraft are something America is known for.
***As a side note, many things are not owned by who they appear to be owned by. For example, certain American rifle companies are partially owned by
The Jeep brand is owned by Chysler Corporation, but Chrysler Corp. is part of Daimler-Benz now, the owners of Mercedes. So the irony there is that the
very vehicle designed to help America defeat Germany now is partially owned by the German corporation that helped make things to help Germany defeat
On the flip side, the Landrover brand, a British vehicle brand, is now owned by FORD. Ford is as American as you can get. So the trademark British
vehicle brand is American owned and its American counterpart is a good bit European-owned.
[edit on 25-6-2005 by Broadsword20068]