USAF Tanker Deal "To be reviewed" - Page 3

Platapus · 06-19-08, 06:49 PM

The nice thing about the Northrop Grumman bid is that is was not Boeing. Boeing does not exactly have a stellar reputation with the government these days. They have been prime on some ISR projects that ended up costing the taxpayers bunches of cashola and ended up not working.

Boeing used to be a pretty reliable company and I hope they can re-earn their reputation. I know this tanker deal was very important to them.

These days it is almost impossible to "buy American" as components of practically everything is made overseas.

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

The nice thing about the Northrop Grumman bid is that is was not Boeing. Boeing does not exactly have a stellar reputation with the government these days. They have been prime on some ISR projects that ended up costing the taxpayers bunches of cashola and ended up not working.

Boeing used to be a pretty reliable company and I hope they can re-earn their reputation. I know this tanker deal was very important to them.

These days it is almost impossible to "buy American" as components of practically everything is made overseas.

KC-767 is already flying. No real need for the development time. Its already been done.

-S

Platapus · 06-19-08, 07:25 PM

Well let's all just hope that the review is conducted fairly and completely...and quickly.

One way or the other, we really need to decide this and press on.

Lurchi · 06-20-08, 10:24 AM

Maybe the USAF should really select the Boeing.
If this thing is able to survive in hostile airspace, fill up some planes and eat some missiles it must be a flying wonder.

With all this it can replace not only the KC-135 but also the B-2 and (equipped with a big gun) ...

... even the A-10!

SUBMAN1 · 06-20-08, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurchi

Maybe the USAF should really select the Boeing.
If this thing is able to survive in hostile airspace, fill up some planes and eat some missiles it must be a flying wonder.

With all this it can replace not only the KC-135 but also the B-2 and (equipped with a big gun) ...

... even the A-10!

Nobody said anything about sustained fire. The idea is to take on the shot, and make it fail, and if it hits, then the idea is to get the thing home instead of becoming a flaming lawn dart in someones backyard! That is the idea. The enemy will always get a lucky shot off on occasion. What you want is for that lucky shot to have minimal effect. That is the idea.

-S

Lurchi · 06-20-08, 03:11 PM

A tanker must be kept out of harms way in any case. I can't imagine an easier target for a modern SAM than a fuel-loaded unmaneuverable tanker plane - and a fighter eats it for lunch. Armour for a tanker plane? What a waste of resources, money and especially weight which could be better used for fuel.

The USAF seems to think the same - that's why they chose the Airbus. Personally i think they don't want to make themselves too much dependent from one single supplier like Boeing.

Besides ... the british would profit the most of this deal, why do you pi$$ on them who buy american JSFs in exchange???

PeriscopeDepth · 06-20-08, 05:13 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...%7D&dist=msr_1

PD

06-19-08, 06:49 PM	#31
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,373 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	The nice thing about the Northrop Grumman bid is that is was not Boeing. Boeing does not exactly have a stellar reputation with the government these days. They have been prime on some ISR projects that ended up costing the taxpayers bunches of cashola and ended up not working. Boeing used to be a pretty reliable company and I hope they can re-earn their reputation. I know this tanker deal was very important to them. These days it is almost impossible to "buy American" as components of practically everything is made overseas. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

06-19-08, 07:25 PM	#33
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,373 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Well let's all just hope that the review is conducted fairly and completely...and quickly. One way or the other, we really need to decide this and press on. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

06-20-08, 10:24 AM	#34
Lurchi Planesman Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wilhelmshaven, Germany Posts: 181 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	Maybe the USAF should really select the Boeing. If this thing is able to survive in hostile airspace, fill up some planes and eat some missiles it must be a flying wonder. With all this it can replace not only the KC-135 but also the B-2 and (equipped with a big gun) ... ... even the A-10!

06-20-08, 03:11 PM	#36
Lurchi Planesman Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wilhelmshaven, Germany Posts: 181 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	A tanker must be kept out of harms way in any case. I can't imagine an easier target for a modern SAM than a fuel-loaded unmaneuverable tanker plane - and a fighter eats it for lunch. Armour for a tanker plane? What a waste of resources, money and especially weight which could be better used for fuel. The USAF seems to think the same - that's why they chose the Airbus. Personally i think they don't want to make themselves too much dependent from one single supplier like Boeing. Besides ... the british would profit the most of this deal, why do you pi$$ on them who buy american JSFs in exchange???

06-20-08, 05:13 PM	#37
PeriscopeDepth Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,894 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...%7D&dist=msr_1 PD