 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / June 2008Unexpected...
...hoped for, but truly unexpected - http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080618/D91COROO1.html ...we'll see if anything actually comes of it.  Signature- Rufus >....hoped for, but truly unexpected - > >http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080618/D91COROO1.html > >....we'll see if anything actually comes of it. what happened? sanity break out like a teen's zits? >> ....hoped for, but truly unexpected - >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > what happened? sanity break out like a teen's zits? Must have...still scratching over what "re-compete" will mean, exactly. Signature- Rufus >>> ....hoped for, but truly unexpected - >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Must have...still scratching over what "re-compete" will mean, exactly. more happy, suddenly rich gov officials. >>>> ....hoped for, but truly unexpected - >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > more happy, suddenly rich gov officials. Yeah - that's the fear. More likely, if a total re-compete and start from scratch is on the table, the Dems could squash the proposal in total after the elections are over...that'd be the worst case. Signature- Rufus > some...@some.domain wrote: > >> some...@some.domain wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > - Rufus Maybe there's a bit of that going on behind the scenese now. Screw up any deal, then after the election say that 40 year old planes are "good enough". I'm waiting to hear about a "Stealth Tanker". Those F-22s oughta be able to refuel without baddies knowing it... > > some...@some.domain wrote: > > >> some...@some.domain wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > any deal, then after the election say that 40 year old planes are > "good enough". IIRC, F-15s are getting close to 40 years old... If they figure out how to fix 'em so they don't break apart, then they still outclass most of what else is flying around the world. The tanker deal was smelly from the git-go - both the original deal, and this one. I don't think they're going to run 40-y-o tankers forever, but I don't think EADS is going to see too many Pentagon dollars, neither. E.P. >>> some...@some.domain wrote: >>>>> some...@some.domain wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > IIRC, F-15s are getting close to 40 years old... ...except for the Es, which are really the best of the lot, IMO. Production is still open on the Es. > If they figure out how to fix 'em so they don't break apart, then they > still outclass most of what else is flying around the world. Amen. > The tanker deal was smelly from the git-go - both the original deal, > and this one. I don't think they're going to run 40-y-o tankers > forever, but I don't think EADS is going to see too many Pentagon > dollars, neither. > > E.P. We'll see what shakes out now... Signature- Rufus > >>> some...@some.domain wrote: > >>>>> some...@some.domain wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This talk reminds me of something that happened while I was still working. Some local politicans, trying to curry favor with the voting taxpayers, inserted a line into the purchase contracts for all new county vehicles (cars and light-duty trucks). Chrysler got dumped as their trucks were coming in from Canada and the eventual winner of the bid was Volkswagen, those trucks were being made in Pennsylvania. Caused quite an uproar when the clause was pulled from the contract so that "American" vehicles could compete again. >>>>> some...@some.domain wrote: >>>>>>> some...@some.domain wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Caused quite an uproar when the clause was pulled from the contract so > that "American" vehicles could compete again. It sounds like there was a lot more going on here than just politics...incompetence, and/if not some straight-out malfeasance if you read through the GAO's statement regarding their findings: http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/GAOBoeing.pdf We're talking about a LOT more money than just what a fleet of city vehicles is worth...sounds to me like some heads should be rolling. Signature- Rufus >> some...@some.domain wrote: >>>> some...@some.domain wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm waiting to hear about a "Stealth Tanker". Those F-22s oughta be > able to refuel without baddies knowing it... Not required...tanker tracks wouldn't need to be that close to where they'd be going, from a range/loiter standpoint. A "stealth tanker" would just be money wasted. Interesting depiction here, though... http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/06/19/PH2008061900549.jpg ...and here: http://graphics.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/06/18/1213839956_9 457/539w.jpg Signature- Rufus |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.