Comments on: USAF Could Lose Next Tanker Duel Oversight

By: vaughn nebeker

vaughn nebeker — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:11:47 +0000

the prouducet is used on more than one aircraft type. but do to US DOD fraud the producet line have to be pulled. It only the hydrolic floued the keep the refulling line from freezing.

By: vaughn nebeker

vaughn nebeker — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:07:48 +0000

It depeand’s on how one list the economic of a combat win. the last ime the hydrolic oil was used
it help 15,000 savio’s of helacoper flight’s in the high hill’s of packasen. out of 15,000 savio’s onely one seal went bad. I have to hold back the cooking resapie do to USDOD Fraud on other account’s. money tock’s hurpacersie walk’s.

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:46:15 +0000

Sigh, Cauchy needs a suspension to stop posting his random postings.
I suppose the reason why Boeing is acting all uppity is because they ARE cargo planes/tankers incarnate in the US. After everything merged to bits there is nothing left. I think Lockheed used to make the C-5 but that line closed a loong time ago, and so now it’s just Boeing.

By: Schrott

Schrott — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:07:33 +0000

Mr. Sang,
Sir, you are probably a really good poet and you writings may have some obscure merit BUT this isn’t a vent-your-bile-through-poetry site. I’m quite sure that you can find the correct forum for your writings… or you could go pay a hooker to dress up like a nun to take care of your problem.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:29:35 +0000

The article leaves out FAR too much history.
This started in 1996 & the February 2008 contract was in fact the 2nd contract (the 1st being the now infamous KC-767 tanker lease) to have been cancelled due to “missteps” (although how anyone could intellectually honestly use the term ‘misstep’ for the last selection is beyond comprehension) and in fact Pentagon officials had unprecedented oversight during the last process so how they could place sole blaim on the USAF while ignoring their own role in the debacle is quite telling…
Also important to note is that NG/EADS threatened to not bid because it knew (& openly stated as such) that it could not win based on the DOD/USAF requirements/criteria & thus used the fact that their HAD to be another competition to get the requirements/criteria changed to accomodate their noncompetative platform (the DOD/USAF had previously rejected it). After the 2nd selection/contract was cancelled, Gates fundamentally changed the what is now the ended-before-it-began 3rd ‘competiton’ requirements/criteria to FURTHER accomodate/favor the larger A330 platform without any justification or input. So Boeing threatened to not bid unless it was given sufficient time to study the new requirements/criteria in order to come up with the best proposal.

By: TB

TB — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:19:53 +0000

Just curious, out of those 165,000 contracts the Air Force quoted, how many are for mundane things like supplying toilet paper and how much are those contracts worth? Getting 100,000 contracts right doesn’t mean as much if the price tag doesn’t even equal the cost of one of those mismanaged aircraft.