Quantcast

Air Force fail

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
85
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013477326_tanker20.html

I know this is of limited interest....but it's still incredible.

This Air Force tanker thing has been going on since before 1999....I was at Boeing sitting around discussing how maybe that contract would extend my job for a while (as it was based on the 767).

It's gone around and around so many times now.

But this was (supposed) epic fail.....I'm sure it was done on purpose.....but let's say it wasn't.....then the fail is epic.

This is the timeline of this thing
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013477347_tankertimeline20.html
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
37,064
3,937
Sleazattle
Social Security and Medicaid are Socialist bull****. Wasting money on the defense industry is just good old fashioned capitalist job building.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
I work logistics and acqusition for the Navy at Pax River Test Facility. The stories I could tell you...

Don't forget this gem, governmental payback for crybabies that don't get JSF awards:

 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Yeah but the Posideon is replacing the Orions which are worn smooth out. But IMO the better option would have been to build more new Orions, is there really a NEED for a different platform? That's my same arguement with the Raptor and F-35, there is no threat that drives the need for that. Maybe keep a scant few "just in case" (kind of like the B-2 and F-117) but replace the worn out F-16's, and -15's that do the job we need right now just fine.

But I digress...........
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,550
490
Im over here now
That's my same arguement with the Raptor and F-35, there is no threat that drives the need for that. Maybe keep a scant few "just in case" (kind of like the B-2 and F-117) but replace the worn out F-16's, and -15's that do the job we need right now just fine.

But I digress...........
even the F117 and B2 arent needed now with the advanced payloads that are available now for the current airplanes in service.
the F22 and F35 were both obviously designed ages ago when we thought there were more threats towards us then there really were.
the F15 was/is a amazing platform (though dogfights b/w the F15 and F22 proved to be bad for the F15)

now that the F35 and F22 are coming into service, they seem even more useless with fewer enemies out there
 

ridiculous

Turbo Monkey
Jan 18, 2005
2,909
1
MD / NoVA
c-17 axed, GE f35 engine development axed. F-22 postponed. Glad I switched to 'affordable' UAVs.

...I thought McCain fixed all of this. HA
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
Yeah but the Posideon is replacing the Orions which are worn smooth out. But IMO the better option would have been to build more new Orions, is there really a NEED for a different platform? That's my same arguement with the Raptor and F-35, there is no threat that drives the need for that. Maybe keep a scant few "just in case" (kind of like the B-2 and F-117) but replace the worn out F-16's, and -15's that do the job we need right now just fine.

But I digress...........
Yeah, I spent 24 years as a Flight Engineer on P-3s and work that program now. Way deep inside the "new" wing program. Yeah, coulda built a new lot of P-3s a few years back when Lockheed opened the line in Marietta for the Koreans. But, Mother Boeing must be sacrificed to so,...
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
even the F117 and B2 arent needed now with the advanced payloads that are available now for the current airplanes in service.
the F22 and F35 were both obviously designed ages ago when we thought there were more threats towards us then there really were.
There are some instances were something low observable is needed, say if we were to get jiggy with Iran, North Korea or China. That deep first strike is useful as we’ve seen. However there is no need for that now. I’ve thought why can’t we keep the capability to churn out dozens more if there is some sort of crisis/war vs. building them……..something akin to the massive industrial effort of WWII.

Agreed on the F-15, the -16 is not too bad either. LM is still churning out -16’s, more capable mind you, for foreign customers while ours are literally wearing out. Instead of buying some to fill the gap until the POS F-35 shows up we’re doing nothing, but we have a need NOW for an -16 like platform.

It’s MUCH worse with the Navy, the 1st generation F/A-18 Hornets are wearing out at an alarming rate. They can’t buy new SuperHornets to fill the gap so squadrons are being disbanded while the Navy waits for years to come for the carrier version of the F-35 to show up. The F-35 is a horrible choice for a carrier born fighter, single engine, limited fuel………no thanks I’ll pass.

I long for the day’s of carriers full of F-14D’s, Hornet’s, Intruders, Prowlers………

Yeah, I spent 24 years as a Flight Engineer on P-3s and work that program now. Way deep inside the "new" wing program. Yeah, coulda built a new lot of P-3s a few years back when Lockheed opened the line in Marietta for the Koreans. But, Mother Boeing must be sacrificed to so,...
I think there’s a lot to be said for “yesterday’s” technology in the wars we find ourselves. There is a place for the “latest and greatest” but the P-3 is perfectly suited for the role it was designed for, even today. Another example is the A-10, that thing was almost scrapped, but it’s perfect for today’s conflicts.
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,550
490
Im over here now
I long for the day’s of carriers full of F-14D’s, Hornet’s, Intruders, Prowlers………


Another example is the A-10, that thing was almost scrapped, but it’s perfect for today’s conflicts.

i grew up learning about military aircraft when the Tomcats, Intruders, Prowlers. Hawkeyes were all still operational. ive always been a fan of all those aircraft too....particularly the F14.


the A10 is a perfect airframe for the war we are fighting now. slow moving aircraft that can linger on station for a long time and deliver massive amounts of firepower accurately and take some massive damage.
 

ridiculous

Turbo Monkey
Jan 18, 2005
2,909
1
MD / NoVA
Agreed on the F-15, the -16 is not too bad either. LM is still churning out -16’s, more capable mind you, for foreign customers while ours are literally wearing out. Instead of buying some to fill the gap until the POS F-35 shows up we’re doing nothing, but we have a need NOW for an -16 like platform.

...Its been filled by the Reaper.

I think there’s a lot to be said for “yesterday’s” technology in the wars we find ourselves. There is a place for the “latest and greatest” but the P-3 is perfectly suited for the role it was designed for, even today. Another example is the A-10, that thing was almost scrapped, but it’s perfect for today’s conflicts.


:thumb:
 

KavuRider

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2006
2,566
3
CT
I had it a toss up between Boeing and Lockheed back in the day...
What relevance that has to this, I do not know...