Comments on: Tanker Talk of Paris, No Answers http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:55:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jimbohttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9602 jimbo Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:39:10 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9602 because it makes sense probably... because it makes sense probably…

]]> By: Kevinhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9601 Kevin Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:32:20 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9601 why not convert a C-17 into a tanker or add a refuel module taht would fit inside? why not convert a C-17 into a tanker or add a refuel module taht would fit inside?

]]> By: BS_Busterhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9472 BS_Buster Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:03:09 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9472 Only a Boing Buddy would call creating the 767-200, 767-300, 767-400 FrankenTanker a "minor modification".It starts again....Today's Non-Ethics Word: Boinginate Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\ Function: Verb Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium Date: 2008 Transitive verb : to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win Only a Boing Buddy would call creating the 767–200, 767–300, 767–400 FrankenTanker a “minor modification”.

It starts again.…

Today’s Non-Ethics Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9394 pfcem Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:28:34 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9394 LockMartSkunk,I know very well the differences between the Italian, Japanese & KC-X proposed tankers.But there are very much similar differences between the Australian (& other) KC-30 & the NG/EADS proposed tanker.Yes, the KC-30's are closer than the KC-767s, due mostly to Boeing tailoring its KC-767s to customer requirements much more so than EADS does with its tankers, but if the KC-30 are 'virtually identical' why is the NG/EADS KC-X proposal SDD not virtually zero...Also note that the 767 airframe “minor modifications” are very minor compared to some of the systems developement on the KC-X reguardless of what airframe/platform it is. LockMartSkunk,

I know very well the differences between the Italian, Japanese & KC-X proposed tankers.

But there are very much similar differences between the Australian (& other) KC-30 & the NG/EADS proposed tanker.

Yes, the KC-30’s are closer than the KC-767s, due mostly to Boeing tailoring its KC-767s to customer requirements much more so than EADS does with its tankers, but if the KC-30 are ‘virtually identical’ why is the NG/EADS KC-X proposal SDD not virtually zero…

Also note that the 767 airframe “minor modifications” are very minor compared to some of the systems developement on the KC-X reguardless of what airframe/platform it is.

]]> By: Chrishttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9382 Chris Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:47:41 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9382 Colin, I thought trolling was not permitted here? Why is Pfcem still posting his garbage here? Colin,
I thought trolling was not permitted here? Why is Pfcem still posting his garbage here?

]]> By: LockMartSkunkhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9381 LockMartSkunk Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:46:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9381 pcfem. . . If you seriously think the equipment that is on export models of the tanker are anything qualitativly similar to what is sold to the DoD then I don't really know what you are doing in the defense industry. pcfem… If you seriously think the equipment that is on export models of the tanker are anything qualitativly similar to what is sold to the DoD then I don’t really know what you are doing in the defense industry.

]]> By: pfcemhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9343 pfcem Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:31:34 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9343 Colin,You should spend more time listening to Bowman & less time your fellow spin-doctors looking for anything they/you can to cast doubt on Boeing."Bowman said the company stands ready to deliver either the 767 or the 777, depending on what the RFP and conversations with Air Force officials indicate would be the best fit. Requirements for longer range and more fuel offload = 777. More flying from forward air bases and tactical flexibility = 767."It could not be more clear than that.***LockMartSkunk,LOL.If Boeing wanted to play the game of showing you a similar tanker & "what they could add onto it", it could direct you to visit Japan &/or Italy.The fact that you keep bringing this nonsense up & present it the way you do proves you to not be anywhere near as an "objective third party" as you claim to be. Colin,

You should spend more time listening to Bowman & less time your fellow spin-doctors looking for anything they/you can to cast doubt on Boeing.

“Bowman said the company stands ready to deliver either the 767 or the 777, depending on what the RFP and conversations with Air Force officials indicate would be the best fit. Requirements for longer range and more fuel offload = 777. More flying from forward air bases and tactical flexibility = 767.”

It could not be more clear than that.

***

LockMartSkunk,

LOL.

If Boeing wanted to play the game of showing you a similar tanker & “what they could add onto it”, it could direct you to visit Japan &/or Italy.

The fact that you keep bringing this nonsense up & present it the way you do proves you to not be anywhere near as an “objective third party” as you claim to be.

]]> By: LockMartSkunkhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/tanker-talk-of-paris-few-answers/#comment-9311 LockMartSkunk Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:33:50 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=7275#comment-9311 As I have said many times before, when talkiing to the NG tanker team, we went to the range and they showed me a real plane flying around and said what they could add onto it. When we went to the BA team they showed me a hypothetical computer simulation saying what they "could" build. I have to say as the somewhat objective third party (our nifty toys go on whichever platform wins) I feel that NG has this one. As I have said many times before, when talkiing to the NG tanker team, we went to the range and they showed me a real plane flying around and said what they could add onto it. When we went to the BA team they showed me a hypothetical computer simulation saying what they “could” build. I have to say as the somewhat objective third party (our nifty toys go on whichever platform wins) I feel that NG has this one.

]]>