VeteranXX
|
Kurayami? Have you ever been to the Army Base near Windsor Locks or the AF exchange at East Granby in your local CT area?
I hear this is a place where aviation dorks can travel to when they want to see real planes fly. I know you always wanted to go as a child, but your mother was disapproving of your love of aviation. Now you are free from her so you should take advantage of your new found freedom and plan an adventure to the local spot.
Be sure to bring a digital SLR (I hear you are a photograhpy expert, what landscape forums do you post on agian?) there are many pictures of planes to be taken.
I am sure you can find time from your "gf" and your "job"(Fedex allows time off after the holidays) and you love of hiking and biking to plan such an expedition.
Best wishes my friend.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
i think kotz gets out of bed in the morning thinking of ways to creep out people on tw
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Juggs I am feeling charitable today want me to purchase a candle from you? I feel like supporting the poor today.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
sure, $75
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Where do I go to purchase this said candle my friend juggs.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
go to my left nut, and hang a right
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
sex for candle
wtf juggs. does your ******* preserve the wax
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
you have a serious ******* fetish you need to get checked
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by veritas
Exactly, and if the KC-45 project would have went through (and it looks like it's going to come back and NG will win it again) there wouldn't be as much of a strain because the aging tankers would get rotated to retirement pretty quickly. But Boeing, as always whined as always because they couldn't keep up. Regardless of whether or not their data was 100% up to date (which you'd think they'd be making sure it was) they didn't provide the superior product, period. Let alone on schedule.
|
It had nothing to do with that. The AF decided to change the specs which required a bigger platform (iirc, this was after the big to-do about the boeing exec and the 'sweetheart deal'). FYI, the 767 Tanker is done ( I worked on it). Japan and Italy are buying a couple each. The whole stink about the rebid is that they didnt give Boeing enough time to respond and NG basically won by default..... not to mention imo, putting one of the most important military systems there is on a foreign platform is just dumb (NG bid with an Airbus).
|
|
|
Veteran4
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF_Grungir
It had nothing to do with that. The AF decided to change the specs which required a bigger platform (iirc, this was after the big to-do about the boeing exec and the 'sweetheart deal'). FYI, the 767 Tanker is done ( I worked on it). Japan and Italy are buying a couple each. The whole stink about the rebid is that they didnt give Boeing enough time to respond and NG basically won by default..... not to mention imo, putting one of the most important military systems there is on a foreign platform is just dumb (NG bid with an Airbus).
|
You realize that Boeing is subcontracting almost all the work out of country...right? That point is moot because it isn't/wasn't effecting US jobs anyway. Airbus is an effective proven platform. Yeah 767 is done now, day late dollar short, with as much foreign parts as the KC-45. Regardless of whether or not Boeing had enough time, they're still trying to deliver a product that doesn't work as well. The KC-45 purely fits the AF's needs better, its capacity is far greater without sacrificing range. Kind of a no-brainer.
I'd also note that the reason the 767 contracts were original pulled is because of corruption in acquiring the contract in the first place...
If you think it's dumb to put our military systems on a "foreign platform" I suggest you rethink that. A lot very important systems have many many parts and subsystems contracted to foreign companies. Also, Airbus is based on nations that we are allied very closely with. I don't think we have too awful much to worry about England or Germany or Spain trying to screw us over.
Not to mention it's not like we're putting Electro-Optical Targeting Systems or other highly guarded avionics/radar packages in tankers..
|
|
Last edited by veritas; 12-22-2008 at 10:34..
|
Veteran++
|
Question for Kura:
You can use any country in the world, except the USA, to invade Canada. No country will assist Canada or your nation, it's one on one. Which country stands the best chance of successful invasion, and by what means would you invade?
Secondary Question:
If you have a $2 billion annual budget, what would your personal airforce consist of? Assume you also need some heavy lift capacity and EW, not just a fighter force.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by veritas
You realize that Boeing is subcontracting almost all the work out of country...right? That point is moot because it isn't/wasn't effecting US jobs anyway. Airbus is an effective proven platform. Yeah 767 is done now, day late dollar short, with as much foreign parts as the KC-45. Regardless of whether or not Boeing had enough time, they're still trying to deliver a product that doesn't work as well. The KC-45 purely fits the AF's needs better, its capacity is far greater without sacrificing range. Kind of a no-brainer.
I'd also note that the reason the 767 contracts were original pulled is because of corruption in acquiring the contract in the first place...
If you think it's dumb to put our military systems on a "foreign platform" I suggest you rethink that. A lot very important systems have many many parts and subsystems contracted to foreign companies. Also, Airbus is based on nations that we are allied very closely with. I don't think we have too awful much to worry about England or Germany or Spain trying to screw us over.
Not to mention it's not like we're putting Electro-Optical Targeting Systems or other highly guarded avionics/radar packages in tankers..
|
I disagree. And no, the majority of the aircraft is NOT subcontracted to mostly foreign suppliers. The 767 is also a proven platform. If you think choosing airbus over boeing wont affect american workers, you are just being silly. Could you not foresee a time in the next 30 years where France and Germany may be opposed to what we are doing militarily?
Im not saying the proposed airbus isnt closer to the spec the usaf wants now... they changed the damn specs years into the development... which is why there is a rebid process.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obibun
Kurayami, though most of your answers here seem pretty well informed, I must disagree with your assertions on Rommel.
You say that he did well in Africa despite making a bunch of mistakes, and are fair enough to say that not all are attributed to him - but if you take the time to read a few biographies on the guy (and on the AK front as a whole), you'll realize that he made almost no mistakes.
Rommel was an absolute genius with what he had, which continually grew to be less and less. imo the pervasive opinion on him seems to be that the man rarely made a single mistake, aside from ones he was more or less completely forced into making. Had he had free reign without Hitler and co. breathing down his back, and sufficient supply (neglecting even a fair numbers match), mistakes probably never would've been made. To attribute even one of the ****-ups on the African front to him is just unfair.
|
You are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
Sorry!
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Bears. Beets. Battlestar Gallactica.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Kurayami,
The West Point (among other educational facilities) is filled with portraits of Nazi commanders. Their methods are still taught today, and the U.S. military is nearly a carbon copy of the SS structure-wise.
Why are these facts not widely discussed?
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurayami
Germany '43-'45. Specifically the Kurland Pocket.
Western history has done a lot to demonize the Germans. There is a lot there that Americans/Canadians/British/French people are not aware of.
I always recommend reading "In Deadly Combat" by Bidderman to anyone interested in WW2 history. Every single American I've recommended it to has waked away with a new understanding of WW2 Germany.
The simple fact of the matter is that the average German soldier was no more a "Nazi" than the American was a "Democrat" or the Russian was a "Bolshevik." They were just guys drafted to fight for their country. Most of them were pretty disillusioned of Hitler by '42/'43 with the SS and Hitler Jugend being the major holdouts.
|
You sound like you went to the school of Patton.
ps. how many biographies have you read on these commanders?
|
|
Last edited by Togowack; 12-22-2008 at 14:30..
|
Veteran++
|
How awesome is the Excalibur system?
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
How strong is Britain militarily?
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
lol wrong thead, dur
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurayami
Tough question.
I'd probably have to say Rommel or Guderian. Guderian was pretty instrumental in Blitzkrieg warfare period. Rommel was a good student. Even ignoring the fact that he made a lot of poor calls in Africa (not always his fault,) he performed very well in France.
|
Guderian was a farce. He was a selfish and obtuse commander who pretty much took all the great thinking from other German armor commanders and very quickly wrote Panzer Leader and other books after WWII, before any of the true geniuses of the time did. It was adopted by the ****ing US Army very quickly.
Rommel was an infantry officer who impressed Hitler enough, and was very adaptable so Hitler gave him the NA campaign. However, his issue was the same as Ney's at Waterloo, he turned a feint/delaying action into a contested battle which sucked up Germany's resources, when his job was simply to delay the eventual Allied victory.
Perhaps the greatest military thinker of the 20th century Was Hans von Seeckt, but this is up for debate. He almost singlehandedly turned around the defeated German Army of 1918 into one of the best forces in the World by 1925.
Your dead on about the XM8 though, our country has serious problems buying foreign arms, especially our infantry rifles. H&K pretty much had the contract won, but lost because they are not American (Colt).
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:29.
|