Northrop wins the KC-45A tanker contract

[itsbob]

...gotta start somewhere. Looks like a good place and time to me.

Yanno this brings up a story about the M3 Fighting Vehicle.

Do you know it was supposed to have a motorcycle in the back of it, and the ones I TC'd at Ft Knox were all built with the mounts in the back.

BUT since the only American motorcycle manufacturer at the time 1) didn't produce a dirtbike and 2) the one they tried to build didn't even come close to meeting the maintenance or the the durability requirments we had to go without. SOme congressman or Senator REFUSED to put a non-American bike in the back of the Bradley.. We could have a KTM.. a Suzuki.. any of a dozen bikes that would have met the criteria for what we wanted, but someone forced a requirement on us that it HAD to be American made, so we lost a lot of our ability. Nobody wanted to be towing around a piece of broken down junk, so we went without that capability.

After serial number 10 or 11 left the production line, there was never another Bradley built with that capability.

 

[Kerad]

...can be happy all you want about an European governmental consortium building our military equipment. I am not.

I'm happy that the Air Force will be flying the best plane available. The fact that it will be built by our allies is of secondary (and very little) concern to me.

Boeing should concentrate on improving their product and processes so they won't have to bribe officials while offering up an inferior plane.

 

[Pete]

...and all of that is another way of saying that politics dictated the 9mm and politics dictated the M4 etc and so on. So, it is time for OUR politics to dictate solutions that are better for the US as a whole, as US politics should be.

The 416 is a great idea and the people who use them say they are superior.
Maybe it is time that matters.

You would be surprised how much of this type of stuff comes down from congress as "earmarks".

 

[Larry Gude]

No I...

You would be surprised how much of this type of stuff comes down from congress as "earmarks".

...I wouldn't.

 

[Larry Gude]

That...

Yanno this brings up a story about the M3 Fighting Vehicle.

Do you know it was supposed to have a motorcycle in the back of it, and the ones I TC'd at Ft Knox were all built with the mounts in the back.

BUT since the only American motorcycle manufacturer at the time 1) didn't produce a dirtbike and 2) the one they tried to build didn't even come close to meeting the maintenance or the the durability requirments we had to go without. SOme congressman or Senator REFUSED to put a non-American bike in the back of the Bradley.. We could have a KTM.. a Suzuki.. any of a dozen bikes that would have met the criteria for what we wanted, but someone forced a requirement on us that it HAD to be American made, so we lost a lot of our ability. Nobody wanted to be towing around a piece of broken down junk, so we went without that capability.

After serial number 10 or 11 left the production line, there was never another Bradley built with that capability.

...is a little different than refueling tankers in my humble opinion.

Also, what would the purpose of a dirt bike on the bank of a tank be? Small round catcher?

 

[Larry Gude]

Let me...

I'm happy that the Air Force will be flying the best plane available. The fact that it will be built by our allies is of secondary (and very little) concern to me.

Boeing should concentrate on improving their product and processes so they won't have to bribe officials while offering up an inferior plane.

...ask you one tiny little question;

Given the specs asked for and given the knowledge of who had what, already in service, what do you suppose the purpose of intentionally specing something an 'ally' was already making versus something no American manufacturer had even on the drawing board would be?

Hmm?


Anyone?

 

[Ken King]

Airbus or Boeing doesn't make a difference as long as the contract is fulfilled and it's better that the tankers are being purchased outright versus being leased like what was planned at one time.

 

[itsbob]

...

Also, what would the purpose of a dirt bike on the bank of a tank be? Small round catcher?

It's hard to sneak around and perform recon missions in a 24 ton tank.. soooo now we have to stop well behind the Front Edge of the Battle Area and walk in. A bike could be unloaded, a scout goes out with a radio and within minutes you have eyes on the battlefield.. If your scout gets in trouble the Bradley is still there to offer a little bit of back up, and away to escape under armor. On foot.. they get in trouble, the Bradley has to get to them, you really don't want to try to walk out under fire.

Motorcycles are quieter (in most cases) more maneuverable and much more stealthy than a tank.. and a lot quicker than walking.

 

[itsbob]

...is a little different than refueling tankers in my humble opinion.

Also, what would the purpose of a dirt bike on the bank of a tank be? Small round catcher?

True, when was the last time a tanker crews life was lost in battle..


Good point. Certainly not as important an issue as the scout's equipment.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

It's hard to sneak around and perform recon missions in a 24 ton tank.. soooo now we have to stop well behind the Front Edge of the Battle Area and walk in. A bike could be unloaded, a scout goes out with a radio and within minutes you have eyes on the battlefield.. If your scout gets in trouble the Bradley is still there to offer a little bit of back up, and away to escape under armor. On foot.. they get in trouble, the Bradley has to get to them, you really don't want to try to walk out under fire.

Motorcycles are quieter (in most cases) more maneuverable and much more stealthy than a tank.. and a lot quicker than walking.

...it wouldn't be a little smarter to use a Hummer to scout and just radio to the tank? This sounds like one of those 'Send the black guy' missions. And now I have this visions of a Keystone cop routine of the whole crew climbing on the motorcycle and one guy trying to kick start it while the bad guys actually stop shooting to laugh.

 

[Larry Gude]

I thought...

True, when was the last time a taker crews life was lost in battle..


Good point. Certainly not as important an issue as the scout's equipment.

...tankers have blown up in flight a few times? One did in Air Force One...

 

[Kerad]

...ask you one tiny little question;

Given the specs asked for and given the knowledge of who had what, already in service, what do you suppose the purpose of intentionally specing something an 'ally' was already making versus something no American manufacturer had even on the drawing board would be?

Hmm?


Anyone?

You're just trying to be a dork about this, aren't you.

 

[MMDad]

You're just trying to be a dork about this, aren't you.

Trying? What makes you think he has to try?

 

[Larry Gude]

Lol...

Trying? What makes you think he has to try?

I never 'try' anything.

 

[Kerad]

Trying? What makes you think he has to try?

Good point.

I just figured, since he was being so obvious about it...it had to be on purpose.

 

[Larry Gude]

Hey...

Good point.

I just figured, since he was being so obvious about it...it had to be on purpose.

...if I were in your position, I wouldn't wanna answer the question either.

 

[MMDad]

it's better that the tankers are being purchased outright versus being leased like what was planned at one time.

That plan was about as stupid as it gets.

 

[Kerad]

...if I were in your position, I wouldn't wanna answer the question either.

Your question is bogus. You own Boeing stock, don't you.

 

[Pete]

Yanno this brings up a story about the M3 Fighting Vehicle.

Do you know it was supposed to have a motorcycle in the back of it, and the ones I TC'd at Ft Knox were all built with the mounts in the back.

BUT since the only American motorcycle manufacturer at the time 1) didn't produce a dirtbike and 2) the one they tried to build didn't even come close to meeting the maintenance or the the durability requirments we had to go without. SOme congressman or Senator REFUSED to put a non-American bike in the back of the Bradley.. We could have a KTM.. a Suzuki.. any of a dozen bikes that would have met the criteria for what we wanted, but someone forced a requirement on us that it HAD to be American made, so we lost a lot of our ability. Nobody wanted to be towing around a piece of broken down junk, so we went without that capability.

After serial number 10 or 11 left the production line, there was never another Bradley built with that capability.

Interesting, you have a link or reference to this?

 

[itsbob]

Interesting, you have a link or reference to this?

Don't need one, I was there.