-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Presidents Nominee for Army Secretary Withdraws over Sex Scandal and Boeing Tanker Deal
- Thread starter tnitsuj
- Start date
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
I'm not sure what the positive spin on this story would be . . . particularly being associated with the tanker deal. Covering up scandals is par for the course in the military but the Boeing affair is akin to trying to rob Ft. Knox in broad daylight using a bulldozer.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yeah - Daschle sure did get quiet once the Boeing thing gained traction. That could have spelled disaster for his re-election bid. I bet there was a huge sigh of relief in his household😉
But anyway it seems like the right thing to do in that situation. No need to create a strain on that position because of the actions(or inaction) of others. I'm sure they'll find an equally as qualified or better person to take that position.🙂
CkG
Do you even have any clue what the US tanker fleet is facing these days? Do you know when the tankers here at Okinawa were built? I'll give you a hint with the first three numbers: 195x.
Anyone with any clue about USAF operations understands why new tankers are critical, but it's stuffed shirts in D.C. who are questioning the need. Brilliant.
UltraQuiet
Banned
I don't think anyone is questioning the need for new tankers but more in the way that they were being procured. The costs involved appeared to be excessive even above the DoD norm.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Buahahaha - you might want to change that to say "...is alive and well in politics." But yeah - I understand you thinking you need to take a jab at Conservatives.
Yes - Daschle did get very quiet when after this Boeing thing came out - correlation? Hmm...
CkG
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
What he said . . . with one caveat . . . take a hint from the Gipper. Pick fights with small island nations in our hemisphere.
The dishonesty of the debate is that the cost savings associated with the higher sorties rates and lower operating costs of the new tankers plus the immediate replacement of the oldest tankers were never factored into the equation that I have ever seen. Adding 100 KC-767 aircraft immediately and moving KC-135R's to replace the -E models would generate immense savings in having exceptionally reliable aircraft able to offload higher fuel loads which could have one A/C possibly take two scheduling lines now flown by two aircraft. There are so many maintenance and operational advantages to this deal as opposed to waiting 10-20 years to slowly acquire tankers through the normal ridiculously slow procurement process. If the Clinton administration had seen fit to spend ANY money on procurement during their tenure, perhaps we wouldn't need to play catch-up now, but unfortunately you do in fact reap what you sow.
Any, by the way, there has been plenty of questioning of the need for tankers, with the latest dig at the tanker lease deal involving a line of inquiry into whether or not the Air Force was exaggerating the deterioration of the tanker fleet. I would have to do some detailed research to find the articles, but I read every tanker lease article I see on the Early Bird and the Supplement every day.
Oh and don't forget the manufacturing czar nominee withdrew his name becuase he closed his own factory in the US and opened up one in China. They sure know how to pick their people.
Manufacturing czar nominee withdraws
Manufacturing czar nominee withdraws
Just tossing number out.
If there is an immediate need for 100 tankers and a new tanker cost $10M each that is $1B.
If the budget for tankers is only $100M then we either get 10 tankers / year and reduce the effectivness of the tanker fleet and the A/C that they support.
OR
a way is found to get the 100 tankers by leasing them. Leasing always cost more, but it is a way to leverage your initial investment.
Had the need for tankers not been ignored 5-10 years ago, then the lease option would not even be considered.