{"id":196623,"date":"2008-04-08T16:31:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-08T21:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2008\/04\/08\/more-tanker-fun\/"},"modified":"2008-04-08T16:31:00","modified_gmt":"2008-04-08T21:31:00","slug":"more-tanker-fun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2008\/04\/08\/more-tanker-fun\/","title":{"rendered":"More Tanker Fun"},"content":{"rendered":"

Well, in the latest bit of unmitigated bullsh&# to spew forth from Seattle<\/strike> Chicago, boeing is now claiming that the USAF had worries about the refueling boom<\/a>, but covered these concerns up.<\/p>\n

McDonnel Douglas had no problem whatsoever<\/span> coming up with their own boom in the 1970s, and EADS is already<\/span> working on one for the Australians, and it’s already flying<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Unmitigated crap.<\/p>\n

We have a little one paragraph blurb in Aviation Week<\/span>‘s Newsbreaks section<\/a> (subscription required):<\/p>\n

A factor that won the U.S. Air Force replacement tanker program for Northrop Grumman\u2019s KC-45 may have operational repercussions, say U.S. Air Force critics. The KC-45\u2019s ability to carry cargo and passengers is being used to validate the need for production of fewer C-17 transports. But a long-time operations expert says USAF will now be required to assign the tanker \u201cfor too many missions\u201d because of its \u201csignificant strategic airlift capability,\u201d he says. \u201cIt\u2019s a convenient argument to kill the C-17, but it also means they\u2019re going to try to use the tanker for everything under the Sun.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s see, they are claiming that there will be “operational repercussions” because the aircraft is too capable. That’s like claiming that you are too rich, or there is too much chocolate.<\/p>\n

What they are really saying is that when choosing an airframe for the basis of the tanker, a 767 or a shortened 777, they went with the 767 because it did a better job of protecting the C-17 production line<\/span>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Well, in the latest bit of unmitigated bullsh&# to spew forth from Seattle Chicago, boeing is now claiming that the USAF had worries about the refueling boom, but covered these concerns up. McDonnel Douglas had no problem whatsoever coming up with their own boom in the 1970s, and EADS is already working on one for …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1007,1008],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aviation","category-defense-procurement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196623"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196623"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196623\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}