"James Anatidae" wrote in message ...
"willdave davenant" wrote in message
om...
AF tankers, that is. Or will they?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94339,00.html

What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same vintage
and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle the
Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020. As
Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
expense of the American taxpayers.

Given that your basic premise is incorrect (yes, those KC-135's do
have finite structural lives), you seem to be convinced that this is
some kind of military-industrial conspiracy. Uhmmm...have you picked
up on the recent wranglings by the RAF, IDF, and IIRC the RAAF in
regards to (ahem!) *leasing* tankers (the 767 being a current or
likely contender for all of them)? So are you thinking that all of
these nations are interested in making a "corporate giveaway" to
Boeing? And if your beef is with the 767 itself...Italy has already
purchased the first tanker mods, Japan the AWACS mod (and a possible
tanker buy in the future?)....so it sounds like a fairly decent
airframe for the mission (especially as the E-10 is also going to be a
767-based design).

Brooks