View Single Post
  #27  
Old May 29th 08, 07:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Raymond O'Hara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER


"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .
KENG wrote in
:

[snip]

While I wouldn't uses quite that language, I do admit that Airbus has
managed to plaster a boom to a demonstrator and complete a transfer of
fuel as a proof of concept. You do remember we were talking in the


And what about the Oz KC-30?

context of why I beleive the USAFs selection of EADS for the new
tanker production was wrong. At the time the USAF made the decision,
there was only one that had produced and delivered a reliable flying
boom equipped aircraft. And yes, I am aware that the KC-10 was built
by Mcdonnell-Douglas which is now BOEING and was Boeing during the
selection process.


Anyone who was in a senior position during the boom design
process for the KC-10 is probably long retired and hell even
junior folks on he KC-135 are retired and/or dead.
Much as I hate to agree with Vinnie.

IBM



its called "institutional memory"