In article , "James Anatidae"
wrote:

"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.

Yes, much money has been spent.

Age doesn't enter into it.

Age is the entire crux of the question. Metals, especially aluminum fatigues
and needs to be replaced. Replacing primary structure is very expensive
when it happens.

The B-52 is of the same vintage and continues to provide except service.

Yes, the B-52 has provided exceptional service. It also has been upgraded
when needed, and has a much lower cycle rate than tankers.

Until this recent 767 debacle the Air Force said the tankers would not need
to be replaced until 2020.

The AF was assuming that they would be spending lots of money replacing
structure to keep them flying. It's actually better to spend that money
on a newer and more efficient machine.


As Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
expense of the American taxpayers.

Until you study the alternatives.
Nader is mostly good at getting his name in the papers.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur