That would require common sense, which, IIRC, is never used highly in the world of military procurement!:D

Well “military intelligence” is a contradiction in terms.:D

If it’s down to “cost alot of money and did nothing” then I’m surprised the Nimrod AEW3 hasn’t been mentioned.

But the KC-767AT doesn’t require more tankers.* The number of KC-X tankers that will be procured & the number needed to fill the need that KC-X is intended to fill & will fill day in and day out WILL NOT increase with the KC-767AT vs the KC-30.That is why the plans always have a significant reserve to account for such contingecies.* The KC-135s are runing out of fuel at the wrong moment, quite the opposite in fact, most of the time they return with excess fuel still in the tank.* The KC-135s doesn’t need to be replaced because they don’t have the capacity, they need to be replaced because they are old & expensive to maintain.* Even the 2007 KC-X RFP didn’t require more fuel offload capability than the KC-135R & the offerors were unambiguously informed that their proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective.Yes you are.What is weak about my arguments?

1. Using larger tankers will eventually lead to the air force replacing all 135’s with less airframes. It’s a standard military ploy, they’ve been doing it for decades
2. There have been enough cases of tankers almost running out of fuel, one instance of which has been written about at great length.
3. Quote me somewhere in this thread to that effect. The only thing you’ll be able to show is that I said you were wrong, and you are.
4. Because the main thrust of your argument is “I am right and the rest of you [/B]and[B] the air force is wrong.” Not what I would call a convincing line of debate.

You are missing the point. THE main argument EADS/KC-30 supporters have is that it is better because it is bigger while ignoring the fact that bigger is NOT necessarily better.

In the case of the KC-X, bigger clearly is NOT better.

Nobody is saying that but EADS/KC-30 supporters are ignoring that just because some other nations (with VERY different requiremnts) have chosen the KC-30 that does NOT mean it is the right choice for the USAF.

No, I have pointed out the adsurdity of the EADS/KC-30 supporter’s argumnets & how they can’t counter the por-Boeing/KC-767AT points (like you just did) misinterpret & misrepresent them (either through ignorance or on purpose) Just as they misinterpret & misrepresent “fact” they use to support EADS/KC-30.

Might I ask you a couple of questions?

1. Have you ever worked operationally with IFR assets?
2. In what capacity?
3. For how long?
4. Do you know exactly what the US air force requires to replace the KC135?
5. Are you just trolling?

Thankyou.

Did later marks of the lightning have the twin cannon above the nose removed and placed in the ventral pack only, think due to mussle flash? Also the pack could be used for reconnisance.

The Mk3’s didn’t have Adens and the Mk6 had them retrofitted. These a/c could carry Red Top which had better performance so cannons were thought to be superfluous.
The photo recce pack was fitted to Saudi F53 a/c

The Avro Manchester
The Bell Airacobra for the RAF
The Brewster Buffalo for the USN and RAF (if not for the Finns!)
The Caudron C714
The Dassault Mystere II
The Dassault Balzac
The Douglas TBD
The Fairey Battle
The Heinkel He177
The Hughes Spruce Goose
The Martin B-26
The Messerschmitt Me 163
The Messerschmitt Me 210
The Morane Saulnier MS406
The PZL LWS-4
The Supermarine Swift F1-4 (not the FRs)

You forgot the Me 323:D

But are you sure he WASN’T using the correct word???

old man “We greet you with hostility”

Chris “Relax, boys, he means hospitality.”

Gambler ” No, I think he means hostility, all right….”

:p :p :p

Matt

Edit: Quote is from The Magnificent Seven.

Upon reflection you are probably right.
Well I find him irritating.:D

SOC,

Again let me irritate,

Out of the mouths of babes.
If you can’t even use the correct words, like reiterate, how am I supposed to lend weight to the rest of your arguments?