Actually the decision has not yet been made.

@ using the Hawkeye airframe: Problem here is that props are no good ASW platforms any more. Those submarines grew too good ears. And a prop tanker would force customers down and slow, also not good.
For an urgent CSA the Hawkeye airframe would of course be a basis when a Do328 – Do328JET type operation is done. Off with the turboprops and put some CF34 or BR710 there instead. Shouldn’t be too hard.

Hmm… Well, there’s always the “Greyhound 21,” a jet-powered (featuring two “CF-34 class engines” with exhaust routed around the landing gear). I don’t know how far Grumman went with the engineering, but it certainly is intriguing. Pics and a further description are available here for those who are signed on to the “Secret Projects” website board.

The Wall Street Journal on their home page is reporting that “Northrop Grumman and EADS broke Boeing’s lock on the market for aerial refueling tankers, winning a $40-billion contract to turn Airbus jets into flying gas stations for U.S. military aircraft, according to a person familiar with the situation. Full article to follow.”

That is all they have posted right now.

Stranger things have happened – but, the WSJ is usually pretty reliable.

I am sure more details will follow.

My answer is in my avatar.

The original National Airlines (1934-1980).

Of course, I’m biased. My father worked for National (JFK & LGA) from 1969 thru to their merger with Pan Am in 1980.

As a child I would get excited at the “Fly Me I’m (insert comely stewardess’s name here)” commercials simply because I knew my father worked for the airline. I didn’t appreciate the non-politically correct nature of the commercials until I grew a little bit older. 😀

I was even fortunate enough to go on an employee’s tour on one of National’s two brand new 747s (“Jacqueline” & “Patricia” which they operated briefly in the early-70s) as they were brought into service.

The Sun King livery is still one of the best I have ever seen on an airliner.

Dang shame and tragedy. Prayers for those souls who were lost. 🙁

A bit quick to fix blame at this point. All you can hope is figure out the error and ensure it doesn’t happen again.

The aircrew may be to blame, as may those on the ground, or a combination thereof. One of the worst “friendly fire” incidents of the war occurred in 2002 in Afghanistan, when a ground-based USAF Special Ops Forward Air Controller changed batteries on his AN/PSN-11 GPS device and mistakenly ended up calling in his own coordinates as the target for a JDAM dropped from an orbiting B-52H. Three US Special Ops soldiers and five Afghan fighters were killed, and forty friendlies were wounded. The same bomb nearly killing Hamed Karzai. Mostly because of human error on the ground when the FAC didn’t realize that the Plugger reset to its own GPS coordinates when he changed the battery. Sadly, there will always be mistakes like these that cost lives.

As for Americans “having a habit” for this sort of thing, probably has more to do with the fact that American combat aircraft are also performing the majority of sorties over Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than some sort of percieved eagerness to drop/fire ordnance with less than proper regard. War is dangerous. Humans make mistakes. Throw in highly-trained armed forces of two different nations, even with a long history of joint operations, and the possibility for error in a life or death operation increases. Given the sheer number of operations, it is a wonder it doesn’t happen more often – especially as compared to prior conflicts.

Again, one hopes the cause of this tragedy is discovered and the proper remedies are made.

what color is the sky?

“While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the world behind Saudi Arabia

Very Very sooon USA will get 20% of its oil supply from iraq.

Can you tell me which nation used for the first time Nukes and killed civilians?!
:rolleyes:

Don’t try to play smart!

“20% of oil supply from Iraq”?

Depending on how you define “very, very soon” that would be quite a remarkable feat considering that approximately 10% of the oil consumed in the United States is imported from Canada, the largest US importer. In terms of proven reserves, Iraq (115 billion barrels) ranks 4th behind, Saudi Arabia (264 billion barrels), Canada (180 billion barrels), Iran (132 billion barrels), and just ahead of Kuwait & UAE (~100+ billion barrels each). None of this accounts for future reserves to be discovered and exploited through ever accelerating discovery and production technology. As for oil from Iraq, again, the unanswered question is if the bloodthirsty US/George W. Bush simply wanted Iraq’s oil, wouldn’t it simply be less costly in lives to drop all sanctions against Saddam in 2001 if that were the case? Again, Saddam was more than willing to sell it – below cost even.

Will the percentage of oil imports from Iraq to the US increase over time? Perhaps, but it all depends on the social/political progress of the nation and the ability to rebuild the Iraqi oil production infrastructure after almost 30-years of wars and sanctions. However, I sincerely doubt that 20% of the oil the US will consume will come from Iraq within the next decade – if ever, especially considering that it accounts for less than 2.5% of US consumption right now. Perhaps the color of the sky will change by then? :confused:

In terms of the use of nuclear weapons, the United States used them against Imperial Japan, twice even. Here’s some background for you. I’m not saying the US is without sin when it comes to the prosecution of war, but given the way WWII was fought by all participants, I’m sure you can tell me who could have brought an end to the war in the Pacific with a lesser number of civilian deaths than the United States inflicted upon Japan (~900,000.) Considering the Japanese were responsible for over 11,000,000 civilian deaths in China (7M) & Indonesia (4M) alone, for the Unites States to have refrained from using nuclear weapons against Japan because of a concern for Japanese civilian casualties would be farcical given the carnage inflicted by Japan upon the region and the necessity to being the war to its most rapid and complete conclusion. Also, how many additional American, British, Aussie, Chinese & Russian deaths (and Japanese military & civilian deaths) were acceptable in lieu of use of the atomic bombs against Japan? You may also recall that the United States had a monopoly on such weapons for just over four years but somehow resisted the urge to colonize the world and drop nukes on all those that might resist when the US would have been virtually invulnerable to an attack in kind.

Would one trust the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad with a similar monopoly, or with a nuclear arsenal of any kind?

To answer the question that started the thread, Iran has been at war with the US, and vice versa since 1979. I think If the US takes action it will be a comprehensive air campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities & IRGC similar to the allied air campaign against Iraq in Gulf War I – except with far greater use precision weapons. I don’t think we are at that point quite yet.

I’m not quite sure if this is the proper forum to reply, but facts do warrant citation.

Iraq would be a heck of a place for a U.S. “war for oil” conquest.

If the US was trully going to “war for oil” we would have much easier and softer targets that would cost less in lives and treasure to take.

Crude imports into the US from Iraq consist of a grand total of **DRUMROLL** 4.8%!!!! 😮 Angola is hot on its heels at (4.6%). Watch out Angola – George Bush and the big bad United States is coming for your oil! One shouldn’t feel so safe and secure in Norway either, as Norway provides almost 2% of the US’s oil imports. :rolleyes:

The US gets most of its imported oil from Canada (20%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (13%), Venezuela (12%).

The idea that the US toppled Saddam to get a hold of Iraq’s oil wealth isn’t borne out by the facts or common sense.

Now if one want to claim the toppling of Saddam was in error, that is certainly a proposition worthy of debate. If one claims that the US motive for toppling Iraq was to “send a message” to various regimes that also is worthy of debate.

However, to claim the US was looking to grab Iraq’s oil wealth when it finally took decisive action against Saddam, ignores the fact that a band of angry armed Americans in Montana could probably load up their SUVs with guns and ammunition to lead an armed drive up Alberta’s Highway 2 and capture far more oil resources at far less a cost in lives than the current conflict in Iraq. Also, the Albertans might be far more welcoming of such an incursion (considering their distaste for Ottawa’s politcians and their countrymen in Quebec) than some of the sectarian groups in Iraq.

To get closer to the topic of the thread, as for Iran, who knows what will happen? A nation seeking nuclear weapons is not necessarily a reason for worry – Americans aren’t running around with fear & worry over the prospect of China, Russia, UK, Israel, Pakistan (spare a radical Islamist coup d’état), India & France’s nuclear arsenals, as fear of a weapon usually depends on those who hold it. However, in Iran, (in particular the Mullahs, the leadership, the IRGC) would one be so certain that they would not use a nuclear weapon against any number of nations, or provide it to those who really wouldn’t care if Tehran were vaporized in response?

If the world is safer, if liberty and tolerance is promoted/not harmed by a nuclear-armed Iran (at least while Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, and IRGC hold the reins), then why go through all of this anyway? Someone, should supply Iran with a dozen or so ICBMs, and perhaps 100 or more tactical nukes and enjoy the ensuing stability and peace that follows. 😀

Wolf Ammunition does quite well here in the United States. In fact, there has actually been a bit of an outcry from Wolf’s civilian customers in the US who have experienced shortages and a significant increase in price for 7.62×39 ammunition of which Wolf is a significant distributor. Semi-automatic Kalashnikov, SKS, and bolt-action Mosin Nagant-type (7.62x54R) rifles are popular in the US amongst civilian shooters. Wolf’s products are primarily manufactured in Russia, but they also subcontract other caliber types to companies such as Privi Partizan (Serbia). The reason for the shortage, as you may have already guessed, is that much of Wolf’s production has been purchased by US DoD to supply the Afghan and Iraqi military.

As for actual Kalashnikovs, due to some of the bizarre, contradictory, and head-scratching US federal and state firearms statutes & Executive Orders that have come to pass over the past 40 years, you actually cannot buy the genuine article due to a prohibition on foreign manufactured civilian semi-auto firearms receivers. However, one can buy Kalashnikov-type semi-auto rifles manufactured domestically in the US by companies such as Arsenal Inc., a licensee of the Bulgarian Arsenal company. These are just as good, if not higher in quality than those manufactured in Russia. If IZhMASh actually were allowed to sell their products, or had a licensee manufacturer here in the US, they would do very well.

Nothing against former President Ford or his memory, but I am less than thrilled with the next CVN being named after him. He was a good man, but I don’t believe he left the mark on history or had the connection to naval aviation that other presidents who have had carriers named after them did.

That also applies to the USS George H.W. Bush. My only concession to a carrier being named after G.H.W. Bush is his combat record (as an aviator during WWII and Commander in Chief during Operations Just Cause & Desert Storm) and his status (still?) as the youngest carrier aviator in US Navy history.

Two real abominations in terms of naming ships after presidents are the USS Harry S Truman and USS Jimmy Carter. Truman was an effective and eventually popular president, but he had little regard for the Navy and he presided over the US parring its carrier capability dangerously to the bone prior to the Korean War. Also, in an ironic twist, it was Truman that cancelled the first “super carrier” USS United States that led to the so-called “Revolt of the Admirals.” I say ironic, because what is now the USS Harry S Truman was originally to be named the USS United States! So, Truman has been a “nemisis” to two carriers that would-be named USS United States.

As for USS Jimmy Carter, yes, he was a submariner, but he left the Navy to run his family’s peanut farming business after his father’s death before he ever actually served aboard a nuclear boat. As for Carter’s record as Commander in Chief, the less said the better. Ironically, USS Jimmy Carter is a special operations boat. This may be fitting, since it was the disaster at Desert One that led to the total rebuilding of the US’s special operations capability during the Reagan administration.

I haven’t any qualms with naming a CVN USS Ronald Reagan as he was the most important President of my lifetime (b. 1970) and left the most lasting impact socially, economically, and militarily of any president during my lifetime. Speaking of Reagan, if they are going to name a carrier after a person instead of a traditional carrier name, they should name a carrier for John F. Lehman, the most important/influencial Secretary of the Navy since Forrestal and as the father of the “600-ship Navy.” Lehman was also a Naval aviator. Of course, with rare exception (Ronald Reagan, Arleigh Burke) I’m not a fan of naming ships while their namesakes are still alive, therefore, we probably will have to wait another 20+ years for a USS John F. Lehman. 😉