sealordlawrenceNow you understand, I did read your posts and gave them the response they deserved.:rolleyes:
No you did not read them, hence your response was meaningless.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceMy comments above are perfectly rational….
Don’t be so peevish with the sarcastic icons.
If you make piontless posts that demonstrate nothing more than a failure to read my posts on your part you will get sarcastic smilies, live with it.:rolleyes:
Looking at this logically…merits of the the aircraft aside…
Logan Hartke has a point:
if the criteria for the decision was faulty, how could the USAF’s choice be correct?In your opinion the USAF made the correct choice.
But the GAO says their citeria was faulty…so it’s back to round one…actually round 1.5. The Pentagon says they’ll revisit only the parts of the submissions they found in error.A new decision is due in December.
The planes are supposed to last 50 years, so an extra six months won’t hurt anything if it means a fair decision is made.
Further evidence of you not reading, I dont give a damn if the competition was fair against the technical minutae of the rule book, my point is that this should be done and dusted with the USAF getting the aircraft it wanted. What we actually have is a legal **** fest largely inspired by flawed nationalistic BS.
sealordlawrenceAssuming the IAC is not delayed and is built quickly, which, is a point of debate as well I’d bet.
It does not matter whether the IAC is built quickly or not, as soon as two of them are in the water expect Gorky to return to her seemingly natural state of not so well maintained pier side hulk.
sealordlawrenceHaving said that, I bet this story earlier this week made a few planning folks at the RN start thinking about possible scenarios. Maybe they even sent a memo to No.10 or the FO to remind them that they do still (just about)exist :diablo:
Wont make any difference whatsoever, just a cursory glance at the state of the Argentine armed forces makes it perfectly clear that any armed conflict is completely out of the question.
sealordlawrenceRe-read the GAO summary.
There are some legitimate issues…like NG not agreeingto set up PDM…
This isn’t just a “do-ver” for Boeing.The USAF screwed up. Not the first time…probably not the last.
BTW: Anyone who thinks military procurement ANYWHERE (including the EU) is devoid of politics/where it’s made/employment/industrial base…is a fool.
A) I have read the summary plenty of times and a cursory glance at my posts would have told you that I am well aware that the USAF screwed up.:rolleyes:
B) No one said that military procurement is devoid of politics.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceYou remind me of the people that blame the police that pull over the speeders, as opposed to the speeders that were caught in violation of the posted speed limit.
If you say you want to play by the rules, do so.
Logan Hartke
Utterly ridiculous comparison that serves no purpose whatsoever, my suggestion would be that you withdraw it.
sealordlawrenceThe current prototype does not, but there have been plenty of claims about the aircraft having the rear radar. I’m not saying it has it for sure now am I? Unless you’d like to pretend I did. I merely showed SOC the link I was referring to earlier. Further tests will tell us what’s going on.
That link is useless, it is based on shoddy internet research without any source discrimination. There has only ever been one claim about the aircraft having a rear facing radar it has just been repeated on multiple occasions. Most of the promotional videos and brochures have been posted here and they make ABSOLUTELY no reference to a rearward facing radar.
sealordlawrence“The Su-35 BM also has a radar in the tail, and for this function there are available the Phazotron NO12 and NO15 and Leninets VOO5 used in the Su-34.”
http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=1362.0
This is what I was looking for, any info on those radars themselves?
Except if you actually bothered to do proper research you realise that the current Su-35 prototype shows no physical evidence of having a rearward facing radar (especially compared to the obviously bulbous tail cone of the Su-34) and all the promotional materiel for the type makes absolutely no reference to a tail mounted radar. The only reference to such a system for the Su-35 comes from the original article that announced that the type would be built and nothing has been heard of it since. For historical sake the radar mentioned at the time was the NIIP Osa, one of the many radars designed for the Mig-21’s nose and installed on the Mig-29UBT prototype.
sealordlawrenceThe AA-10 variant being referred to is a passive radar homer, basically an air to air anti-radiation missile rather than a standard AMRAAM type weapon.
sealordlawrenceThat is a wrong assumption . The USAF itself is to blame for this , not the politicians or anyone else , they made a mess of it twice allready . It isnt about delays or what not (definately not about a boeing monopoly) it is about FAIRNESS and preserving atleast some sort of Fairness in the selection process for big ticket procurments . The USAF has lost all credibility in this process having $#%@ed up twice now and they have absolutely no reason to cry about URGENT NEEDS , urgent needs do not mean that you can play with rules and regulations and get away with it waiving the urgently needed flag . I like the KC30 , its a better aircraft according to my belief and opinion however the specs were not the only criteria for selection it was the best aircraft (as per the AF requirments) at a cost (as per requirments) so they have to match
There never was any fairness or credibility to the process, the over complication of the issue with the miniscule details that can only come from an oversized administration and overly legalized society in general. like i said in the bit of my post that you ignored, I dont give a damn about the morality of the USAF, I really could not care less as long as no one is taking bribes to the detriment of the service. What frustrates me is the absurdity of the procurement process that is shockingly wasteful. This is not just aimed at the tanker deal but at US military procurement in general.
sealordlawrence…and I would dispute that. I’ll agree that the politics are involved and to an extent that is beyond reason. I would also agree that nationalism is an influence on the voting majority and therefore on the politicians trying to make themselves heard. I very much dispute your assertion that this is the “only reason this has happened”.
The reason it’s happening is that the USAF said that this was going to be open and fair, and the GAO caught them red-handed in a bold-faced lie. I’d have no problem if it was biased to the winner, as well (like the recent Canadian selection of the C-130J over the A-400), as long as they admit it. At least then everyone knows why. This way, the USAF tried to show that it was responsible enough to take care of a puppy (the tanker acquisition) even after killing a pet goldfish a few times (CSAR). Now, the USAF doesn’t get to have a pet of its own, because the Pentagon (and I don’t even like Gates) is rightfully taking it away from them, for better or for worse.
The Pentagon will likely screw it up more, and it will only get more political, and it will take even longer. Whose fault is it, though? It’s not the politicians, it’s not the taxpayers, and it’s not Boeing’s. It’s the Air Force’s. They could have prevented all this. That’s where your assertion is dead wrong and your outrage is misdirected.
Logan Hartke
Nonsense, this is being screwed up by shabby politics of the worst sort that has infested the pentagon for years. The morality or otherwise of the USAF is utterly irrelevant, what counts is cost and operation performance, the USAF chose what it thought was the best option (and discussions here seem to agree with the conclusion) and now they are being screwed over.
sealordlawrenceCan we stop with this nonsense? You guys are acting like a fair and balanced competition that produced Northrop Grumman as the winner has been wrongfully overturned so that a rigged selection can take place where the evil lawyers and lawmakers can just make Boeing win.
That either shows that you are completely ignorant as to the circumstances of the competition (and the state of USAF procurement as a whole) or that you’re so prejudiced towards the Northrop Grumman tanker that you’ll use any excuse to make it look like actions are being taken that would prove Northrop Grumman isn’t getting a fair shot (such as a jingoistic bias).
I can make a list that wouldn’t fit in this post of examples of foreign-designed hardware that is currently in use by the United States military when a American-designed option was an alternative.
Neither Boeing nor Northrop-Grumman are strangers to the “win some, lose some” nature of US aircraft selection with company histories including such affronts to fairness as the Model 299, the XF5F, and the YB-49 where an aircraft with great performance for its time (although not without its issues), but was passed over for reasons not entirely without prejudice.
Read the GAO report (the least biased organization involved in this process) and tell me that the Air Force still knows what it’s doing. I agree that the Air Force personnel and the American taxpayer are getting a raw deal. This should have been taken care at least a decade ago. In this instance, however, it’s the Air Force that’s screwing over its own, not an outside entity. They knew they had one try to get it right and they still made idiot mistakes. Now they’re paying for it.
What I said before still applies…
Whether you agree with the decision or not, it was not merely GAO saying “because I say so”. The USAF didn’t cover all of its bases.
See the 7 points the GAO mentions. A number of them are quite valid. Certain ones, like #2 and #4 make you sit back and wonder what the USAF was thinking. They knew this competition was going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004257.html
Say what you will about the respective planes and companies, the selection process wasn’t without its issues this time around.
Logan Hartke
That is not how I am acting at all and you had bothered to read my post you would know that. I am acting as if the USAF is being denied the aircraft it wants, and is Boeing is using political clout to achieve a monopoly and as if the entire project has been delayed. I could not give a flying **** whether the project was fair or not as long as the USAF gets the aircraft it wants on the time scale it wants within practical constraints and this pathetic mess is preventing that from happening. The only reason this has happened is because of the lobbying done by Boeing that has taken advantage of nationalistic crap from the ignorant underclasses that is currently infusing the political class in an election period.
sealordlawrenceI didnt know that you have such strong feelings for the USAF Beur. but given that the messed up first with the bribary scandal and now with the unfair evaluation i can see why you are so strong in your words 😉
I was actually referring to the ignorant mass that has undue influence over the US political class. The fact is that this decision is bad all round, the only people who will win our Boeing and given their previous antics (as mentioned in your post) they are hardly deserving.
sealordlawrenceAnd we are what, shocked, surprised, horrified, by this? I predicted that this year would be hard for the Navy and certain people here shouted me down (I am not going to mention names) but guess what I was right. And the bad news people is that in the near term it is unlikely to improve in the medium term. Afghanistan is not going anywhere and is only likely to absorb ever more resources, the economy is along way from bright sun lit uplands, the Army has done a spectacular job of furthering its own image in minds of politicians and the nation at large the RAF is as devious, pointless, and as god at attention seeking as it always was. Frankly any further major surface unit orders are a very long way of indeed. The Navy’s best hope is the unlikely scenario that the Russians start doing very stupid things in the GIUK region but I find that highly unlikely. As it stands Britains armed forces are becoming one war orientated.
For an excellent opinion on this see a recent RUSI journal article about the future of Britains great power status, I think there would be few here who would disagree with its conclusions.
sealordlawrenceIn those terms, if nothing else, I wouldnt expect Gorshkov to have the service life in the IN that some here expect.
Oh yes, once the IAC’s start coming online I can imagine the old Soviet hulk spending allot of time as a ‘training ship’ or some other less than frontline vessel, with just the occasional cruise. Indeed once two IAC’s have been built I can see the temptation being to build a third to keep the unions happy, the skills in place, the fleet standardised and operating costs down.
Sign In
