Sweetman wrote:

‘ The B-2 normally flies with the rudders at “five and five” ; that is slightly displaced so that any movement takes it immediately into a responsive zone. This is not compatible with stealth, so the rudders are closed when the cockpit master mode switch is in its “go to war” position.Instead (according to a 1991 technical paper,although this area is now classified) the B-2 uses differential thrust for stealthy directional control. ‘

i typed it up word for word, the books ‘inside the stealth bomber’ published by MBI publishing company also says ‘motorbooks colour tech’ – i presume a series of books, page 39. Its an excellent book – very interesting read

http://books.google.com/books?id=ESsV_-2bq8MC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=inside+the+stealth+bomber&source=web&ots=cw4QQev4UG&sig=DR010w02vn1qSwXP8ggJUNjwP8Y&hl=en

While America finds Europeans reliable enough to die for America petty interests in Afghanistan and Irak, they don’t find them reliable enough to produce their tankers!
How hypocritical, cynical, and how low. Why am I still surprised?

I am not surprised that you feel that 2,752 innocent civilians, 500 of whom were from 91 foreign countries.(not to mention the 147 on the planes) are all considered petty reasons….
Furthermore, if this had happened to ANY of our allies, we would be there right beside them from start to finish….so take your crap and file it.

Have the debrief notes between Boeing and the USAF been made available yet?

you are sadly misinformed

nothing at all like this happened

Its all speculation right now…I am just going by the congressional debrief that was on C-SPAN.

We will know more after the debrief with Boeing and NG is over.

If I eat crow…I will admit it, but that is how it looks right now.

I hope I am wrong…

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. You can fit two hoses, & refuel two aircraft simultaneously. .

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/kc135-strat/images/597-64.jpg

And? What was the time scale, how long had the RFP been out before this change was made and realistically how much difference did this make to the final decision? Would the 777 have fitted within the new requirements? Was the A-330 outside of the original requirements?

All key questions that need answering before we can even speculate as to why the change was made.

Good points and I fully agree.

You clearly do care that Airbus won or you would not have spent the last few pages trying to use long out of production airframes and Boeing products to prove that Boeing does not have the potential for monopoly in the US without international competition.:rolleyes:

We dont even know the exactl details of the change, it could very well have been (and given the time scale probably more likely) that Airbus had already all but won and the airforce just wanted to cement it. There is absolutely no evidence that the USAF ‘bent over backwards’. The USAF was obviously worried about the mission as they chose the best plane for it.:p

We do know two major changes, that of the wingtip clearance (from 50 feet to 25 feet), and the weight requirements of the airfields.

Let me translate what you are saying in plain words: how can a non-US company performs better than a US company unless it cheats.

Well, even if you dont want to hear it and probably can’t even fathom it, here it is: sometimes foreign companies do outperform US companies and provides more appropriate products, and without cheating. That has proven true in the autombile market and it is the case in this tanker case.

:rolleyes: I do not CARE that Airbus won… I just question how we are paying so little for it.

Yes, Europeans make great things, I in no way am slamming the European industrial base. Do not put words in my mouth.