pfcemWhat? The F35 went to weight-watchers? LOL
According to the official LM site the aircraft still weights 29,300 lbs.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html
And you know what the trouble is? We are still 4 years from the introduction of the type from LPIR lines. Most probable, it is going higher.
Now everybody knows how UNINFORMED you are. The main reason why there has been delayes & cost increases is because of a 2 year weight reduction program!
Like I said, most are STILL using OLD data…
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day1/Davisday1.pdf
Your argument is obvious. No need to write it more the 4 times.
But even if it does take off with less than maximum internal fuel (which cannot happen often of course) the 35 still must bear all the extra structure (weight) and skin (friction) of its empty tanks all the way.
But those internal tanks have a MUCH lesser effect on the perfomance of the aircraft than THREE external tanks required by the “competators” in order to carry still LESS fuel.
Ok if fuselage size and shape are of lessen importance to you, how about the other numbers I posted?
What about the wings thickness (0,6%!!!!)?
What about bypass ratio (0,6)?
What about the sweep angle (35 degrees)?
What about all the extra surface that CANNOT be dropped away when tanks are empty?Please don not misunderstand me. I dont consider the aircraft a bad design.
Not at all! Is is OK. (maybe a bad concept)
At some points it is brilliand as long as it goes SLOOOOOWWWWW. (< M0,8 or something close to that)
Good God, I am the one saying that all that matters, you OTOH said “fulseage wider than an F-4” as if THAT meant that the F-35 was incapable of supercruising (note I still do not conceed that the F-35 fuselage is wider than the F-4’s).
Look at the numbers for other SUPERSONIC aircraft. You appear to be trying to say that ONLY delta wing aircraft can fly supersonic.
A clean F-16C can can supercruise with ~10,000 lbs LESS dry thrust & can exceed Mach 2 with just ~1,000 lbs more total thrust (via afterburner) than the F-35. A clean F-15C (NOTABLY bigger, heavier & less aerodynamic) can supercruise with about the same dry thrust as the F-35.
I seriously dough M1,2 supercruise. Try 0,8… 0,81:diablo:
Keep right on drinking the Kool-Aid…
F-35 being less draggy that the F-15??? In what speeds M0,3???:confused:
Mind you a a combat-configured Typhoon does NOT contain drop tanks! Not during combat at least!
:rolleyes:
As I asked wrightwing, did you ever wondered if internal carriage of extra fuel and weapons gave ANY advantage to a fighter, why not incorporated in earlier fighters?????? Like F-15s or F-16s.
Could it be that the overall advantages are less than the overall shortcomings? Sleep on that.
Internal carriage of fuel (note that for the F-35 it is not “extra fuel but the amount required to meet its rather long range requirement, “extra” fuel can still be carried by external tanks – in which case a F-35A with TWO 600 gal external tanks carries about the same amount of fuel as a F-15C with THREE 600 gal external tanks despite the F-35A being NOTABLY smaller) & weapons HAS been incorporated into previous fighters & bombers!
As a matter of comparrison, the F-35B carries about the same amount of internal fuel as an F-15C.
Why do you think so many 4th generation fighters are being (or soon will be) fitted with conformal fuel tanks? I will tell you why, because it is more aerodynamically efficient than carrying external tanks AND it frees up hardpoints for weapons!
pfcemYou have to carry a lot more fuel than other fighters for the basic fact that the plane’s engine also consumes more fuel to move around due to a higher empty weight. If you are going to lessen that fuel, you will also seriously lessen the flight endurance and range of the fighter.
Sorry but the F-35 carries A LOT more fuel than its weight & aerodynamics require to match its “competators'” flight endurance & range (the F-35A has plenty of flight endurance & range to spare vs its “competators”). The F-35A doesn’t weigh THAT much more than its “competators” but can carry more fuel INTERNALLY than they can with THREE external tanks (take a wild guess how much weight & drag those external tanks add – not to mention taking up three hardpoints).
The F/A-18, Mig-29/35, Rafale & Typhoon all have TWO engines & generally speeking, one engine providing a given amount of thrust is more effecient than two providing the same amount – that is why all but the largest airliners now have two engines instead of four (the 777-200LR & 777-300ER have “just” two engines with 115,300 lbs of trust each).
pfcemNice one pal :rolleyes:
To state: The Eurofighter Typhoon can supercruise to a speed of mach 1.5 totally clean.
No, according to EADS, the Typhoon is theorized to supercruise to a speed of Mach 1.5 totally clean with uprated engines. Although it could actually mean with “war emergency power” from existing engines rather than new engines…
Learn it, get it in your head, whatever, it can supercruise, definitely! Tired of people, mostly from the US, thinking its impossible for a european fighter to do something better than an American jet, even when there i unquestionable evidence. AtoA config up to mach 1.3.
I NEVER said that the Typhoon can not supercruise, of course it can. However I have yet to see actual proof of the claims being put out by internet posts of Mach 1.3 with 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM & 2 drop tanks. At any rate believing that the Typhoon can supercruise with 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM & 2 drop tanks but that the F-35 can not CLEAN is ridiculus.
No, It doesnt matter at all how much thrust you have to supercruise, it depends on many, many factors. Think of an F-18F, that has more thrust than an EF but ccan barely go past mach 1.4 in AtoA config, maybe less.
BS, you can not NO WAY NO HOW supercruise without thrust. Yes it does depend on many, many factors but thrust is a VERY SIGNIFICANT factor.
The F-35 is not an F/A-18E/F. The F-35 has the thrust of the F/A-18E/F but is closer in size to the Rafale (just look at the pictures of F-35 AA-1 with the F-16 chase plane)…
pfcemSpeaking about the level of ignorance do you have any idea how much this flying bucket is going to weight:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
And I mean empty, no fuel no ordinance no pilot…
Yes I do.
OPERATIONAL EMPTY for production aircraft
(I bet most incorrectly still use the pre-weight reduction number)
F-35A: 26,600 lbs with 28,000 lbs dry & 43,000 lbs afterburn thrust
for comparission
F-15C: 28,600 lbs with 29,200 lbs dry & 47,600 lbs afterburn thrust
F-16C Block 50: 19,100 lbs with 17,150 lbs dry & 29,600 lbs afterburn thrust
F-16C Block 52: 18,335 lbs with 17,800 lbs dry & 29,100 lbs afterburn thrust
F/A-18C/D: 23,050 lbs with 23,800 lbs dry & 35,400 lbs afterburn thrust
F/A-18E/F: 30,600 lbs with 28,000 lbs dry & 44,000 lbs afterburn thrust
Rafale C: 20,000 lbs with 22,500 lbs dry & 34,000 lbs afterburn thrust
Typhoon: 24,250 lbs with 27,000 lbs dry & 40,500 lbs afterburn thrust
Mig-29S: 24,250 lbs with 22,500 lbs dry & 36,500 lbs afterburn thrust
Mig-29M: 25,600 lbs with 24,250 lbs dry & 38,800 lbs afterburn thrust
Note that just because the F-35A can carry 18,300 lbs of fuel INTERNALLY (all 4th generation light/middle-weight fighters NEED three external tanks to even come close to that) DOES NOT mean that it has to. In an air-to-air configuration of say, 12,000 lbs of fuel (2/3 max but still more than any of the above except for the F-15C & F/A-18E/F) with 4 internal AMRAAM & 2 external Sidewinder puts the take-off weight of the F-35A at ~40,000 lbs.
Have you ever noticed that its fuselage is wider than that of a phantoms, which was double-engined?
Is it really? Better check your arithmetic…
Ever learn that aerodynamics & drag are A LOT more complicated than fuselage width? I didn’t think so.
Ever wondered if the engine used in the 35 is actually the same with the engine used in the (fantastic) F-22? Apart having the same name.
No, because I have ALWAYS known that the F-35 had a different engine than the F-22. However, it is essentially the same core engine but the F135 (F-35 engine) has a larger diameter fan. The F-22 was DESIGNED to SUPERCRUISE (note that when the US uses the term supercruise in the context of the F-22 it means >Mach 1.5 rather than Mach >1.0) at ~Mach 1.6 at 50,000′ – Just becasue the F-35 has no requirement (& thus not designed) to do so does not mean that it cand do say Mach 1.2 at 35,000’… The F-15C & F-16C weren’t designed to supercruise (as in the “traditional >Mach 1.0) but CAN in a clean configuration. If you notice from above the F-35 has about the same amount of dry thrust as the F-15C & I guarantee that the F-35 is less ‘draggy’ than even a clean F-15C.
Do you have any hint , ANY, that it is going to supercruise ??
The hell it ain’t. Dry thrust similar to the F-15C & Typhoon but more aerodynamic than a clean F-15C or a combat-configured Typhoon…
So do not fool yourself.
You are the fool here not me.
PS fuel is there for a purpose. Fuel is not ballast nor dead weight.
In some circumstances a fighter (any fighter) might be able to take off with less than maximum fuel. But the rule is that most of them need all the extra fuel they can carry, which in the case of non-stealth fighters are carried in drop tanks, in the case of stealth internally.
Fuel is the life blood of a fighter, without it…it is DEAD. HUGE advantage for the F-35 is that it can carry more fuel INTERNALLY (thus not suffering the major drag penealty of external tanks) than 4th generation light/middle-weight fighters can WITH THREE EXTERNAL TANKS. And as I said before, just because the F-35A can carry 18,300 lbs of fuel does not mean that it has to…
pfcemPeople commenting on media reports… based on this:
That’s RAND taking. Who’s the idiots…
RAND & anyone who believes this crap.
pfcemGood God the level of ignorance on display here is truly frightening.
The F-35 is the US replacement for the F-16 & F/A-18, it is written into the requirements that it match OR EXCEED the flight performance of the F-16 & F/A-18 (& even the limited flight test which have been completed thus far have been “very impressive”). While the F-16 & F/A-18 are not air-superiority aircraft by the standards of the US, several other nations (& unfortunately the USN) DO use them as such.
That the latest Flankers & Fulcrums (as well as every improving SAMs) – not to mention what our adversaries will have in 10 or 20 years – are a threat the the F-15, F-16 & F/A-18 is the very reason for the F-22 & F-35.
The F-35 has almost as much DRY thrust as a F-16C block 50/52 with FULL AFTERBURNER! Slightly more dry thrust than a Typhoon & if you believe the claim that the Typhoon can supercruise in an air-to-air configuration you would have to be an absolute fool to think that the F-35 can not.
The F-35 can carry MORE fuel INTERNALLY than a F-16, F/A-18C/D, Mig-29, Typhoon or Rafale with THREE EXTERNAL TANKS! It does not take an aeronotical engineer to realize that a F-35 with internal fuel will out fly any 4th generation fighter with three drop tanks. Load a F-35 with less than a full load of fuel & it isn’t all that heavy either…
pfcemThe price for export F-35A according to Lockheed Martin & the US DOD is $58.7 million a piece.
This price is publicly known to have been quoted to Australia & Norway (no doubt other customers as well).
pfcemNo way! The Navy pays between 40 and 45 million USD per copy under the MYP-II contract.
EDIT: Here is RAND document about the costs savings of multi-year procurement contracts for the F-22A. Might help to assess how much a non-MYP Super Hornet might cost.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG664.pdf
BS.
US F/A-18E/F procurement from publicly released budgets.
2003: 45 for 3221728 = $71.6 million each
2004: 42 for 3067487 = $73.0 million each
2005: 42 for 2991592 = $71.2 million each
2006: 38 for 2751628 = $72.4 million each
2007: 34 for 2590067 = $76.2 million each
2008: 24 for 2112973 = $88.0 million each
pfcemI believe the ball has really been dropped by the USAF, by not advocating the export of the F-22 to trusted allieslike Australia- the F-22 would appear to fill the void that the F-35 is being proposed to fill. Australia has a outstanding requirement for 90-110 new fighter aircraft to replace both our deep strike F-111s and our F/A-18’s, and we are going to the length of purchasing E/F/A-18F’s as a stop gap to F-35 delivery.
Wouldnt it benefit the USAF to work towards an australian purchase of F-22’s (around 100) therefore meaning the unit price of the F-22 would go down, the need for australia to set up F-22 infrastructure would also provide useful training to the USAF in FOL excercises, and the E/F/A-18’s on the production line could be bought by the USN to help fill the gap of their own F-35 purchase, and as no F-35 have been built, no harm no foul.
Just a thought
Australia can’t afford 100 F-22s. The F-22 would cost Australia about twice as much as the F-35 & for Australia 100 F-35s is a better option than 50 F-22s.
Although, if it droped the F/A-18E/F stop-gap BS & IF the F-22 was cleared for export….25 F-22s & 75-100 F-35s would serve Australia well. The problem however is that what Australia REALLY need “ASAP” is a deep strike aircraft to replace its F-111s. The F/A-18E/F ain’t it, the F-35 is better & LESS expensive but a few years off yet.
pfcemWell actually what happened was an example of excessive financial market deregulation (as per classical capitalism), Central Bank incompetence & greed.
BS. It was NOT deregulation but OVER REGULATION. It was the US government pressuring/forcing the free market to give loans under circumstances that the free market would otherwise have not done.
pfcemIt depends on the position of the beholder. If you take an US taxpayer, then he pays the programm cost, not the flyaway cost. OTOH, if you take a Czech taxpayer who government buys/leases Gripens, then he only pays the purchase price (training, spares and weapons included). Of course, the purchase price has at least a fraction of the development costs included and is therefore at least 20-30% higher than the flyaway price of the same aircraft for domestic AF, but it is nowhere near actual program cost.
No, it is a matter of an apples-to-apples comparison of costs (either total program vs total program or flyaway vs flyaway) rather than a misleading apples-to-oranges cost comparison (total program vs flyaway).
Comparing the per airframe TOTAL PROGRAM cost of the 1st 100 (or even 1st 187) F-22 vs the flyaway cost of the 500th F-15 is utter nonsense. The per airframe TOTAL PROGRAM cost of the 1st 100 F-15 was ENORMOUS for the mid/late-70’s & in comparison the the F-4. The same was true for the F-4 when it 1st entered service.
It has been estimated that if the USAF gets the 381 F-22 it NEEDS, that the flyaway cost of the last 100 or so could be ~$120 million or less. When a NEW F-15 costs ~$90 million, ~$120 million for an F-22 looks like a steal.
If we talk about F-22, we cannot take any other price than system price because it has only been used in the USAF so far and all US taxpayers had to pay the complete system price, not just flyaway prices. If one day Japan buys export Raptors, then we will have better figures to compare.
BS. When comparing the cost of the F-22 to ANY other fighter it is only fair to compare like costs as opposed to (either deliberately to make the F-22 look more expensive than it is or through ignorance) the per airframe TOTAL PROGRAM cost of the F-22 vs the flyaway cost of what ever you are comparing it to.
pfcemIt pains me to see such ignorance & short sightedness.
The simple fact is that despite the wet dreams of some people the currect fighter force CAN NOT be maintained forever. AND it is not like our potential adversaries are exactly sitting still – Flankers & Fulcrums are ALREADY a credible threat to the F-15, F-16 & F/A-18. Sure we are in good shape TODAY but what about 10 years from now or 20 years from now…
The same BS arguments against the F-22 & F-35 were brought against the F-15 & F-16 in the 70’s & 80’s.
I am also appalled how people look at the TOTAL cost of the F-22 & F-35 & compare it to the FLYAWAY cost of other fighters. Add to that the self-fulfilling prophecy cutting procurement because of rising costs…
projected B-2 program costs in FY92 dollars
$74.3 billion for 132 = $564.9 million each
cut to
$64.8 billion for 076 = $852.6 million each
cut to
$45.3 billion for 020 = $2,265 million each
Result was that for 61% of the cost we got a wopping 15% of the number of B-2 & the per unit cost QUADRUPLED.
And last but now lease, strike capable UCAV are decades away, not years away from reality.
pfcemYou forget a little bit, the Boeing tanker bribery affair.:diablo:
The Backshish let the KC-767 also appear much more appropriate.:rolleyes:USAF lease and cancellation
For its Commercial Derivative Air Refuelling Aircraft program, the U.S. Air Force decided to lease around 100 KC-767 tankers from Boeing after it won (bribed;)) the selection process.
Despite many other nations engaging in leased aircraft, there was some criticism. U.S. Senator John McCain questioned whether it is really cost-effective for the USAF to lease aircraft at all, particularly as the aircraft would probably not have many, if any, buyers when their military service was concluded.
In December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Druyun pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail for “negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company”. Additional fallout included the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit and the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears.
No, I did not forget about the Druyun/Sears scandal, it has nothing to do with “everyone” knowing in 2002 that the A330 was wrong for the USAF OR the choice of the KC-767. The “bribe” as you call it was lead by Druyun [USAF], not Sears [Boeing]. The Druyun/Sears negotiations had been redone after Druyun left the USAF to work for Boeing & opposition to the lease resuted in a revised plan to lease 20 & procure 80. AND Boeing fired BOTH Druyun & Sears BEFORE the revised plan negotiations were finalized.
November 2002 – Druyun recuses herself from further negotiations with Boeing, retires mid-month & then accepts $250,000-a-year job with Boeing.
November 2003 – Boeing fires Druyun (former USAF acquisitions officer) & Sears for unethical conduct in Druyun’s hiring.
December 2003 – The USAF finalized negotiations with Boeing in December 2003 to lease 20 KC-767A tanker aircraft and procure 80 tanker aircraft.
October 2004 – Congress passes defense spending bill for fiscal 2005 that terminates Air Force’s authority to lease tanker aircraft.
The USAF had already all-but chosen the 767 prior to 9/11/01. And after 9/11/01 the USAF decided that it would be better to “kick-start” its tanker recapitalization by leasing 100 KC-767 in order to get them (replacing the 130+ KC-135Es) ~2006 rather than waiting until ~2012.
Negotiations with Boeing did not start until April 8, 2002. AFTER the USAF had asked Congress for “supporting language” to initiate its plan to lease KC-767s which Congress then provided in Section 8159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2002. AFTER the USAF RFI. AFTER both Airbus & Boeing replied to the RFI. AFTER the KC-767 had officially been chosen over the Airbus proposed KC-330.
pfcemHow can “everyone” have known “it was the wrong tanker…in 2002” when the blasted thing wasn’t even proposed and the Boeing deal was essentially a back room, done deal without a public RFP and bid?
On February 20, 2002, Brigadier General Darryl A. Scott, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) signed out a request for information to The Boeing Company and Airbus North America, Inc. (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, Incorporated) to begin the Air Force’s market research and assess market capabilities in the area of commercial aerial tankers.
On March 6, 2002, Air Force receives request for information responses from Boeing and Airbus.
On April 8, 2002, negotiations with Boeing began. Air Force’s position was to begin replacing the KC-135 fleet as soon as possible due to increasing challenges with maintaining a 40 plus-year old aircraft and the demands of the War on Terrorism.
On April 21, 2002, Major General Leroy Barnidge, Air Force Director of Legislative Liaison sent an e-mail to Dr. Roche; General Jumper; General Foglesong; Mr. Peter B. Teets, Under Secretary of the Air Force; Lieutenant General Joseph H. Wehrle, Jr., Air Force Assistant Vice Chief of Staff; and Ms. Druyun with a cc: to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force; Mr. William C. Bodie, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Executive Officer to the Air Force Chief of Staff; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of the Under Secretary of the Air Force; xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of Legislative Liaison; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx, Office of Legislative Liaison; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of Legislative Liaison; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of Legislative Liaison; Major General Essex; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of Legislative Liaison; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Office of Legislative Liaison; and Brigadier General Thomas L. Carter, Military Assistant to the Director of Legislative Liaison. In his e-mail, Major General Barnidge discussed a meeting Ms. Druyun and Major General Essex had with congressional staff concerning the status of the KC-767 lease.
Subject: Back brief on Meeting with [a Congressional Staffer]
“
Escorted Ms. Druyun, Maj Gen [Major General] Essex and xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx over to see [a congressional staffer] today
to discuss the AF [Air Force] evaluation of the responses to the tanker
lease request for information (RFI). It was a very productive and
worthwhile meeting on very many levels, due mainly to Mrs. Druyun’s
ability to speak authoritatively to all subjects. She started by giving [the
congressional staffer] background on how we got to where we are with
respect to the RFI responses and then proceeded with the prepared
briefing on the tanker lease RFI evaluation.
[The congressional staffer] seemed very interested in the process by
which EADS [European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company]
formulated their response to the RFI, i.e., was the AF available to take
their calls, did EADS believe their questions were answered timely and
accurately etc. [The congressional staffer] was satisfied that EADS was
provided all information requested from the AF for use in their RFI
response, and that they had missed the mark. There was a short
discussion on EADS’s future viability and competitiveness.
[The congressional staffer] asked about the way ahead and when would
the AF be able to come to the Hill with their findings.
Mrs. Druyun explained that we need to develop the classic business case
along with a net present value workup IAW [in accordance with] OMB
[Office of Management and Budget] Circular A-11, then present this to
the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] Leasing Panel after the
leadership in the AF has all been briefed. She predicted this would be
sometime in mid to late May.
[The congressional staffer] asked about the GAO [then General
Accounting Office] process and expressed that he did not want that to
slow this lease process down. He stated that the going forward with the
lease satisfies the desires of Congress (mentioned the overwhelming
majority of Congress wants this to go forward). He made the specific
point that there is a law in the books today that tells the USAF [U.S.
Air Force] to go forward with a lease, so we need to go forward. Short of
any change in the law we need to press forward with the lease.
[The congressional staffer] stated that [a Representative] and most
Members believe the USAF needs these aircraft. He commented that the
leasing approach may not be the best way to get it done but the bottom
line is we need a platform and a lot of people (overwhelming majority)
thought this legislation would move this process forward. [The
congressional staffer] stated that if a small minority succeeds in stopping
this current lease effort, we will be without a KC-135 replacement for a
long time. There is a window of opportunity here that if it closes might
not be available for some time. Certain Members and their staffs need to
get over when they were notified– first or last– and get on with what is
best for the country. Mrs. Druyun stated that the best she thought we
would be able to negotiate is a six or seven-year lease. The driving factor
for this is the market value of the aircraft at the end of the lease. It will
be very difficult to remarket 100 767 tankers. [Emphasis added.]
[The congressional staffer] said several times how much he appreciated
us coming. He said that there is a strong but silent majority who want
this to go forward. He said he is satisfied we are moving along despite
some of the official comments by the AF. He reiterated that if this falls
through, re-engagement will be difficult.
Several other topics were discussed:
[The congressional staffer] asked about the status of the 737 lease. Mrs.
Druyun stated that the business case will be tough to make. Mrs. Druyun
said that she received the Boeing proposal and she did not like it. She
has engaged Boeing senior management and she is working the issue to
get the best deal available. [The congressional staffer] stated that the
business case is not everything, that there are other factors involved.
[The congressional staffer] stated there are a lot of people expecting to
use of the two Ford Aerospace BBJs this July. Mrs. Druyun said she
understands and will do her best. She said the results of the business
case should be over to the Hill around the 20th of May.
Another issue discussed pertained to the Berry Amendment (buy only
American forged specialty metals), and how in this case it will
significantly increase the costs of manufacture for both the 767 and 737
while allowing unfair advantages to foreign manufacturers like EADS.
[The congressional staffer] was surprised by the implications and asked if
relief could be provided through legislation.
There were two taskers pertaining to requests from [the congressional
staffer] for draft legislation:
-Provide draft legislation which may provide relief/clarification on the
Berry Amendment with respect to amending Section 8159 of the
Approps Act.
-Provide draft legislation WRT [with respect to] to Sect [Section] 8159
which provides for lease options such as lease to buy etc.
“
pfcemEADS maybe withdraw
http://www.n-tv.de/TankerflugzeugAusschreibung_EADS_droht_mit_Rueckzug/130920080518/1023054.html
Sounds like EADS recognizes that without supports in the DOD willing & able to further alter the requirements to accomodate the KC-30, that it is unlikely to win because even it knows that the KC-30 is the wrong tanker for the USAF just as “everyone” did in 2002.
Sign In
