Quote:
Originally Posted by N. Eberhard
Interesting tidbit here. The current Sec of the Air Force has been out of the Air Force for THIRTY FIVE YEARS! He has no direct experience with tankers of any sort, in fact, he has been involved in space and missile programs for the better part of three decades since leaving the AF.
This is the guy who professes to know that the A330 will make a better tanker even though it has never been used as such and neither EADS nor Northrup Grumman have been involved in making tankers.
Am I missing something here?
|
Hi Nick,
I think its a bit much expecting the Secretary for Air Force to have specifically had tanker experience, much the same as we wouldn't expect our Australian Defence Secretary or Defence Minister to have driven a tank, Captained a ship or flown a fighter jet. The Secretary's job is to promote the outcomes of the KC-X project as well as look after
all other aspects of the US Department of Air Force. Could you imagine the uproar if the KC-X project concluded that the Northrop Grumman / EADS product was superior and the Secretary started to talk up the Boeing product. Also, I suspect that there will have been countless tanker jocks and maintainers all over this project, and if they haven't, then that's just plain dumb.
I think the public sentiment is split on this decision. Personally, I think the KC-30B is the better choice and you obviously think differently. It doesn't matter which way they went, they will have always copped some flack.
BTW, I checked out two of Senator Murray's speeches regarding the tanker and I find it interesting that at no point does she argue that the KC767 is a better tanker than the KC-30. Of course that is typical of politicians.
