kalvasflam

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/boei...4B0C81CD98CE%7D You know, the truth of the matter is, every delay kills Boeing a little more. Remember, there are always options to cancel orders, remember the A380F. A delay of a year means that opens slots are pushed out a year. A delay would also mean that as a company, Boeing will be paying penalties out the nose to customers. A delay means more opportunity for Airbus to compete on equal terms. This of course assumes the A350 doesn't face yet another screw up as well. On top of all that, a delay means longer time horizon for the 787-10, which may or may not happen. Boeing is going down the tubes because of this. 45 units delivered instead of the original 112 planned, that's a ton of penalty, not to mention unhappy customers that might flock to Airbus. Hell, considering how they'll be screwing over ANA, Boeing may as well be handing EADS the key to the Japan market.

The sad thing is, if Boeing put up the 777, they would've likely won Or heck, if they played fair in the first round of negotiation, they wouldn't be in this fix. As expected, the CEO of Boeing is literally screwing things over for everyone right now. This is the problem for McNerdy, since he took over, Boeing is not doing so well any more. 787 going down the tubes with delays, KC-X lost, wonder when he'll resign

Has that been confirmed that the KC-45 will in fact been built within the US? I thought part of the reason for the big ruckus as that the airframe itself would be built in Europe. Which makes the economics interesting given where the Euro is relative to the dollar. Beyond that, I had thought at one point Boeing was talking about the 777 in tanker format.

This is interesting, I remember the merits for the A330 being that it would double as a cargo aircraft as well as a flying gas station. I wonder how far this will actually go. Congress is already up in arms. The major concern ended up being that the majority of the aircraft will be built in Europe, so the job creation in the US is small in comparison if Boeing got the contract. I also wonder why Northrop bothered, their last major manned aircraft was the B-2. I don't count them for the F-35, since that's a Lockheed project. In some part I wonder if they even have that much capability left. May be this is somebody's attempt to get Northrop back into the aircraft production business. Although I don't think it's necessarily a good idea.

Boy, I'd love to see some real carrier warfare again, a la WWII Pacific.

The main question of Indian carrier comes down to logistics. They had a few of them before, but really, they were British baby carriers of the Hermes class if I recall correct. I wonder if India would have the necessary infrastructure and money needed to keep a super carrier afloat and operating all the time. I forget, can someone tell me what it costs to actually have a carrier operation on a daily basis. It won't be cheap, I know India is much richer than it was a decade ago, but I wonder how much their military could really afford keep a carrier like the Kitty Hawk or even the Ranger floating.

So, unless the Tomahawk has a greater than 80% failure rate, they can still be as cost effective as a D5 loaded with 8 MIRVs unless its a super hardened target. The penetration capability would be something, and the supplemental portion is also a good point, but at the end of the day, you're not much better off than a B-2 and it would only be a one shot deal.

Ok, here is what the B-2 is good for. It has the ability to retarget all the way up to the point the bombs are dropped. It has the range that isn't available to the tactical bombers you've mentioned. And it can hit moving targets, unlike conventional SLBMs, which pretty much locks in a target set in mind once you press the button. Delivery of nuclear weapons was the original designed function, but at the end of the day, it is still a capable platform for penetrating heavily defended areas and is still recallable, and can still be retargeted midway. Conventional SLBMs can't do that. You pointed out that B-2 is losing its technological edge, doesn't that mean that the B-1Bs and B-52s are also more vulnerable at the same time. If the other bombers can't penetrate the area, and if the target is moving, then your conventional ballistic missiles are worthless. So, what options would you have left beyond the stealth bomber. As for the silver bullets, that's only as long as the targets are stationary, and why would you do this if you could just overwhelm a target with cruise missiles anyway. That's why you have the SSGNs in the first place.

Didn't mean high speed, just the rather fast bank in. Should've made that clearer. It's pretty fun to ride on it that way the first time, when you see the runway moving away from you in parallel, then the pilot does a bank. Not high speed, but really interesting if they did do it at high speed. On the hypersonic bomber, love the idea, but with our procurement involved, we'll end up with five units, each costing $10 B. Though, the idea of SLBMs filling the same role is kind of silly. How many SLBMs would we have to procure here? Let's assume they MIRVed the darn thing, it'd still be limited to about 240 targets per sub. Then the reloads, etc, etc. What a pain.

heh heh, they still do this in Hawaii with Aloha airlines 737 from what I remember, although, the 180 probably isn't quite that tight. The poor Cathay Pac pilot, now he'll never get another job.....

The problem is that the US doesn't exactly have a replacement for the B-2 on the drawing board. Heck, given the low volumes, the attrition is a big deal. The only replacements are old B-1Bs, and even older B-52s. Too bad really, there should've been about 50 to 70 of these babies procured, so that one unit lost does not actually make a big dent. Alternatively, just build another 100 B-1Bs....

Offering means "free"? Geez, someone is being very magnanimous, what a cheap way to help Boeing. May be this is a round about way of paying for a new ATB since we're down to 20 B-2s now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332038,00.html Well, it's a good thing there are 20 more of these things.... and thank God the production line got shut down so no more can be built.

The first KOTOR was great, the second was rushed. If they do KOTOR 3, I hope they manage it with a continuation of the characters that were developed in the last two games. I always like an RPG with a good story, the game play in KOTOR wasn't bad either.

I initially thought that the three new gundams was too many, but the storyline is getting better, looking at the spoilers that was posted, I'll actually be sorry (I think) when this show goes on hiatus. We'll have to wait to see how things are handled, they're building up a nice sense of mystery, I just hope they keep it up. The plan hopefully won't be more secret dictator type stuff. As for the Trinity, I'm starting to like them actually, nice psycho villains, a bit of a reminder of the three EA pilots in SEED, except they might last longer. Glad to see they're just on strings, but I'd like to see the puppet master soon, may be at the end of the season as the suspense build for next season.

NYC, soon to be the Tokyo of the US Monster movies. I'll see this some time this weekend, but sounds like a good movie, hopefully they will make a sequel, and not the shakey handheld format. May be they could do a POV from a soldier or a chopper pilot, and intercut with commanders in the background to give more details overall. They have cameras on troops now anyway, at least in Hollywood style situations, so this would be workable.

Bah, it's all the same with the news media, let's talk about a problem and then find ways to spread the blame. Nothing on potential solutions like putting in additional -22s on order.

I like the number 831, it's just an anagram of 183.... on the other hand... poor 787... compensation city, here we come. As for the BA777... ran out of fuel? What the hell? Did the ground crew at Beijing pull a Peter Griffin?

uh oh... it's starting to smell like an A380 http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Stor...o&dist=yhoo I suppose the upshot is they're saying it now instead of three weeks before delivery.

The end sequence was a bit lame, the opening was typical, nothing too special. As long as we don't start seeing Zakus, Goufs, Doms, I think this show has some hope of a decent future. But I would also like to limit the number of Gundams if possible. Some of the Meisters need to die off soon if they bring in three more machines and new pilots.

And get blown away... literally. heh heh. I hope one day, they'll fly A380s there.

Who was it delivered to? Was reading that the A380 with SIA had its first mishap, was towed into the grass supposedly.

I wonder if these three Throne Gundams can merge to become Voltron, defender of the Universe... or some other such BS.

I can understand the need to keep certain things secret, but what is the point of coming if not to test the capabilities of the aircraft and crew in the first place? If they get legitimately beaten by the opposition, then they'll never know if the fault is with the pilots or with the equipment. Which makes the exercise moot.

Why not, it would be equivalent of the F-15 ploy, so that we can say that the current generation isn't cutting mustard, and we need full speed ahead on the next generation. I wonder how hard it would be to buy a MKI anyway, it's not as if there wasn't a plethora of Flankers out in the world already.