Actually Chock, when you talk to the Russians, ask them if they think the Cold War is over. Only last year I was talking with one of my ArmA buddies who is Russian and he stated flat out that the Cold War isn't over. When the Russians are still trying to fight the Cold War, sorry I don't like the idea of the Russians even being considered, especially after this news story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...uter-virus.html

Well in my opinion, an ArmA buddy's views are not really conclusive evidence that the Cold War is still on. Lets face it - it's pretty much over.The link you have provided points to a 'French fighter planes grounded by computer virus' Telegraph article, which states that the 'French Naval officials said the "infection" was probably due more to negligence than a deliberate attempt to compromise French national security.........' - No mention of Russians anywhere in there, so not sure what you are trying to say with it.

One bloke that likes playing Arma can hardly be considered a spokesman for Russian foreign policy, and that news story was about French negligence over keeping their software secure, with nothing whatsoever to do with Russia. Moreover, one suspects if they had used Russian software instead of stuff from Microsoft, they probably wouldn't have been affected by it!It took a long time, but the Russians did finally realise that economics are more effective than Tu-95s when it comes to global domination.Al

That's true. The Concorde, Vickers VC-10 and Tupolev Tu-114 are good examples of this.

If an aircraft doesn't sell there's usually a reason for it - no one wants it.Both Concorde and the VC-10 were developed for markets that didn't exist: they weren't wanted and failed.Only 20 Concordes were ever built and only 14 of these were to production standards. The development phase imposed huge costs on the British and French taxpayers. This syphonbed off all the funds for civil aviation development leaving the 747unchallenged for many years. Initially, BA bought 5 and AirFrance 4. Thse airlines were given the remaining 5 production aircraft for

All true of course, but you will note that the VC-10 then went on to serve in the military for decades, so it is actually an example of an aircraft that was not commercially successful as the makers had hoped, but later became a good military tanker aircraft.Al

All true of course, but you will note that the VC-10 then went on to serve in the military for decades, so it is actually an example of an aircraft that was not commercially successful as the makers had hoped, but later became a good military tanker aircraft.Al

The RAF had no choice (unlike BOAC). The UK government forced the VC-10 on the RAF in order to support Vickers - just as the US Government is now trying to support Boeing. To paraphrase a well-known saying "The VC-10 was the best tanker the RAF had got".

I just don't see any politically defensible way for any foreign company to win that contract given what's happening in our Ponziconomy. On the other hand, consider that when the last shuttle flight goes up in the not very distant future, the only way American astronauts will be able to get to the International Space Station will be on a Russian rocket, and we no longer even have a plan on the horizon for a man-rated booster.What an Obamanation...RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I just don't see any politically defensible way for any foreign company to win that contract given what's happening in our Ponziconomy. On the other hand, consider that when the last shuttle flight goes up in the not very distant future, the only way American astronauts will be able to get to the International Space Station will be on a Russian rocket, and we no longer even have a plan on the horizon for a man-rated booster.What an Obamanation...RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Our president deserves more credit than that, it's a tough job trying to fix our economy after eight years of fraud, waste, and abuse under Bush, Colonel.Jeff USAF (separated)

It's not worth my time trying to explain it, I have better things to do, like writing code. Just read these:http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs...9702&lng=enhttp://www.parapundit.com/archives/005452.htmlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=17169As for those fighter planes, the point is that a virus could ground one in the first place. Imagine if someone created a virus to disable or destroy these aircraft during war. In other words, think of the worst that can happen, because odds are, that is what will happen.Then again, maybe I've been watching too much GITS and reading too many Tom Clancy books lately. (And maybe I shouldn't have read books like Rainbow Six when I was around 9-15.)

If an aircraft doesn't sell there's usually a reason for it - no one wants it.Both Concorde and the VC-10 were developed for markets that didn't exist: they weren't wanted and failed.Only 20 Concordes were ever built and only 14 of these were to production standards. The development phase imposed huge costs on the British and French taxpayers. This syphonbed off all the funds for civil aviation development leaving the 747unchallenged for many years. Initially, BA bought 5 and AirFrance 4. Thse airlines were given the remaining 5 production aircraft for

This is all politics......and let there be no doubt, Senators Cantwell and Murray already have assurances from the great leader that Boeing will prevail. It will play out according to the rules so there can be no possibilty that talks of deals were cut behind closed doors. I live in Washington and ever since Murray complained of this Airbus deal I knew the gig was up for Airbus. The Air Force wanted the Airbus for reasons I will not speculate on this forum, but have suspicions, and it has nothing to do with the airplanes themselves. So forget the airplanes, that is not the reason for this fiasco. This is pure politics plan and simple. It is unions and a state economy which is in the tank and politicians who nn to be re-elected and nn the support from the one county in Washington which will make or break the democratic party in this state. And those are the facts :(

Our president deserves more credit than that, it's a tough job trying to fix our economy after eight years of fraud, waste, and abuse under Bush, Colonel.Jeff USAF (separated)

Our president deserves more credit than that, it's a tough job trying to fix our economy after eight years of fraud, waste, and abuse under Bush, Colonel.Oh please.......................thats pathetic :(

What is worth noting about Concorde, is that it was important for several reasons beyond the SST's lack of broader commercial success, although it is a fact that BA were making a profit with it in the aircraft's latter years. But even if that had not been the case, they would probably have continued to fly it, because it was an iconic marketing tool for them which most other airlines would have also gladly taken a dip in profits for. BA didn't adopt the slogan 'The World's Favourite Airline' because they were flying 747-200s, it was the Concorde which allowed them to claim that name without it seeming a joke; Richard Branson was falling over himself trying to get hold of the Concorde for Virgin Atlantic before it finally got grounded, and he's no fool when it comes to business promotion.With the exception of the minor collaboration between DeHavilland and Sud Aviation on the Caravelle, the BAC/Aerospatiale cooperative effort went a long way towards being a prototype for the joint effort between nations for the Airbus consortium, in particular the decision to ratify the GIE laws in France and the formation of the Airbus Consortium under that treaty, based on the lessons learned with the BAC/Aerospatiale collaboration.Beyond that, the aerodynamic research undertaken for the Concorde led to numerous successful other ventures, particularly in military aircraft systems and avionics, and the technology put Airbus Industry ahead of most other manufacturers when it came to wing design, a fact even Boeing acknowledged when they attempted to broker a collaborative effort with Airbus and British Aerospace on the Boeing 757 when it was seen how economical the A300 was.The groundwork laid down in technological and collaborative business efforts between Britain and France on the Concorde can be seen in the success of EADS these days - the Airbus consortium started off being regarded as an act of desperation from Europe, but in recent months they've actually delivered more airliners than Boeing, which is a remarkable achievement in the space of less than 40 years when we consider that going for the SST gave Boeing in particular a free shot at the medium airliner business for decades. Britain and France paid dearly for the Concorde for a long time, yet without it, they probably wouldn't have had any aviation industry these days, and now EADs is reaping the rewards of that groundwork.Back on the original topic however, it is likely that the overtures by the USAF are nothing more than an attempt to get more funding for more aircraft, by threatening to go with Airbus or Tupolev or whatever, under the guise of looking for value for money so that the purse strings loosen. It's political football. The expense of two Gulf Wars and the continuing conflict in Afghanistan have put a major strain on the USAF's aircraft and used up many thousands of hours on airframes that were expected to keep going for a lot longer than they have done thanks to those conflicts. The USAF was told just a few years ago that their hopes of replacing the massive fleets of aircraft that were built for the Cold War was not going to happen, and that they would have to get along with multirole aircraft, and less of them, which they cannot do when expected to fight several conflicts around the world and support the logistics of those fights. Multirole aircraft are great, but even the best multirole aircraft ever made cannot be at Edwards AFB, Kandahar and Basra all at the same time. Something has got to give, and you can bet that the threat of buying a Russian aircraft and in doing so potentially threatening US jobs is an overture from the USAF chiefs motivated by nothing more than the attempt to get the budget they need for what they are being asked to do, and in that you cannot blame them.Al

I think that this article really does explain the dire situation this really is causing:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/08/th...ir-force-aloft/Also on a related side note, has anyone else seen this?http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/ta...e-later-haters/

I don't think the PACER CRAIG Block 40 KC-135Rs are as rickety as that link implies.scott s..

Our president deserves more credit than that, it's a tough job trying to fix our economy after eight years of fraud, waste, and abuse under Bush, Colonel.Jeff USAF (separated)

Thanks for serving, Jeff. The cancellation of America's manned space flight capability is something we didn't do even in the disastrous oil-shocked economy of the 1970s.And let's not forget that America's fiscal appropriations during those eight years were written by a Congress not controlled by one party. That's not to say the former President is blameless, but he doesn't appropriate one dime of money--Congress does.Given the current president's history of voting "present" and otherwise being a chameleon during his years in the Senate, I am not willing to give him a pass on bearing great responsibility for the current state of the economy. But then the CEO of Goldman Sachs is more forgiving of him than I...Lots of people want to blame the last President for our economic woes. A little review of history will reveal that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act--which dismantled the protections put in place after the crash of 1929--was passed several years before G. W. Bush took office. That set the stage for the financial meltdown of 2008 at least as much as any act or omission of the former President. When former CFTC chair Brooksley Born attempted to create an exchange to regulate derivatives trading (at the heart of our meltdown) it was another president's economic team that stepped on her neck and prevented it...and one of those men was rewarded for his Clinton-era failure by being appointed the current president's principal economic advisor.But I digress. I find it hard to suggest the Russians aren't capable of competing for the NGT contract when we plan to have to thumb a ride with them to get an astronaut into orbit. I think our lack of vision for the future is positively astounding.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO