Talk:United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New name[edit]

After further thought, I think "United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort" is probably a better title than "United States Air Force tanker contract controversy" because the controversies are just one portion of the main issue, which is the effort by the USAF to replace the KC-135. So, I'm going to rename the article. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kc45 Fuels b2 rendering.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Kc45 Fuels b2 rendering.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed controversies text[edit]

Below is the text that was removed twice.

Controversial

The tanker replacement program was controversial at the start, and has become more controversial since first being published.[1][2][3][4]

Cost

The most recent award of nearly $40 Billion initial with overall $100 Billion price tag awarded as a sole contract in an unstable economy adds risks to the long term viability of the program.[5]

Autonomous vehicles

Independent reviews have questioned the usefulness of a manned tanker replacement.[6] The US (and foreign) armed forces are moving towards unmanned vehicles (Unmanned Arial Vehicles for air) and future warfare will likely be focused on partially or completely autonomous vehicles (see also DARPA Grand Challenge, DARPA Urban Challenge,[7] and Berkeley Aerobot Research autonomous helicopter[8]).

References
  1. ^ http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAN2861183920080302
  2. ^ http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=7985639
  3. ^ http://www.defensereview.com/us-air-force-kc-x-aerial-refueling-tanker-program-controversy-defrev-opinion/
  4. ^ http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/05/07/developments-in-refueling-tanker-controversy/
  5. ^ http://www.kansas.com/business/updates/story/1000117.html
  6. ^ Project Air Force. RAND
  7. ^ http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp
  8. ^ http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/bear/

The controversial part restates what is stated or implied already in the article. The reference for the cost does not support the $100 billion claim. Most of the Autonomous vehicles content is not connected to tankers by the references. The RAND report says they are an option, but not a good one now. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is implication but no formal citation to official controversy in this article. Further, to restate something that is implied is how technical articles and text books are written -- why would you believe it is a foul to further explain that here?
  • Program cost is $40 Billion "which could be extended for decades and eventually cost 100 billion dollars for the construction of 400 tankers" [1]
  • RAND identifies autonomous vehicles are not good as of 2006 (the date of writing). DARPA works on tomorrows technology, and the warfighter community has been moving towards autonomous and unmanned vehicles for a number of years. If the contract is delayed, autonomous vehicles become an option. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of coverage of controversy in this article, specifically in each round. The word does not have to be stated for it to be covered. Also, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Let the facts speak for themselves. A mention of controversy in the Lead would enough. My other comments above concern the references that were included with the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article outlines the bidding process since 2003, and identifies controversies in the bidding process. The article as it stands does not identify controversies with the program or the program intent, which was the purpose of this section. The fact is, this is a controversial replacement program, aside from being a controversial bidding process, some organizations call it a jobs program. If you wanted additional references, then you could have googled for them as suggested and included them for all of us, or simply asked that I or someone else included additional references, and with that I would have assisted. I do not believe this section should be in the Lead section as you suggested, I think it should be a later section. If you wish to put it in the Lead, by all means, do that -- I am only positioned to say that the controversial aspects of this program need to be included somewhere. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no one votes against adding the Program Controversies section (as opposed to the article, which includes Bidding Controversies) with a relevant reason within a week or so, I'll add it in to the article page. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothrop Grumman[edit]

I'm only finding 2 stories dated Dec 7 and 8 that say NG has pulled out of KV-X. These two stories reference reporets from the previous week, which were since debunked by most major news sources, including these:

Please stop adding out of date info. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles referencing NG threatening to pull out:

  • [2]
  • December 1st, [3]
  • [4]
  • December 2nd, "as saga grinds on" (identifying controversy) [5]
  • December 1st, "Sen. Murray Says NG “Up to Old Tricks” and Wants to “Undermine the American Aerospace Industry.“" [6]

The area that I added that you deleted says

  • According to articles[1], Northrop is still interested in bidding, but will not entertain bidding on the contract in it's current state, but is interested in having the Pentagon change the RFP "in a way that would enable us to offer our product for your consideration."

Why did you delete it? Thanks. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one votes against adding the text and references identified above ("According to articles...") with a relevant reason, I'll add it back to the page in a week or so. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of KC-X article[edit]

Much of this article duplicate the KC-X page. Without the KC-X info, there's not much point in keeping this article, and most of that could be summed up in a backround section there. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of duplication with other articles- does it add any value? most of it is just a duplication of other article. Is their anything unique in this article? MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very redundant. Seems like the users that started this just ignored the KC-X article, which was started over a year prior. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this -- the original page was "United States Air Force tanker contract controversy." The edits that have been going on to remove the controversies section actually disrupted what the creator intended. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See #New name comment at the top of this page - that's the same user who created the article, and he gives his reasons for the rename. - BilCat (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and you removed the "controversies" subsection, which is what he seems to have intended to have remain ("the controversies are just one portion of the main issue"). Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, they were spinning out some info from the KC-135 page, which had gotten quite big. Good intentions, but poor execution, and no follow-through. Now it's just become another KC-X page. Since we have an active user who might object to an undiscussed merge, I'm going to propose a merge to KC-X later today. - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The merge could go either way, but KC-X is a more common name. So that's better... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the two pages should be merged, but as a reference I found the KC-135 replacement effort through a google search of "tanker replacement wikipedia". That might bode well to merge into the KC-135 page, just because it has more traction on google. Also, edit the "tanker" page at [7] Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll keep those pages in mind too, and fork any relevant info to them. - BilCat (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) The consensus here is to Merge, with KC-X the probable choice. It can always be renamed later. Jeff, would you want to do the merge, or shall I? It doens't matter to me either way. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanker disambiguation page[edit]

  • Why did you delete the link to Tanker Replacement from the Tanker Disambiguation Page, BilCat? Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because "tanker" isn't even in the title, DAB pages are not directories - they list actual page titles. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat, the word "Tanker" appears 47 times. If you are being that "strict" with your article writing, you will petition to change the article to have "Tanker" in the title. I don't think it is necessary. Googling "Tanker Replacement" brings up this article, which is why it SHOULD be in the reference/index. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again Tanker is not in this article's title: "United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort". A search for Tanker in Wikipedia's search box does not turn up a hit for this article. That's one of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling "tanker replacement" (both with and without quotes) brings up the page. It was the first hit a few days ago, it is still the first page (8th one down). How do we best bring this article into the Tanker pages, since it is part of the Tanker programs and does appear with Google? Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, DAB pages aren't topic directories. They only list articles that actually have the given word in the title, and which might be reasonably expected to be at DABed title. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still learning here (as you both know), so I had to read the DAB page. According to the page, DAB is used to disambiguate articles "with similar titles or concepts," of which this is a Tanker Replacement one. The DAB page says "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses" to the title to help in the disambiguation. So BilCat, are you suggesting that we rename the article "United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort (Tanker Replacement)" or "United States Air Force KC-135 Tanker Replacement effort"? If that would be within the guidelines of Wiki, I'm okay with either one. I don't know how Indexes work yet. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Tanker is in the title. KC means Tanker Transport[2] in the United States. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot anyway, as this article is being merged today. Also, you really should discuss DAB page matters on their own talk pages, but it's not wrong that you brought this one up here either. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://blog.al.com/live/2009/12/northrop_drops_bid_for_air_for.html
  2. ^ http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-US-Military-Aircraft-Designations
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Air_Force_KC-135_replacement_effort&oldid=1201201075"