Boeing loses $40 billion contract .......

[Federal Farmer]

Also the US does need ak-47 for other areas as well, and for our own military. Special Forces would have AK's as for both black ops and for arming others around the world we support. In any case, I say buy them up, china makes the good cheap ak's and no reason to fear any security risk from it.

Again....from the LIberal......

Oh, don't misunderstand, we've got buttloads of them, but the ones we have are the good ones, as opposed to the cheap p.o.s. ones that most everyone else has today. The AK is but one of the many foreign arms I was fully qualified on, so I know from whence I speak on this subject. All in all it's a damned fine weapon, but the round that it's chambered for (7.62 X 39) isn't much good beyond 350-400 yards, while our new M-16A2 is still highly effective beyond 500, and in the hands of an expert marksman, can be relied on to kill at 600 yards (nothing like being able to destroy your enemy before he can even get within range of his weapons). Think of it as a security measure. Even if we do eventually have to go up against someone with one of the weapons we gave them, or even a lot of someones with the weapons we gave them, we can take them out long before they can even engage us, and we'll simply take our weapon back out of their cold dead hands.

It's just another of the many things that Libtards like PLC1 seem to forget. I bet he was also blissfully unaware of the fact that the current cost of an M-16A2 is about $800.00 to $1,000.00, while the cost of a Chinese AK is about $50.00. So here we are, arming the Iraqi's, so that they can defend themselves instead of having to rely so heavily on us, and he's complaining about us doing it and saving money in the process! Wait a minute, isn't that the same thing he was doing about the 767/A-330 discussion? Fargin' idiot complains about us going into Iraq and screeches about wanting us out, but when we start doing what we have to do so that we CAN leave, he's still b1tching like some stupid little girl who woke up on the rag.

 

[PLC1]

Oh, don't misunderstand, we've got buttloads of them, but the ones we have are the good ones, as opposed to the cheap p.o.s. ones that most everyone else has today. The AK is but one of the many foreign arms I was fully qualified on, so I know from whence I speak on this subject. All in all it's a damned fine weapon, but the round that it's chambered for (7.62 X 39) isn't much good beyond 350-400 yards, while our new M-16A2 is still highly effective beyond 500, and in the hands of an expert marksman, can be relied on to kill at 600 yards (nothing like being able to destroy your enemy before he can even get within range of his weapons). Think of it as a security measure. Even if we do eventually have to go up against someone with one of the weapons we gave them, or even a lot of someones with the weapons we gave them, we can take them out long before they can even engage us, and we'll simply take our weapon back out of their cold dead hands.

It's just another of the many things that Libtards like PLC1 seem to forget. I bet he was also blissfully unaware of the fact that the current cost of an M-16A2 is about $800.00 to $1,000.00, while the cost of a Chinese AK is about $50.00. So here we are, arming the Iraqi's, so that they can defend themselves instead of having to rely so heavily on us, and he's complaining about us doing it and saving money in the process! Wait a minute, isn't that the same thing he was doing about the 767/A-330 discussion? Fargin' idiot complains about us going into Iraq and screeches about wanting us out, but when we start doing what we have to do so that we CAN leave, he's still b1tching like some stupid little girl who woke up on the rag.

What a pile of lib drivel. You think it's better to fund the war by borrowing from the Chi Coms, then to buy their cheaper weapons. What makes you think I'm "blissfully unaware" that the Chi Com goods are cheaper? That's what I've been saying all along, isn't it?

Why do you libs favor the Chi Coms over the USA? Next, you'll be calling yourself a conservative for borrowing from them rather than doing the responsible thing and paying for the war as we go along.

 

[Federal Farmer]

What a pile of lib drivel. You think it's better to fund the war by borrowing from the Chi Coms, then to buy their cheaper weapons. What makes you think I'm "blissfully unaware" that the Chi Com goods are cheaper? That's what I've been saying all along, isn't it?

Why do you libs favor the Chi Coms over the USA? Next, you'll be calling yourself a conservative for borrowing from them rather than doing the responsible thing and paying for the war as we go along.

OK, you're an idiot, so you can join the other one on my Ignore list, you're simply too stupid to waste any more of my time on. Goodbye!

 

[PLC1]

OK, you're an idiot, so you can join the other one on my Ignore list, you're simply too stupid to waste any more of my time on. Goodbye!

Some can be educated, some can not. Even the most obvious irony and sarcasm is lost on some.

Have fun.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Oh, don't misunderstand, we've got buttloads of them, but the ones we have are the good ones, as opposed to the cheap p.o.s. ones that most everyone else has today. The AK is but one of the many foreign arms I was fully qualified on, so I know from whence I speak on this subject. All in all it's a damned fine weapon, but the round that it's chambered for (7.62 X 39) isn't much good beyond 350-400 yards, while our new M-16A2 is still highly effective beyond 500, and in the hands of an expert marksman, can be relied on to kill at 600 yards (nothing like being able to destroy your enemy before he can even get within range of his weapons). Think of it as a security measure. Even if we do eventually have to go up against someone with one of the weapons we gave them, or even a lot of someones with the weapons we gave them, we can take them out long before they can even engage us, and we'll simply take our weapon back out of their cold dead hands.

It's just another of the many things that Libtards like PLC1 seem to forget. I bet he was also blissfully unaware of the fact that the current cost of an M-16A2 is about $800.00 to $1,000.00, while the cost of a Chinese AK is about $50.00. So here we are, arming the Iraqi's, so that they can defend themselves instead of having to rely so heavily on us, and he's complaining about us doing it and saving money in the process! Wait a minute, isn't that the same thing he was doing about the 767/A-330 discussion? Fargin' idiot complains about us going into Iraq and screeches about wanting us out, but when we start doing what we have to do so that we CAN leave, he's still b1tching like some stupid little girl who woke up on the rag.

Also in any variant, the ak-47 is almost worthless in full auto unless at very close range to to its recoil, same thing the US learned with he origi m-16 before moving it to a burst fire, rather then full auto.

And don't forget, when you bash the libs....I am a lib

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What a pile of lib drivel. You think it's better to fund the war by borrowing from the Chi Coms, then to buy their cheaper weapons. What makes you think I'm "blissfully unaware" that the Chi Com goods are cheaper? That's what I've been saying all along, isn't it?

Why do you libs favor the Chi Coms over the USA? Next, you'll be calling yourself a conservative for borrowing from them rather than doing the responsible thing and paying for the war as we go along.

Borowing from a American company just to look good for you, but costing more ...is still a cost paid in greater amount by those who come later.

And as I stated, there is a reason you buy Ak=47 from china for Iraq...thats where Iraq is going to get the guns later, the parts, and where we can buy them and not have later arms traced back to US arms. Its Cheaper, they are better, and they are harder to trace if we use them someplace else...you want jobs, go build a road or something.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Also in any variant, the ak-47 is almost worthless in full auto unless at very close range to to its recoil, same thing the US learned with he origi m-16 before moving it to a burst fire, rather then full auto.

Well, most any battle rifle is worthless in a long burst of full auto, but that's not what they're primarily designed to do. The one good thing about a full auto capability though is that it gives everyone the ability to lay down a crushing amount of firepower, when they NEED to. Also, I never had any trouble controlling the M-16 on full auto, and could consistently put all 30 into the target at 100 yards. The AK on the other hand, FORGET IT!!

And don't forget, when you bash the libs....I am a lib

Well, you may be a "liberal", but thus far you haven't given me the impression of being a "libtard". Also, and for the sake of clarity, are you a "liberal", or are you a "Liberal"?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well, most any battle rifle is worthless in a long burst of full auto, but that's not what they're primarily designed to do. The one good thing about a full auto capability though is that it gives everyone the ability to lay down a crushing amount of firepower, when they NEED to. Also, I never had any trouble controlling the M-16 on full auto, and could consistently put all 30 into the target at 100 yards. The AK on the other hand, FORGET IT!!



Well, you may be a "liberal", but thus far you haven't given me the impression of being a "libtard". Also, and for the sake of clarity, are you a "liberal", or are you a "Liberal"?

Was it a old M-16? I it was must understanding that M-16s went away from full auto to just 3shot burst due to troops waisting to much ammo just firing it. While the AK-47 has only single and full. But yes, Full auto is basically for when you just want to pour more fire down on someone, and not relay for aiming at anything more or less. Then again so many versions of them all these days...

As for Lib vs lib...depends what you mean. If you mean am I a Democrat...no, but they are the National party I am closest to. I am a member of the Independence Party, but have supported Edwards, Kerry, and most likely Obama but that is not a given yet.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Was it a old M-16? I it was must understanding that M-16s went away from full auto to just 3shot burst due to troops waisting to much ammo just firing it. While the AK-47 has only single and full. But yes, Full auto is basically for when you just want to pour more fire down on someone, and not relay for aiming at anything more or less. Then again so many versions of them all these days...

Yup, in fact it was one of the ORIGINAL M-16's, the ones before the forward assist. The "logic" behind the 3 round burst was an effort to save ammo, but I guess it's just because troops today lack the discipline to do 3 or 4 round bursts on their own as we were taught. Too many Rambo movies or whatever.

As for Lib vs lib...depends what you mean. If you mean am I a Democrat...no, but they are the National party I am closest to. I am a member of the Independence Party, but have supported Edwards, Kerry, and most likely Obama but that is not a given yet.

As to the difference between the two, liberals are..., well,....liberal, while Liberals are Socialists bordering on, if not fully COMMUNIST! Oh, and BTW, don't let him fool you, Obama IS a Communist. Just look at his voting record. Until Obama went to the Senate, Bernie Sanders, the self described Socialist, was the most liberal Congressman in our government, but compared to Obama, Sanders is practically a Reagan Conservative!

 

[The Scotsman]

Not wishing to re-hash old issues or old threads for that matter, but in these days of austerity and penny pinching and general stingyness (except if you're GM!) I just thought the USAF might be interested to know that there are a job lot of near time-expired A320/B737s coming up for sale and that once the seats are stripped out, a thorough check under the hood and a tad of pipework done you've got a really good and cheap re-fueling platform.

The $40Billion that they were going to spend on these brand spanking shinny new bits of kit could be reduced to round $10 million a ship.

 

[Bunz]

Not wishing to re-hash old issues or old threads for that matter, but in these days of austerity and penny pinching and general stingyness (except if you're GM!) I just thought the USAF might be interested to know that there are a job lot of near time-expired A320/B737s coming up for sale and that once the seats are stripped out, a thorough check under the hood and a tad of pipework done you've got a really good and cheap re-fueling platform.

Well they would need a heck of a lot of them. While I certainly am a fan of the 737 class, most of the old ones being phased out dont have the capacity really necessary to actually be a tanker. The useful load of the most modern 737 cargo variant is 20 tons. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/freighters/index.html

Whereas, the KC135 has a dispensible load of 100 tons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker

The $40Billion that they were going to spend on these brand spanking shinny new bits of kit could be reduced to round $10 million a ship.

I have said before I think they should be gobbling up all of the 747-100,200 class they are going to scrap and convert them. With the design of that airframe, you could utilize the upper deck for crew and anything you like. Then the entire fuselage of the plane can be devoted to fuel capacity.

 

[The Scotsman]

Hi Bunz - Just loved the irony of it all really! On the one hand you've got the potential $40 billion being spent to keep gas guzzlers in the air and on the other you've got the Government about to pump $40 billion into a car company so that can re-tool to get gas guzzlers off the road!

Do'ya reckon that's carbon neutral?

 

[Bunz]

Hi Bunz - Just loved the irony of it all really! On the one hand you've got the potential $40 billion being spent to keep gas guzzlers in the air and on the other you've got the Government about to pump $40 billion into a car company so that can re-tool to get gas guzzlers off the road!

Do'ya reckon that's carbon neutral?

Scotty, you and I both know that it has zero to do with what is the best most cost effective solution. There is an incredible amount of political interests based on these contracts.