Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Logistics Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Going Farther On Fumes
SYSOP    4/24/2012 5:39:33 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
HeavyD       4/24/2012 12:22:22 PM
I know, why don't we invade and conquer one of the most oil-rich nations in the world and set-up favorable contracts for our own oil companies?
 
Oh, so close.  We spent the trillion for the first part of the idea, and then lost out on many contracts to China.
 
HEy, wait a minute, I've never heard this as part of the conspiracy:  we needed to placate China somehow into continuing to buy our bonds.  Maybe IRaq was a part of this.... 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/24/2012 5:38:45 PM
I know, why don't we invade and conquer one of the most oil-rich nations in the world and set-up favorable contracts for our own oil companies?
 
Oh, so close.  We spent the trillion for the first part of the idea, and then lost out on many contracts to China.
 
HEy, wait a minute, I've never heard this as part of the conspiracy:  we needed to placate China somehow into continuing to buy our bonds.  Maybe IRaq was a part of this.... 
Maybe the reason the plan failed was because it was never the plan at all, except in the minds of the world’s leftists and other reflexive US haters. The US did not invade to conquer one of the most oil-rich nations in the world for the purpose of set-up favorable contracts for our own oil companies. They left decisions about developing and maintaining the oil to the Iraqis, and they decided (or more likely were bribed, that being the standard decision making process in most the 3rd world) to go in some cases with Chinese contracts this time around. I believe that the French got most of the contracts in the 1st round.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/24/2012 5:40:11 PM
Question -- When is the Air Force going to re-engine the B-52s? Lots of potential for savings there.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Warnerd:   4/24/2012 8:53:26 PM

1) Thanks for smacking HeavyD around;

2) Re-engining the B-52 is like buying a Volt or Hybrid, gas has to remain over $5 a gallon for years before the excess cost of the new vehicle...so too the Billions necessary to re-engine the B-52, it would take these hi fuel prices to last for YEARS to justify the costs.  In fact, in the limited time left for the B-52 we might NEVER re-coup the costs.

 
Quote    Reply

HogKiller    Huge Savings a   4/24/2012 10:59:49 PM
If the AF would stop hauling Barry's sorry butt around and make Moochelle fly coach we'd save billions.  Not to mention completely reverse any 'global climate change'.@import url http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       4/25/2012 3:43:32 AM
Rolls Royce  offered to re-engine the B-52 with 4*RB211 (and smiths with 8*BR700) back n 2003, even then, it would have been cost efficient to re-engine the aircraft, and that was based on much lower fuel prices, and before they got heavily used in Afghanistan.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rez.manzoori/fakes/524-buff.jpg" alt="" /> 
 
 
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rez.manzoori/fakes/524-buff.jpg" alt="" /> 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics