|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: YaguYagu Date: Mar 17, 2008 04:30
|
| |
|
| | 8 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DCDC Date: Mar 17, 2008 06:21
Yagu said the following on 17/03/2008 8:30 PM:
> How times have changed or political expediency?
It seems there wasn't much choice. Apparently, so the reports state,
it's too late to extend the F-111 past 2010 and we're unlikely to get
anything else before then.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PraetorianPraetorian Date: Mar 17, 2008 22:34
> Yagu said the following on 17/03/2008 8:30 PM:
>> How times have changed or political expediency?
>
> It seems there wasn't much choice. Apparently, so the reports state, it's
> too late to extend the F-111 past 2010 and we're unlikely to get anything
> else before then.
It's been too late to extend the F111s for years.
--
"Don't believe everything you think".
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JensenJensen Date: Mar 25, 2008 07:27
> Yagu said the following on 17/03/2008 8:30 PM:
>> How times have changed or political expediency?
>
> It seems there wasn't much choice. Apparently, so the reports state, it's
> too late to extend the F-111 past 2010 and we're unlikely to get anything
> else before then.
Baloney! Defence themselves have put the number at $2.3 billion to life
extend the F-111 to fill the gap. Versus $6.6 billion for the Superbug - now
how does that make sense?
Dennis
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JensenJensen Date: Mar 25, 2008 07:28
>> Yagu said the following on 17/03/2008 8:30 PM:
>>> How times have changed or political expediency?
>>
>> It seems there wasn't much choice. Apparently, so the reports state, it's
>> too late to extend the F-111 past 2010 and we're unlikely to get anything
>> else before then.
>
> It's been too late to extend the F111s for years.
>
Absolute nonsense. You have no basis for that whatsoever.
Dennis
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: rbrb Date: Mar 26, 2008 00:23
Jensen wrote:
>> Yagu said the following on 17/03/2008 8:30 PM:
>>> How times have changed or political expediency?
>> It seems there wasn't much choice. Apparently, so the reports state, it's
>> too late to extend the F-111 past 2010 and we're unlikely to get anything
>> else before then.
>
> Baloney! Defence themselves have put the number at $2.3 billion to life
> extend the F-111 to fill the gap. Versus $6.6 billion for the Superbug - now
> how does that make sense?
>
> Dennis
>
>
That $6.6 billion includes all superbug costs for the next ten years.
What does the $2.3 billion cover?
rb
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PraetorianPraetorian Date: Mar 26, 2008 22:11
> Jensen wrote:
>>> Yagu said the following on 17/03/2008 8:30 PM:
>>>> How times have changed or political expediency?
>>> It seems there wasn't much choice. Apparently, so the reports state,
>>> it's too late to extend the F-111 past 2010 and we're unlikely to get
>>> anything else before then.
>>
>> Baloney! Defence themselves have put the number at $2.3 billion to life
>> extend the F-111 to fill the gap. Versus $6.6 billion for the Superbug -
>> now how does that make sense?
>>
>> Dennis
> That $6.6 billion includes all superbug costs for the next ten years.
> What does the $2.3 billion cover?
>
> rb ...
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: JensenJensen Date: Mar 27, 2008 03:07
> Jensen wrote:
>>> Yagu said the following on 17/03/2008 8:30 PM:
>>>> How times have changed or political expediency?
>>> It seems there wasn't much choice. Apparently, so the reports state,
>>> it's too late to extend the F-111 past 2010 and we're unlikely to get
>>> anything else before then.
>>
>> Baloney! Defence themselves have put the number at $2.3 billion to life
>> extend the F-111 to fill the gap. Versus $6.6 billion for the Superbug -
>> now how does that make sense?
>>
>> Dennis
> That $6.6 billion includes all superbug costs for the next ten years.
> What does the $2.3 billion cover?
>
Apparently all costs associated with keeping F-111 to 2015. ...
|
| Show full article (0.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
