Posted on 09/04/2003 2:12:17 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 4, 2003
President's Statement on Miguel Estrada
Statement by the President
It is with regret that, at the request of Miguel Estrada, I have today withdrawn his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I understand and respect his decision, and wish Mr. Estrada and his family the best.
Mr. Estrada received disgraceful treatment at the hands of 45 United States Senators during the more than two years his nomination was pending. Despite his superb qualifications and the wide bipartisan support for his nomination, these Democrat Senators repeatedly blocked an up-or-down vote that would have led to Mr. Estrada's confirmation. The treatment of this fine man is an unfortunate chapter in the Senate's history.
I opined that I think the rule needs to be changed, because its application in a judicial confirmation context disrupts the balance between the Senate and the President.
"I profoundly hope that, at some time in the future, I may be called again to serve my country in some capacity" (Estrada's comments)
The moment I read that the word "SCOTUS" flashed in big neon lights!
When I read the article with comments, the thought occurred to me that they tossed in the towel on this battle in order to win the war at a later date! This President doesn't take losing very well, and in the end, the DemocRATs will pay. He has been like that since he was Governor of Texas, actually running for Governor of Texas -- he never forgets who crosses him or his Family.
The only advantage the 767 had was 20% greater capacity. Large Airplanes can last far longer than cars. Most comercial Aircraft are at least 20 years old. These old tankers are still in great shape and with 3 Billion of upgrades would have the same insturmentation as new planes. Smaller planes also have advantages in some situations. More planes can be refulled at once."
Not so fast, my friend........not so fast. I have read a tad about it, yes. I know about old airplanes, their life span, and about tankers (I have 1800 hours in the KC-135; my flying days ended in '84). Your assumption that there are "advantages" to smaller tankers since somehow you feel that they can "refuel more planes" at once is simply wrong. Not even close, actually. Bigger planes = more ability to haul JP4 = more aircraft can be refueled. It really is that simple.
The current tanker fleet is being used WELL beyond their projected lifespans. Hell, they were old when I flew them in the late '70's and early '80's. We keep patching them, and we keep flying them, but it's dangerous as hell. These airplanes are old and tired, and they've been overutilized over the past decade to an astonishing extent (two Gulf Wars, Bosnia, etc.).
Your comparison of $15 billion to buy vs. $21 billion to lease......... I don't believe. Also, the cost of buying aircraft has little to do with the initial purchase price. You cannot hand-wave away the costs for maintenance, spares, etc. You just may find that the lease arrangement includes such items; the purchase price probably doesn't.
Again.......you tell me who is better qualified to provide late-generation tankers to the USAF than Boeing.
"You don't see any way these aircraft could be upgraded."
They have been. Constantly. For decades.
"Seems to me that for three billion they could have new more efficient more powerful engins, avionics, insturmentation fly by wire etc. Really bring them up to 21st century standards."
They got new engines some years ago (when I flew them, we had the old "water wagons".........J57's, if memory serves; water injection on heavyweight takeoffs. Dangerous as hell.) They now have far better engines than my day. Avionics, the fuel panel, etc......all upgraded. As far as fly by wire, etc...........after a while, you really just have to look hard at how long you can ride a horse. These aircraft are rugged as hell, but they DO have a finite lifespan. You must realize that you're talking about aircraft that were built.......not designed.......in the late '50's and very early '60's. The airframes themselves are just damned old.
"If I remember right the KC135 has eight engins."
No, it has four. You're thinking of the B-52.
"Heck the 767 was designed back in the sixties."
Initial models were ordered in the very late '70's.
"We just have little to add to the great planes designed for WW2. Especially for a tanker that will always fly slow due to the large cargo."
The KC97 came out after WW2. The KC-135 replaced it, again, based roughly on what became the 707 airframe. The differences among today's aircraft and WW2 aircraft are...................well, it's night and day. Not even close. As for slow, even in my old KC-135, we could scoot along pretty fast. Even had to drop flaps and fly LOW so that A-10's could even keep up with us. Modern, swept-wing heavies can flat get it. It isn't unusual to refuel at well over 320 knots (nautical miles per hour).
This is about obsolescence and fuel load delivery, period. Aircraft DO get old, metal DOES fatigue and develop cracks over time. The KC-135's should long since have been retired. The KC-10's have been decent; just don't have enough of them........and even those are getting long in the tooth.
If we expect our Air Force to maintain the worldwide missions that have been laid on them over the last decade +, we need to equip them with the best. They are not flying the best, and prudence dictates that throwing more money into aging gear isn't always the best nor even most cost effective option.
S.RES.138
Title: A resolution to amend rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate relating to the consideration of nominations requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.
Sponsor: Sen Frist, Bill [TN] (introduced 5/9/2003) Cosponsors: 11
Latest Major Action: 6/26/2003 Senate preparation for floor. Status: Placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 180.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.