This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
Below is the text that was removed twice.
The tanker replacement program was controversial at the start, and has become more controversial since first being published. [1] [2] [3] [4]
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]
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]).
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)
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)
Additional articles referencing NG threatening to pull out:
The area that I added that you deleted says
Why did you delete it? Thanks. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
Below is the text that was removed twice.
The tanker replacement program was controversial at the start, and has become more controversial since first being published. [1] [2] [3] [4]
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]
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]).
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)
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)
Additional articles referencing NG threatening to pull out:
The area that I added that you deleted says
Why did you delete it? Thanks. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)