This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 article. 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 |
Archives: 1 |
Should that be in this article or the KC-X article, or both, or neither? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNgP.QG9oGPo&refer=home -- RenniePet ( talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
its actually very likely that boeing will win its protest or congress will kill the deal by holding funding. a section should be dedicated to this process as in all likely hood the kc-45 will be boeing kc-767 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be noted in the article that Northrop Grumman has recieved a stop work notice since the contract is immedietly suspended upon a protest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is an automatic thing
"The protest procedure requires the Air Force to issue an immediate stop-work order and discontinue communications with the Northrop/EADS team pending either the issuance of an Air Force waiver deeming the work essential to national security or a ruling from the GAO."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/HALT03128.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
yeah to STOP the order. It is still automatic and is ended in either the waiver or GAO ruling. And we know at this point their wouldnt be anyfunding for the project if the airforce tried to waive it. So at this point all work has been halted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Saltysailor ( talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Saltysailor ( talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Saltysailor ( talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Boeing won the protest. So to put it simply, there is no kc-45. Probly best to delete this article and continue on the kc-x one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tanker deal is dead, as of right now the KC-45 is not an airbus plane, this article needs to be redone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
They replied yesterday and the airforce has already stated that regardless of the tanker chosen it will be the kc-45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you havent stayed in touch with this issue, the airforce announced a while ago that kc-45 designation was to be used and a rebid means that the last contract was scrapped. Why dont you go to google news and read a few articles instead of just being clueless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-45.htm
The Air Force intended to designate its next aerial refueling aircraft the KC-45, regardless of whether Boeing’s KC-767 or Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 wins the KC-X tanker replacement contest. The Air Force approved the designation on 14 November 2006, based on an Air Mobility Command recommendation.
The company won the contract four months ago but now the Pentagon has scrapped the deal after lobbying by US politicians who want the work awarded to rival US aircraft manufacturer Boeing and claims that the original tendering process was flawed.
reopening the bid means that the previous agreement is void —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
its pretty simple, the designation was chosen BEFORE any choice was made, the next tanker of the usaf will be the kc-45 regardless of who builds it pretty simple. its the ORDER od 179 tankers from NG/EADS thats been revoked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it has been revoked, and read the kc-x article about the name kc-45. seriously get a clue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
wow learn to read, the CONTRACT HAS BEEN REVOKED, the designation stands but right now the plane that will be the kc-45 remains UNDECIDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.254.33 ( talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Expidited rebid. Hopefully a decision will come out that will be built. Untill then the articl shood stand. Saltysailor ( talk) 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The kc-x program was just cancled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.254.33 ( talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
according to LA Times, General Arthur Lichte said " I don't care which tanker wins, I just need a new tanker". Looks like our government has failed us again. Saltysailor ( talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
We should add a section about the pre-award history, topics to include:
I have a definite POV on this as a former Northrop employee and a McDonald stock holder since 1966. Saltysailor ( talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone has requested a photo. Until I saw that I thought we has a "artists impression" of the KC-45. What happened to the picture? That was a very good photo if you ask me. We should definately get one back on. ( RC43 ( talk) 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
As I indicated, designation is to the prime contractor only. Northrop Grumman is the Prime. Most of the air frame of the F/A-18 Hornet is made by Northrop, but the designation was McDonell-Douglas because they were the prime contractor. Saltysailor ( talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the title should reflect the Air Force's contract wording. The info box rightfully includes EADS. It is made very clear that the aircraft is based on the EADS airframe. Another example of this is JSTARS which is built on a Boeing airframe, which I now see also is listed with both the airframe and the Prime contractor. At this point I think we need to agree on guidelines for which name is applied. My proposal is that the lead only show the prime contractor. The info box should name the airframe manufacturer. The KC-45 case is stronger for including EADS than JSTARS including Boeing as Grumman took existing aircraft and modified them. This was also the case when Grumman tore the wings off an F-5 and produced x-29 forward swept wing aircraft. Saltysailor ( talk) 07:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a 'do-over' in the works, is there any reason to keep all of the 'will' language in the article? -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the Pentagon, this page might have to be moved in the future if the Boeing 767 is chosen. As of right now though, it will probably have to be moved as their is technically no winner for the design contest, thanks again to the Pentagon. I support a move, my only problem being that there is no real name that I can think of right now that this could be moved to. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If the NG KC-45 doesn't get built, then most of the article could go into the KC-X article as a discussion of the process that led to whatever gets built. In that case, the article for the built aircraft should have links to the KC-X article. Every time I read the news it gets more complicated. Is this confusing enough? Saltysailor ( talk) 07:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Read that Northrop finished flight testing the new advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS). Should we include items like this in the article. I think the most interesting thing about the ARBS is that Northrop is spending the money to continue, even though they may not get the contract. Saltysailor ( talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The pictures Northrop supplied show an EADS logo on the tankers tail. [4] Saltysailor ( talk) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If Grumman has withdrawn from the competition and EADS is pushing ahead on it own surely the name should now be changed to EADS KC-45 92.40.116.218 ( talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
What's going on here? The page title should be EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45, as EADS was the name of the company at the time. Using Airbus Group is anachronistic. At the moment, the talk page is at Talk:Airbus Group/Northrop Grumman KC-45, while the article is at EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. - BilCat ( talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\baerospace-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Checked the link and it's working. Scotteaton92 ( talk) 18:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 article. 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 |
Archives: 1 |
Should that be in this article or the KC-X article, or both, or neither? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNgP.QG9oGPo&refer=home -- RenniePet ( talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
its actually very likely that boeing will win its protest or congress will kill the deal by holding funding. a section should be dedicated to this process as in all likely hood the kc-45 will be boeing kc-767 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be noted in the article that Northrop Grumman has recieved a stop work notice since the contract is immedietly suspended upon a protest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is an automatic thing
"The protest procedure requires the Air Force to issue an immediate stop-work order and discontinue communications with the Northrop/EADS team pending either the issuance of an Air Force waiver deeming the work essential to national security or a ruling from the GAO."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/HALT03128.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
yeah to STOP the order. It is still automatic and is ended in either the waiver or GAO ruling. And we know at this point their wouldnt be anyfunding for the project if the airforce tried to waive it. So at this point all work has been halted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Saltysailor ( talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Saltysailor ( talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Saltysailor ( talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Boeing won the protest. So to put it simply, there is no kc-45. Probly best to delete this article and continue on the kc-x one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 ( talk) 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tanker deal is dead, as of right now the KC-45 is not an airbus plane, this article needs to be redone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
They replied yesterday and the airforce has already stated that regardless of the tanker chosen it will be the kc-45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you havent stayed in touch with this issue, the airforce announced a while ago that kc-45 designation was to be used and a rebid means that the last contract was scrapped. Why dont you go to google news and read a few articles instead of just being clueless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-45.htm
The Air Force intended to designate its next aerial refueling aircraft the KC-45, regardless of whether Boeing’s KC-767 or Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 wins the KC-X tanker replacement contest. The Air Force approved the designation on 14 November 2006, based on an Air Mobility Command recommendation.
The company won the contract four months ago but now the Pentagon has scrapped the deal after lobbying by US politicians who want the work awarded to rival US aircraft manufacturer Boeing and claims that the original tendering process was flawed.
reopening the bid means that the previous agreement is void —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
its pretty simple, the designation was chosen BEFORE any choice was made, the next tanker of the usaf will be the kc-45 regardless of who builds it pretty simple. its the ORDER od 179 tankers from NG/EADS thats been revoked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it has been revoked, and read the kc-x article about the name kc-45. seriously get a clue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.46.29 ( talk) 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
wow learn to read, the CONTRACT HAS BEEN REVOKED, the designation stands but right now the plane that will be the kc-45 remains UNDECIDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.254.33 ( talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Expidited rebid. Hopefully a decision will come out that will be built. Untill then the articl shood stand. Saltysailor ( talk) 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The kc-x program was just cancled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.254.33 ( talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
according to LA Times, General Arthur Lichte said " I don't care which tanker wins, I just need a new tanker". Looks like our government has failed us again. Saltysailor ( talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
We should add a section about the pre-award history, topics to include:
I have a definite POV on this as a former Northrop employee and a McDonald stock holder since 1966. Saltysailor ( talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone has requested a photo. Until I saw that I thought we has a "artists impression" of the KC-45. What happened to the picture? That was a very good photo if you ask me. We should definately get one back on. ( RC43 ( talk) 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
As I indicated, designation is to the prime contractor only. Northrop Grumman is the Prime. Most of the air frame of the F/A-18 Hornet is made by Northrop, but the designation was McDonell-Douglas because they were the prime contractor. Saltysailor ( talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the title should reflect the Air Force's contract wording. The info box rightfully includes EADS. It is made very clear that the aircraft is based on the EADS airframe. Another example of this is JSTARS which is built on a Boeing airframe, which I now see also is listed with both the airframe and the Prime contractor. At this point I think we need to agree on guidelines for which name is applied. My proposal is that the lead only show the prime contractor. The info box should name the airframe manufacturer. The KC-45 case is stronger for including EADS than JSTARS including Boeing as Grumman took existing aircraft and modified them. This was also the case when Grumman tore the wings off an F-5 and produced x-29 forward swept wing aircraft. Saltysailor ( talk) 07:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a 'do-over' in the works, is there any reason to keep all of the 'will' language in the article? -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the Pentagon, this page might have to be moved in the future if the Boeing 767 is chosen. As of right now though, it will probably have to be moved as their is technically no winner for the design contest, thanks again to the Pentagon. I support a move, my only problem being that there is no real name that I can think of right now that this could be moved to. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If the NG KC-45 doesn't get built, then most of the article could go into the KC-X article as a discussion of the process that led to whatever gets built. In that case, the article for the built aircraft should have links to the KC-X article. Every time I read the news it gets more complicated. Is this confusing enough? Saltysailor ( talk) 07:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Read that Northrop finished flight testing the new advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS). Should we include items like this in the article. I think the most interesting thing about the ARBS is that Northrop is spending the money to continue, even though they may not get the contract. Saltysailor ( talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The pictures Northrop supplied show an EADS logo on the tankers tail. [4] Saltysailor ( talk) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If Grumman has withdrawn from the competition and EADS is pushing ahead on it own surely the name should now be changed to EADS KC-45 92.40.116.218 ( talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
What's going on here? The page title should be EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45, as EADS was the name of the company at the time. Using Airbus Group is anachronistic. At the moment, the talk page is at Talk:Airbus Group/Northrop Grumman KC-45, while the article is at EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. - BilCat ( talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bairforce-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\baerospace-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Checked the link and it's working. Scotteaton92 ( talk) 18:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)