Talk:EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd put one referenced sentence here, and put a paragraph in the  KC-X page. Btw, I hear the EADS protest is coming out tomorrow - they're upset Boeing came in second, and not third! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm really confused. (Like, more than usual.) This IS the KC-45 page. And your comment about EADS, is that for real or inside humor? --RenniePet (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: SOrry for the confusion - that's what I get for editing instead of sleeping. And yes, that was a joke, referring to the fact EADS generally protests every competition it loses, no matter what country the competition is in. So, even though they won, the joke is that they would protest anyway, as they're so used to protesting, it's become a habit. - BillCJ (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would place this information in the KC-X Page. That page is mainly about the proposal and bidding process. The KC-45 page is actually about the KC-45. You could mention a small paragraph on the KC-45 page. but the majority should be on the KC-X RC43 (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: * The appeal part here was just 2 sentences.  I moved the 2nd sentence to the KC-X article so there's just 1 sentence here per your suggestions.  Also, moved that after the award stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree that the protest belongs on the KC-X article.  In the very unlikely event that the decision is overturned, then this article would go away and we will have a new "Boeing KC-45" article.  --rogerd (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I do agree that the Deal will be overturned. However congress will not just say you have to pick the Boeing KC-767. The Air Force will instead restart a RFP and have the bidding process all over again. If this happpens Boeing may submit the KC-777 as the Air Force said they wanted a larger tanker. In this case we may want to move our focus to the KC-777 page and forget the KC-767. Just a thought. (RC43 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement already in this article that Boeing have protested is all that is required. Any facts (rather than speculation) should be in the KC-X program page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably an incremental update to the RFP like what was done on the CSAX helicopter program after the first protest.  Anyway, this talk page is for improving this article, not a discussion forum... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what has been said is appropriate to the talk page, as it gives context to the discussion of what should go on the page. As to the KC-777, some of that, sourced of course, can go on the KC-X page. The KC-767 already exists, as Japan and Italy are both buying them, while there is no KC-777 being offered at this time. If Boeing submits the KC-777 at some point, then we can open a page on it at some point. Jeff and I had discussed this late year when Boeing was considering which aircraft to submit, possibly "parking" the KC-777 info on the KC-767 and Boeing 777 pages until enough info was released to justify a separate page (esp. specs). Also, McCain's name is coming up as a reason the USAF changed some things mid-stream, such as allowing more emphasis on a bigger aircraft. Be watchful for sources on that, as it could be influential in his presidential run. (Just an aside.) - BillCJ (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with you BillCJ. I was just speculating about the future. I agree that for now we should leave the KC-777 information alone until we hear of any further devlopment in Boeing's protest and if there is a new FRP then we can see what Boeing is looking at to bid with. If they dump the Kc-767 for the KC-777 then we should pursue that. But I concur that we just let everything play out with the Protest to see what our next step should be. However the KC-X page should be updated regulary about any devlopment in the protest. This information is not too pertenent on the Northrop Grumman KC-45 page. (RC43 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: To speculate even more, the KC-X Tranche Two to may end up being "tailored" for a smaller plane like the KC-767. The original assumption was that Tranch 1 would be smaller, and the later tranches might be bigger to replace the KC-10s also. Now it could be the reverse, depending on the outcome of the protest. - BillCJ (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yea, that's good point on the funding.  Hadn't thought much about that angle.   Hopefully the GAO will finish its work early... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the original Boeing lease deal was brokered by certian congresspersons and their spouses who worked as lobbyists for Boeing at the time. That goes unreported now because those members were not Republicans, but I clearly remember this from the time the deal was originally made. I'm not saying Boeing didn't violate the law, but there is plenty blame to be spread around. However, I can't see how it is legal to "punish" a contractor by allowing them to compete, setting the specifications so that the contractor selects a specific model, and then changing the specs midstream at the behest of a senator running for president who has a apparant dislike for Boeing, so that Boeing's choice is at a disadvantage. Two bad deals do not a good one make! I clearly remember the decision Boeing made between submitting the KC-767 and KC-777, as Jeff and I both worked on the KC-X article at the time the decision was being made. Regardless of their past actions, Boeing was led to believe that the USAF preferred a smaller plane more comparable to the KC-135, and that was why it submitted the KC-767. I believe Boeing has a case that changes were made mid-stream, which as I understand things is not exaclty legal either! Regardless, the GAO will make a rulling eventually, but with a new administration coming in next year, I doubt their ruling will be final, assuming they even decide this year. (It's been over a year and a have since the USAF selected the HH-47, but that deal is still undecided. And CSARX isn't even as important a program!) It appears we will have a Democrat-controlled Congress regardless of who wins the presidency, and they control the purse strings. As Boeing is an "American" company, the whole deal will make great fodder for the "buy American" crowd in the Democrat party in the Congressional elections, so I don't foresee a quick end to this, no matter the GAO decision. - BillCJ (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, you couldn't be more wrong in your assesment of my biases, but we'll leave that be. I can find sources to back up my assertions on the original selection, but it's really beyond the scope of this article, so I don't see the point. As far as the politics, it's just trying to read the tea leaves, but politics always plays a part in deals this big, and it will have an effect. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats cancelled the order outright at some point, leaving the -135s to soldier on way past 80 years! Granted, this discussion has moved beyond the topic of improving the article, but I feel they can be useful in fleshing out background, and discussing how to handle certain contentious issues being covered. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Boeing and NG has both run ads since the protest.  Just seems like a lot of talk until something is actually done (GAO decision).  But please fix formatting/spelling and add a proper reference to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Not at this time.  If the KC-30 is reselected, this article does not need to be deleted or changed much even.  Things don't have to be done today.  Give it some time to work out. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In light of the GAO ruling, I would suggest that we re-work the "into production" section and the introduction and probably put a small comment regarding possible suspension of the project. MichaelBlankley (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Concur. This is a highly unusual situtation for WP, and I don't think we have any precedent for how to handle it in case the competition is re-bid. As such, we might want to ask for a broader consensus from the regular aircraft airticle editors at WT:AIR, if the contest is re-bid. Personally, I'd keep this article in place unless Boeing is awarded the bid. With a new administration coming in next year, and each camp seeming to favor differnt bids, it is anyone's guess what will happen. - BillCJ (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Is the tanker deal dead I dont think the USAF have replied yet, we dont know if an alternate aircraft is bought it will use the KC-45 designation. As above we will just wait this is not a news service just an encyclopedia - plenty of time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I have now seen the press release - no mention of the term KC-45 in the press release. And its only a stop work order on the contract not a cancellation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that the IP user reads WP:CIVIL. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the DOD press releases, which don't support his claims. If he has actually read what he puts forth, some direct links to those sources would be useful. - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Designations aren't assigned as part of the contracts, but by an office within the USAF. The designation was officially assigned, but I have seen been no official reports that it has been revoked. Have you? - BillCJ (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Please note that the contract has not been revoked, a stop work order is not a cancellation just a hold on non essential activities. The KC-45 was allocated to the winner of the contract which was the A330 a new request for proposals will be released this will be a different competion from the KC-X not a restart. All in the DoD press releases. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I know what it says in the KC-X article about the designation - I probably wrote it! As we've said, the contest was won by NG 4 months ago, and the designation was assigned to the "KC_30" at that time. You are making an assumption that is has been revoked.  Nowhere has it been reported officially that it's now been revoked. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * ^What he said.  They DoD and AF has more important things to worry about than what the designation might be at this point. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Expedited means no earlier than December... AFTER the election if nobody noticed.  The top Dogs in the Air Force got fired, IMHO, because they chose a FRENCH airplane.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've been noticing the elections all along, as noted in my posts in other sections. Being purely cynically political: Obama wins, it's Boeing; McCain wins, its NG/Airbus, thought the likely Democrat Congress may overide that. Otherwise, the new admin/congress will propably make their own choice after January. And seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if the winner lets the DOD know they should wait until after January to announce a decision. - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a unfortunate by-product of a civilian-led military. It's probably better than the alternative - a military-led one - if a lot less efficient, in the long run. - BillCJ (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Something is different from when the US built the Atlas Missile or first attack chopper.  Saltysailor (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing's protest 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is the tanker deal dead I dont think the USAF have replied yet, we dont know if an alternate aircraft is bought it will use the KC-45 designation. As above we will just wait this is not a news service just an encyclopedia - plenty of time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I have now seen the press release - no mention of the term KC-45 in the press release. And its only a stop work order on the contract not a cancellation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that the IP user reads WP:CIVIL. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the DOD press releases, which don't support his claims. If he has actually read what he puts forth, some direct links to those sources would be useful. - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Designations aren't assigned as part of the contracts, but by an office within the USAF. The designation was officially assigned, but I have seen been no official reports that it has been revoked. Have you? - BillCJ (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Please note that the contract has not been revoked, a stop work order is not a cancellation just a hold on non essential activities. The KC-45 was allocated to the winner of the contract which was the A330 a new request for proposals will be released this will be a different competion from the KC-X not a restart. All in the DoD press releases. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I know what it says in the KC-X article about the designation - I probably wrote it! As we've said, the contest was won by NG 4 months ago, and the designation was assigned to the "KC_30" at that time. You are making an assumption that is has been revoked.  Nowhere has it been reported officially that it's now been revoked. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * ^What he said.  They DoD and AF has more important things to worry about than what the designation might be at this point. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Expedited means no earlier than December... AFTER the election if nobody noticed.  The top Dogs in the Air Force got fired, IMHO, because they chose a FRENCH airplane.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've been noticing the elections all along, as noted in my posts in other sections. Being purely cynically political: Obama wins, it's Boeing; McCain wins, its NG/Airbus, thought the likely Democrat Congress may overide that. Otherwise, the new admin/congress will propably make their own choice after January. And seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if the winner lets the DOD know they should wait until after January to announce a decision. - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contract and rebidding

message: The kc-x program was just cancled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.254.33 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a unfortunate by-product of a civilian-led military. It's probably better than the alternative - a military-led one - if a lot less efficient, in the long run. - BillCJ (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Something is different from when the US built the Atlas Missile or first attack chopper.  Saltysailor (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOD Canncelation 

message: We should add a section about the pre-award history, topics to include:
#age of kc-135
#insufficient number of KC-10 s
#Boeing's non-competitive contract that was revoked due to illegal practices by Boeing.  Boeing had a l lock on the contract until it was discovered that Boeing was bribing the USAF procurement officer.  Congressional hearings led to new bidding.  Historically, when USAF a bid due to illegal contractor activities, that bider doesn't get the contract.  It appears the USAF bent over backwards to get a competitive bid from Northrop.
#the new bidding process 
#the award to Northrop
#Boeing's protest
#events not yet occurring until Boeing's protest resolved
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)
replies: text: The first two points I think ahouldn't be included as they are information to the KC-135, not the KC-45A. I could see the use of a sentence saying something like "The KC-45 replaced the US Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s and KC-10." However I do believe something to this accord is already on the page. Your points of 2-7 we have already decided should go onto the KC-X page as they do not pertain to the KC-45 itself. That discussion is directly above this one. (RC43 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. The KC-X article can cover most of the points mentioned, and probably already does. - BillCJ (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As indicated I have a Northrop POV, but the article reads like someone from Boeing wrote it.  my points 1 & 2 are significant because these facts led to the Air Force wanting a new tanker.  My point 3 is significant and not mentioned in the article or in the KC-X article.  It is significant because Boeing lost its opportunity to build the tanker without competing for the bid by engaging in illegal procurement activities.  Senator John McCain pushed the Air Force in putting the KC-X out to competitive bid, stating that he felt the US would get a better deal.  The whole process of bribing an Air Force Procurement officer, her affair with a Boeing executive and the procurement violations are well documented.  My point 4 is very significant because it led to the current bidding process and that process stacked the cards against Boeing.  Northrop was shy to spend money on the bid because it didn't think that they could get a fair decision with Boeing bidding.  Saltysailor (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * The 2002 deal was the Airbus A330 MRTT vs. KC-767.  That's covered a little in the Airbus A330 MRTT article, but could fit in a background section here.  I don't think that's really relevant to the KC-X competition and the KC-45 though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that point 3 is directly related to the KC-45 more to do with the original KC-767 competion and the reason for the KC-X competition and should be in those articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Contract Award History

message: 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)
thread_title: Photo?

message: 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)
replies: text: What exactly the do-over is still unknown.  The Air Force is to reply to the GAO's decision by mid-August (60 days) with a proposed plan. If you see something that is clearly obsolete, remove it or discuss it here. That's what I think anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affirmative language 

message: 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)
replies: text: Milb1 and I have both discussed this above, so I won't reiterate those points, which are that it is better to just let this remain as-is for now. Also, to my knowledge, the USAF has not retracted the designation. NG may win agian, the order may be split, or Boeing might be assigned (or request) a new number. However, if Boeing does win as the KC-45, then the best thing to me is to merge this info back into the Airbus A330 MRTT page. Some info is alreday there, and that section can be expanded. On a technical note, if Boeing does win as the KC-45, I would convert this page to a redirect, and start a new page for the Boeing KC-45, thus leaving the full history of the NG KC-45 in a place where it can be revived and renamed in the future, if needed. - BillCJ (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There is no need to be hasty.  The article makes it clear what the current status is.  --rogerd (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This article will not be 'whole' for a while.  I don't think constantly tweaking this particular article is in the best interest of clarity.  Most of the content here rightfully belongs in the KC-X article with a short summation of the KC-X fiasco, uh, I mean acquisition program here on this page and on the KC-767 page. That's the end state I would prefer. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that still bothers me.  I think that said content should fall under the KC-767 or KC-X.  I don't think that it needs its own article.  The long title says it all, if you have to have that long of a title, you probably don't need the article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another move 

message: 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)
replies: text: From [[http://www.irconnect.com/noc/pages/news_printer.html?d=132760&print=1 this release in Dec. 07: The Advanced Refueling Boom System (ARBS) being developed for several A330-based tanker customers performs initial in-flight dry contacts Dec. 5, 2007. Northrop Grumman's KC-30 Tanker will directly benefit from ongoing development and flight testing of the ARBS. So even though the KC-45 would be the most lucrative contract, it's not the only possible sale. RAAF KC-30Bs will have a boom, and it is probably this one (though I'm not certain). - BillCJ (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

text: * The boom testing should be added/expanded in Airbus A310 MRTT also since that was the main platform involved. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing work on KC-45 

message: 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)
replies: text: "KC-45" is not EADS's.  It is the US DoD designation given to the NG/EADS tanker selected in 2008.  "EADS KC-30" would be a more fitting name if this article is renamed. -fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think EADS refers to it as the KC-45 in its releases, and that's the designation used in most aviation online media. I'd support Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 for the time beign, as NG was involved in the previous winning submission, and the article covers both submissions. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text: * "Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45" seems fair and workable to me. -fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What about EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 as an alternative? It puts the current contractor first, and EADS makes the aircraft anyway. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

text: * Does not seem that matter much which order is used. -fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name 2010

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted the move. I think it was an accidental move the first time. - BilCat (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name 2014

message: 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:
*http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/
*:Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335
*:Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If 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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091128030203/http://www.as.northropgrumman.com:80/products/kc45tanker/assets/KC30_QuadFold.pdf to http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/kc45tanker/assets/KC30_QuadFold.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091212142741/http://www.northropgrumman.com:80/kc45/performance/specifications.html to http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/specifications.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080129121235/http://www.is.northropgrumman.com:80/systems/kc30tanker.html to http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/systems/kc30tanker.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked the links and they're working.Scotteaton92 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114184441/http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335 to http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified