Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 4424 times:
Lockheed Martin Corp. quietly proposed an all-new aerial refueling tanker in 2002 before the U.S. Air Force instead pursued a now-stalled $23.5 billion deal with Boeing Co. based on the 767 airliner, Lockheed acknowledged on Friday.
The Pentagon's largest supplier, Lockheed is leaving open the possibility of reviving its pitch if the military calls for a new contest, which could further complicate Boeing's hopes to lease and sell 100 modified 767s.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2744 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 4352 times:
Still weighted heavily in Boeing favor though. Check out this quote from the article that AvObserver posted today:
"Dicks said Congress would require an analysis of alternatives and a panel to review the contracts. He said buying the aircraft "off the shelf" would be less expensive than developing a new aircraft, which could cost $15 billion to $18 billion and take years.
"We don't want to buy from Airbus," Dicks said, referring to Boeing Co.'s major foreign competitor. "
In an nutshel, we don't want the new (Lockheed) or foreign (Airbus) tankers at all. At least someone came out and said it instead of making a lame attempt at a cover up (Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Wash.)).
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2744 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4325 times:
Keep in mind that the congressman that said this was from Washigton, where Boeing's factorys are.
And as for the EC retaliation... are they really going to try to force people into buying their products from now on? Pretty soon the're going to put an embargo on me because i bought a Saturn instead of a VW.
Wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5566 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 4252 times:
It would be political suicide for any US Congressman or Senator to authorize Airbus over Boeing. It has nothing to do with real capabilities.
If there is retaliation, then it could lead to a major trade war. The EU could ban further purchase of any US-made aircraft. And Airbus would be banned from selling airplanes to the US.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month ago) and read 4208 times:
the WTO has NOTHING to do with your Airbus love, loverboy.
The 330 tanker is not suited to US needs for both technical and political reasons, the choice has nothing to do with you thinking it looks better...
The US (unlike most of Europe) doesn't want to have their foreign policy dictated in Paris which is what would happen if they decided to go with Airbus.
We may be handing the Boche our country on a silver platter signing over our independence and becoming a French colony, the US doesn't want to do that.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4113 times:
If, and this is a very big IF, Lockheed were to ever build this aircraft I see one modification they would have to make right off the bat. They would have to stretch out the nose section so they could accommodate a cargo door. Yes they a cargo door could be located mid-fuselage. However this location posses some problems. One, it would take longer to load and unload the aircraft since you would have to maneuver handling equipment around the lower wing and refueling boom. Second it would only be a matter of time before someone hit the wing or the refueling boom. Then you have an aircraft out of service.
Duce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4104 times:
I think they would have to move the cargo door to the front, like the C-5, remove the aft cargo door, streamline the aft section of the fuselage, and put "the" boom there. Having one on each wingtip is not the smartest thing in the world. Apart from the fact that refueling a heavy receiver would be a nightmare (asymetry) for the autopilot, I seriously doubt a heavy receiver would be able to stay on the boom because of vortices and what not, you'd have to have a seperate refueling freq for each wing, two boomers, hydraulics would also be a pain in the *ss. It goes on and on. Not worth the risk in the current config. And oh yeah, the AF will probably never allow lockheed to build another heavy. Too much negative experience with the FRED
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5251 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4102 times:
Duce - what about having a flying boom at the aft section of teh fuselage and then a drogue setup on each wing to refuel European/USN aircraft?
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Duce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4095 times:
Garnetpalmetto,
That would still work. Alot of countries do that already, and it's a very good setup. Fighters never have a bow wave problem (14 drivers might say something different when it comes to the basket though) so the asymetry is N/A. The workload for the boomer is low enough so that one boomer can monitor both refuelings at the same time. The KC-10 and 135s sometimes use this system, we call them Wing Air Refueling Pods (WARPs) and 135s call them something else, but it's pretty much the same system. As long as we take the Brits example and have the pods powered by hydraulic pressure rather than fuel pressure, we'll be golden.
BTW, nice signature. I DEFINITELY don't agree with it, but it's good to bust other people's balls like that. Good on you. Just remember who holds the White house and Congress.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4080 times:
Well, of course with this system they can refuel 2 aircraft using the US standard system or 2 aircraft using hose and drogue.
The systems can even be fitted at the same time (rather than on the KC-10 and KC-135 where it's either one or the other and then only one aircraft at a time).
The idea looks sound, and might even fly if money is allocated.
That is however extremely unlikely in these budget-deprived days.
Duce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4075 times:
Jwenting,
The KC-10 can refuel boom or drogue aircraft on the same flight (C/L boom, C/L drogue) and can refuel two probe equipped fighters at the same time with our WARPs when we carry them. The KC-135 can refuel either a boom aircraft or a drogue aircraft, but not both. Unless they're carrying their WARP equivalent.
centerline boom and the centerline drogue on the KC-10
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
The problem with the Lockheed entry is that the USAF needs the tankers ASAP. If they still had a descent transport aircraft design, and facilities available, they might be competitive, but at this moment they don't stand a chance.
Airbus is a political problem, tankers are a major military asset more important than most other aircraft in the USAF fleet. So buying a foreign produced tanker just won't fly with either congress or the military. We can't take the risk that one of the Airbus countries not agreeing with our actions (as France has more than once) cutting off the supply of spare parts (as France has done more than once to other countries). Combine that with the non-political problems like the aircraft is much larger than what the USAF can fit in some of it's bases, and other issues, Airbus is starting way behind the curve.
Having EU countries boycott the US would be a bad idea, there are few aircraft readily available that can meet the mission standards as the US. Besides what does France have to lose the French Government haven't purchased significant amounts of US made aircraft in years. And the US purchases quite a few foreign made aircraft and systems, just none are in a critical role nor as costly as the USAF tanker contract.
Now the details of the contract are up for debate personally I think that letting Boeing handle all of the heavy maintenance is a good idea. Under the U-2/TR-1 program it has shown that manufacture maintenance personal are much more efficient because they have an in depth understanding of the aircraft that is rarely attained with the average enlisted man.
No disrespect to the enlisted men, but it's hard to accumulated the knowledge that man of the aircraft manufacture employees have gained over the years of maintaining the aircraft itself and similar aircraft.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4023 times:
Along with time issues another there are several other factors working against the Lockheed tanker. One is the cost. Since this is an entirely new aircraft there would be the associated development costs along with the tooling required to build the aircraft. Then there's the fact that LM has a full plate right now with the F-22, JSF and C-130J. If the project were ever to get the go ahead LM would more than likely have to go half and half with another company like Boeing or Northrup.
With that said I would love to see this aircraft built. If cost and time factors were not an issue it would be a no brainier that this would be the aircraft to pick.
PU151 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4011 times:
As far as I see it, the problem from the EU side is about fair trade. Should the statements from that senator be right, it would mean that the US government rejects a product only on the basis of nationality, and that would go against free trade policies, I think (I'm not a WTO lawyer, so help me out here if I'm wrong).
On THAT basis, the EU could -though, again, I'm not sure- file a complaint in WTO. Now, let's clarify things, I don't think for a second that that congressman is mandated to determine the US Admin's policies on the subject .
And, Wedgetail, I think that total boycott is a little extreme you know... I live in Europe, and all we have heard during the past 3 years is comments about the impending commercial apocalypse between EU and USA over every possible issue (bananas, steel, GMOs, and even beef), but so far no major problems.I don't think that those tankers going to Boeing is THAT bad.
P.S.: Hey, that Lockheed design looks kinda familiar... it's a romulan bird of prey! Star Trek rules!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3981 times:
hmm, wasn't the KC-10 (now a Boeing product) an interim solution as well until a suitable replacement for the interim KC-135 could be produced in volume?
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29367 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3974 times:
Yeah, but I think calling it a Boeing product is a travesty.
Knowing Boeing, I am actually surprised that they didn't put out an AD to replace the wheel covers on all those DC-10's that where made with a stamped "MDC" on them with ones that where stamped "Boeing".
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3957 times:
You're wrong that it's meant as only a tanker.
Lockheed launched this proposal years ago as a replacement for the entire line of aircraft based on the C-135 and C-137 platforms, and to be modular.
The tail area has a loading ramp for modular podded equipment to be loaded, and can also be used for loading regular cargo of course.
Other proposed versions included AEW, ESM, ASW/MPA, ECM, strategic airlift, and possibly a cruise missile carrier.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8422 posts, RR: 13 Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3857 times:
I've seen a simliar design to this as a proposal for a carrier based tanker. It was much, much smaller, of course, and the engines were in conventional pods on the aft fuselage. It didn't look quite as streamlined or slick.
That was as least 5 years ago.
And Keesje, I see it as the European countries that are participating in the JSF program are simply hoping to get the most for their money. Otherwise they'd buy Gripens, more Eurofighters, or even Rafales.
25 Jwenting: cheers. I thought they used the same system of a clipon hose and drogue that can't be used in concert with the boom. Could be that's the way the Dutch
26 PPGMD: Jwenting, That might be where you saw it. The KDC-10 has a different refueling system than the KC-10. In fact their system is similar to the system th
27 Ulfinator: Lockheed isn't the only one with a different concept for a tanker sitting around. Boeing has been working on the Blended-Wing Concept for some years n
28 PPGMD: Ulfinator, As Lockheed learned from the F-16 competition, there is difference between pitching what the USAF asks for and what it needs. For the F-16
29 KC10Boom: I am totally amazed with the concept that if we need a tanker, we just pick a convenient Boeing model and slap and boom on it.(and if the Navy is luck
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2744 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
