Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf :  
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

US Air Force secretary James Roche says that the Airbus A330-200 is welcome to take part in a potential competition for the KC-X tanker programme next year.

A $90 million investment by Airbus to develop and qualify a refuelling boom, scheduled to enter flight testing later this year, "should make them a legitimate competitor", said Roche

The air force's refuelling requirement is now the subject of multiple reviews.

Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld is waiting to receive a report in November before he makes a decision, but interest appears to have shifted to a regular procurement competition starting in 2005.


(Source : Flight International 27-2 Aug)

Seems like a new tanker competition will start all over in 2005, may the best win.



10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Seems like a new tanker competition will start all over in 2005, may the best win.

Ahh... as it should. May this attempt not be marred with scandal


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1460 times:

Let's just do this right and go BWB.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1399 times:

My advise (for what it's worth it  Big grin) would be for Airbus to join forces with Lockheed for a longterm solution.

- A smart life extension/phase out program for the KC135's.
- 100-150 Americanized KC330's as best value interim; customized US avionics, Gen-x engines, US based production & maintenance facility in a state that really wants/needs it..
- Lockheed work on an new optimized concept for introduction after 2015.




User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1395 times:

Yes, you would say that. I was not being manufacturer specific. And until the French lose their attitude about defense contracts, they should not be winning U.S. contracts. EADS has too much of a "let us in, but don't let them in over here" attitude.

[Edited 2004-08-04 13:52:54]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

It may be a competition, but it will be one that Airbus will lose. The USAF doesn't want to have to worry about US-French relations whenever they want to goto war.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

USAF has an awful lot of CFMI engines, being the largest user with around 2000 installed units, and a few hundred more pending. Since CFMI is 50% French, is there any sort of embargo protection on those things?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

"Since CFMI is 50% French, is there any sort of embargo protection on those things?"

No, of course not. It's not a real problem, just emotional sentiments after the Iraq thing..

French specialist companies are subcontracted to provide components to US Defense contractors and the other way around. Business as usual.

When you look from a distance, France, US, Canada and Western Europe are all part of the same block.

Ask Al Qaida, they hate them all as bad...



User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1320 times:

no french products should be used in the USAF, we can not rely on france for further parts and improvements during times of crisis. Enough said.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

- 100-150 Americanized KC330's as best value interim; customized US avionics, Gen-x engines, US based production & maintenance facility in a state that really wants/needs it..

Ha... get the USAF to do Airbus' dirty work for the A330NG. I doubt the USAF would have much interest in the GENEX anyway, the USAF stated a preference for the PW4000 in both the KC-767 and A330-T proposals.

Given that the 767 in other forms are already replacing many USAF aircraft, the KC-767 has a slight trump card. There is also the size advantage of the 767-200, given that ramp space doesn't grow on trees. I don't see the fact that EADS is a European consortium as a big deal, IMO, the A330 just doesn't fit the USAF.

And a 100-150 frame order is hardly interim!

- Lockheed work on an new optimized concept for introduction after 2015.

Around this time, I wouldn't be suprised if Boeing started throwing the BWB around again. I'd much rather see Boeing and Lockheed collaborate on a design than Boeing sending it off to Japan. Yes, Boeing, you are hardly the only aerospace major in North America  Big grin

A military transport version could probably first, EOS around 2015, as a complement/replacement for the airlift fleet. A civilian spinoff entering service in 2020-2025 could replace the 777 and 747 since Boeing wants a three-product family. A BWB/Tube-wing hybrid could come first (maybe 737NG replacement?), basically a tube-wing design where the wing increases in thickness to match the diameter of the fuselage, a la F-16-



Maybe I should patent it now  Big grin


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1264 times:

Nice drawing DfWR. Sure could take a lot of fuel.

Longer / shorter versions would seem possible.

Not including the engines in the body saves a lot of headaches

Compromises like these often stand a better chance then the real wild things.

For a passenger version I have doubts, windows, efficcient cabins, emergency exits etc.

I'm not sure about the lift/drag curve ...



Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf :
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf SAR Helo Selection posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:14:06 by Lumberton
Usaf Settles With N.J. Elementary School posted Sat Nov 4 2006 17:52:06 by GrandTheftAero
What Is A Usaf U-60 posted Thu Nov 2 2006 16:25:19 by Wannabe
Usaf Memorial Dedicated Today (Oct 14) posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:22:39 by TaxPilot
Flyover Today At Usaf Memorial posted Fri Oct 13 2006 14:13:01 by Contrails
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Updated: USAF's Next Tanker posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:05:32 by AislepathLight
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format