AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6803 times:
Saw an ad today for a KC-30, the proposed EADS A330 tanker for the USAF. So anyways, I had read where Boeing said they were open to considering the 787 and needless to say, after browsing the Airbus website about the A-350 earlier, why wouldn't EADS call Boeing's bluff and put together an KC-50? Hard to beat that one unless Boeing went with the 787 and nevertheless, EADS would have a platform ready for sale down the road for years to offer somebody else.
I can't beleive India just announced a plan to acquire six more IL-78 tankers, they have to be far behind a modern tanker of today.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6776 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): why wouldn't EADS call Boeing's bluff and put together an KC-50? Hard to beat that one unless Boeing went with the 787 and nevertheless, EADS would have a platform ready for sale down the road for years to offer somebody else.
From all that we've seen, it seems like the AF isn't so interested in unflown/untested/unproven aircraft for their new tanker, they're more after platforms that are "off the shelf". The 787 and 350 are too far down the road for them to be a viable option, IMHO.
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): I can't beleive India just announced a plan to acquire six more IL-78 tankers, they have to be far behind a modern tanker of today.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6750 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): I can't beleive India just announced a plan to acquire six more IL-78 tankers, they have to be far behind a modern tanker of today.
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1): Beautiful purchase That's India for ya.
Are they based upon the Il-76MF? That model is considerably updated, isn't it?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6698 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2): Are they based upon the Il-76MF? That model is considerably updated, isn't it?
Yes, the IL-76 tanker also works well with thier mostly russian fighter fleet.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6642 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
Are they based upon the Il-76MF? That model is considerably updated, isn't it?
It also has newer Progress engines, so it's got better endurance and payload abilities as well as being quieter. If that is the version India is looking at.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6566 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1): The 787 and 350 are too far down the road for them to be a viable option, IMHO.
Not really, since the USAF doesn't have to begin ordering a KC-135 replacement until 2040-2045, for delivery beginning in 2050-2060. So, by then both the B-787 and the A-350 should be long out of production.
Flynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6491 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1): From all that we've seen, it seems like the AF isn't so interested in unflown/untested/unproven aircraft for their new tanker, they're more after platforms that are "off the shelf".
Since when is the A330 an "unflown/untested/unproven" aircraft?! "God" forbid we fly tankers designed by the French!
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 6461 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1): From all that we've seen, it seems like the AF isn't so interested in unflown/untested/unproven aircraft for their new tanker, they're more after platforms that are "off the shelf"
This is crap. Especially for the tanker role. The 135 was created and designed specifically for the Air Force. Off the shelf my eye.
Sphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 6444 times:
I don't think the real concerns/positions are being aired (ha ha) in public, but one point that Boeing has made makes sense to me: they have a lot of confidence in the 787 as a passenger aircraft, where it will remain externally unmodified throughout its lifetime. But when one looks at the x-135, most of the airframe have undergone substantial external modification during their service (there was a mosiac showing this on a thread about 6 months ago, which I cannot find). Boeing is NOT confident _at this time_ that it can modify the 787 as easily as it can an aluminum aircraft. If it turns out that mods are not easy to do, they could be backing the Air Force into a corner with a KC-787.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, 
That's India for ya.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Since when is the A330 an "unflown/untested/unproven" aircraft?! "God" forbid we fly tankers designed by the French! 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
