Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf $40B Tanker  
User currently offlineBillReid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

This is a contentious issue.
But protectionism needs to be addressed as laws and rules conflict.  stirthepot 


Can the $40B USAF deal be awarded to the EADS A330 in the same year that Virgin America is denied entry for foriegn ownership laws established by the DOD and not the DOT or the DOJ?

Can't have it two ways.
The DOD says foreign ownership in an airline cannot exceed 25%.
Can the DOD also buy 100% of fueling aircraft from a foreign entity?

The EU argues that Boeing is subsidized by military contracts.
Would a military contract to EADS actually be subsidizing the A380 fiasco?
Would US taxpayers or the airlines be willing to support this?

So is the USAF and the DOD pushing for support of Virgin America certification to open the door to allow for a viable bid from EADS on the USAF contract?


Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
95 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8500 times:

Quoting BillReid (Thread starter):
The DOD says foreign ownership in an airline cannot exceed 25%.
Can the DOD also buy 100% of fueling aircraft from a foreign entity?

Northrop Grumman is prime for the KC-30. They will do final assembly and integration of many of the extra systems.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well Boeing launched the 767-200LRF (Long-Range Freighter) this morning, and has stated that this will be the platform used for the KC-767 Advanced Tanker proposal they will submit for the USAF's RFP.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070212b_nr.html


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8375 times:

Quoting BillReid (Thread starter):
The EU argues that Boeing is subsidized by military contracts.
Would a military contract to EADS actually be subsidizing the A380 fiasco?
Would US taxpayers or the airlines be willing to support this?

I think we covered some of the more tendentious issues on the 40 or so previous tanker threads. Search?
I'm not sure about the airline connection to a defense procurement?

Quoting BillReid (Thread starter):
So is the USAF and the DOD pushing for support of Virgin America certification to open the door to allow for a viable bid from EADS on the USAF contract?

I can't for the life of me see a relationship between the "USAF and DOD" and "Virgin America" but I'm willing to hear your case....



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8344 times:

Too late to edit. For the thread starter, I'm not trying to be rude in my response, but I honestly don't see the connection!


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8315 times:

I think it would be more relevant to take us militairy sales to europe in the past decades as a reference.

User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8300 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
I think it would be more relevant to take us militairy sales to europe in the past decades as a reference.

For what it's worth, today's AvWeek says the USAF is considering A400M purchases.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8289 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
today's AvWeek says the USAF is considering A400M purchases.

Any link yet, or just the print version?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8265 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
For what it's worth, today's AvWeek says the USAF is considering A400M purchases.

Everybody saw this coming. I except the C-130s and/or C-17s are just perfect.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8250 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Everybody saw this coming. I except the C-130s and/or C-17s are just perfect.

Rather than hijack this thread, if there is a link to an article citing that the USAF is considering purchasing the A400, then I would suggest a new thread.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8236 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
Any link yet, or just the print version?

You need to have a subscription. Here is a fair-use excerpt...

"USAF Planners Try to Stop Decline
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/12/2007, page 25

The Air Force also proposes a new program with advance procurement in Fiscal 2008 for an HC/MC-130 replacement. An analysis of alternatives for both platforms points to a C-130J or A-400M as possible candidates, though the A400M will not be ready to meet early fielding timelines set by USAF."


User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8168 times:

Anyone have any specs on a B762LRF???

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8071 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
For what it's worth, today's AvWeek says the USAF is considering A400M purchases.



Quoting Thorny (Reply 10):
The Air Force also proposes a new program with advance procurement in Fiscal 2008 for an HC/MC-130 replacement. An analysis of alternatives for both platforms points to a C-130J or A-400M as possible candidates, though the A400M will not be ready to meet early fielding timelines set by USAF."

If it is not ready when the USAF wants it, why even consider it?

For the Tanker compitition, here is the only part Congress will read. (from the Boeing B-767-200LRF web page)

"This KC-767 Advanced Tanker will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers,"

NG says they will have 1,000 jobs in Mobil, plus the suppliers.

Even our dumb Congressmen/women and Senators don't need to count these numbers on the fingers and toes.

Can I replace the word "dumb" above with "stupid"?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Echster (Reply 11):
Anyone have any specs on a B762LRF?

I haven't seen anything released yet. All Boeing has said it will haul more fuel more efficiently and use less runway then the original KC-767 proposal.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7976 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
If it is not ready when the USAF wants it, why even consider it?

Because timelines can be changed. How long have we been waiting on KC-X now?


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7892 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
can't for the life of me see a relationship between the "USAF and DOD" and "Virgin America" but I'm willing to hear your case....

There isn't one. These are two entirely different matters.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7888 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Quoting Thorny (Reply 10):
The Air Force also proposes a new program with advance procurement in Fiscal 2008 for an HC/MC-130 replacement. An analysis of alternatives for both platforms points to a C-130J or A-400M as possible candidates, though the A400M will not be ready to meet early fielding timelines set by USAF."

It would seem that the AF views the C-130J as a suitable platform to fill these mission requirements. It isn't clear why they'd consider the A400M unless there's a desire to make sure there's a competition for the final contract. I'm sure Airbus would love to sell A400Ms to the US military but then consider how many airframes this would be. Not too many, as best I can tell.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7839 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 10):
The Air Force also proposes a new program with advance procurement in Fiscal 2008 for an HC/MC-130 replacement.

It seems we are only talking about some 30-35 airplanes here.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
I haven't seen anything released yet.

The MTOW of the B-767-200LRF jumps to 412,000lbs from the 395,000lbs for the B-767-200ER. Since Boeing is also saying it will use less runway, I would guess it has higher thrust engines and additional wing refinements.

One thing that concerns me is thie KC-X program is for 179 airplane. Congress has a habit of trimming down the numbers bought. They did it to the FB-111A (from 240 to 76), the F-22A (down to 183 airplanes), and the C-17 program had a low of only 120 airplanes, but now is at 190. I expect the final number of KC-Xs bought will be around 100-110.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31417 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
One thing that concerns me is thie KC-X program is for 179 airplane. Congress has a habit of trimming down the numbers bought.

Mainly because the cost per unit keeps ballooning well beyond what was originally contracted as the USAF keeps adding doo-dads and new missions.  Smile


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7684 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Mainly because the cost per unit keeps ballooning well beyond what was originally contracted as the USAF keeps adding doo-dads and new missions.

That was not the case with the FB-111A. But, contract change orders (for the doo-dads) require Congressional approval.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Mainly because the cost per unit keeps ballooning well beyond what was originally contracted as the USAF keeps adding doo-dads and new missions.

And given that the B-762LRF would in essence be a new and different platform from what was originally proposed, if it wins, the flyaway costs would in all likelihood also fly.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
If it is not ready when the USAF wants it, why even consider it?



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 16):

It would seem that the AF views the C-130J as a suitable platform to fill these mission requirements. It isn't clear why they'd consider the A400M unless there's a desire to make sure there's a competition for the final contract.

There is also this matter.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ertify-c-130-upgrade-as-costs.html

Flightglobal has a comprehensive summary of the various tanker and cargo platforms available or soon to be so. Makes for an interesting and informative read.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ankers-and-transport-aircraft.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ts-new-look-military-aircraft.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7578 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
"This KC-767 Advanced Tanker will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers,"

I think the trick is in the word "support" (folks spending 10 minutes on every kC767), something different hen creating jobs IMO.

One of the reasons the RAF selected the KC30 was that it was able to use the many shorter RAF AFB runways (appart from Brize and Boscombe) at MTOW in a refueling configuration while the KC767 was not. Has this been changed with the upgraded KC767?

IMO the KC30 is a little bigger bigger, can carry more fuel a little further, has better TO performance, offers superior passenger (without reconfig.) and cargo capability and is technological a generation ahead of its competitor. When production planning is 20 yrs for the first batch, this seems important.

(pls correct me if I said anything incorrect here).

I would not be surpriced if it is not up to the USAF what is selected and on which grounds.



User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7575 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
For the Tanker compitition, here is the only part Congress will read. (from the Boeing B-767-200LRF web page)



Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
I would not be surpriced if it is not up to the USAF what is selected and on which grounds.

Large procurement programs always must be approved by Congress. They sign the checks. The tanker program is not different. If it were, the USAF would be flying leased KC-767s. This has been discussed to the point of illness.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1938 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7564 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
For the Tanker compitition, here is the only part Congress will read. (from the Boeing B-767-200LRF web page)

"This KC-767 Advanced Tanker will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers,"

NG says they will have 1,000 jobs in Mobil, plus the suppliers.

Even our dumb Congressmen/women and Senators don't need to count these numbers on the fingers and toes.

Can I replace the word "dumb" above with "stupid"?

Ah come on! You will have to admit that most of those 44.000 jobs would be there anyhow. Boeing is selling their planes very well at the moment and will continue to do so. And what's also funny, everyone accuses Airbus to be a program to keep Europe employed and now we are seeing the same with this tender!

And my last remark; define support. Are we talking the lady in the local cafeteria as well as she is cooking for the workers in her town?

I say, let the best thing win and especially what is best for you as a taxpayer. Just like we are on the verge on ordering the JSF instead of a European fighter.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7544 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):

IMO the KC30 is a little bigger bigger, can carry more fuel a little further, has better TO performance, offers superior passenger (without reconfig.) and cargo capability and is technological a generation ahead of its competitor. When production planning is 20 yrs for the first batch, this seems important.

If you would take your Airbus blinders off and look at page 5 of this document, you may begin to fathom why your fabled KC-30 may not work for USAF as well as you think.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 Post contains images LifelinerOne : Wow, suprising! A Boeing PDF-file claiming their product is better than Airbus' product! What is the world of marketing becoming to? Cheers!   [Edi
26 N328KF : Say what you want about most of the rest of the content. You can't fake scale, and the footprint is one of the key criteria.
27 Post contains images LifelinerOne : The footprint of the plane was already shown in reply 21, so your post didn't added anything new. We all know it is one of the main criteria for this
28 N328KF : Sour grapes. I never claimed it was an independent source, but you can't fake drawings. Just because a technical diagram happens to be from Boeing do
29 KC135TopBoom : You KC-30 supporters just don't understand how important the ramp size of the new airplane is to the USAF. With the bigger KC-30, that means fewer sho
30 Keesje : What strikes me is that Boeing is avoiding every direct comparison between the KC30 and KC767. Probably for good reason. This seems to have become pa
31 Acheron : I say Grumman/Airbus pull out of this so we can be done with it, already, instead of letting this show go on and on. And save them some money(that mig
32 TropicBird : The main argument for the KC-X seems to have come down to the number of booms the USAF needs vs. the number of dollars available. The theme that I kee
33 Post contains images LifelinerOne : I think they can. Boeing will increase their B787 production, and if they do it right they can have even more people employed with new products like
34 BigJKU : There are a few basic problems with the Lockheed proposal that the USAF is going to point out. I used to do contract work on procurement, mostly on t
35 Post contains images Scbriml : Indeed. Even more surprising was that as soon as Boeing mentioned the possibility of a KC777, the ramp size issue suddenly went very quiet!
36 NorCal : Very good post One other expense to add to the KC-30 (or the KC-777) is the upgrades required to the infrastructure to handle the plane. Boeing just
37 USAF336TFS : Silence as in direct comparisons between the KC-30 and KC-777?
38 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Sure you can. You have proposed a strawman; there is no linkage between these issues. They'd consider the A400M because it might be a good fit as it
39 N328KF : That's a bunch of poppycock. Boeing's line has always been "We think the KC-767 is the best choice, but if you do want something bigger, we have the
40 BigJKU : It is actually a very common thing to look at the initial thoughts on a program and then look back later and see a much different purchase come out of
41 Post contains links TropicBird : The article pasted below says alot. Gen. Moseley always wanted the 767 and is now the Chief of Staff. I found the statement below most telling because
42 Post contains links and images Keesje : good post BigJKU, welcome! I think in this kind of comparisons total life cycle costs of the two models have top be compared. E.g. the live time MRO
43 DEVILFISH : This "old technology" line is itself getting long in the tooth. What is so advanced about the A330 that is not on the 767 except that it was conceive
44 BigJKU : This ability is nice but pretty much not really useful the vast majority of the time. During the deployment phase you could use it to avoid having to
45 Post contains links TropicBird : The point that seems to be missed here is that the USAF originally promoted the KC-X as a mixed use aircraft, not a dedicated tanker as some now seem
46 Post contains links and images TeamAmerica : All this is true, Keesje, but it is a list of capabilities the USAF isn't asking for as the primary mission of the aircraft. If they had, Boeing woul
47 BigJKU : Of course they wanted a multi-role tanker. However the financial realities of the situation pretty much preclude that from happening. What you write
48 Trex8 : one political issue which may play a part is how any supplier may "improve" the aerospace manufacturing base in the US. if Boeing wins with the 767, u
49 KC135TopBoom : I think when you look at any multi-role airplane, you will see one mission stands above the others. In other words, the KC-X will be a tanker first,
50 Lumberton : Yes, but the proposed facility at Mobile, AL, is promising to employ around 1000 from what I read. Many of those jobs will be white collar. I often d
51 Trex8 : there were something like a dozen 767s delivered last year, even with the UPS order and any USAF order you are probably talking about no more than a d
52 Lumberton : Boeing could also argue, with great effect IMO, that there would be a considerable loss of jobs if the "French" tanker were selected.
53 TropicBird : Could you please elaborate on how the refueling role was decreased on the KC-10? I was not aware of that. I do know the USAF used the capabilities of
54 TeamAmerica : Not so. Read the KC-X System Requirements Document. I can't provide a link as something on A.Net messes it up. Just Google "KC-X System Requirements
55 Post contains links and images Keesje : ? No, they are not, FWB, composites, wing optimalisation all very diffrent. technologicaly the A330 is a generation ahead, comparable with the 777. D
56 NorCal : The A330 is not a composite a/c, not even close. The A330 has a higher composite content than the 767, but it isn't really going to provide huge main
57 TeamAmerica : The USAF intends to retain the B-52 in service thru 2040; given that, it is safe to say they are not much afraid of using an aircraft based on older
58 TropicBird : There was a briefing on the KC-X prior to the first Draft SRD which came out last July (it was never made public). At the briefing certain features o
59 DEVILFISH : You very conveniently excluded the latter part of my statement..... Given that those would be all new-build frames and the production run, it would b
60 N328KF : Someone could go over and beat Keesje with a hammer emblazoned with the message "The KC-30 is too big" and he'd still insist that it was the right ai
61 BigJKU : Its a bit to big but mostly it is too expensive...for the 103rd time if it were just a matter of picking the best single aircraft its no contest but
62 KC135TopBoom : Simple, a KC-10 working a unit deployment mission, where it airlifts troops and cargo for the fighters it drags neds another tanker to support it. It
63 Post contains links TeamAmerica : It's not like there's any mystery left; Boeing bid the 767 and that's it. (see parallel thread It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 (by USAF3
64 TropicBird : The latest from AW&ST gives another complication for Boeing in the KC-X (unless they bid the 777) but may help with the C-17...below is a partial exce
65 DEVILFISH : A much simpler and easier tack would be to take whatever savings they could get by buying the cheaper KC-767, and use those savings to fund additiona
66 USAF336TFS : This is good news for the C-17 program. It will have little to no effect on the choice of platform in the KC-X competition. In my humble opinion....[E
67 KC135TopBoom : That is correct. There is nothing in the RFP that limits Boeing, or NG to only offer one airplane type. Boeing can offer both a KC-767 and the KC-777
68 TeamAmerica : The KC-X SRD has already been issued. They can't reconsider without withdrawing the whole KC-X request and starting over (again). Exactly so. Keeping
69 KC135TopBoom : Remember, any savings from the KC-X program cannot be recycled into the C-17 or F-22 programs without Congress's approval.
70 TeamAmerica : Yes; good to clarify that. I'm thinking the best outcome is to get the tanker question resolved with KC-X, then focus on the need for more C-17's (an
71 BigJKU : While thats true it sort of misses the point. Whatever congressmen Boeing wants to sell this to can get any variety of the pitch. We can build F-22,
72 KC135TopBoom : Oh course Boeing would pitch for more C-17s, it's their product. But, more F-22s is really what we need.
73 Post contains links Lumberton : GAO has told Congress that USAF should have provided better justification for specifying cargo and pax transport as a requirement in the RFP. Concern
74 Post contains links Atmx2000 : LOL. Well Keesje said the US should have input from "some independent non-airforce people." (See It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 (by USA
75 KC135TopBoom : I think the GAO needs reading lessons. The RFP does say the new tanker needs to be at least as capable as the current KC-135R. If the KC-767 is selec
76 Post contains images Tak : The GAO is a non-partisan watchdog for congress as well as the armed services. I think of the GAO as America's accountant. The GAO is the bean counter
77 Atmx2000 : That is what it is intended to be and structured to be. Nonetheless, is that an actual possibility? Can we be certain that people hired for studies b
78 TropicBird : I believe the latter idea will play out. The GAO suggestion will be adopted and that it may indeed come out that a "larger" platform will have a posi
79 Lumberton : If so, I'm betting that it will likely happen in the KC-Y procurement phase, not now. Right now, the USAF needs numbers. By then we could see a KC-77
80 Post contains links TropicBird : I read the GAO report and they are pretty adamant that they want the USAF to do an analysis of the need for cargo and passenger capabilities. I found
81 KC135TopBoom : The GAO is VERY partisan. They are only accountable to Congress, and the majority party appoints the "leadership" of the GAO. So, right now, the GAO
82 Lumberton : From the same page: "The guidance further describes that each capability, such as the passenger and cargo capability of the replacement refueling airc
83 KC135TopBoom : When you move the two Washington and two Kansas Senators, plus Senator Liberton to the Boeing side, the numbers change to 46-54.
84 Post contains images Tak : Well actually the head of the GAO is appointed by the president with consent of the senate for a 15 year term. The comptroller general is selected ou
85 UH60FtRucker : When I get back from Iraq in two weeks, I am buying a new truck. I am thinking about the Ford F-150 (or similar size). It fits my budget requirement.
86 Post contains images Lumberton : Because it costs more. Because it burns more fuel. Because you might need the extra capability some day. Convinced yet?
87 KC135TopBoom : According to the GAO report, you should then buy the Ford F-350, dually. Better get the 4X4 version. Your next assingment could be with the 10th Moun
88 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Actually, I read the GAO as saying if the USAF wants cargo and passenger capabilities they have to do an analysis to justify that. See page 10: "Comp
89 TropicBird : That is a true comment except that the USAF has stated from day one they want those capabilities (pax & cargo as the KC-135 and KC-10 have) included.
90 KC135TopBoom : Remember that all pure cargo or pax missions flown on tankers costs almost twice what a pure cargo aircraft costs. Additionally, you reduce air refue
91 XT6Wagon : I doubt that the cargo aspect of a tanker will ever be very important other than assisting its deployment overseas and other tasks related to the pri
92 KC135TopBoom : That is correct. Also remember that tankers tend to spend more time in the forward areas, with the fighters and bombers, so ramp space is a big issue
93 Post contains links DEVILFISH : This report opines that requiring the extra capabilities was a mistake..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...TH8AAAEAABZgWfcAAAAK&modele=jdc_34
94 Halls120 : I see you don't have a very well developed understanding of the GAO. Having gone through several GAO audits, both while on active duty and now as an
95 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Update: Air Force evaluation team sequestered and going through the proposals with a fine-toothed comb..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...x38
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf $40B Tanker
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...
Another Usaf New Tanker Thread..... posted Thu Mar 16 2006 11:35:52 by KC135TopBoom
Usaf Air Tanker/Refueling Questions posted Fri Mar 10 2006 18:33:38 by TropicBird
Boeing Gets Usaf 767 Tanker Deal posted Fri May 23 2003 20:35:19 by United777
Next Usaf Tanker posted Sun Jul 30 2006 09:07:28 by AislepathLight
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
USAF Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:48:04 by Lumberton
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Best Tanker Option For Usaf? posted Sun Nov 20 2005 15:08:24 by KC135TopBoom
Usaf Officials Now To Favour Tanker/Freighter posted Tue Sep 27 2005 16:14:44 by Keesje
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format