Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8978 times:

Airbus rolls out first A330 for USAF KC-X programme.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-a330-for-usaf-kc-x-programme.html

Airbus has completed assembly of the A330-200 earmarked to become the first development KC-30 for the US Air Force if Northrop Grumman wins the KC-X tanker competition, scheduled to be decided on 31 October.

The standard production aircraft, Airbus serial number 871, is in ground testing at Toulouse and will be ready to begin military modification in the USA in November, if the KC-30 is selected over Boeing’s KC-767.

Northrop says it decided to proceed with assembly of the aircraft, designated SDD-1, ahead of a downselect to underline the benefits of basing its tanker proposal on a commercial production line and supply chain.




Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
121 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8916 times:

Will Northrop modify the FBW as necessary to meet their personal requirements? Or will they use the FBW software exactly as is from Airbus?

Andrea Kent


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8896 times:

I was under the impression the KC-30 would be based on the A330F? Or do they built the prototype based on a normal A330 to get it ready early enough? What about the cargo gate? Could be become an odd bird, if they need to resell it after they have not got the final order ...

User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8882 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 2):
I was under the impression the KC-30 would be based on the A330F? Or do they built the prototype based on a normal A330 to get it ready early enough? What about the cargo gate? Could be become an odd bird, if they need to resell it after they have not got the final order ...

There have been conflicting reports about which airframe will ultimately be used, so I share your questions about it. If, as I suspect, the KC-767ADV wins, this particular airframe will be flying for an existing MRTT customer.
I guess they could use it to supply the UK's MoD order.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineSNA350 From Belgium, joined Dec 2005, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8862 times:

What are they going to do when the KC 30 doesn't get selected
maybe another customer?

thanks



Aircraft flown: B733, B734, B736, B737, B738, B744, B752, B763, B772, A319, A320, A321, A343, A346, Do328, CRJ7, E190
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4044 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8852 times:

Quoting SNA350 (Reply 4):
What are they going to do when the KC 30 doesn't get selected
maybe another customer?

Theres plenty of other customers it can go to, Airbus aren't losing out by doing this.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8719 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 3):
If, as I suspect, the KC-767ADV wins, this particular airframe will be flying for an existing MRTT customer.
I guess they could use it to supply the UK's MoD order.



Quoting Moo (Reply 5):

Theres plenty of other customers it can go to, Airbus aren't losing out by doing this.

There are certainly not loosing anything (it's a research effort at least), but in case they apply any non-reversible modifications to it (such as a main floor cargo gate), they cannot sell it to anyone who intends to lease it out for airline purposes (just as the RAF plans to do).


User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8712 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 6):
There are certainly not loosing anything (it's a research effort at least), but in case they apply any non-reversible modifications to it (such as a main floor cargo gate), they cannot sell it to anyone who intends to lease it out for airline purposes (just as the RAF plans to do).

Just a small point. The RAF do not plan to lease out the aircraft. The aircraft are being provided to the RAF by a private company, AirTanker. The RAF do not require all the aircraft that have been converted unless there is some sort of additional conflict etc, so the 'spare' aircraft will be de-roled and leased out by AirTanker. The revenue that this will bring in will subsidise the overall tanker contract. There will be a clause in the leases for instant recall should the RAF need additional resources.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8698 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 6):
There are certainly not loosing anything (it's a research effort at least), but in case they apply any non-reversible modifications to it (such as a main floor cargo gate), they cannot sell it to anyone who intends to lease it out for airline purposes (just as the RAF plans to do).

Isn't there a pending order for the A330 tankers for Saudi Arabia so it could go to them.

Anyway it's not totally clear who will own the plane will it be EADS or will it be NG?


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8697 times:

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 7):

Just a small point. The RAF do not plan to lease out the aircraft. The aircraft are being provided to the RAF by a private company, AirTanker. The RAF do not require all the aircraft that have been converted unless there is some sort of additional conflict etc, so the 'spare' aircraft will be de-roled and leased out by AirTanker. The revenue that this will bring in will subsidise the overall tanker contract. There will be a clause in the leases for instant recall should the RAF need additional resources.

That is correct, although I knew it, I superficially ran over it. I think I should get myself a coffee ...  Wink


User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8691 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 8):
pending order for the A330 tankers for Saudi Arabia

Australia has some KC-30s on order as well, 4 i think, if memory serves


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8652 times:

Quoting Legs (Reply 10):
Australia has some KC-30s on order as well, 4 i think, if memory serves

Australia receives A330MRTT with a tail boom in addition to two underwing refueling pods. Apart from the boom and the related equipment they are like the RAF ones ... KC-30s are (were?) supposed to receive a real cargo floor and gate and larger fuel capacity than the MRTTs which are, apart from refueling equipment, in airline configuration.


User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8616 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 11):

I stand humbly corrected, thanks for the info


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3721 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8468 times:

Will it have a A340 wing, are a stronger A330 wing for wing fueling?

User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8449 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
Will it have a A340 wing, are a stronger A330 wing for wing fueling?

Judged by its structure A340 and A330 share more or less the same wing. That make it so easy to convert A330 to tankers, because there is already a strengthened position, where the A340 would have its outer engines. The A330 wing also has the necessary ducts for the fuel pipes and wiring. There is still some work necessary, but don't need to strengthen anything or make way for pipes.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8417 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 14):
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
Will it have a A340 wing, are a stronger A330 wing for wing fueling?

Judged by its structure A340 and A330 share more or less the same wing. That make it so easy to convert A330 to tankers, because there is already a strengthened position, where the A340 would have its outer engines. The A330 wing also has the necessary ducts for the fuel pipes and wiring. There is still some work necessary, but don't need to strengthen anything or make way for pipes.

I've wondered about this. Seems to me that two booms could be mounted in place of the out board engines. I played around with distances, and if this were done, two F-22's could refuel simultaneously with a comfortable gap between them. Someone made a point that drag would be a problem, however, in a case of engine failure, would not the drag factor have been engineered in the wing anyways?

Just thinking out loud.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 15):
Just thinking out loud.

I wonder whether a position on the outer wing offers sufficient stability to operate a boom. A centerline position is pretty immune against rolling movements along the horizontal axis. I think a boom on the outer wings would need some sort of stabilization.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8373 times:

It seems weird to me that the USAF would chose a European plane rather than boeing, their home turf. What are the benefits of the 767 and A330 tankers, and has boeing talked about a 777 or 748 tanker

User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8252 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 14):
Judged by its structure A340 and A330 share more or less the same wing. That make it so easy to convert A330 to tankers, because there is already a strengthened position, where the A340 would have its outer engines. The A330 wing also has the necessary ducts for the fuel pipes and wiring. There is still some work necessary, but don't need to strengthen anything or make way for pipes.

Sorry PADSpot I'm not picking on you but the A340 and A330 wings are only similar in shape. It's a common misconception that they are identical and the A330 wing is already strengthened around the outer engine positions. If you think about it, why would they build a wing with un-neccessary additional weight.

In the early days, EADS were saying that the wings were the same to play down the risk but they always knew that the A330 wing needed a fair bit of work. To fit pods to the wing, significant strengthening is required around the Rib 26 area and a large doubler is also fitted on the lower wing surface. It is though a relatively simple modification. You can see (I hope) half of the doubler on the photo (painted green) just above the orange hoisting bracket.



User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8238 times:

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 18):

First, thanks for correcting me.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 18):
why would they build a wing with un-neccessary additional weight.

... to enjoy greater economies of scale in production? If the additional weight is negligible, it can be worthwhile to think about leaving it in order to streamline production.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8186 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 17):
It seems weird to me that the USAF would chose a European plane rather than boeing, their home turf. What are the benefits of the 767 and A330 tankers, and has boeing talked about a 777 or 748 tanker

It is unsettling that we'd choose a french tanker to fuel our own warplanes. But, government contracts and competition being what they are, I suppose it has to be bid out. Boeing will somehow prevail, IMHO.

The day I take gas from a french-built tanker is the day I get out of the Guard.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8182 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 17):
It seems weird to me that the USAF would chose a European plane rather than boeing, their home turf.

That's a very honest statement and I feel the same for my side of the pond, but the problem that it is not very clever to "define" monopolies of you are at the same time the customer. Boeing (or Airbus rerspectively) could call any price then ...


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8169 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16):
I wonder whether a position on the outer wing offers sufficient stability to operate a boom. A centerline position is pretty immune against rolling movements along the horizontal axis. I think a boom on the outer wings would need some sort of stabilization.

Hmm, good point. That is something engineers will have to contend with if a flying wing design is adopted. I've seen illustrations of this concept with two outer booms. Still doesn't change the fact that this aircraft would also have a longitudinal axis. Longitudinal boom mount would be the most stable.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8144 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 20):
The day I take gas from a french-built tanker is the day I get out of the Guard.

The A330 is not built in France, it is assembled there. The KC30 will be assembled in the US.

Would you refuse to ride in cars that are not of US origin too, or not watch on a TV made abroad?

Or is it just France you have a problem with? (understandable  Wink )


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8139 times:

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 23):
Would you refuse to ride in cars that are not of US origin too, or not watch on a TV made abroad?

I've always wanted an Austin Healy, and my dad has a porche....so I love alot of non US cars Big grin

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 23):
The A330 is not built in France, it is assembled there. The KC30 will be assembled in the US.

Dressing the pig up is all it is...bottom line, it is still a French aircraft...just, some rivets applied here in the US to make it seem "American". Airbus is, well, an Airbus, no matter which continent it comes from.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 23):
Or is it just France you have a problem with? (understandable )

Right on, jolly good ol chap  Smile

DeltaGuy


25 Post contains images PADSpot : It's PorSche!!! The wings are made in Britain, much of the fuselage comes from Germany. The landing gear might even be American (Goodrich?!) and the
26 Arluna : Please correct me if I'm wrong but won't the KC30 be assembled in France and then flown to the US to have it's military equipment installed? If that's
27 Lumberton : You're not wrong.
28 Post contains links TexL1649 : There are no large commercial aircraft which are remotely "national" today. I'd suggest letting go of that infantile concept. http://www.northropgrumm
29 PADSpot : The extent of work being done in the US will depend on the actual order size. If the order is split or its size reduced Airbus will not set up an ent
30 Blackbird : Let's hope the Europeans don't design the aircraft with some kind of device that enables them to takeover the plane or something... After some of the
31 USAF336TFS : " target=_blank>http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/....html Ah yes, quotes from NG. A truly unbiased source quoted. The KC-767Adv will have at least
32 PADSpot : ??? You're watching the wrong type of movies, I presume.
33 Moo : Your paranoia is starting to show.
34 USAF336TFS : As much as I disagree with her on her feelings on Iraq... Even dragging that discussion in, I don't think the statement should be taken as anything o
35 Arluna : This is news to me, I spent twenty-one years in the Air Force in the tanker community and never heard of this. Please give us your source for this st
36 TexL1649 : That's the thing, arluna, the tanker community doesn't appreciate that the -135's are useless for cargo. Obviously the AF can't recapitalize/grow the
37 Post contains images Tancrede : As much as I can understand nationalism, I just would like that some A.neters stop shouting and crying when, we French, try to avoid to buy American
38 Post contains images PADSpot : I think I wanted more to point out, that nationalism is contra-productive because it tends to make defense procurements more expensive due to artific
39 Post contains images AirRyan : As you drive home in your foreign made import because you detest the Big 3 auotmakers in Detroit and their overpaid, fat, and lazy unions combined wi
40 Tancrede : It is off topic, but I wanted to point out this comment because it seems that for many of our American friends, Iraq is an easy reason to explain eve
41 Arluna : Please let us all know what your background is as far as the tanker community is concerned and how you know what the tanker community appreciates. Yo
42 Post contains images Moo : Don't forget the foreign gas being pumped
43 KC135TopBoom : The KC-135 was designed and built as a derivitive of the B-367-80. The original specs. did not call for a duel role aircraft. The KC-135 was to have
44 XT6Wagon : The KC-30 is far closer to the KC-777 than the KC-767 in size? That the KC-767 is virtually identical in footprint to the KC-135, and even with the 7
45 Dougloid : Can you tell me how Europe-with the exception of Britain- is paying the bill for Iraq?
46 Post contains links TexL1649 : Thanks for the history lesson, but I do understand the history of the KC-135, the related Dash 80's impact on jet transport in general, and that the o
47 PADSpot : Maybe "non-objective" is a better word and comes closer to what he meant? Just a guess ... I wrote you an instant message in order not to hijack the
48 Columba : ...and what is bad about it ? The french airforce has KC 135, E3s, E2s, C130s. Also all the other European countries might disagree calling theA330 a
49 AirRyan : But what I am saying is that argument is for intent purposes illogical and invalid - it doesn't ¡phu¢king! matter - if NW airlines can figure it ou
50 Blackbird : Yes I was largely speaking in tongue in cheek when I was saying that the Europeans would design the plane with a back-door that would enable them to t
51 Post contains images Zeke : Maybe.............if it was Greek
52 PADSpot : Technically? Yes of course! But why should somebody do that? That is sabotage and a purely hostile act. I can hardy imagine anything more trust-devas
53 Post contains links USAF336TFS : More bad news for the NG/EADS consortium: http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070806/43588_id.html?.v=1 "Pentagon refuses to split deal for tankers 11:4
54 USAF336TFS : Really? Ah, then I need to call UPS, ANA and LAN to tell them their desposits of new build 767 frames needs to be rethought because the assembly line
55 Post contains links Zeke : Is it ? the RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters, where does the 767 win ? 1) Air refueling capability 2) Fuel offload and range at
56 USAF336TFS : Most would agree that it is... I read your quotes from the Boeing Tanker Program director. I guess I'm missing your point.
57 KC135TopBoom : Because the 70-80% of the airplane that is built in the EU will effect the way the US does it's international business. If the EU decides the US shou
58 PADSpot : Seriously, never heard such a non-sense. Both from a geostrategic, economic and plain political standpoint. Sorry, that I have to be that direct.[Edi
59 Post contains links and images Lumberton : Despite all the protestations and noise about "cargo capacity", the USAF still wants a tanker firstly. Then there is this minor consideration: http:/
60 AirRyan : Oh, you smartguy. That's why I said "all but." And go ahead and look at those orders, ANA has got 2763ER's on order to fill the gap between now and t
61 TexL1649 : TopBoom, Respectfully, I think your comments are revealing. Yes, it is definitely preferable within the tanker community to serve exclusively as tanke
62 Post contains links TropicBird : According to a defense web-site...the KC-X decision has now been delayed until December. Daily News: Air Force Source Selection on KC-X Now Delayed Un
63 Post contains links and images AirRyan : Wow, the USAF needs the tankers like YEARS ago, and supossedly the ability of the winning manufactuer to deliever the said product on time is a huge f
64 Post contains images Tancrede : At least it shows that you lack a complete foreign politics knowledge, as what you said is a total non-sense. It seems that you are living more and m
65 Lumberton : They are creating a point booth. The aircraft will still be assembled in France.
66 Post contains images USAF336TFS : Being a "smartguy", and if I've read some of Boeing's comments correctly over these past few months, there are "improvements" made to the original de
67 Post contains links and images F27Friendship : good to see there are still some good old, euro-phobic Americans out there: Actually, a similar stunt was pulled on the 767 not so long ago: source I
68 PADSpot : You see the deadlock in it? What I don't like about with this consideration is that it takes place on project level. Projects should be decided on th
69 Lumberton : You can and I am. It's the same thing--protecting one's own domestic military industrial complex. I'm afraid the USAF will never measure up to the "a
70 TexL1649 : It probably does balance out with total R&D respectively as the common denominator. EU spends a miniscule amount on major programs vs. the US. It took
71 ArniePie : Not really relevant to the thread but interesting anyway, did you know that the US forces spend 160.000.000 $ on renting the big Antonov's for heavy
72 USAF336TFS : No, it shows what we Americans call a "difference of opinion". Since you're a foreign policy expert, you will already know that differing opinions ar
73 Tancrede : Then, you are acknowledging the fact that the US 's western allies who own within their armies military American hardware (KC-135, C-17, Hawkeye,...)
74 F27Friendship : ofcourse you can if you want, but it's silly, they are 2 very different aircraft, not 2 designs submitted for a single requirement package, like the
75 Lumberton : Well, I could have cited the C-130J, but would that have been too small? Point is not the specifications, nor the capability of one vis a vis the oth
76 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Possibly something like the shortened An-124-102 under study..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-looks-into-shortened-an-124.html Quote: "R
77 F27Friendship : it would definitely make more sense, as those are aircraft who have similar operational capabilities and usage. Also, I believe all (correct me if I'
78 DEVILFISH : Mainly because these are Russian aircraft being made available by the Russian military to Russian (mostly) companies. It doesn't take much imaginatio
79 USAF336TFS : Huh? No. The whole idea is silly to me. A project with such far reaching ramifications such as the KC-X program, with the nation's internal manufactu
80 F27Friendship : why? This goes, as far as I understand the article, for the additional aircraft the Russian military will sell them. So overall, the capacity goes up
81 PADSpot : Respect is a basic right of everyone here. But you cannot expect people to know the real life background of each and every member. On internet forums
82 Post contains images Tancrede : I do fully approve you. In fact, it would be totally irresponsible for any European or American States to behave in such way with this kind of indust
83 Post contains images USAF336TFS : As usual, I respectfully disagree with you. I didn't read his comments that way. And I think it was probably taken out of context. Ditto! And I could
84 PADSpot : I did though and apparently I was not alone. I think the context is pretty clear as he directly quoted TexL1649 comment to which he replied. And only
85 USAF336TFS : Agreed.. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion.
86 JakeOrion : Its called worse case scenario. Just because we are allies today doesn't mean we'll be allies tomorrow. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) is
87 F27Friendship : I know this is not meant to go on, but I really have a huge problem with comparing the 50+ year relation of European NATO allies and the US, as Nazi-
88 PADSpot : Only indirectly relevant, as Airbus will not make a Euro-based offer. Judging just from the airframe, Airbus has more a reputation of selling at chea
89 Post contains links and images AirRyan : Boeing had this pep rally of sorts at their 767 line recently and wow, the ignorant rhetoric coming out of their camp embarasses me as a fan of Boeing
90 Post contains links and images Zeke : interesting, considering this This maybe of some interest .... As I posted above When on makes the comparison, taking away the red herrings, where do
91 Sebolino : When will the choice be made ? I have the feeling it's a neverending story.
92 Lumberton : Yes, at the end of the day, that is what it will come down to, protestations to the contrary. Point-by-point rebuttals, charts & graphs notwithstandi
93 KC135TopBoom : Then I guess you have never heard of France, and of course your own country, Germany. Both have done exactly that in the past (but not to the US), at
94 TexL1649 : The entire Department of Defense will benefit greatly from the new tanker's airlift capability. Unlike the KC-135, the KC-30 and KC-767 can carry subs
95 USAF336TFS : Absolutely correct, not to mention the ramifications of being seen as "exporting" a project of this size and value, when, at best, the "inferiority"
96 Post contains images Lumberton : I can't see the Chief of the Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force sitting before a panel in Congress defending the rationale for
97 KC135TopBoom : But, if the USAF wanted a duel-role tanker, wouldn't they place more emphisis on the cargo mission in the RFP? Adding the self defense suite is a goo
98 Post contains images F27Friendship : Israel is not our most important strategic ally over 50 years in our NATO alliance, this is barely a comparison.. I believe we get by far more object
99 USAF336TFS : In your YOUR OPINION. Quoted from sources at Northrup Grumman. The same sources that internally, don't think they'll win this competition either. Gee
100 Fairchild24 : Well perhaps we shall let the Marines to decide, they seems to have no problem with foreign Airplane like the AV8. The US Armed Force incl. the Coast
101 Post contains images Lumberton : As far as I know, the Marines aren't buying tankers, at least I have no knowledge of the USMC floating an RFP. Could you be referring to the marine f
102 Columba : I am really hoping that the Kc 30 will win for various reasons but also would like to see Germany ordering some C17s in return, doubtful that my wishe
103 ArniePie : Because that way we can make a quick profit!!! Seriously now, the KC330 ain't going to happen for the USAF and the 767 will do the job just fine even
104 Post contains images PADSpot : Exactly what I thought .
105 Post contains images Lumberton : Well, I suggested earlier...only half in jest...that something might be / could have been worked out with a large C-17 package buy AND Airbus forsaki
106 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Here are two reasons why..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6898897.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6938856.stm Please note that by "conscr
107 Fairchild24 : To be honest, Yes I think so in the future a small country like Sweden cannot afford to produce in my opinion a pretty stiff Fighter. We should not p
108 F27Friendship : not at all, simply comparing the aircraft specifications, which has been done over and over again in this thread. haha! Dutch aerospace industry was
109 Post contains images AirRyan : But what worked 50, 20, or even 10 years ago does not mean that that is what will work in the next 10, 20, or 50 years. Huh, they can't carry AMRAAM'
110 TexL1649 : KC135TopBoom I'd like to state that I appreciate both your service and opinion here. Certainly we might disagree as to the inadequacy of airlift the U
111 Lumberton : Whether deploying or sustaining the force, you can always rent cargo aircraft -- if that were the issue. Where does one rent flying gas stations? I'd
112 Columba : My sentiments exactly.
113 Post contains images Tancrede : BTW, the "I am twice your age" so I know better is so cliché that I begin almost to love it. But seriously, if you are admitting that this kind of p
114 XT6Wagon : ah, judging by your every post, you are as much of a fan of Boeing as I am of being burned at the stake.
115 PADSpot : ??? Germany is second most important external contributor to Israeli defense expenditures. We do this, because the Federal Republic of Germany feels
116 Post contains images USAF336TFS : Back at ya Buddy!
117 AirRyan : Blind arrogance does not a fan make, but that is generally the US American way given their relationship in sports between fans and cheerleaders - rah
118 Post contains links and images Zeke : from http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/...070615_mtad_mrtt-first_flight.html Successful first flight of EADS� A330 MRTT Multi Role Tanker Trans
119 Post contains links and images AirRyan : Looks like a highly competent and technologically advanced aerial tanker to me. The 764 pit is not bad by any means but the A330 flight deck is really
120 Post contains images Astuteman : Given the huge amount of equipment purchased from the USA by European armed forces, compared to the relatively tiny amounts of equipment purchased by
121 Playloud : The F-15E cannot carry the AIM-120? Are you sure about that? According to the USAF site...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
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...
A330 Line 871 - For Usaf?! posted Thu Jun 7 2007 21:37:38 by RobK
First USN EA-18G Growler Rolls Out posted Sat Aug 5 2006 10:44:27 by GOCAPS16
First Stretched C-130J-30 For Usaf Completed posted Tue Jul 3 2001 00:10:06 by Flight152
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Rolls Out ABL posted Sat Oct 28 2006 18:23:46 by MCIGuy
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
New Stealth Aircraft Under Contract For Usaf posted Sat Jun 24 2006 23:05:17 by RichardPrice
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
Buffet Problems For Italian KC-767 posted Mon May 22 2006 09:56:35 by Scbriml
Fighter For USN Bombers For Usaf posted Tue May 16 2006 23:57:59 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format