Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.  
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 18270 times:

With this thread Usaf Decided On KC-30 (by Andrej Feb 29 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) getting quite long, please continue the discussion here. Please keep the discussion civil.

327 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1291 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 18249 times:

With this second part starting let me put in a "new idea" as to why the USAF decided to go for the EADS/NG combo besides it being the better performer.

Maybe they also are (rightfully) unhappy with the idea of only 2 major suppliers available (B&LM) and now with NG getting this contract they still have the option to choose from at least 2 suppliers when the need arises , B&NG for the larger airframes and B&LM for the fighters and other smaller frames.

This contract gave them the best possible excuse to go for a non-Boeing product, it won on technical merit, it isn't that more expensive and the majority of the money and work will stay in the US.

Just an idea, just my  twocents 

[edit post]
User currently offlineZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 18194 times:

WOW, I spent the evening out rolled into the driveway at 340 AM and decided I might as well check to see if anything happened. This is GREAT news for NG and EADS. Congrats to them, I can only assume they are partying hard tonight! Again this is great news and this will be interesting to follow in the coming months to see what Boeing does in response.

(A very happy) Chris

Keep the shinny side up!
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 4390 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 18181 times:

I am totally surprised, however, somehow I have expected this decision, because they were so reluctant to tell what they have decided on. I think they would have presented a Boeing solution to the public earlier.

User currently offlineNbgskygod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 902 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 18182 times:

As a Boeing fan I am a little disappointed that the Air Force went with the KC-45 program rather than the KC-767, however I believe that they made a good decision based on the fact that this will bring more skilled labor to the Mobile area, as well as other locations around the country. Another item I didn't see mentioned was that several other countries have purchased the KC-767 including Italy and Japan. I saw in another post that production was lagging, but this may encourage them to attempt to rectify this issue. Another issue is that in the future, I believe, is that Boeing will receive more orders for C-17s, P-8s, and will have more preference for future projects.

Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 18166 times:

Quoting Nbgskygod (Reply 4):
Another issue is that in the future, I believe, is that Boeing will receive more orders for C-17s, P-8s, and will have more preference for future projects.

You can almost bet on a new C-17 order from the Air Force. Sort of a peace offering.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17422 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 18032 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
You can almost bet on a new C-17 order from the Air Force. Sort of a peace offering.

Also a way to keep two suppliers going.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 8500 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 18010 times:

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
Maybe they also are (rightfully) unhappy with the idea of only 2 major suppliers available (B&LM) and now with NG getting this contract they still have the option to choose from at least 2 suppliers when the need arises , B&NG for the larger airframes and B&LM for the fighters and other smaller frames.

This is a military contract, purchasing equipment to protect and defend the nation, even if two suppliers are demanded, the other US company should have thrown in a US designed a/c rather than going for the money and just building under licence another companies product, if the US Airforce had cut out the middle man - NG - in this purchase, I'm certain the purchase price directly from EADS would have been much lower.

User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 18002 times:

I assume the USAF KC-30s would end up with GE engines (Wiki does not mention Pratts) ?
Do the RAAFs (+ Saudi, UAEs) have... what? R-R? RAF is a given.

` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4860 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 18003 times:

Interesting quote from a USAF official on the BBC news article -


Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11376 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17951 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability

With the USAF itself saying that the Airbus is such a superior product, I think political resistance was the real time-consuming issue in this decision.

User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4360 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17938 times:

Fact simply is that the USAF at one point had to order from Airbus as Lockheed and MDD are no longer around in the transport aircraft business and there is only one US supplier left. How can all those denouncing the decision seriously believe that it would be in the best interest of the USAF and the US taxpayer to make the USAF an eternal Boeing slave, no matter what quality and what price Boeing are able or willing to offer. The A330MRTT is the perfect product to make that point to the US mil aviation industry as the product has a competitive advantage and is not a combat aircraft. Apart from that, as probably has been pointed out ad nauseam, the A330MRTT in a way is as much a US product as the Boeing 767 is a non-US aircraft. It needs to be understood that building large aircraft nowadays is always an international process and in the end only the brand under which the aircraft is sold makes it "US" or "European". Nicely illustrated by the way by the reporting on that deal where most US reports fully concentrate on the NG link rather than the Airbus pedigree of the platform.

I guess sooner or later airlines like Delta, American and Southwest will understand the rationale behind this decision as well.

User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17925 times:

Just so you know, the media in the US is really playing this up. The word "outsourcing" keeps coming up and people are getting in an uproar over this. This ain't over yet.  Wink

Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 8500 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17881 times:

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 11):
How can all those denouncing the decision seriously believe that it would be in the best interest of the USAF and the US taxpayer to make the USAF an eternal Boeing slave, no matter what quality and what price Boeing are able or willing to offer.

reminds me of family, where it is ok for a family member to insult each other but if an outsider tries it??????

I think you need to look beyond Boeing and think American, if the only American company that can build a/c is Boeing what does that say for the industrial capacity of the nation? At the end of the Cold War, the "military industrial complex" was quoted by some as being used to keep the US economy afloat with jobs, funds etc., the more this complex gets out-sourced simply means that US taxpayers will have to put up even more as a greater percentage of their taxes have to go "abroad".

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 5364 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Voodoo (Reply 8):
I assume the USAF KC-30s would end up with GE engines (Wiki does not mention Pratts) ?
Do the RAAFs (+ Saudi, UAEs) have... what? R-R? RAF is a given.

GEs were the engine selected by NG for their proposal. RAAF have GE (and chosen for commonality with QF who are doing the mx). Not sure if the Saudis, UAE have selected engines(or even have a choice)

User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1291 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17849 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 7):
even if two suppliers are demanded, the other US company should have thrown in a US designed a/c rather than going for the money and just building under licence another companies product,

Sorry but that is just not a realistic option.
A proven design was preferred and besides the 767 there was nothing in the US that would be a viable choice.
It's not as if you can just quickly come up with some new airframe, if that was the case LM might have entered the race too.
The reality is/was that the 330 is the only real contender (and a better one at that) and both NG and EADS had the right idea on how to get the best chance of securing the contract by teaming up.
It is still no crime to out think your competitor and that is exactly what happened here.

As for it having it to be "an American plane" is at best purely patriotically motivated reason.
In history more US defense companies have chosen to join forces with foreign defense contractors because of an already existing platform that would fit the needs for the military.
A wise choice to do and because of the vastness of many defense contracts from the US DOD most are extensively Americanized anyway making it in reality an as good as American product (AV8B, GOSHAWK,LAKOTA,...).

Some of you guys need to realize that there is more than just your own dot on the globe and sometimes it is best to just rely on what befriended nations can offer (I'mcertainly not adressing our American friends alone with this statement!! ).

PS Like stated in other threads, I sincerely hope some (also Belgium) nations go for the C17 as an addition to their transport fleets, lord knows we can use them, and now that the US decided to go for our tankers, maybe we could buy what we need from them.
It won't be as hard to sell to the public because a lot of large weapon system come out of the US anyway but it will certainly be more of a budgetary problem , we are just not always as prepared to pay for what is necessary for our armed forces as people are across the pond.

[edit post]
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17803 times:

From part I
You guys post faster than I can read!

Some seem seriously put out. Does Ikra really think this after a few hours to contemplate?

Quoting Ikramerica,Part I reply=13:
Seriously, our military has a LONG history of buying the WRONG product, products that don't work, that crash, that explode. So assuming it must be the better choice is a big assumption.

If he did, he should forward his opinions to our Min for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, who is even now examining dominantly US products that the Howard government was desirous of buying.

A more balanced and overall, suggestion that gives greater balance to the outcomes is:

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK,Part I reply=101:
I think in the long run this will be the best economic choice for the US as well. We'll get freighter production which is an incremental add to the economy and I think we'll suddenly see a lot more interest in some of our more unique products from Europe such as the C-17 as there will now be little to no political price to pay for buying these US products.

The current balance of US purchases of European military equipment against European purchases of US military equipment has to be heavily in favour of the US. Over time, this tanker decision, provided it is implemented could have a far more favourable impact on US sales of military equipment than if the tankers had been bought from Boeing.

The other balancing factor is that perhaps twice or or more than twice as many freighters will come out of Mobile than this lot of tankers. That will be a huge benefit to the US. The arguments about assembly and building are really strange. Effectively most of what would have been done in Toulouse on these planes is surely now going to be done in the US. And yet for some, this is still not right. What do you want to happen to the French for goodness sake?

With the number of new planes now up over ?300, surely it is time for a new set of engines as Zeke suggests, at least bleed versions of the GEnx, and perhaps later versions of the Trents, if not Lights beloved Pratts?

So far, it appears globalization is alive, perhaps not well in some localities, but alive. Let us see how it fares during the "night".

Ed correction it to if

[Edited 2008-03-01 05:34:34]

User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10518 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17746 times:

I have not read the entire previous thread about this but why hasn't Boeing offered a B767-300ER based variant of the tanker to be able to better compete with the A330 Tanker? Were there specific reasons for this? Like others have said, Boeing is still in the running as this is the first order for the tanker replacement. I also wonder what will happen when Democrats will win the elections. Will this order still stand? I assume if it will be cancelled, the US Government will have to pay a very high fine. I don't think NG/EADS will take it lightly if it would be cancelled.

In any case, congrats to NG/EADS for winning this deal.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 5364 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A388 (Reply 17):
I also wonder what will happen when Democrats will win the elections. Will this order still stand?

there is very little precedent for an incoming administration of another party to cancel a contract to favor another contractor, canceling the whole program is not unknown but not likely to be the case here as the USAF is desperate for new tankers

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17722 times:

The -200ER was offered over the -300ER simply because both aircraft share the same wing, and lift the same amount of weight. The larger fuselage of the -300 means that though it can carry more cargo volume, it also carries less payload because of the increased weight of thte fuselage.

The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17678 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 18):
there is very little precedent for an incoming administration of another party to cancel a contract to favor another contractor, canceling the whole program is not unknown but not likely to be the case here as the USAF is desperate for new tankers

They thought we were desperate for new bombers too, when Jimmy Carter took office.  Wink

Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 5364 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17668 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 20):
They thought we were desperate for new bombers too, when Jimmy Carter took office.  

when Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich are Prez we won't be needing any tankers, or Raptors , or lots of things! Smile

User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17657 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 21):

Yeah, in fact, I'll make a predicition: They'll cut the number of F-35 buys way down to the point where the per-unit cost is astronomical and then whine about how it's too expensive.  Wink

Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17602 times:

The Mobile Press Register has an excellent article on this subject in today's paper:


One interesting point is the following:

"Boeing will probably try to overturn the result, but that will be hard because the Air Force did not rate their proposal as superior in any measure," said defense analyst Loren Thompson. "Anyone who tries to raise the 'made in America' banner on Boeing's behalf has to explain why they want to force an inferior plane on America's warfighters."

I think he makes some excellent points. He is with the Lexington Institute btw.

Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4360 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 17584 times:

Not sure if it has been mentioned in one of the countless threads here but media quote sources that the Northrop proposal came out on top in four of five categories and the fifth categorie was dead even.

So apparently a 4,5 : 0,5 win and quite clearly a non-brainer.

25 MD-90 : And yet if Ron Paul was president and the USAF said "this is the most capable tanker available, and we need it," he'd support the purchase. Even if i
26 MCIGuy : In retrospect, maybe if BIDS realized the USAF wanted to replace apples with oranges then they could have offered the KC-777 and walked away with this
27 Curt22 : "An eternal Boeing slave"...That's funny! However the alternative is being a 'Slave" to another nation (France) who has consistently disagreed with U
28 Vfw614 : Applying your logic to the US export sales of military aircraft, be it the F15, F16, F18, the C130, the C17, you name them, no nation with a clear mi
29 MigPilot : I wonder what highly classified parts for the A330 the devilish French should withhold? The ‘special’ parts that make it a KC30 will come from No
30 Columba : I have once been told that the Swiss once had problems with the US regarding spares of their F18s.
31 AirRyan : After watching that press conference yesterday it was very clear that Sue Payton and her group had long since came to the conlcusion that the NG bid
32 ArniePie : Probably the coffee machine, the most important piece of equipment anyway.
33 AWACSooner : Ladies and gentlemen, We all know that most of us (myself included) have passionate opinions about this decision. While I'm not trying to incite A vs.
34 Glideslope : A very good opinion , IMO. I agree. I've stated for a while now that IMO, we are putting too many eggs in the B-Basket.
35 Post contains images Glideslope : Target aquired again.
36 NorCal : Cut her some slack, she is a politician she needs some good sound bites for the voters and she needs to at least try to appear to protect jobs in her
37 EGNR : EADS is headquartered in the Netherlands and operates under Dutch law. The A330/KC-30/KC-45 has/will have wings that are designed and manufactured in
38 Art : Are you saying that the evaluation of the 2 types was made on a political basis? How do you do that? I don't see how you set up a study to be empiric
39 Glideslope : Agreed. IMO, the wording in the Boeing Statement "we will make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to
40 Glideslope : Could happen. Wait till the 2010 DOD budget. I see big problems on the horizon. No $.
41 Post contains links AirRyan : And remember what was Boeing's first major military project once they bought out McDD? That's right, a sole-source bid minus even the oversight of an
42 STT757 : Relations between France and the United States have improved tremendously since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy, he is held in high regard in the Unit
43 Acheron : I find if funny the outrage of some here because the US didn't buy an "American-made" plane, yet the same people(and others) write dozens of lines cri
44 Post contains links Jackonicko : AWAC Sooner This decision was not just about which tanker suited the needs of the USAF, cause if it was just that, then they just went against the opi
45 Post contains images MigPilot : From some posts one could get the impression that Airbus planes are assembled by the French President himself together with a few assistants. We all k
46 Post contains images Sebolino : I think it's official now, at least according to KC135 and a few others : the hell has frozen.
47 Post contains images Milan320 : Could someone please explain to me why it's ok for European countries to buy an F-16 over a Eurofighter whereas the USAF choose to buy a plane from a
48 Dougloid : It's quite a season for underdogs this year. Congratulations are in order. I think we all sincerely hope that the Mobile, Alabama plant will be more t
49 Halls120 : You are entirely correct. By any objective measure, EADS/Airbus is a multinational company. But subjectively, it is identified - for better or worse
50 Revelation : If only... Guilty as charged! As I said in the earlier thread, the flames of Hell have been extinguished, and ice is forming. Now that the award has
51 FlyDeltaJets87 : I made the same point in the previous thread but with the speed at which people were posting, it got passed over and no one really touched on it. Thi
52 DL021 : Shocked....I am posting here just to say I'm shocked that the air force has made the decision to go with less capability for the dollar....based purel
53 A346Dude : I'm going to have to agree with most in saying that this was a good choice by the USAF. The KC-30 was a better airplane for the mission and that's rea
54 A346Dude : If that's your argument, they should have bought 1,000,000 KC-172s. The fact is they got more capability for the dollar: more payload, faster fuel of
55 Scipio : This has been Boeing's attitude in both defense and commercial aerospace. If you're concern is mainly about the next quarter's bottom line, investing
56 Strudders : With the greatest respect, If Boeing had played by the rules and not interfered with due process you would be flying 767 tankers today and this would
57 LTBEWR : I am quite sure the Politicians will have their say on this, except those in Alabama. One poster above noted that in the post-9/11 world, and the need
58 Post contains links Moo : I guess you totally and utterly missed my reply containing an interesting quote earlier in this thread, so here it again for your personal consumptio
59 EBJ1248650 : While I can see the Air Force needing more C-17s, I don't see Boeing getting the order as a peace offering. Boeing lost this competition. N-G won. Bo
60 Bennett123 : Halls 120 I recall flying on Liberty Helicopters in NY. We were told that the helicopter was an EC130, (but no one mentioned what EC stands for). Ther
61 Checksixx : Well your certainly not speaking for me. As long as the Air Force got what it wanted, I could care less where its made or assembled. Just like the M-
62 Par13del : If I were a Boeing investor I would certainely look at getting rid of anyone in management who made such a suggestion, the US Air Force has over 400
63 GDB : Whoever won, would they really replace ALL KC-135's (assuming we leave KC-10 out of this even in the longer term), one for one? Is it really the case
64 Revelation : The fact is, your governments are. For instance, they are planning to put up a redundant GPS network just in case Uncle Sam and/or Uncle Joe decides
65 Gh123 : Have we Europeans not purchased enough US made military aircraft over the years to get a little back? It's the best plane for the job and that is that
66 ACW367 : I think you mean NATO allies. NATO daily works with all 26 nations to ensure that every nation has the political will to prosecute Article 5 operatio
67 Atmx2000 : Because in most cases the foreign interest lines up with US treaty obligations to defend them. Hence, the US would be acting against its own interest
68 Post contains images NCB : The very first military aircraft have been designed by French, English and German engineers. Still, I don't say that they know it better than the Ame
69 Par13del : Quite agree they will not all be replaced, the US logistics chain however, is in need of or refuellers, a fully loaded C-17 has range that is not ver
70 CrAAzy : The time line here is simple. Northrop/EADS get the tanker bid 2008 ..... Boeing protests ..... leading to a review/delay of 12-18 months at which tim
71 Atmx2000 : Except it has been noted that in actual military operations, the fuel volume is not an issue for supporting fighters, but rather the number of booms.
72 Checksixx : Well the last few times I went up during tanking operations, we repeatedly had to turn fighters away because we had no more fuel to pass. Tanked four
73 Scipio : We all get to fly better planes. That is what competition is intended to do.
74 Par13del : Here's another thought, how difficult would it be to convert US fighters to the hose and drouge fuelling? Less booms may or may not be bought, but if
75 Moo : To which the US DoD have been given 'kill switch' access. All it says is that cost was not necessarily an issue, so no, I don't think they went for '
76 Flighty : GOOD FOR ALABAMA. As Michigan declines year after year, we have a new industrial high-tech powerhouse: Alabama. Thank goodness Alabama has stepped up
77 ACW367 : In these days of coalition operations if there is a requirement for more booms, then the politicians should be working on those nations that have the
78 Atmx2000 : But we'll be paying much higher taxes and/or much higher prices for aircraft in order to fund that.
79 DL021 : That's a disingenuous bit of argument, and beneath the level of discussion. Reduction to the sublimely ridiculous is a silly way to argue a point. A
80 Pygmalion : the USAF has never, ever gone for the better buy... only for the newest and coolest. Best buy is just not in the warfighter dictionary. Looks like the
81 AirRyan : But wow, when the USAF went with the KC-135 back in the late 1950's guess what - they too went with a supplier who had never done it before: Boeing.
82 Atmx2000 : Well, that's assuming that Europe wouldn't have felt it necessary to pay for their own defense. It would have had to pay a lot more than measly amoun
83 BHMBAGLOCK : Nah, Ian can't hold his lunch in a 172 - would never work. Don't underestimate Richard Shelby. He has a lot of influence on both sides of the aisle.
84 BHMBAGLOCK : To be fair, the above could be many people here talking to you about CSAR-X. It's hard to reconcile what you're saying here with what you say regardi
85 A346Dude : It was a joke, to illustrate the point that the number of booms in the air is not the defining factor in this discussion. A smaller airplane like the
86 Aeronuts : Example of other interesting partnerships for military systems, besides NG/EADS The Atlas V rocket is an expendable launch vehicle formerly built by L
87 Dougloid : there you go. They're going to get their foot in the North American door with Uncle's help. Now if we can only identify which retard in the Departmen
88 ACW367 : I agree that you refuel heavy bombers and ISTAR assets slower with a drogue because they can only use the centreline drogue. However the argument dis
89 M27 : Well Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky have with CSAR-X and Pemco or whatever its called now has with the KC-135 support contract and I suspect NG/Eads wo
90 Post contains images Halls120 : "Our government" didn't select the 330 tanker. The Air Force and DOD did. Congress has a say in these matters, and if you don't think Congress can in
91 DBCC : We were probably too "neutral" and that pissed the USA off that we would not be their puppet.
92 Post contains images Revelation : Not sure what you are arguing for: balance of trade, or best plane for the job? So idiots are going to be influencing the future procurement actions
93 AirRyan : Unlike in the CSAR-X bid where both Sikorsky and LM had more than an ample case to protest which the GAO agreed with on two seperate occasisons, Boei
94 Dougloid : Hmmm...too bad that hasn't always been the case.[Edited 2008-03-01 15:03:57]
95 LHRBlueSkies : The USAF/DOD chose the Airbus/NG product. They did it because it met their criteria. They had a choice, and made their decision. Go with it. Stop thin
96 Post contains images Plobax :
97 Tugger : One question I have is how much of the design and technology EADS will be required to share with their American partner. Normally the government does
98 GDB : The fact that the X-32B needed parts like gear doors and the variable inlet taken off to actually do VSTOL, would need a re-designed wing, whilst the
99 Halls120 : Yes. Are you really surprised? Shortly after Pete Wilson left the Senate, he spoke at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College. During this lecture
100 Par13del : I'll bite, the Bucneer, Jaguar, V series, Mirage all of them, Tornado, EF, Transall, A400M. Now while these a/c were being procured I think the US ha
101 Acheron : C-130's, Apaches, Chinooks, CH-53's, Hellfire missiles, F-5, F-18, a sh*tload of LGB, lots of avionics and engines for the european planes, AAM's, et
102 Par13del : [ Answered one question, since this is a new one I take it that the answer was ok? To my knowledge, Europe is building their own attack helicopters, A
103 Gh123 : Was just making both points with the 'best plane for the job' being the main one.
104 Post contains images Scipio : Sorry. I guess I didn't answer the question. I was still focused on Boeing's reluctance to invest in new models Let me start over again. There is def
105 UA76Heavy : I doubt Congress will approve the funding, especially in an election year. The USAF has only chosen the KC-45 but it's up to Congress to fund the purc
106 RedFlyer : If that's the case, then most corporations in the U.S., including mine, are in Delaware. The fact is, the Dutch angle is a convenience just as the De
107 Par13del : You really believe in the WTO, how many rulings have they made against both sides of the Atlantic that have been ignored, and yes I know some have be
108 AirRyan : There's nothing naive about remaining abreast of current politics : this Congress has already tried to withhold money from the DoD and even with the
109 StealthZ : That is a stretch, whilst your posts often demonstrate your knowledge, your anti Boeing bias does show thru to a significant degree. A program that s
110 Par13del : Unless I missed something, it was because NG complained that the congress decided to allow another bid which guess what, Ng won, its because LM and o
111 Checksixx : Not sure why were talking about this...or what your question is...but, the US military was buying almost all of the M16A2's from FN. The M4 is a vari
112 Venus6971 : True with the Pelosi led house but all it takes is one Senator to block funding in the other house, with Washington state and Kansas it will be 4 Sen
113 Art : The NG guys will find they have a lot explaining to do if they claimed that the A330 requires no maintenance but it turns out that it does in reality
114 Checksixx : The only problem with your argument is that fact that we built new hangar's for the Raptor at Langley...
115 Post contains images F9Animal : I am disgusted with the decision. I am baffled by the decision. It is an insult to the United States, and personally as a taxpayer, I am beyond insult
116 Yellowstone : So you are arguing that the Air Force evaluation program was inept, and that the fact that the KC-45 beat the KC-767 in 4 out of 5 evaluation categor
117 Chgoflyer : Well said. I dont really care about the performance, etc. Had our politicans not made such a mess of our economy I'd look the other way. But given th
118 Acheron : Well, I'm sure some of your fellow countrymen are quite happy you are not in charge with what you just said.
119 Post contains links Atmx2000 : However, this time you are going to have bipartisan support for examining this deal. Kansas is Republican state if you haven't noticed. http://www.ka
120 Chgoflyer : OK let me be clear on what I said. I and my fellow coutrymen are paying the taxes that makes these purchases possible. I dont really care about its p
121 Acheron : So you prefer patriotism over performance?. Well, that way of thinking sure is the fast way to send the USAF down the crapper.
122 Post contains images Scipio : If you were in charge, Boeing would have offered the USAF KC-135s for $1bn a piece. Proven technology and perfectly suited for the mission of the air
123 707lvr : Doesn't is seem more fitting that the European model won because with all of it's impressive multirole features it is best suited for a non-conflict e
124 DEVILFISH : All the easier to reciprocate the tanker deal with an early JSF buy from an EU country other than the UK? It was cheaper and came much earlier than t
125 Post contains links Starrion : Because they're politicians. Once the constituents start calling complaining about outsourcing $40 billion of taxpayer dollars, the congresscritters
126 Atmx2000 : Not only that, despite its name it is really only an Anglo-Deutsche-Italo-Spanish Fighter.
127 XT6Wagon : Yup, What can the USAF do if come the 2009 budget there is $1Bn "to aquire test frames and secure future production of a small widebody aircraft manu
128 FlyingAY : There are many Eurofighter parts that are manufactured outside of those countries.
129 Leskova : I do have to admit that I was completely surprised - I expected Boeing to win this deal no matter what... I have to admit that I've rediscovered my re
130 Columba : I believe in the end the KC 30/A330F plant created more jobs in the US than keeping the 767 line open. Absolutely agreed.
131 Leskova : The reason the economy is in such a mess is most certainly not that non-American products are being purchased - if at all, that's happening because A
132 Venus6971 : I give you that one but those old 1930 hangers are big enough to get them in if bad weather is approaching plus also you have that old EC-135 hanger
133 Par13del : Based on what has been taking place in the last 10 years or so, especially since the end of the cold war, I would say never happen. This is the econo
134 StealthZ : Much of it will! Almost all of that will stay in the US. I said it before, this $40B (number keeps going up) is just a rounding error in the Balance
135 Starlionblue : From comments in this thread, it looks as if building the 330s in the US will inject just as much money into the US economy as going with the 767. Wh
136 DBCC : So I guess EADS will be less popular once A380 is selected as the AF-1 replacement? It is actually quite funny, Americans complain, but then go and bu
137 Venus6971 : Agreed, looking at stocks that specilize in Airport Construction, to pay for it we will just cut back in personal and healthcare programs or just pri
138 Par13del : I was under the impression that this investment in war fighting was what was driving the US economy and which the EU has been trying to get invoolved
139 Post contains images Halls120 : Actually, when you say things like "there is no way Pelosi or Reid will ...." you are underscoring your naivete. Congress is, if anything, wildly inc
140 NorCal : I don't agree with war in Iraq (I think we should have focused on Afghanistan) but any asshole who blows themselves up in a crowded market is a terro
141 Jackonicko : GDB, You’re right that “This idea of a KC-787 in the near term is fanciful”, but it will always be fanciful – and it won’t change in a decad
142 Art : I am taken aback by the view argued by many that a state should only buy defence equipment of indigenous design and manufacture however good or bad th
143 Curt22 : Nope, not missing the logic...I agree the same theory could be applied to US build weapons systems, but I challenge you to find an example where the
144 AirNZ : Whilst I'm neither necessarily agreeing or not agreeing with this aspect, it really does need to be accepted (no matter how hard it seeming is to do
145 AirNZ : Actually, what's even more incredible is the ignorance, lack of knowledge and nonsense in your post.
146 Norcal773 : We all thought was nuts when he said Airbus would win this. Well, I guess we were wrong.
147 Jcf5002 : I am part of the shocked/upset crowd. I think its funny how the people who feel the way I do are typically the users from the US. Further, all of us h
148 Atmx2000 : I doubt this had anything to do with this order. The only things that likely mattered in this selection were USAF politics and domestic politics.
149 Flighty : WHY ON EARTH would we REFUSE to build a NEW WIDEBODY FACTORY in the USA??? That is what many people here are saying. Let's prevent international firms
150 Halls120 : Yes, we can. But they need to build a real manufacturing plant. Not just a facility where they make last minute adjustments, hang on a few booms, and
151 Moo : Uhm, unless something changed in the past few hours, they are - Mobile is getting what Toulouse has had for the past 20 years, a final assembly line.
152 AirRyan : Perhaps your anger should be vented towards Boeing for not being able to offer a better product than the KC-30 as so defined not by their own PR ads
153 Scbriml : The RFP is for a fixed number of planes. You get the same number of hoses regardless of which tanker won. You get the same number of booms regardless
154 Post contains images Acheron : Interesting chart. Maybe this will shut up those who say the plane is french but I doubt it.
155 AirNZ : A very commonly spouted comment on here.......but yet it's always conveniently neglected to mention that it has been soley in the self-interest of th
156 Thorny : I'd argue that Northrop's YF-23 was newer/cooler than the YF-22 and that the F-16XL was newer/cooler than the F-15E. Both were not picked by the USAF
157 AirNZ : Fully in agreement Moo. For the life of me I can't grasp what on earth is possibly so difficult for so many on here to grasp in that......it's a fact
158 Thorny : Vanishingly unlikely. Thousands of Americans drive Toyota Camry's made in the U.S. But they still universally call it a "Japanese Car".
159 Khobar : Something that was raised long ago and forgotten - I think - was the argument that because of the cost differential, the USAF would get either 179 KC7
160 EBJ1248650 : I don't see that happening. Northrop-Grumman has the ability to build fighters too and Lockheed-Martin would typically be their closest rival. But Bo
161 EBJ1248650 : You can be sure Boeing will take any competitor more seriously in the future. Keep in mind too that there's yet more contracts for future tankers to
162 DL021 : Not xenophobic about anything, it's national defence I'm talking about and to put our trust in a number of nations that have actively sought to inter
163 Post contains images Revelation : No, just wanted to be sure I understood you. Also not suprising, but this doesn't make them idiots, it makes them smart but greedy b*st*rds. The real
164 Post contains images Kaneporta1 : Considering that the KC-30 is already flying while the KC-767 is still only a paper plane (Frankentanker anyone?) I wouldn't be surprised if the the
165 Azhobo : Even though i am disappointed, i believe the only way that USAF would take the A330 in the competition is if they had the much superior bid. But your
166 Curt22 : Perhaps I didn't express my thoughts well enough...the issue isn't if others should march in lock step with US politics, the issue is what could happ
167 Post contains images Halls120 : I understand what NG and EADS say they are going to do, and I applaud it. But until they actually do it, it is just a promise. For all it's faults, B
168 Khobar : The KC-767 has been flying since 2005. Of course this is a different aircraft than what Boeing offered the USAF. Who is flying the KC-30?
169 Moo : The actual number of aircraft is 179, the reason everyone uses 'up to' is because not all of that 179 is dished out as one contract, its progressive
170 Curt22 : The issue is nothing more or less than national security...Do you TRUST the security of your children and their future to people in another land who
171 Halls120 : Here's what I think may happen. NG/EADS will build the first 4. Assuming everything goes well, more will be authorized. But not all 179. Unless Congr
172 Moo : To add to my last post, the purchasing is structured thus - 4 development aircraft @ $1.5Billion 60 phase one procurement aircraft @ $10.6Billion The
173 Moo : Why don't Congress just bring a law to the floor stating 'we can buy wtf we like, no RFPs, no bids, no competitions - the military can live with what
174 Chgoflyer : Thanks for pointing out my patroitism. Also what I am is fiscal conservative. I feel my goverment should not spend funds it does not have and in the
175 Moo : If you want to bitch about buying on credit, this program is not what you should be concentrating on - you need to start looking back around March 20
176 Art : You are proposing that one form of ignorance - that Airbus is French - might better be substituted by another, more acceptable form of ignorance. Wou
177 Post contains links Ebs757 : This was a good and interesting read- http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/FuelConsReport.pdf
178 Post contains images Baw716 : I'm going to only express an opinion here...because clearly there has been a lot of very good discussion and I have not had the time to read it all...
179 F9Animal : Boeing will fight it, and win the contract. 2013 is a long ways away, and that is the estimated time it will take for Airbus to even have the plane fl
180 Moo : Yup, and totally and utterly independent and lacking of all bias, I am sure. This report has been discussed, and debunked, here previously.
181 Khobar : Thanks Moo. The NG/EADS/Airbus planes cost $35M more each ($160M versus $125M). How does one buy the same number of airplanes with the same amount of
182 Halls120 : Have you noticed my signature? Too many people are forgetting that our political process is so fraught with pressure from every direction that when D
183 Moo : Who said anything about the same amount of money being involved?
184 Atmx2000 : It isn't Exxon/Mobil that is gouging us, its OPEC through supply control and price fixing. Exxon net profit to revenue ratio is 10% which is basicall
185 Khobar : The same figure has been used for the deal. Is the figure incorrect?
186 Moo : What same figure?
187 Post contains links and images WAH64D : I suggest you remove your head from the clouds and realise that there can be no grounds for an appeal to this decision. The KC-30 has been selected,
188 Baron95 : I think there are several items in play here that haven't been mentioned. 1 - I think the USAF is teching congress a lesson. USAF had a GREAT deal wit
189 Art : My apologies. Indeed you did not propose anything. I understand that you were trying to provide some context for the uproar. Do you understand that I
190 Revelation : Really? They are going to mate a 767-400 ER cockpit with a 767-200F fuse, 767-300ER wings and 767-400ER flaps, and have it all up and running in a ye
191 AirRyan : The production facility at BHM will be no different to the process in which Boeing will finalize assembly of their 787's PAE, and the real kicker is
192 Scbriml : The USAF said the KC-30 beat the KC-767 in four of the top five criteria, and tied the last. They selected the superior tanker. They said cost would
193 Moo : The Congressional Budgetary Office didn't seem to think so a few years back, thats why the KC-767 deal was changed from a majority lease to a majorit
194 M27 : Out of the goodness of their heart. Totally selfless, right? I intend no malice to anyone in saying this, but I really don't know any other way to sa
195 Moo : Whats wrong with the second statement? Boeing was second in all the categories but one, and it tied that one. Whats the grounds for appeal on that ba
196 NASOCEANA : The 777 would have been are great choice; however the runway infrastructures needed to support the size and weight of tanker would have extremely exp
197 M27 : Thats the Airforce view. Boeing has not even seen the evaluation yet. No one has, not you, not me, not anyone except the Airforce. How did Lockheed,
198 Glareskin : Not only that but a new democratic administration probably wants to be good friends with the European governments and cancelling the order for the re
199 Post contains images WAH64D : How can you even begin to believe that Being would be successful in an appeal to this decision when their first offering was riddled with dodgy under
200 Post contains images Flyin5glow : I am extremely pissed off with the Air Force. I know there is a law about getting the best bid. The law not only refers to the financial part but as w
201 Pygmalion : all Boeing has to say is that the criteria was biased to the A330 and so the competition wasn't really a competition. The USAF would have to prove tha
202 Astuteman : EADS North America Doesn't operate under the laws of the United States? I've been trusting the security of myself, and my children to your country fo
203 Chgoflyer : Perhaps english is not your first language but I am far from "bitching" as you say I have read the statement from Senator Shelbys office and it basic
204 M27 : I'm sorry, I don't know what damn cheek to complain means, but if Britian had an even close equiv. to the US aircraft they purchased, I doubt they wo
205 Post contains images Halls120 : An excellent observation. More likely than all the "this was the Air Force teaching Boeing a lesson" posts. Thank you. I still don't think you unders
206 Moo : Oh but you are. And english is most certainly my first language. (bitching == complaining) And they would have massively overpaid for it - the deal w
207 Flighty : Oh my god are you serious. How can you feel safe doing anything, then? The French are our unquestioned allies, that is how you can feel safe. Also, t
208 Chgoflyer : The most far streched statement Ive read anywhere on the net. All kidding aside the former President of France did some major damage to U.S. France r
209 Flighty : I think he was concerned that we were about to commit war crimes and a completely illegal invasion. I thank him for his concerns. He meant well. Bein
210 Scbriml : Boeing knew what the selection criteria were when they submitted their bid. As did NG. The AF says they have done everything possible to make the pro
211 Scorpio : I think that was pretty much the other way around. France said, from the very start, that invading Iraq was a bad idea, and they turned out to be rig
212 Chgoflyer : Funny... many here just dont see it that way. I guess that is why there is such resistance to doing business with Europe.
213 Jackonicko : The French can be an awkward bunch, and it can be hard, sometimes, to overlook their foibles and apparent hostility. Congratulations to Flighty for se
214 Scipio : Silly. The jobs lost due to NAFTA are gone and will not come back. Are they now going to try to destroy the jobs gained thanks to NAFTA? NAFTA is a g
215 Post contains images WAH64D : I have rarely seen a more condescending statement. What language do you suppose somebody native to the Falkland Islands speaks? Clearly you don't rem
216 Art : I wonder if the French would object to their KC-135 replacements being built in Alabama.
217 Chgoflyer : The best post Ive seen yet. Well stated. At the end of the day I dont mind boarding a NW A320 for a flight because chances are I know next time Im on
218 Post contains links Scipio : Northrop seems to suggest that they undercut Boeing even on price: "The fundamental question is 'since both tankers are built in America from foreign
219 Chgoflyer : If they dont object they should. hmmm I wonder how two companies the assemble basically the same product using outsourced parts have such a differenc
220 Scorpio : I'm not at all sure that refers to the purchase price. It could easily be a reference to operating cost. I think you'll find that the US most certain
221 Post contains images NorCal : No it is hard to separate the different contributors to Airbus when the final assembly lines are in France. I know when I board an Airbus, the safety
222 Scipio : Perhaps one of the two was so certain of victory that it refused to offer a good price. And perhaps one of the two is an older model that is costlier
223 AirNZ : Absolutely correct, and I would agree with you 100%. However, by the same token, no nation has the RIGHT to then complain when that self-imposed poli
224 AirNZ : Well then, considering the age group and thus your obvious vast knowledge of experience and thought, could you then enlighten me (following your own
225 Halls120 : Source, please?
226 BHMBAGLOCK : Here it is considered to be a major positive, possibly slightly less important than the Mercedes and Thyssen-Krupp plants were when they were first a
227 Post contains links Scipio : I've read that several times, in various places. The A340, for example, is significantly cheaper to produce than the B777. One piece of evidence is h
228 AirNZ : I'm sure many of your citizens are glad you're not on the Procurement Panel of your Air Force then.
229 Post contains links and images Highlander0 : Not sure if this has been posted yet, but doesn't look like it. Located at here [:
230 AirNZ : Yep, but as I've said many times, you're version of events (as in general US ignorance about the world in general) are usually soley for your own con
231 AirNZ : Please correct me if I'm wrong (and yes, I could be) but was it not Bill Clinton when President who introduced NAFTA? So yes, if so it certainly woul
232 Halls120 : that isn't evidence. it's PR puffery. Without access to internal Airbus and Boeing financial data, I doubt anyone could come up with definitive proof
233 NorCal : Quoting a thread you started on here is hardly evidence. The reason the A340 is cheaper to build than a 777 is that is shares a line, tooling, and a
234 F9Animal : It has been said many times from several sources. I don't have the time right now to find it, but yes, it can be up and running in no time. Airbus ha
235 M27 : [ I didn't know that you were so well informed about the vast capability incease the KC-30 had! I have not seen the evaluation of the RFP to gauge how
236 Post contains links BlueShamu330s : Please, spare us anymore of your inane, uninformed, ignorant rubbish. http://www.eads.net/1024/en/businet/...iltrair/derivatives/A310-MRTT.html http:
237 Post contains images Halls120 : So being the cheaper aircraft to produce isn't always the best reason to buy it, eh?
238 Khobar : "The deal, worth about $40 billion over two decades, is for the supply and maintenance of 179 tankers replacing old Boeing-built KC-135 airplanes." T
239 Scipio : I never claimed it was. But if it's cheaper to produce AND more capable, then why would you buy the alternative? The USAF does not seem to have found
240 Chgoflyer : Excellent point. But the Clinton camp is really dishing NAFTA going into Ohio. Your point on China is dead on. Id further by going as far as saying t
241 Halls120 : if it is cheaper to produce, but more expensive to operate, I'm not sure that capability is the determining factor. After all, the 777 vs. 340 seems
242 AirNZ : No-one has claimed it was, so you're using a very loaded argument there to put forward a 'point' which does not exist. Relevant to this particular th
243 AirNZ : No, I don't think it has at all. Why are you trying to draw such a comparison when neither a/c have anything whatever to do with the procurement of t
244 Blackbird : Now this entire issue would have been avoided had the DoD reserved it's right to pick whoever it wanted. The DoD doesn't have to have a competition. T
245 Post contains links BHMBAGLOCK : The Mobile Press Register interviewed John Young who is the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions while he was in Avondale, LA for the christenin
246 Halls120 : I was merely responding to another poster who brought up the "cheaper to build" argument. Again, because someone else brought it up. Don't get so exc
247 RedFlyer : Who's to say what's fair? My neighbor down the street bought the exact same truck as I did within 30 days, but paid about 7% less than what I paid be
248 NorCal : What I believe he is saying is that initial purchase price shouldn't be all you look at. In recent years many airlines have shunned the A340 because
249 Post contains images Astuteman : Funnily enough, the French might not see it like that. As a check for understanding, the large majority of people in the UK don't either. And we're n
250 Post contains links MD-90 : I think a lot of a.netters should read Leonard E. Reed's classic essay I, Pencil before they get themselves too worked up over how the Airbus is a "fo
251 Post contains images Scbriml : Why? They had no problem purchasing an "all American" solution last time. When they select their new tanker, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't
252 Rheinwaldner : Congrats to NG, Airbus and the USAF for that very brave decision! On Friday I expressed my understanding that the NG-offer is hardly bearable for US p
253 Post contains images Moo : I've always taken $40Billion to be the upper end of the budget they were aiming for. The Congressional Budgetary Office I'm certain (but don't the ti
254 RomeoKC10FE : I'm stationed at Travis and fly on the KC-10 and can vouch for you on that point, we fly around empty all the time and burn way more gas than we offl
255 Danny : I have to admit the verdict surprised me but kudos to the decision makers at USAF who sustained the pressure and chose aircraft that will make USAF mo
256 Scbriml : Then why did the USAF select the larger, more capable tanker? I guess they don't know what they're talking about either.
257 Art : Someone, somewhere in this or part 1 of this thread mentioned that the 767 would require a longer runway than the A330. If that is correct and was see
258 BHMBAGLOCK : Gov doesn't pay taxes and leases just don't work financially without tax savings.
259 Halls120 : Now don't go and start trying to inject common sense into this discussion. The top brass sometimes doesn't, to be honest. My nephew is a KC-135 boom
260 Scbriml : Have they ever? The grunts don't need to understand the tactics or strategy, they just do as they're told to execute it.
261 Kaitak : OK, so Boeing is understandablly a little put out by this decision; hardly surprising, but maybe if it takes a pragmatic and long term approach, it co
262 NorCal : I think the 787 (and A350) line will be too busy to accommodate the Airforce, the next round will probably go to the KC-30 again. I would guess we wi
263 Khobar : It appears cost was not considered a critical factor. Unit price didn't match. I had assumed incorrectly that it did.
264 Halls120 : True. But one would hope that flag officers took the time to listen to the grunts as to what tools they need to do their job. In this case, I'm not s
265 MD-90 : Does anyone know how much more fuel per hour an A332 burns compared to a 762? I doubt the delta is very significant, especially when you take in consi
266 Halls120 : I don't know, but it apparently does. Several posts over the past few days - in addition to the reports I got from my nephew - spoke to the line pref
267 RedFlyer : Leases, by their nature, cost more than outright purchases. Period. The issue was never that Boeing was charging an exhorbitant price for the leased
268 Scipio : More generally, the government can get financing cheaper than pretty much anyone else by issuing treasuries and government bonds. This means that, a
269 Atmx2000 : He was talking about a KC10 which is larger than the KC135. Still I expect the same applies to a lesser degree. The problem with going smaller is tha
270 MetalInyoni : Being neither an American or European tax payer, perhaps i can offer some impartial inputs. If the criteria for the purchase of planes was that they h
271 Khobar : Both NG/EADS and Boeing claim their solution saves on fuel while the competitor costs more to operate, but you have to look at how they did the calcu
272 DAYflyer : Congress has already killed the C-17 I thought? They said there wasn;t any more money for new builds in the last budget. As far as the actual selecti
273 JarheadK5 : The -135 has never played a significant cargo role for the USAF. With hundreds of C-130s, C-141s, and C-5s to handle the cargo of the 20th century, t
274 Scbriml : Assuming the decision is not overturned, Boeing will likely have closed the 767 line by 2012 at the latest. When it comes to the next round of tanker
275 Atmx2000 : The next round of replacements is supposed to be for the KC10, which is far closer to the A332. With belly tanks, the A332 would be an ideal replacem
276 Halls120 : Congress has forced aircraft on the military before that they didn't order. They can easily do it again. Evidently not. I can't fathom how the USAF G
277 Post contains links Columba : Maybe the future plans of using the KC 45 is different from what ths USAF is doing now with the KC 135 and KC 10 ? http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/29/a
278 Post contains links Observer : Lexington Institute has a devastating analysis about why Boeing lost; and a new podcast was posted today talking about the future of Airbus, Boeing an
279 Trex8 : G222 and now C27J also, UH72, IIRC some of the earlier Harriers were directly from the UK also. what about all those Israeli UAVs?
280 JarheadK5 : That was the point of my post - USAF isn't going to use the KC-45 in the same manner as the KC-135. - The C-9A is gone. The KC-45 and the KC-10 are/w
281 Columba : When do you ever fly 70-100 wounded patients from a combat zone directly to the hospital. The KC 45 would be used to fly patients to Landstuhl and fr
282 JakeOrion : Bingo, picking up from last thread, sorry, internet issues at home as well as being locked out on the work computers at the same time! Oye, what a wee
283 Baron95 : There is no question that the USAF (if the decision stands) is GREATLY aiding EADS to break into large frame (tankers, transport, AWACS, etc) military
284 Post contains links Tugger : In case anyone is curious, a state by state listing for the KC-45A by NG: Alabama Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Generate 5,000 New Jobs in Alab
285 Par13del : In this day and age there are more economist wearing uniforms than who work on Wall Street, so the US Air Force looking out for numero uno is no surp
286 JakeOrion : Be careful with that comment because that could go either way. Yes, we (Americans) could learn a few ideologies from the EU, but at the same time, th
287 Azhobo : Boy are you from the wrong dimension. France was only interested in their oil contracts with Saddam which were basically voided by a war. There is a
288 Par13del : For all our sakes I hope those who work at Boeing realize how important the B-787 is to the universe, tongue in cheek to be sure but everything seems
289 MD-90 : I wouldn't be a.surprised to eventually see a KC-737 tanker. Perhaps -700 fuselage with -800 wings and landing gear, a la the BBJ? I wonder if it wou
290 RedFlyer : Sure it would be worth it. Think: UCAV.
291 Ikramerica : Congress has already said they will examine this deal. It ain't over yet... Some criteria seem skewed. Past performance: NG may have a history of bein
292 Post contains links Zeke : Some more background on the decision : Seems that NG won out on a number of issues : RFP requirements Risk level of proposal Price Production rate Ref
293 Areopagus : Indeed. Interesting political distribution, that there is something for every state, except maybe Hawaii, which isn't shown. What do they do in Coeur
294 BHMBAGLOCK : EADS is well ahead of scedule with the Lakota, I believe they're also performing well with the new CASAs for the USCG. Boeing's performance on the Ja
295 Asturias : The way I see it. saludos Asturias
296 Columba : Most of the companies involved in Airbus (Messerschmidt Bölkow Blohm, Dornier, Aerospatiale, British Aerospace (Hawker Siddley)) also began during t
297 Post contains images Asturias : Ey! CASA, Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA, was founded in 1923 in Seville, Spain by José Ortiz de Echagüe. Also very early and part of Airbus from
298 Scipio : This is the most relevant area of "past performance". The Italians and Japanese are still waiting for their KC-767s, whereas the A330MRTT program see
299 Post contains links CYQL : Canada has been flying the CC-150 Polaris MRTT tankers since 2004. The Luftwaffe is also flying them. http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance
300 Columba : Sorry, how could I forget CASA, ashes on my head !!!!!!!!!
301 Baron95 : Congress should just pass a quick law that says the DoD cannot award any contracts to a consortium where any of the main partners is being sued or has
302 Columba : I did not know that Canadas A310s are already converted to tankers. How is Canada pleased with its A310s ? Any chance that they might replace them wi
303 Post contains links CYQL : http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mrtt/ I would assume that replacement of the CC-150's is not a high priority, since we are taking deliver
304 Rheinwaldner : That would be very wise! IMO the USAF will love the KC45 as freighter and even if only because the A330's efficiency will save many many $ over the m
305 Post contains images Flynlr : The Ramp space at my guard base is pretty tight with 8 135's on hand. If we were ever to get the 45's I imagine some more concrete would have to be po
306 Tommytoyz : The real travesty is that the Air Force is only utilizing the Tankers at an average rate of only 750/hours per year. Do we really need that many birds
307 Rheinwaldner : You make a remark that goes very close to the core of the problem and is at the same time the key to the solution! The solution is: Use the tankers i
308 Flighty : I agree but probably the capacity is dictated on a wartime scenario. In a serious high-tech war (let say Russia collapses, heaven forbid), we need ve
309 Rheinwaldner : That is true only because the USAF had no efficient freighters. That will change now by the KC45. I try to make this point trough the whole thread.
310 Starlionblue : You're already doing that. Where are the radars for ICBMs? Canada. Where are major airbases and logistics bases critical to US security? Iceland, Jap
311 Columba : I disagree, how many times do you need a tanker ? If a tanker just standing on the ramp it could very well put into use and haul some cargo, troops e
312 Par13del : I think when we get down to this we are getting into nit picking which serves no good purpose. Easy to say use them to fly cargo, all of this is sche
313 Atmx2000 : Excessive usage of a tanker for cargo roles shortens the lifetime of the aircraft and devalues the investment in the specialized refueling equipment.
314 Pihero : Blériot Aéronautique was established in 1909 (Remember the SPADs ?). The successive re-organisation of the French aeronautical industry led to Aér
315 Zeke : I think the fatigue life on the A330E is 25,000 flights with an average of 4 hrs. The operational tempo of the USAF tanker fleet would mean it would
316 MD11Engineer : In Germany the Bundeswehr runs huge hospitals to cater with the casualties in case of war. Now for peacetime these hospitals are much to large for th
317 Checksixx : Do more, with less...
318 Moo : The FAA Aging Aircraft Program puts the A330 (all models) at 40,000 flight cycles, and the B767 (all models) at 50,000.
319 7cubed : This idea was floated a few years ago when the Launch Aid subsidies issue was heating up. Congress decided against it.
320 Post contains images Revelation : What if the flag officers have decided that their jobs are changing, so different tools are required? I suppose, but if as many here contend that the
321 Post contains links RedFlyer : Not quite. Check out this statement from an article in the Seattle Times this morning: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8210_tanker04.html?synd
322 Khobar : Well, Arizona is listed, and one company - Honeywell, is listed, too. I guess NG/EADS didn't get the memo that Honeywell Aerospace is moving to Indon
323 Douwd20 : This is Marketing 101. When a customer is coming up with specs for a contract a good marketer makes sure the spec is written in such a way they can f
324 Jackonicko : Tommytoyz (et al) "The KC-767 is actually better when the cargo role is ignored, which it should be." WRONG! 1) The KC-30 is a MUCH better tanker. The
325 Baron95 : You are just kidding, right? We are talking about a military asset here. Military assets are BY DESIGN supposed to be under utilized. They are suppos
326 WAH64D : [quote=Atmx2000,reply=313]The last thing you want is to find yourself in the middle of a war with an airframe with reduced lifetime.[/quote Airframe l
327 Post contains links PanAm_DC10 : As this has well over 300 replies please continue the discussion at the following thread Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3. Thank you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary posted Wed Jun 21 2006 16:20:48 by UAL747-600
Usaf Ifara Formula Favors KC-30... posted Tue Feb 19 2008 18:19:23 by AirRyan
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
A332F Helping Grumman W/ KC-30 posted Fri Sep 21 2007 08:21:27 by Cancidas
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:14:36 by Solnabo
Usaf Pushing For KC-777 And KC-737 Mix - AW&ST posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:37:23 by Boeing Nut
KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50 posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:38:41 by AirRyan
Info On VS-30 "Diamondcutters" posted Wed May 4 2005 18:56:13 by Spartan13
Possible Usaf Order For KC-130Js. posted Tue Jan 18 2005 01:04:34 by CX747
Usaf Decided On KC-30 posted Fri Feb 29 2008 13:47:11 by Andrej
A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary posted Wed Jun 21 2006 16:20:48 by UAL747-600
Usaf Ifara Formula Favors KC-30... posted Tue Feb 19 2008 18:19:23 by AirRyan
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
A332F Helping Grumman W/ KC-30 posted Fri Sep 21 2007 08:21:27 by Cancidas
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:14:36 by Solnabo
Usaf Pushing For KC-777 And KC-737 Mix - AW&ST posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:37:23 by Boeing Nut
KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50 posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:38:41 by AirRyan
Info On VS-30 "Diamondcutters" posted Wed May 4 2005 18:56:13 by Spartan13