Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A or B : Usaf Tanker Decision In March 2010  
User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 30539 times:

http://www.lesechos.fr:80/info/aero/300307080.htm

Les Echos report USAF will give their choice between Airbus and Boeing for tankers in March 2010.

Thus Boeing will have time to propose another programm (KC777 ? ) than the KC767.

Hope this time will be the good one !

356 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12468 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 30545 times:

Don't forget also that there will probably be further delays, then appeals, to the extent that the final decision will be made during the run up to the next US presidential election.

I still think Boeing should be looking at the 787 and another production line.

The problem is, of course, that if the US rejects the A330, it could pose problems for the F-35's sales prospects in Europe; "you scratch my back ..."


User currently offlineA10WARTHOG From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 30545 times:

The next big question, will there be funds to even buy the new aircraft.

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 30543 times:



Quoting FCKC (Thread starter):
Les Echos report USAF will give their choice between Airbus and Boeing for tankers in March 2010

I regret that I don't speak or read French. Why is there a delay until 2010?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 30364 times:

Somehow I doubt if a French news organization will be one to break news on a US military procrument issue.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 30239 times:



Quoting KC" class=quote target=_blank>FCKC (Thread starter):
Les Echos report USAF will give their choice between Airbus and Boeing for tankers in March 2010.

Thus Boeing will have time to propose another programm (KC777 ? ) than the KC767.

Hope this time will be the good one !

Everyday, I hold less hope for a new build tanker. But, I would guess that both Boeing and EADS/NG will offer several different airframes for the new tankers.

EADS;
A-330-200 MRTT (KC-30A/B)
A-330-200F
A-340-500
A-380-800F
A-319LR/A-320E

Boeing;
B-767-200LRF (KC-767AT)
B-767-200ER (KC-767A/J)
B-767-300ERF
B-767-400ER
B-777-200LRF
B-747-8F
B-737-700BBJ/ER/IGW (C-40B/C)

Quoting A10WARTHOG (Reply 2):
The next big question, will there be funds to even buy the new aircraft.

No.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30190 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
The problem is, of course, that if the US rejects the A330, it could pose problems for the F-35's sales prospects in Europe; "you scratch my back ..."

When did the French, Germans, and Spainish say they were interested in the F-35?

IMO, it will have zero effect. The UK is committed to the program, if only for the naval version. Would the Netherlands, Norway, & Denmark pull out to express "solidarity" with the airbus countries and opt out of the production sharing/offsets? Frankly, I see these programs as two entirely different issues.

[Edited 2008-11-08 04:06:25]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30161 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
The problem is, of course, that if the US rejects the A330, it could pose problems for the F-35's sales prospects in Europe; "you scratch my back ..."

As Lumberton correctly pointed out, neither Germany, France or Spain ever was willing to buy the JSF, and the UK is too deeply involved into hte programme.

However, it would have a negative effect in the overall approach to competition, as the EU itself will not be willing to be very cooperative in the dispute on subsidies for Airbus, if they see that a european product virtually has no chance on the US defense sector due to political reasons.

But this is not a direct impact, which would be zero.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 30029 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 7):
However, it would have a negative effect in the overall approach to competition, as the EU itself will not be willing to be very cooperative in the dispute on subsidies for Airbus, if they see that a european product virtually has no chance on the US defense sector due to political reasons.

EADS/Airbus already sells to the US Military, and several airlines in the US. The US is the second biggest market for Airbus, behind the Middle east.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 29946 times:



Quoting FCKC (Thread starter):
Thus Boeing will have time to propose another programm (KC777 ? ) than the KC767.

Has the Air Force revised its requirements so that this is an all new competition?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 29908 times:



Quoting A10WARTHOG (Reply 2):
The next big question, will there be funds to even buy the new aircraft.

That's the billion dollar question.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 29879 times:



Quoting FCKC (Thread starter):
Hope this time will be the good one !

Depeds if it the good one.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
EADS/Airbus already sells to the US Military, and several airlines in the US. The US is the second biggest market for Airbus, behind the Middle east.

Bigger then Europe & Asia?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 29725 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Has the Air Force revised its requirements so that this is an all new competition?

The last competition was "cancelled". We have no idea if/when there will be another conpetition, and neither does Les Echoes. When/if there is a new competition, it can be based on the same requirements, or all new ones, or some combination thereof.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 29677 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Has the Air Force revised its requirements so that this is an all new competition?

Well, it looks like they have 16 months to complete any revision.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10):
That's the billion dollar question.

More like the $40B question.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 29672 times:

I wonder if EADS will strike a deal with GE to put the GENX under the A330 tanker, cargo and maybe passenger versions.

It would improve payload-range by 20% and make it environmetal / PR future prove..

Maybe the french air force can be launch customer.



User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 29652 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
I wonder if EADS will strike a deal with GE to put the GENX under the A330 tanker, cargo and maybe passenger versions.

It would improve payload-range by 20% and make it environmetal / PR future prove..

Maybe the french air force can be launch customer.

They could do that. But, will GE allow it? GE may have an exclusive contract for the GEnx with Boeing.

I have not heard when the French Air Force will start the program to replace their 11 KC-135FRs. Do you have any info that can be put on the a.net?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 29641 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
They could do that. But, will GE allow it? GE may have an exclusive contract for the GEnx with Boeing.

The Genx was tuned for the original A350, GE talked to various parties about the option. Now the 787 & 747-8i are delayed, GE might be willing to reduce their damage of those delays..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...genx-offered-for-future-a330s.html

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
have not heard when the French Air Force will start the program to replace their 11 KC-135FRs. Do you have any info that can be put on the a.net?

Their AF commander openly asked for speeding up the replacement schedule recently (can't find the link). More importantly the French (& Sarkozy seems no exeception) believe strongly in government intervention to serve national interest, far more then Western European countries.

Government and industry are close (mngt comes from the same schools & switched easily between them). Industries are nationalized / laws adjusted in the name of the greater French interest. The population fully supports and even demands this from their government (strong unions)..

It frustrates many open market parties in Europe (E.g. the French companies take over good european competitors, backed by their government, but that government stops others taking over good french companies..).

Ordering tanker replacements / improvements now, would fit perfectly in their industrial strategy.. & by doing so they claim more influence in Airbus.


User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 29355 times:

I believe that money is going to be too tight for the AF to consider a new tanker by either company.

Best to take any funds available and upgrade KC-135's while they can. When the economy improves and other non-military programs are going smoothly then maybe there is a chance.

But first I believe that there will need to be repayments of loans by the financial institutions (and, soon, the Big 3 automakers) before a lot of politicians will be willing to look at anything like a tanker.

By the time the dust settles we might be looking at a 787/350 battle for the contract.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 29327 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):

By the time the dust settles we might be looking at a 787/350 battle for the contract.

 checkmark 

This is done for now with the economy imploding like it has in the US. We're talking trillions of dollars of bailouts when it's all said and done. That means game over.  checkeredflag 



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 29222 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):

Agree.

With the possible exception of the F-35, all that is going to happen over the next 10 years or so is old spent airplanes are going to be removed from service thus reducing the overall refuleing requirements which will produce a natural drawdown of the -135's.


User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 29155 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 19):
all that is going to happen over the next 10 years or so is old spent airplanes are going to be removed from service thus reducing the overall refuleing requirements which will produce a natural drawdown of the -135's.

I'm not sure that Obama will go for shrinking the military during his first 4 years. It might be the opposite, simply because we've learned a painful lesson in Iraq with extended deployments and too little time at home between deployments. We've learned about forced extension of active duty time (a draft at the end of an enlistment?) and have seen record number of Majors leaving the service.

All of this was due to undermanning of the services and Obama is smart enough to understand that is a problem that needs to be resolved. There are also people like Colin Powell who has his ear and respect.

The need to rebuild after Iraq, enlarge active duty forces, etc. is the main reason why I believe programs like the tanker will best be funded with up-grading instead of new planes. "Up-grades" that support jobs in the US also have a better chance of being funded.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 29130 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
I wonder if EADS will strike a deal with GE to put the GENX under the A330 tanker, cargo and maybe passenger versions.

It would improve payload-range by 20% and make it environmetal / PR future prove..

Maybe the french air force can be launch customer.

That could very well be the winning option? It sounds very good to me.


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 29117 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 20):

I hope you are right, but history and current economic issues say no way.


User currently offlineFsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 29098 times:

Obama has expressed support for rapid, globally deployable power, which equates to additional airlift (C-17) and refueling tankers (KC-X) to support it. He has also said that we need to look at cutting programs designed to meet Cold War requirements (F-22)

User currently offlineArluna From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 29058 times:



Quoting Fsnuffer (Reply 23):
Obama has expressed support for rapid, globally deployable power, which equates to additional airlift (C-17) and refueling tankers (KC-X) to support it. He has also said that we need to look at cutting programs designed to meet Cold War requirements (F-22)

Fsnuffer,

I beleive he said that during the campagin so it really doesn't mean anything. You know that candidates will say what ever they feel they need to say in order to get votes. He has no regard for the military and will not fund any programs as costly as KC-X.

J


25 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html Keesje, that artical is well over two years old. Even if EADS offered a GEnx equipped A-
26 Osiris30 : Which frankly I don't see as a horrible option FWIW
27 Gsosbee : All said in the heat of a Presidential election to buy votes. Votes have now been counted and reality is setting in.
28 Post contains links Keesje : GE is still offering the GENX for the A350XWB but Airbus wants a bigger engine. http://www.domain-b.com/aero/aero_mfg/20080519_airbus.html Given RR o
29 DL767captain : I'm confused but why doesnt the AF just order both the A330 and 767 tanker? I know Boeing and Airbus are trying to put them on the same mission but ho
30 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.domain-b.com/aero/aero_mf....html Again, this is old news, from May, 2008. But, the artical says nothing about GE offering
31 Keesje : Still its ordered, outselling the 777. Exclusively with RR. Not a winning horse for GE. Do you have any source / info on that?
32 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Just speculating, there must be another reason why GE doesn't seem to respond to the Airbus request, based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airb
33 Astuteman : GE pushed the GEnx REAL hard at the A330/330F. It was Airbus who turned it down based on the excessive work it demanded to the wing. Like Airbus roya
34 KC135TopBoom : Correct, that is why I think GE has walked away from Airbus, for now, and to Boeing.
35 Keesje : Well GE stills provide raw numbers of engines to Airbus, CF6-80E1, CFM56-5, GP7000. I think both GE and airbus are scratching thier heads. It seems G
36 KC135TopBoom : Since all models of the B-777 are still offered, from the B-77A to the B-77W, there are all trhee major engine manufacturers offered, P&W, GE, and RR
37 AWACSooner : Doubt it...for political reasons.
38 Post contains links Gsosbee : NG is starting to stir the pot: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/index.xml Looks like no quarter to be given which raises the question: Wh
39 Post contains links Lumberton : NG is desperate methinks. They will have less supporters in the next Congress than they do in the current Congress, and we saw how much support they
40 Par13del : How about this slant on things. 1. The EU and other nations in general blame the US mortgage crisis for their current financial issues, I'm somewhat s
41 Lumberton : If a new tanker happens at all, I agree, this is the most realistic scenario given the compositon of the new Congress and the leanings of the new Adm
42 Acheron : Maybe they can resort to bribery like Lockheed did with the F-104 and that some members conveniently forget whenever they say the USAF's next tanker
43 Post contains links Keesje : Meanwhile, the Airbus CEO said he was "rather confident" that the European aircraft manufacturer can win the U.S. military's KC-X aerial tanker compet
44 Post contains links Dvautier : I have always strongly felt that the Air Force could get by with tanker upgrades. Now that Airbus has staunchly proclaimed that they will continue to
45 Keesje : Then why should Europe continue to buy JSF, C130, C17, Apaches, Chinooks, missiles, etc, etc ?
46 Lumberton : "Europe" or France, Germany, Spain and the UK? The countries buying JSF, and in particular the UK, have a significant production share I believe. WRT
47 Post contains links Keesje : Who says they haven't already? http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/graphics/fig064.jpg NASA Langley testing a composites wing 2000 http://o
48 KC135TopBoom : Somehow, Keesje, I think Boeing would say something similar. Because Europe needs them, and the EU is not producing anything like them, including the
49 Baroque : Do remind us of the flawless and timely development and introduction history of the C-130Js.
50 Lumberton : They do have the distinct advantage of being available....
51 Alessandro : Personally I don´t think US can afford any KC767 nor KC330.
52 Post contains links Baroque : Thoughts about a retreat to protection should raise memories of some of the effects of the 1930 tarrif act, otherwise known as Smoot Hawley. http://bo
53 Srbmod : This is the one and only warning that will be issued in regards to this thread. Keep it on topic or it will be locked, This thread is about the new US
54 KC135TopBoom : I agree. The US Government has no money since we bailed everyone, except me, out. Perhaps LM will bid a re-engine program for the KC-135Es?
55 Ken777 : We'll just go deeper into debt. Looking at where we stand now, Obama can spend a trillion dollars and only increase the debt by 10%. Now that's scary
56 KC135TopBoom : That is all true, or at least I hope that will all happen. But, the USAF does have a fall back position that no one, I know has looked at. Currently,
57 Gsosbee : All true, but as I indicated on the E-8 thread, the preference will be to keep the -135's on the CFM's for crew and mx issues alone. The marginal cos
58 Venus6971 : The KC-135E is primarily for ANG units, active duty units never flew the KC-135E in Wing organized units. Some active duty did fly E models but they
59 KC135TopBoom : But, in the mid 1980s there was a proposal by SAC to re-engine KC-135A units that were co-located with USAFR or ANG KC-135E units with the TF-33-P102
60 Alessandro : 3,5 Billion US$ a day, which means US is lending the estimated total cost of the Spaceshuttle programme in 50 days. 1 trillion equals 8.7% of the tot
61 Post contains links Gsosbee : Whatever the process it is begining to happen: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50Q5HN20090127 Sec. Gates says he wants competition,
62 JoeCanuck : Military contracts are rarely only about the best equipment. Since it is always a federal government procurement, any purchase is seen as a country bu
63 Keesje : I think every one knows the merits of both offerings. So it is important to tweak the requirements and proces in order to stear to te preferred suppli
64 KC135TopBoom : The KC-X contrversey will never go away now, no matter who might win the contract. It may be time now to simply cancel the KC-X program altogether, an
65 Lumberton : We brought it on ourselves. Congress can direct a sole source it to Boeing, consistent with the provision of the law that requires the SECDEF to cons
66 Revelation : We really should be looking at buying the next gen aircraft beyond the A330/767. Till then, let's use up the rest of the airframe life on the KC-135s
67 Ken777 : I agree, so the first job for the AF is finding a sufficient number of politicians willing to spend money for tankers under the current economic cond
68 UltimateDelta : And what good would that do? Both companies are promoting the capacity and all that stuf about their much larger planes. (Or at least they were)
69 Post contains links Gsosbee : Sounds like the Robert Gates and the Air Force are about to be told "dual buy" or nothing: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...nnel=defense&id=news
70 Revelation : I don't think the goal is a level playing field, the goal is to get the USAF what it thinks it needs. I think one can write such a RFP, and I think s
71 Bennett123 : I think that the General is missing the point. As you say, the objective is to obtain the best Tanker to meet the USAF's needs. The real problem is to
72 Revelation : A corollary to what I wrote is I feel the USAF could write an RFP that would guarantee the selection of KC767 or KC330, and still survive a protest.
73 Bennett123 : Surely the point of a RFP is to say what you objectives are, they should not be written to guarantee a KC767 buy or a KC330 buy. At the end of the day
74 Gsosbee : That is the issue. The Air Force (or any service) (the user) has an agenda, but the Congress (the funder) has a completely different agenda. Thus the
75 Lumberton : To be fair, the Republicans from the south, particularly Alabama & Florida, are fighting mightily for those jobs. Besides, its public (i.e., taxpayer
76 Par13del : How many of the first frames of the EADS offering will be assembled in the US versus the Boing product, if built in France and flown to the US for mo
77 Gsosbee : So he should have let the American taxpayer get fleeced on the lease deal? The US would have received a better finance deal from Joe's Used Cars (whe
78 Lumberton : There is no requirement to have an RFP if there is a sole source. BTW, I would feel a lot better about McCain's purity of heart if several of his aid
79 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I am too, since Obama is talking about a 10% cut in defense funding beginning in FY-2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...obama-calling-defens
80 Post contains links Keesje : Well if "may the best win" is no longer important we can expect many international deals to stall / switch. Devestating for US Union workers, because
81 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Keesje, do you ever have recent relivent news to share? That link was from last June, well before the GAO report came out. I don't know what LM thinks
82 Alessandro : Read on wiki that the maintenance cost for the KC-135 raise by 6% annually, so they´re more and more expensive to maintain. Personally I think the be
83 Lumberton : You keep bringing this up. What "deals" are you talking about? AFAIK, only the F-35 seems to be in play for European countries. They have their own s
84 Post contains links Revelation : BAe plc has a whole North American subsidiary that operates semi-autonomously as BAe Inc. The North American operations take in more money than do th
85 Alien : The parent company is based in the UK and it has a BOD dominated by citizens of the UK. Not at all a problem but to infer that just because BAE has s
86 Revelation : Yes, it's a foreign entity. To me, the big thing is the jobs and the technology stay here.
87 KC135TopBoom : Wikipedia?
88 Bennett123 : Gsosbee Clearly it is not simply a case of exactly hitting X benchmarks. Each product will exceed the benchmark by different amounts in different area
89 Gsosbee : You may have slightly missed the point. The point was taking OTS aircraft in service immediately causes a problem for US government RFP's as if you p
90 Pnwtraveler : With the current uproar over the buy American wording in the stimulus package (only US steel allowed to get funding), protectionist forces are very st
91 Lumberton : Remember two important things here. 1. Its a military procurement and, AFAIK, not subject to the WTO rules that govern most commercial dealings. 2. Th
92 Stitch : If Airbus agrees to not only build the KC-30B here, but also any future KC-30A for the RAAF and future A330MRTTs as well as the A330-200F (and an A330
93 Bennett123 : That might be a deal worth doing. I assume that passenger A330's are excluded. What is the deal on Cargo conversions, I assume that they are also excl
94 Stitch : Well Airbus probably could send a commercial A330 down the line if they needed to, but I would expect they would be built at TLS until the line is fo
95 Lumberton : There is still the issue of using taxpayer money to fund the competitor to one of America's largest exporters, i.e., Boeing. This may play well here,
96 Stitch : It was widely assumed that the KC-767 would win the initial RFP. When it didn't, the WA and KS delegations raised cane, but the rest of Congress didn
97 Bennett123 : I do not think that the Unions would buy moving passenger A330 production to the US. I also suspect that when A300F work ends at Dresden that they wil
98 FlyingClrs727 : How could Airbus offer an A340 based tanker anyway? The A330 based tankers use A340 wings modified to put refueling pods where the #1 and #4 engines
99 Post contains links Lumberton : This may be nothing, but the FBI has raided a lobbying firm with close ties to John Murtha. It doesn't mention the tanker, but many people, including
100 Trex8 : maybe they will when XWB production is ramped up and there is only a trickle of A330 pax orders.
101 Gsosbee : The unions will want all jobs to stay and new ones added. Boeing had the same basic issue during its last negotiations.
102 Bennett123 : IMO it will depend on the state of the economy when the A350 arrives, besides a trickle will not be much of a prize for the US.
103 Mascmo : The USAF needs to go with Boeing. Simply because they need to buy American made! Now I know parts of Boeing airplanes are made outside the US but atle
104 Stitch : One should note that while the USAF's "check" will go to Boeing, Boeing will proceed to then send part of that money to those foreign companies that
105 Mascmo : I understand that but its just the principle and I guess I have a slight bias for Boeing anyways.[Edited 2009-02-11 16:05:04]
106 Ken777 : Lease/purchase deals always cost more than straight cash deals. Just look at buying a car. The goal of the lease/purchase deal was to get orders movi
107 EBJ1248650 : In order to let the Buy American sentiment settle down some and open the way for a competition?
108 Alessandro : Mascmo From United States, joined Mar 2008, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 103, posted Thu Feb 12 2009 00:32:46 your local time (3 hours 27 minutes 55 secs ago
109 FlyingClrs727 : The first tankers won't arrive till at least 10 years after the original lease deal would have delivered the first tanker.
110 Astuteman : Would that be such a bad thing, given the difference in capacity/capability? It may allow greater flexibility.. IIRC it takes in more than the whole
111 Lumberton : If Obama or his new Deputy SECDEF say it, I'm a believer. Otherwise....
112 Post contains links Gsosbee : Murtha's mouth is running again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/02/16/AR2009021601020.html IMHO, the translation is, "Gates, don't wor
113 Ken777 : I believe that Murtha's problem is that the money is moving away from the military - especially with the money for the bank bailouts and the stimulus
114 Stitch : Murtha is from Pennsylvania and Boeing's CSAR-X will be built in his state. So he has a vested interest (as does, ironically, Boeing) to throw the Rep
115 Trex8 : if those parts are sourced from non American factories, how do you think Boeing pays for them? by only paying the US subsidiary of the Japanese and I
116 Revelation : He doesn't get to vote on the CSAR-X issue yet. The only one who gets a vote for now is the DoD. I'm sure he can try to influence them, but he doesn'
117 Alessandro : Wrong quoted, I didn´t say that.
118 Trex8 : sorry I used the quote select feature, dunno how that happened , it should have been Macsmo
119 Post contains links Tugger : Looks like Boeing is coming out on the practical, "lets get it done" side of the whole tanker issue and is "open" to a split order: http://www.busines
120 Stitch : I still think a buy of 60 KC-30As to replace the KC-10 fleet is not a bad idea, especially if on top of that Airbus agrees to move A330MRTT, KC-30B an
121 ThePointblank : I don't think a split order will be possible unless the USAF retires a tanker type, and the KC-10's are the easiest target; they can be replaced by KC
122 Ken777 : With things changing in the commercial aviation sector does the AF really know what it wants? A decision in March '10 - after the 787 (hopefully) has
123 Bennett123 : So you think that the original deal was good for the US taxpayers?
124 Post contains links Keesje : I think Boeing feels another comaparison based on capabilities and meeting USAF requirements is not a sure win for the KC767, to state it mildly. Also
125 Ken777 : When you consider that the original post 9/11 lease purchase was designed to keep employment up at companies that would be providing parts as well as
126 Stitch : It is certainly sounding like it. I read a GAO report noting that the USAF is spending a few billion a year to keep the KC-135 fleet in the air, so b
127 Bennett123 : Perhaps if there had not been the other issues, the Boeing MIGHT have got the job reasonably fair and square.
128 Ken777 : As I recall it was a Boeing employee AND an AF employee. Boeing paid a very hefty fine and the AF, of course, avoided organizational blame. The probl
129 ThePointblank : The problem was that the taxpayer wasn't getting a good enough deal compared to the price they were paying. Even in the last KC-X competition, we did
130 Ken777 : Direct purchases are always better than a lease purchase and, after the problem was taken care of in the courts Boeing could probably have been squeez
131 Post contains links Revelation : Yes, but on the positive side, there are 10 years of tech improvement. Baloney. Boeing is still making 767s for UPS et al, and record numbers of all
132 Ken777 : Go back to the original intent of the tanker deal - as I understand it. It was after 9/11 and there was a desire to maintain employment levels at Boei
133 Revelation : There were lots of "make work" packages post 9-11. Thankfully not many got funded. Personally, I don't want my taxes going to fund "make work" projec
134 A342 : Do you happen to know if weight or diameter was the problem? If it was diameter, there's an obvious solution: use the -2B which has a smaller fan. Ho
135 Post contains links Lumberton : The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the White House has enlisted Pelosi to "persuade" Murtha to drop this split buy thing. http://online.wsj.com
136 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/mu...-buy/ I really don't see any movement on a new build tanker by Congress before 2011. I think t
137 Post contains links and images Keesje : Meanwhile above the clouds; French KC-135 tops up Australian A330 MRTT
138 KC135TopBoom : Great picture, Keesje. Do you know if fuel was actually transferred, or is that the "dry" contact tests? Do you have any news on the RAAF KC-30B progr
139 Keesje : you obviously have been flying around in tankers to long This test happen 2 weeks ago & fuel was transferred. After completing testing of the flight
140 Trex8 : wasn't at least one of the rationales for cutting F22s etc that KCX was more important to the AF?
141 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, Trex8. But, now that the end of the F-22 production has been established, no one is really talking about the KC-X program. There are
142 Post contains links Revelation : Surprisingly enough, the 2010 budget sent to congress has "set in motion plans to restart this summer the Air Force's controversial effort to buy new
143 Post contains links Lumberton : This has a more immediate impact on the C-17 decision but Senator Patti Murray has introduced an amendment to make DOD answer for any impacts on the i
144 Keesje : In more then one way I think the KC-45 could carry up to 32 463L pallets/ 52t long haul at efficiencies that never can be met by C-17s. The C5M fleet
145 Lumberton : Keesje, the tanker debate will not hinge on pallets. You would need the Bush administration back for a strictly aircraft-to-aircraft comparison to inf
146 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Keesje, the current KC-135 and KC-10 are not much more than "box carriers" in the cargo role. The KC-30 or KC-767 would be the same. I fail to see you
147 Post contains links Keesje : I think the only area the KC767 outperformes the KC30 was support in US congress. Out of the last 5 global tanker competition EADS won 5 out of 5 (in
148 KC135TopBoom : Keesje, you know better than to bring up that old (2006-2007) NG spider chart that a lot of folks here have proven to be grossly in error. You are wro
149 XT6Wagon : You forgot that the KC30 failed to prove it could refuel all assets as requested, and NG intentionaly failed a major requirement to transition servic
150 Lumberton : See my post #143 earlier. This is only the beginning of the effort to "shape the battlefield" WRT the tanker. The USAF can hold competitions from now
151 Keesje : Objective requirements have been formulated with everybodylooking. The USAF did a wide research into future requirements. Everybody including Boeing
152 JayinKitsap : So Boeing's performance on the Wedgetail should be considered, even though it is primarily the MESA radar that Sub N-G is providing. So Boeing's perfo
153 Lumberton : Yes.
154 Ken777 : Nothing worse than having to follow the law on this deal. Been there, done that before. Airbus got off easy. McCain was able to handle that for Airbu
155 XT6Wagon : You seem to miss constantly that if they FOLLOWED the written request for proposal, DOD guidlines on them and LAWS on the conduct of bidding/selectio
156 Keesje : No XT6Wagon. Total non sense. The KC30 was superior in performace and price. Ask the USAF. Through the process I grow ever more surprised as why some
157 Post contains images Lumberton : Thank you for your concern for our troops. Are you referring to that aircraft that was first conceptualized in 1982 and hasn't flown yet? You know, t
158 Post contains links and images Keesje : I do not understand what you mean, the program was launched may 28th, 2003. A few months after Boeing abbandonned the Sonic Cruiser for the 7e7. http
159 Lumberton : I could ask you the same thing WRT to the C-17 vs the A400. The KC-767 can do everything asked of it in the last RFP.
160 Revelation : That's funny, I seem to remember visiting the voting booth last Novemeber. Some a.net members want to forget that experience. Actually, I'm quite sur
161 KC135TopBoom : Ahhh....that "army of lawyers" was lead by the auditors. There are a few USAF personnel who actually want the KC-30, but most prefer the KC-767. Thos
162 Keesje : The requirements came form the 2002, a clear goal then was to exclude the KC767. Therfore it became at least as capable as KC135. 200.000lbs. I think
163 XT6Wagon : The issue is that the needs of a tanker are getting farther and farther from the needs of an optimized commecial passenger jet. Then add in that the
164 Stitch : Which is why the KC-30A is now reported by the GAO and the DoD as being $10 million more per frame then the KC-767ADV. Of course, never let the truth
165 Keesje : Interesting thought. Will EADS / NG offer to make the KC-45 even more US build, maybe giving e.g. Spirit and some hard hit suppliers some contract op
166 KC135TopBoom : While the KC-767AT may be the lowest price option, and the KC-30A may carry more cubes in cargo for new build KC-X, the re-engined KC-135E is still th
167 Revelation : Yes. Originally the USAF used actual A330 data for determining maintenance costs whereas they did not use actual 767 data, they used some inflated, m
168 Ken777 : I'll go for that - I've even added TopBoom to my RR list because I've been in agreement with his position for a long time. Money is going to be very
169 Post contains links Keesje : Air Force aims to keep control of tanker competition The Pentagon's acquisition chief may directly administer the upcoming competition for a new aeri
170 Stitch : Well if it comes down to the USAF or the DoD, always bet on the DoD. Personally, I think letting the DoD directly handle it would help negate any appe
171 KC135TopBoom : Well Keesje, from a tax payer position, a 0.7% failure rate is just not good enough. Perticularly when the failed contract was worth some $40B. Stati
172 Bennett123 : 0.07% is only 1/10 of 0.7%. So the score is really 99.93%, still a failure . Equally what was the DoD score.
173 Dk1967 : So, because they got the hot dog bun and toilet paper contracts done correctly, we should ignore the fact that they screwed up their highest priority
174 Ken777 : Like hammers and toilet seats?
175 DEVILFISH : To be fair, I think I've read (incorrectly?) somewhere that those were gold plated? Must have been a very delicate hammerhead, and a way too cold (co
176 Post contains links Overcast : Looks like another Country is going with the A330MRTT. Although this isn't directly relevent to the USAF requirement, it certainly gives weight to the
177 Stitch : Compared to a Russian bird, of course it is. It's clear the A330MRTT is a solid platform, especially so if you only plan to operate a few, because th
178 Par13del : A little bit too logical, and don't give anyone any ideas, they may suggest dumping the C-5 and replacing them and the KC-135 with the KC-30, two bir
179 Moose135 : Unless you can find a way to stuff a Main Battle Tank (or two) into a KC-30, I don't think that will be an option.
180 Stitch : A new-build dedicated tanker is a definite non-starter. It would cost a mint to develop (by the time they get done with it, probably deep into ten fi
181 747classic : I have read the whole topic............... it took a while !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As a new member to this forum I want to give some fresh input. : -
182 Lumberton : As a new member, you probably don't want to know about the 100+ threads on this topic that preceded this one. I can only hope you are correct! To add
183 XT6Wagon : I would expect them to argue that Airbus is a mere subcontractor, and only supplies parts thus any RLI discussion is not approprate. Boeing will argu
184 CARST : Why are you all playing advocate for the 767? It is such an old design. Boeing should offer the 772LR or 787, they would win that contest miles ahead
185 Lumberton : Honestly, if you were Ron Sugar, CEO of NG, would you be willing to walk to Capitol Hill and advance that argument? Consider also NG's huge (i.e., HU
186 747classic : What kind of operation do you want to perform anyway ? Only refueling and cargo transport (incl. some soldiers) , they don't need a sophisticated hig
187 KC135TopBoom : Correct, the India tanker compitition is not relevent to the USAF tanker compitition. The KC-767 did not compete in India, the choices were the tanke
188 Lumberton : Thanks for pointing this out. Lost in all the "newer", "bigger", "carries more pallets" horse$**t is the fact that its a logistic aircraft, and the b
189 CARST : The problem is the 767 lost the first decision against the 10 year younger A330, because the newer design can fly farther and can carry more payload.
190 747classic : . I respect your view, but ask yourself the following : If you want heating oil delivered to your house, it will be delivered in an oil truck and not
191 NCB : Airbus is to give a big share of KC-30 to the U.S., in Alabama, in addition to A330F. Issue is, if I'm not mistaken, EADS wants to offer the KC-30 MK
192 Trex8 : even with the previous KC45 program, EADS was going to use the pax A332 for the KC45 and move only the civilian A330F line to AL. Its possible one da
193 Post contains links and images Keesje : Problem is Boeing, its supporters in congress and half a.net have been proclaiming the KC30 is just to big and the KC767 exactly rightsized. Now sayi
194 Lumberton : Why don't we wait until the requirements are defined?
195 KC135TopBoom : No, having Boeing logo is not an advantage for any Boeing offering. Each tanker version has advantages and disadvantages. A reengined KC-135E is the
196 NCB : This Air Uni study may not concur with you: https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_ob
197 KC135TopBoom : Also from the report; "However, the KC-135 with the oldest fleet in the inventory actually outperforms the vast majority of aircraft inventory. Durin
198 WAH64D : It would also completely marginalise much of the A350 programme. At a time when the selfishness, stupidity and recklessness of US lenders and specula
199 747classic : Technically, the A330/GE GNex2B variant will be hard to beat, I agree. Only the 767-400ERF/GNex2B (shrunk) variant comes close and may be offered with
200 NCB : AN-70 is a league ahead on A400M with regards to operating cost, airlifting/airfield performance and mission capabilities, so unfortunately that is n
201 Lumberton : If it was so "famously insular" why is there a competition at all? I would think that the comment would apply to the A400M program, after all there w
202 KC135TopBoom : "Thems fighting words". The US did not destroy the world's economy by itself. The EU has plenty to share with the US, India, Japan, and China in that
203 WAH64D : I don't recall mentioning C-17, E-3, RivetJoint or AH-64D in my statement. We definitely do need the aforementioned aircraft with the exception of Ri
204 Post contains images Keesje : Sorry to break the magic bell, but 2 of the noisy An-70s crashed. 1 was rebuild. The engine problems were never completely solved. The aircraft flies
205 747classic : You misread my latest topic. I was talking about the 767-400ERF (shrunk) variant (767-300ERF body and all other features of the 767-400ER), not the 7
206 Lumberton : I am reminded of that old adage that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.[Edited 2009-08-18 09:08:48]
207 KC135TopBoom : Correct, Lumberton. To make things prefectly clear, WAH64D, the UK has a long and proud tradition in selecting the best military equipment, for the p
208 747classic : At first glance I was also technically impressed by this combination, but after some second thoughts and some investigation of the TC of the GEnx, te
209 WAH64D : Thank you Sir, I appreciate your input. I do not know of anybody who is more knowledgeable in the tanker game than yourself. It is sometimes difficul
210 NCB : To be fair, 1 of the AN-70's crashed due to a collision with the chase plane, 1 was due to engine failure but was rebuilt. The engine problems are al
211 KC135TopBoom : So, Keesje, how many A-400 Millions are flying today? How many will meet the performance specs.? All correct, and well before the A-400 Million. Than
212 Venus6971 : In the last couple weeks here at KTIK I saw the last 2 KC-135E's the 137 ARW OKANG were caretaking leave for the bone yard and Sheppard AFB so new Cre
213 KC135TopBoom : Well, the thrust reduction for a GEnx-2B engine equipped A-330-200 would only be 1,050 lbs from the current 72,000 lbs of the CF-6-80E engines it has
214 EBJ1248650 : Brought up to KC-135R standard?
215 Astuteman : A bleed-air version was well under way for the original A330 based A350 before that was shelved. It's possible, but as you say, would probably be cos
216 Venus6971 : Yes but the Apu's would be different, the present APU in the E models would be sufficient to start the CFM's.
217 KC135TopBoom : They could reengine the "Es" with the same engine for the E-8C, the JT-8D-219.
218 Venus6971 : There was a proposal to do that with the NATO AWACS component. It should bolt right up unlike the R which is a all new engine nacelle and wing mounts
219 JarheadK5 : What do you mean here? KC-10 pilots are taught one smooth pull to rotate; the phrase "3 second pull to target pitch" is ringing a bell in my head, bu
220 Max Q : No need for a 'double rotation' on the -400 just a little care.. This will be a split buy.
221 KC135TopBoom : I know the A-350 Mk. I, II, and III were based on the A-330 upgrade. I seem to remember that the GEnx could be offered, but I did not know there was
222 Post contains links Revelation : Did you have to say that? The wiki says: Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GENX It would seem this is a decent fit for the 767 airframe, but there wo
223 JarheadK5 : Again, it's one smooth pull to target pitch. The target pitch varies with gross weight, screen height, climb gradient, and all the other crap that go
224 Keesje : The spider chart message proved much more important / decisive then most here thought, said and hoped, although they would rather be naked on youtube
225 KC135TopBoom : No, the spider chart was NG/EADS propoganda. They took a lot of liberty in developing that peice of crap. It was not accurate for either the KC-135R,
226 Revelation : What makes you say that? Clearly NG won round 1 of KC-30, but how do you know that chart had any part to play? Yes, but to play devil's advocate, tha
227 Astuteman : GEnx-1B (bleed version) was in fact the launch engine for the A350. GE had exclusive rights for the first 200 (might have been 250) frames. RR couldn
228 KC135TopBoom : He doesn't. We don't know what charts and graphs that Boeing or NG gave to the USAF. We only know of this one chart that was publicly released. One m
229 NCB : To be honest, I find both designs to be inadequate in a 21st century tanker role. Useful load is about 100 tons for both compared to 90 tons for KC-1
230 Post contains images Lumberton : OK, you've convinced me. After the JASDF buys 100 "modified AN-124s", we'll buy 100. OK? Like I said, lead the way here. Help us to get over our cold
231 NCB : Tell me what's more stupid, buying Russian or buying expensive Western aircraft? The average utilisation rate of a KC-135 is less than 500 hours/year.
232 JarheadK5 : No. The KC-whatever mission and the C-5 mission are vastly different. You cannot perform the C-5's missions, to the same locations, with a KC-anythin
233 KC10FATboy : In my opinion, both the Boeing and Airbus proposed tankers don't meet the needs of the Air Force. We need more boom/drogues in the air, not gas. Buyin
234 Lumberton : If you put it that way, I vote "buying Russian". The Russian airlines don't even want to go this route.
235 NCB : Two obviously different aircraft, but could be used in different missions. In the same way, 707 derivatives have been used in transport, airborne sur
236 Stitch : If the AN-124 was such a phenomenal tanker platform, you'd think the Soviets and Russian Federation would be using it themselves.
237 KC135TopBoom : There is a reason the JSDF-AF bought the KC-767J instead of the An-124 in a tanker version. The An-124 (or C-5A/B/C/M) would not make a very good tan
238 Post contains images Lumberton :  How do we incorporate that into a spider chart?   [Edited 2009-08-24 09:23:11]
239 KC135TopBoom : Maybe Keesje can do it?
240 Keesje : Looks like a powerpoint evening for you Boeing fans P.S. better not include price, commercial backlog & runway performance..
241 NCB : That is based on 20th century air refuelling technology. If you can increase flow rates, you can achieve higher refuelling ratios. Why the Russians d
242 Stitch : But Antonov was Soviet and the Soviets did try and rule over the world. The AN-124 first flew in 1982, remember, even if commercial certification may
243 Moose135 : But virtually everything flying these days still uses 20th Centuray refueling technology. Flow rate isn't a tanker limitation, it's a receiver limita
244 ThePointblank : More precisely, there is a limit to size before practicality becomes an issue. If size didn't matter, we would have gianormous super tankers flying i
245 KC135TopBoom : Only if you don't lay that spider chart on us again. No, it won't work. BTW, a single KC-135 can handle that 20 F-35 receivers (or 20 of any fighter
246 Post contains links NCB : It really depends on your boom configuration. If you increase the length, you can provide clearance from turbulence if that appears to be an issue. S
247 Stitch : But then you may get into clearance issues at rotation. It's why Boeing can't offer the 767-400ER for the KC-X RFP, even though that plane is close i
248 NCB : To cope with more flow, you just need to increase pressure if you are to maintain the same duct diameters. I don't see why you'd need such huge modif
249 NorCal : There's probably an obvious reason that they haven't adapted fighters to accept a higher flow rate. LM and BA have known for a long time how quickly
250 KC135TopBoom : even the An-124T could not refuel 20 receivers of any type in 10 minutes. But, each F-35 would take somewhere between 4,000 lbs and 6,000 lbs of fuel
251 XT6Wagon : higher flow rates bring in HUGE engineering issues for minimal benifit. You need stronger piping, structure to support it, stronger joints, stronger
252 NCB : Please provide proof of what you are suggesting here. I don't see any of your arguments making sense to me. What is so challenging to flow alot of fu
253 ThePointblank : Higher flow rates means higher pressure. If I were to take a 3000psi pressure washer and instead of using the standard pressure washer hose, I used a
254 KC10FATboy : Lets not also forget the mass of the fluid moving. To keep from getting too detailed with specifics, the -10 and -135 can transfer fuel in excess of 6
255 JarheadK5 : You can only flow so much liquid through a 4" tube (boom) or a 1.5" hose (drogue). Let's assume all 30 AN-124s are home-based at one airfield. Of tho
256 Post contains images Keesje : Side question; what are the flow rates between tankers and tanker - transport aircraft? I understand fuel transfers between tankers are used to maxim
257 NCB : That's not very smart, is it? I'd spread them as much as possible over the territory. Spreading them doesn't mean that there will be more unavailable
258 XT6Wagon : You know, I don't even need my engineering degree to prove you wrong. Go to a plumbing store. Read the labels on Schedule 10 and Schedule 40 PVC pipe
259 KC135TopBoom : In today's world, I assure you that combat refuelings are much higher than 10%, closer to 25%. Even training for refueling (both tanker crews and rec
260 NCB : Probably true, in today's world. Except that when you buy an airplane you must take into account the average use over the period of intended use. Wit
261 Moose135 : Sorry, that math doesn't work. With 3 tankers, that's 6 receivers each. If each receiver gets 18,000 lbs (9 tons) of fuel, that means each tanker nee
262 KC10FATboy : I'm a tanker planner who builds AR missions for US, NATO, and host nations. I can assure you, the planning numbers we use for planning drogue AR missi
263 JarheadK5 : You're confusing home-based with deployed. I don't discuss actual operational info like that in an open Internet forum. However, the information you
264 Post contains links NCB : Equipped with a centerline flying boom - along with two underwing hose and drogue pods, plus a fuselage hose and drogue refueling unit - the KC-45 ca
265 Moose135 : I guess I was looking at this from a USAF viewpoint - all those drogues won't help much if you have a gaggle of USAF F-35s, they use boom refueling,
266 Venus6971 : I have this probe off a Luftwaffe Tornado that I pryed out of my drogue basket in 1992, do you think they want it back. It was always a adventure to
267 KC135TopBoom : Correct, the numbers do not add up. Correct. Dispite what NG/EADS says, that is not phyically possible. The refueling system of USAF airplanes is pre
268 Keesje : Many straight errors here on a.net. No need to get harsh. I'm not saying this smells arrogant but hanging out here will show you self proclaimed "spe
269 KC10FATboy : I have not seen anything from the literature that states the KC-45 can refuel 3 drogue aircraft at once. Even if technically possible, would it be sa
270 JarheadK5 : When you have a receiver on the boom, that's all you're doing. No drogue refueling will be performed while a receiver is on the boom. Once the boom r
271 KC135TopBoom : Correct, that is why I support reengining the KC-135Es, as the best option for getting more tankers in the air, and the KC-767AT as the next best opt
272 NCB : One question: is the one in the middle meant as a cosmetic feature? With new-generation automation systems I heard that it's possible to "auto-land"
273 XT6Wagon : Seriously time to stop digging. You are stating things that can be disproven with a few minutes on youtube. Longer hoses are rarely the answer to mor
274 Venus6971 : Becuase buying Russian equipment is like buying a computer printer, cheap until you have to change ink carts. The Russians have never really been a g
275 KC135TopBoom : Acquisition costs are only one factor to consider. You also have MilCon costs (Military Construction for ramp space, hangers, maintenance shops, etc.
276 Post contains links JarheadK5 : In the KC-10, the centerline drogue is used far more often than the WARPs for a number of reasons: - not every KC-10 is wired and plumbed for the WAR
277 Post contains images NCB : I can assure you that it's not 4 times, not even 1.5 times for the projected AN-124NG. Besides 100 million dollars price difference / 20000 hours lif
278 ThePointblank : The problem is that parts for the AN-124 haven't been made since the fall of the Soviet Union. You will need to reopen all of the production lines fo
279 Post contains links NCB : Russia's United Aircraft, Ukraine's Antonov and outsize freight carrier Volga-Dnepr have signed a technical requirements document covering the modern
280 KC135TopBoom : The An-124 does burn 4 times the fuel an A-330 burns. There is no projection for the fuel consumption of a possible An-124NG, as there is no design,
281 Baroque : Actually it was a bit longer if you take the thesis to the first Gloster test plane flight, but then he was busy with his ice cream business before h
282 NCB : The Soviets were already developing the SU-27 at that time but saw no urgent need to accelerate the development process since their basis was covered
283 KC135TopBoom : It was a fighter, interceptor, and high altitude supersonic recce platform. The Mig-23 had two F-4 kills, and lost 7 Mig-23s to the F-4. (Israeli AF
284 MCIGuy : My (hypothetical) choices: KC-737 (-800 or -900) to replace KC-135 KC-777 to replace KC-10
285 NCB : Funny. Propaganda? I told you, the cold war is over NK-93 burns much much more fuel than CF-6? Even the Aviadvigatel PS-90 is in the same range as CF
286 KC135TopBoom : The USAF has already rejected a tanker based on the B-737NG or A-32X series as to small to replace a KC-135. The KC-135 carries twice the fuel load o
287 NCB : No you're right, in Samara they have Santa and the deers flying at full power behind jet engines so he can count every pound of thrust that comes out
288 KC135TopBoom : So, you are finally giving up on this redicules An-124T idea? Good. But, you can count on none coming from the USAF.
289 NCB : Ok, I'll just sit back and watch as the ridiculous USAF military purchase policy screws the American taxpayer until they become all ridiculously penn
290 Tarheelwings : I have sat back and read this thread with bemused interest, but, when statements such as the following are made, I do feel compelled to butt in (so to
291 KC135TopBoom : If the KC-135 is to small, why is it still a front line combat airplane today? The KC-10A was not bought because the KC-135 was "to small to fulfil t
292 NCB : So the reality is that U.S. is a net importer and that it has no ressources to pay for its huge spendings. Russia has very nice positive trade balanc
293 KC135TopBoom : Yeah, the An-124 is selling like hotcakes, isn't it? You do know the An-124's closest competing freighter, the B-747F is outselling it 100:1, don't y
294 Astuteman : An engine of CF6 size, sporting 0.49 SFC back in the '90's and class standard reliability and weight would be hanging underneath the 767, A330 and 78
295 Post contains links NCB : Such an astute response deserves an astute answer. First of all, I'd like you to read the following article from Flight International's archives: htt
296 KC135TopBoom : Well, back on topic. Boeing is sure to want to enter this new round for the new tanker. I am not as sure about NG. EADS will want some American manufa
297 Lumberton : Lock-Mart would be wise not to touch this. Already the leaks on the WTO ruling have started and Tihart, Dicks, Murry, and Sam Brownback have already w
298 Stitch : The problem is that if Congress declares "we can't source from Airbus because Airbus commercial aircraft have received illegal subsidies" than if Boei
299 KC135TopBoom : Congress can direct a single source for the KC-X without making any comments. That would be the politically smart way to go, if they wanted to just a
300 Stitch : Frankly, there should be no shame for the USAF choosing the KC-767 because it's a "home sourced" product. It may not be as amazing as the KC-30A, but
301 Lumberton : If the USAF wants a tanker before 2020 then it will have to be sole sourced. Any "competition" is going to be contested until the sun goes nova. Asht
302 KC135TopBoom : Correct, that RFP was written to not allow the C-17, or the C-130J, to compete. As it turned out the UK ended up with ordering some C-17 and C-130Js.
303 Keesje : Non sense. EADS is entitled to bid & that's not opinion. Domestically short term smart I think. The US is the #1 weapon exporter & this might boemera
304 Lumberton : This can be sole sourced. You should refrain from weighing in on things you know nothing about.
305 Stitch : Well the surest way to no longer be the #1 weapons exporter is to stop designing and building weapons. So in that regard, a KC-767ADV win is critical
306 Astuteman : That's perhaps a little unfair - Airbus engineering resources have been expanding rapidly in the USA, from what I understood. Rgds
307 Stitch : True. But the majority of the design, engineering, and production would still be done in Europe. And I don't begrudge Europe consolidating various ae
308 NCB : There seems to be quite some confusion about all the subsidies claims. Subsidies can come in different forms in this industry: -cheap government loan
309 XT6Wagon : The real problem for Airbus on the KC30 is that its not legal under current laws. This is why the USAF was working so hard to try and keep the KC-X b
310 747classic : Seen the present economic/political situation IMHO it will be an near 100% American aircraft that will be chosen. Mr Obama is already in trouble over
311 Stitch : That's news to me, and I've been following this with at least some level of closeness.
312 KC135TopBoom : Not in the US they can't. That is why EADS had to use a surrigot US company like NG to bid on the KC-X. IF the USAF were ever to buy the A-400M in re
313 XT6Wagon : Not too long after the KC-X program started, they put through a modification to the 1933 "Buy american" act. It raised the % american from 50% to 65%
314 KC135TopBoom : I didn't know the American content requirement was raised. If the President does wave this requirement, he will get an earfull from the unions, those
315 Post contains images Lumberton : I'm in a buoyant mood today. Time for the spider chart. Of course, if this thing doesn't end up being sole sourced, there could be a fourth ring: the
316 Stitch : Ah yes, the (in)famous Spider Chart. I believe most people accept the inherent superiority of the KC-30A platform. That's why it's winning all the RFP
317 Post contains links and images Keesje : Ask them, mayb JSF? http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSL2139819820080621 That should be the way. It often is. That's why many European A
318 Stitch : Lockheed-Martin can't sell the JSF to just anyone. It's requires the approval of the US Defense and Commerce Departments (at least). And most - if not
319 ThePointblank : Does the provisions state that 65% of the VALUE of the contract must be from American components or is it something else? Big difference between calc
320 KC135TopBoom : I don't. It is not superior to the KC-767AT for a USAF tanker. Than how do you explain the few KC-135Rs flown by Turkey and Singapore, the C-135FRs f
321 Scbriml : 1) The RAAF dictated changes to the MRTT after contracts were signed. They wanted changes to the avionics and refuelling system that increased develo
322 Lumberton : Why hasn't the A330MRTT transferred fuel from its boom yet? Are there problems?
323 Post contains images Keesje : The alternative KC767s were/are riddled by problems, heavy delays and scandals and lost the last 5 competitions with the KC30. Still I don't expect y
324 Lumberton : Yes, a few of us have noticed that.
325 NCB : I'm not debating that with you, that's the other guy. I'm just detailing what can be qualified as a subsidy. Well, aside from the fact that there's d
326 KC135TopBoom : So, why haven't they been doing ground testing all along during the delays? Boeing has with their B-787 delays. No, only 3 compititions, you cannot c
327 Post contains links 747classic : One more country is interested in a new 767-tanker variant. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...in-767-tanker-offer-to-poland.html
328 Stitch : Yeah but that is a refurb of existing passenger planes (as the UK was considering before deciding on the A330 MRTT) and not new-build KC-767s. Also, i
329 747classic : But it's one extra point for the 767 in this debate over the USAF tanker contest.
330 Stitch : I guess. But by that metric, you could arguably call Germany's and Canada's conversion of their military A310s into A310 MRTT's "points" for the A330
331 747classic : The A330 is definitely not an A310, only the fuselage frames are the same. They also don't have a common type rating, because of all the differences.
332 Keesje : I think there is a reason Australia, United Kingdom, United States, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and India airforces selected the KC30 variants.
333 KC135TopBoom : The Poland tanker could also mean the KC-767 conversion a possibility for Israel, too, since IAI is doing the conversion and the IDF KC-707s are gett
334 Keesje : Nobody cares, except you. lets be honest, how many F35s, 787s, 747-8Fs, 737AEW, P-8A Poseidon's have been delivered? Does that make them useless in y
335 KC135TopBoom : But, how many are already built for their customers? Do they really? Why is it the RAAF will accept their A-330 and say the EADS Boom does not work,
336 Post contains links XT6Wagon : Strange how the boom seems to work on the A310 frame, but so far they have refused to pass fuel on the KC-30B's boom despite all this time from when
337 Post contains links and images Keesje : How many have been delivered ? 0. It seems you are playing with words & digging up old updates. The Australian MRTT's are getting system integration
338 Lumberton : Since asking earlier: I take it there are problems? I wonder if the media has looked into this? All we hear is "biggest", "greatest", etc. There are s
339 Post contains links Scbriml : Oh come on! Boeing isn't even involved in the possible conversion of a couple of old 767s for Poland. To claim Boeing has sold them is blatant misrep
340 Astuteman : Well I guess Airbus are obliged to go there after boeing gave us the solution for both Cancer, Poverty, Starvation AND world peace..... the 787.. Rgd
341 Lumberton : And after all that, maybe they'll figure a way to get the A330MRTT working as a viable tanker that . . . well. . .actually tanks?
342 KC135TopBoom : Before or after the A-400M flies?
343 Stitch : The easiest way to hand this to Boeing is to tailor the RFP so that only the KC-767ADV can meet it. This was done the first time and was changed the s
344 KC135TopBoom : Do you honestly believe the EU unions will want to give up "their" work to Americans? I am still against a duel buy. I still think the best and cheap
345 Post contains images Stitch : Well they have to give up some of it under DoD purchasing rules set down under the "Buy American" Act of 1933. It's why they're building a FAL in Ala
346 KC135TopBoom : But PACAF gets by just fine with the KC-135Rs they have today. For those extra few deployment missions that involve very large bomber units (which ar
347 NA : When the USAF got the KC-135s in the late 50s it was an avantgarde aircraft. Ahead of the civilian aviation. An excellent choice. The 767 today though
348 Stitch : Well the A330 is an "old" plane itself. Launched 15 years ago as a derivative of a design launched 20 years ago and tracing it's lineage back to a de
349 NA : I didnt say they should go for the A330 tanker, I just said the 767 is the granny among todays airliners, not worth anymore to make a major commitmen
350 Stitch : 100 frames would be around an entire years production for a 787 or A350XWB FAL. If the A350XWB doesn't score another order (which is laughably unlike
351 Pnwtraveler : The Air Force doesn't look at airframes the way people look at new cars and think that this years is better than last years model. They don't care how
352 Trex8 : probably as believable as Boeing saying they will increase American 767 airframe content! Airbus has already previously said the A332F would be built
353 KC135TopBoom : You do understand that both the A-330MRTT and KC-767AT offerings were the most advanced versions of both airplanes, don't you? Each had the latest av
354 Post contains images DEVILFISH : With new engines and avionics to go with the tanker conversion, that's a brilliant idea!   Might earn less for Boeing though.  [Edited 2009-09-13
355 KC135TopBoom : The USAF learned a lot from getting hand me down B-707-320B/Cs for the E-8 program. Each airplane is very different from the next one. While it is tr
356 Post contains links Scbriml : Please continue the discussion in Part 2. A Or B,Usaf Tanker Decision In Mar '10 Pt. 2 (by KC135TopBoom Sep 13 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Fligh
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...
2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals posted Sat Sep 13 2008 05:59:21 by Keesje
Tanker Drops In Wildfires Often Just For Show posted Tue Jul 29 2008 10:19:33 by PPVRA
Lockheed Praises KC45 Tanker Decision posted Wed Jun 4 2008 01:55:32 by WINGS
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
787 Problems Impact On Tanker Decision posted Fri Mar 7 2008 11:08:16 by Observer
Tanker Decision Today? posted Mon Feb 25 2008 06:59:36 by F27Friendship
New Tanker Decision By End Of January posted Sun Jan 6 2008 08:34:40 by EBJ1248650
Another USAF/Boeing Contract In Trouble posted Fri Dec 28 2007 07:56:51 by TropicBird
Usaf Tanker Expected Date? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 15:52:16 by Tigerotor77W
Usaf F-16 Crash In Iraq posted Sat Jun 16 2007 08:55:25 by FlightShadow
New Tanker Decision By End Of January posted Sun Jan 6 2008 08:34:40 by EBJ1248650
Another USAF/Boeing Contract In Trouble posted Fri Dec 28 2007 07:56:51 by TropicBird
Usaf Tanker Expected Date? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 15:52:16 by Tigerotor77W
Lockheed Praises KC45 Tanker Decision posted Wed Jun 4 2008 01:55:32 by WINGS
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
787 Problems Impact On Tanker Decision posted Fri Mar 7 2008 11:08:16 by Observer
Tanker Decision Today? posted Mon Feb 25 2008 06:59:36 by F27Friendship
New Tanker Decision By End Of January posted Sun Jan 6 2008 08:34:40 by EBJ1248650
Another USAF/Boeing Contract In Trouble posted Fri Dec 28 2007 07:56:51 by TropicBird
Usaf Tanker Expected Date? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 15:52:16 by Tigerotor77W
2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals posted Sat Sep 13 2008 05:59:21 by Keesje
Tanker Drops In Wildfires Often Just For Show posted Tue Jul 29 2008 10:19:33 by PPVRA
Lockheed Praises KC45 Tanker Decision posted Wed Jun 4 2008 01:55:32 by WINGS
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
787 Problems Impact On Tanker Decision posted Fri Mar 7 2008 11:08:16 by Observer
Tanker Decision Today? posted Mon Feb 25 2008 06:59:36 by F27Friendship
New Tanker Decision By End Of January posted Sun Jan 6 2008 08:34:40 by EBJ1248650
Another USAF/Boeing Contract In Trouble posted Fri Dec 28 2007 07:56:51 by TropicBird