keesje
Posts: 8757
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Usaf :

Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:14 pm

US Air Force secretary James Roche says that the Airbus A330-200 is welcome to take part in a potential competition for the KC-X tanker programme next year.

A $90 million investment by Airbus to develop and qualify a refuelling boom, scheduled to enter flight testing later this year, "should make them a legitimate competitor", said Roche

The air force's refuelling requirement is now the subject of multiple reviews.

Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld is waiting to receive a report in November before he makes a decision, but interest appears to have shifted to a regular procurement competition starting in 2005.


(Source : Flight International 27-2 Aug)

Seems like a new tanker competition will start all over in 2005, may the best win.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8577
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Usaf :

Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:53 am

Seems like a new tanker competition will start all over in 2005, may the best win.

Ahh... as it should. May this attempt not be marred with scandal
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Usaf :

Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:03 pm

Let's just do this right and go BWB.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
keesje
Posts: 8757
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Usaf :

Wed Aug 04, 2004 7:33 pm

My advise (for what it's worth it  Big grin) would be for Airbus to join forces with Lockheed for a longterm solution.

- A smart life extension/phase out program for the KC135's.
- 100-150 Americanized KC330's as best value interim; customized US avionics, Gen-x engines, US based production & maintenance facility in a state that really wants/needs it..
- Lockheed work on an new optimized concept for introduction after 2015.


"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Usaf :

Wed Aug 04, 2004 8:47 pm

Yes, you would say that. I was not being manufacturer specific. And until the French lose their attitude about defense contracts, they should not be winning U.S. contracts. EADS has too much of a "let us in, but don't let them in over here" attitude.

[Edited 2004-08-04 13:52:54]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Usaf :

Wed Aug 04, 2004 11:54 pm

It may be a competition, but it will be one that Airbus will lose. The USAF doesn't want to have to worry about US-French relations whenever they want to goto war.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Usaf :

Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:05 am

USAF has an awful lot of CFMI engines, being the largest user with around 2000 installed units, and a few hundred more pending. Since CFMI is 50% French, is there any sort of embargo protection on those things?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
keesje
Posts: 8757
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Usaf :

Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:28 am

"Since CFMI is 50% French, is there any sort of embargo protection on those things?"

No, of course not. It's not a real problem, just emotional sentiments after the Iraq thing..

French specialist companies are subcontracted to provide components to US Defense contractors and the other way around. Business as usual.

When you look from a distance, France, US, Canada and Western Europe are all part of the same block.

Ask Al Qaida, they hate them all as bad...

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Usaf :

Thu Aug 05, 2004 7:12 am

no french products should be used in the USAF, we can not rely on france for further parts and improvements during times of crisis. Enough said.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8577
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Usaf :

Thu Aug 05, 2004 7:58 am

- 100-150 Americanized KC330's as best value interim; customized US avionics, Gen-x engines, US based production & maintenance facility in a state that really wants/needs it..

Ha... get the USAF to do Airbus' dirty work for the A330NG. I doubt the USAF would have much interest in the GENEX anyway, the USAF stated a preference for the PW4000 in both the KC-767 and A330-T proposals.

Given that the 767 in other forms are already replacing many USAF aircraft, the KC-767 has a slight trump card. There is also the size advantage of the 767-200, given that ramp space doesn't grow on trees. I don't see the fact that EADS is a European consortium as a big deal, IMO, the A330 just doesn't fit the USAF.

And a 100-150 frame order is hardly interim!

- Lockheed work on an new optimized concept for introduction after 2015.

Around this time, I wouldn't be suprised if Boeing started throwing the BWB around again. I'd much rather see Boeing and Lockheed collaborate on a design than Boeing sending it off to Japan. Yes, Boeing, you are hardly the only aerospace major in North America  Big grin

A military transport version could probably first, EOS around 2015, as a complement/replacement for the airlift fleet. A civilian spinoff entering service in 2020-2025 could replace the 777 and 747 since Boeing wants a three-product family. A BWB/Tube-wing hybrid could come first (maybe 737NG replacement?), basically a tube-wing design where the wing increases in thickness to match the diameter of the fuselage, a la F-16-



Maybe I should patent it now  Big grin
 
keesje
Posts: 8757
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Usaf :

Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:20 pm

Nice drawing DfWR. Sure could take a lot of fuel.

Longer / shorter versions would seem possible.

Not including the engines in the body saves a lot of headaches

Compromises like these often stand a better chance then the real wild things.

For a passenger version I have doubts, windows, efficcient cabins, emergency exits etc.

I'm not sure about the lift/drag curve ...

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests