USAF Finally Selects KC-135 replacement

[PeriscopeDepth]

And they went with the Euro/Northrop Grumman proposal too. I'm surprised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272129.stm

[SUBMAN1]

I'm surprised to. :o

-S

[JSLTIGER]

Aw, hell...can't we manufacture anything ourselves anymore? :nope: :down:

[CCIP]

Well it does say it will be assembled in the US. :hmm:

[FIREWALL]

Be lucky all it isn't a biplane with a big water baloon hanging from it.

Gotta cut costs somewhere.

[bradclark1]

Everything else is going overseas. I think congress will probably step in unless enough campaign donations have been spread around.

It will also be able to refuel two aircraft simultaneously mid-flight and have defensive systems that will enable it to operate in the more dangerous environments that existing refuelling tankers have to avoid.
Who are they going to get to be stupid enough to drive a tanker full of JP4 into a dangerous enviroment?

[AVGWarhawk]

Well it does say it will be assembled in the US. :hmm:


Just like Toyota. It is just a big warm world we live in. We will probably outsource this part of the deal to China. :shifty:

[Linton]

The 330 is a truly outstanding machine and is without rival.

[SUBMAN1]

The 330 is a truly outstanding machine and is without rival.Hardly - try a 777. Sounds like this is the jet Boeing should have offered. Not only that, it is more fuel efficient. The 777 is a much better plane all around.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

A 777 gas passer was not in the offering. They were proposing a 767 refueler I believe. And speaking of Boeing, their lobbyists are trying to start a $hitstorm over this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2925137720080301

PD

[SUBMAN1]

A 777 gas passer was not in the offering. They were proposing a 767 refueler I believe. And speaking of Boeing, their lobbyists are trying to start a $hitstorm over this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2925137720080301

PDGood. Yeah - if Airbus is offering a modified 330 - sounds like Boeing offered the wrong plane! The 777 is the direct contender to a 330!

-S

[Torplexed]

They're howling mad in Everett tonight.

[CCIP]

A 777 gas passer was not in the offering. They were proposing a 767 refueler I believe. And speaking of Boeing, their lobbyists are trying to start a $hitstorm over this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2925137720080301

PDGood. Yeah - if Airbus is offering a modified 330 - sounds like Boeing offered the wrong plane! The 777 is the direct contender to a 330!

-S

Exactly, that's why I actually wasn't surprised by it. I've followed this a little before and the Airbus offering always looked much better. Had Boeing offered a 777 tanker, that would be a different story perhaps.

[PeriscopeDepth]

A 777 gas passer was not in the offering. They were proposing a 767 refueler I believe. And speaking of Boeing, their lobbyists are trying to start a $hitstorm over this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2925137720080301

PDGood. Yeah - if Airbus is offering a modified 330 - sounds like Boeing offered the wrong plane! The 777 is the direct contender to a 330!

-S
Exactly, that's why I actually wasn't surprised by it. I've followed this a little before and the Airbus offering always looked much better. Had Boeing offered a 777 tanker, that would be a different story perhaps.

Your assumption that they'd pick the more capable system makes me giggle. :)

PD

[CCIP]

LOL :lol:

You got me there. I am very glad I never had to learn that way of thinking :doh:

[StarFox]

thats a big surprise :o

the KC-767 is already being delivered to Japan.....that KC-30 has yet to be built

[badhat17]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Airbus-A330-203-MRTT/1327857/L/that KC-30 has yet to be built



http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Airbus-A330-203-MRTT/1327857/L/

While not exactly a KC-30 in itself the picture in the above link is more or less the same thing and obviously more than just a design study.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Airbus-A330-203-MRTT/1327857/L/

[Respenus]

After reading the article on BBC News, I've come to a very simple conclusion. That is, that the Americans are the biggest nationalists ever. OK, one of the bigger ones. The point is, you wanted this kind of system, you made it work and now that someone better has come along and it's not the great USA, you suddenly want to forget about everything. If you believe you're so self-efficient, why don't you re-establish the Monroe doctrine system and once again become isolated, if you believe that your products are the best and that other people shouldn't have the change to get US funding.

Welcome to the table Gentleman. Today's special is Globalisation and Economic Liberalism. I hope you enjoy it!

[Kapitan]

Only real reason i like airbus is for the simple fact airbus aircraft cockpits are pretty much identicle through out from A318 to A380.

A330 can only really be compaired to the 767 which its rival, the 777 doesnt have an airbus competitor just yet but i do think the A350 will challenge that.

A pilot who flys the baby A320 can also fly the big A330 with little hand over training so these pilots can fly a wider range of planes when needed without months of transition training.

You can go from a boeing 737 and then jump in and fly a 777 you would need months of training first as its totaly diffrent cockpit layouts.

but the A330 offers more for its money, maybe if boeing had lobbied a 777 tanker it would have won instead they chose the 767 which is smaller.

A 777 as a tanker would be well a better idea for boeing rather than 767, it flys farther heavyier faster and is more modern and is larger than 767 and A330.

But in all my favorite plane is A330.

[Jimbuna]

Good news for the UK economy, but I must admit I'm quite suprised. I thought the UK government were the only ones that enjoyed snubbing there home based industries. Most unusual for the US http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/621/thinkbigsw1.gif

[StarFox]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Airbus-A330-203-MRTT/1327857/L/that KC-30 has yet to be built



http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Airbus-A330-203-MRTT/1327857/L/

While not exactly a KC-30 in itself the picture in the above link is more or less the same thing and obviously more than just a design study.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Airbus-A330-203-MRTT/1327857/L/

Thats my point though. with the changes, they will have to do test flights and get the plane cetrifed to fly, where as the KC-767 is already being delivered to Japan, and Itlay is next on the list. Its already flying and being built in a production run

[Lurchi]

One reason for this decision is probably to send a signal to Boeing that military contracts are not "automatically" theirs. It also supports Grumman and helps to keep diversity in the defense market - competition is the only way to keep the costs of future at least a little bit under control. Maybe the Pentagon has come to the conclusion that Boeing has become too dominant ...

This Tanker now also may become interesting for some european Air Forces. Together with the new A400M Transporter and the A380 as possible C-5 Galaxy replacement Airbus seems to finally get their feet into military aviation.

[bradclark1]

After reading the article on BBC News, I've come to a very simple conclusion. That is, that the Americans are the biggest nationalists ever. OK, one of the bigger ones. The point is, you wanted this kind of system, you made it work and now that someone better has come along and it's not the great USA, you suddenly want to forget about everything. If you believe you're so self-efficient, why don't you re-establish the Monroe doctrine system and once again become isolated, if you believe that your products are the best and that other people shouldn't have the change to get US funding.

Welcome to the table Gentleman. Today's special is Globalisation and Economic Liberalism. I hope you enjoy it!
I don't know about others but it's not about American stuff is better it's that no military system should be dependent on foreign fabrication or supply. And as far as I'm concerned especially French.

[Urspankd]

Let's not forget about about Boeing's superb record with getting products to customers on time! I live in the area so I hear the ****storms everyday.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/353250_tanker01.html

[Skybird]

You can go from a boeing 737 and then jump in and fly a 777 you would need months of training first as its totaly diffrent cockpit layouts.
It depends. Of the 737, there are at least nine different"generations", the later ones coming with glass cockpits like the later boeing models like the 767, making them more similar then let's say 20 or 30 years ago. but granted, the similiraity is not as far-ealding as with the aibusses, where it has been an intentional design decision from the very beginning on.

[Tchocky]

Welcome to the table Gentleman. Today's special is Globalisation and Economic Liberalism. I hope you enjoy it!

:lol:

[bradclark1]

Welcome to the table Gentleman. Today's special is Globalisation and Economic Liberalism. I hope you enjoy it!

:lol:
I wouldn't do that just yet. The fat lady hasn't sung yet and her name is Congress.

[Tchocky]

Welcome to the table Gentleman. Today's special is Globalisation and Economic Liberalism. I hope you enjoy it!
:lol: I wouldn't do that just yet. The fat lady hasn't sung yet and her name is Congress.
Oh, very true.
I can't see them killing this off. A large Air Force requires force multipliers and power projection abilities. Tankers provide some of this, and new tankers are needed.
If there are no tankers, you might as well cut the Air Force by 80%.

looking at figures, it's fairly obvious why the A330 was chosen.

For KC-767 Advanced Tanker:
Max takeoff weight: over 400,000 lb (181,000 kg)
Maximum Fuel Load: over 202,000 lb (91,600 kg)A330 MRTT

Max Takeoff Weight - 230,000 kg* (507,063 lb*)
The A330 has a large internal fuel capacity of 111,000 kg / 122 tons in the wings; fuel capacity can be further increased with underfloor tanks, which would not compromise main deck cargo capacity or seating in the strategic transport role. Standard fuel capacity allows the carriage of an additional 43,000 kg of cargo.

The wingtank cpacity of the A330 is greater than the entire capacity of the KC-767. Nuff said.

[TteFAboB]

Another boring plane replacing a cooler model.

Seems only fighters are keeping their aura of awesomeness through upgrades. F-14 aside, obviously.

[badhat17]

Thats my point though. with the changes, they will have to do test flights and get the plane cetrifed to fly, where as the KC-767 is already being delivered to Japan, and Itlay is next on the list. Its already flying and being built in a production run

MRTT is flying and is in production. I do not believe that the specification currently undergoing qualification with the RAAF will be that much different to that ordered for the USAF so I do not see certification being much of a hurdle.

[Respenus]

Welcome to the table Gentleman. Today's special is Globalisation and Economic Liberalism. I hope you enjoy it!
:lol:

My God, I made someone laugh with my post. Finally.

@bradclark1
If the Fat Lady does sing, then it will trully be a sad day for the USA. Everyone knows that money and political connections (that come with money) control everything. I believe people will become even more disillussioned, at least those who notice this. To the common guy in the USA, it will be a day to celebrate. For the rest of the world, this will prove that ...

You know what. I've had enough of complaining for one day. Finish the sentence if you like. If you read my first post, you'll know what I wanted to say.

On the brighter note, its good to see Boing getting one more punch from Airbus.

[Tchocky]

I wonder...

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=19940

[bradclark1]

:lol: Somehow I don't think so.

[AntEater]

Funny is that while the A 330s will be build in Tolouse, the whole refueling package and the associated research and development are all done in Dresden, in the former GDR's only aviation plant.
The A 330 MRTTs for Australia and the A 310 MRTTs for the Luftwaffe were all converted in Dresden
So basically the US air force is buying former east Block
:D


In the same halls they are restoring the only surviving example of the Baade 152, the only GDR jet aircraft ever to fly.

[XabbaRus]

Somehow I can't agree with the statement that defense related stuff shouldn't be related to overseas work. In that case the UK would be screwed as we'd have to pull out of every procurement program we have.

On paper teh 330 seems teh better plane in terms of capacity and weight. It's not like Airbus ahven't been developing a tanker so it isn't new tech.

Why should Boeing get all the fun. Besides it will be assembled in the US providing a shed load of jobs.

Its like when the EH-101 won the competition for Marine 1 replacement.

[bradclark1]

Somehow I can't agree with the statement that defense related stuff shouldn't be related to overseas work. In that case the UK would be screwed as we'd have to pull out of every procurement program we have.

On paper teh 330 seems teh better plane in terms of capacity and weight. It's not like Airbus ahven't been developing a tanker so it isn't new tech.

Why should Boeing get all the fun. Besides it will be assembled in the US providing a shed load of jobs.

Its like when the EH-101 won the competition for Marine 1 replacement.
It seems most European military projects are European multinational projects which on a monetary standpoint makes sense because of budgets. Our budget is larger than all Europe combined. We have the technology, industry and capital to design and build within our own borders and for military I believe it should be. That means we aren't reliant on anybody.
The only European country the U.S. is tied to the wrist at is the U.K. Every other country is politics and frankly the way things are that means they aren't %100 percent reliable and therefore national defence projects should be kept in-house. You can call me nationalistic but thats okay because I am.
As far as the EH-101 I think it's a disgrace. The POTUS riding around in a foreign aircraft. Thats like the queen riding around in a Peugeot. We will see when he/she actually does ride in it or not. I bet it will be front page news.

[SUBMAN1]

I have to agree with Bradclark1. Not only should it be built here to remove dependence on any foreign company (And France could be an enemy some day), Congress is going to chew up the Air Force and spit it out. Air Force can select any program it wants, but Congress can say thats fine and simply not give them any money.

I'd say this is still 80% in Boeing's court. The only reason I still give the Airbus a 20% victory is that Northrup is involved, but in what capacity that they are involved is still in question. Northrup probably needs the business bad too and maybe this had some part to do with it to keep this defense contractor flush with cash?

-S

[Lurchi]

It was obviously the Airforce itself who decided in favour of the Northrop/Grumman/EADS Plane. Considering the big advantage Boeing has as the "hometeam" the offer of the US/Euro Consortium must have been A LOT better.

I wonder how this fits into this "We support our troops" blabla if the protectionists demand the USAF to go 2nd class while they obviously prefer to drive Hondas, Toyotas and BMWs over Ford or GM.:rotfl:

Where have all those protestors have been when Northrop/Grumman/EADS was allowed to make a proposal??! Ah i guess noone believed they could win against the overwhelming Pro-Boeing lobby, what kind of competition is this?

I must say that i am deeply impressed by the objectivity and open-mindedness of the Airforce Officials who made this decision - simply based on operational requirements. The same was done in many european countries -many times- as they decided to buy American Planes like the F-4, F-16 and F-35. Personally i would have preferred Germany taking part in the F-35 program as it could replace both our old fighters and the ageing Tornado - unlike the Eurofighter even though its a formidable plane.

Anyway - a lot of middle class familes in Mobile, Alabama will be very happy about this decision. They will get some well-paid jobs in a promising joint venture, like the ones who already work for Mercedes, Thyssen-Krupp and BMW. Boeing can now close its 767 line and shift its workers and production capacity to the 787.

[Kapitan]

JUST LIKE TO MAKE A BIG POINT HERE

The queen rides around in a jaguar and who is jaguar owned buy? none other than an American company called FORD.

[bradclark1]

But she's not riding in a Ford though is she? Jag is still a British company.

[JSLTIGER]

Not really...if Jag is a subdivision of Ford, then it is an American company. It may have been a British company before its purchase by Ford, but that's no longer the case. Besides, I thought that the queen rides in a Rolls-Royce (which is now German, owned by BMW).

[Kapitan]

Yes she is, the jaguars have mondeo chasis and either mazda (which again is owned by ford) or ford engines, most of the interior is from the Mondeo so 90% of that car is ford and american.

The only thing that remains jaguar is the badge and a slight part of the body work that is it everything else is ford.

[Jimbuna]

This is like arguing that she doesn't speak English, but rather American.....they both sound the same but the words are often spelled differently http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/621/thinkbigsw1.gif

[antikristuseke]

This is like arguing that she doesn't speak English, but rather American.....they both sound the same but the words are often spelled WRONG http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/621/thinkbigsw1.gif

There, I fixed it for you:yep:

[bradclark1]

Yes she is, the jaguars have mondeo chasis and either mazda (which again is owned by ford) or ford engines, most of the interior is from the Mondeo so 90% of that car is ford and american.

The only thing that remains jaguar is the badge and a slight part of the body work that is it everything else is ford.
I believe(I could be wrong) that Ford owns only twentyfive percent of Mazda.

Edit: Ford is currently in the process of selling Jaguar to Tata (India). I don't know if Land Rover (also owned by Ford) is part of the deal.

[TteFAboB]

What dependancy on foreign companies?

You guys mean N-G won't be able to build spare parts by itself if needed? They'll have to be flown in aswell?

[bookworm_020]

MRTT is flying and is in production. I do not believe that the specification currently undergoing qualification with the RAAF will be that much different to that ordered for the USAF so I do not see certification being much of a hurdle.

Buger! You beat me to it!:damn:

I wasn't surprise that Airbus won the Australian Air Refueler contract. Longer Range plane and more fuel. A big plus in it's book over the 767 version. The fact that boeing has been treading on toes of late here in Australia, and the fact that the RAAF want to make sure it doesn't have to depend on just one nation to supply all it's need!

[Tchocky]

Ye won't be laughing when we're at war with France...

[bradclark1]

What dependancy on foreign companies?

You guys mean N-G won't be able to build spare parts by itself if needed? They'll have to be flown in aswell?
Aren't all they would be doing is building the wings? All that is is a bone to help secure the contract or it's difficult and problem prone to ship wings (read that somewhere) from Europe to here. Take your pick or a combination of both.

Boeing's stock has fallen 3% and N-G has risen 5%.

[Konovalov]

MRTT is flying and is in production. I do not believe that the specification currently undergoing qualification with the RAAF will be that much different to that ordered for the USAF so I do not see certification being much of a hurdle.

Buger! You beat me to it!:damn:

I wasn't surprise that Airbus won the Australian Air Refueler contract. Longer Range plane and more fuel. A big plus in it's book over the 767 version. The fact that boeing has been treading on toes of late here in Australia, and the fact that the RAAF want to make sure it doesn't have to depend on just one nation to supply all it's need!

Yep, good for us. :yep: We also have 4 or 5 Boeing C-17's. Finally an aircraft wth some real lift capacity to supplement those old warehorses, the C-130's.

[Tchocky]

What dependancy on foreign companies?

You guys mean N-G won't be able to build spare parts by itself if needed? They'll have to be flown in aswell? Aren't all they would be doing is building the wings? All that is is a bone to help secure the contract or it's difficult and problem prone to ship wings (read that somewhere) from Europe to here.

It's quite an operation to ship A330 wings from Filton to Toulouse, nevermind across the Atlantic.
Wing construction is quite a bone to get, N-g could take an advantage by getting Airbus airfoil design.

[Friedmann]

Seems to me Airbus was providing a better product and the Air Force quite rightly went with what they felt gave them the greatest capability.

Once the aircraft are delivered I highly doubt the US will all of a sudden lose the capability to support them if hypothetically Airbus support was withdrawn.

While I agree that its better for the US economy for the aircraft to be indigenous I think that in the realm of the military. Capability should be considered above most other considerations.

And for those that speak gravely of a coming conflict between the US and France, thank you for providing me with a laugh. Thats the most insanely idiotic thing I've read today :rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

Seems to me Airbus was providing a better product and the Air Force quite rightly went with what they felt gave them the greatest capability.

Once the aircraft are delivered I highly doubt the US will all of a sudden lose the capability to support them if hypothetically Airbus support was withdrawn.

While I agree that its better for the US economy for the aircraft to be indigenous I think that in the realm of the military. Capability should be considered above most other considerations.

And for those that speak gravely of a coming conflict between the US and France, thank you for providing me with a laugh. Thats the most insanely idiotic thing I've read today :rotfl:

A conflict between the US and France http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img231/1076/shockedvi8.gif

Allow me to join yiu in a good chuckle http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img152/9959/rollingaroundlaughingly2.gif

[Fish]

[ it's that no military system should be dependent on foreign fabrication or supply.

Oh, and why should the rest of the world buy US stuf then? :cool:

[bradclark1]

[ it's that no military system should be dependent on foreign fabrication or supply.

Oh, and why should the rest of the world buy US stuf then? :cool:

Because it's cheaper then manufacturing inhouse and it does the job.

Our budget is larger than all Europe combined. We have the technology, industry and capital to design and build within our own borders