USAF Tanker Deal "To be reviewed"

[Steel_Tomb]

Well this gets better by the second, as if it wasn't controversial enough the deal supposedly has "significant errors" and is being put forward for review. It was a big surprise when the result was annouced, I wonder what people will think of this turn of events.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/2008061...s-8cc5291.html

[Tchocky]

Hmm, I wonder how this one will pan out.

On paper the A330 seems to be the better aircraft. Sydney Camm said that every aircraft has 4 dimensions; length, breadth, height and politics.

[SUBMAN1]

Told you a long time ago how this was going to play out. Everyone shot me down back then.

Besides, EADS has no experience trying to build a tanker in the first place. Guaranteed to be hit with costs overruns, the works!

Couple that to Boeing's version is pretty much built and ready to go. It is being procured by Japan as we speak.

Its just dumb to go with the EADS version. Besides, it costs more to operate, regardless if it holds little more fuel, and it has no real defenses when the Boeing version does! That is another sticking point that Boeing has brought up. The EADS version is a sitting duck!

Better on paper? hardly.

-S

[Skybird]

Wasn't it to be expected that Boeing would try to raise support for putting the deal into question? I for sure expected it, and if the deal would have gone to Boeing in the first, the same concerns that are being referred to now wouldn't have made anyone raising a single eyebrow. For Boeing it is about money lost, for the rest it is about national pride. Rational arguments or the given or lacking quality of the Airbus have nothing to do with it. I'm sure that it will end up with the deal being given to Boeing, no matter how. as Tchocky said: politics.

Man, this real time typo- and spellchecking of Firefox works fantastic! Tchocky, you spell your name wrong, it says!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wasn't it to be expected that Boeing would try to raise support for putting the deal into question? I for sure expected it, and if the deal would have gone to Boeing in the first, the same concerns that are being referred to now wouldn't have made anyone raising a single eyebrow. For Boeing it is about money lost, for the rest it is about national pride. Rational arguments or the given or lacking quality of the Airbus have nothing to do with it. I'm sure that it will end up with the deal being given to Boeing, no matter how. as Tchocky said: politics.

Man, this real time typo- and spellchecking of Firefox works fantastic! Tchocky, you spell your name wrong, it says!

You are right about the politics - I think the deal awarded to EADS was a black eye for Boeing from screwing around with the first deal! EADS would never have been in the picture if Boeing didn't rig the first award in 2003.

It is totally political.

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Besides, EADS has no experience trying to build a tanker in the first place.

I guess the German and Canadian tankers don't count, then? EADS have been building tankers for a while.

Couple that to Boeing's version is pretty much built and ready to go. It is being procured by Japan as we speak.

Japan and Italy are buying the KC-767, the A330 MRTT is being purchased by Australia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and UK. The Boeing model is further along in flight testing than the A330.

Its just dumb to go with the EADS version. Besides, it costs more to operate, regardless if it holds little more fuel, and it has no real defenses when the Boeing version does! That is another sticking point that Boeing has brought up. The EADS version is a sitting duck!

Can you link to the defences, I can't find anything.
More than a little more fuel, 27% more.

[rifleman13]

If the deal with EADS comes through, it will be like the A380 all over again.

[SUBMAN1]

Boeing today said the U.S. Air Force’s decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the Northrop/EADS team’s KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker. The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators found the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability discriminators as its competitor. Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group (ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker. “When I saw the Air Force’s assessment of both candidate aircraft in the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker,” Fogleman told the ARSAG audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing’s tanker effort. “To be survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack. The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats.”

That pretty much explains it all.

Why is it that I'm always called upon to provide sources, yet other people never provide anything, yet these same people make claims of their own constantly? Crud!

Anyway, read it all here - http://www.reuters.com/article/press...08+PRN20080411

-S

PS. Some additional data:

-- More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
-- Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable flight
crews to better see and assess the threat environment
-- Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is better
able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
-- Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the flight crew
to avoid threats once they are detected
-- Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and critical
aircraft systems
-- Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.

PPS. All these things add up to less fuel carried. Hence the 330's fuel advantage.

[Lurchi]

Survivability of a tanker?!?!
Armour-protection? Do they want to use it as a ground attack plane or what? LOL

If such a plane meets a fighter or an even half-sophisticated SAM systems it is dead, regardless if it is a Boeing or an Airbus. A fighter wouldn't even waste a missile on it and gun this fat bird down within seconds. Capacity of fuel and range are all that matters. It also seems that the Airbus - despite a heavier fuel load - can take-off and land on a shorter runway than the Boeing and that this was one of the major Pro-Airbus arguments.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Boeing will win because they are the home team, not because they have the better product. They just have enough legislators in their pocket. Maybe if they hadn't been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar the first time they could have won it fair and square.

I really, really, really would love for the FBI to put people involved in defense deals under surveillance for 6 months before and after. Our military procurement system is fu$ked beyond repair.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

The tanker is sent into an area of war. bullets are flying, SAM's are flying, its a bloody mess. An unsurvivable tanker has no chance. What they mean by survivable is that the Airbus is 5x more likely to be knocked out in time of war. If a missile hits the KC-767, it is designed to take the hit and possibly fly home. Kind of important in my book, especially in an age where stealth is near mandatory.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The tanker is sent into an area of war. bullets are flying, SAM's are flying, its a bloody mess. An unsurvivable tanker has no chance. What they mean by survivable is that the Airbus is 5x more likely to be knocked out in time of war. If a missile hits the KC-767, it is designed to take the hit and possibly fly home. Kind of important in my book, especially in an age where stealth is near mandatory.

-S

That's an exaggeration. Tankers are always kept back, and always escorted. Tankers _by their very nature_ are unsurvivable if it's being shot at.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

That's an exaggeration. Tankers are always kept back, and always escorted. Tankers _by their very nature_ are unsurvivable if it's being shot at.

PD

Not modern ones.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Not modern ones.

Come on, it's loaded with 160K pounds of _jet fuel_. If air to air missiles are hitting it, the fact is it isn't a tank.

And they didn't seem to think "survivability" was an issue the first time the 767 was selected?
http://www.military-aerospace-techno....cfm?DocID=335

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Come on, it's loaded with 160K pounds of _jet fuel_. If air to air missiles are hitting it, the fact is it isn't a tank.

And they didn't seem to think "survivability" was an issue the first time the 767 was selected?
http://www.military-aerospace-techno....cfm?DocID=335

PD

The tanks themselves are re-sealing - no explosion possible if it maintains integrety. This is something lacking on the Airbus - It will blow up!

See the quote:

-- Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.

-S

PS. More info:

Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767 also includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the tanker crew.

PPS. i think the keyword there is unrestricted.