USAF Tanker Deal "To be reviewed" - Page 2

Tchocky · 06-19-08, 01:05 PM

With all respect, that's lifted straight from boeing.com, and they're not going to be saying anything else.

PeriscopeDepth · 06-19-08, 01:08 PM

If Boeing can sell you on "unrestricted" operations with a flying gas tank...

PD

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

With all respect, that's lifted straight from boeing.com, and they're not going to be saying anything else.

Typical response, but not all the information as presented by Rueters is to be found on Boeing's site.

If Boeing knows that they have an advantage, then that is what they have since the Air Force doesn't believe BS.

This is like saying that Airbus says they have an advatage in fuel capacity, but you discount it based on the fact that Airbus has it listed on their website?

Tchocky!!! Hello? Anybody home!!!???

You do crack me up though!

-S

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 01:35 PM

By the way, just looked - The Air Force is the one that said it's 5x more survivable. But I guess you'll doscount that too because its the Air Force saying that!

Hahahahahaha! :p

-S

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 01:40 PM

Found some more advatages of the Boeing plane:

Quote:

--The ability to refuel multiple types of aircraft, including the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft
--Ability to isolate, transport and off-load multiple fuel types
--Less fuel burned, less foreign bases required and less sensitive to geo-political base denials in operational scenarios
--Fuel tank and ballistic threat protection
--Aerial refueling operator station
--Ability to carry higher weight cargo on the main deck
--Ability to carry hazardous material on the main deck
--Aeromedical crew displays and the ability to generate therapeutic patient oxygen
--Advanced communication and navigation capabilities and future growth potential

And this was pretty important too:

Quote:

...the KC-767 obtained 24 positive discriminators in the critical survivability category, including 11 described as "major", outranking the KC-30 which reportedly scored five, none of which were major....

Carrying more gas doesn't make the airplane.

-S

PeriscopeDepth · 06-19-08, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

By the way, just looked - The Air Force is the one that said it's 5x more survivable. But I guess you'll doscount that too because its the Air Force saying that!

Hahahahahaha! :p

-S

The USAF will say whatever their political masters tell them to. Or they'll (the leadership) go ahead and say they need more Raptors than they have and get canned.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088929
http://www.reuters.com/article/press...08+PNW20080218

Where'd you find the USAF saying it's more survivable? All I could find is this:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103415

PD

Steel_Tomb · 06-19-08, 01:54 PM

Err... I seem to have opened a right can of worms with this one lol:rotfl: keep it going gents.

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

The USAF will say whatever their political masters tell them to. Or they'll (the leadership) go ahead and say they need more Raptors than they have and get canned.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088929
http://www.reuters.com/article/press...08+PNW20080218

Where'd you find the USAF saying it's more survivable? All I could find is this:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103415

PD

You missed this - http://www.reuters.com/article/press...08+PRN20080411

As you missed the other link I thought I posted that had the Osprey info. Crud. Closed.

-S

PS. I don't buy the leadership told us to say this BS. Thats a copout.

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 02:04 PM

Found another article on it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...34210220080612

This part is interesting:

Quote:

The U.S. Air Force has conceded that Boeing Co's proposed KC-767 aerial refueling tanker would cost less over time than the winning plane offered by Northrop Grumman Corp and its European subcontractor EADS, Boeing told auditors reviewing its protest against the Air Force decision.

-S

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 02:13 PM

I told you the KC-767 is ready to go.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank...5774_TEC_5.pdf

That was last year!

Japan also has been testing its KC-767.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank...5774_TEC_4.pdf

The KC-45 doesn't even exist yet either! The KC-767 is already developed and about ready for the flight line in militaries around the world!

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank...5774_TEC_6.pdf

But no - lets build something completely brand new and hardly more capable, and completely less survivable, and way less flexable! Lets put it on a A330 frame that uses 81% greater footprint over a KC-135! Of course we need the infrastructure to support such a large aircraft - nice. The KC-767 holds nearly as much fuel, and only has a 21% greater footprint than the KC-135, and on top of that, should save us $8 Billion in fuel savings simply to fly the damn thing! Yes - politics doesn't always pick the best winner since we clearly have an inferior product with the selected KC-45. Nice.

-S

PS. Can you tell the more i read about this the more I get ticked off? I didn't realize how big a cockup this all was!

PPS. Found another link on it with Gates this time - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n25451990

PeriscopeDepth · 06-19-08, 03:30 PM

You are naieve thinking this is about getting our troops the best gear. This is about Boeing owning more of Congress than Northrop Grumman. The decision to reverse came through Congress's research office, not the USAF. Even if the Boeing plane was clearly less capable this would be happening. As has already been said, politics.

The USAF is, unfortunately, a service with no future vision other than snagging funding and keeping things as status quo as possible. And they have shown they are completely incapable of managing a large program too many times lately.

A blog I frequently read had a picture to describe Congress killing the F-22 in favor of funding F-35 and Congress reversing the tanker decision. It was a still from the tape of Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD, Rodney being the USAF here.

PD

SUBMAN1 · 06-19-08, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

You are naieve thinking this is about getting our troops the best gear. This is about Boeing owning more of Congress than Northrop Grumman. The decision to reverse came through Congress's research office, not the USAF. Even if the Boeing plane was clearly less capable this would be happening. As has already been said, politics.

The USAF is, unfortunately, a service with no future vision other than snagging funding and keeping things as status quo as possible. And they have shown they are completely incapable of managing a large program too many times lately.

A blog I frequently read had a picture to describe Congress killing the F-22 in favor of funding F-35 and Congress reversing the tanker decision. It was a still from the tape of Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD, Rodney being the USAF here.

PD

I don't agree, but I'll leave it at that.

-S

PeriscopeDepth · 06-19-08, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

You are naieve thinking this is about getting our troops the best gear. This is about Boeing owning more of Congress than Northrop Grumman. The decision to reverse came through Congress's research office, not the USAF. Even if the Boeing plane was clearly less capable this would be happening. As has already been said, politics.

The USAF is, unfortunately, a service with no future vision other than snagging funding and keeping things as status quo as possible. And they have shown they are completely incapable of managing a large program too many times lately.

A blog I frequently read had a picture to describe Congress killing the F-22 in favor of funding F-35 and Congress reversing the tanker decision. It was a still from the tape of Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD, Rodney being the USAF here.

PD

I don't agree, but I'll leave it at that.

-S

Deal.

PD

MothBalls · 06-19-08, 03:52 PM

So much for the Buy American Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_American_Act

I saw a bumper sticker once that summed up America's problems in 10 words.

"Buy American. The job you save may be your own"

bookworm_020 · 06-19-08, 06:37 PM

Airbus has had experience in building tanker aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT

Australia had similar demands to the USAF in seeking a tanker replacement. It selected the A330 MRTT.

It can carry more fuel further, with a larger cargo space as well. Yes it is more expensive but it suits Australia's needs better as there are less airports to land at in Australia (have a look on a map and you will see a lot of nothing!) and a long distance to anywhere outside Australia

06-19-08, 01:05 PM	#16
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	With all respect, that's lifted straight from boeing.com, and they're not going to be saying anything else. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

06-19-08, 01:35 PM	#19
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	By the way, just looked - The Air Force is the one that said it's 5x more survivable. But I guess you'll doscount that too because its the Air Force saying that! Hahahahahaha! :p -S __________________

06-19-08, 01:54 PM	#22
Steel_Tomb Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Cambridgeshire - UK Posts: 1,128 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Err... I seem to have opened a right can of worms with this one lol:rotfl: keep it going gents. __________________ _______________________________________________ System Spec: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz \| 4Gb Corsair XMS2 Dominator DDR2 PC-2 6400 RAM \| XFX GeForce 8800GTS 640mb PCI-E \| Creative X-fi sound card \| 250Gb HDD \| *Rest In Peace Dave, you will be missed.*

06-19-08, 02:13 PM	#25
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I told you the KC-767 is ready to go. http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank...5774_TEC_5.pdf That was last year! Japan also has been testing its KC-767. http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank...5774_TEC_4.pdf The KC-45 doesn't even exist yet either! The KC-767 is already developed and about ready for the flight line in militaries around the world! http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank...5774_TEC_6.pdf But no - lets build something completely brand new and hardly more capable, and completely less survivable, and way less flexable! Lets put it on a A330 frame that uses 81% greater footprint over a KC-135! Of course we need the infrastructure to support such a large aircraft - nice. The KC-767 holds nearly as much fuel, and only has a 21% greater footprint than the KC-135, and on top of that, should save us $8 Billion in fuel savings simply to fly the damn thing! Yes - politics doesn't always pick the best winner since we clearly have an inferior product with the selected KC-45. Nice. -S PS. Can you tell the more i read about this the more I get ticked off? I didn't realize how big a cockup this all was! PPS. Found another link on it with Gates this time - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_n25451990 __________________

06-19-08, 06:37 PM	#30
bookworm_020 Navy Seal Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sinking ships off the Australian coast Posts: 5,966 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	Airbus has had experience in building tanker aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT Australia had similar demands to the USAF in seeking a tanker replacement. It selected the A330 MRTT. It can carry more fuel further, with a larger cargo space as well. Yes it is more expensive but it suits Australia's needs better as there are less airports to land at in Australia (have a look on a map and you will see a lot of nothing!) and a long distance to anywhere outside Australia __________________ "There is always one person in any organization who knows whats going on, That person must be fired"

06-19-08, 01:08 PM	#17
PeriscopeDepth Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,894 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	If Boeing can sell you on "unrestricted" operations with a flying gas tank... PD

06-19-08, 03:30 PM	#26
PeriscopeDepth Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,894 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	You are naieve thinking this is about getting our troops the best gear. This is about Boeing owning more of Congress than Northrop Grumman. The decision to reverse came through Congress's research office, not the USAF. Even if the Boeing plane was clearly less capable this would be happening. As has already been said, politics. The USAF is, unfortunately, a service with no future vision other than snagging funding and keeping things as status quo as possible. And they have shown they are completely incapable of managing a large program too many times lately. A blog I frequently read had a picture to describe Congress killing the F-22 in favor of funding F-35 and Congress reversing the tanker decision. It was a still from the tape of Rodney King getting beat by the LAPD, Rodney being the USAF here. PD

06-19-08, 03:52 PM	#29
MothBalls Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,012 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	So much for the Buy American Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_American_Act I saw a bumper sticker once that summed up America's problems in 10 words. "Buy American. The job you save may be your own"