#10 STICK TO THE TOPIC. If you want to talk helicopters, etc, go start another article.
Ge your facts straight about the issue at hand and stop your off topic whinging about other issues. IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING TANKERS - not helicopters for the president, etc. The issue HERE is TANKERS. And I am all about getting the best we can for people on the line. The EADS was it, the 767 was not. Can you get that into your thick skull past your blinders?
Technological and economic patriotism too complex a topic for you? It's been part of the pan-European identity building process (as is fostering anti-Americanism, the external enemy). That Europeans will spend 2X for less capability in order to provide independence from America and export revenue too much to grasp? Don't respond to my comment then later claim I'm off topic. Want to see a real thick head? Look in the mirror.
Don't blame the Euros for showing up with a better plane that met the USAF needs - blame Boeing for not showing up with a plane that could have done so easily to begin with.
It isn't what the Air Force asked for. They asked for a straight replacement for the KC-135. There is very good reason they did that, which I will explain later. The B767 is that replacement, the A330 is not.
"perfectly good aircraft are made here "
And there's your problem. The 767 was NOT "perfectly good". It would have forced the USAF into changing strategy and operations with its shorter legs and lesser capacity, it would have reduced the flexibility of the expeditionary air forces with its lower cargo capacity, and it was a much older design which means it was less efficient, and higher time/labor/cost to maintain.
EXACTLY the opposite is true. The B767 profile matches the 135's within a few feet. It has about 10% greater payload, but being a widebody, more cargo volume. That means, like the KC-10, both the B767 and A330 can self deploy with their crew. No advantage either way. But because the A330 costs 1/3 more, for the same cost that means 4 B767s for every 3 A330s. That means fewer refueling probes in the air (very important). The A330s though do burn more fuel, the single biggest operations cost.
What the B767 can do, and the A330 can't, is use the current flightline profile and hangers. The A330 does not fit and will require new infrastructure like more tarmac and new hangers. You know those really big and really expensive buildings off the flight line will have to be replaced. That means fewer aircraft can be bought.
Tarmac space is also at a premium during overseas ops. Think Saudi 1991 or Bagram. That means fewer A330s can be deployed. (KEY) The most important factor in air refueling is the number of probes/drogues in the air. That determines the number of aircraft that can be refueled which determines the size of the strike packages that can be supported. Otherwise the Air Force would have been flying B747 refuelers for the last 30 years. The B767 win hands down both in cost, support and flightline requirements.
So you completely missed the point: Had Boeing put the effort into a 777 instead of a 767 solution, the mess would never have happened.
Not really. Boeing's been working on the B777 proposal all this time. The critical refueling gear directly transfers from the B767 program. The 777F requires much less airframe modification than the passenger A330. The critical factor in getting planes in the air was EADS/NG whinging that delayed the contract awarding for a year, then the cancellation for improprieties.
The Air Force RFP did not ask for a A330 or B777 size aircraft. The RFP asked for specs circumscribed by the KC-135. The B777 is TOO LARGE for a tanker and will decrease total air refueling capacity. The A330 less so. Boeing submitted the right plane the first time.
777 bigger, better lift, better efficiency, better legs, better avionics, better (more modern) design than the 767. But its going to take Boeing a couple of years to fully flesh out the design to the point where they can produce it.
Not really. Boeing been working on the B777 proposal all this time. The critical refueling gear directly transfers from the B767 program. The KC-135R fleet is good to 2040. The E's will have to be SLEP'd to R specs.
EADS is less capable than the 777 but more than the 767, and is ready to go to production NOW. So we are stuck, and will likely have to split the contract - the current tanker fleet is falling apart.
Understand now? You're wrong about the original Boeing offer,
You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG about tanking, hence you do not understanding the basis for the original Air Force request. All 3 tankers can service the SAME number of receiving aircraft.
The A330 STILL hasn't off loaded any fuel. It's not ready for primetime.
for what seem to be idiotically blind jingoist reasons. Admit it, you were wrong, Boeing deserved to lose, and you move on to the 777 which is what should have been there all along. The problem is immediately obvious to juat about anyone willing to think: Boeing management blew this, and our Armed Forces will suffer due to delays cause by Boeings incompetence. And that's what has me pissed -- our armed forces are losing capability due to bungling by Boeing.
Wrong. It is Air Force bungling and political meddling that threw discipline and requirements out the window. EADS/NG bitching and maneuvering caused a year delay in awarding the contract. A year (now 3 or 4) that is lost. The B777 tanker is exactly the WRONG tanker because the number of refueling probes/drogues determines the air refueling capacity.
In the end, the Air Force will get B777 tankers that have twice the fuel/cargo capacity of the B767 but 1/2 the airframes (2X cost). That means effective air refueling capability is cut in half. Had the Air Force any balls to enforce the original RFP on the original timeline they could have B767 tankers in operation. Just like the Japanese and Italians. |
LE BOURGET, France -- Boeing said on Tuesday that it was prepared to go head to head with its European rival, EADS, to win a bitterly contested $35 billion contract from the Air Force by converting its 777 passenger plane -- a bigger aircraft than Airbus is offering -- into a refueling tanker.