EADS A330/Northrop New US Tanker??

[Glider]

If I remember correctly there were a number of comments one that struck home was that the T45 was underpowered. The fact that the USN added a lot of weight for carrier use and then chose to derate the engine to save a small amount on life cycle costs had more than a little to do with the problem. Once the engine was restored to its full power the problem went away.
Another problem was the changes to the Hawk caused the T45 to have some problems with the effectiveness of the rudder when in an inverted spin or spiral. This was solved but the blame was with the Hawk which was a little unfair.

 

[Matt308]

Just announced.

Washington Representative Norm Dicks preempted the USAF announcement planned for today by stating the USAF intends to re-bid the KCX Tanker program. He also indicated that the re-bid would be on an accelerated basis, however he did not note what that entailed.

 

[JugBR]

in some part i agree: thats better your make your guns inside your nation, by strategical reasons.

but being eads a group made by nato parthner nations of usa, why make noise about that ? many of these countries have american airbases in their soil, they are under the american geopolitical strategy in north atlantic. and lets be serious: the airbus is better than boeing, the international liners says that.

you can see the stats, how many airbus is sold in all world and how many boeings, its the entire planet wrong ? boeing is not the leader anymore. and we are in xxi century wheres the investments and enterprises are trans-nationals.

why such protectionism ?

 

[Matt308]

First, it is not the better aircraft. That was the basis for the dispute. The mission profiles are MUCH different.

Second, can you justify the "Airbus is better than Boeing"?. C'mon thats a silly statement.

Third, where do you get numbers that say Airbus aircraft are clearly dominating the world market. Number of aircraft sold by both companies are in a virtual tied heat. But then again Airbus is subsidized directly by world governments so they don't compete on a level playing field.

Fourth... "protectionism"? You bet. It is a vital backbone to our defense. And if you think America has a monopoly on protectionism, you are dead wrong.

 

[JugBR]

First, it is not the better aircraft. That was the basis for the dispute. The mission profiles are MUCH different.

Second, can you justify the "Airbus is better than Boeing"?. C'mon thats a silly statement.

are you calling silly the united states air force ?

 

[Matt308]

You haven't read the report I take it.

 

[Glider]

Just a couple of observations on some of these points

First, it is not the better aircraft. That was the basis for the dispute. The mission profiles are MUCH different.

From what I have seen, the dispute is more about the selection process and the letter of the requirement rather than which is the better aircraft. What I find interesting is that the GOA finding doesn't seem to disagree with the performance advantages as posted by Eco. Mainly that the Airbus carries more fuel, a longer distance with more cargo

Fourth... "protectionism"? You bet. It is a vital backbone to our defense. And if you think America has a monopoly on protectionism, you are dead wrong.

I understand what you are saying, but this can become a double edged sword. If the USA protect their products from outside competition in home markets, then they cannot complain if other contries do the same. 20 years ago the USA were well ahead in aviation, there were some niche markets but generally they were ahead. Today the game has changed.
The unit cost of the F15 and F16 were reduced to the US because of the large numbers sold overseas. Imagine the impact on costs and employment in the US if they had not been able to sell those aircraft.

 

[Matt308]

...and imagine if the US continues to oursource its engineering expertise for foreign products. Eventually the drain on systems engineering will become so overwhelming that our aerospace infrastructure will no longer support capability for leading edge advancement. I hear ya Glider. But if you have a choice between two products whose performance and build quality are virtually indistinguishable, wouldn't any sane country purchase indigenously? Wouldn't you?

Now before we get into a discussion about the performance differences, I recognize them. However, the bid process was so flawed that both bidders submitted two drastically different products. I have no doubt that Boeing and EADS/Airbus could submit decent bids. But I'm not giving into the "buy foreign" for the sake of political correctness. The argument that the EADS bid is 40% American is bogus. Boeing could make a similar claim with number of parts and avionics outsourced on the 767.

If the USAF wants less tankers, more cargo capacity, and more fuel offload, then they need to properly spec that in the bid and offer visible rankings for ALL specifications. This bid process was a fiasco of biblical proportions. It was bad for the warfighter, bad for international relations, bad for the US public and bad for the USAF reputation. And that is why the USAF leadership has suffered a public hanging. And righfully so.

 

[Soren]

Screw where the equipment is from, as long is its the best most cost effective out there! That's all I have to say.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

JUST IN

The Pentagon told lawmakers Wednesday that it will not award a $35 billion contract for a new refueling tanker. The announcement puts on hold the intense competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman to replace the Air Force's aging fleet.

Pentagon Shelves Air Force Tanker Competition : NPR

 

[Matt308]

Yeah. Gates announced a few weeks ago that the next adminstration would have to make that decision. I wonder if that is some payback to McCain. Probably so. McCain raises the red flag with Boeing. He gets in office and he has to make a political decision leaving his mark on it.

 

[SoD Stitch]

JUST IN

The Pentagon told lawmakers Wednesday that it will not award a $35 billion contract for a new refueling tanker. The announcement puts on hold the intense competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman to replace the Air Force's aging fleet.

Pentagon Shelves Air Force Tanker Competition : NPR

Yeah, I listen to NPR/PRI every morning on the way to work. They also had a good segment on how they're going to have to keep the KC-135 flying for another 20-25 years, well beyond their originally planned service life. Does anybody know why they just don't buy more KC-10 Extenders? No more MD-11 airframes left to convert?

Go here for the KC-135 story.

 

[pbfoot]

You guys are starting to sound like hosers keeping aircraft flying forever we just had a C130 hit 45000hrs the most ever on a 130 which is 5.1 years in the air

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah, I listen to NPR/PRI every morning on the way to work. They also had a good segment on how they're going to have to keep the KC-135 flying for another 20-25 years, well beyond their originally planned service life. Does anybody know why they just don't buy more KC-10 Extenders? No more MD-11 airframes left to convert?

Go here for the KC-135 story.

Most of the MD 11 airframes were snatched up by cargo haulers. Both the 10 and the 11 could carry a good load for a long distance. The trouble is support. After Boeing swallowed up MacDac they don't want to support anything from the old Douglas line.