View Single Post
Old 14th Jan 2019, 07:03
  #694 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
I hope no one is suggesting A330MRTT didn’t have a protracted and troubled development. Took a long time to get it to the stage it is now.
Would have been ready for the USAF though, which is the point of the thread.

Oh, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the A330MRTT doesn't meet the USAF requirements either.
It did the first time around, or rather it exceeded them.

IIRC correctly, Boeing's complaint was that the USAF hadn't asked for the extra capabilities of the A330 MRTT, and so shouldn't have considered them when making its decision. It was then that Boeing started talking about the 'tactical' nature of the KC-46A, and its ability to operate closer to the fight. This was the only positive differentiatior it had, IMHO.

That's why Boeing couldn't simply use the KC-767, which was already developed and has been in service for many years
Had only been in service 3 years by the time KC-X was first awarded in 2011, and was still suffering technical problems (Japan was the only customer at that time, with Italy yet to receive its first aircraft). KC-767 development seems to have run as smoothly as the KC-46A's in terms of technical issues and missed deadlines.

It's not American.............
Interestingly, when I interviewed Muilenburg (then head of Boeing Defense and Space) at the time this was very much his angle. He said he made no apologies for pushing that US taxpayer dollars be spent on US products being built by US companies. Of course, this completely missed the point that the KC-45 was to be built in Alabama by Northrop Grumman or that Boeing was at that time partnering with AgustaWestland to offer the AW101 as the new Presidential helicopter, but there you go.

Last edited by melmothtw; 14th Jan 2019 at 08:42.
melmothtw is offline