....and the article goes on to state:
The slip to after the first of the year has unintended political implications. Pundits are certain the Republicans will win control of the House of Representatives, which means US Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA), Boeing’s biggest booster in the House, will lose his chairmanship of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that will be the first stop for funding the tanker award. Dicks has long vowed to block any funding should EADS win the contract. Conventional wisdom, though generally overstated, is that EADS is closer to Republicans and Boeing is closer to Democrats in the tanker fight. In fact, there are members of both parties who are supporters of both companies.
(My bold type)
Aircraft capability seems to be of rather less importance to the US than politics....
Tanker capability cannot be measured purely in terms of max fuel capacity - because the tanker will burn some of that fuel itself. You might have one tanker which holds 75 tonne and another which holds 70. You would think that the 75 tonne aircraft would be more capable - but if the latter burns fuel at an average rate of 7.5 tonne per hour and the former at only 5.5, in a 4 hr mission landing with 1 hr of fuel remaining (to keep the figures simple), the 75 tonne aircraft can offer a maximum of 37.5 tonnes to receivers, whereas the 70 tonne aircraft can offer 5 tonnes more.... On a 6 hr mission, the difference is 9 tonnes. Only if the mission was less than 1.5 hours would the 75 tonne aircraft offer any greater offload potential - perhaps rather unrealistic?
There's also the balanced field requirement for the tanker to take-off at MTOW under ISA/SL/Still Air conditions to consider... Something about which ol' Bubba Boeing likes to keep rather quiet.
Does he yet have an
actual date for delivering the 4 long overdue tankers to the Italian air force....
