Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design [Archive]

Flyt3est

5th Mar 2010, 10:29

Key points...

KC767 New Frankentanker "Will" meet the requirements (Note no timescales mentioned so one would assume that since the Italian aircraft are still not certified and fully capable 4 years late, then this will suffer in a similar way)

Lets see..

Refuelling pods and centreline Hose - No certified operational capability.
787 based components - 787 is way late also.
Refuelling heritage - The KC-135 was built by them, but the refuelling system (Hose and drogue) was supplied by the UK's Flight Refuelling Ltd (FRL).

KC-10 Extender Hose and Drogue - FRL

MC-130H Hose and Drogue - FRL

A330 Hose and Drogue - FRL

The 767 systems are supplied by GE/Smiths.

tell me again about heritage???

Bubba - Puh-leeze don't speak to us about refuelling heritage, to coin your own phrase "You don't got none" :=

ORAC

5th Mar 2010, 10:45

I note the comment about the trouble with the Italian tanker wing hoses being flutter. So their solution has been to use the -400 wing and put winglets on it.

So, new wing/fuselage combo with the undercarriage of another, the 787 cockpit and a brand new boom type.

And the first aircraft due for delivery in 2012.

Good luck..... :ooh:

BEagle

5th Mar 2010, 11:10

It is simply untrue to say that the Italian aircraft are 4 years late.

It's actually 5 years late. Although to be fair, ol' Bubba Boeing has been using 3 of the Italian aircraft during their futile attempts to get the wing hose and centreline hose systems to work. Still, a bit of a wash and polish, vacuum out the interior and zero the odometer and they'll be as good as new, eh Bubba....:uhoh:?

Flyt3est, you forgot to add that the world's only 21st Century multi-hose tankers, the A310 MRTT and CC150T Polaris, also have FRL pods. A mild level of drogue nutation was fixed in about 3 days several years ago and the aircraft is a very stable AAR platform.

But if the USAF is stupid enough to plump for ol' Bubba Boeing's virtual Frankentanker, then those clapped-out old 135s will have to stagger on for a few more years yet. 2012? YGBSM as they say.

Does Boeing actually have enough people who know what they're doing to sort out all these late programmes of theirs?

Flyt3est

5th Mar 2010, 11:30

I heard (Or was that "Started") a rumour that Boeing are going to open a 250,000 sq ft facility in Wa state to house their "Get well planning and Program recovery" department!! :}

ORAC

5th Mar 2010, 12:10

Sorry that's first flight. Stilll a hell of a schedule for something off the drawing board. Less than 18 months from contract award to first flight.

Tanker schedule:

2012: KC-X first flight.
2013: Seven KC-X tankers in production.
2015: Delivery of first tanker to Air Force.
2017: 18 delivered and IOC.

ftrplt

5th Mar 2010, 12:20

and how late is RAAF KC30, and counting?

brickhistory

5th Mar 2010, 12:43

True enough regarding FRL's outstanding innovation and technology regarding aerial refueling equipment.

As a counterweight to the snideness, I'm curious how much of that technology is on British-designed/built/operating tankers? Or are you happy enough to pull up behind some decrepit -135 or -10 using that gear?

As long as you are at it, talk to me about the angled carrier deck, the gyro-stablized mirrored landing system, and the steam catapult. Fantastic innovations. And....?

If Boeing's entry meets the requirements, I hope they win.

If the EADS product is better and cheaper, then I've no heartburn if they win.

But, I'd rather have US control, if needed, of the mother company than not.

How much bandwidth has been used regarding that very point from the Euro-side of the Atlantic when purchasing US-made gear?

brickhistory

5th Mar 2010, 13:02

well done fella !

I thank you, but I couldn't have done it alone. I'd like to that those that supported me, but in the time alloted, I can't to all of them. Please refer to the preceding posts to see the supporting cast.

G'night, everybody! Drive safe...

LowObservable

5th Mar 2010, 13:28

A bit of SM-62 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4289) going on in the comments on Ares after a Boeing flack chimed in...

New Pic and Update: Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab1d1b4f5-659a-4495-9e92-f94314cafa27&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

And while we're at it, let's ask the Italians how they define "combat ready". I suspect we shall learn lots of useful Italian words that not even the Pope knows.

Also, the proposed tanker is not exactly combat-ready by any definition - let's wait until you've won the contract, built it and tested it before we start talking about that.

With the modded -400 wing, the -200 body and the 787 flight deck, it's not so much Frankentanker as Johnny Cash's Cadillac...

The transmission was a '53
And the motor turned out to be a '73
And when we tried to put in the bolts all the holes were gone.

So we drilled it out so that it would fit
And with a little bit of help with an A-daptor kit
We had that engine runnin' just like a song

Now the headlight' was another sight
We had two on the left and one on the right
But when we pulled out the switch all three of 'em come on...

OFBSLF

5th Mar 2010, 15:14

yawn, and so brickhisory kicks off another US v UK/Europe p!ss!ing contest, well done fella !
You think that is the first post in this thread that involved willy-waving? Please.

Pot. Kettle. Comm check.

er340790

5th Mar 2010, 15:39

Why don't they just re-manufacture the KC-135s with updated engines / avionics. :confused: :confused: :confused: Save a bundle on training too.

See the remaining B-52s already have the grandchildren of their original pilots at the controls (for Kentucky Air National Guard, read great-great-grandchildren). :}

barnstormer1968

5th Mar 2010, 16:24

Brickhistory, seems to have changed recently, but his point about buying from your own side of the Atlantic or not is a very good one. It is just a shame he has the facts wrong on it IMHO.

From what I see (being on the East side of the Atlantic), the British forces often want the best kit for the job, rather than something just because it is made in the UK (most of you will be well versed in this, but it seems that brick has not noticed).

I also feel that the 'must be made in the USA' concept on the West of the Atlantic is also a fairly new idea (relatively speaking).
There are hundreds of examples of U.S, forces using other countries ideas or kit throughout time. This seems to have changed to only buying home grown kit at about the same time that 'worlds fastest/largest/biggest etc records came to mean 'in the USA' rather than 'in the world'
If that is as clear as mud, then a quick example is the CH54, often touted as the biggest and heaviest lifting helicopter in the world on U.S TV and in U.S. books
You only need to stand a CH54 next to a Mi26 to get the idea.

I am not trying to willy wave here, and in fact there are many American authors who have written books on the flawed U.S. procurement system, and how it had led to many useless systems being favoured (in a similar way to our often illogical procurement system over here).

From my position of limited knowledge on tankers, it seems that both Boeing and Airbus make good aircraft (the airlines like both). The 135 was a best seller when it was introduced and sold on both sides of the pond (even the French bought them). Now there is an urgent need for a tanker, and Airbus have one flying (which can be built in the US and provide jobs to Americans).
Boeing plan to have a rival, but its not even at prototype stage, and yet it seems that there are many in the USA who are already saying it should win the contest, and is better and cheaper!, even though it is not in production, has no real in service date, and no fixed cost (as in adhered to).

In a sad way, this reminds me of the Olympics of years past, where Adolf Hitler was disgusted because a non German won a race, purely because of where the runner had come from, and not the fact that he was actually the fastest. For my money, that time was America at its best, and winning by having the best runner, and clearly demonstrating the absurdity of politics, when it tries to interfere to swing an outcome of a contest.

brickhistory

5th Mar 2010, 16:54

barnstormer, I'm all for the best equipment that meets the mission.

If, given a choice, that equipment can be made domestically and keeps a vital industrial base intact, I'm even more for that. That is my only point.

I stand by not being able to judge the two contenders on their technical merits as I don't have the expertise to do so.

But that comparison needs to be on what the RFP states.

Again and again and again apparently. edited add: this refers to the multiple issuances of the RFP to the current situation where each bidder has won it once. FUBAR'd is an understatement.

US Herk

5th Mar 2010, 17:16

True enough regarding FRL's outstanding innovation and technology regarding aerial refueling equipment.
MC-130H Hose and Drogue - FRL

oops - gotta say something on this one - took 10+ years to be "in service" and still not certified to original spec. FRL signed onto something they couldn't produce here and it has cost a terrible penalty in weight and drag - and still doesn't perform to contract. AFSOC has actually removed most MCARS pods from MC-130H - only one of four units are even using them.

As for the rest of this - I could care less about the political and national squabbling over whose is best. The only one suffering is the customer...

Two-Tone-Blue

5th Mar 2010, 17:34

@ US Herk ... I agree with your last part completely. Who cares who produces the best possible for the Military? Certainly not the pork-barrel politicos on both sides of the Pond.

barnstormer1968

5th Mar 2010, 20:32

pork-barrel politicos

I do like that phrase. it's just so ........appropriate!

LowObservable

8th Mar 2010, 21:57

Northrop Grumman to Pentagon: Screw you guys, we're going home. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a46b6cedc-6733-4de8-9e82-7641664496ba&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Pentagon to Northrop Grumman: Don't let the screen door hit you in the a** on the way out. (http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13361)

Taxpayers: BOHICA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOHICA)

knowitall

8th Mar 2010, 22:07

"Taxpayers: BOHICA"

surely Taxpayers&"The warfighter" BOHICA

so much for free trade

Flight Safety

8th Mar 2010, 22:58

Face it, the USAF wants a smaller airplane. If they wanted larger tankers, they would have bought more KC-10s long ago. EADS doesn't like it because they don't have a roughly 767 sized airplane to offer. The wording of the RFP seems to clearly show a desire for a smaller aircraft, a KC-135 replacement.

If your airline wanted a modern replacement for a fleet of 732s, would you buy A330s or 787s? I think not. In aviation size matters. Operationg costs and flexiblity vs mission, that's why airplanes come in all sizes.

knowitall

8th Mar 2010, 23:04

"Face it, the USAF wants a smaller airplane."

the USAF or the Democrats?

they seemed quite keen on a larger aircraft last time,

"the answer is the 767 now go away and think of the question"

this was never a competition merely yet another taxpayer subsidy for Boeing

Jackonicko

8th Mar 2010, 23:19

Flight Safety,

If the USAF wanted 'a smaller tanker' the 767 still isn't the best answer, because it needs such a big balanced field length if it's going to carry anything like its full potential fuel load.

The A330 is better in this respect.

If you were absolutely wedded to a shorter span and smaller footprint (but concrete is cheap) a better solution would be the A310 MRTT with five underfloor ACTs, which boost fuel load to within a gnat's testicle of that of the KC-767, but which do so in a tanker that can operate from smaller air bases, shorter runways, and which ends up with more fuel to give away on the tow line.

Oh yes, and which has a proper wide body cross section, capable of taking standard pallets two abreast, which the 767 can't.

The problem is that Boeing don't have a right-sized aircraft for the role that can stop quickly enough in the event of a rejected take off, and which therefore couldn't use tanker bases like Mildenhall and Brize except after offloading some fuel.

BEagle

9th Mar 2010, 08:30

The as-yet-undelivered Italian KC-767 cannot even take-off from Pratica de Mare in summer with max fuel - which is way, way below the 91 tonne the Frankentanker is supposed to be able to carry.

Perhaps that's why ol' Bubba Boeing uses Kansas so much - it's very flat, so building the 12000 ft balanced field runways the Frankentanker would need at MTOW is fairly simple?

And STILL the Frankentanker's pods do not work!

If you consider a 10000 ft balanced field at ISA/SL for take-off, landing and alternate, the Frankentanker with its narrow body and rendition class seating can only take-off with a couple of hundred kgs more fuel than an A310MRTT could, were it to be fitted with a 5th ACT. But it doesn't need 5 to meet current customer user specifications, so hasn't been developed further.

The Luftwaffe is just back from another 8000 km Eurofighter deployment exercise from the Baltic to India and back - proving how good the A310MRTT really is yet again.

Flyt3est

9th Mar 2010, 09:06

So Northrop's parting shot was to disclose the pricing publicly so the taxpayer can see how much they are being screwed for.. always assuming that the DoD are dumb enough to divulge such information in the public domain, which in the interests of political careers, they won't.

Jig Peter

9th Mar 2010, 09:45

Have just read a BeebNooze report that EADS/Northrop won't be bidding on the tanker contract.

Flyt3est

9th Mar 2010, 10:02

As per post #24 ??;)

Flight Safety

9th Mar 2010, 16:40

Jackonicko, then why doesn't EADS offer the A310MRTT as a competitor? I think it's because the A300 and A310 are now out of production. So EADS doesn't currently have an aircraft available in the desired size range. I personally think this is the only reason the 767 is still in production, with it's slow sales. The 767 is also a gap filler for the 787.

glad rag

9th Mar 2010, 17:33

Saddest thing is some posters [the Yanks ?] are too dumb to realise just what is REALLY behind this decision and what it is going to cost them in the long term.
With the raised tensions in the south atlantic and the prospect {50/50} of the ol' black gold the cries to dissolve the "special relationship" and look after UK national interests are growing.

But that always the new messiahs plan wasn't it.:\

Graybeard

9th Mar 2010, 22:56

How many half-life A310s are out there that could be bought and converted? The USAF doesn't need to put tanks in new airframes; one-third life left would serve them for ten or more years.

There were no used pax jets available when the KC-135 was bought. Now there are plentiful 757, 767, A310, DC-10, MD-10, and MD-11 that still have enough life for ten or more years refueling service.

A/B and Boeing would end up only parts suppliers to MRO, Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul companies, with not enough profit to pay the lobbyists, so it won't happen without a great deal of pressure from somebody like the taxpayer.

EADS made the mistake of backing McCain with lobbyists on his campaign staff.

GB

brickhistory

10th Mar 2010, 00:01

Now there are plentiful 757, 767, A310, DC-10, MD-10, and MD-11 that still have enough life for ten or more years refueling service.

As the -135s that are still plying the skies are well over 40 years old, some at 50. The "new" KC-10s are well into the start of their third decade.

Perhaps "ten years" isn't exactly a bargain for a used jet especially one that was in the commercial industry.

Hint, see the 707s being used as E-8Cs. How'd that work out for cost-savings?

Dan Winterland

10th Mar 2010, 01:37

With about ten years in the AAR game, one thing I've learned is that there are few occiasions when you don't wish you had more fuel on board. And I'm sure all the USAF tanker guys think that way. They may have a bit of national pride that they're flying an American aircraft, but the numbers on your fuel totaliser are more important.

Oh, and an A330 rating is far more useful than a B767!

precontact

10th Mar 2010, 15:50

Having fun listening to the discussion here, but as a lifelong tanker mechanic(KC-135)/pilot(KC-10) & current 767 pilot, I want to point out some failings of the A330.

1. Cannot refuel V-22, 767 can
2. Limited breakaway/overrun capability
3. Limited pilot control inputs - bank protection vs full envelope capability for 767
4. RAAF A330 boom refueling issues
5. WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)
6. A330 requires more runway/airport footprint (hangars, etc)
7. Composite tail vs aluminum tail (important consideration wrt formation takeoffs - I've been exposed numerous times to preceding a/c jetwash)

Boeing's lineage with tankers is unmistakable. There is real security through product knowledge and being an American builder on American soil. They're not perfect I agree (787 delays) but EADS can't brag about their A400M either.

Ian Corrigible

10th Mar 2010, 16:06

1. Cannot refuel V-22, 767 can
Man, what a beauty. Is that one of those $14,000 Chanel (http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/06/chanels_latest_hot_item_the_fl_1.html) rods...? :hmm:

I/C

D-IFF_ident

10th Mar 2010, 16:08

Precontact, could you elaborate?

1. Cannot refuel V-22, 767 can

When did the 767 achieve this milestone? And when was the trial condutced with the A330 MRTT?

2. Limited breakaway/overrun capability

Breakaway as tanker or receiver? Limited decel or accel? Please quantify. Overrun as tanker or receiver? Limited above 275kts or down to green dot? What is limited?

3. Limited pilot control inputs - bank protection vs full envelope capability for 767

How often do you need to fly your 767 at >67 deg AOB or 2.5g?

4. RAAF A330 boom refueling issues

What issues? And is the 767 AAR equipment now FMC?

5. WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)

Nobody is squeaky clean in this competition:Boeing 767 Tanker Lease: Internal Documents Released by Sen. McCain (http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2004/s112004.html)
But, as in the Boeing fraud case, us humble operators should leave it to the lawyers to negotiate them rules. I can't find reference to EU subsidies being paid to NG, for example; could you?

6. A330 requires more runway/airport footprint (hangars, etc)

Please quantify: BEagle was kind enough to do so for the KC767; please detail the A330 issues.

7. Composite tail vs aluminum tail (important consideration wrt formation takeoffs - I've been exposed numerous times to preceding a/c jetwash)

And how many times have aircraft tails fallen off under such circumstances? I don't understand your point here.

Maybe I'm none-too bright, but I couldn't find any substance to your claims I'm afraid. Sorry.

johnfairr

10th Mar 2010, 16:21

Regarding Point 5, I think you mis-read something. SUBSIDIES, not SUBSTANCES, probably in respect of EU legislation. Things like bailing out the banks, BAe, and other Gravy-Train lawyers . . . . .

D-IFF_ident

10th Mar 2010, 16:26

D'Oh. I'll go back and edit; then these 2 posts won't make any sense. :}

knowitall

10th Mar 2010, 17:25

"WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)"

the WTO specifically forbids retaliatory action out side of its processes

don't be surprised if this ends up at the WTO either

you'll excuse me if I'm not to keen on taking a lecture on subsidies from an american!

brakechute

10th Mar 2010, 19:28

So, we are still discussing traditional flight controls in the 21st century:ugh: All this excitment that old fly by thick wire aircraft can exceed their flight envelope is just a big smokescreen. The 767 can indeed roll through 360 degrees or do a loop, shortly followed by a smoking hole in the ground as the missile may have missed, but the crew's lack of exceptional flying skill and regular envelope exceedence training showed in the end.
Let's face some facts, an airliner derivative is never going to 'dodge the bullet', and pulling to 5g will be short lived as the wing will very quickly stall and leave the crew poorly place for a recovery. Similarly, rolling through 90deg will result in a large nose down attitude, followed by structurally damaging speed and again leaving the pilots with not many places to go. Large aircraft avoidance techniques can only work in a small number of scenarios, almost all of which require the aircraft to make a sustained use of the maximum performance available from the wing design. That's why modern fly by small wire aircraft (including newer boeings) allow the pilot, with no specialist flying techniques, to immediately pull and mainatin for as long as required, the maximum performance from a wing. No 'nibbling at the buffet' or holding on the edge of the shaker', just full back stick and hold.
Of course some pilots may not think this is manly enough for the military, but it is surely the best way to confidently and repeatedly manoeuvre and aircraft as quickly as possible, and to result in a crew making it back!

BEagle

10th Mar 2010, 19:55

Boeing's lineage with tankers is unmistakable. There is real security through product knowledge and being an American builder on American soil.

What complete and utter nonsense. Ol' Bubba Boeing hasn't built a new tanker since the 1950s. Changing the engines and avionics as in the 135R Pacer Craig is hardly a new design, more like new wine in old skin. VERY old skin.

As for the 'American builder on American soil' rubbish - that, I'm afraid, is the typical redneck jingoistic claptrap which leads one to deduce that Boeing can only compete through politics, not capability.

Mind you, if Uncle Spam ever learned to operate tankers efficiently, the actual number of new tankers needed would be considerably lower than the KC-X programme would suggest.....:rolleyes:

D-IFF_ident

11th Mar 2010, 00:41

Politics and capability aside. The 767 is an older design than the A330, and has a worse safety record. Them's the facts.

I'd still fly either, mind, I'm an equal opportunities wannabe tanker pilot. :}

Graybeard

11th Mar 2010, 05:48

What's the big excitement with new design, or even a new airframe? There have been no breakthroughs with aerodynamics, and engine improvements have been incremental as well.

That leaves electronics, the only thing in life where you get more for your money every year. And you don't need a new airframe for new avionics.

More important for a tanker than the age of the airframe design is its size, reliability and cost of ownership.

Neither a new 767 nor a new A330 can compete with used planes that have 1/3 or more of their economic life left in low utilization as tankers.

Small companies have designed and built aerial refueling tankers, such as the KDC-10. The USAF should open a new competition to all comers, including tanker rental. GAS - Commercial Refueling Services (http://www.globalairtankerservice.com/crs.html)

Right now I'm thinking the 757 would be a better replacement for the KC-135.

GB

ORAC

11th Mar 2010, 07:27

Speigel Online: 'Europeans Shouldn't Be Pointing Their Fingers at Washington' (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,682811,00.html)

Tanker request "an affront for France" (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/197300.asp)

France vows retaliation against US in air tanker dispute (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7415855/France-vows-retaliation-against-US-in-air-tanker-dispute.html)

US-Europe trade war looms in wake of air tanker decision (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a32077481-bd2d-425d-b60b-3bde9893a16a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Graybeard

11th Mar 2010, 12:41

I would love trade disputes with the whole world. Then we would stop bleeding manufacturing jobs. There's very little Made in USA anymore. We import $6 of goods for every dollar of goods we export. It's unsustainable.

Without trade restrictions, we cannot support a Middle Class. Our education system has failed to show Americans how to live on $500 a year.

Without a Middle Class, there is little need for cars, planes or trains, and no tax revenue for a fat military.

GB

BEagle

11th Mar 2010, 13:50

Right now I'm thinking the 757 would be a better replacement for the KC-135.

Huh? The 757?

OK - 124 ft wingspan and 34.7 tonnes of fuel in people-tube fit. Add a boom and a couple of pods, plus sufficient internal tankage to make it somehow half useful as a tanker and it would need to be a single role aircraft.

Even the USAF aren't stupid enough to buy another limited role aircraft - or a bunch of shagged-out old junkers from the desert as their next strategic tanker aircraft.

Jig Peter

11th Mar 2010, 13:57

KC-135 rear crew members would feel very much at (cramped) home in any 757 tanker - it's the same fuselage, I think ...

(Afterthought) Or did Big B widen the original -135 fuselage, which was (even) narrower than the 707/727/737/757 ?

Piltdown Man

11th Mar 2010, 14:34

...as long as Boeing wins. And if not them, another US builder. UK reply (I assume we might have got to build the wings) should be to cancel the JSF. We'll use the their rules of engagement and for good measure allow them to build their new embassy in Birmingham, Leicester or Bradford.

PM

knowitall

11th Mar 2010, 15:16

"We'll use the their rules of engagement and for good measure allow them to build their new embassy in Birmingham, Leicester or Bradford."

they've chosen to build it in battersea!

brickhistory

11th Mar 2010, 15:25

...as long as Boeing wins.

Err, no comment regarding EADS/N-G withdrawing from the competition?

UK reply (I assume we might have got to build the wings) should be to cancel the JSF.

Knock yourself out. And which manufacturer of yours will build the 'instead of JSF?'

edited to add: given the time and money put into JSF, would that be a wise decision?

Given the published tanker RFP where, apparently, a smaller tanker was desired and EADS/N-G's decision to withdraw from the (this one - discounting the previous Boeing win and the previous EADS win) competition, why the trade war mutterings?

ORAC

11th Mar 2010, 15:32

I would love trade disputes with the whole world. Then we would stop bleeding manufacturing jobs. There's very little Made in USA anymore. We import $6 of goods for every dollar of goods we export. It's unsustainable.
I quite agree....

STATEMENT ON US REFUELING TANKER PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT (http://www.eurunion.org/eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3669&Itemid=58)

...........The US defense trade balance with the EU has traditionally been significantly in the US's favor. In 2008 the US exported $5 billion and imported only $2.2 billion worth of defense material, in line with a historic ratio of double exports to imports.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The UK and others in Europe buy copious numbers of C-130, C-17, JSF, F-16, AH-64, E3-As, CH-53s. I could go on. The concept of a little fair play and reciprocity would seem in order.

Hilife

11th Mar 2010, 16:55

Protectionism

1995 - Malcolm Rifkind rejects the advice of RAF chiefs and approves a mixed £1.2bn order for 22 British-built EH101 helicopters and 14 US Chinook helicopters - to protect UK jobs and the long-term future of the industry.

2005 – The Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) announced that the UK Government would favour UK manufactures in order to sustain critical helicopter design, manufacture and engineering skills in the UK.

2006 - The UK Government (Lord Drayson) rewards AW with a Strategic Partnership Agreement in order to safeguard UK jobs and skills retention.

2006 - The UK Government awards AW a sole source contract for the Future Lynx. (Lord Drayson “It will benefit the front line, British Industry, with over 800 jobs being sustained as a result, and the UK tax-payer, who will get excellent value for money from this programme.")

A platform the AAC did not want and surely to act as a stop gap for the UK’s helicopter manufacturing industry whilst awaiting the outcome of FRC medium as there were too few Merlin’s on the production line.

The RAF’s fleet of front line Tornado & Typhoon jets wouldn’t be built by BAE Systems in the UK would they?

Before anyone mentions Chinook / C-17 / Hercules – What choice did we have at the time to purchase anything other than US built platforms to meet the requirement?

BEagle

11th Mar 2010, 18:00

And which manufacturer of yours will build the 'instead of JSF?'

Well, it would have been BAe with the twin-boom P.1216 if Thatcher hadn't stopped its development...:mad:

It could well have been very successful - particularly as it would have been a Kingston design, rather than something nailed together by 't ferret fondlerrs of clog-and-whippet land*...:p

*For FNMs, that's banter, tha' knaws!

NURSE

11th Mar 2010, 18:32

So how much work has Northrop-Grumman got?
wonder if they will end up having to make redundancies how will their congressman explain that when he/she is up for reelection.

Wonder when it will occur to many European Govts that JSF actually doesn't meet their specifications or is to expensive?

Graybeard

11th Mar 2010, 23:07

Nurse: So how much work has Northrop-Grumman got?
wonder if they will end up having to make redundancies how will their congressman explain that when he/she is up for reelection.

That's exactly the problem with military procurement. It's the abusive power flexed by the Military-Industrial Complex, just as we were warned by (General of the Armies, ret.) President Eisenhower in 1954.

Airlines - that have to make a profit to survive - buy the best plane for the job, regardless of source. And they bought over 1,000 757. Governments' decisions, OTOH, are based on politics and budget available, not common sense.

from wiki:
The KC-135 is derived from the original Boeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing) jet transport "proof of concept" demonstrator, the Boeing 367-80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80) (commonly called the "Dash-80"). As such, it has a narrower fuselage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage) and is shorter than the Boeing 707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707) jetliner. Boeing gave the tanker the designation of Model 717.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135#cite_note-0) The 367-80 was the basic design for the commercial Boeing 707 passenger aircraft as well as the KC-135A Stratotanker.

The 707, 720, 727, 737 and 757 all have the same fuselage. The 757 has a more aerodynamic nose, more like the DC-8. There is almost no more reliable plane than the 757 with RB-211 engines.

Put the 757 beside the KC-135R and you see a pretty good similarity. Although longer, the 757 will probably fit in most of the same hangars.

GB

ORAC

12th Mar 2010, 07:42

The Economist: The best plane loses (http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15663919) - Protectionism and defence procurement - Politics decided the contest to supply America’s new aerial fuel tanker

D-IFF_ident

13th Mar 2010, 06:06

So I was looking into those so-called 'subsidies':

Boeing: Flying High in the Friendly Export Subsidies Sky - The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/11/boeing-flying-high-in-the-friendly-export-subsidies-sky.html)

:=

BenThere

17th Mar 2010, 20:05

Strategic weapons systems and key capabilities should be exempt from any WTO procurement constraints.

I have no problem with Europe deciding to build their own fighters, airlift, and tankers to the exclusion of American suppliers when they deem it to be in their strategic or economic interest to do so. By the same token, I think it wise for critical American defense needs to be supplied by American firms wherever possible.

The hard truth is we all may not always be friends, and shouldn't rely on others for our defense capability. That's just common sense.