KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you didn't say you disagreed though
BTW I am claiming "Witty"
But of course the bottom-feeding senators and their good ol' boy lobbyists will win the day - to the detriment of the USAF.
I keep harking back to ol' Bubba Boeing's dismal efforts with the KC-767I for Italy.
Yes, they believed ol' Bubba's spin.....
....and 5 years after it was due to be delivered, they're still waiting for the 767I.
The point being that ol' Bubba's track record on the 767 tanker isn't particularly good, so to trust that an even riskier technology wouldn't be equally delayed, or perhaps even more so, is somewhat naive, to say the least.
....and 5 years after it was due to be delivered, they're still waiting for the 767I.
The point being that ol' Bubba's track record on the 767 tanker isn't particularly good, so to trust that an even riskier technology wouldn't be equally delayed, or perhaps even more so, is somewhat naive, to say the least.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An aircraft program being late?!
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
A400?
Typhoon?
787?
F-35?
Even your beloved Airbus tanker?
All on time?
And no comment on specific interests in a specific program?
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
A400?
Typhoon?
787?
F-35?
Even your beloved Airbus tanker?
All on time?
And no comment on specific interests in a specific program?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an outsider (i.e. I'm not on either Boeing or Airbus's sh*t/bribe/suck up to lists (delete as appropriate)) it seems to me the choice is of a Tanker that needs a few teeny tweaks and could be slotted into production pdq, from a manufacturer that does both drogue and probe or the goatf**k pole approach
OR
the not even off the back of the fag packet designs from good ole Bubba. (who, from what I can understand still hasn't got his last project tanker to work)
If it was my money, I'd be going away from seattle. The views spouted by some americans here about the inferiority of overseas products is quite frankly insulting, rude, untrue and has a nasty whiff of racism about it (in my opinion)
It may be true about the quality varying but you get what you pay for and if you consume huge amounts of anything and you don't pay attention then you will find enterprising types will try and move the margins a little.
From my limited knowledge of US seafood (Tybee Island Crab Shack) and that there deadliest catch show, your produce is lovely, local stuff excellent, Alaskan stuff criminally high food miles. I'll bet most of you didn't now they bait the crab pots with Cod!!
No wonder the prices are so high here.
To summarize before the drugs get too bad I think the Buy USA when it is clearly a vastly inferior product is a bad choice.
I suspect Bubba will win though, but I'd like to see a corruption investigation on the process, like t' Baron nearly got caught with ( hope Dave runs it again) or BA got tarred with and like BP seems to be going to get (Nicely avoided by Halliburton)
Just because it says made in USA on the tin does not make it better - but hey what do I know, I bought a car from a cheese eating surrender monkey rather then buy British.
OR
the not even off the back of the fag packet designs from good ole Bubba. (who, from what I can understand still hasn't got his last project tanker to work)
If it was my money, I'd be going away from seattle. The views spouted by some americans here about the inferiority of overseas products is quite frankly insulting, rude, untrue and has a nasty whiff of racism about it (in my opinion)
It may be true about the quality varying but you get what you pay for and if you consume huge amounts of anything and you don't pay attention then you will find enterprising types will try and move the margins a little.
From my limited knowledge of US seafood (Tybee Island Crab Shack) and that there deadliest catch show, your produce is lovely, local stuff excellent, Alaskan stuff criminally high food miles. I'll bet most of you didn't now they bait the crab pots with Cod!!
No wonder the prices are so high here.
To summarize before the drugs get too bad I think the Buy USA when it is clearly a vastly inferior product is a bad choice.
I suspect Bubba will win though, but I'd like to see a corruption investigation on the process, like t' Baron nearly got caught with ( hope Dave runs it again) or BA got tarred with and like BP seems to be going to get (Nicely avoided by Halliburton)
Just because it says made in USA on the tin does not make it better - but hey what do I know, I bought a car from a cheese eating surrender monkey rather then buy British.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm... Corny-Stormy, the cod used for bait for Alaskan crab is caught there in the Bering sea... often by the crab boats themselves.
And the Italians & Japanese simply let themselves be used by Boeing to pay for the R&D & prototype work, so Boeing could lower the costs on their KC-X bid. "Never buy the 'A' model of anything".
I still think the USAF would have a pretty good tanker with either candidate... its just that the Boeing model might take a few years (& a few billion$) longer to get all the bugs worked out.
And the Italians & Japanese simply let themselves be used by Boeing to pay for the R&D & prototype work, so Boeing could lower the costs on their KC-X bid. "Never buy the 'A' model of anything".
I still think the USAF would have a pretty good tanker with either candidate... its just that the Boeing model might take a few years (& a few billion$) longer to get all the bugs worked out.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intersting reading that Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan has been closed to tanker traffic, this goes all the way back to the argument based on fuel offload at distance. The got kicked out of Uzbeckistan back in 2005, and this just pushes them further away.
Where is the USAF next nearest base they can use? Muscat?
Where is the USAF next nearest base they can use? Muscat?
The A330MRTT holds about 20 tonnes more fuel than ol' Bubba's paper plane might, if it ever gets built....
Even at a (very) pessimistic 6.7 tonne per hour, that's 3 hours flight time.
At a pessimistic 480KTAS, that's an increased radius of action in still air of 720 nm - or 1334 km if you prefer.
Quite handy, one might think?
Even at a (very) pessimistic 6.7 tonne per hour, that's 3 hours flight time.
At a pessimistic 480KTAS, that's an increased radius of action in still air of 720 nm - or 1334 km if you prefer.
Quite handy, one might think?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags, either metricate fully or not at all.
do not mix your units. stick with the SI ones please.
Or
go back to what you used when wheels were square and dinosaurs ruled the earth!! Fathoms, Chains, Bushels and Pecks I believe??
But I do agree with you about Bubba's nogo dupertanky planey.......
It will never catch on and I pity the fool that has to fly to/from/with it.
do not mix your units. stick with the SI ones please.
Or
go back to what you used when wheels were square and dinosaurs ruled the earth!! Fathoms, Chains, Bushels and Pecks I believe??But I do agree with you about Bubba's nogo dupertanky planey.......
It will never catch on and I pity the fool that has to fly to/from/with it.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foreign Devils
"Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month,"
the companies name was changed to BP not British petroleum because it actually more American than British these days, oh and the contractors running the rig were American enough!
and do you bother submitting US produced goods to such stringent inspections (GM food, hormones in beef etc)
the companies name was changed to BP not British petroleum because it actually more American than British these days, oh and the contractors running the rig were American enough!
and do you bother submitting US produced goods to such stringent inspections (GM food, hormones in beef etc)
I'm glad you're rejecting US frankenfoods. That helps us fight them at home.
Getting a little OT, it is maddening that medics, Toyota, BP and other companies in risky businesses aren't taking advantage of all that's been learned about safety in achieving Cat IIIc by Boeing, Lockheed and Airbus. The BP disaster would probably have been avoided by spending another half $Million for a backup, as required in Brazil and Norway waters.
BEagle, you seem to ignore EADS bet on the wrong horse in 2008. McCain's campaign staff was loaded with EADS lobbyists.
And there was I thinking that Huntsville has a pretty impressive aerospace industry?
As for cheap labour, hasn't slavery ended in Allybammy yet?
As for cheap labour, hasn't slavery ended in Allybammy yet?
Wages are on the downhill slide to serfdom. Ala is a right to work state, which means unions have no power. Besides that, Ala government has the best judges money can buy.
Used airliners are the best source of tankers. Screw new.
GB
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used airliners are the best source of tankers. Screw new.
Do a little research on what refurbishing them - not counting the fancy electronics, just washing cow sh1t out and corrosion repair fixes - cost as compared to new builds.
Not to mention the unexpectedly large O&M funds in keeping a "used airliner" in service or the fuel burn on those "cheap" engines.
brick, on that I would certainly agree!
In contrast to the USAF, the RAF has never bought a new tanker. Victors were converted nuclear bombers, VC10K2s, 3s and 4s were secondhand and thirdhand airliners, TriStars were also someone else's cast-offs and VC10C1Ks were converted from RAF transports.
Buying 'used' is not a cheap solution when you add the cost of through-life maintenance, compliance with current age regulatory requirements, rewiring, sorting out exfoliation corrosion, keeping ancient engine rebuilders in business......
Graybeard, when you referred to Alabama in your silly post:
you didn't specify any particular region.
In contrast to the USAF, the RAF has never bought a new tanker. Victors were converted nuclear bombers, VC10K2s, 3s and 4s were secondhand and thirdhand airliners, TriStars were also someone else's cast-offs and VC10C1Ks were converted from RAF transports.
Buying 'used' is not a cheap solution when you add the cost of through-life maintenance, compliance with current age regulatory requirements, rewiring, sorting out exfoliation corrosion, keeping ancient engine rebuilders in business......
Graybeard, when you referred to Alabama in your silly post:
Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
Which were also converted nuclear bombers......
I believe that IS what the "B" in Valiant B(K).1 stands for.
It was simply the first of the "converted nuclear bombers"-type tankers... I was just making sure it wasn't forgotten.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banter GB
I got my first aviation training at Redstone Arsenal - on Nike Hercules missiles. 
(YES I know they have an AF servicing scedule..)
AF=After Flight servicing.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EH101
Whoopsie!
This should make for interesting supporting documentation in the EU case against Boeing before the WTO. That latter is, BTW, a reason why I expect that subsidy rule for the tanker acquisition may yet blow up in Boeing's face.
This should make for interesting supporting documentation in the EU case against Boeing before the WTO. That latter is, BTW, a reason why I expect that subsidy rule for the tanker acquisition may yet blow up in Boeing's face.
Last edited by Rengineer; 8th Jun 2010 at 07:55. Reason: Fixed typo
Whilst the prospect of the EC and Boeing squaring up to each other in front of the FTO is one matter, what progress has Ol' Bubba Boeing made of late with the small matter of the Italian KC-767 programme?
Has the flutter problem been cured yet? Or is Ol' Bubba seriously expecting the Italians to accept the aircraft with the problem unresolved, against some vague promise of hopefully finding a fix in years to come? That would be an offer which most certainly could be refused...... Capice?
Top tip, Bubba. Throw away the present 767I pods and pylons and fit something designed by a company which knows what it's doing. Perhaps a visit to a certain company based in Wimborne might be an idea?
Has the flutter problem been cured yet? Or is Ol' Bubba seriously expecting the Italians to accept the aircraft with the problem unresolved, against some vague promise of hopefully finding a fix in years to come? That would be an offer which most certainly could be refused...... Capice?
Top tip, Bubba. Throw away the present 767I pods and pylons and fit something designed by a company which knows what it's doing. Perhaps a visit to a certain company based in Wimborne might be an idea?