And wasn't their presentation rather uninspiring, D-IFF!

According to their spiel, the 'new wine in ancient skin' tanker is 'Combat Ready, Lowest Total Cost, American Made'.

Combat Ready? It hasn't even been built yet, let alone flown.
Lowest Total Cost? Believe that when you see the bottom line!
American Made? It hasn't even been built yet.

They also claim that 'Boeing's flight control design gives the pilot unrestricted access to the full flight envelope that may be necessary in a threat environment' Bless...presumably that actually means 'Boeing's flight control design gives the pilot unrestricted opportunities to overstress and destroy the aircraft because we don't have the necessary technology to include flight envelope protection'

which means that they must surely be in their 80s or 90sexcept that those were built by McDonnell-DouglasOr rather who are trying to get the massive order of 4 Italian 767-20ER conversions, now 5 years late, to work properly without their wings fluttering.....:hmm:

169west, from their presentation, the current hopes of the Italian Air Force for the KC-767 are:

Just to confirm then....the UK sent no representative to ARSAG this year? We're still the second largest tanker force in the Western world are we not? Did the NATO AAR Panel sit concurrently? I guess that wasn't important either?

Please tell me I'm wrong.

FFS....

You're wrong; the RAF did indeed send representatives to ARSAG 2010.

And yes, the NATO meeting took place before the main conference.

Thank goodness for that! Glad someone was there to drink Ulick's whiskey!

BBD - I can also confirm that their were at least 2 (arguably 4) Brit representatives present. They made a significant contribution to the NATO AAR Panel meetings.

Your presence was missed this year though.

IAW latest Government guidelines, I hope they all travelled 3rd class and stayed in the local YMCA. . .

We often felt that we were the poor relatives . . . nice to have it confirmed.

One wonders if we're going to have anything to inflight refuel by the time they're online.

Best of luck.

Nevertheless, Boeing have built a fair number of tankers. It'll be a good shot in the arm for them, I'm happy to say.

But nothing new for about 5 decades. Nothing new has been designed by Boeing since the KC-135 of the 1950s. Hanging (half-French, the hoorah rednecks will be disturbed to learn) CFM-56s off the ancient 135 to create the 135R is hardly a new design - neither was upgrading the avionics in the 'Pacer Craig' update. The KC-10A doesn't count, because that wasn't a Boeing design.

So now they're trying to keep the rednecks happy by modifying the jet that no-one else wants, the 767. Why not the 7-late-7? Well, in 2004 George Muellner, Boeing's senior vice-president and general manager air force systems, claimed that the 7-late-7 was 'unsuitable for the tanker mission'. "The issue is not composites, but its configuration", he said.....:\

Hello foot, meet twelve bore! (Twelve 'gage' to the colonials).

Face it - the intelligent customer chooses Airbus!

Thanks Dave - and Dave - for the reassurances. Yes, sad not to have been there, but on balance.....

Does that mean the good Canadian major was there too?

Still, if it's true to form and in Vegas next year, maybe I'll 'do a Dickie' and pitch up nonetheless!!:ok:

All the best fellas.

Hi Beagle...

I see you have a great number of posts under your belt,
I'm sure some, no.. let's be positive, I'm sure most of your posts have been less 'one sided' and in a less sort of ranting tone than these most recent ones!

and in addition...again from the number of posts you've made, surely you are more intelligent than the tone and content of the two most recent posts...

you've not said anything we've not all heard before, most of the anti-Boeing antagonists go on about the same sort of things, not that I'm agreeing or otherwise with anything you say!

Really....some of the points you made are bordering on the ridiculous, and have led to me questioning your credability on this!

Enough is enough...you've said, and said, and said your piece..give it a rest!

FD

Flight Detent, you'll just have to excuse my outrage at the biased KC-X program and the claims being made by ol' Bubba Boeing for the unflown KC-767NoGo tanker.

If tanker aircraft were to compete on capability, without spin and BS from pet senators, the A330MRTT would be the clear winner.

brit bus driver, no 'that' Canadian Major wasn't there this year - and ARSAG 2011 will be in Atlanta, not in Vegas. ARSAG 2012 will be in San Antonio.

... any Japanese representative? Are they happy with their product or still fighting to fix some issue!
And what the Italian representatives (if any) said about the numerous delays Boeing is playing?

Yes, the JASDF were there and gave a good presentation on their KC-767J which they have now declared to be operational. But it's boom-only and works mainly with the F-15J and F-2.

The Italians hope to receive 2 of their much-delayed KC-767Is this year. Bearing in mind that the Italian aircraft is only a 767-200ER with pods and boom, the fact that it will be over 5 years late doesn't bode well for the development risks associated with the KC-767NoGo....

BEagle
No. 33 Squadron RAAF is flying with the KC30 yet?

The thing is, BEagle, the US should have an American tanker. It's a strategic system and control needs to be in house. If Europe builds a better tanker, buy it for Europe and accept my sincere congratulations on your success. For me, I'd rather take what we can get domestically and work with it.

The issue of maneuver limitations is less important than the organic sourcing.

While it's true Boeing delivered the first -135s in 1955, they have managed the program over the years and kept them updated and flying. That is ongoing and current experience Airbus doesn't have.

I flew KC-135s for 27 years. I fly A320s for a living now. I know the difference. I would rather have had a KC-135 in the dicey scenarios I've seen in tanker operations than an Airbus, though I agree the A320 (therefore the A330 as well) is a marvelous machine.

..at last...

Somebody that seems to know what they're talking about...

What a breath of fresh air

I do hope this trend continues...

FD...:)

BenThere, I don't know to which 'dicey situations' your people expose their tankers, but in 20 years on RAF tankers the only 'dicey situations' I encountered were due to others not sticking to the ACO.

ATP-56B doctrine is quite clear about the risk exposure to tankers. I agree that manoeuvre requirements are irrelevant, so view the Boeing statement as irrelevant. Of course the A330 offers the same access, but has the benefit of preventing the pilot from going outside the full flight envelope.

Flight Detent, apart from sniping on the sidelines, what positive contribution if any do you actually have to make to this thread?

I personally experienced an autopilot disconnect caused by a KC-10s erratic and excessive closure.

Based on the tone of the boom operator's screaming, "Breakaway", and my own assessment of the moment of the tail's abrubt dropout, I elected to firewall the TF-33 throttles in order to get out of there. On the Bus, I would have gotten maybe 94% by jamming the throttles to TOGA. On the -135 I got probably 104%.

Because of the overboost, all engines had to be boroscoped, and two of them turned out to be shelled. It was one of those situations where I either had to be fired or given a medal. Because the boom operator stated we would have had, and missed by inches, a mid-air collision had I not firewalled, I got the medal. Possibly, and arguably, had I been flying an airbus that day, I might not be here to write this post.

Perhaps that single experience colors my take on the lack of FADEC override on the Bus and its impact on operations; and if I had your pleasant experience of never needing all available control, I might see it your way, but for me it is what it is.

BEags,

It would appear that Ben There has a fairly valid point, from his own perspective?

I, like Beags (beat you by 8 Beags) had many years of Tanker time and was fortunate to survive unscathed in spite of near misses thanks to overenthusiastic young and not so young jet jockeys. The tricky situations were usually over so quickly that any reaction would have been too late and possibly made it worse, though Ben There got it right. Where control restriction of any sort is awkward is in disparity between types in formation so that rates of roll can not be matched. Let us not forget that a tanker is an aeroplane with a full envelope to fly from t/o to landing and the fly by wire protection is relevant throughout. I have had more scary moments in the circuit than whilst tanking.