GlobalNav,

We call the 4th July Thanksgiving over here!

We call the 4th July Thanksgiving over here!
 

As well you should. I suppose there was much celebration at VE Day for the same reason? Something about our being "over there, over-paid and over-s**ed"?

Twice had the privilege of celebrating our July 4th (your Thanksgiving) in Cambridge back in the 80's. We were able to get everything for it except the Star Spangled banners and bunting and such - had to bring those ourselves. But the British beer, though hardly chilled, went very well with it all.

Cheers

Hmmmm. First, Dassault is not Airbus. And from the linked article:

1. "Awarding the contract to Boeing after two years of negotiations, the South Korean Defense Ministry said the decision had been based on three considerations: "the influence on national security, the impact on overseas relations and the effect on overseas market access." The agreement calls for Boeing to deliver 40 F-15K planes over a five-year period beginning next year."

2. "Jerry Daniels, the president of Boeing's military aircraft and missile systems division, called the bidding "one of the most honorable and tough evaluations in which we have ever participated."

3. "I am one of the key personnel in the ministry," Cha said. "America did not pressure us."

And as a reminder, this was back in 2002. Back then the Rafale was not yet in production and only several prototypes had been delivered to the French Air Force and Navy. The F-15 by comparison was in production and could begin deliveries the next year. And in the case of the tanker competition, the aircraft already in production (A330MRTT) ALSO edged out the aircraft still in testing (KC-46).

Further, Korea was not the only country reticent to buy an aircraft that was not yet in production, even by its home nation. It took Dassault well over a decade before securing a foreign buyer. That had NOTHING to do with American "arm twisting".

GlobalNav,

A fair account of the ItAF KC-767 experience is available here:

http://theaviationist.com/2009/04/29...kc-767a-delay/

And I think the 1954 USAF Tanker acquisition program, where the Lockheed L-193 was the winning proposal, the Douglas DC-8 a close second and the Boeing product a poor third, is fairly well understood on this forum.

Agreed that the USAF have significant experience in AAR; they learned from a Russian Naval Officer and an English aviation pioneer and they use techniques written by the RAF.

I hope you're not involved in the industry, otherwise maybe you should care what customers opinions are.

An interesting article, D-IFF_ident! Written in 2009 and already bemoaning the lateness of the KC-767I programme....

It was another 2 years before the first one finally arrived at Pratica de Mare - the aerodrome which has had to be extended to take the 767 due to its poor take-off performance at high weight (the KC-46A is different). Even after the extension, it seems that Mediterranean summers limit the RTOW of the KC-767I.

And boy, are the Italians envious of the mission system in the A310MRTT! Their Boeing has nothing comparable - they're still in the 'bits of string' trail planning era...:rolleyes:

One gets what one specifies and pays for. There is a reason USAF did not specify either a KC-767 or an A330MRTT. They wanted a LOT more. Airbus could (or perhaps more accurately would) not deliver. That's one reason why their US partner pulled out.

The American heritage in me wants to join in with the "f$#& you Limeys" but my British upbringing is wondering how a debate about the alleged superiority of a Pan-European Product became a rallying call for rednecks shouting "1776"? It's so conflicting having a Transatlantic upbringing!

Anyhoo, I've cornbread to make, for today is the day my mother's ancestors told my father's ancestors to do one.

Well interesting analogy ..... There is a little red church near me ....where ole GW rested that has a few French graves from that time......... So it seems our friends from across the channel were heavily involved back then too

I know the son of David Nicolson, who did some of the early work on making AAR a practical proposition; despite being on the far side of 8 decades he's still in full time work as a naval architect. From what he has told me his father had a very bad motor accident which left him disabled and unable to work, which presumably lead to the sale of his share of the patent.

Hmmm, USAF predominantly uses the flying boom and receptacle method of AAR. Those were Russian/Brit inventions? Who knew? ;-)

And the first ever aerial refueling in 1923 was between Russian and/or Brit aircraft, and not between US Army aircraft over New York? Who knew? ;-)

And the 150 hour flight endurance record set in 1929 was not over Los Angeles in a US Army aircraft, but somewhere over Russia or Britain? And the 553 hour endurance record the following year was not over Chicago? And the 27 day endurance record in 1935 was not over Meridian, Mississippi? Who knew? And the "spill free probe" used in that record flight (and still used today with modifications) was not invented by A.D. Hunter of Meridian? Who knew? ;-)

And the world's air forces today still use the grappled line, looped hose system developed by Britain's Chobham and later used by USAF in B-29/B-50s? You know, that system where the tanker aircraft is behind the receiver aircraft? Who knew? ;-)

Thanks for setting the record straight. ;-)

But yeah, Seversky was indeed a former Russian Naval Officer.

Guy's, guy's, guy's...

More on that story here.....


Boeing reports second internal KC-46 cost overrun - 7/17/2015 - Flight Global

Mr CholmondleyWarner, unfortunately you've woken up the troll. Obviously retreating from the F-35 thread after having been outed, he/she/it's back here to tell us how the US invented everything....:rolleyes:

And still the KC-46A hasn't flown.....

Even Korea has decided to buy a proven Airbus product rather than ol' Bubba's paper plane...

Oh my. I'll leave at that.

BEagle, it's not the airplane, it's the management. The 767-2C/KC-46 is the worst run program I've been involved in during my Boeing career - and by a considerable margin (granted I wasn't involved with the 787 - and I doubt it's a coincidence that much of the management migrated over from the 787 program). The level of dumbass is simply mind boggling.
A few weeks ago there was a flight squawk on the number one airplane (you know, the one that's actually flown) - bad engine data. I took one look, said it's not an engine problem, you have a wiring problem. After a week of 20 person meetings, someone finally showed me the wire diagram I'd asked for right after the squawk was reported - and I told them exactly where to look for the wiring problem. After two more weeks of 20 person meetings, someone actually went out to the airplane, checked the wiring, and found a short where I'd told them to look two weeks earlier.:ugh:
Mind boggling dumbass...

And stop saying Oh my. You sound like little Miss Maisy.

For sure.

gr

I feel your pain td.

tdracer, sorry to hear that.

The Boeing 767 has been in service for years, the military side of the company has long experience in the AAR role, so there should have been plenty of synergy when it came to converting the 767 for the tanker role....

There were some aerodynamic issues with the Italian KC-767I, but the fixes should have meant that the KC-46A wouldn't be affected in the same way. Also the Japanese KC-767J had an AAR boom, so quite why it has taken so long NOT to fly a KC-46A is perplexing in the extreme.

Worrying to learn that 'management' couldn't even identify a wiring problem...:( and ultimately expensive for Boeing. Particularly if, as a consequence, having delayed a large portion of the test programme until after the Milestone C low-rate production decision, significant modifications prove necessary.

Hi tdracer,

If what you say is true, be very careful about identifying yourself. I would suggest that Boeing may read this forum and thread, and I'd imagine that given the specific nature of your post (you identified the wiring problem) that it would not be too hard for them to find out who you are. I'm guessing they wouldn't take too kindly to an insider discussing their programme in such a way.

Just a friendly warning mate.