GAO may force KC-45 contract rebid
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B18
the b18 was produced and used during ww2. it was made by douglas. eventually used for offshore patrol.
The whole point is this:
The USAF should have the best plane possible for the real job. The real job is flying during wartime and refueling planes, and some cargo/pax lift.
And in the field, the B767 variant will use less runway, and sure be easier to fix in the field . Metal patching is easier than carbon fibre and more well understood. remember, these repairs might be made in wartime conditions.
And to the guy who wonders why the Americans think their military hardware is better. Well, it is. I've flown a japanese plane, two british planes, and many american planes.
I'll take the US stuff, thanks.
The whole point is this:
The USAF should have the best plane possible for the real job. The real job is flying during wartime and refueling planes, and some cargo/pax lift.
And in the field, the B767 variant will use less runway, and sure be easier to fix in the field . Metal patching is easier than carbon fibre and more well understood. remember, these repairs might be made in wartime conditions.
And to the guy who wonders why the Americans think their military hardware is better. Well, it is. I've flown a japanese plane, two british planes, and many american planes.
I'll take the US stuff, thanks.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's really deep, balanced research then.
BTW, the Airbus wing is more advanced than that on the 767, giving a more efficient aerodynamic performance, a faster climb to altitude and, reputedly, less close in turbulence, which may just be a matter of importance in refuelling.
BTW, the Airbus wing is more advanced than that on the 767, giving a more efficient aerodynamic performance, a faster climb to altitude and, reputedly, less close in turbulence, which may just be a matter of importance in refuelling.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the b18 was produced and used during ww2. it was made by douglas. eventually used for offshore patrol.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in the field, the B767 variant will use less runway
The "KC-767" requires a 12,000 ft balanced field length to take off with a full (but smaller than the EADS design) load. Runways of this length are rather rare, so the number of operating bases world-wide would be quite limited, or take-off loads would have to be (further) reduced, severely restricting operational flexibility for the Air Force.
In short, the USAF selected a tanker/transport which can carry more fuel/pax/cargo, from a much larger number of operating bases, and costs less per copy to boot. Sensible choice in my book.
Of course, if they made this choice contrary to their stated requirements (in the RFP) then the GAO will slam them, as they have slammed the USAF in their last two bid awards for precisely the same reasons.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kwachon
have you asked yourself the difference between a tanker and an airliner?(by the way, did you know that the citation crash in maine...pilot's insuarance wouldn't pay off...pilot didn't have a current medical...and no currency in type_
The 767 has a robust strength that might prove more useful in wartime.
B18 stuff...the point was that the B17 was a better plane...the prototype crashed , not due to its design, and wasn't able to compete in the contract process then.
The B18 was able to meet the contract. But was not the better plane.
Let's find out what the better plane for combat use is...and I'll bet its the 767...especially for field repairs.
have you asked yourself the difference between a tanker and an airliner?(by the way, did you know that the citation crash in maine...pilot's insuarance wouldn't pay off...pilot didn't have a current medical...and no currency in type_
The 767 has a robust strength that might prove more useful in wartime.
B18 stuff...the point was that the B17 was a better plane...the prototype crashed , not due to its design, and wasn't able to compete in the contract process then.
The B18 was able to meet the contract. But was not the better plane.
Let's find out what the better plane for combat use is...and I'll bet its the 767...especially for field repairs.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best?
This isn't really a matter of which would be the better aircraft for the task.
Rather, it is, in the case of the GAO decision, a question of whether the Air Force properly evaluated the two proposals with respect to the written RFP the Air Force issued.
Having said that, I think that we need to consider the potential economic benefit to our country in deciding which aircraft to buy.
If the EADS/NG aircraft is selected, Airbus has said that all A330F aircraft will be built in the US, in the same faclility as the tanker. Within the next five years, it is probable that all A330 (as well as A340, if anyone wants a new one) production would be moved to the Alabama facility, since Airbus will need the space for the A350.
If this were to happen, future products for the Alabama facility would be virtually guaranteed. Airbus gains a produciton facility with dollar, not Euro based costs, and the US gains a long term source of well-paid jobs.
Boeing, on the other hand, will preserve a relative few jobs on the 767 line, with no future potential, and I write this as a Boeing shareholder.
If we grant that either airplane could do the job, we should then ask which one will yield the greatest long-term benefit to our economy.
While I hate to admit it, the Airbus is probably the better choice from the standpoint of its future contribution to our economy.
Rather, it is, in the case of the GAO decision, a question of whether the Air Force properly evaluated the two proposals with respect to the written RFP the Air Force issued.
Having said that, I think that we need to consider the potential economic benefit to our country in deciding which aircraft to buy.
If the EADS/NG aircraft is selected, Airbus has said that all A330F aircraft will be built in the US, in the same faclility as the tanker. Within the next five years, it is probable that all A330 (as well as A340, if anyone wants a new one) production would be moved to the Alabama facility, since Airbus will need the space for the A350.
If this were to happen, future products for the Alabama facility would be virtually guaranteed. Airbus gains a produciton facility with dollar, not Euro based costs, and the US gains a long term source of well-paid jobs.
Boeing, on the other hand, will preserve a relative few jobs on the 767 line, with no future potential, and I write this as a Boeing shareholder.
If we grant that either airplane could do the job, we should then ask which one will yield the greatest long-term benefit to our economy.
While I hate to admit it, the Airbus is probably the better choice from the standpoint of its future contribution to our economy.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Carolina
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC-45A
Have you asked yourself why most airlines are ditching the 767?. A google search might offer some clues!.
All I have to do from where I work in Bethpage, NY (NGC) on a west landing pattern to JFK around 1 PM is look-up and watch the air-traffic making finals.
Yes, there are 747's, 767's and 777's- but a good number of various Airbus
model types are there.
Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY
All I have to do from where I work in Bethpage, NY (NGC) on a west landing pattern to JFK around 1 PM is look-up and watch the air-traffic making finals.
Yes, there are 747's, 767's and 777's- but a good number of various Airbus
model types are there.
Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Major London Airport
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 / B767 Tanker competition
GAO rules in favour of Boeing
I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this, the U.S. has being doing this for years. From the BAC 1-11 days when the CAB would not give support to airlines which ordered the 1-11, but if they changed their mind and ordered DC-9s that support was suddenly forthcoming.
From the Middle East Airlines intention to order the VC-10 - until Washington told the Lebanese government it would get no aid unless the 707 was ordered.
From the years of banning Concorde on supposed pollution grounds, while KC-135s, with 10 times as much pollution wandered European skies.
Don't forget the years that Pan-Am, TWA then Delta operated intra-European routes from Germany - when no European carrier would be allowed to do the same in North America.
The virtual ban on British cargo aircraft at Anchorage - because Fedex was not allowed carte blanche from Prestwick. That carrier still operates daily from Stansted though.
Over the decades the U.S. has proved it loves competition - as long as it is not in its own back yard !
Open Skies ? Please don't make me laugh !
I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this, the U.S. has being doing this for years. From the BAC 1-11 days when the CAB would not give support to airlines which ordered the 1-11, but if they changed their mind and ordered DC-9s that support was suddenly forthcoming.
From the Middle East Airlines intention to order the VC-10 - until Washington told the Lebanese government it would get no aid unless the 707 was ordered.
From the years of banning Concorde on supposed pollution grounds, while KC-135s, with 10 times as much pollution wandered European skies.
Don't forget the years that Pan-Am, TWA then Delta operated intra-European routes from Germany - when no European carrier would be allowed to do the same in North America.
The virtual ban on British cargo aircraft at Anchorage - because Fedex was not allowed carte blanche from Prestwick. That carrier still operates daily from Stansted though.
Over the decades the U.S. has proved it loves competition - as long as it is not in its own back yard !
Open Skies ? Please don't make me laugh !
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one checks the pprune rumor area, one can see an airbus 330 that welded on the brakes or seized an axle...and it is sitting , waiting for repair.
I'll take a boeing with a NWS problem to an airbus with a welded brake as a tanker!
I'll take a boeing with a NWS problem to an airbus with a welded brake as a tanker!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAO rules in favour of Boeing
The real shock here is that this is the third major equipment contract award by the USAF that has been failed by the GAO in the last few years. One would have thought that after the first two fiascos, and with a major equipment contract award to a foreign (and dare one say it, French!) company, the USAF would have made sure that all t's were crossed and all i's were dotted as protests were sure to be forthcoming. Slack staff work will have USAF crews flying tired, old, less-capable aircraft for maybe years longer while the legal brouhaha goes on.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Age: 59
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never cease to be amazed at the negative reaction to anything where good old Boeing loses. In this case the miscalculated - they thought they could sell the US taxpayer a 1970's design and keep their cashcow B767 production line open for another 10 years (ring any bells - that's exactly what they suceeded in doing with the KC135). Unfortunately they were up against a modern 1990's design which has already wiped out the B767 in commercial service for very god reasons. The KC30 was clearly a better product in almost all respects and one which will still be 'current' in 30 years time - that certainly cannot be said for the B767. Ever wondered why to date only the Japanese and the Italians (who are both tied to Boeing politically) have bought the old B767 tanker ?
Let's hope politics does not reverse the decision as that will probably trigger a trade war - and I think the good ol' USA has more to lose than to gain in a military equipment trade war.
Let's hope politics does not reverse the decision as that will probably trigger a trade war - and I think the good ol' USA has more to lose than to gain in a military equipment trade war.
