Nada? You burn an extra ton of fuel for every hour the larger plane operates. And you say that is nada. The Air Force increased the price of Boeing’s offer to make it look more expensive. Do you know how much. Do you want to guess....
$30 million out of $108B 25 year lifetime cost. That is like deciding which $300k house to by based on a $90 difference.
And it also ignores the aforementioned fuel burn difference.
Same old same old.
a) Those are Boeing's figures, and even they couldn't make the Boeing cheaper.
But I agree for a 180 aircraft fleet, it's a wash.
And it also ignores the aforementioned fuel burn difference.
The KC-45A burns 10% more fuel, but carries 20% more. Which means on the average it can transfer a third more.
So it would take 240 Boeings to do the job of 180 EADS. Now I'm sure Boeing would like the Stage two tanker order to be 60 planes greater to cover the gap, but that doesn't help the taxpayer.
And in the small scale using 4 Boeing missions to cover 3 EADS missions would mean 10% more fuel burnt in total
What was that about "With fuel prices headed for the upper stratosphere"?
Isn't a bigger plane that carries burn more fuel.
Past performance? The guy mentions 600 KC-123's built decades ago. He doesn't mention that the recent KC-67's for Japan and other countries are a couple of years late.
No one knows how this guy got his facts. I don't think any official data can be released until after the protest is decided.