[Paleo Conservative]

I’m all for keeping jobs in the US, but why should we subsidize Boeing if they had the inferior product?

Best product by what criteria? Supposedly this was a competition to replace the KC-135. The bases where the KC-135R's are based were designed for the KC-135A. They have long runways. Why did the USAF specify the need to to be able to take off with a full fuel load in 7,000'? The 767 fits in the same space as a KC-135R and can use the same hangers but carries more fuel and uses less runway than the KC-135R to take off. The KC-30 has a much bigger wing span that will require building new hangers and pouring concrete at exisiting air bases to make room for the planes on the ground.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I also read that the Airbus 3 series aircraft use less fuel when they get to cruising altitude, but are a gas hogs getting there compared to similar US planes. This means that they’re best at long trips over 1000 miles, something we can’t count on.

[Grut]

The 767 fits in the same space as a KC-135R and can use the same hangers but carries more fuel and uses less runway than the KC-135R to take off. The KC-30 has a much bigger wing span that will require building new hangers and pouring concrete at exisiting air bases to make room for the planes on the ground.

You don't seriously think the Air Force objects to being 'required' to upgrade its facilities, do you? Au contraire!

[e_castillo]

Lots of assumptions being made with our money doing the talking. I think the Air Forcee blew this.

Here’s an article with some information on logistics worth looking at:
http://leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn062907.pdf

“Tanker Win Moves Airbus Freighter To U.S.” This should read “Tanker win should move unproven airframe to US(Where Taxpayers have plenty of money to toss down ratholes)”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/TANK03038.xml

[mad_as_he$$]

Aren’t most tanker bases left over BUFF bases? They all have room for BUFF’s and 10,000 runways.