Skip to comments.
TANKER COMPETITION: NORTHROP WON BY A WIDE MARGIN
lexington Institute ^
| Mar 3, 2008
| Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Posted on 03/05/2008 1:48:44 PM PST by Perdogg
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
1
posted on
03/05/2008 1:48:44 PM PST
by
Perdogg
To: Perdogg
Very good information. Thanks.
2
posted on
03/05/2008 1:51:21 PM PST
by
airborne
(For ENGLISH, press '1' . For SPANISH, hang up and learn ENGLISH!)
To: Perdogg
For the KCX competition, Northrup proposed the KC-45 which is derived from the Airbus 330. It is used by the English, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc.:
![](http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/kc30tanker_assets/photos/low/KC30_B2_S_CB_V5.jpg)
Boeing proposed the KC-767 derived from the Boeing 767. It is used by Italy and Japan already as a tanker.
![](http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/images/767tanker_1.jpg)
The Northrup proposal has been selected, as stated in this article.
3
posted on
03/05/2008 1:52:50 PM PST
by
Jeff Head
(Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
To: Perdogg
Was there any reason for not considering the C-17 beyond that the Fighter Pilot Mafia wants to steal C-17 funding for the F-22?
4
posted on
03/05/2008 1:56:45 PM PST
by
Thud
To: Jeff Head
That’s a ‘fast shutter speed’ artist rendering of the KC-45. Note the hi-def turbine fan blades. Or maybe they’re shut down and the B-2 is pushing it. ;)
5
posted on
03/05/2008 2:07:44 PM PST
by
Zuriel
(Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
To: Thud
The C-17 would not be able to mount the normal aft boom. It is lower to the ground. Plus I think it is a lot bigger then they wanted. Not to mention having 4 engines instead of 2 which costs more the maintain. The C-17 was not even remotely considered.
6
posted on
03/05/2008 2:16:53 PM PST
by
TalonDJ
To: Zuriel
It is a very noticably computer generated image.
7
posted on
03/05/2008 2:17:40 PM PST
by
TalonDJ
To: Perdogg
Loern Thompson is an excellent (if not the best) defense industry analyst.
8
posted on
03/05/2008 2:21:24 PM PST
by
SueRae
To: Zuriel
Thats a fast shutter speed artist rendering of the KC-45. Note the hi-def turbine fan blades. Or maybe theyre shut down and the B-2 is pushing it. ;)
IMHO a pretty ugly computer rendering. Airliners.net has much better photos of the actual plane (the A330 MRTT, like the one for the Aussies, that is):
A330 MRTT
9
posted on
03/05/2008 2:26:02 PM PST
by
wolf78
To: Thud
The Russians use cargo aircraft for refuelers, but a C-17 would be a very poor choice due to it's cost of both purchase and operation.
![](http://www.zvezda-npp.ru/images/06_5.jpg)
IL-78 Tanker
10
posted on
03/05/2008 2:35:03 PM PST
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: Perdogg
Boeing has the F15 (still built), F22, C17, KC-10, CH47, Osprey, F18SH, F18, AH-64 etc etc etc.
Sometime there are variables that are considered that are not obvious or public. I imagine the risk associated with a single source supplier is fairly large, and for the DoD keeping Northrup Grumman as major player in the game might sound appealing. Boeing is in the realm of large jets pretty much the only show left in town and if NG looses this deal they too fade from the picture. -IMHO
Another consideration is that ultimately airframes intended for the civilian domestic or international markets may be built there. Not only do you have the USAF being supplied, but possibly Australia and others. The US is a highly competitive location for production.
In the end, it's NG that is the system integrator and assembly will be in the US, many of the subcomponents on an Airbus even built in Europe are North American anyhow. The big gripe I would have had, is if this plane were built in Europe. I'm all for free trade, but national security/defense related industry should not be off-shored. Furthermore, those who over years have benefited from protectionism and subsidies keeping US goods and services off their market should not be rewarded with US tax money.
11
posted on
03/05/2008 2:35:32 PM PST
by
Red6
(Come and take it.)
To: Yo-Yo
But you now have a tanker that could land on crappy airfields, short landing strips, and even backup by itself while on the ground. You’d have more commonality logistically, and even the cost per unit for the C-17 would go down. You’d now have a machine which really has the potential to be multipurpose, something these modified but efficient commercial jets only attempt.
12
posted on
03/05/2008 2:51:33 PM PST
by
Red6
(Come and take it.)
To: Jeff Head
That's Northrop/Grumman, Hemingway.
To: Red6
Another consideration is that ultimately airframes intended for the civilian domestic or international markets may be built there. Not only do you have the USAF being supplied, but possibly Australia and others. Not Australia, Delivery date of the final KC-30B on the order is next year. May be a chance on UK, Saudi, or UAE orders.
14
posted on
03/05/2008 5:44:18 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(Never say yer sorry, mister. It's a sign of weakness)
To: Perdogg
Go Northrop! I hope this is just the beginning of the “wins”!
15
posted on
03/05/2008 5:46:39 PM PST
by
CAluvdubya
(A good man has come home to San Diego! Thank you Congressman Hunter)
To: Red6
I thought Lockheed had the F22?
16
posted on
03/05/2008 6:00:35 PM PST
by
CAluvdubya
(A good man has come home to San Diego! Thank you Congressman Hunter)
To: CAluvdubya
17
posted on
03/05/2008 6:40:22 PM PST
by
Red6
(Come and take it.)
To: Red6
LH = F35
B = F22 Lockheed Martin Aero in Ft. Worth builds the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II jet fighters. The F-22 deployed squadrons in Nevada and Florida a couple of years ago and Alaska is next. My husband works on both programs for Northrop Grumman.
18
posted on
03/05/2008 6:50:43 PM PST
by
CAluvdubya
(A good man has come home to San Diego! Thank you Congressman Hunter)
To: CAluvdubya
19
posted on
03/05/2008 7:18:07 PM PST
by
Red6
(Come and take it.)
To: Perdogg
I have to wonder if Boeing having moved its headquarters away from its manufacturing facilities several years back had something to do with their becoming as out of touch as they were on this project.
20
posted on
03/05/2008 7:31:27 PM PST
by
steve86
(Acerbic by nature, not nurtureā¢)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson