I'm curious, when Boeing sent their tanker conversion work to Aeronavali in Italy, outsourcing it from Wichita, were you screaming about those jobs? Also, you wouldn't happen to be acquainted with Druyun and Sears, would you?
Posted on 06/19/2008 5:26:15 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Babbin, along with many others, has no explanation as to why his vaunted Boeing is several years behind schedule in delivering a total of eight tankers to the Italians and Japanese.
And can anyone remember who the main lobbyist for Boeing was?.....
Tom Daschle’s wife!!
“Deployability is critical because tankers are bad tenants. Most runways can’t handle their weight and their size limits the number that can be stationed on any airfield. The bigger and heavier the tankers are, the fewer airfields can accommodate them.
The Boeing tanker, a version of the 767 jetliner, has a maximum takeoff weight of 395,000 pounds. It’s 159 feet long and has a wingspan of 156 feet. The NG-EADS Airbus 330 tanker’s max weight is 507,000 pounds. It is 192 feet long and has a 197-foot wingspan. My best scientific wild guess is that the NG-EADS aircraft will be unable to operate out of at least 20% of the airfields that could accommodate the right-sized Boeing tanker”.
He’s not accurate in this section of his article. The ability to operate from a particular airport depends on the aircraft’s footprint or how the weight is distributed by the tires. The ability to take off from a particular airport isn’t a function of whether it’s heavier or lighter but how much thrust is available given the aircraft’s weight. With more powerful engines the larger aircraft will not suffer in the performance dept. He’s right about parking requiring more room for the A-330 but the increased fuel carrying capacity will more than offset any of the deficiencies he cites.
A lot of Freepers have supported the EADS decision, I suspect largely because they hate Seattle and like the idea of jobs in the South. At least that frequently seems to be mentioned on these threads.
I don’t know all the considerations involved, but I hate the idea of giving Airbus major control over our military procurements.
Boeing behaved badly earlier, and there may well be problems still, but I just don’t like the decision that was made. And I can’t help wondering what part McCain with his resentments and prejudices played in this game.
Even if some Boeing people acted corruptly, that still doesn’t excuse the decision to order the tankers from a foreign company.
Funny how many threads we have had over the past several years cheering for Boeing and applauding the problems that have been so evident at EADS, and then suddenly everyone switched sides because they liked the idea of jobs in their part of the country—even if there are fewer jobs here overall.
Perhaps the AF should go to Airbus A-310 MRTT mto 360,000lb, 153' long 144' wimgspan.
Watch the Boeing groupies go "No! not a little tanker for the USAF!"
tankers carry only enuff fuel for their mission, and the a330 would have to carry more fuel because it burns more fuel per hour than the 767, one of the most efficient airplanes flying ( even tho its design is 20 years old ).
additionally, it the "number" of booms in the air that is important, so the more expensive a330 would end up having less booms in the air, something a fighter strike force running low on fuel would find unacceptable.
the 767 can actually climb to altitude faster than an F4 phantom, its climb rate is phenomenal.
One other , one would say very crucial factor, is its manueverability-the a330 has limits on its load factor, while the 767 can pull more than 2.5 gs if need be.
if you look at the air cargo fleets, you will see that the 767 has a large following in customers, due to its efficiency, capability, and reliability.
The Air Farce is out of control.
I totally agree with you that the number of booms available is the most critical factor but the A-330 and the 767 will only sport one apiece. Even though the heavier A-330 will burn more fuel to carry the extra weight it will still have an undeniable advantage over the 767 in the total offload available to receivers. My experience in the gulf war was that the tankers carried as much as they could to prolong their station time and service as many receivers as possible. In that scenario the extra fuel would be critical.
I don’t differ with the author on several critical issues such as the inexperience of EADS building tankers and the fact they haven’t broken ground on the proposed construction facility. I also agree with him that getting the tooling in place and getting a trained workforce up and running will be more time consuming than they anticipate. I think in the final analysis the 767 will be the right choice but the author was being a little deceptive regarding the two issues where I questioned his facts.
I'm curious, when Boeing sent their tanker conversion work to Aeronavali in Italy, outsourcing it from Wichita, were you screaming about those jobs? Also, you wouldn't happen to be acquainted with Druyun and Sears, would you?
I thought it was Sears and Roebuck?
I thought it was Sears Simpson.
Unless his figures are wrong, he is right. You CAN’T take of from an airport because of a heavy plane.....because they will never let you land there to begin with. Nowhere did he say that the plane couldn’t take off because it was too heavy. He said it “will be unable to operate out of at least 20% of the airfields”.
“the 767 can actually climb to altitude faster than an F4 phantom, its climb rate is phenomenal.”
(BLANK STARE)........
I assume you just made that up on the fly. You do realize that the F-4 Phantom held the Time-To-Climb record for about a decade...until the F-15 Tomcat beat it.
Dude....get your sh*t together....
Sorry about that - total brainfart. F-15 Eagle. It’s been a long day. Maybe that 767 beating an F-15 post just left me stunned.(g)
Who?
NBD. Saw a Phantom do a maximum performance takeoff at Tampa International a thousand years ago..... the ground was shaking....he went up....maximum understatement.
Also this bid was for the KC-X, to replace the oldest, lowest capacity KC-135(E?), a KC-Y for the higher capacity KC-135R and then a KC-Z (for the larger tankers).
If size was such an asset why didn't the AF buy more than 59 KC-10s or try to get tankers based on the MD-11 before that line was shut down?
I agree also that many of the short runways are also not rated for large airplanes. So the KC-45 may not be able to land in the first place.
The AF actually ignored the capacity of their airfields (rated them all at their highest strength not their lowest).
There was plenty wrong here to raise a bunch of red flags.
Interesting...
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.