[Paul Ross]

Vitally relevant opinion, stil timely, to the Tanker Contract conversation...which is still raging from those who are defending EADS misleading disinformation.

[A.A. Cunningham]

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.

[saganite]

“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.

[Cicero]

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.

[big'ol_freeper]

The Air Farce is out of control.

[amigatec]

bttt

[Vinnie]

Why not build a tanker on the C-17 frame? Or the retired C-141?

Both are unimproved field rated, I think. The C-17 for sure.

IMHO the military for sure should not be dependent on any other country for supplies.

Both are unimproved field rated, I think. The C-17 for sure.

[Ron Jeremy]

Fogelman’s point is well-taken. For every hour a tanker is diverted to other purposes, every other aircraft that depends on the tankers has one less hour to fly.

Sounds like a pretty stupid point to me. There are plenty of times when cargo capacity might be needed but refueling capacity is not.

[Yo-Yo]

I simply call the author's attention to two items in the following chart: Global airfield availability with a 200,000 lb fuel load, and fuel load from a 7,000 ft runway.

[Always Independent]

“EADS Airbus 330 tanker’s max weight is 507,000 pounds”

KC-10 Extender:
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Aerial tanker and transport
Contractor: The Boeing Company
Power Plant: Three General Electric CF6-50C2 turbofans
Thrust: 52,500 pounds (23,625 kilograms), each engine
Length: 181 feet, 7 inches (54.4 meters)
Height: 58 feet, 1 inch (17.4 meters)
Wingspan: 165 feet, 4.5 inches (50 meters)
Speed: 619 mph (Mach 0.825)
Ceiling: 42,000 feet (12,727 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 590,000 pounds (265,500 kilograms)
Range: 4,400 miles (3,800 nautical miles) with cargo; 11,500 miles (10,000 nautical miles) without cargo
Maximum Cargo Payload: 170,000 pounds (76,560 kilograms)
Pallet Positions: 27
Maximum Fuel Load: 356,000 pounds (160,200 kilograms)
Crew: Four (pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer and boom operator) Certain missions may require additional crew members. In aeromedical evacuation missions, a basic crew of five (two flight nurses and three medical technicians) is added. Medical crew may be altered as required

So the Northrop Grumman offering is too big?

[VOA]

“
I’ve been down this path before.

Seventeen years ago, I sat in my Pentagon office wondering what went
wrong and how to fix it. A top-secret Navy attack aircraft program
(which we know now was the A-12) had turned into a disaster.
“

Ah, yes, “The Flying Dorito”.

A-12 (Avenger II)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II