Posted on 07/09/2008 12:15:52 PM PDT by jazusamo
Here’s a link to what operators are saying on the KC-10.net website:
Yes but that is one of very few for the EAD there are more pro KC-767 comments than negative.
Several zombies are kept to keep the numbers right.
H’mmmm. This guy is inadvertantly debunking you.
Try to explain. “Sluggo” was talking about the current fleet of tankers with the small KC-135 footprints.
He is saying the infrastructure renovations are significantly costly...and he is all set to do it again...spend taxpayer money as if it is water. Okay.
“significantly costly” compared to a super tanker full of fuel?
math:
Super tanker: 150,000 t (not quite a big one)
JP-8: 0,8 kg/l
Volume: 187,500,000 l
or 50,000,000 gal
with $2.5 per gallon
$125 million fuel cost for just one base.
What's the bigger waste, building a proper tanker base or losing a war?
And his fueling storage and resupply position I will now take with a hefty dose of salt.
Is it so hard to understand that a tanker base is useless without sufficient fuel supply on ground? To fly fuel in for aerial refueling is a joke.
The "fact" that Boeing bought out MD does not count in my book as Boeing building the KC-10, any more than the "fact" that Chyrsler bought out Jeep from AMC means that Chrysler is now credited with building the CJ5.
No. It just means that only Boeing/MD can build a boom.
No it means that an independent team wholely separate from Boeing at the time built and deployed a flying boom.
EADs has had recurrent and serious problems. McDonnell Douglas was a hell of a lot better aerospace engineering firm than EADs...even with all of its espionage and $20+ billion in subsidies.
And Northrop Grumman has no aerospace experience whatsoever, and is there just to lend their US name to EADS?
No, EADS has 1, 1 working boom mounted to an A310MRTT. They have a second boom mounted to an RAAF KC-30 that is functional but awaiting the fly-by-wire software being developed in the A310MRTT testbed.
How many 6th generation booms, that Boeing bid for the KC-X contract, are flying? What's that? Zero you say? True because the Japanese and Italian tankers are using a 5th generation boom. The 6th generation boom is still on paper. It's not even in prototype form yet.
Did the poster not say that Boeing had the better video game on a trailer? Doesn't surprise me that it got more foot traffic. If Boeing were making arcade machines, they'd have a winner!
I’ll take the 6 flying 5th gen booms by Boeing anyday over over the 2 EADS anyday.
btw they have passed more fuel to more types of USAF aircraft then EADs
Most avoided the EADS crap trailer as they did not want to be near it. They prefered the BOEING.
AND buying the wrong tanker [one that flunked five of eight survivability criteria...and costs $5 billion+ more to acquire and probably $10 billion more to operate] and rewarding enemies of the United States of America and freedom everywhere.
So your framing of the choices was rather lame and shortsighted. You can't just misargue the micro issues...as you are want to do. You need to squarely face the larger issues. National Security.
Corruption, which undermines the rule of law, such as EADs and its K-Street lobbyists epitomizes [dwarfing every single allegation you guys make against Boeing or McDonnell Douglas] represents the death of democracy.
So? The fact is mergers make for bigger broader companies. Boeing is now McDonnell Douglas and vice versa.
Oh the “Tanker War Blog”
Not a very credible source since it was created by Boeing.
Funny who they whine about the supposed kickbacks that Airbus recieved yet doesn’t mention the tax breaks and kickbacks that Boeing gets.
All the KC767 contract will do is keep the production line for the obsolete 767 open beyond 2015.
Now you tell me that isn’t a government subsidy.
And what part of “The whole A330/A330F production line is moving here” did you not understand?
False?
Yes YOU are.
The A330 line in europe is being replaced with the A350. In order for that to happen the A330 line has to move, and it IS moving HERE.
The KC-10 was not a Boeing design. They bought the rights to it when they merged with MD.
And there has not been a single KC-767AT delivered because the KC-767AT doesn’t even exist yet.
Maintenance and support is not the same as BUILDING tankers.
No, Boeing has a problem with delivering aircraft on time. Maybe if there wasn’t a 2+ year delay then they’d MAYBE have more than just 2 customers.
“Since the Airbus airplane is further along they got the rules changed to favor their existing airplane and didn’t optimize it to meet the RFP.”
The rules were not changed.
“Holding tight time constraints favors the more developed product. But that product by definition is less tailored to your requirements.”
There are tight time constraints because the existing fleet is falling apart.
“So the Boeing plane incorporated more features that the Air force asked for (survivability, cargo floor etc.)”
Survivability is a moot point since neither plane will be flying over the FEBA, and both planes would be outfitted with the same exact countermeasures and other “survivability” devices per Air Force requirements. The cargo floor is also a moot point since the KC-45 is based on the A330F airframe.
“The differecne in time frame can easily be made up in a faster ramp up. 12 airplanes a year instead of 9.”
And the contract requires 15+ per year, and Boeing can barely deliver 8 less capable tankers in a 10 year span.
“Did you happen to notice the first flight of the 777F. That is a similar scope to the airframe portion of the 767 tanker modifications. New cargo door, no windows (does the A330 have windows, why?) stronger cargo floor, gross weight change. All done on schedule.”
The A330 has windows because it’s an airliner that carries passengers.
The A330F on the other hand can come with or without windows since they can be converted to carry passengers or freight or a combination there of. It all depends on what the customer specifies.
The RAAF specified that their KC-30MRTT has windows.
The KC-45 will not have windows.
Tankerwars is not affiliated with Boeing. Period. read the page on there web site.
The Mobile Plant is to be a FAL (final assembly line). THATS ASSEMBLY LINE!@!!!! accourding to EADS north America. in other word parts ( wings, fuselage tail ) will be made in Europe shipped to Mobile by boat or plane.
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48740552_airbus-a330-freighters-be-assembled-mobile-alabama
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/11/222129/new-fuel-for-protectionism.html
Funny who they whine about the supposed kickbacks that Airbus recieved yet doesn’t mention the tax breaks and kickbacks that Boeing gets.
Tax breaks are not kickbacks. but upfront loans money not paid back to develope a aircraft is. Hence the WTO lawsuit.
Maintenance and support is not the same as BUILDING tankers.
Without Maintenance and support you got nada, Who you gonna call if you have a inflight problem and no engeneer, or a planned depot to upgrade or periodic mx.
Maintenance and support is not the same as BUILDING tankers
and if you do not have Maintenance and support who are you going to call when a problem comes up and they do.
1-800-dial a frog
Nope. Never was going to happen. You can't explain this, can you?
Hunter: Northrop Grumman-EADS Data Shows Air Force Decision Would Cause Substantial Job Loss in the United StatesMarch 3, 2008
Contact: Josh Holly-202.226.3988
Hunter: Northrop Grumman-EADS Data Shows Air Force Decision Would Cause Substantial Job Loss in the United States
Washington D.C. – House Armed Services Committee Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today criticized the Air Force’s decision to award the KC-45A tanker contract to Northrop Grumman-European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). In the following statement, Hunter points to the negative impact the Air Force’s decision will have on American workers and local communities:
“Northrop Grumman-EADS claims that the Airbus tanker will be made domestically. However, by Northrop Grumman-EADS’ own data, only 58 percent of the new plane and its components will be built in the United States.
“Northrop Grumman-EADS further claims that 27,000 new jobs will be created domestically.
“Comparatively, Boeing’s 776 tanker is 85 percent built in the United States.
“The direct impact of the Air Force’s decision is not an increase of 27,000 new jobs, as Northrop Grumman-EADS claims, but a loss of 12,570 American jobs.
“Furthermore, local communities throughout America will lose a total of one hundred thousand jobs over the period of the contract since billions of American taxpayer dollars will now flow to Europe.”
# # #
http://Republicans.ArmedServices.House.Gov/
False? Yes YOU are. The A330 line in europe is being replaced with the A350. In order for that to happen the A330 line has to move, and it IS moving HERE.
NO ITS NOT read the news. more eads pr lotion.
http://www.tonymarini.com/?p=100
and there are more true facts about eads pr crap.
it will be assembles. not built ASSEMBLED.
So that makes it a Boeing design.
And there has not been a single KC-767AT delivered because the KC-767AT doesn’t even exist yet.
Four delivered. And with a better boom than your guys.
Maintenance and support is not the same as BUILDING tankers.
But it is part of the RFP. And EADs blew it. Boeing didn't. Maybe those DECADES of experience do count for something.
No, Boeing has a problem with delivering aircraft on time.
News to everyon else. The delivery of satellites and other defense high tech products are not applicable to their aircraft division which has an amazingly good track record as per its U.S.-built planes. The 767AT was going to be made in ITALY. Italy's partner with Boeing couldn't do it...and hence Boeing pulled it back. Yet they still are on track on the revised schedule with their U.S. production.
Maybe if there wasn’t a 2+ year delay then they’d MAYBE have more than just 2 customers.
Maybe if EADs didn't have $20+ billions in European state subsidies...there wouldn't be an EADs.
Give Boeing that $20+ billion in subsidies and see how fast they could get planes produced.
SHEEESH.
False. That’s nine.....One (1), Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7), Eight (8), NINE (9) of those generals were working for NG/EADS.
“Just like the KC-45. KC-30 a330MRTT crap you’ve been spreading EADS has 1, 1 working boom. ! delivered to RAAF but not operational or flying as a tanker.”
Well that’s still more than the NON-EXISTANT KC-767AT.
“The KC-767 has flown has passed gas.”
So hasn’t the KC-30, and the first 2 KC-45’s will be doing it soon.
“Doesn’t matter if its a,j or a at model.”
Yes it does since the AT doesn’t exist beyond some drawings and CGI animations.
“Unlike the eads your stuck with the YUGO.”
BS
“No up no downs NO EXTRA’s except a substandard tanker that cannot perform the JOB.”
So says the know it all “expert” /sarc
According to the Air Force, the KC-45 did a better job than the Boeing design.
Flys farther, higher, faster.
Has a longer loiter time.
Can offload more fuel at any given range at a faster rate than the Boeing design.
Can take off in a shorter distance at MTOW.
Can land in a shorter distance.
Can carry more cargo, passengers and litters.
It can self deploy without the need for additional transport aircraft.
Most importantly.....It’s available NOW unlike the Boeing design that’s 5 or more years away from rolling off the lines and then another year or two before it’s FAA certified.
Survivability is a moot point since neither aircraft will be flown over the FEBA, and they’ll be outfitted with whatever countermeasures/survivability gear the Air Force specifies.
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.