Here's a link to what operators are saying on the KC-10.net website:
http://www.kc-10.net/forum/showthread.php?t=316
I was actually excited to see that the KC-30 was selected over the 767. After looking at the "simulators" and talking with the reps at the Boom Symposium, I just got the feeling that Boeing had an arrogant "You'll get what we built" attitude. There were no plans to incorporate anything from the KC-10 except the upright sitting position and IDS. They had no interest in what the crews wanted unless the crews wanted what they had already done. Remember the AF didn't even ask us what we wanted until after the lease fiasco! I was unimpressed.Granted, the Northrop Grumman team didn't have all the bells and whistles to display (interactive simulator trailer) that Boeling had, but in talking with the guys they had there (everyone I talked to had been KC-10 guys) they had the right mindset about what would be best for us/what we wanted. Sure, we are replacing KC-135s, but I was hoping for something more similar to our beloved three-holer than the old steam jet. I think we got that, provided the appeal doesn't overturn the contract award.
For the Boeing fans out there, remember that they didn't win the KC-135 contract either... Lockheed did. We might still end up with some new Boeing tankers, but I sure would like to see these on our airfields.
__________________
911ARS, 744 ARS, Shady J 93-95
32 ARS, 305 OSS/CCTS McGuire 95-97,99-03
Funny as I was at the Boom Symposium and there where more folks checking out the BOEING 767 Trailer than the EADS. And btw it was held at the TANKER SCHOOL HOUSE.
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.