Posted on 06/05/2005 10:39:23 AM PDT by Righty_McRight
Given the attitude and behavior of France and Germany (et al) toward the USA, why should Airbus get ANY of this business??
Personally, I'd like to see the 787 made into a tanker. The airframe has size, range and speed, so should be able to service any aircraft in the inventory. I wouldn't trust Airbus to make a paper airplane in a math class, let alone a replacement for the good old -135! From KB-29 to KB-50, to KC-97 and KC-135, Boeing has built the best aerial refueling aircraft in the world.....why should we go with some French POS?
I guess which model they pick for the Tanker depends on when they air force wants it. Right now Boeing can produce the Kc767a, and has shipped the first two to Italy to be completed (part of the deal). They're not getting any new civilian orders for the 767 so they can start pumping that version out at a dedicated factory.
The backorder for the 787 is already three years. I'm not sure how many backorders they have for the 777. The 757 line is closed. The 747 line is open with few orders left.
It doesn't take a genius to design a hose to drag behind a tanker, although I've seen drogue systems that were scary, like the VC-10. As long as the Air Force has the whole male-female relationship backwards Boeing has the experience to build the boom that works and they have jet ready now.
Anyone other than a U.S. company should be considered treason.
the Army needs RPVs, not this crap
Long ago, DOD had plans to get French Roland Ground Anti-Aircraft system. Luckily, the project was canceled under the Reagan administration. I hope our country will never be invaded by French military products again. That will kill our own military industry.
And our military.....ever heard of the "Chauchat" machine gun?
I didn't have an idea about it so I searched it on the net. As my impression, it would be a good weapon to give to the enemies for self destruct by discharges. I wish some of them would be given to the terrorists in Iraq so that they would harm themselves :)
Well, I'd say you're wrong with your statement about needing a "genius" to design a drogue/nozzle system. Most of the engineers I worked with on 75% of the design were nothing spectacular - however, when it came to integration to the airframe and its' impact on aero performance, there you are wrong. Those aero guys who designed the GVT to validate the design are some of the smartest guys I've ever seen; to be without them would be to build a kluged system.
Yeah, lets kick Airbus out now, thus ensuring Bopeing will feel zero pressure to produce the best-valued product.
The replies on this thread are absurd.
They must not have used the geniuses when they designed the wing refueling pods for the 135. The receiver is flying in the edge of the wingtip vortices, but that isn't critical because once your in the basket you don't have to be that steady. If you screw up the placement of a boom it would be a totally different situation.
Only partially correct, Todd. The last production KC-135 was delivered in 1965. The last production KC-10 was delivered in 1988.
Wonder if he's as worked up over the B-52. The last of which came off the Wichita line in June of 1962.
Don't tell that to the Coasties who fly those Falcons and Aerospatiales.
The Army also needs Air Force aircraft for long range transport as well as reliable fighter and bomber support.
Without aerial tankers, the'll have little of either. The fleet badly needs to be updated with new airframes.
Unless we plan to fight the next wars with only RPVs, we'd better get some new tankers.
There was also talk about shutting down the 767 line because of weak sales --- they were counting on the tanker contract to keep the line running.
Both of these rumors are several years old...
But that would interfere with thre production of commercial 787's. That might cause customers to go to Airbus to order an A350. The 767 tanker has already been designed and tested, and it is produced on an already existing line from the 787.
The 777 is too big, and so is the A330. They take too much ramp space. The 767 has about the same wingspan as a 707-320 and just a little bit more than the KC-135, while the 787 has almost a 200 foot wing span. The 767 is a direct replacement for reengined KC-135R, but can carry about 10,000 more pounds of fuel and can can use the same hangers with a modification of the door height to allow the 767 tail to clear. The Using any other aircraft would require much higher costs to build new ground facilities.
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.