Kusch Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Airbus tanker for USAF! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004251273_webtankerwin29.html Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
tflash Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 See also CNN coverage: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/29/air.force.tankers/index.html 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
ED Team Groove Posted March 1, 2008 ED Team Posted March 1, 2008 Awesome, saw an article on a german newspage! Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
RvETito Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 Next generation USAF tanker is made in... EU :D That's a very serious slap in the face for Boeing and the US a/c industry. But when the facts speak even the Gods keep their mouths shut- another proof that Airbus is generation ahead of Boeing. So this picture makes pretty much sense: Northrop-Grumman have played their cards in a great maner. As philosophy A330 is light years ahead of B767. I'm currently passing maintenance training course of A319/320/321 and I'm astonished how advanced conception that is nowadays being... 20 years old. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
tflash Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 True, and of course I am also glad EADS has been given a fair chance on the US market. The US means business by free trade, good for them! On the other hand: the main point was indeed that the Boeing 767 is obsolescent. Boeing is now launching the Boeing 777 freighter, which is a very, very solid offer and maybe this could in the future lead to a tanker configuration? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Pilotasso Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 Boeing was so very confident that the US would never get sissy european hardware for such a high value asset that they overpriced their planes as they pleased when they were beaten in 4 of the 5 main requirements. It looks like it was a bad tactic for them. .
GGTharos Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 It had nothing to do with the airbus being 'superior' ... it was all about the 767 simply not meeting requirements in capacity and other things, much like Pilotasso mentioned. In other words, it's not really that much better than what it's replacing. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
X-man Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 Next generation USAF tanker is made in... EU :D Nope! the KC-45 will be produced by Nothrop-Grumman in the US (Sorry EU, no jobs) another proof that Airbus is generation ahead of Boeing. Tell that to the 787 department :P It had nothing to do with the airbus being 'superior' ... it was all about the 767 simply not meeting requirements in capacity and other things. In other words; Airbus won coz they were superior...You're not making any sense... 64th Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 135.181.115.54
RvETito Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Nope! the KC-45 will be produced by Nothrop-Grumman in the US (Sorry EU, no jobs) Only the engines will be US made (GE). The rest is 100% EU. 330 assembly line is in Toulouse, France- how do you expect them to move it accross the ocean? :D Besides, one of the major complaints of Boeing is that the government gives job to foreign workers. Look here- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272272.stm and quoting: "We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," Tell that to the 787 department :P A department- yes, but where is the plane? Have you seen it? ;) I believe it still hasn't passed the virtual phase. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
Mugatu Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Makes perfect sense to me, you don't win because your inferior (well not always)! :P mmm has the 787 flown yet :P Tell that to the 787 department :P In other words; Airbus won coz they were superior...You're not making any sense...
Excelsior Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Nope! the KC-45 will be produced by Nothrop-Grumman in the US (Sorry EU, no jobs) No the KC-45 is being produced jointly by Northrop-Grumman & European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). Assembly of the KC-45 will take place in in Mobile, Alabama but production of parts will take place largely in Europe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272358.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272272.stm "No matter where you go, there you are" Intel E-8400 "Wolfdale" - Asus Maximus Formula - Swiftech H2O 120 4 Gb G.Skill PC2-8000C5 - EVGA 8800 GTS 512 - Dell 2707WFP WD Caviar 500Gb - Vista 64
RvETito Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Hmm, that's strange. It would be much more (cost )effective if they ship the engines to France but apparently there will be some equipment in this a/c that the europeans shouldn't get access to. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
X-man Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 A department- yes, but where is the plane? Have you seen it? ;) I believe it still hasn't passed the virtual phase. I have seen it :D http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1240280/L/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1236971/L/ It has yet to fly though. Its maiden flight is sometime this year ;) No the KC-45 is being produced jointly by Northrop-Grumman & European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). Assembly of the KC-45 will take place in in Mobile, Alabama but production of parts will take place largely in Europe. I stand corrected. I was only right about assembly I guess :) Makes perfect sense to me, you don't win because your inferior (well not always)! :P Well, read GG's post again. He states It had nothing to do with the airbus being 'superior' :) I meant that GG was not making sense, coz he contradicts himself in that post... 1 64th Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 135.181.115.54
TorwaK Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 to compare [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Intel Core i7-6700K, @5GHz | Asus Maximus Hero VIII | 2 x eVGA GTX 970 SLI | Kingston Predator 16GB DDR4-3000Mhz | 2 x Samsung 850 PRO 240GB RAID-0 | AOC G2460PG G-SYNC LCD | OCULUS RIFT CV1 VR | THRUSTMASTER HOTAS WARTHOG | CH PRO PEDALS
GGTharos Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 That's because you don't understand the point I was trying to convey. But that's ok. ;) You don't need an inferior aircraft to fail criteria. You just need the wrong aircraft. Well, read GG's post again. He states It had nothing to do with the airbus being 'superior' :) I meant that GG was not making sense, coz he contradicts himself in that post... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
X-man Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 That's because you don't understand the point I was trying to convey. But that's ok. ;) You don't need an inferior aircraft to fail criteria. You just need the wrong aircraft. I see what you mean. But in this case, it both faild and was inferior (in most of the criteria)... :P Check this little graph I found. I like the 767, but Im afraid in this case, it got owned by a much more advanced aircraft... 64th Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 135.181.115.54
Sundowner.pl Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Well the USAF really needed the KC-777, unfortunately Boeing is overloaded with orders from civilian market and couldn't make them in time, so they offered the KC-767... outcome was obvious from the start. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If a place needs helicopters, it's probably not worth visiting." - Nick Lappos
RedTiger Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 True, and of course I am also glad EADS has been given a fair chance on the US market. The US means business by free trade, good for them! On the other hand: the main point was indeed that the Boeing 767 is obsolescent. Boeing is now launching the Boeing 777 freighter, which is a very, very solid offer and maybe this could in the future lead to a tanker configuration? One would hope that if any entity is serious and means business, they would buy kit from whomever has the best offer -- politics, constituents, and public opinion be damned. Its really interesting to see that happen with the USAF. I would have never guessed they'd buy something produced by Airbus. 1
Rhen Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 One would hope that if any entity is serious and means business, they would buy kit from whomever has the best offer -- politics, constituents, and public opinion be damned. Its really interesting to see that happen with the USAF. I would have never guessed they'd buy something produced by Airbus. You're absolutely correct. Unfortunatly, Congress gets their hands into it and mandates the percentage of any weapons, equipment, & material produced requiring US made content. They attempted to raise this percentage - which I believe is 50% to 65% and that would've put a lot of allies in the bin, including jeopardizing the JSF. The Airbus tanker is a good thing, the bad thing about it is the size of it's footprint. It's a larger aircraft, so fewer can be stationed in one place. It's also heavier, requiring more contemporary aerodromes with good tarmacs. We fighter pilots care about "Booms in the air" so we can cycle our gorillas on and off the tanker rapidly. It does us very little good if we are delayed in the anchor waiting for gas because we only have 4 tankers in the air vs 6-8. Just so long as I get my gas... :thumbup:
Weta43 Posted March 5, 2008 Posted March 5, 2008 You don't need an inferior aircraft to fail criteria. You just need the wrong aircraft. You mean an aircraft that's inferior when evaluated on the basis of its suitability for the task in hand... Cheers.
GGTharos Posted March 5, 2008 Posted March 5, 2008 Semantics. There's nothing wrong with the 767. The bid is inferior, not the aircraft itself. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
tflash Posted March 5, 2008 Posted March 5, 2008 Well the USAF really needed the KC-777, unfortunately Boeing is overloaded with orders from civilian market and couldn't make them in time, so they offered the KC-767... outcome was obvious from the start. Don't forget the KC-777 has some airfield limitations since it again is quite bigger than the A-330. Maybe the A-330 was just the right size? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Weta43 Posted March 6, 2008 Posted March 6, 2008 It had nothing to do with the airbus being 'superior' ... it was all about the 767 simply not meeting requirements in capacity and other things, much like Pilotasso mentioned. Semantics. There's nothing wrong with the 767. The bid is inferior, not the aircraft itself. Yep - Semantics - the meaning of the statement. The KC-767 is inferior to the KC-45A when evaluated on the basis of its suitability for the task in hand. The KC-45A has been judged by the USAF to be superior to the KC-767 in that it Does "meet.. requirements in capacity and other things" related to the specified role as an air refueling tanker. The KC-767 has been judged by the USAF to be inferior to the KC-45A in that it Does not "meet.. requirements in capacity and other things" related to the specified role as an air refueling tanker. The USAF did not say (that I've read anywhere) that the 767 is an inferior aircraft to the A330, but they did say ( & the graph on the previous page underlines the fact that) it is an inferior tanker. Cheers.
Captain R Posted March 6, 2008 Posted March 6, 2008 Congrats to our European friends for their win! The former CEO was in a scandal that may have cost Boeing $40 Billion! I am not proud of the actions of those involved. Competition is needed more in this type of purchase and it brings quality and value up in the future! It is too often that you hear about contracts being "overpriced and under delivered" which is a shame IMO.
Recommended Posts