CALL911

iTrader: (17)

So for those that haven't heard yet, the new tanker for the Air Force to replace the ancient KC-135's is going to be the Airbus/Northrop Grumman design designated the KC-45A. It was competing with Boeings 767 design.

Personally, I think the Air Force has made a wise decision on this one. I think the Airbus design was superior to Boeings design, as in almost every aspect the Airbus is more capable as it is larger and can carry many more passengers and cargo, and fuel. The only thing the Boeing design had over the Airbus design was that because of it being smaller it could land at more airfields, and wouldn't take up as much room.

Also, I think the Air Force has gotten ripped off by Boeing personally as they already bought WAY too many C-17's IMO. But thats another topic. Perhaps it played another factor though in thier decision.


Here's some pics;

Here was Boeings 767 design that lost;


Here's the Airbus (KC-45A)

Don't worry, it won't be painted orange like this one

2002t/a06

iTrader: (2)

sweet. thanks for the info!

jay_99z

iTrader: (5)

I'm glad that one won. As a C-17 guy ......I can tell you that dealing with Boeing sucks.

Good stuff.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

The C-17 is a fine aircraft, but it was designed for intra-theatre operations. I'm sure you know being a C-17 guy from Charleston AFB, that many C-17 missions are spent carrying cargo accross the pond. They can't carry as many pallets as a C-5 or a KC-10, and are gas hogs, so they usually have to get refueled to do so, or land a few places along the way, making them NOT ideal for this type of mission at all. This disgusts me as in the AF's state of cutting jobs and money crunch we simply didn't need that many C-17's, and I believe Boeing had their hand deep into the AF's pocket as they just kept selling more and more of them.

Furthermore, Boeing already got caught trying to rip off the AF a couple years ago with the 767 design, and many people were jailed for it.

All the more reason I am happy with its wise desicion to go with the Airbus design, even if it is French.

jay_99z

iTrader: (5)

I don't have as much of a problem with the AC as with the company. I came from C-5's so I can appreciate the MC rate and all of the positives it has.

It gets old having to ask them for their "secret" info. **** that should be put into the TO so that we can do our job. But......I guess that would run them out of a job. Actually giving the technicians info after they do their latest mods would be great.

jmill96Z

iTrader: (3)

Airbus sucks. We'll never see those planes. Just look at the 380. Who would have thought that Northrop Grumman would get another contract??????

PotentialZ28

How big is that thing, it looks huge, aint it just like the military, replace millions of parts on an aircraft and then make plans to replace it.

WECIV

C17 could be really useful if you are fighting the PRC out of rather smallish islands over long ranges. Smaller KC could as well.

W

JUICED96Z

iTrader: (2)

IMHO Air Bus sucks compared to Boeing and I work on Boeing aircraft every day

Air Bus is nice because it has so many back-up systems, I mean on the civi versions there is a computer to flush the lav.

Down side, its a throw away airplane, not a lot of structure to it, if you have to scrap one, you pull the engines, interior, and avionics.

For Boeings there is a lot more money tied up in the structure and more structure so people don't want to just go around scraping them (for proof I give you Boeing freighters that the big package guys are flying like the 727's that are still around because they are built like tanks).

In the end they last a long time because they are built so beefy. Same with most american designed big aircraft.

Will be interesting to see if this bird lasts as long as the 135. Not bashing the bus, still good airplanes.


Looks like an A 300 if you ask me.

hawaiiboysz

iTrader: (4)

They just need to do it already. I have been a -135 guy for 11 yrs RC-135 to be exact then soon be going to Macdill to work tankers. As a RC guy I think they need a bigger airframe. All the equip on board is tearing the jets up. Plus you can barely move about up there. A bigger airframe would be ideal but buy the time that rolls around I will be retired and UAV's will have taken over the mission.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Lol, you haven't read much on this have you? They have already made some, and made several refuelings with them during the testing stages. Northrop Grumman got the contract because their name is all over any of the newest successfull DOD aircraft systems made in the last 15 years (F-22, F-35 ect.). Boeing has made some fine aircraft, no doubt about it. But Grumman is leading the way now, and hasn't been recently charged with trying to rip off the Air Force with the 767 design.

It is big. Bigger than the 767 design, bigger than the KC-135 (not as big as the KC-10 though). All that means is more. More fuel for the fight, more pallets to be delivered, more passengers and medievac capability. I'm trying to ignore the fact you are trying to say we should have kept the KC-135's around. Yes, they have been upgraded a million times, but we had to as most of them were made in the 50's! Next to the B-52 (which also has been upgraded tons of times), the KC-135's are the oldest planes in the fleet, and are in severe need of replacement. Why else would the broke Air Force spend this kind of money right now on these new tankers? Its because we are in need of a new, more capable tanker right now more than ever.

Again, I think the Airbus is the better design as it just offers more than the Boeing design did.

BTW, its based off an A330, not an A300.

jmill96Z

iTrader: (3)

Contractors putting bids in for an acft have to make a certain amount of prototypes for test purposes. I'm talking about mass production of the acft.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

The A330 has already been in production. And they won't even have to fully produce them, as they ship them to Northrop after only being completed say 70% (this is just a guestimate), and then Grumman finishes the rest of them. I know Airbus has had issues with some of their larger aircraft being completed on time, but the A330 to my knowledge has already been around for a short period of time.

Either way, it's going to be a while before the tanker is fully operational and they start actually replacing the KC-135's with it, but that was to be expected with either of the contenders.

Pneumothorax

Does anyone else seem to think Bombers (in general) are outdated? I mean when are we going to carpet bomb our enemies now days? If so, why has so much emphasis been put on smarter bombs?

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Well, they are already phazing out the F-117A, and the B-52 is the oldest aircraft in the USAF inventory, but its still very effective and can be matched up with smartbombs. The B-1B is probably used now more than any other bomber, and the B-2 is probably the most top notch bomber in the world.

The Air Force has stated publicly here and there that after the new tanker has been decided, their next priority would be some high speed, high altitude percision bomber, but that was about the extent of it. Most likely it will be one of those top secret deals that doesn't actually surface for years though.

brad8266

iTrader: (23)

This contract seems fishy, especially after watching the house defense commitee talk about it yesterday on C-span. They are not happy about how that procurement happened.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Thats probably just because Boeing is throwing a fit, and putting out protests. Which in all honesty isn't that crazy since both companies had planned protests before the decision was made in case either one of them didn't get the deal.

The better, more capable aircraft design won in the end, and frankly I am very glad for the outcome. I never liked the Boeing design, especially after they tried ripping off the Air Force with it a few years back. Thats what was shady for sure.

brad8266

iTrader: (23)

What I dont get though is why the AF chose the larger, cargo carrying aircraft from northrop when the RFP stated they wanted mainly a tanker, not a tanker/cargo plane. The larger plane does not seem to fit into what the RFP called for.

If the RFP stated that the AF wanted a tanker/cargo carrier then I am sure boeing would have proposed one instead of the small tanker they did propose.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Its the whole "big picture" you might not be seeing. The A330 will provide more fuel, so it will be more a tanker than the 767 ever could. But the thing that put the AF over the top is the fact that the A330 gives them not just more fuel, but more capability.

Being a current crewmember on the largest tanker in the fleet (KC-10) thats even larger than the A330, I know better than most that being a multi-role tanker such as the KC-10 and the A330 expands the capability. The AF knows this as well. Sure it can offload gas in bigger quantities than the 767, but it also can go farther, deliver more cargo, and personell at the same time.

PotentialZ28

Thats all good and everything but that is what they wanted the KC-10 for, and I never see them hauling troops or more then 2 pallets of cargo. The only troops ive ever seen a KC-10 haul are the New England Patriot cheerleaders. We have cargo planes for a reason and tankers for a reason. This is just a waste of money if you ask me. Hell, ive never seen a KC-135 stuck anywhere because its broke.