New USAF Tanker...Surprise!! Surprise!!!

[Garry Russell]

Not

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12572089

[emfrat]

Yes, call me a cynical oul' fogey if you will, but somehow I was left quite unruffled by this "news" too...

ATB
MikeW

[Garry Russell]

it was destined to go round in circles until Boeing got it one way or another

The might have considered a design based on the 787 but they need it before the end of the century

[Chris Trott]

Having been following this one, it wasn't a case of "until Boeing got it". In fact, the politicians over here tried everything they could to bias the competition against Boeing since the second RFP went out almost 5 years ago.

Here's the issue - the US Air Force wants to replace their KC-135's, not the KC-10's right now. That's been the plan since 1980-something when the KC-X and KC-Y competitions were first put on the long range calendar by the USAF. The KC-Y competition (originally to be bid in 2010) would be to replace the KC-10. The KC-X specifications as released in the first, second, and third RFP's was that size was a major consideration of the winning aircraft. They didn't want an A330 or 777-sized aircraft. They wanted something not much bigger than the KC-135 because they wanted to use the same bases and have the same amount of parking space as previous. The USAF end users were pissed when the first Boeing contract was voided, they were *really* pissed when the second one went to EADS, and now they're finally hopeful they'll get the aircraft they've been asking for all along and that EADS chose not to actually try to compete for.

Had EADS wanted this contract, they would have offered a design based on the A300-600, not the A330-200. They would've probably won it outright and Boeing wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in the end because the A300-600 is more capable than the 767-300 or the 767NG that will be the KC-46A when it comes to carrying payload for range because it's got more fuel tankage on it than the 767.

[DaveB]

I think we're all pretty aware of the story behind the tender Chris and of what the USAF wanted and what was offered but in the end, while it may be seen as a slightly jaundiced view, I don't think anyone on this side of the pond.. outside the U.S. for that matter, is surprised by the 'final' outcome. As has been said, this was destined to go around until Boeing finally got the contract. Perhaps you have to be 'outside' the U.S. to fully understand this At least the USAF will have tankers the right size for their parking space

ATB

DaveB

[Tonks]

Lets just hope they don't have to wait as long as the Italians have had to so far for their 767 tanker!

[Hot_Charlie]

Lets just hope they don't have to wait as long as the Italians have had to so far for their 767 tanker!

How old will the 135 fleet be by then?

[simondix]

Nearly as old as the B52's they have to refuel? Mind you they still have an Airforce to refuel.

[Chris Trott]

Lets just hope they don't have to wait as long as the Italians have had to so far for their 767 tanker!

Might wanna check history there Tonks.

The KC-767 was launched in 2002 and ordered by the Italians and Japanese. All four Japanese KC-767's were delivered by December 2009. The only reason the Italian aircraft haven't been delivered is because of the Italians - they keep making changes to the planes. The wing flutter issue was resolved in 2008 and the first aircraft was delivered in January after the other changes were implemented.

The A330 MRTT was launched in 2004 by the Australians and the first aircraft still hasn't been delivered and that aircraft has now been delayed after loosing it's boom in midair while refueling a Portuguese F-16.

[Chris Trott]

Nearly as old as the B52's they have to refuel? Mind you they still have an Airforce to refuel.

Actually older. The "oldest" B-52 in the fleet was built in 1960. All of the KC-135's were built by 1965, and most of the KC-135R's were originally built early in the production (from 1954 to 1958). However, the KC-135R modification basically made them "brand new" aircraft, so the number of hours on the airframes aren't necessarily reflective of how old the planes are.