http://defensetech.org/2008/02/21/af-has-kc-x-backup-plan/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 25 May 2012 23:29:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://defensetech.org/2008/02/21/af-has-kc-x-backup-plan/#comment-175285 Conrad The Crazed Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:25:49 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3848#comment-175285 I would speculate NG's odds are being supported by Boeing's previous involvement in 'tanker-gate'. However, simply slapping some NG subcomponent work into what is essentially an Airbus does NOT, IMHO, necessarily satisfy the 'buy America' mandate DoD is required to follow. If we start refueling our Air Force with European tankers...next thing you know we'll be ferrying the President around in a European helicopter....oh wait.... I would speculate NG’s odds are being supported by Boeing’s previous involvement in ‘tanker-gate’. However, simply slapping some NG subcomponent work into what is essentially an Airbus does NOT, IMHO, necessarily satisfy the ‘buy America’ mandate DoD is required to follow. If we start refueling our Air Force with European tankers…next thing you know we’ll be ferrying the President around in a European helicopter.…oh wait.…

]]> http://defensetech.org/2008/02/21/af-has-kc-x-backup-plan/#comment-175284 Smith Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:20:25 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3848#comment-175284 It's a shame that the selection process is more political than it is about the technical aspects of the actual aircraft. Both are in use - the Aussies bought the Airbus and the Japanese and Italians bought the Boeing. I still vote for the 767 - despite the larger size, the Airbus still only has one boom. Better to get a smaller, cheaper aircraft and more of them in order to get more booms in the sky. And it's a waste to transfer much cargo with tankers - the airframes need to maintain a tanking mission for four decades, so putting hours on them for non-tanking missions is discouraged. It’s a shame that the selection process is more political than it is about the technical aspects of the actual aircraft. Both are in use — the Aussies bought the Airbus and the Japanese and Italians bought the Boeing.
I still vote for the 767 — despite the larger size, the Airbus still only has one boom. Better to get a smaller, cheaper aircraft and more of them in order to get more booms in the sky. And it’s a waste to transfer much cargo with tankers — the airframes need to maintain a tanking mission for four decades, so putting hours on them for non-tanking missions is discouraged.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2008/02/21/af-has-kc-x-backup-plan/#comment-175283 JE Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:59:54 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3848#comment-175283 as a guess, I'd say that one of the main arguments against the 797 bwb superjet is that it doesn't exist.. as a guess, I’d say that one of the main arguments against the 797 bwb superjet is that it doesn’t exist..

]]> http://defensetech.org/2008/02/21/af-has-kc-x-backup-plan/#comment-175282 SMSgt Mac Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:40:51 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3848#comment-175282 When this first shaped up and Northrop Grumman decided to stay in the competition, I thought it didn't have a chance. I have to say that given the relative quality of the PR war going on in the end game, NG must have a pretty good shot at it. NG is talking about relative scores in the evaluation criteria used, and Boeing is talking 'jobs'. Yep, they're going to need that fund the way things are going. When this first shaped up and Northrop Grumman decided to stay in the competition, I thought it didn’t have a chance. I have to say that given the relative quality of the PR war going on in the end game, NG must have a pretty good shot at it. NG is talking about relative scores in the evaluation criteria used, and Boeing is talking ‘jobs’.
Yep, they’re going to need that fund the way things are going.

]]> http://defensetech.org/2008/02/21/af-has-kc-x-backup-plan/#comment-175281 stephen russell Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:31:38 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=3848#comment-175281 Why not use the Blended Wing 797 superjet as next Gen Tanker. Best bet for 900 mph subsonic tanker for USAF. Or use a fleet of decomm Air Cargo 747s. or 777 jets. Very doable, Wash DC. Think Blended Wing Tanker. More jobs. Why not use the Blended Wing 797 superjet as next Gen Tanker.
Best bet for 900 mph subsonic tanker for USAF.
Or use a fleet of decomm Air Cargo 747s.
or 777 jets.
Very doable, Wash DC.
Think Blended Wing Tanker.
More jobs.

]]>