Comments on: First KC-45 in Germany

By: MHalblaub

MHalblaub — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:38:37 +0000

Dear Matt,
I knew that the KC-45 is to big for the mission, Boeing’s mission but I never get it why that plane is to big for the US Air Force. It’s strange that the same company raising doubt about tarmac strength sold the Air Force lately the much heavier C-17.
According to Boeing’s add the Airbus is bigger and therefore easier to hit. As I know the counter measure equipment on the proposed KC-767 is from Northrop Grumman.

By: Matt Eisler

Matt Eisler — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:59 +0000

This aircraft is for the EU and other countries that bought into it — around 1/3 of the world tanker market. It is not the right tanker for the US Air Force however, with 2/3 of the market control.
It is too big for the mission and bases worldwide, does not protect the crew as well as the KC767 would and falls short on far too many criteria compared to the Boeing plane.
To say that the competition for the KC-X was fair is like saying a French company is honest!

By: Matt Eisler

Matt Eisler — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:37:08 +0000

By: stainlesssteel

stainlesssteel — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:35:24 +0000

You call that a tanker? What a piece of Eurotrash JUNK. How long before this plane falls apart in mid-flight? Not too long I bet. Let’s hope the GAO overturns this terrible contract to EADS/Airbus, and gives it to an American company that has real tanker know-how: Boeing.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:15:53 +0000

Funny how Boeing files a protest for this contract, when they were awarded the CSAR Helo contract under similiar conditions.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:06:17 +0000

This is very interesting, I will want to wait and see what the plane looks like. ;)