Air Force Tanker Drama Over (Boeing Wins)

[BigDH01]

That isnt stopping the B52's that are scheduled to be in service until 2045. Or how about the C-130s? Those are also 1950s designs.

I would say the Air Force is being optimistic but, amazingly enough, the BUFF has a better mission capable rate than the newer heavy bombers.

 

[Genx87]

Wing spars start to get cracks in them over time. Once that happens you can fix for a little while.. but eventually it will be too far gone to repair and too dangerous to haul 200,000 pounds of jet-a. Just way to expensive to replace a spar. Otherwise the plane could be outfitted with new engines and new avionics forever.

How do they handle this with other aircraft? Surely other 50 year old designs would have the same problem right?

 

[K1052]

How do they handle this with other aircraft? Surely other 50 year old designs would have the same problem right?

They buy new planes. It's not like Lockheed churned out a few thousand C-130s in 1956 and shut down the line forever.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How do they handle this with other aircraft? Surely other 50 year old designs would have the same problem right?

Many A/C become retired when it is not considered to be cost effective to refurbish them.

The C130 and B52 were designed for military use.
And there have been multiple versions - each incorporating newer technology and material designs.
The KC135 is a derivative of the 707.

The KC135 can not carry enough fuel to support some of the larger USAF aircraft requirements.
That is one reascon for the KC10 and KC17.
The KC10 is a derivative of the DC10.

The AF also wanted a tanker that could handle shorter runways

 

[theeedude]

They buy new planes. It's not like Lockheed churned out a few thousand C-130s in 1956 and shut down the line forever.

Why not? I would think they would reconfigure the production line equipment to build other planes, not sit idle for 40 years. Plus the people with expertise to build those planes are all retired, you'd have to do a lot of retraining.

 

[dainthomas]

Sure, we have to give them a "shot," as long as they don't actually win
Also, Boeing has bigger more modern planes, 767 just fits USAF requirements better, and it is going to be upgraded with modern avionics, etc. Boeing won fair and square, just pissing me off we wasted so much time even considering EADS bid and this drama.

Are you joking? Boeing lost fair and square then whined until the AF requirements were modified to suit Boeing's needs.

And, as stated in the link, our European allies will now have better tankers. I guess the need to prop up Boeing is greater than the need for our military to not have second-rate hardware.

 

[theeedude]

Are you joking? Boeing lost fair and square then whined until the AF requirements were modified to suit Boeing's needs.

And, as stated in the link, our European allies will now have better tankers. I guess the need to prop up Boeing is greater than the need for our military to not have second-rate hardware.

I don't see Airbus as being better than Boeing. They both meet AF mission requirements, and it's better to keep all the jobs in the US than to split it with the EU. As far as European allies having "better" tankers, great for them. We are all in NATO anyways, so NATO will have a good mix of tankers and not put all eggs in one basket.

 

[K1052]

Why not? I would think they would reconfigure the production line equipment to build other planes, not sit idle for 40 years. Plus the people with expertise to build those planes are all retired, you'd have to do a lot of retraining.

Because they have been building them (newer variants) for almost that long. The C-130J is the latest model and is still in production.

 

[her209]

Secondly, the US military is not a jobs program, its sole purpose should be to protect the national interests of the United States. Military procurement's only goal should be to get them the best equipment at the best price, and if that means buying European planes then so be it. It's not like they never buy military gear from the US.

The amount of taxpayer money wasted in the defense industry obscene. For example, how much money went towards R&D of FCS, a $159B program?

 

[ichy]

Are you joking? Boeing lost fair and square then whined until the AF requirements were modified to suit Boeing's needs.

They didn't just whine, they first tried to get an overpriced, no-bid lease contract. What they did was so sleazy and illegal that one of their executives went to prison and Boeing ended up getting fined $600 million! Go to wiki, look up Darleen Druyun for more details on what happened.

 

[theeedude]

Because they have been building them (newer variants) for almost that long. The C-130J is the latest model and is still in production.

Yeah, but KC-135 production already stopped decades ago, so it's not the same as C-130. That production line and expertise is long gone. It would be like asking GM to build a 65 Camaro again.

 

[K1052]

Are you joking? Boeing lost fair and square then whined until the AF requirements were modified to suit Boeing's needs.

And, as stated in the link, our European allies will now have better tankers. I guess the need to prop up Boeing is greater than the need for our military to not have second-rate hardware.

I'd blame the Pentagon more than Boeing or Airbus. They seem to be the ones who are having trouble running the procurement. The GAO also agreed with Boeing that the bid process as managed by the AF put them at an unfair disadvantage.

 

[K1052]

Yeah, but KC-135 production already stopped decades ago, so it's not the same as C-130. That production line and expertise is long gone. It would be like asking GM to build a 65 Camaro again.

Because the airframe it was based on is long out of production, which is why Boeing submitted the KC-767 which it is already making for Italy and Japan.

 

[ElFenix]

Why not? I would think they would reconfigure the production line equipment to build other planes, not sit idle for 40 years. Plus the people with expertise to build those planes are all retired, you'd have to do a lot of retraining.

the C130 is still in production with a full redesign in 1999 (it looks the same but isn't the same aircraft at all). so no idea how old the oldest airframe still in service with the US is. the newest airframe is probably fairly new.

How do they handle this with other aircraft? Surely other 50 year old designs would have the same problem right?

it's not the design, it's the wear on the airframe. there has been less wear on the B-52s than the KC-135s. further, apparently the B52s have undergone significant rebuilding several times in the last 40 years. the cost curves are different when you're doing it to less than 100 planes than the 500+ of the KC-135.

 

[bruceb]

We don't need or want foreign made equipment in our military. Who knows what might be hidden that could be used against us if we went to war with them ? ?
For ex: planes we sold to middle east countries, while fully functional, have some features left out for National Security reasons. And you can be sure we have a way to disable or evade the missiles those planes can fire, even though we made the missles. And then there is a matter of parts. The Air Force already has Boeing tankers, so some of the parts in inventory might be usable in the newer ones. And we are better off keeping the Jobs and Parts suppliers here in the US for the economy. Airbus is a Government Subsidized operation, that likes to cry FOUL anytime they can't "Win a Contract" ... Their planes, in my view are Garbage and I will never want to fly on one of them.

 

[Carmen813]

That isnt stopping the B52's that are scheduled to be in service until 2045. Or how about the C-130s? Those are also 1950s designs.

KC-135s get used a lot more than B-52s. Like the C-130, the B52 flying today is much more advanced than the one your grandpa flew in They have been essentially completely redesigned.

The real Air Force problem is it's airlift capacity. We should be cranking on C-17s like mad men.

 

[Schadenfroh]

We don't need or want foreign made equipment in our military. Who knows what might be hidden that could be used against us if we went to war with them ? ?

Too late, plenty of it in there already. Care to guess how many parts on the modern versions of the UH60 are foreign made? I am sure the same goes for many "American made" aircraft.

There is no reason to think that our NATO allies will become hostile to us during the life cycle of this tanker.

Northrop Grumman (the real winner) is an American defense contractor, by the way.

 

[JSt0rm]

what if we removed fear from our lives and had no need for these in the first place?

 

[bctbct]

Boeing's product is inferior in a lot of ways. The A330 is bigger, can carry more fuel and is a more modern airplane than the 767. If we simply hand these kinds of competitions to Boeing then they'll have no reason to submit competitive bids and will rip off the US taxpayers. Since there's no domestic competition we have to allow EADS a realistic shot at winning.

Boeings plane is what the AF asked for.

Apparently you just want to talk out your ass and have done zero research.

The AB is so fucking huge the existing tarmac space would not handle the storage, let alone fit into existing hangars.

The AB proposal did not give them a plane they wanted or more importantly, needed. The AF saw it as a new toy that they wanted so they manipulated the bidding process which is why the bid was cancelled.

IIRC the Boeing was cheaper to the tax payer also.

 

[ichy]

You're accusing me of talking out my ass but you can't even make a coherent post.

Boeings plane is what the AF asked for.

The AB proposal did not give them a plane they wanted or more importantly, needed. The AF saw it as a new toy that they wanted so they manipulated the bidding process which is why the bid was cancelled.

Make up your mind, did the Air Force want the plane or not?

Also, ramp space is hardly the overriding issue that you claim it is. Read the "performance" section of the following article:

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/TankerComparisonv1.pdf

 

[bctbct]

You're accusing me of talking out my ass but you can't even make a coherent post.





Make up your mind, did the Air Force want the plane or not?

Also, ramp space is hardly the overriding issue that you claim it is. Read the "performance" section of the following article:

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/TankerComparisonv1.pdf

The AF wrote a spec for the plane. They asked for X amount of planes to be stored on a certain sized area. They asked for a plane that could haul X amount of fuel and have a certain range.

Boeing delivered all that with the 767, AB proposed a plane that far exceeded those specs.

The AB is so huge it would not fit any of the current bases. The additional infatructure costs would be massive.

As someone who pays for this shit I am they axed the AB deal.

The AF brass wanted the AB, much like a large portion of US servicemen drive foreign vehicles.

Edit: Who cares what the pilots think, they fly a 50 year old plane, any new platform will suit their needs.

 

[ichy]

The AB is so huge it would not fit any of the current bases. The additional infatructure costs would be massive.

Now you're talking out your ass. Bases that can handle C-5s can certainly handle an A330. Ramp space isn't a non-issue, but when a plane takes up 25% more ramp space while hauling 20% more gas than its competitor that's hardly deal-breaker. I suspect that the "AF brass" (the people who actually have to plan wars based on the capabilities of these planes) are better qualified to judge which tanker is better than you or I. As for the fact that US servicemen drive a lot of foreign vehicles, that is beyond irrelevant.

 

[bctbct]

Now you're talking out your ass. Bases that can handle C-5s can certainly handle an A330. Ramp space isn't a non-issue, but when a plane takes up 25% more ramp space while hauling 20% more gas than its competitor that's hardly deal-breaker. I suspect that the "AF brass" (the people who actually have to plan wars based on the capabilities of these planes) are better qualified to judge which tanker is better than you or I. As for the fact that US servicemen drive a lot of foreign vehicles, that is beyond irrelevant.

me thinks you are just trolling the thread.

AB is too big, end of story.

 

[MotF Bane]

what if we removed fear from our lives and had no need for these in the first place?

Um, yeah, that's a bit of a pipe dream.

 

[Zorba]

Now you're talking out your ass. Bases that can handle C-5s can certainly handle an A330. Ramp space isn't a non-issue, but when a plane takes up 25% more ramp space while hauling 20% more gas than its competitor that's hardly deal-breaker. I suspect that the "AF brass" (the people who actually have to plan wars based on the capabilities of these planes) are better qualified to judge which tanker is better than you or I. As for the fact that US servicemen drive a lot of foreign vehicles, that is beyond irrelevant.

By your logic of more = better, tell why airlines continue to order 737s instead of only ordering 777s.

The air force wrote a spec for what they needed, for some unknown reason they decided to ignore that spec when they selected the A330. Then when they rewrote the spec, it was again written for a smaller aircraft. The Air Force did not need or want a bigger tanker and as I tax payer I did not want the much higher life cycle cost.

BTW: Jet fuel is not "gas"