• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Air Force Tanker Drama Over (Boeing Wins)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The second spec was more politcally driven as a punishment to Boeing. This last one was in line with the original needs.

A short runway tanker.

The A330 is not a short runway with a full load
 
Genx87 said:
How do they handle this with other aircraft? Surely other 50 year old designs would have the same problem right?
Click to expand...

It is not that they cant do it, it just becomes more and more expensive to do so. This is case of pay me now or pay me later. The procurement for these new aircraft are going to happen over the next several decades, so they will be taking care of aging aircraft.


And the new aircraft will be far more capable as they get better fuel economy, carry 3x more cargo, 2x more people, take off at 3x more air fields, will be able to move fuel to a different tanker in flight, and fuel more than 1 aircraft at at time.

These things simply need to go as they are outdated and 50 years old on average.
 
dainthomas said:
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.
Click to expand...

If bigger is better then yes, but for the average case it is too big. The kc-7c7 still carries more fuel than needed for the average refuel sortie. However the 330 might be a good replacement for the kc-10
 
ppatin said:
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.
Click to expand...

IT carries more fuel, but the kc-767 still carries far more fuel than it needs to on average. And given that they both can take off from 3x more airstrips, max capacity becomes less of an issue.
 
charrison said:
IT carries more fuel, but the kc-767 still carries far more fuel than it needs to on average. And given that they both can take off from 3x more airstrips, max capacity becomes less of an issue.
Click to expand...

The tanker version of the 767 might be the better choice. I never said it wasn't, I just get tired of this "buy American" nonsense as if military procurement was supposed to be corporate welfare for Boeing and their unions. It just bugs me how it's obvious that politics have taken total precedence over operational requirements.
 
charrison said:
If bigger is better then yes, but for the average case it is too big. The kc-7c7 still carries more fuel than needed for the average refuel sortie. However the 330 might be a good replacement for the kc-10
Click to expand...

Much to my surprise the KC-10 can carry a LOT more fuel than the tanker version of the A330. I assume that's because of fuel tankage limits rather than take of weight limitations, although I haven't looked into it. A 777-200F conversion would probably be the best KC-10 replacement, in addition to being an excellent cargo hauler for when units are deploying.

I know that a long time ago Boeing had a play to add folding wing tips to the 777 so that it could fit in smaller airports. No airline wanted to deal with the additional weight, cost and complexity so the option was dropped very early on, but I wonder if it would make sense to bring it back for a military version?
 
ppatin said:
The tanker version of the 767 might be the better choice. I never said it wasn't, I just get tired of this "buy American" nonsense as if military procurement was supposed to be corporate welfare for Boeing and their unions. It just bugs me how it's obvious that politics have taken total precedence over operational requirements.
Click to expand...

Why should we buy our manufacturing and R&D to other countries?

By your same logic why don't we move to all Russian tech, surely they will sell us military hardware cheaper than American companies?

🙄

There's nothing wrong with investing in our industrial infrastructure.
 
senseamp said:
I don't even know why they were even considering a European plane and wasted so much time. Our tax dollars at time of high unemployment going to build Airbuses in EU? Crazy.
Click to expand...
It's not often that you and I are on the same page, but I agree with you totally. Both companies want to build what they consider their most profitable unit so both companies have been gaming the specifications, but at the end of the day at least some of the money had to flow to Europe for it to be worth Airbus's while. More money (and jobs) should remain in the USA with Boeing and we'll have the security of having all the manufacturing and all the IP in this country. And I don't see Airbus moving any other capacity to America unless we're paying them to do so.

Also, if the Airbus 330 takes up 25% more room and yet has to take off with a partial load for short runways, it's easy to see that we could easily end up with less actual tanker capacity at a given base. Another plus is that smaller planes can be in more places with the same amount of fuel. The only big advantage I see for the A330 might be in deploying to theater.
 
Good thing we're spending millions on new tanker aircraft to fuel the 60 year old B-52s we're using today that do a better job than today's bombers.
 
theamericans075 said:
Good thing we're spending millions on new tanker aircraft to fuel the 60 year old B-52s we're using today that do a better job than today's bombers.
Click to expand...

They refuel alot more than bombers.

And that depends on what you define as better. The BUFFS dont go in until air defences are reduced.
 
senseamp said:
No, the planes would be built in the EU by Airbus and converted to tankers in Alabama, so it would not be creating as many jobs as it would if planes were built here too.
Secondly, it is in the national interest of the US to keep defense jobs and capabilities here.
As a US taxpayer, I want my tax dollars to procure American gear and employ Americans, unless it's simply not available here, which is not the case with these tankers. I don't see France procuring Boeing tankers.
Click to expand...

Maybe have a mandate that all weapons manufacturing must be in the USA?

70% of all foreign aid to Israel must be spent in the USA - providing 50,000 Americans with jobs.
 
novasatori said:
Why should we buy our manufacturing and R&D to other countries?

By your same logic why don't we move to all Russian tech, surely they will sell us military hardware cheaper than American companies?

🙄

There's nothing wrong with investing in our industrial infrastructure.
Click to expand...

If we refuse to even consider the A330 tanker then we've basically given Boeing a total monopoly in the future. That'll really motivate them to submit competitive bids. The purpose of military procurement is NOT corporate welfare or job creation, it is to buy our servicemen the best equipment for the best price. If the 767 based tanker is a better plane then buy it because of that, do not buy it because it comes with a Made in the USA sticker.

BTW, all modern airliners are assembled with parts from all over the world. Here's a crazy bit of trivia, the Airbus A380 actually has a higher percentage of American parts (by dollar value) than the 787 will.
 
ppatin said:
BTW, all modern airliners are assembled with parts from all over the world. Here's a crazy bit of trivia, the Airbus A380 actually has a higher percentage of American parts (by dollar value) than the 787 will.
Click to expand...

Got a source for that? There is a whole lot of the 787 structure built in America, not as much as on previous aircraft but still quite a bit. I don't know of any major structure of the A380 built in the US. Also a lot of the 787 systems are built by Honeywell, GE Aviation (Smiths), Rockwell Collins, Goodrich, etc all of which are based in the US. Both aircraft have options for US or UK built engines.
 
ppatin said:
If we refuse to even consider the A330 tanker then we've basically given Boeing a total monopoly in the future. That'll really motivate them to submit competitive bids. The purpose of military procurement is NOT corporate welfare or job creation, it is to buy our servicemen the best equipment for the best price. If the 767 based tanker is a better plane then buy it because of that, do not buy it because it comes with a Made in the USA sticker.

BTW, all modern airliners are assembled with parts from all over the world. Here's a crazy bit of trivia, the Airbus A380 actually has a higher percentage of American parts (by dollar value) than the 787 will.
Click to expand...

Are we refusing to consider or that the project managers of the A330 tanker have determined that their concept will not meet the specs.

Nothing is stopping NG or Lockheed from bidding in the future
 
Zorba said:
Got a source for that? There is a whole lot of the 787 structure built in America, not as much as on previous aircraft but still quite a bit. I don't know of any major structure of the A380 built in the US. Also a lot of the 787 systems are built by Honeywell, GE Aviation (Smiths), Rockwell Collins, Goodrich, etc all of which are based in the US. Both aircraft have options for US or UK built engines.
Click to expand...

http://www.custac.buffalo.edu/content/documents/OccasionalPaper30.pdf

Page 3, 3rd paragraph: "Foreign content for the 787 might run as high as 70%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#International_manufacturing_presence

"For example, one version of the A380 has 51% American content in terms of work share value."
 
We are talking about 767, not 787 here. And 787 has seen its share of problems linked to being sourced from all over the world. Plus these tankers are being procured to last another 40-50 years, do you really want to depend on having good relations with other countries for that entire time. Maybe they disagree with some of our military actions and their citizens vote to deny us access to spare parts, what then? 50 years is a long time. We need to be militarily self reliant, and not let this "free trade" BS cloud our judgment.
 
European militaries are much more dependent on the US for spare parts than the other way around. Buying an A330 based tanker would not change that.
 
ppatin said:
European militaries are much more dependent on the US for spare parts than the other way around. Buying an A330 based tanker would not change that.
Click to expand...

They can make themselves dependent if they want to, but that doesn't mean we should make ourselves dependent on European consensus to keep our Air Force flying.
 
ppatin said:
http://www.custac.buffalo.edu/content/documents/OccasionalPaper30.pdf

Page 3, 3rd paragraph: "Foreign content for the 787 might run as high as 70%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#International_manufacturing_presence

"For example, one version of the A380 has 51% American content in terms of work share value."
Click to expand...

Those two numbers were not calculated the same way at all, or by the same people, etc, so they are a pretty worthless comparison.

The 787 might get up to 70% foreign, if the operators chooses all foreign system (when there are options), Rolls Royce engines and a foreign produced interior. Likewise on the A380 if all optional parts are bought from US suppliers. So it a best case/worse case situation. But again, the numbers were not calculated the same way so the comparison is pointless.

Also from your 787 like "1 While Airbus also operates with industrial offset agreements, these agreements are typically for older Airbus products. Newer models are more often sold with indirect offsets (e.g. the provision of landing rights to major EU airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick)."

So your source thinks that Airbus doesn't use foreign sourced parts nearly as much as Boeing.

Also from your Airbus link, notice where their largest US office is, makes you go hmmm.
 
Last edited:
senseamp said:
We are talking about 767, not 787 here. And 787 has seen its share of problems linked to being sourced from all over the world. Plus these tankers are being procured to last another 40-50 years, do you really want to depend on having good relations with other countries for that entire time. Maybe they disagree with some of our military actions and their citizens vote to deny us access to spare parts, what then? 50 years is a long time. We need to be militarily self reliant, and not let this "free trade" BS cloud our judgment.
Click to expand...
Agree totally. Although Europe is much more dependent on the US for spare parts, Europe is also much less likely to need its military and much more likely to penalize us for offenses real or imagined.
 
Seems like a good choice. When we launch cruise missiles to blow up the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, will Airbus be providing the United States with planes? No. We should not be dependent upon our future enemies for an essential and irreplaceable part.
 
I think what Charrison has been saying is pretty spot-on. He is basically stating the basic Air Force rationale... which should be welcomed, since clarity of mission/benchmarks isn't always as forthcoming as it should be. Both airplanes are vastly superior in virtually every category to the aircraft they would replace. The question is: How much is too much and what is the Air Force willing to pay? The costs aren't limited to the purchase price... the bigger plane takes up more space on the tarmac, needs bigger hangars, burns more fuel, etc, etc. Gotta factor in those costs.

I'm not suggesting that having a single bidder is the best outcome or that the US should always "buy American" at all costs.

Northrop dropped out because it isn't willing to gamble $100s of millions when the competition isn't tipping in favor the larger Airbus. Smart decision probably. The
Air Force has determined that it favors a smaller aircraft... if you don't think you can compete, don't.

Besides, European protest on this matter rings hollow. A while back the A400M cargo "beat" the C-17 to become their future airlifter... even though the Boeing was proven and the European aircraft didn't exist yet. Protectionism or fair competition? They wanted to develop a new cargo plane to keep their industry busy, and it was their governments' prerogative to do so.
 
And EADS wants to try to run this alone without Northrup.

Then the Russian UAC is going to team up with a US company -that will be intereting to find out which one is willing to dirty up their reputation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top