No I don’t think EADS is altruistic but poking a finger in Boeings eye must cross their minds.

Also I did say that European workers/unions would have issues with it no doubt and there political hurdles as well but its an interesting concept nevertheless.

Actually if I was EADS I would be sorely tempted to set up the production facility in Alabama anyway for civil cargo production.

Yes I know the French unions especially would be in hysterics about it but there would be a certain poetic nature about the idea. It would make it far easier to respond to future US contracts and stick two fingers up at Boeing! In the end Boeing managed to eliminate all domestic rivals by buying MD and push Lock Mart out of the competitive market (I admit Airbus also shares some of the guilt of pushing MD and Lock Mart out as well). Boeing would hate having a domestic wide body rival as well and was one of the reasons they fought tooth and nail to win the contract.

Boeing can’t stop EADS moving civil a330 cargo conversion to the US…just a thought!:cool:

And it is inferior to the other 20-25 year old engine available in almost every way. The CF-6-80C2 uses less fuel, runs longer on the wing, and has a lower in flight shut down rate. Straight up comparison between a PW powered 767-300ER in airline service with one powered by the GE yields about 5,000 lbs more revenue payload for the GE on a 4,000 mile route, same winds, etc.

I have no association with any engine manufacturer, but it appears to me that the USAF blatantly favors PW, for what reason I cannot figure, since they have practically been run out of the civil market the last 25 or so years. The continue getting sole source tactical fighter contracts, and are going to use the profits to develop the GTF for the civil market in a desperate attempt to regain life.

USAF finally came to their senses on the F16 program, after the GE advantage was so pronounced that it was almost embarassing, but they (USAF) seem to have no shame, or are so beholden to certain politicians on key committees that they have no choice.

Look at the history: USAF unreliable PW engine on F111, USN unreliable PW engine on F-14. Navy F-4 and F-18 programs, all GE powered and were/are model programs. Underpowered PW powered KC-135 re-engined with CFM56 (50% GE), program pays for itself in fuel savings alone, not even accounting for the increased reliability. Now USAF chooses the poorest option on the new tanker…..go figure? Meanwhile, USAF re-engines GE powered C5 with GE engine that they could have had 20 years ago, and which would have already paid for itself in fuel and reliability.

Given that engine choice is a huge decision in a civil program, and is also very controversial right now on the F35 program, its rather amazing that PW seems to be flying under the radar on this order. One wonders who is running the show?

I would add to that, once the GE F110 was available for the F16 it became the engine of choice! Far more F16 run with the GE powerplant.

The thing is a carrier needs a fairly large air search radar to do air traffic control etc, the Invincible class has a BAE SYSTEMS 1022 D band radar. You might as well install the same Volumetric search radar as the S1850 on the Type 45 to maintain commonality. You also need a surface seach radar for navigation and security reasons, again you might as well install ARTISAN for commonality. ARTISAN also has the bonus that it can back up the S1850.

Remember, the 767 is still far more capable than any tanker the RAF currently uses….but we don’t get posters here complaining about lack of RAF tanker capability.

I’m sure if you walked into a mess and offered VC-10/TriStar crews 767 tankers, they’d be thrilled. Then again with its current force, the RAF doesn’t need a lot of tankers. 🙂

Actually we are talking only JUST better then the VC-10 dude!

The figures were clear when the UK selected a330MRTT. A KC-767 operating out of the UK’s tanker base Brize Norton flying to a standard North Sea tow line could operate for ten more minutes then a VC-10. An a330MRTT operating out of Tolouse several hundred miles south of Brize and flying to the same north sea tow line could operate for one hour longer then a VC-10. You just can’t ignore that cold hard fact! Considering how much of a mess Boeing made of the Japanese and Italian tankers I doubt you will find many RAF personel gunning for the 767.

If American tax payers want to burn their tax dollars on an inferior unproven system thats their own funeral! I’m fed up with the whole affair! If MD and Lockheed had stayed in the Airline business EADS wouldn’t of even bothered tendering on the contract. Instead MD allowed itself to be bought out and Lockheed gave up!