Oh, you’re really trying hard to make friends and influence people in here, aren’t you?

Watch your language in future, and don’t poke sticks through the bars of the mod cage.

Then all will be well.

GA

*puts stick away* 🙂

Spain has therefore suggested that the machinery currently at the British factory in Filton, near Bristol, where the plane’s wings are made, be brought to Spain, and the country has even offered to pay the costs of the transfer.

Lemme see.

Is it a good idea to give away the work of the only facility currently manufacturing large scale composite wings for commercial or military freighter aircraft in the UK?

Hand off all that expertise and experience as well as the equipment?

A f**king dreadful idea.

So, yeah, Gordon Brown to sign the deal by the end of the month 🙁

Saying the 330 is perfect for the job because you want to sell 330s is silly.
Listen to the customer, they’ll decide what the correct size is for their requirements.

IMO, the 330 will cost much less over the life of the aircraft, hence why I don’t see size as the particular issue.

It is more how much capability can I get with $XXXX dollars?

[Problem of course being, politicans are all too happy to buy now, and let some other sucker pay for it next term… or the next 10 terms – hence why they are almost certain to buy the 767s… which “have”* a cheaper initial acquisition cost]

*Obviously Boeing are going to eventually screw the design at some point after the dotted line has been signed, and then they’ll fleece the DoD for more money… but it’ll be too late to back out as it would cost more to go A330MRTT at that point.

Again, with your argument, why not buy A380s? Or replace all C-130s with C-17 or A400s?

On what ratio could you replace -135s with A380s?

There is a happy medium, and going to absurd extremes isn’t a great argument either!

not to mention foul language

I guess you’ve never seen the reaction of most engineers when their CATIA/ICEM/Fluent/CFX/ProE/NASTRAN/Abaqus/PATRAN/Compro crashes?

I can assure you there are a more than a few colourful words in the air.

Not until it’s been demonstrated. It remains to be seen what the production model will look like, based upon whatever changes end up being made.

But…. being even handed… the F-35 has not demonstrated anything yet (in that regard).

Unless you are going to take the world of LM et al, and dismiss the word of Suhkoi etc… which is not exactly being objective, is it?

A better argument, but still lacking. I’ve re-shuffled some of you points to better address them.

My argument hasn’t changed… it just has more explanation to it.

This isn’t the issue with the -135, in particular the E models which are the most in need of being replaced. The particular problem with the -135’s aren’t the parts, but the extensive fatigue and corrosion (often acting together). I’ve walked the PDM line multiple times at Tinker and am well aware of this. These tankers needing replacement are melting away due to corrosion. Often times the parts cannibalized are major structural assemblies. These are salvaged off of the bone yard aircraft b/c it’s cheaper than manufacturing new parts.

Bingo. 🙂

Now, on the first point it is the same case for the A330 when you look at the expected time line on the procurement. By the mid-2020’s that line to will be replaced by the A350.

See above, but by 2025 it to will be replaced by the A350.

Yet, that line will be supported commercially for at least another 20 years from now… what is the average lifespan of a freighter? Add that to the line closure date. 🙂

The point made with the examples mentioned is that the airframe risks are low. The folks in Seattle have been mixing and matching since the 60’s with the 707. Now, systems are a different story… Frankenfreighter, emotional arguement, won’t start debating, “So, when did you stop beating your wife…” arguments.

Still think the 767 is low-risk?

Av-week

Also a departure is this boom design that is pictured. The design is more reminiscent of a KC-10 boom rather than the KC-135. It is likely this switch was made to achieve the 1200 gallon per minute offload rate demanded by the KC-X. The boom offered in the last competition, which Boeing lost in February 2008 to a Northrop Grumman/ EADS team, used a ruddervator structure more like the KC-135 boom.

Boeing has been dealing with the flutter issue on its international tanker design, and the wings on this 767-based tanker appear to be significantly longer than a baseline 767-200 commercial model.

How many changes is that Boeing have made inside a couple of years? I’ve no problem with changes, “only a fool doesn’t change their mind” and all that, but it does mean they do not yet fully understand the aircraft.

You simply cannot turn around and say that is equal in risk to the A330MRTT which is already flying and transferring fuel very well.

The informed debate will be based on the evaluation criteria laid out in the RFP and how one side or the other best meets the requirements laid out there in.

Please. Its political football now.

Whatever the USAF get now, be it the B767 or N-G KC-30, they would almost certainly have got a better deal* if the politicans had stayed out of it.

*they may have gotten their replacements in the air before the -135s fall out of it.