Look, if I took a kid in to do my job – which is in no way safety related – and they talked to a customer of my employer, I pretty much guarantee I’d be fired.

Your kid would not be allowed to say the virtual equivalent of hello to a customer?

Doesn’t sound like somewhere I’d like to work tbh. 🙂

As usual, the panties in a twist brigade are up in arms.

No one was hurt, there is no evidence that the ATC was not safely functioning as usual, and the pilots in question were not bothered.

From what I gather, not one of the messages was ever complex, only requiring a report back.

Some people just need to wise up and quit trying to extrapolate things to doomsday scenarios. What if, what if, what if… If your auntie had balls.

Based on what analysis? Any hard numbers? Anything based off of evaluation criteria from the RFP?

Based on the fact that the USAF would have to support parts for a unique model, which is based on a model line that is set to close (without a tanker order).

Conversely, the A330F is only entering service, so parts will continue to be made to support the commercial freighter fleet for years to come.

There is absolutely no basis for saying the KC-767 will not suffer the same fate as the KC-135… namely parts costs ballooning, and many having to be broken up for spares to keep the others going.

Appendix A Table A-1 of the KC-X SRD covers the self deployment requirements.

Better to merely meet, or better to significantly beat a requirement?

Taking the wings from one model, the fuse from another and cockpit from a third has worked pretty well on P-8 and the BBJ to name a couple of examples from the last 10 or so years.

Which doesn’t change my point. One is in the air, the other is only on hard drives. Which one is lower risk?

In fact, the 767 proposed under KC-X has a 767-400 cockpit similar to that of the larger Boeing 777, the heavier load-bearing wing from the 767-300 freighter, flaps from the 767-400 (for better runway performance), and sturdier
landing gear from the -400. One observer called it a “Frankenplane” because of its hybrid features: It is different from any other version of the 767, meaning that it has no developmental history or track record. The A330 offered in the KC-X contest was identical to the A330 tanker ordered by Australia.

Might be worth a read for a few people:

http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/Aerospace-Tanker_MAY2008.pdf

An interesting quote:

On the Italian 767s, the design of the pylon that attaches the refueling pod to the wing caused aerodynamic buffeting that limited max-
imum speed. The problem delayed the project so long that Boeing paid tens of millions of dollars to return to service its 707 tankers, the planes the 767s were supposed to replace. “There’s no real excuse for us being late on
Italy. We’ve been very open that we didn’t do a very good job on that,” Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale tells Aerospace America.

No risk for the American one? I would be very dubious.

The KC-Y would be a good time for a larger 777-size tanker or a clean sheet (blended wing) design…so perhaps not a lot to be gained here.

Misunderstood, TooCool got what I mean.

Trouble is, it’s just a final assembly line.

Do you want them to relocate everything inside a year? :confused:

If an assembly line is in a a certain country… or continent even, do you really think transport costs will not affect where the constituent parts and sub-assys are made? :confused:

If Airbus built an A330 line in the US, you can be damn sure it would be a bigger net boost to the US aerospace industry than finishing out the 767 line.

Airbus have been trying to hedge against the euro for quite some time, having a foot into the dollarzone is a strong way to do that.

I have a feeling most of the European members of the forum will disagree with me, but my opinion on the tanker is that the 767 is the better fit for the program and here’s my opinion as to why:

I accept your point, and yes, it is correct in saying the 767 is a better fit for a high-low mix of tanker. However, I disagree and here is why (well, a few of the reasons):

1. The armed forces are always looking more lift capacity*. Thus, more lift capacity = better.

2. Maintenance cost going forward (this becomes a biggie). The 767 line is on the verge of closure (it prob will close if the tanker order doesn’t come through). Thus, the USAF are last of the line, and due to their probable operational life, will be operating the aircraft far beyond any other commerical user. This of course means part prices skyrocket through the aircraft lifespan. Conversely the A330F is only starting to come into service, and has a long life ahead of it as a civilian freighter, meaning lower parts costs across the lifespan of the frame.

3. The KC-Y competition will be coming up in what… 10 years? The A330 MRTT is a potential option for that program, the 767 is not. That would mean fleet commonality with associated reduction in costs across the board. Which feeds back into point (2).

4. Program risk. The A330 MRTT is in the air, it has pretty much finished flight testing (?). The boom that would be used for KC-X has also been flight tested. It is almost the dictionary definition of a low risk project. Conversely, the 767 “variant” Boeing wishes to use exists only as DMUs on hard drives in Seattle. With the current JSF debacle, the recent Marine 1 replacement debacle and military funding under pressure, the last thing the DoD needs is another project draining finite financial resources unexpectedly.

5. Airbus starting a final assembly line in the USA. Its simply too good to turn down. Infact, if I was making the decision, and both tankers were basically up to the job, I would choose the 330 on this alone. Having both large OEMs assemble aircraft on your soil with the associated security that provides to the whole aerospace supply chain nationally is worth its weight in gold.

*The C-17 debacle is to do with keeping more C-5s in the air and not replace them on a 2:1 basis (or whatever) with C-17s.

Not if your first and most important link doesn’t work you’re not. 🙂

:confused:

Working for me….

Anyone else having the same problem?

“I do not know what fairy tales you’ve been reading, but there are few substances known to man that can withstand 1800+ degrees Kelvin without active cooling. There are none that can take those temperatures, and absorb EM waves.”

Bear this quote in mind when reading the above post.