They didn’t about face…they never selected the 767 after an open competition…I believe you could catagorize the tentative acceptance of the lease offer as: “Boeing offered it, and the USAF said ‘Okay’ as a way to get newer jets sooner”.

Why they selected it this time…somewhere along the line they came to like the idea of a bigger jet. They also looked at estimated life cycle costs.
Both seem issues that intelligent people can have an honest disagreement over.
As far as the issue of needed base infrastructure improvements…the selecting team probably didn’t consider them…since any costs would come from a different pot of money, so they could ignore those potential costs and civil engineering issues. Likewise, they did not take into account the opinions of aircrews. My nephew is with a large mixed AD and ANG 135 unit, he said the pilots were in open rebellion over the 330 selection…and the airline pilots who fly part time with the ANG love the 767s they fly in their day jobs.

I like Boeing aircraft…

But I have concern about the issue of the 767 being a half? (or full?) generation behind the 330.
At the same time, I’m honest enough to admit I don’t know if that is a big deal in the overall operation of the tankers. When I was in the USAF, the ancient design of the KC-135 didn’t lead to any problems at the base level…and anything you buy has to go through and extensive (and expensive) Periodic Depot Maintenance anyway…so it might be a non-issue.

My main isue of the 330 is I want NG/EADS to make sure it has the same amount of U.S. content as the 767.
I really don’t think that’s too much to ask in a period of a lousy economy. Unlike the colinels and middle management at the Pentagon and AFMC HQ, I do worry about the industrial base and making sure that taxpayers have decent jobs.
And a probably minor point…the assurance that any vital “show stopper” parts would be available under any circumstances since France has a long history of opposing U.S. military actions thge resupply of Isreal in 72, the Libya strike in 86, etc.) …and the EU may very well in the future…(I heard an unconfirmed story that a Swiss firm had to quit supplying JDAM parts because of the Iraq war. It took Boeing months to find and for a U.S. company to get parts into production. True?)

Just my opinion.

Thankyou for your reply.
All very understandable points and rightly so.
I do however think that any worries you have reference the industrial base may be better addressed with the manufacturing companies in your Country, not just aviation or military related. I don’t think that there will be much migration.
Spares shouldn’t be a problem, if the past is anything to go by, the French will sell them to anybody who shoves abit of money in front of them.
If you’re worried about the French not agreeing with your foreign policy, don’t forget, you rubbed their noses ( and ours) in it in 1956. They are not noted for forgiving that easily, look how long it took Britain to enter the EU.
As for the pilots revolting, well it was always going to be an emotive issue, a “foreign” plane.
Should the air force choose the 330 next time around? I think they should choose the best tanker for the job. It’s their choice, not ours. I think they’ll get it (more or less) right.

I already said that it is still too early to say how accurate they may be so no I do not wish to expound them (they are after all still evolving).

No slant, I was SUMMERIZING what I had already posted. I already indicated in an earlier post that the Frontier Technology study found that the benefit ranged from 17% to 37%.

What this DOES show is a particular willingness of YOU to take facts & comments out of context to suit your argument.

No, I do not.

1. It would still be good to see what your opinion is.

2. My apologies for the missing 3%. What exactly is my argument?

3. Seeing the lack of bolding in your posts I must conclude you do not live there.

Did he really say “it is EADS/KC-30 supporters which ingnorantly bring it up as a supposed was of supporting the KC-30’s greater capacity”? How odd, since I brought it up, without mentioning the A330MRTT at all, & have twice stated that it is not a differentiator between the KC-767 & A330.

Yes, but You’re an EADS/KC30 supporter.

Once again swerve plays fast & loose with the facts & misrepresents the truth.

The new drogues can transfer fuel at or slightly faster than SOME fighters can receive it but not ALL fighters. As the number of F-22s & F-35s increase, the number & proportion of fighters which can recieve fuel at a rate higher than the new drogues will increase. Not to mention it being MUCH less expensive to modify ALL boom/receptacle fighters to recieve at higher transfer rates than it is to modify them to drogue/probe.

How does replacing all gallery lines and refueling valves to a wider bore work out cheaper than sticking a fixed probe onto an a/c?

The rest is too rediculous to even discuss.

Do you live in Australia and own a pub?

Usually the same flow rate, because a lot of hoses deliver it as fast as a fighter can accept it. The limiting factor is usually the receiving aircraft.

That all dependes on the pod and the a/c being refuelled.
The F4K/M could quite happily feed off a mk20 pod but if it was heavily loaded they would sometimes have to use min reheat to keep station. They would then use the HDU (centre-line) as the flow rate was higher.
Btw three point tanking with either the VC10 or the Victor was never really an option as there is too little room for margin between the aircraft.

The one thing i do keep hearing is Phantoms and the SALT treaty but if that was true how could the US have a phantom flying in private hands and the 100’s of drones? that some have been also privately registered?

One of the major problems is that MOD are contractually liable for the airframes so long as they exist. So chopping them was just easier.

Sorry, in the real world is DOESN’T work that way. The number of tankers needed is MUCH more dependant on the number booms needed to effectively & efficiently satisfy the number of receivers than on the total amount of fuel each tanker delivers.

Who’s real world do you mean?
It does however highlight the biggest disadvantage of the boom versus three-point tankers. Do you think they will eventually request IFR pods for the wings?

Btw While I appreciate that the USAF has 50+ years of IFR experience, the British have some 70+ years.