Just a general point: the US sells a lot of military aircraft to other countries – is this always going to be a one-way street? Why can’t the US make some significant purchases from Europe sometimes, to balance up the trade equation?

Since the late 1970s, and the F-16 “sale of the century”, europe has manufactured the vast bulk of its deffense equipment. Thats going on 25 years now. When the US was providing loads of equipment ti europe, it was primarily because the european industry wasnt capable of producing that sort of stuff. Now they are. Why on earth should the US now buy european and let our own industry suffer? Sorry, but it just isnt going to happen. (and just to point out one area of US buying european products…..I give you the M-1 tank……..on the M-1 the gun was British…..on the M-1A1/2….the gun is german, the coax machinegun is Belgian, and the smoke grenade launcher is British. Small I know, but….hey…..the US has NEVER manufactured a descent tank gun.

Been lurking for a long time following the thread with some interest, as I am a former -135 aircrew. Most of the the debate on this topic is focused on a limited number of attributes of each aircraft and is completely missing the point of what does the end user ultimately want? Which is in and off itself a good question because you have two schools among us blue suiters, the pointy nose crowd and the gas passer/transport types. Each have a different view.

As stated earlier, I flew for a while in the -135 and flew with plenty of guys who had green ink dating back to GW #1. One of the chief constraints they mentioned was there were never enough booms in the air, but almost every mission they flew they brought lots of gas home. Part of the not enough booms problem is that the little pointy nose types are limited on their on load rate.

Now, back to the two cultures thing, the pointy nose types want a -135 replacement, that focuses on passing gas first. Why? the current tankers aren’t using all of their capacity so why pay for extra capacity that we won’t use and why pay for extra operating cost that will keep us from buying and flying more important airplanes (pointy noses). For them, smaller, cheaper and as much capability as the -135 is good enough.

The second crowd would like to augment the airlift side of the house and favors larger with more cargo and pax. In particular, they see the pax capability into defended fields as a big benefit taking a lot of load off of the C-17. They would argue using this cargo excess capability will offset the larger size and operating costs of a larger aircraft.

Now, this in now way reflects any official view of my employer, just some random discussions amongst the crew dogs. So, I would argue the culture aspect plays a bigger role than the jingoistic protectionism if the RFP favors a smaller aircraft. Why? most Air Force general officers are fighter pilots and they won’t buy an aircraft that will take money away from the more important priorities of buying and operating fighters.

Cheers

And first and foremost, the thing is a TANKER. Its role is to refuel tactical a/c. Its SECONDARY role if airlift. If you can get more booms in the air with a smaller, cheaper, SLIGHTLY less capable a/c…..then so be it.

You would also have to put into question the sanity of the people who bought the C 130J when the best had already been flying (C 130H).

It may not happen but it may be a cheap way out for the US treasury to skip on developing the composite airlifter and buy what is nearly about to fly (relatively speaking).

Europe has bought a lot of US machines nothing wrong with the US buying European, should not let ego’s get in the way.

Ego hasnt anything to do with it. One must ask, just why did europe buy all those US machines in the 1st place?

One side argues that being more capable is a good thing.

Another side argues that being more capable is a BAD thing.

Tell me which side is drinking the kool-aid?

YOU are. Its that simple. When people stoop to personal attacks (like I am now) their argument goes out the window. Just because someone doesnt agree with your position, there is no reason to attack them personaly. My position is that the 330 is a more capable tanker, and a bigger airframe. That being said……it is and will continue to be seen in America as a European/French airplane. Thats just the way it is, and no rational argument is going to sway that appearence from the US public and (more importantly) the congress. People can deny that till their blue in the face, but it simply will not change. While the 767 is not as good(?) a tanker (they are 2 completely different a/c) as the 330, it is the more politicaly and publicly acceptable of the two. It is a HUGE improvement over the 135s, and it is, for want of a better way to put it, “good enough” for the job. The Air Force needs a new tanker YESTERDAY, so the US needs to get this contract going!

t

The KC-135 REALLY needs to be replaced. END this and get the KC767 in service! Its the most politicaly acceptable choice and (regardless of how good/better the 330F is) will be a HUGE improvement over the 135.

Looks like the cirrus’ emergency parachute system didnt do any good.

CSS Tennessee?