You are missing the point. THE main argument EADS/KC-30 supporters have is that it is better because it is bigger while ignoring the fact that bigger is NOT necessarily better.
In the case of the KC-X, bigger clearly is NOT better.
I think you will find that the USAF disagrees with you there.
Nobody is saying that but EADS/KC-30 supporters are ignoring that just because some other nations (with VERY different requiremnts) have chosen the KC-30 that does NOT mean it is the right choice for the USAF.
I don’t pretend to know the detail of what the USAF is looking for, but I’m sure the requirement isn’t a million miles away from that of the RAF or RAAF, and remember that neither of these forces has the numbers of large aircraft that need refueling that the USAF does.
No, I have pointed out the adsurdity of the EADS/KC-30 supporter’s argumnets & how they can’t counter the por-Boeing/KC-767AT points (like you just did) misinterpret & misrepresent them (either through ignorance or on purpose) Just as they misinterpret & misrepresent “fact” they use to support EADS/KC-30.
Actually in my previous post I made no comment about the KC-767, so how I misrepresented or misinterpreted anything relating to it. Here are a few facts that are not up for dispute:
1. The USAF has a vested interest in choosing the best aircraft for the job.
2. The USAF has more expertise on what it wants than any of us here.
3. The USAF chose the NG/EADS KC-330.
The points made that the Airbus is more expensive to operate than the Boeing could be interpreted as the USAF picking the best equipment for the job in spite of the additional cost.
The additional size of the airbus, whether it is a significant hindrance or not, does give additional flexibility in terms of fuel to offload, time on station or cargo capacity than the Boeing.
Sign In
