How can you possibly say No need to buy second best just to throw Europeans a bone.

1st thing the bid was from Northrop Grumman and the last i checked that is a US company.
2nd thing if the KC767 tanker is such a wonderful aircraft why are more countries buying the A330 tanker?
3rd thing Nobody is buying the civilian version of the 767 because it is old technology while the A330 has 100’s of order’s getting place because it is newer and better aircraft more economic and suitable to airline’s needs.
4th thing Why did the USAF remember that not the DOD or congress decide that they wanted the KC-45. Could it be that this is the aircraft they thought met there needs better. look at where USAF will required to fight war’s now and in the future it’s mostly middle east Africa and in the stan’s. This requires a big tanker to get aircraft from continental USA to area of operation and Also to get aircraft from Diego Garcia and Guam.
5th thing the made in America advert for the 767 hardly holds any water and the US would benefit more from having an A330 line open than keeping a 767 open.
6th thing Once the tanker is finished compare the 2 production lines. What will happen? The Boeing line will close because nobody wants the 767 anymore. The A330 line will stay open because airlines are still buying it and will continue to do this in the future.
7th thing The Cargo carrying capacity for the A330 is HUGE compared with the 767. This is becoming a bigger issue as the USAF gets less transport planes.
Example: You have a tanker that fly from the US across the ocean with 6 fighter’s following and with the ground crew and all the equipment and spares required in 1 aircraft. It can then land on a short runway say 7000 feet refuel and take off with full fuel load and go home again. Or you have a tanker that can fly across the ocean with 6 fighters but without all the ground crew and equipment required. You then have to have another aircraft following with the ground crew and equipment. They then arrive at the required destination only to find they can’t land on the 7000 foot runway because there brakes aren’t good enough. Then even if both planes could land they can’t take off with a full fuel load to get home again as they don’t have enough runway because there brakes aren’t good enough to stop in an emergency. you then have to send another 2 tankers to refuel the first 2 so they can get home again. So you have 1 tanker on a mission or 4. What is best i would think 1!
8th thing The KC-45 will be delivered much quicker and in greater numbers than the 767 and the conversion of the KC-45 is much easier than the 767.
9th thing If you want to talk about bones look at how much equipment Europe buys of the US and how much the other way round. i think you will find Europe is throwing you a whole butchers shop for America’s little bone.
10th thing The 767 doesn’t match the performance for takeoff or landing compared to the KC-45 at high weights. The KC-45 can operate from more airfields than the 767. It can get closer to the action and offload more fuel at any distance. It can carry much more cargo and requires no modification inside to be able to carry full fuel. Any foot print size you think you have saved on the ground is soon gone because you need 2 tankers to do 1 job.
11th thing Put simply the KC-45 can carry more fuel with more people and more cargo over a greater distance.
And before you say bring on the 777 that is the most unsuitable tanker ever. It requires a HUGE runway and doesn’t have hardly any benefits over the KC-45 OR 767. It cost an fortune. The USAF wanted 1 aircraft to replace both tanker in service just now. The 777 can’t do that.
12th thing Planes that require tankers have bigger engines and require more fuel so this needs bigger or more tankers. Less aircraft available to the US compared with 20-30 years ago so less available to forward deploy which means more ferry flights from the US. Aircraft needing to go back to large airbases to get stealth coating’s and other depot maintenance down more frequently and this needs more AAR.

1. No, NG/EADS. And NG being an American company does not make the KC-30 an American tanker.

2. Politics & differing tanker requirements.

3. No, nobody is buying the civilian version of the 767 because they are buying the 767’s replacement – the 787.

4. The KC-X Source Selection Team is/was not the USAF. And as the GOA ruling proved the KC-X Source Selection Team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation.

And the KC-30 is not the KC-45.

5. BS. >85% US workshare (KC-767AT) vs <58% US workshare (KC-30) is $9.45-10.8 billion just from the KC-X developement & procurement program.

6. Wrong. Once the KC-X is done the Boeing line (which is a full manufacturing & assemply line vs the NG/EADS proposed final assembly line) is available for the next program & the A330 will be dead commercially long befoe the end of the KC-X.

7. Thats is what the KC-Y is for…

8. The KC-45 will be delivered in the same time & quantities reguardless of whether it is KC-767AT or KC-30. It is an absolute lie that NG/EADS can/would deliver any sooner or higher rate.

9. :rolleyes:

10. The KC-767AT meets the KC-X runwasy & fuel offload requirements. More specifically the KC-767AT can offload more fuel from a 7,000′ runway than the KC-135R can from a 10,000′ runway. So the whole runway length argument is BS to begin with. In fact is it more of a distraction from the reality that runway length is not the limiting factor but size (footprint) & weight (ACN) and the resulting limitation as to what airfields an aircraft can operate from & how many can operate from each airfield.

11. The the KC-30 is not the KC-45. Simply put the KC-767 meets or exceeds all the key requirements, meets more non-key requirements and is superior in more (& higher priority) key & non-key requirements.

No, the USAF wants two tankers becasue it knows from decades of experience that two tankers (each more specialize for different requirements) results in a enormously more effective & efficient tanker fleet. A ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement (KC-X which comes 1st) and a ‘large’ KC-10 replacement (KC-Y which comes after KC-X). With a third (KC-Z which come after KC-Y) to also be a ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement.

The problem for the KC-30 is it is too big & heavy for a ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement but lacks the capacity for a ‘large’ KC-10 replacement.

12. You have no clue what you are talking about. Go back to drinking the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid.

THERE ARE 12 TRUE REASONS WHY THE USAF PICKED THE KC-45 INSTEAD OF THE 767

THe USAF picked the 767 over the A330 many years ago. Since then the ‘decision’ has been taken away from the USAF.

Lets just listen to the USAF and what they want. I doubt they have changed their minds on the KC-45 in a few years. Remember they didn’t want the 767 lease deal that was a DOD deal.

Quite the oppoosite, the USAF & the DOD worked together on the tanker lease & it was a great deal that the USAF & the DOD loved not only because it allowed the USAF to get new tanker sto replace its KC-135s (which really did need to be replaced sooner rather than later) but becasue it allowed the USAF to get its 1st 100 tankers without have to spend one dime of procurements funds.

Remember this all stared way back in 1996…

Do you remember why the USAF bought the KC-10? it was because it could take off from the US ferry planes across the Atlantic and then spend a while on station in Europe doing air to air refueling and fly back to the US all without landing.

Nice rewrite of history. But ignoring that why is the USAF tanker fleet not all KC-10’s then? 😉

Take cover incoming ******** and lots of SHI*E coming my way from 767 lovers. I don’t dislike the 767 anymore the A330 it’s just the A330 is the correct aircraft this time for the US tanker competition as agreed by the USAF.

LOL

The A330 is absolutely the wrong aircraft for the US.

Something smaller (footprint) & lighter (ACN) and less costly to operate & maintain is a much better ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement tanker for operating in significant numbers from smaller airfields close to the refueling points/tracks refueling large numbers of receivers with comparatievly small amounts of fuel (50,000-75,000 lbs total per sortie on average) for maximum effectieveness & efficiency.

Something with greater fuel capacity (the KC-30 maximum fuel capacity is only 44,000 lbs/21.8% greater than the KC-135R and/but is 110,000 lbs/30.9% less than the KC-10 despite being larger & heavier than the KC-10) is a much better ‘large’ KC-10 replacement tanker for for airbridge & airlift.

***

here is a link to an interesting report about the original lease deal and the merits of the 767 that was offered for that deal. It appears from reading this that the 767 line will run out of orders by 2009 and that this is a good reason for ordering the 767. This is a good example of why i wouldn’t order the 767. Nobody in the comercial market wants it and this is normally a good indication of what is a good aircraft and what isn’t.

How nice it is for EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers to ignor why 767 orders slowed. It was not because of the A330.

And the need is for tankers not airliners…

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32056.pdf it is a long document but does have some interesting points. it’s not a comparision between 767 and A330 tho.

A document that people who have actually done some research are well acquainted with.

Also it says the 767 for the lease deal only offers a 1% fuel offload increase over the KC-135!

Doesn’t say that…read it again.

Here is another link that provides more information about the KC-X deal. I think it’s important to get the information out on here as some posters seem to come out with made up information.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x.htm

You have to do a lot more research than that.

Samudragupta didnt misunderstand squat. PFCEM made a ill founded reference to Red Flag and Youtube terry – who was found to have been speaking from his posterior. The Mountain Home KR says it all.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html

The simple fact is that the TVC equipped MKIs didnt pull the stunt that Terry claimed nor were they that vulnerable.

The IAF has had the MKI for six years now – in those six years, those planes have set the benchmark for CCM with their Sura-K, R-73E and TVC. Ask the Malay eval team who saw what the MKI could do before they went for the MKM.

LOL

It is a fact no matter how much ignoranuses like you want people to think that the MKI did not do as well at Mountain Home or Red Flag as it had done at Cope India. This was do primarily to three factors. 1) It was ‘regular’ IAF squadrons rather than just their elite pilots (including inexperienced pilots making the mistake of overusing TVC, bleeding way too much airspeed & becoming ‘sitting ducks’). 2) Being in the US rather than India, the Indian forces were ‘hampered’ with “fighting on foreign soil”. 3) The US having previoulsy ‘faught’ the MKI had learned to not underestimate it & were not as restricted as they were in India.

What I find personally offensive is that in the clip (which was obviously unprepared & unofficial), the USAF officer had nothing but praise for the Indian pilots, crews & the MKI yet the anti-american crowd intentianally misrepresent what was said. Obviously because he dared to speak the truth about the MKI not being invincible.

There are more than enough customers which have raised their concerns about the numbers due the cost increasements over all the years. Those numbers provided by the briefing are still the same as that given years ago, but many customers are in doubt to that numbers. The brits f.e., Italy has withdrawn from the testing phase, the dutch want at least reduce the test fleet from 2 to 1. There are doubts in Canada etc. If all is so well on time and budget I wonder why so many customers think about cuts. And they are hardley on schedule with all the technical difficulties they had so far and the development and testing phase is far from being completed. The costs for the F-35s currently on order are miles away from the quoted figures either. Sorry but I believe such a price tag when I see it, not those empty marketing promises to keep the customers onboard. Sure the costs will go down once full rate production ramps up, but I’m still sceptical about those figures. Just take a look at the F-16 which is still in production and how expensive new build aircraft are. So you want to tell me the F-35 won’t be more expensive with all that stealth and technology involved? That’s ridiculous at best.

LOL.

A number of partner nations are cutting test aircraft because with the world wide economic woes they “can’t” afford them.

And since you & other’s still don’t get it…the $58.7 million (2008 dollars) F-35A flyaway is the US DOD talking, not LM.

Nobody is claiming the F-35 won’t be more expensive than the F-16. :rolleyes:

***

Going back to aircrafts, the trend worldwide, is also that newer gen aircrafts are considerably more expensive than previous gen aircrafts. This doesn’t agree of course with LM’s brochure about F35’s costs. And i am afraid it won’t agree even more with the maintenance costs of the F35. USAF has the money to pay 49000 $ per flight hour for the F22. Let’s say the F35 is more ironed out and will fall to 35000. That’s still a hell lot of money for most other users out there. And if you are unable to do full maintenance locally, in your own country, that cost will become unbearable. LM may sell it at 25 mln. Whoever wants to have a squadron operational and the rest disabled, can still buy it. But those who want a decent availability, won’t or will buy it in few numbers.

Fortunately, the consortium members will do the guinea pigs for the rest of us. After a few years in foreign service, we will know about maintanance costs, besides what LM will be claiming.

Accoding the the USAF it is $19,750 (vs. $17,465 for the F-15).

Sorry if intellegent people trust the USAF on such things over the The Washington Post. In fact the USAF & the DOD have separately debunked just about every ‘fact’ (with the true facts) in that POS article.

***

USAF needs an airplane with the range and payload capability of F-111.

True but the F-35A is a F-16 replacement (which is also needed) not a F-111 replacement.

USN needs an airplane with the range and payload of A-6 or Bucaneer.

True but the F-35C is a F/A-18C/D replacement (which is also needed) not a A-6 replacement.

Both were saddled with a 24,000 lb compromise because that’s what would fit on an LHD.

True the F-35A may not be exactly what the USAF would want if it could develope its own F-16 replacement independent of USN &/or USMC needs & the F-35C may not be exactly what the USN would want if it could develope its own F/A-18C/D replacement independent of USAF &/or USMC needs but if you look at what the USAF & USN were developing prior to the JSF as a ‘compromise’ it is still awefully damn good.

I make no claim about the efficacy or wisdom of using TVC in a knife fight. What I dispute (and what I highlighted in my post) is pfcem’s claim that the IAF figured out the advantages or disadvantages of TVC only after coming to Nellis and fighting the Americans and/or getting lectured by Youtube Terry.

That is complete BS. The IAF has operated the MKI for many years before Red Flag, and they have been put through the wringer in terms of doctrinal analysis, training, DACT, etc. by everyone from Air Staff and TACDE FCLs down to freshly minted airmen.

I can’t figure out how anyone can claim that the IAF didn’t know how to use their airplanes in a knifefight, especially with something as basic as to whether one should use TVC or not.

I didn’t say it taught the IAF, I said it taught Indian pilots. Surprisingly for all your “huffing & puffing” about the IAF knowing all about using the MKI & TVC in combat, quite a large number of MKIs were ‘shot down’ during Red Flag when inexperienced pilots who didn’t know better did overuse their TVC – turning the admitedly superior (to the F-15C) MKI into a ‘sitting duck’.

How is that relevant to our debate? How many of those kills were achieved while having guided six missiles at once? Or at least three…

Tomcats only were able to dominated the skies over fighters which were one generation older than themselves. The only luck Iranian F-14s had was that Saddam was always getting 2nd class stuff like F1EQs or Floggers. Well flown Mirage 2000 and MiG-31s would have decimated Tomcats much easier and quicker.

LOL

Then you’d probably be mistaken. I haven’t seen a realistic estimate for any version below $60 million. Can you quote a source on the $40 million?

He is just being an a$$.

The “upper $40 million” is 2002 dollars & is for partner nations (of which Israel is not so don’t expect Israel to get partner nation prices prior to full rate production).

Which falls right in line with the DOD stated $58.7 million (2008 dollars) price for partner nations and the $70-75 million (2014 dollars) estimated for full rate production aircraft and the $83.131 million flyaway units cost/$90.314 million weapons system unit cost average (then year dollars – which goes out all the way to 2035) for all 1,763 USAF F-35As.

I guess as they are to replace the F111 there main role will be ground attack. The Aussies must feel that this plane is a big improvement on the F111 and i hope it serves them well. I don’t think once the F35 arrives in OZ it will replace the SuperHornet i think they will run the 2 together. I wounder what advantages the superhornet will have over the F35 when it arrives in service for the role the RAAF. Maybe better weapons integration/availability. I think the F35 would have to carry things like Harpoon on a hardpoint anyway so that’s the stealth gone. I am also not sure if Anti Ship Missiles and US navy weapons will be available for the F35A if US airforce doesn’t use them? maybe the F35 A B and C will all have the same weapons available by using the same computer or something?

The F/A-18F (yes all Australian Super Hornets are to be two-seat Fs) is a stop-gap between the early retirement of the F-111 & the IOC of its F-35s.

The only advantage the F/A-18E/F has over the F-35 is that it is available now.

Even with external stores the F-35 is significantly more steathy than any 4th generation figher with a similar payload.

LM & Kongsberg are co-developing the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) based on Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile (NSM) for the F-35 – which will be able to be carried internally. It is to be an integrated weapon for Norway’s F-35A so there is no reason (unless Norway does not wish to share) Australia or any other F-35 (A, B or C) operator could not as well.

***

I think the B1-R isn’t new but reworked B1-B with 20% less range but much more payload. Not sure if the RAAF would want it even if it was available. I imagine the cost per hour flying must be huge compared to the superhornet.

No the B-1R was a concept to take the ‘basic’ B-1B & turn it into a “multi-role fighter-bomber” much like the original F-111 concept.

Don’t make me laugh. Exactly what do you know? From your position you only can make uneducated fanboy guesswork, which you do. Nobody here knows squat about how complete the development is..

Unlike you I can read & comprehend. Everything of any reliability says that the 1st T-50/PAK FA prototype/test aircraft is currently under construction. That makes it many years behind where the F-35 is at right now.

The article posted by medal64 makes it clear that Russia will be procuring Su-35s until at least 2015 since the T-50/PAK FA will not be ready until at least that time. By the time the T-50/PAK FA is possibly (it could take longer) ready for procurement/production the F-35 will be (according the the current schedule) at full rate production with ~230 procured & ~130 delivered (test & service aircraft) already.

US NAVY is still procuring Super Hornets, I guess that according to your logic that means the F-35 is screwed, as well… :rolleyes:

Don’t know where you are getting this from. I didn’t say anything about the T-50/PAK FA being screwed – just that it will not enter service before the F-35.

The USN is only procuring additional F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to fill the gap left by losses & delays in the F-35C.