I give up..

Is this a translation?

If so, it’s hard to make sence.. not good:(

Thanks

Basically states what everyone should already know. That despite what you may hear the T-50/PAK FA is not even as far along as the F-35 & thus Russia will continue to procure advanced Flanker varients (Su-35) until at least 2015.

Talk about re-writing history!

In a written explanation of the Air Force thinking on this subject, Sue Payton, the Air Force’s chief acquisition officer, said the Air Force determined that Northrop Grumman provided “Significant refueling advantages.”

Payton said that the Northrop Grumman KC-45’s “Refueling capability was compelling to my decision.”

“Northrop Grumman’s offer was a superior solution to the air refueling requirement, which is a key performance parameter,” Payton wrote.

The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman’s (NYSE:NOC) bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing’s in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman.

First off. KC-45 won on Mission Capability, which includes the crucial function of aerial refueling.

The Air Force found the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases,” “Better air refueling efficiency,” “Better offload rate and receive rate,” and has “A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing.”

This means the Northrop Grumman plane can provide more fuel at greater range, is more fuel efficient when executing the tanker mission, can perform many refueling operations faster, and can connect to receivers over a greater volume of airspace behind the tanker than Boeing’s aircraft.

LOL.

The GOA ruling proved that to be a load of crap.

***

So she was lying then, according to you?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No, accoding to the GAO. 🙂

1) Refueling capability was NOT compelling to her decision? She says that it was, and said so on the record.

The solicitation was clear & unambiguous that exceeding that objective by more than the competing offer was not to be give extra/additional cridit/consideration.

2) The U.S. Air Force didn’t find Northrop Grumman’s bid superior to Boeing’s in four of the five most important selection criteria? They say that they did.

No it did not.

1) It was not the USAF.

2) The GOA ruling proved it to be utter nonsense.

3) KC-45 didn’t win on Mission Capability? The USAF and NG both say that it did.

No it did not.

KC-767AT
98 discriminators
01 weakness

KC-30
30 discriminators
05 weakness
(plus the GAO ruling takes away a number of KC-30 discriminators & adds a number of weaknesses)

“with regard to the overall evaluation of the key system requirements subfactor, the RFP stated that “evaluation of the offeror’s proposed capabilities and approaches against the SRD requirements will be made in the following descending order of relative importance: KPPs, KSAs, and all other non‑KPP/KSA requirements.” RFP sect. M.2.2.1.1.c.”

“the record shows that most of Boeing’s evaluated “major discriminators” in the aerial refueling area were assessed under KPP requirements, and conversely most of Northrop Grumman’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under less important non-KPP/KSA “requirements.”

Although the record thus evidences that most of Boeing’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under KPP requirements, and conversely most of Northrop Grumman’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under less important non-KPP/KSA requirements,[45] we have found no document in the contemporaneous evaluation record that shows that the SSAC or SSA gave any meaningful consideration to the weights that were to be assigned to the various KPP, KSA, and other requirements. That is, the SSAC’s briefing slides to the SSA and its PAR do no more than identify the SRD requirements for which the evaluated discriminators were assessed, but do not evidence any consideration of the descending order of importance assigned to these various SRD requirements.”

4) The Air Force didn’t find that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases” (eg: more fuel at greater range)? It does, and the USAF confirm that.

No, the USAF found:

* “”The KC-330 increase in size does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload,…” (USAF quote)
* The KC-330 “..presents a higher-risk technical approach and a less preferred financial arrangement.” (USAF quote)
* ” the size difference of the EADS-proposed KC-330 results in an 81 percent larger ground footprint compared to the KC-135E it would replace, whereas the Boeing 767 is only 29 percent larger.” (USAF quote)
* The KC-330 requires “..greater infrastructure investment and dramatically limits the aircraft’s ability to operate effectively in worldwide deployment.” (Summary of Quote by MAT magazine)

5) The Air Force didn’t find that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better air refueling efficiency”? It does, it is more fuel efficient when executing the tanker mission and the USAF do confirm that.

Not in the real world, no.

6) The Air Force didn’t find that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better offload rate and receive rate” and has “A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing”? It does, and the USAF confirm that.

Take a wild guess how many aircraft can take advantage of that higher offload rate. 😉

The USAF, like the RAF, the RAAF, the RSAF and the UAE Air Force, all found that the KC-30/45 was a better tanker than the KC-767, and I’ll lay good money that the AMI are heartily regretting their choice.

No they did not.

***

Because the original spec wasn’t written around the USAFs needs, but was written around what the 767 could do, in co-operation with Boeing. That isn’t exactly a “technical” decision, is it? That selection was made before drawing up the spec, & the spec written accordingly. It was corrupt from the start – and that was why it was overturned: because it was crooked, & rigged. Do you really think that spec had any value?

All the whining I see hear comes from Boeing fanboys & chauvinists.

No the original spec was not written around what the 767 could do but around the USAF’s needs. It was clear however to those who knew what the USAF’s needs were/are & what real world USAF tanker operations are like that a tanker based on a 767 or similar size/capacity platform would meet all the USAF’s needs for a KC-135 replacement.

Then 9/11/01 happened & the USAF/DOD decided they wanted/needed to “kick-start” recapitalization of the tanker fleet by leasing tankers so as to get new tankers six years earlier than prviously planned. And since the USAF had all-but already selected the KC-767 prior to 9/11/01, it & Boeing wrote the tanker lease requirements specifically to what could be easily met within the now much shorter time. The tanker lease was not overturned. It was cancelled because in it’s haste, necessary steps were skipped in the process. And as EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers ignore, it was Boeing bringing to light the Druyun/Sears corruption (all of which had been undone & redone prior to the completetion on the contract) that led to the investigations which found said errors.

The KC-X requirements were not based on the tanker lease requirements but the pre-lease requirements.

arguing for just 50 C-5s is arguing for a ‘silver bullet’ fleet that is just useful for outsized loads, increase that to 100 and it starts to become a strategically relevant means of transport

No, stating that with the “current” plan there will still be 50+ C-5s (presumably/hopefully most/all upgraded C-5M) for what the C-5s are needed for.

Like I said, it is one thing to debate/question the proper mix of C-5s & C-17s in the fleet…

i’m glad you see it that way, but i feel too many others fail to appreciate the value of the C-5 with all the comments here (including in the past) along the lines of ‘well, the C-5 is really only useful for the mobile scissors bridge, everything else can be done by the C-17″

Then explain the value of the C-5 but that is no excuse to fault the C-17 for not being a C-5.

Here’s a question Does anyone know why the KC-135 is called that?

I know the KC-10 is because it’s the original aircraft is the DC-10.

Because the C-135 was in fact an aircraft developed for the USAF (later adapted for the commercial market as the 707) rather than an aircraft developed for the commercial market adapted for the USAF.

***

That said, if the Air Force has had a change of requirements that will be reflected in the new RFP then it appears Boeing has a ready counter to the EADS proposal in the KC-777. Which if you go by all the reasons by which the EADS fans claim make the A330 a better choice than the 767 is going to be a far superior platform as a tanker than the A330.

Assuming the USAF is even allowed to write the RFP…

Remember that SecDef Gate’s (not the USAF) wrote the last RFP (post-GAO ruling) before ultimately deciding to put the entire program on hold until the next (now current) administration.

***

No it doesn’t, because the KC-45’s ability to lift that extra fuel from shorter runways means it can use more airfields, not fewer.

You keep ignoring the fact that runway length is not the limiting factor.

I have. They can’t answer any more than you can because the claim is empty and hollow.

Yes they can answer. They may choose not too. If you did indeed ask (I seriously doubt you did) you undoubtedly ‘rubbed’ Boeing the wrong way with the way that you asked & they chose not to acknowledge you.

Yes, actually it is: Fairford, Brize, Mildenhall.

Not true.

The KC-767AT met or exceeded the KC-X fuel offload requirements from a 7,000′ runway.

***

Mate, hard as you doubtless find this to believe, this is not about the ‘nationality’ of the aircraft, it’s all about capability.

Give the KC-767 to BAE to build, and it’s still the third best tanker.

If you’re procuring the best fighter in the world, you’d buy F-22.
If you’re procuring the best attack helicopter in the world, you’d buy AH-64 (though the European engines improve it).
If you’re procuring the best strategic transport in the world, you’d buy C-17.
If you’re procuring the best heavylift helicopter in the world, you’d buy CH-47.
If you’re procuring the best AEW aircraft in the world, you’d buy E-3. Or maybe Wedgetail ……

American is very often best.

But occasionally, the best answer comes from elsewhere. And so, if you want the best tanker in the world, at the moment its the A330 MRTT, and second comes the A310 MRTT, with the 767 a distant third.
(and if you want the best medium helicopter for CSAR or VIP, you’d buy AW101).

Not.

The “best” tanker depends on the requirements/needs of the service/nation operating them.

Based on the requirements/criteria that the USAF developed since 1996, then KC-767AT is the best.

Based on the KC-X requirements/criteria (altered from what the USAF developed since 1996 in order to acomodate the KC-30 which it had previously rejected based on its requirements/criteria developed since 1996), then KC-767AT is the best.

So the 767 can lift a 135 load of fuel from a 7,000 ft runway, but can’t lift anything like its maximum fuel load from 10,000 ft, while the A330 can lift 111 tonnes from that runway. You may not see any advantage there. I do.

The KC-767AT can operate from a 7,000′ runway with enough fuel to offload as much or more fuel as a KC-135R can from a 10,000′ runway. That is what mattered to the USAF. That & actually being able to operate from airfileds with such runways & in sufficent numbers to meet its demand for boms in the air.

And when the average fuel offload per sortie is in the 50,000-75,000 lbs range (which is significantly less than what the KC-135R can do) & the requirements set for are to match or exceed the KC-135R and that excess fuel you are so fond of comes at the expense of not being able to operate tankers from many of the aifields you want/need too, not being able to operate enough tankers from each airfield & not being able to operate enough tankers in theater to meet the demand for booms in the air and tankers that are more expensive to operate then that extra fuel is more costly than it is worth.

But you (and Boeing) have failed to name one single real world tanker base where ACN or footprint would permit a 767 to operate, but not a KC-45.

Boeing say they’ve found some, but won’t name them, isn’t exactly persuasive.

Try asking them.

It’s easy to name lots of real world tanker bases that will take a fully laden KC-45, but which won’t take a 767 unless it reduces its fuel load to less than that of an A310 MRTT.

No it isn’t.

And all three main tanker bases in the UK fall under that description.

No they do not. Your ‘study’ is using a KC-767 with a fuel capacity of ‘just’ 160,000 lbs. Not the KC-767AT with it 40,000 lbs of additional fuel capacity, wing, landing gear & engines of higher MTOW 767s.

It agree. 😉
Official data 8200 kg – lie.

Sorry, “8200 kg” is public consumption data. Official data is 20,650 lbs.

I have explained previously where I believe the difference comes from.

And your numbers did not even add up to 8200 kg – so either way your numbers are BS..

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

For the benefit of the other, because a crook is adding 20 min combat by his own guessing. 😡

No I am not adding it & I am not guessing. It has been standard within the US for as long as I can remember (& no doublt longer than I have even been alive) for air-to-air mission requirements to include 20 min of combat.

***

The Hornet’s kill against the F22, came from below the deck and has been commented as irregular (and if I misunderstood, I apologize)…

Saftey regulations require that engagements be called off under certian conditions (not just altitude). In the case of the F/A-18 the two aircraft got to close too each other & the engagement was called off. The F-22 pilot acknowledged the order & disengaded (performing a ‘slow’ low g turn away from the F/A-18), the F-A/18 pilot did not & continued to engage.

***

Fuel system F-22

F-1A, ∛(2.525 х 1.72 х 1.016 )= 1.64 cubic m, 1312 kg
F-1B, ∛(1.05 х 0.413 х 0.76 )= 0.69 cubic m, 552 kg
F-2 ∛(2.52 х 5.38 х 1.24 )= 2.56 cubic m, 2048 kg
A-3R/L ∛(1.36 х 3.49 х 1.14 )= 1.76 cubic m, 1408 kg
A-1R/L ∛(2.12 х 2.8 х 0.66 )= 1.58 cubic m, 1264 kg
A-2R/L ∛(1.13 х 20.26 х 4) = 4.5 cubic m, 3600 kg

Total: 1,64 + 0,69 + 2,56 + 1,76 + 1,58 + 4,5 = 12,73 cubic m
Weight of fuel 12.73 cubic m х 0.8 = 10180 kg

Normal refuelling
Wing: A-2R/L – 3600 kg,
Fuselage: A-3R/L – 1408 kg and F-2 – 2048 kg
Total: 3600 kg + 1408 kg + 2048 kg = 7056 kg

Not.

gallon values from Technical Order 00-105E-9
F-1A: 380.8 gal (2551.4 lbs; 1157.3kg)
F-1B: 323.6 gal (1558.4 lbs; 706.9kg)
F-2: 710.8 gal (4762.4 lbs; 2160.2kg)
A-1: 380.8 gal (2551.4 lbs; 1157.3kg) x2
A-2: 375.3 gal (2514.5 lbs; 1140.6kg) x2
A-3: 77.3 gal (517.9 lbs; 234.9kg) x2

Total = 3082 gal (20,649.4 lbs; 9366.5 kg)

The USAF relied on Boeing’s knowledge.. and why not, to help to define the initial KC-X RFP.

No just Boeing. Boeing & Airbus & not for the KC-X RFP the “Commercial Derivative Air Refueling Aircraft” RFP that was well into definition (was planned for 1st deliveries in 2012) prior to 9/11/01.

One of those criteria was ‘new build’….

More specifically ‘new build commercial derivative aircraft’.

So when the RFP was issued and EADS was asked to participate…(rightly so as the US tax payer must be allowed to see a competitive acquisition process) it became clear that unless the RFP was altered to allow a current EADS production model to be considered it would be a waste of time and money to participate.

EADS had already been participating & its proposed KC-330 (as it was then called) was rejected. It was then with the cancellation of the tanker lease & Congress in its infinate wisdom thinking it could fix the problems from the tanker lease by calling for a new “open competition” with much greater control & oversite given directly to the SecDef. EADS then took advantage of this by sying that it would not compete for a contract in knew it could not win to get the requirements/criteria altered to better accomodate the larger A330 platform.

As the A310 is/was no longer produced and the smaller airframes are clearly not suitable it was clear that the A330 airframe was the basis for a bid.

And why A310 is/was no longer produced? 😉

And quite to the contrary, the A310 much more closely matched the requirements/criteria developed by the USAF. But EADS isn’t interested in proposing what the USAF wants, it is intertested in telling the USAF what it is going to get.

In order to comply with US procurement processes the RFP had to be amended to allow an A330 sized airframe to be considered in the competition.

EXACTLY!

The requirements/criteria were altered to accomodate the KC-30 for the sake of competition not because the USAF has changed its mind on what its requirements/criteria are.

So.. EADS can be blamed for many things, but the US requirements to have an open competition may be one that escapes them.

Yes, that ‘blaim’ falls on the US Congress for calling for a new “open competition” which by default forces the USAF to alter its requirements/criteria to accomodate what the only ‘competion’ to what the USAF had selected was offering.

One could see this as EADS saying that unless the RFP be amended to permit the A330 to play and to have a biased playing field…or one could see the procurement process needing to be amended to comply with overall legal processes and to genuinely provide good value from the money being spent.

Or one could see it for what it really is, an ignorant Congress causing more problems when it tries to ‘fix’ things.

If one is looking at the ‘best’ tanker for the KC-X the ‘best’ one may not be either a 767 or A330 based one…

True. For what the KC-X is/was supposed to be, something even smaller (& with less capacity) than the 767 may in fact be ‘best’. The problem is that currently there just isn’t commercial aircraft smaller (& with less capacity) than the 767 that is large enough (& thus with enough capacity) in current production & with increased emphases on airlift something in the size range of the A310 & 767 is pretty close whithou developeing an all new aircraft specifically for KC-X.

***

So if the GAO sustain a Boeing protest, then you immediately believe that it is the truth written in stone. If it doesn’t then you keep arguing the point.

No. You have to actually read & comprehend what the GAO ruled rather than relying on what other say.

Can you see how ridiculous you look?

I don’t.

Indeed, the GAO even recommended reopening the talks with both vendors to clarify that point (among others). We all get that NG botched its RFP answer on two points.

More to allow the agency (KC-X Source Selection Team) to correct its mistakes.

But based on the GAO ruling you cannot conclude that the KC-30 is physically unable to meet the overrun procedure. Yet you keep repeating this lie in every thread.

I never said that. But until it can be reasonably reasoned that it does meet the requirement it has to be concluded that it does not meet the requirement. A promis to make changes that may in fact allow the offer to meet the requirement is not good enough. Also do not forget that as originally configured/offered the KC-30 did/does not meet the requirement – that is why changes to the KC-30 have/had to be made.

Sure, to meet the requirement it has to take off with at least one gallon of fuel to offload. That’s one hell of a “stringent requirement” to use your qualification of the US requirements compared to other countries. Thank god other countries have “less stringent” requirements…

No, to meet the fuel offload requirement the KC-X has to meet (THRESHOLD) or exceed (OBJECTIVE) the fuel offload of the KC-135R.

To meet the runway length requirement does not require any fuel offload at all. It is a runway length requirement, not a fuel offload requirement.

Well, let’s see with some hard numbers.

ACN for a plane at max weight, worst case (rigid runway, D classification).

A330-200 : 78
B767-300ER: 78

OK, with the MTOW increase you get up to 85 for the A330. But then the KC-767ADV has a greater MTOW than the 767-300ER…

For comparison:

An-225 : 125
B-52 : 136
B1B : 113
777-200LR : 129 (does not bode well for a 777-based tanker, does it?)

Could you be any more disengenous?

The 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is not a 767-300ER. And in order for a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT to reach MTOW it has to be loaded with 222,000-227,000 lbs of payload (that’s 20,000-25,000 lbs more than its fual capacity). With a full load of ~202,000 lbs of fuel the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is ‘only’ at 387,000-392,000 lbs take-off weight. That means with a full load of fuel the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT would ACN number no greater than a 767-200ER it its 395,000 lbs MTOW. The KC-30 OTOH with a full load of 246,000 lbs is pretty much at its 513,000 lbs MTOW. And no matter what the payload is, if carried by both a 767-200LRF/KC-767AT & a KC-30, the KC-30 is ~80,000 lbs heavier.

So lets compare using real numbers…
A C N – F
036 – 040 – 049 – 063: KC-135 (the C-5A despite its weight is similar)
048 – 054 – 066 – 087: 767-200ER (full load of fuel 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is lower)
050 – 056 – 068 – 089: C-17
056 – 062 – 074 – 101: KC-10
061 – 066 – 077 – 105: A330-200

A C N – R
031 – 038 – 046 – 052: KC-135 (the C-5A despite its weight is similar)
044 – 052 – 062 – 071: 767-200ER (full load of fuel 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is lower)
051 – 049 – 054 – 066: C-17
045 – 055 – 067 – 077: KC-10
052 – 061 – 073 – 085: A330-200

Of course you don’t load any fuel at all the KC-767 it can operate from more fragile runway. But then given the payload restriction you might as well operate a KC-737.

No matter what the payload is, from operational empty all the way to MTOW the ACN of a KC-767AT is lower than that of KC-30 with the same payload. And if an airfield’s PCN is lower than the KC-30’s ACN but not lower than the KC-767AT then the KC-767AT can operate at MTOW (even though it take more than a full load of fuel to get it there) & the KC-30 has to operate at a lower take-off weight. There is in fact a ACN/PCN point where the KC-767AT can operate with greater payload than the KC-30!

So I’ll repeat myself: the only advantage the KC-767 has is that you can park more airplane on the same base (of course airplanes are meant to fly but let’s ignore this little problem).

No the KC-767AT has many advantages (98 according to the KC-X Source Selction Team). 🙂

Including the ability (because of its size (footprint) & weight (ACN) to operate from more airfields & in larger numbers from each airfiled than the KC-30.

So you’re finally quoting the numbers from the Boeing study comparing apples to oranges (the KC-767ADV is much heavier than a 767-200ER). I really wonder how you can keep a straight face quoting such biased source…

Not a Boeing study. A Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information study using published industry data and you can say what you will about the methodology in calculating the fuel costs (I myself have been quite vocal bout its inaccuracies as pertaining to aerial refueling operations) but not the fact that the A330-200 burns significantly more fuel per hour than the 767-200ER.

And no the KC-767AT is not ‘much’ heavier than the 767-200ER. Heavier, yes but not ‘much’ unlikely even so much to make the operational empty weight of the KC-767AT equal to that of the 767-300/300F. I use 185,000-190,000 not knowing exactly what it is but it is reasonable to assume that it is in that range (& likely clser to 185,000 than 190,000). Also note that with the more efficient -300F wing, the KC-767AT’s drage will most certianly be somewhat less making its fuel burn per hour less than that of a 767-200ER. And of course even with a full load of fuel the KC-767AT is 20,000-25,000 under (close to but less than the 767-200ER at MTOW) its MTOW …

The A330 larger wing is the reason it has a better fuel burn per load carried than the 767. It increases drag but it increases lift even more so the L/D is better for the A330. Combine it with more advanced engines and you get the 5% difference (to become 7% with the engine upgrade packages).

BS. The A330 isn’t more efficient than the 767 and its engines are no more advanced.

Now you’re right that if both planes are flying the same mission with the same payload, the KC-30 will end up burning more fuel but that’s not a very interesting point. Both planes wouldn’t be flying the same mission, the KC-30 would be kept on station much longer, offloading more fuel to more planes. If a mission needs two KC-767 and only one KC-30, the lone KC-30 will burn much less fuel than the pair of KC-767 so the matter is much more complex that a single plane fuel burn.

That’s the whole point! The KC-X reguardless of if it ends up being a 767 or an A300 will fly the same mission with the same fuel offload (not payload because in order to ofload the same fuel the KC-30 must carry more fuel as untransfered payload). And the vast majority of the time that fuel load (payload) will be will be well below the maximium the KC-767 can carry. The number of tankers require is much more determined by the number of booms needed than the total amount of fuel needed.

That’s why the USAF made simulations and concluded that they could do the same job using at least 10% less KC-30 on average. So when you’re comparing KC-767 and KC-30 fuel burn, don’t forget to add this 10% extra on top of the KC-767 bill. And then your fuel burn advantage evaporates.

No, the KC-X Source Selection Team in just one of many BS moves that demonstrate its lack of understanding of real world tanker operations ignored the USAF’s decades of experience with tanker operations (includes with both the medoium KC-135 & large KC-10).

And that BS “10% fewer KC-30” is in some alternate universe created within the CMARPS model so that the KC-30 could complete the evaluation missions (which it could not complete – could not get enough boobs in the air to meet the demand in the real world).

Take a loss or just don’t make an outrageous profit?

Oh no, they make plenty of profit. They just make it up elsewhere.

Or maybe most of the development costs have already been paaid by the RAF, RAAF, UAE contracts while Boeing has to start from scratch on this one.

No, most of the developement time & costs are in US specific systems for the KC-X reguardless of whether it be 767 or A330. The real sad part about all the delayes is that if most of these systems were contracted separately, their developement could have been going on all this time…

Well, except that they were already overcharging with the initial contract that was based on the Italian/Japanese platform, so scratch that, they’re just being greedy.

Again with that BS. Independent auditor found the price/cost to be fair.

There are planes that don’t “need” improvement packages? Are you arguing that airframe improvements are a bad thing? That a 767 platform is better because it won’t be updated in the future?

No, but the A330 needed those improvements to remain competative. Not the least of which its its poor payload/weight ration.

I guess that KC-135 did not “need” its CFM56 engine replacement program either… Stupid USAF, Airbus, trying to improve their planes over time.

LOL

Yup, the US had “stringent” requirements, while these stupid air forces wanting planes that can take off with a significant payload from their own airbases are obviously second-class.

The US’s airbase operations requirements are greater (more stringent) that other Air Forces. Or can you name another Air Force with a requirement that their tankers operate from a 7,000′ runway…

Or another Air Foce that requires hundrends of tanker to operate from (potentially) dozens of airbased simultaniously meeting the refueling demands of many hundrends of aircraft…

I can go on & on the the US’s more stringent requirements. But just remember this the KC-X RFP included ofer 800 requirements in all. 😉

Maybe, just maybe thay don’t have a heavy economic & political bias for one supplier and can decide objectively which plane is the best tanker?

You mean they are not superpowers & do not have the same responsibilities a superpower has.

Not that there is anything wrong about making decision based purely on political/economic factors. But you have to be honest about it and assume the higher costs coming from the absence of competition.

Absence of ‘competition’ does not by default result in higher costs. In fact the costs of the ‘competition’ itself can in fact result in higher cost.

Have you even read the Inspector General Office report on the tanker lease deal? The process is obvious, the USAF wanted tankers quickly, asked Boeing what it could offer and modified its requirements to fit the Boeing platform.

Many times. And as the typical EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers you rewrite & ignor much history (including that prior to the tanker lease).

The USAF had already all-but decided on the KC-767 as the platform & that only Boeing was able to meet its requirements (Airbus/EADS were not offering the A310 – which is unfortunate becasue then we could have had a real competition based on what the USAF really wants/need instead of the travisty forced on us) prior to 9/11/01.

Then the deal was cancelled but these requirements formed the basis of the KC-X RFP.

No, the pre-tanker lease requirements formed the basis of the KC-X RFP.

The only fueld dumping ability the KC-30 has is opening the outflow valve of the boom and pumping fuel in the air.

The KC-30 doesn’t need any other fuel dump capacity because, unlike the KC-767, its maximum landing weight is so close from its MTOW that it can always land safely even if it has an issue immediately after take off. This is the safety regulation you don’t seem to be aware of.

That’s why section 3.2.1.2.5&6 of the SRD was amended in December 2006.

And the original section is a clear example of how the RFP was tailored to the Boeing plane specifications from the beginning.

BS.

You have not been around aircraft much.

There are safety regulations that require fuel to be dumped! It isn’t about landing weight vs MTOW weight.