Surely this is much more a C2 fit, all a bit overkill for an OPV/MCM??

Sure, sure. Certainly an entirely reasonable point of view and one which may be much more in line with UK gov thinking than mine.

My view is that FFBNW doesn’t cost a huge amount (in relative terms).

It is easy to read FFBNW as ‘lets leave off the stuff which we definitely need and hope for the best if we say FFBNW no one will notice‘ and that again may be the intention but I also see it as potentially ‘lets make the platforms as flexible as possible so that we can do something with the later‘

It is a reality that warships are tasked with, um tasks for which they were not originally designed. It would be nice to be able to fit them out to tackle those tasks. Any fitting out which requires a big refit probably ain’t gonna happen. Any fitting out which requires structural work or provision of services (air, water, power, signals in and signals out) from scratch will cost lots (much more than providing those services when originally built) and hence is not cost-effective and probably ain’t gonna happen.

I thought that it was criminal how little use was made of HMS Bristol. She was potentially a genuine cruiser but fitted out with the square root of naff all. Then a more learned chum led me gently through the work required to fit new/extra systems and the (very approximate) cost and I calmed down a bit. Even the drawing and structural calculations made me balk somewhat.

Al

The IAF may need a light fighter programme rather more than it needs a light fighter.

For ex the Japanese spend more developing the F2 than it would have cost to buy latest F15s. Which on the surface is crazy as the F15 would offer greater capability. But by developing the F2 the JSDF and Japanese industry have learnt much which will be of use for the NEXT fighter programme.

I humble suggest that IAF is following a similar path. And that the delays in introduction make perfect sense in that context.

Al

Government is worse only because it’s bigger.

plus one

And genuine commiserations in being caught up in the cycle of management inadequacy.

Al

That looks much closer to the mark.

plus one

My concern is, I couldn’t see any numbers for crewing and the spams do like to fill their ships with people

Al

It didn’t win the 1st time, the KC-767 did. First time waa the tanker lease.

Okay, thanks for that correction.

So WHY was the tanker lease cancelled (and can whoever made the decision explain their reasoning to UK gov?)

The KC-767 isn’t wholly domestic, but at 85% US workshare is much more domestic than the KC-30 at just 58% US workshare.

Okay, interesting. The remaining 15% are they components bought in bulk off the shelf or bits of kit specifically manufactured by experts outside of the US? Are the rivets bought in bulk and happen to be made in Asia or the ICs made cheaper/greater yield at Kobe? Or are there mysterious fuel pump secrets only held by German engineers?

In terms of the KC-X requirements & criteria the KC-30 doesn’t provide anything the KC-767AT does not.

So why was it selected? There must have been some reason, even if you do not agree with it. Or even if said reason is nonsense.

The KC-767AT met or exceeded all key requirements (including both fuel offload & airlift requirements, met more non-key requirements & was found superior in far far more requirements. And there is no value added in exceeding OBJECTIVES that are met or exceeded by the competator.

Surely that depends on how sophisticated the selection process is? Or did KC-767 fail to meet other objectives and thus rule itself out on those grounds (NB: that are a genuine request for info not a billy goat dangling over a bridge)

***

Exactly, in saying that it may/could propose a 777-based tanker Boeing is saying that if the requirements are further altered to accomodate the larger KC-30, that it can ‘trump’ the KC-30 with a blatantly obviouly KC-Y rather than KC-X KC-777 which takes everything that people think is so superior about the larger KC-30 & exceeds it.

So are Boeing addressing a reason for the original decision going against them or cannily tring to sew up orders for two programmes with but one airframe?

Actually it negates the BS arguments for the KC-30…

Which are…..?

And are they Bill Shut arguments made by Airbus or the DoD selction team? Or both? Neither?

Al

Or better yet , sell them to Branson. He’s been anxious to get into the SST business.
Put nice seat covers in the back and label it “Ultra Fast Class” and he’s perobably make a profit between NY & London.
He could use his regular jets as tankers over the same route.:D

🙂

I recall reading somewhere that during the decades leading up to WW2, the main perceived potential enemy of the US Navy wasn’t the Imperial Japanese or German navies, but the Royal Navy of the UK… (correct me if I’m wrong)::confused:

I am sure that you are correct.

The Royal Navy was the other big boy and thus potential threat. The Imperial Japanese Navy made up a lot of ground very quickly (partly due to their policy of asking anyone who beat them ‘could you show us how you did that?’)

When you see the terms and conditions which the US imposed on the UK for helping us in a war which we were on the same side in then you can see that the US agenda was very much for wrenching control of third parties away from the UK. (Whether this was due to a desire to end the evils of colonialism or to bolster the US powerbase I cannot say and I suspect that no one else here can either).

There is also the theory that Churchill ordered the attack on Pearl Harbour in order to drag the spams into WWII. (Largely on the grounds that the Japanese would have had to be truly stupid to have done it themselves)

Al