Airbus Tanker Wrong for Air Force

nddons said:
This is an interesting article. I've only followed this debate minimally, though I know John McCain is in favor of the Airbus, which makes me think Boeing is the way to go.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35323
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Is that three times this month we have agreed? YIKES!

From guys in the AF I have talked to they all prefer the Boeing to. I think had the original DoD person not taken the Boeing job the AF would have that tanker already.
 
Another consideration which I have not seen mentioned is that (according to my sources, which are flawless and inviolable), while the original RFP specified an airframe sized such that existing ramps at USAF facilities could accommodate the tankers without modification, the Airbus proposed airframes are larger enough that, at many facilities, the aircraft would require relocation and pushback by tugs, while the Boeing entrant (and the 135s they are intended to replace) are able to taxi to and from the designated locations without external assistance. This is a significant mission capability issue.

I am further led to believe that, to the extent the Airbus entrant was “superior,” the superiority largely results from Airbus tendering a proposed airframe which exceeds specific design parameters as set forth in the original RFP - and that Boeing, had they believed a non-compliant proposal would be considered, could have exceeded the 767-based proposal’s capabilities, too.

Bottom line, I think, is that it is not and has never been a level playing field on this one.

As for the questions about the vertical stab’s strength, I am not convinced that this is an issue - will leave it to the engineers who know.
 
smigaldi said:
I agree with you. Is that three times this month we have agreed? YIKES!
Click to expand...

I knew it. That's why I didn't need to put this in the SZ.

I know this is at least the second time in agreement, unless a third time was when you were Alternate Scott, in which case you were RIGHT.
 
I read a good propsal in Aviation Week & Space Technology that suggested retrofitting all those 767s that are resting in the desert. You could get the airframes for a song, yeah they're used a bit, but pick the best and refit them for $0.10 on the $. Certainly an effective interim approach. Not as fancy as having them custom built, and Boeing would probably squawk because it wouldn't keep the line open, but hey - belts are tightening everywhere.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I read a good propsal in Aviation Week & Space Technology that suggested retrofitting all those 767s that are resting in the desert. You could get the airframes for a song, yeah they're used a bit, but pick the best and refit them for $0.10 on the $. Certainly an effective interim approach. Not as fancy as having them custom built, and Boeing would probably squawk because it wouldn't keep the line open, but hey - belts are tightening everywhere.
Click to expand...

Coulda done that with any of the old ships in the desert including the MD11s and L10's. The MDs have been sucked up as freighers and the L10s have been scrapped.
 
Tim said:
The way to go is to put the KC-135 back into production.
Click to expand...
Typical government practice is to scrap the tooling when the production run is done (remember, the KC-135 has no direct civilian equivalent). In any case, it dates from before the CAD/CAM era. You'd either have to re-engineer the whole aircraft, or build it using 1950s techniques. Either would be costly.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wsuffa said:
Coulda done that with any of the old ships in the desert including the MD11s and L10's. The MDs have been sucked up as freighers and the L10s have been scrapped.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The article also mentioned them. I think there are still a bunch of DC10s out there, and they'd be (he says with absolutely no knowledge of the process) pretty easy to convert to KC10s I imagine.

Most efficient from an operating standpoint? No. Shiniest, newest, fanciest technology? No. But they'd do the job. The military doesn't understand that concept very well.

Heck, there are tons of 767s laid up. The 767 has been converted into a tanker already for the Italians. They're having a little trouble because they decided to invent a new boom system for it, but it shouldn't be too hard (see disclaimer in parens above) to make the 767 conversion work on all those planes in the desert.
 
What I'd like to see is Boeing's plan for production. Are they going to screw up like they did on the 787 and sub it out to 15 gazillion countries, or is it going to be a domestic craft? If it's going to be some kind of 3rd world mutt, then the Air Force might as well award to Airbus.


Trapper John
 
I believe we already have a disquiting incident on parts availabity from foreign manufacturers during wartime. It was reported that Boeing had problems with the Swiss during the Iraq war on critical missile parts. Getting anything out of Toulouse during a flap, given the French propensity for contrarian behavior where we are concered, could result in a serious and dangerous confrontation. After the stunning victory at Lsandlwana in January of 1879, Cetshwayo, King of the Zulu's is reported to have remarked, "We beat the British, but we can not win. We don't make guns ."
 
flyersfan31 said:
Most efficient from an operating standpoint? No. Shiniest, newest, fanciest technology? No. But they'd do the job. The military doesn't understand that concept very well.
Click to expand...

IMHO as a military aviator, that couldn't be further from the truth. Give me something that gets the job done and I'll take it. The people flying the planes, driving the trucks and shooting the weapons ALWAYS just want something that works. It's the people in the acquisition programs that want all the extra crap - not to mention politicians that want to put all sorts of extra money in a spending bill for some crap to benefit themselves.

[/rant]

Sorry, but we're flying old beat up planes and getting shot at in them - it bugs me when people think we don't want something that gets the job done.
 
EvilEagle said:
IMHO as a military aviator, that couldn't be further from the truth. Give me something that gets the job done and I'll take it. The people flying the planes, driving the trucks and shooting the weapons ALWAYS just want something that works. It's the people in the acquisition programs that want all the extra crap - not to mention politicians that want to put all sorts of extra money in a spending bill for some crap to benefit themselves.

[/rant]

Sorry, but we're flying old beat up planes and getting shot at in them - it bugs me when people think we don't want something that gets the job done.
Click to expand...

If the Air Force truly valued function over form, they'd eliminate the F-15's ground attack role and buy a few hundred OV-10s.
 
EvilEagle said:
IMHO as a military aviator, that couldn't be further from the truth. Give me something that gets the job done and I'll take it. The people flying the planes, driving the trucks and shooting the weapons ALWAYS just want something that works. It's the people in the acquisition programs that want all the extra crap - not to mention politicians that want to put all sorts of extra money in a spending bill for some crap to benefit themselves.

[/rant]

Sorry, but we're flying old beat up planes and getting shot at in them - it bugs me when people think we don't want something that gets the job done.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the generality. I meant the military brass, and procurement people. Denizens of the Pentagon.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I apologize for the generality. I meant the military brass, and procurement people. Denizens of the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

I tend to blame our congrescritters. Refurbing old airplanes doesn't create nearly as many jobs to spread over 400+ congressional districts as building entirely new ones.

I think the Airforce would be happy with Cheap used KC767's if they could put the "leftover" (wink, wink, nudge) bucks into a few more F-22's, F-35's, etc.
 
dmccormack said:
There's a ton more long term work (and money and jobs) in Maintenance.
Click to expand...

You'll never become a congressman with that kind of logic.

If we buy a shiney new airplane TODAY, we create many, many jobs in dozens of states, RIGHT NOW. And that gets congressmen elected and re-elected, because it gets the 3" headline in the local paper(s).

Whereas maintenance tends to create fewer jobs, spread out over the long term. That's buried on page 2.

;-)
 
dmccormack said:
If the Air Force truly valued function over form, they'd eliminate the F-15's ground attack role and buy a few hundred OV-10s.
Click to expand...

So you think that the people flying the planes have any say over what type of planes we actually get? Ha! I wish! :rofl::rofl: :mad2:
 
kyleb said:
You'll never become a congressman with that kind of logic.

If we buy a shiney new airplane TODAY, we create many, many jobs in dozens of states, RIGHT NOW. And that gets congressmen elected and re-elected, because it gets the 3" headline in the local paper(s).

Whereas maintenance tends to create fewer jobs, spread out over the long term. That's buried on page 2.

;-)
Click to expand...

I kinda do.

I live in Congressional District PA-12.

Trust me -- Maintenance is where the long term, big cash is.
 
You know...

This could actually be a very useful form of stimulus.

I don't know how many 76's are mothballed, but picking them up would benefit AIG (ILFC owns some), the airlines, and other leasing firms who have what is basically tied up, depreciating assets sitting unused and generally weighing down their balance sheets.

AF picks them up, Boeing converts them, the asset holders get them off the balance sheet and an infusion of cash, everybody wins!

Cheers,

-Andrew
I know it's simplistic; indulge me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top