A330 made in America?

[Randy Haskin]

Do any of you guys even CARE what the capabilities of the end-result tanker are? Or does it just matter where it's made?

Listen, I was born and lived for 22 years in Seattle. Boeing put food on my table for the vast majority of the years I lived there, as my father was an Engineer for Boeing. I'm just as much of a Boeing cheerleader as anyone else.

I was a little emotionally disappointed that my boys from hometown didn't get the contract...

BUT...

As somebody who is going to have to USE this improved tanker, what I REALLY care about is the combat capabilities of the end product.

If the Airbus is the better aircraft...that's what I want.

[The Inspector]

Keep your visor down while tanking so stuff flying off won't put out an eye.
Unfortuintely, it is people like Randy who are going to have to co-exist with this aircraft for however long it stays around, I'm just very unhappy that my government is sending my tax dollars somewhere else, whats wrong? were the Chinese excluded from bidding?

[Owen Miller]

Most of the titanium used in the A-12s and SR-71s came from the
(then) Soviet Union.

[bdk]

If the Airbus is the better aircraft...that's what I want.

Time will tell if politics were left out of the decision-making process either way, but I hope for all our sakes the right choice was made, even if inadvertantly.

[Randy Haskin]

Come on, WIXers. The airplanes haven't been built yet.

None of us knows any of the details behind the agreement. None of us knows what will be buillt where and out of what materials. None of us knows how many spare parts will be purchased, where they'll be stocked, and when they'll be delivered. None of us knows how the aircraft will perform when they're in operational service.

Before the sand-throwing and name-calling begins, why not find out some of the information first. To do otherwise is just ignorant.

[JDK]

Thanks Randy. It seems the noise here is less to do with aircraft purchasing than outright shock that the 'home team' didn't get the contract. The foreignness of Boeing or Airbus is moot, IMHO (see RMAllnutt's post) in an international market, from my limited understanding and having watched one-way 'free-trade' agreements in action with the US from the UK and Europe, Canada and Australia, I have little sympathy, sorry.

The carry on after the fact isn't edifying to watch. We could be impressed by stoicism (and bdk's grudging but open reaction) but it'd be hard to notice over the xenophobic stuck-pig screaming.

My local Boeing factory would like me to believe they're an important employer, vital to the local economy etc and etc. They aren't. Mainly I just note it says Boeing on the side and not CAC or GAF

Dragging it back to something approaching the forum mandate, was this kind of bitching in evidence after the USN chose BAe's Hawk as a trainer, or (proper warbird territory) the Martin B-57 from the English Electric Canberra?

Frankly, my dear, I'd rather write about warbirds...

[Fouga23]

If airbus was the better product, Then what's the big deal? You do want the best equipment for your troops do you? If you can only buy home made stuff, then I guess we here in Europe shouldn't buy any more US stuff?

[Old SAR pilot]

Seem to recall that the Army (and later the AF) bought U-6's, U-1s, CV-7s from Canada, and U-10s from Switzerland, and no uproar. Same goes for the current in-theater airlfter (the Italian-built C-27), and USAF SOCOM buying Swiss. Was gonna add the T-45 and the B-57 (later mfd by Martin in Baltimore), but James beat me to it.

Also seem to recall that, when Boeing took over MDD, upper management did their level best to kill the B717 as fast as they could, which could have directly competed with the Embraer and Bombardier larger-series airliners now coming on line. When was the last time you saw a US-built commuter liner at your local airport? And when was the last time you raised h**l with the airlines about buying foreign-built?

I really feel for all those "worker-bee" folks that will be affected by this, but if you REALLY want someone to blame, you'd best look at your "suits".

[Broken-Wrench]

This is a 40 billion dollar contract! This fight has just started and isn't over by any means...This contract is going to be protested. Wait and see.. You'll probably see another bid with boeing using a 777 or 787 airframe in place of the 767.

[dred]

My understanding is that the A-330 is larger, is a slightly newer design and has more composite components than the 767. What I don't understand is why this makes the A-330 a better tanker for the USAF? What is it about the tanking mission that would require the latest, most up-to-date technology? Has something changed about the mission?

At one time, the 767-based tanker was expected to be significantly cheaper than the A-330 (don't know if that's still the case), which means either more airframes for the same dollars, or fewer dollars spent (in an ultra-tight fiscal environment) for the same number of airframes.

Regarding cargo capacity, how much cargo are our present tankers carrying? Even for an A-330, don't you have to trade-off fuel to carry more cargo? And if so, how does trading off fuel help the tanking mission?

Regarding fuel transfer, what qualities does the A-330 possess that allow it to do this job better than a 767? Obviously, it should be capable of carrying more fuel, but I've never come across any information that the much smaller KC135's were inadequate.

[rwdfresno]

The big disappointment for me is that the home team couldn't design the best product. I hope Boeing isn't falling into the same rut as GM as far as product development.

I know nothing about either of the tankers but I think if it is the case that our own team can't build a competitive product then that is pretty disappointing.

[PinecastleAAF]

I'm just very unhappy that my government is sending my tax dollars somewhere else, whats wrong?

I'm not sure where to start on this one. Ever hear of Iraq?

We spend about 40billion there every 3 - 4 months.

.

[DB2]

Airbus/Northrop was the underdog and as such got more competitive and aggressive. Boeing, buoyed by the success of the 787, got complacent. Best proposal won, IMHO.

You can be sure that today at Boeing a bunch of guys are gathered around a table going "OK folks, let's figure where we went wrong, and how we can fix it". Guys looking to make their name at Boeing will jump in front with bright ideas, efficiency will be improved, waste cut, etc etc and then Boeing will be competitive and best-positioned on the next slice of the tankers.

I was actually pleased at the decision. Free-market capitalism trumped pork-barrel politics and protectionist undercurrents. In the end, it's still my tax dollars paying for it, and I want to see them spent in the wisest way possible.

And if the EU is (not so secretly?) subsidizing Airbus' plan, well, my thanks to them for paying for part of our military. It's about time.

[Randy Haskin]

What is it about the tanking mission that would require the latest, most up-to-date technology? Has something changed about the mission?

There has been a significant move in the last 10 years to make tankers part of the data collection/dissemination constellation -- essentially having them onload pallets with specialized gear...since they are just sitting there orbiting near combat zones, there's no reason why they can't be doing SIGINT and the like while they're there.

Regarding cargo capacity, how much cargo are our present tankers carrying? Even for an A-330, don't you have to trade-off fuel to carry more cargo? And if so, how does trading off fuel help the tanking mission?

At present, the KC-10 is the only aircraft that does both cargo and refueling. The KC-135 can't (doesn't) do both at the same time. It makes a big difference when you're trying to drag fighters from someplace a long ways away if you can also onload cargo on board and have it there at the same place and the same time.

Regarding fuel transfer, what qualities does the A-330 possess that allow it to do this job better than a 767? Obviously, it should be capable of carrying more fuel, but I've never come across any information that the much smaller KC135's were inadequate.

135s are very tight on how much fuel they can pass. In Afghanistan, they're showing up in the tanker track with enough gas to suppport...well, not that many formations worth of fighters that are on station for 4 or 5 hours at a time. I don't want to get into details about how much gas is being passed and when, but let's just say that when tankers have to fly a couple of hours just to GET to the tanker track, it helps when they have quite a bit of gas to pass (e.g. loiter time). More gas on board is better.

This is exactly the point I was making earlier. There are many factors involved in picking the winner. None of us knows what those factors were.

I can tell you from a reciever's point of view, the KC-135 is a total piece of trash and the KC-10 is a dream. The wake turbulence produced by the 135 makes it very difficult to stay in position, and with the 135's boom essentially being "free floating", the boomer can't help put you where he wants you. In addition, the lighting configuration externally makes it very tough to fly position on the wings at night weariing NVGs.

[dred]

Thanks Randy, very helpful to have some first-person perspective on the issue.