Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
Perhaps, but the KC-45 exceeded them.
|
The AF overemphasized the cargo role. It was not a significant part of the RFP, which meant Boeing didn't come to the table with a like platform.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
Boeing made tanker verions of the 747 and supplied them to Iran. Size alone is not the full story as you well know, Casey. The selection process was protracted and every possible feature was put into the equation to be weighed. Of course, were it not for the impropriety and time wasting by Boeing the issue would not be nearly so contentious as it has become.
|
I smell a rat. I agree that Boeing's impropriety was a factor however.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
With fewer tankers available the offloads will necessarily be greater than that in future.
|
So? The Boeing bid met the RFP. If the AF wanted more capacity, they should have specified it in the RFP. Boeing could easily have come with a 777 platform.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
Due to the difference in size and capability between the two you are comparing apples with oranges.
|
No, I am comparing the KC-767 and KC-30. The KC-767 will burn 24% less fuel per mile than the KC-30.
The Air Force uses about 1/2 the total fuel of the entire US military. They have been making a big fuss about their plans for a "greener" air force, more efficient, etc. Boeing took all that talk seriously, and came in with a more efficient proposal, and lost because of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
The 757 line was coming to its end because Boeing couldn't sell the model. A good plane in its day but commercial operators (who use their own money to buy aircraft) would no longer consider it to be a viable type. Having a common flight deck is an interesting idea (like the 757 and 767 had) but integrating it into the 777 would undoubtedly be costly.
|
The 767-400 ER and 777 already
have a common flight deck.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
I'm not sure you're right there.
|
There are a lot of small airbases around the world that can support the KC-767 and cannot support the KC-30.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
It's been trialled already. No problems.
|
On an A-310 airframe. The first KC-30 is not fitted out for refueling as yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
Over half the ticket price will be for items of US manufacture.
|
I'll believe this when I see it. Since we're not building the airframe, nose, wings, or tail, I wonder which "half" we will be building....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
When it's considered that the KC-135 was a minimum change from the commercial 707 the Stratotanker has done extremely well for over half a century. Obviously components have been changed, it has been re-skinned, re-engined and upgraded in so many ways, but the cost of operating it has become prohibitive.
|
I don't recall advocating the continuation of the KC-135, but now that you mention it- deliveries of the KC-30 will take significantly longer than the KC-767, so we'll have to keep flying the KC-135's for that much longer...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
Not so, sir. Examples are flying now.
|
Not yet outfitted out for refueling...AFAIK.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glyn
Every time the rest of the world buys American you profit and they lose. The US rarely buys foreign equipment - but what a hulabalou is raised when it does!
|
If they lose, then why do they buy???
And why should we buy foreign when we have a proven track record with the type and can build the plane ourselves?? How many times have our European "allies" denied us overflight rights in the past when they disagreed with our policies? I don't like the thought that we could be denied spares in the future because Spain disagrees with an American president over something.