Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
As far as capacity/capability, the A330 is a much larger plane. Boeing could have come in with a 777 version if that's what the AF had asked for.
|
I not trying to pick a fight here heasighs, but have you read the RFP for the KC-45? (I have not)
All I am saying is that maybe it was Boeing who dropped the ball here...and that they opted for the easier design (B767 over B777) in their proposal?
They also had ulterior motives for going with the B767 (which is clinging on to production life by a thread) and not the B777 (which is continuing to enjoy good commercial sales)
Also, when you say the B767 is 12% more efficient than the A330. That's not fair and you know it. Compare the efficiency of a piece of freight or a lb. of fuel in each aircraft, that's fair. The A330 can carry more freight, farther...and this is offset by its larger engines which use more gas. Everything is relative.
All this is coming from a bystander who doesn't really care one way or the other. I would have bet the farm that the KC-767 would have won, knew that the KC-30 was the more advanced and capable airplane. I'm happy for the USAF if they choose the KC-30 based on their requirements, putting the capability of the military and the lives of its airmen above the need for US production.
I do wonder though, if the USAF had made a critical mistake by selecting a larger airframe. This will most likely mean that there will be 3 sizes of tankers in the future (KC-135/KC-45/KC-10). I know this competition was to replace the KC-135E models, and the KC-135R's will be replaced in the future via a new selection process. But for logistical sake, it would have been simpler to replace the KC-135/KC-10 combo with a tactical tanker and a strategic one (such as the KC-767 or KC-310 AND a KC-777. Maybe having 3 tanker sizes gives you added capability that outweighs the logistics.