World Affairs Board - View Single Post - USAF Tanker Decision: KC-30 wins

Chunder · 03-07-2008, 05:06 AM

I want to point out several things;

In the History of procurement in the USAF, in many circumstances the better result is where politics is removed from the Equation.

USAF technological leads and secrets have often relied on competitive processes that bought about the technology. Examples of good procurements of the USAF range from B52's, to the political failure of the TFX (F-111) and its ultimate replacement with the F-14.

The fly off between the F16 & F-18, both of which went on and benefitted both Navy & Airforce. The YF-22, and YF23, resulting in the Raptor, the Ripping apart of the C-17 and telling them to get their acts together on price disparities, the Fly off between the X-32 and X-35. The C5 & 747... Most of these aircraft VASTLY outperforming their replaced type. The Stratolifter vs Globelifter, the F4 Phantom vs the F-15 the F/A 18 vs the A7 C-17 vs the the 146... they have often been one for one replacements but in many cases Vastly Superior.

Competition has in many cases driven that technological edge, which is why the US has had spectacular success with exports like the F-16. That has created far more jobs through technological ingenuity than any government handout to supply the USAF with an aircraft from a sole source competitior.

Airbus was taking early hits with it's A310 tanker and switched to the A330. The 767 was the reason for this. It is unlikely boeing ever had the intention of offerring the 777 or serious intention of offering it once it realised the competition 'was on', because of the incestuous nature of Boeings 'Airbus's new rivalry isn't as good as us because' - Same could be said for airbus too...

EADS changed its product, did significant R&D, even designed another boom.

Ultimately the USAF has time and again made decisions which have benefitted the U.S Industrial base by forcing it to provide an aircraft that is successfull in other markets. Phantom, F-16, SH-60, CH46, Abrahms, C-17 F/A-18, F-15, A4, F5.. AH-1 UH-1.

The Irony of it all, with Boeing aquiring the Manufacturer and phasing out the L011 for it's own products meant that in the long run, a design which offloads more fuel than the A330, couldn't continue... Where one interest bought out another. Just because your a US based company (lets not mention that its not all in the USA) and you have been supporting tankers for over 50 years is not an argument.

At the end of the day, everyone knew the competition was open, nobody opposed the competition, until it was awarded to a partnership which was multinational. The moralistic implication of such incredible double standards are extraordinary.

03-07-2008, 05:06 AM	#59 (permalink)
Chunder Patron Join Date: 03-02-08 Posts: 162	I want to point out several things; In the History of procurement in the USAF, in many circumstances the better result is where politics is removed from the Equation. USAF technological leads and secrets have often relied on competitive processes that bought about the technology. Examples of good procurements of the USAF range from B52's, to the political failure of the TFX (F-111) and its ultimate replacement with the F-14. The fly off between the F16 & F-18, both of which went on and benefitted both Navy & Airforce. The YF-22, and YF23, resulting in the Raptor, the Ripping apart of the C-17 and telling them to get their acts together on price disparities, the Fly off between the X-32 and X-35. The C5 & 747... Most of these aircraft VASTLY outperforming their replaced type. The Stratolifter vs Globelifter, the F4 Phantom vs the F-15 the F/A 18 vs the A7 C-17 vs the the 146... they have often been one for one replacements but in many cases Vastly Superior. Competition has in many cases driven that technological edge, which is why the US has had spectacular success with exports like the F-16. That has created far more jobs through technological ingenuity than any government handout to supply the USAF with an aircraft from a sole source competitior. Airbus was taking early hits with it's A310 tanker and switched to the A330. The 767 was the reason for this. It is unlikely boeing ever had the intention of offerring the 777 or serious intention of offering it once it realised the competition 'was on', because of the incestuous nature of Boeings 'Airbus's new rivalry isn't as good as us because' - Same could be said for airbus too... EADS changed its product, did significant R&D, even designed another boom. Ultimately the USAF has time and again made decisions which have benefitted the U.S Industrial base by forcing it to provide an aircraft that is successfull in other markets. Phantom, F-16, SH-60, CH46, Abrahms, C-17 F/A-18, F-15, A4, F5.. AH-1 UH-1. The Irony of it all, with Boeing aquiring the Manufacturer and phasing out the L011 for it's own products meant that in the long run, a design which offloads more fuel than the A330, couldn't continue... Where one interest bought out another. Just because your a US based company (lets not mention that its not all in the USA) and you have been supporting tankers for over 50 years is not an argument. At the end of the day, everyone knew the competition was open, nobody opposed the competition, until it was awarded to a partnership which was multinational. The moralistic implication of such incredible double standards are extraordinary. Last edited by Chunder : 03-07-2008 at 05:12 AM.