JA Boomer

The USAF has selected the Northrop Grumman KC-30 design to become the KC-45A as the next aerial refueling tanker in the service.

The selection involves the production of 4 test aircraft and 64 production aircraft. 179 KC-45A's are likely to eventually be procured. They will replace the aging KC-135E fleet currently serving in Air Mobility Command.

This is pretty big news...Boeing was regarded as being the heavily favored competitor. Boeing will also likely launch a lawsuit against the USAF claiming that they should have been selected. It appears the USAF does not have a problem reaching across the pond to get an aircraft with better capabilities.

Tanker contract award announced

AMC commander welcomes tanker announcement

scorefour

This is a wake-up call for Boeing. They can't expect to win the major competitions just because they're an American company. Their product has to be at least almost as good as the competition's. In this case, it wasn't even close. Boeing lost on 4 out of the 5 criteria. If Boeing ever wants to get back into this market, they'll have to develop a tanker based on a newer airframe. For many years to come, however, Airbus will own the tanker market wordwide.

__________________
I want what I do not have.

JA Boomer

I am very surprised by the selection, I thought the USAF was going to buy the KC-767's and give the "the KC-767 is closer in size to the tanker to be replaced" or the "we want more, smaller tankers, for less money".

Pleasantly surprised, the USAF opted for the newer, much improved capability airplane. Good for them. Why would you buy a 25 year old design, with only slightly greater mission capability than the current aircraft?

However, Boeing had its hands tied. KC-777 was too large, KC-757 too small, and the composite KC-787 might have had problems integrating into the military, I'm not sure what the durability would have been? Notwithstanding that delivery would have been delayed several years while a second 787 line was introduced.

S65

From Northrop Grumman's site it looks like the KC-45 carries more fuel than the Boeing competitor and can help alleviate some of the load C-17s are carrying. Sounds like the Air Force went with the most capable plane.

The wiki page for the KC-767 said Boeing's refueling boom was to be used on the KC-X no matter which airframe won, but the NG page mentions their EADS Advanced Refuelling Boom System. I can see how the USAF would use the Boeing-provided boom, anyone have leads on this?

Chunder

The boom iwll be an EADS FBW boom... as EADS has extensive experience in maintaining booms in teh French Airforce, and already have flight tested theirs on an A310 and are at present integrating it onto an RAAF KC30.

Adux

Well it is nice to see Americans buying from the Europeans for a change,

gunnut

What is the cost difference between the 2? How about capability wise? Are they similar or is one way better than the other?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Adux

Gunnut,

EADS aircraft is far ahead in capability and the US Airforce went for the best possible aircraft.

Check this:

TopHatter

Hardly the first time, though still a rarity, and as scorefour pointed out, it's a wake-up call for Boeing.

Hopefully it'll be a wake-up call for the rest of American industry.

I'm also thinking about the new Marine One Presidential helicopter: A British design flying the American president around.

If that and the KC-30 aren't enough to shake the American industrial establishment out of it's "divine right of industry" mentality, I'm not sure what will be.

Maybe building a new class of surface warship overseas? (Never happen, but still...)

The other thing to keep in mind is how much work will be done here in the States for these machines.

Heck, the double-decker Airbus is having major components fabricated right here in the US.....just like the 787 is having major components manufactured overseas.

Stan

I would like to see the next airforce one plane being a airbus A380

__________________
Loving good discussion since 1983

Adux

Tophatter,

Nothing is as big as this one, especially on the background of EADS(Airbus) and Boeing rivalery. But USAF, got the better product by a mile. In the end that is what matters.

glyn

[quote=TopHatter;465746]Hardly the first time, though still a rarity, and as scorefour pointed out, it's a wake-up call for Boeing.

Hopefully it'll be a wake-up call for the rest of American industry.

I'm also thinking about the new Marine One Presidential helicopter: A British design flying the American president around.

If that and the KC-30 aren't enough to shake the American industrial establishment out of it's "divine right of industry" mentality, I'm not sure what will be.

Maybe building a new class of surface warship overseas? (Never happen, but still...)

The other thing to keep in mind is how much work will be done here in the States for these machines.

Production lines are to be set up in the USA for both types.

Heck, the double-decker Airbus is having major components fabricated right here in the US.....just like the 787 is having major components manufactured overseas.

True. The aviation business is truly International. Some American aircraft have more foreign parts than home produced parts. Likewise some foreign aircraft have a majority of American components. We are seeing capitalism in action. Where things get tricky is in deciding anything on the multi-national companies.
The one point to watch is not in designing but getting the components available when and where they are required - whether sub components or final assembly. Airbus shot itself in the foot with problems in the wiring looms that caused considerable delays, and so did Boeing with the 787 when they had insufficient approved rivets. (They had to complete the first example with non-approved rivets so it could be rolled out on the due date to meet the Press. It was then rolled back so the rivets could be drilled out, awaiting the proper ones.) You can bet that both companies have learnt a great deal from these howlers.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

HistoricalDavid

Aero-News Network: The Aviation and Aerospace World's Daily/Real-Time News and Information Service

Is it just me, or when you follow these people's logic, the purpose of military procurement is not to get the best kit for the job, but to 'create' jobs for your citizens? (Ignoring the economics of this statement, exactly the sort thing Shek eats for breakfast.)

__________________
HD Ready?

glyn

HistoricalDavid

Unless I'm mistaken, government simply cannot 'create' jobs with spending without destroying them through taxes first.