TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER

KENG wrote:

One point. MacAir is now Boeing.


It wasn't Boeing when it successfully built the KC-10, an aircraft utilizing
a flying boom.

Andrew Swallow wrote:
KENG wrote:

One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
boom.

The RAF has been using Vickers VC10 for inflight refuelling.
http://www.vc10.net/Photos/raf_tanker_force.html


Doers it utilize a flying boom?

On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:46:49 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

KENG wrote:

One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
boom.

Did it ever occur to you that only the USAAF has ever needed such a
thing? Nobody else has aircraft that big and that thirsty to make it
necessary or cost effective. I do suggest that technology pioneered
almost 60 years ago would not be that difficult for any modern
aerospace manufacturer to replicate, if they ever needed to.

Eugene L Griessel

Maybe the essential element to take note of is that the flying boom
for the Northrop/EADS tanker is made in the USA. Also the engines. Oh,
and the avionics. And lots of other little pieces/parts.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

In article ,
Andrew Swallow wrote:

KENG wrote:

One question. Please name one aerospace manufacturer (other than
Boeing) that has successfully built an aircraft utilizing a flying
boom.

The RAF has been using Vickers VC10 for inflight refuelling.
http://www.vc10.net/Photos/raf_tanker_force.html

The VC-10 tanker is quite nifty, yes, but it looks (at least in all the
linked pictures) to be offering probe-and-drogue fill ups only.

Mike wrote in news:e527ff46-af05-4157-a7c1-
:

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1268.shtml

TANKER CONTROVERSY: QUESTIONS THE AIR FORCE MUST ANSWER
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
May 28, 2008

It is now three months since the Air Force shocked the world by
awarding the contract for its next-generation aerial-refueling tanker
to Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus. Throughout
that time, service officials have insisted that the process by which
the winner was chosen was transparent and fair. But the service has
failed to answer even the most basic questions about how the decision
was made to deny the contract to Boeing, the widely favored
incumbent. The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue
a ruling on Boeing's protest of the outcome in mid-June. Whatever it
finds, the Air Force has some explaining to do..

Sez Bo(e)ing.

1. The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to
develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers,
regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus
A330. But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and
burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. With fuel prices headed
for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount
to build and operate over their lifetimes?

Evidently the concept of ton-miles/gallon is alien to Miiiister
Thompson...

2. The Air Force says it would be equally risky to develop the Boeing
tanker or the Airbus tanker -- after forcing Boeing to substantially
increase the time and money required to develop its version. But
Boeing proposed to build its tanker on the same assembly line where it
has already constructed hundreds of the same airframe, whereas Airbus
proposes to build its tanker at a plant and with a workforce that
don't yet exist in Alabama. How can the risks be equal?

This is done in many places. Why should this be any different.
And its not like Bo(e)ing doesn't have problems with integrating
dispersed manufacturing operations.

3. The Air Force says that a computerized simulation of how the
competing tankers would function in an actual wartime scenario
strongly favored the larger Airbus plane. But the simulation assumed
longer runways, stronger asphalt and more parking space than actually
exists at forward bases, and failed to consider the consequences of
losing bases in wartime. How can such unrealistic assumptions be
relevant to the selection of a next-generation tanker?

Both aircraft are designed to operate from long runways.
Chances are that available airfields will be able to accomodate
either type. Field Length at MTOW is of the order of 8000ft or so.

4. The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher
ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of
programs deemed similar to the future tanker. But Boeing built all
600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop
and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the
refueling boom the Air Force requires. How can Northrop and Airbus
have superior past performance?

The parameter in question is not just limited to tankers.

I could go on. The Air Force refused to consider Boeing cost data
based on 10,000,000 hours of operating the commercial version of the
767, substituting instead repair costs based on the 50-year-old KC-135
tanker. It said it would not award extra points for exceeding key
performance objectives, and then proceeded to award extra points. It
said it wanted to acquire a "medium" tanker to replace its cold war
refueling planes, and ended up picking a plane twice as big.

Bo(e)ing was playing coy with cost data. Evidently the AF
felt they weren't getting good data.

Whatever else this process may have been, it definitely was not
transparent. Even now, neither of the competing teams really
understands why the competition turned out the way it did. It would
be nice to hear from the Air Force about how key tradeoffs were made,
because at present it looks like a double standard prevailed in the
evaluation of the planes offered by the two teams.

The GAO is looking into that.
Not that I expect Bo(e)ing to accept their findings.

IBM

Ed Rasimus wrote in
news
[snip]

Can we count the KC-10 Extender from MacAir? Or the Airbus tankers
sold to other countries?

Funny thing. Bo(e)ing doesn't consider the KC-10 too big for the
mission. Wonder why that is....

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

KENG wrote in
:

[snip]

BZZZZZT... Wrong. Note the word in the original queery "Successfully".
Inherent in successfully includes passing fuel through that boom.
Thanks but oh so wrong. Want to try again?

You mean through the boom to oh say an F-16 fer instance?
Happened a couple of weeks before the award.

IBM

KENG wrote in
:

[snip]

While I wouldn't uses quite that language, I do admit that Airbus has
managed to plaster a boom to a demonstrator and complete a transfer of
fuel as a proof of concept. You do remember we were talking in the

And what about the Oz KC-30?

context of why I beleive the USAFs selection of EADS for the new
tanker production was wrong. At the time the USAF made the decision,
there was only one that had produced and delivered a reliable flying
boom equipped aircraft. And yes, I am aware that the KC-10 was built
by Mcdonnell-Douglas which is now BOEING and was Boeing during the
selection process.

Anyone who was in a senior position during the boom design
process for the KC-10 is probably long retired and hell even
junior folks on he KC-135 are retired and/or dead.
Much as I hate to agree with Vinnie.

IBM

"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Rasimus wrote in
news
[snip]

Can we count the KC-10 Extender from MacAir? Or the Airbus tankers
sold to other countries?

Funny thing. Bo(e)ing doesn't consider the KC-10 too big for the
mission. Wonder why that is....

The KC-10/DC-10/MD-11 production line has been closed down for a long time




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

Boeing lost. Get over it. If you've been laid off, Northrop grumman
is hiring.

They are protesting the contract award. They may have good grounds to do
so. The "Fat Lady" has not yet sung.