Welcome to the Airline Pilot Central Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
The contract should have been awarded several years ago to Boeing after the leasing fiasco of acquiring KC-767 tankers. As always politics, lobbyists and people trying to stuff their pockets with jobs and money prevented the awarding of that contract.
Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
The contract should have been awarded several years ago to Boeing after the leasing fiasco of acquiring KC-767 tankers. As always politics, lobbyists and people trying to stuff their pockets with jobs and money prevented the awarding of that contract.
Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
Boeing screwed up (I'd use the f bomb if it was permitted here) by rigging the original lease deal...boeing and federal employees went to jail, remember?
I think they lost their high ground and entitlement to the contract at that point. I'm not wild about airbus getting all the work, but if it convinces boeing that they can't get away with cheating it might be worth it in the long term.
"No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement."
No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s. Nothing against Blackhawks (you guys get a front row seat to the war) but tankers touch a big part of the air war.
"No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement."
No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s.
There ain't a single Stinkbug that benefits from the tanker toads anymore; that airframe was retired from the USAF inventory.
Besides, the -10 fills in just fine.
Tho I agree, the government should buy American whenever possible. EADS gets enough subsidies from the euro governments, it shouldn't get any from ours.
I wonder how much of the Air Force's mistakes on this latest round of bidding, contributed to the departure of the top two last week? I wonder if once the facts started to come out, inside the Pentagon, that might have been the straw that broke the camels back? It will be interesting to read the full detailed report from the GAO.
Anyone know if it's on the web yet? I couldn't find it. (Did not look that hard, either)
I think this whole tanker fiasco should be under that other thread in this forum of "Air Force Waste"!