Originally Posted by
flyinthrew
If Boeing hadn’t pulled one of their signature business/legal chicanes and gotten the new tanker rebid we wouldn’t be years behind. Having tanked behind everything owned by a coalition force, nothing beats the Airbus tankers. Anybody who has been behind the Brits/Aussies/Canadians on a truly garbage night knows it is an excellent product. Boeing can barely get the KC-46 out of the barn in one piece.
That's not what happened. Not even close. There are several issues that happened.
During RFP #2, EADS coerced the USAF to change the airfield parameters of the war fighter modeling exercise which was based on a European theater war. Why did Airbus request it? Because the Airbus MRTT is too big to operate out of many of the airfields. The airfields and ramps were much larger than what would normally be found in Europe. This gave the MRTT a big advantage. Using existing airfields, the Airbus MRTT failed a few scenarios the USAF modeled. Second, the USAF lied and said it would cost the same to buy and operate the two airplanes. It is a lie because the Airbus is a much bigger airplane (requiring new hangars everywhere) and the fuel burn would be much higher since it weighs ~80,000lbs more than the 767. Boeing rightfully protested, the GAO agreed. When RFP #3 came, it was based on meeting KC135 specs on a pass-fail basis whereas exceeding the specifications wouldn't get you any additional points. Northrop decided to withdrawal the then Northrop/EADS tanker from the competition. But as the deadline neared, the USAF kept asking if EADS was going to submit a bid. In March of 2010 the USAF inexplicably announced that it was going to extend the bid for an additional 60 days. EADS then reentered the contest knowing that their bigger tanker would be at a disadvantage. The 767 was selected. The best tanker won for the RFP that was drafted.
I've said this a million times and nobody seems to get it. You do not replace a smaller tactical sized tanker (KC-135) which a much bigger Airbus MRTT (wing span bigger than a KC-10)!! You don't have enough ramp space to park all of them; especially in forward environments. And since you can park enough of them at bases, that reduces the number of booms/drogues in the sky and the fuel available.
Additionally, our test boom operators made a big deal about the glare issue with the RVS. Every RVS system has problems with glare. This is nothing new. I wonder if the USAF had selected the MRTT, or if the USAF selects the MRTT as the "bridge" tanker, will the same test boom operators find issues with EADS design? The EADS tanker did run into delays of its own and it lost two refueling booms during testing. That's not a typo. Personally I think our test booms weren't happy without having a window anymore and they came to the realization that the new system is inferior.