The problem I have with Airbus or not buying American in general, is that the profits go overseas. You may employ American workers but the money leaves our country in the end. However the case, this isn't a valid reason why Boeing should have prevailed over Airbus.

Boeing's 767 tanker is closer to what the Air Force needed. The Airbus tanker is not.

And I wouldn't rely on what the Pentagon says is what the Air Force needs. For those of us who work in the AOC, scheduling and building tanker missions, trying to put booms/drogues in the air when and where the CAF needs, you start to understand how I came to that conclusion. You can either believe me, or you can attend a not-so-fun course down at Hurlburt for a month. I am confident after doing so that you will end up with the same conclusion.

The Pentagon Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe your conclusion is based on flawed assumptions. While a well run and healthy company will generally have a profit margin in the 5-10% range, employee compensation will generally be in the 20-40% range, if not higher. This does not include other expenses incurred in the country of manufacture such as transportation costs, power costs, construction, local, state, and federal taxes, etc. All of this money remains in the country of manufacture, which in this case would be the US. The vast majority of financial benefit is where the manufacturing takes place, not where the corporate headquarters is located.

If the reverse were true, then the case against outsourcing of US jobs by US companies to foriegn countries would be without merit, since the greater benefit would be here in the US.

I also believed that the USAF picked the plane that, in my opinion, makes a better KC-135 replacement. Like KC-10 Fatboy said, between the two of them, the Boeing provides more booms in the air due to its smaller footprint and therefore can be placed in more non-USAF airfields throughout the word.

The KC-135 was “purpose built” to be a tanker. Even though technology and aircraft design has come a long way since the early 50’s when the KC-135 was designed, you won’t find an airliner today that pound for pound, or footprint (square footage required), has the lift capacity (MWTO) of the KC-135. Modern airliners are designed to maximize “seat miles”. That means wings that are more efficient at reducing drag (fuel usage) while creating just enough lift to carry the passenger capacity of the body and the fuel needed for its planned range. This generally means larger wingspans and thinner wings. A plane full of passengers is a far lighter load than extra bladders full of fuel under the main floor. Therefore any modern commercial airliner converted to tanker use (without redesigning the wings) is going to be a less capable tanker than the KC-135 or KC-10 when measured against its footprint requirements. Footprint size is important to tanker operations because, unlike commercial airliners, tankers spend considerable time on the ground. However, the USAF did not use a metric of footprint when evaluating the KC-135 replacements. The best KC-135 replacement would have been a redesigned KC-135, or an all-new design that had the same or smaller footprint with more fuel capacity, more cargo/pax capacity, and lower fuel usage – plus ability to be air-refueled itself.

I won’t rehash the tanker bid that NG/EADS initially won that Boeing successfully appealed, but this last one that Boeing won was focused on price. The USAF/DOD wanted the least expensive one that met its 300+ requirements. There were formulas that the USAF used to adjust price for fuel burn over 40 years, and construction costs for hanger, ramps, taxiways, and runways since both bidders were bidding planes larger and heavier than the KC-135. Why did Boeing win this time? They bid a much lower price than EADS. Period.

For what it’s worth, the 330 has a larger footprint than the KC-10 (over 20% larger), yet the KC-10 has a fuel capacity 100,000 lbs greater than the 330. I’m actually amazed that NG/EADS, or for that matter the USAF, considered the 330 for a replacement of the KC-135 given that the footprint of the 330 is nearly twice that of a KC-135 (especially since it is larger than, and less capable than the KC-10).

Many 330 fans point out that other air forces have chosen the 330 over the 767 in their competitions. I contend that those air forces didn’t have a large tanker fleet to begin with and other than providing training for their own fighters, they almost never take their tankers to war. They really wanted an airliner for the pax/airlift mission that could also be used occasionally as a tanker. The USAF uses it tankers almost exclusively as a tanker, and only occasionally as a pax or cargo plane (usually only when the tanker is being deployed or redeployed). It may change some with the KC-46, but not dramatically.

GasPasser:

You couldn't have said it any better.

Just so happened to have gotten a tour of Boeing's facilities up in Everett yesterday. After seeing the 787 line and comparing that with the 767 I really wish we had gotten a 787 derivative. While I know the new KC will have a 787 cockpit (sorta), everything else will be 30 year old technology at best by the time the first one rolls out. The 76 costs less, I get that, but I have to think this is only because Boeing wants to keep the 76 line open for another 20+ year with a steady customer like the USAF to help dampen out any fluctuations in their commercial market. As usual, the DOD takes the lowest bidder and gets the crappiest product.

We should not be comparing this to the KC-135, rather with what the technology will look like in 20+ years. No airline in the world consider placing the type of order we have placed. Better than nothing, but fuel is only going to continue to go up and part obsolescence is right around the corner. Maybe we can get the next 179 767s used from the desert, after a few heavy mods of course.

Just a thought-

KC

The 787 and it's problems meant a sure loser for Boeing during the competition. Had it not been delayed and assuming Boeing had time work out the engineering to slap a boom on it etc., I think you would have seen a 787 tanker. But for now, that is a dead issue. It is unproven technology and that is not what the government needs. Even Delta has deferred their first 787 orders because they don't like it.

The 767 is not "the crappiest" product. I think you are over exaggerating a little bit. The 767 is going to be around for a while. They still have 40 outstanding orders for them. The USAF gets sold on a particular airplane when they're told that the airplane is still in commercial use and that lots of parts are available. That sounds good and all. But reality is, like I have seen many many times in the KC-10, you breakdown somewhere, and you wait for the contracted maintenance or for Boeing to send you a part on Evergreen, a C-5 (which never makes it), or some other CRAF. They do not, which would make sense, go across the tarmac and pick up a part from an airline. That would be the cheapest and easiest thing to do. Before I would worry about part obsolescence, I would worry about the need for such a huge tanker fleet. The F-22 is perhaps the last manned fighter. UAVs are here to stay and the AR requirements are going to change when the fighters are retired ... which is already happening.

I like the 767 because it is a proven airframe, very reliable, and because it is a stable aircraft that is easy to fly. The 767 is a much easier aircraft to fly (hand fly or autopilot) and operate than a KC-10. I haven't flown the KC-135 so I wouldn't know how it compares.

The USAF better order them with autobrake, autoland (with single engine certification), predictive windshear, and all the other bells and whistles that the typical 767 will have. Hopefully they don't make that same mistake again like they did with the KC-10.

By the way, anybody know why we are waiting until 2017 for the first delivery? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Boeing has already built and sold a 76 tanker for Italy and Japan?

No matter what, it seems like the limiting factor with any new platform is back-end support. When is TACC going to get flight planning software anywhere on par with any commercial airline? When are we going to leverage all of the ACARS interfaces and stop printing out a novel just to fly a local? Shiny new toys are great but not when we lack the infrastructure to capitalize on all of the new technologies. Just my opinion.

Winning first round amist blatant evidence of ethics violations shouldn't count.