Actually they listened to the AF and delivered a product that met the ORIGINAL bid criteria. They also delivered an aircraft that day-to-day would cost lest to operate (lower ZFW by 100K lbs), and would require fewer upgrades in infrastructure (fits in old 135 hangars). Regardless of whether or not the A330 is a better overall product, it definitely sounds like bid rigging.

Why bid rigging?

You are in the USAF.. now, think... you get more than 3 people together, collude to defraud and bid rig and you think they could keep it secret??

I disagree....EADS and NG presented a product that was more capable than the one Boeing presented.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn030408_2.pdf

Scroll down to the spider diagram..

Yes...lets just wait and see how Boeing's complaint pans out. Its not me and a couple pilots colluding...its a few senators from the south and some new "friends" at the Puzzle Palace, they could pull it off a hell of a lot better than I could.

Interesting that the spider diagram has very little to do with the day-to-day mission. I would be more interested in the data for a typical A/R mission with a half-capacity offload and no cargo on an AR track within 300 miles, launched from an old SAC base (What's with the 7000 ft runway requirement?). I'd like for someone to show how the KC-45 could do it cheaper than the KC-767 with the same fuel load...it can't.

Cargo and PAX...isn't this why we have brand-spanking new C-17's and the soon to be re-engined and 85% mission capable C-5? How about the 59 KC-10's?

As far as Maximum capability, I agree the A330 is the choice, but I doubt that they will be used this way. The efficient choice is the 767, unless data comes out that shows otherwise.

Whatever happened to the proposed idea of having a mix of 777 and 737 tankers? I guess just an idea and nothing else, right?

Most of what I have read are the complaints from Combat Jack Murtha, he the constant blowhard who when he can't get his constituents to agree with him, he just threatens them. Nice guy...

Boeing futzed this one with first trying to rig the bidding with inside information and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar... and then bid an airplane made up of various parts and expected everyone to go, "Hail to Seattle and Chicago" whilst on bended knee. Funny thing happened on the way to the bid... EADS and Northrop Grumman WON.

Not one to use the word easily but it seems as if Boeing thought they were entitled to build the tanker regardless of the merits of the airplane. This is NOT the Boeing mindset that built the 707 and the 747.

Agree with all of the above.

it has nothing to do with fly by wire. it has more to do with the fact that the sidesticks dont move in unison. when the PF moves the stick on the C-17, the PNF's stick moves the exact same way because they are mechanically linked. the Airbus doesnt do this as Im sure you already know, and when the PF makes an input, the PNF's sidestick has no effect unless he overrides the PF's input with more force. Its not an ideal situation for Receiver A/R training, touch and goes, etc. I wont even bring an F-16 into this conversation because receiver A/R in a fighter, as im told, is much more forgiving than in a "heavy" because of its responsiveness and size and only having to sit on the boom for 3 minutes to get all its gas. Sure its easy to check out an FO in the airbus, but for what the air force plans on doing with it (specifically receiver A/R and transition) its a big flaw.

I dont think Boeing's whining or members of Congress complaining is going to change the outcome. I do think however, that in the long run this will be looked back at as a mistake. Somebody save this thread so in 2040 we can see how things are going The whole thing doesnt even matter to me since i dont fly tankers anymore and ill never sit in the cockpit of either airplane except as a jumpseater. but I guess on the plus side with a weak dollar we are raping European govt subsidization and getting the upper hand on this one.

Uh oh, now you've done it....