Boeings Next Gen Tanker(The Winner)

[C]

Yes they did loose out to the DC-10 with the KC-747, but as far as Boeing History in the tanker it goes with:
KB-29(late 40's),KB-50(1947), KC-97(1950), KC-135(1954-1965), KC-33(747 in 70's), KC-767(2005)

I think due to the previously mentioned takeover, they seem happy to add KC-10 as a Boeing product!

It's a bit like Airbus or BAE Systems claiming they built the VC10!

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Yes they did loose out to the DC-10 with the KC-747, but as far as Boeing History in the tanker it goes with:
KB-29(late 40's),KB-50(1947), KC-97(1950), KC-135(1954-1965), KC-33(747 in 70's), KC-767(2005)

I think due to the previously mentioned takeover, they seem happy to add KC-10 as a Boeing product!

It's a bit like Airbus or BAE Systems claiming they built the VC10!

I don't count that since they never developed the fly by wire boom that MD did, hell the KC-46"s boom is modified KC-10 boom.

Also Boeing was trying to take credit for the Airco DH-4B first refuel when they were campaigning for the tanker last year.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing KC-X Price Was 10 Percent Under EADS

Mar 4, 2011

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

The decision by EADS North America not to protest its loss in the $35 billion U.S. Air Force KC-135 replacement refueling tanker contract competition is largely being based on its adjusted price, which came in a full 10% above that of rival Boeing, according to senior company officials.

EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby says the loss is a

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

So EADS lost out on price, not capability......Also of the 372 minimum requirements, #373 was removed when they rewrote the rules, and that was for a ground mapping radar like the Alaskan 737's use so they don't crash in inclement weather, to me that one seems kinda of important.

But I am still wanting to know where they got the fuel data from? They proved a few years back that a subsidiary company that Boeing owned, had put out misleading data stating that the B767 was 25% more fuel efficient then the A330, which turned out to not be true, and in fact the A330 was 6% better then the B767.

Also they never explained what "More Survivable" was, after all they fly high over the battle field during normal operation, not down low like a regular transporter dodging RPG's and SAM's. The only real threat is take offs and landing, and that is for every plane that fly's into the battle field from small VIP transports, to the massive Tristar and C-5.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

This is what the specs say in the new Air Force Times:

Length: 159ft 2inch
Wingspan: 156ft 1inch
Height: 52ft
Max Takeoff Weight: 400,000+
Max Fuel Capacity: 202,000+
Passengers: Up To 190
Cargo: Up to 19 pallets
Patients: Up to 97 Patients
Required Runway: 7,000ft with Max Load
Controls: Yoke, Hydrailic
Engines: Pratt & Whitney PW4062  52,000lbs Thrust
Flight Deck: 787 Based

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]KC-46A Lacks Winglets Shown In Competition

As the Pentagon and Boeing begin to finally talk about the new KC-46A contract, one question is: where did the winglets go?

Until this week, Boeing widely distributed artist concepts of its NewGen Tanker, based on the 767, with prominent winglets, sparking discussion among onlookers about why they were needed and how much integration would cost.

One characteristic of the KC-46A in newly released images, however, is the conspicuous absence of the winglets. So, about six weeks after winning the $4.4 billion KC-X development contract, the design is now different than that proposed on the company

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing Liable For KC-46 Overage

The U.S. Air Force is expecting to pay the largest amount allowable under the KC-46A contract with Boeing to develop a KC-135 refueler replacement, with Boeing picking up the rest of the tab.

Two months after Boeing won the contract over rival EADS, which proposed an Airbus A330-based design, the Air Force got news that it would need to pay an additional $500 million to develop the 767-based tanker and deliver the first 18 aircraft.

The target cost agreed upon in February for the fixed-price, incentive-fee development was $4.4 billion, according to Air Force officials. However,

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote][size=12][color=#0000ff]Cost of Boeing

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]USAF, Boeing Complete Key KC-46A Review

Aug 29, 2011

By Amy Butler

The U.S. Air Force has completed an interim baseline review (IBR) for the KC-46A aerial refueler, clearing the first major schedule milestone for the program.

The review lasted weeks and concluded Aug. 24, according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman.

[pfevrier]

Wow, imagine the Air Force flying modified Il-96s to fuel up F18s...  I bet a few people would roll in their graves 

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing to close historic Wichita plant by end of 2013

WICHITA

[Jayhawk Jake]

I'm a 'Wichitan' as they'd say, and the Boeing closure has been big news here obviously.  I think everyone saw the writing on the wall though...it was inevitable.  Hopefully Spirit or Airbus picks up the facility and expands their operations, this city needs more jobs, not a huge loss (especially since Hawker Beechcraft might not exist much longer)

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing Marks 1st Anniversary of KC-46A Tanker Contract Award

The Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-46 Tanker program today marked the first anniversary of receiving a U.S. Air Force contract to build the next-generation aerial refueling tanker, the KC-46A.  Over the past year, the program has completed key milestones in support of the design and development phase on or ahead of schedule, and is now preparing for a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in March.