EADS Tanker Bid

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Boeing, EADS tanker debate playing out in magazine ads?

Wichita Business Journal

While the U.S. Air Force hasn

[C]

[quote][quote]
Consider the Jan. 10 Aviation Week issue, which includes a two-page ad from Boeing, complete with American flags and closeups of two crew members, contending that the 767-based tanker offering is [b][i]

[DaveSims]

Boeing, EADS tanker debate playing out in magazine ads?

The larger Airbus plane will be inherently more expensive to operate, and will require some adjustment of facilities used to supporting the current Boeing 707 tankers.

I have mixed opinions on this topic, but I am curious what changes the Airbus would require that a 767 wouldn't.  Not exactly like the 767 has any commonality with a KC-135 other than the Boeing on the nameplate.

[C]

Boeing, EADS tanker debate playing out in magazine ads?

The larger Airbus plane will be inherently more expensive to operate, and will require some adjustment of facilities used to supporting the current Boeing 707 tankers.

I have mixed opinions on this topic, but I am curious what changes the Airbus would require that a 767 wouldn't.

[Souichiro]

The most hilarious point is that Boeing wants to include the WTO ruling...while there is also a similair investigation running against them XD

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

And when Northrup was spearheading the A330 MRTT at the time, they did find out that the A330 was 5% more fuel efficient then the B767, not the 26% the other way around that Boeing was saying, it was latter brought to light that the "company" that did the study was owned by Boeing.

And seeing all 3 up close, the B767 wheels are closer to the KC-135's wheels but  just a little bigger, while the A330 has larger wider wheels to distribute the weight more evenly.

And Boeing will not let the USAF choose their motors, they already struck a deal with Pratt & Whitney for uprated 50,000Lbs motors. While the A330 will have GE 70,000lbs motors.

The most hilarious point is that Boeing wants to include the WTO ruling...while there is also a similair investigation running against them XD

This should tell you what they tried on December.

[quote][quote]Boeing tries the back door

by The Anniston Star Editorial Board
December 9, 2010

You have to give Boeing Co. and its political allies credit. When it comes to securing the $40 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract, they don

[C]

[quote]
And seeing all 3 up close, the B767 wheels are closer to the KC-135's wheels but

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

There has been nothing confirmed about the A340's center gear on the A330 MRTT. The original prototype built for the USAF was normal gear configuration, just like the Australians plane. The only thing from the A340 was the wings, that way they did not have to strengthen the wings for the pods like Boeing had to do for the KC-767, so all they did was use the #1 & #4 engine pylon were to go, this saved time.

A lot of people on forms kept speculating that they would use the A340 center Gear, but since the whole premise was that it was based on the A330 not the A340, there was no need for the center gear. Not even the A330 freighter has a center gear set up.

If you look up any of the UK or Aus A330 MRTT pictures, there is none with a center gear or doors for a center gear, and the Aus version is what the USAF would be getting.    

[C]

There has been nothing confirmed about the A340's center gear on the A330 MRTT. The original prototype built for the USAF was normal gear configuration, just like the Australians plane.

My mistake, I thought the centre gear had been proposed for the US built KC-45. Its omission from the basic KC-30 for the RAF/RAAF was a potential pitfall, and one that Boeing/competitors offering 767 based solutions could pick up on.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

House Armed Services chairman restructures committee

In a move Republicans hope will pave the way for more efficient and effective oversight of the Pentagon and the military services, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., on Monday announced changes to the jurisdictions of many of its seven subcommittees.

Realigning the Armed Services subcommittees has become tradition for the panel each time the chairman's gavel switches hands. When Democrats took control of the House in 2007, then-chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., created a seventh subcommittee for oversight and investigations and tweaked the other subcommittees' responsibilities.

At the time, Skelton, who lost reelection in November, wanted to align each subcommittee's jurisdiction closer to the individual military services' budgets and programs. Skelton's efforts undid many of the changes imposed by his Republican predecessor, former Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who organized the subcommittees to focus on different military missions

The changes made by McKeon appear to be a return to Hunter's mission-based subcommittee organizations.

The biggest changes appear to be within the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee and the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, which have been renamed Tactical Air and Land Forces and Seapower and Projection Forces to reflect their new responsibilities.

The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee will continue to oversee most Army and Air Force acquisition programs and now will also assume oversight of all Marine Corps programs. Notable exceptions, however, are the Marine Corps' amphibious assault vehicle programs, as well as strategic missiles, space, lift programs, special operations, science and technology programs, and information technology accounts, which will fall under the other subcommittee's jurisdictions.

The panel will also be responsible for Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, which had fallen under the purview of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee during the last two congresses.

The renamed Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee will continue to be responsible for other Navy acquisition programs and the Marines' amphibious assault vehicle programs. Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this month canceled the Marine Corps' projected $15 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program, but the service intends to move forward on a replacement ship-to-shore vehicle "as soon as possible," Commandant Gen. James Amos said last week.

While it lost many Marine Corps programs and naval aviation efforts, the Seapower panel has picked up oversight of several high-profile programs that had once been under the jurisdiction of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. These include deep-strike bombers, a major program that the Air Force is still defining, as well as airlift programs and the Air Force tanker program.

The Air Force expects to award a much anticipated contract for the tanker program, which is estimated at around $40 billion, in the next several weeks to either Boeing Co. or EADS North America, making the Seapower panel a major player in one of the military's largest and most contentious programs.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?a ... todaysnews

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

RAAF KC-30A Tanker Damaged In Training

Jan 20, 2011

By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
PARIS

An Airbus Military KC-30A tanker in testing for the Royal Australian Air Force was involved in an incident with a Portugese air force F-16 during a refueling exercise Jan. 20.

More than a dozen refuelings had taken place when the incident occurred. Both aircraft sustained damage.

Details of what transpired are still under review, but the incident caused the refueling boom on the Airbus A330-based tanker to break off and fall into the Atlantic. Both aircraft returned safely to their respective bases.

Spanish authorities will lead the incident investigation, with Australian officials involved.

So far, Airbus Military does not expect any affect on the first delivery of the tanker to the Royal Australian Air Force. That handover is already behind schedule, although Airbus CEO Tom Enders said this week the milestone was imminent.

EADS
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

[C]

Details of what transpired are still under review, but the incident caused the refueling boom on the Airbus A330-based tanker to break off and fall into the Atlantic. Both aircraft returned safely to their respective bases.

Oddly enough, this potentially isn't bad news at all. Firstly, the important thing is they were refuelling over the sea (tick - when AAR goes wrong, bits quite often fall off, which is why of possible non operational tanking should be preformed "feet wet" ). Secondly, the major damage was to a replaceable component, in this case, the boom, just as most damage to AAR hoses is either quickly rectifiable with either a completely new how, or just a new drogue. Damage to a boom or hose is far preferable to structural damage on either the tanker or receiver. Hopefully all we'll hear once investigations are complete, is that for whatever reason, the boom failed in a way it was designed to.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Totally agree
This means that even though it was crippled it still worked like it was supposed to, and the safety shut offs for the back of the plane functions like they were designed too, and nether plane took any major damage.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote] Air Force tanker decision likely delayed by Senate hearing
By John T. Bennett - 01/23/11 03:53 PM ET

A Senate hearing to probe the release of sensitive company data will likely delay a KC-X aerial tanker award.

A Senate hearing to probe the release of sensitive company data by the Air Force likely will delay a KC-X aerial tanker award until March

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]At Hearing, New Details on Military Disc Switch

It was hardly the 18 1/2 -minute gap of Watergate lore.

But a Senate committee on Thursday delved into the forensics of whether a confidential data file related to a $35 billion Air Force contract was opened for 15 seconds or 3 minutes, and what did the service know about it and when did it know it.

The file was opened last November by a manager for one of the bidders, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, or EADS. That set off a furor because it contained data about the Air Force evaluation of a bid by Boeing, a rival, to supply aerial refueling tankers.

The Air Force has acknowledged that it accidentally sent each company data about the other