Boeings Next Gen Tanker(The Winner)

[C]

Mayor Daley's brother... ... but can't say much more due to forum rules on politics.

Quite!

Even as a Brit, I know that's not the best thing!

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote]Cantwell: Air Force must answer questions about tanker flub

The Air Force's word that its inadvertent disclosure of information about Boeing and EADS North America's aerial refueling tanker bids to the competing companies didn't give anyone an unfair advantage isn't good enough, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said Thursday.

"We're actually here today to put the Air Force on notice that we want questions answered as to the process that has been followed in allowing the information from both sides of these bids to be revealed," Cantwell said after touring the Everett assembly line for Boeing's 767, which is the basis for the company's proposed NewGen Tanker.

"Vital information about Boeing's bid was revealed to their competitor in the bidding process," she said.

[C]

Brilliant! I like the comments suggesting that no one outside the USA could be intelligent enough to design something without copying an American! Mind you, I suspect some of these people would lack the brain power to be able to comprehend the fact the Airbus isn't just a French company. In fact, if you told them the wings were made in the volatile region of the United Kingdom known as Wales, they'd never get on an Airbus again...

The french planes have rear-view cameras to monitor the enemy.

Lol, well I've never heard them being called the "enemy", but some fast jet pilots can make you nervous when they're behind a hose.

As an aside, do the drogue/MPRS equipped KC-135s have a camera?

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

As an aside, do the drogue/MPRS equipped KC-135s have a camera?

No US Tanker has them, the A330MRTT would have been the first, up until Boeing Said the "Next Gen Tanker" would offer it too like the A330.


And I told my Boss, who worked the KC-135A/B/C/E, about the comments on the boom, and he laughed! He said they have been ripping booms off the KC-135 since Vietnam, nothing has changed. If it is gonna brake, it will brake there is nothing you can do about it.

[C]

No US Tanker has them, the A330MRTT would have been the first, up until Boeing Said the "Next Gen Tanker" would offer it too like the A330.

I did wonder, seeing of course they all have a boom op. I've been down the back of a 135 once to the operators "bed" type thing, but didn't think to see what view, if any, the crew have of the hoses.

For us, the camera is a must.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Yeah the KC-135 you lay flat and guide the plane in with the lights, then fly the boom in. Unless it has the basket on the boom for Navy/Coalition Fighters, then it is just a modified procedure.

The KC-10, was the first with the fly-by-wire boom, that MD came up with, and uses a regular seat for the boomer, but has the basket stode next to the boom in the fuselage on all KC-10's, but can be fitted with the extra 2 prior to take off. 

[C]

I suppose a fair number of the USAF hoses are still just BDA as opposed to pods, and hence not having means of seeing the wing hoses.

Personally, it's a good thing to be able to see that the bloke/lady in their aeroplane, who's about to deliberately fly it into your aeroplane, is fairly competent - although sometimes you wish you weren't able to watch. Certainly it's a very valid safety feature.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I suppose a fair number of the USAF hoses are still just BDA as opposed to pods, and hence not having means of seeing the wing hoses.

Personally, it's a good thing to be able to see that the bloke/lady in their aeroplane, who's about to deliberately fly it into your aeroplane, is fairly competent - although sometimes you wish you weren't able to watch. Certainly it's a very valid safety feature.

They extend the baskets out all the way past the tail, then the boomer just watches them come in, and I believe he is on the radio too to talk if need be.

[quote] Caldwell: Battle over Air Force tanker nearing conclusion

Bert Caldwell The Spokesman-Review

The U.S. Air Force may make its final final decision on the next generation of tanker as soon as next month.

But Congress may have the final final final word.

Defense work seldom gets awarded purely on its merits. Too much money is on the table, and too many jobs, which partly explains why this is the third go-round for a contract that could be worth $35 billion, and as many as 50,000 jobs to the winner and its suppliers.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has taken a hard line on superfluous defense projects, but no one argues that tankers President Dwight Eisenhower would recognize do not need replacing.

So Boeing Co. and the European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., EADS, have all their chips in. And because the two companies were inadvertently

[C]

They extend the baskets out all the way past the tail, then the boomer just watches them come in, and I believe he is on the radio too to talk if need be.

The hoses aren't that long. That's the scary part! I've just had a look at a pic of a 135 with MPRS, and you're right, I suspect the boomer can see them from his position. I suspect on the '330 he might struggle with the extra fuselage length!

[Flying Trucker]

Good afternoon all...

Must not forget these aircraft which were or are in United States Military service:

-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-2....Beaver....American Military U6A &

[DaveSims]

[quote]Good afternoon all...

Must not forget these aircraft which were or are in United States Military service:

-DeHavilland of Canada DHC-2....Beaver....American Military U6A &

[C]

Not to mention the backbone of the USAAF photo recce fleet in Europe in WW2, the Spitfire and Mosquito. Hurricanes even flew in USAAF markings for the invasion of north Africa during operation torch, albeit they were RAF machines, as it was thought that the "spams/yanks" may not have been familiar with their markings as it was their first venture east (on a national scale, as of course plenty had fought before for the allies before Pearl Harbor)!

So yellow rimmed blue/white stars it was.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Yeah but the thing is most people don"t remember those, and Congress Sure as hell don't remember those.

But the best example to use that the US Congress members would remember is the British Designed AV-8 Harrier. USMC would never have been able to carry out their missions through out the last 20-30 years with out it. Aside from the UK, the USMC had the other largest fleet of Jump Jets, granted they were built under McDonald Douglass/Boeing.

[C]

Yeah but the thing is most people don"t remember those, and Congress Sure as hell don't remember those.

I'm sure some of them struggle to remember past last week!

But the best example to use that the US Congress members would remember is the British Designed AV-8 Harrier. USMC would never have been able to carry out their missions through out the last 20-30 years with out it. Aside from the UK, the USMC had the other largest fleet of Jump Jets, granted they were built under McDonald Douglass/Boeing.

Much as the original Harrier/AV-8A was very much a British design, the AV-8B was very much driven by the USA, and I suspect was at least a 50:50 development, if not more on the US side. We were just lucky enough to have some clever chaps at the end of the 50s who between them produced both a workable VTOL engine, and an airframe it could go into. On of them in his earlier career designed the Hurricane, and another, again 20 years earlier, was rather responsible for turning the RR Merlin into one of the best piston engines ever made.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

[quote] EADS had Boeing tanker data file open for three minute

An EADS North America employee had a file showing Boeing aerial refueling tanker information open for about three minutes, while Boeing never opened a file with EADS data, a Pentagon expert testified Thursday.

The Air Force accidentally sent of information about the Boeing and EADS bids to the other bidders in November. After learning that EADS opened a file and saw one screen of information, the Air Force re-sent that information to both companies in an effort to level the playing field.

The Senate Armed Services committee held a hearing on the incident Thursday. After the hearing, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., announced that she and six other senators, had called for a Pentagon inspector general investigation.

"EADS now has an unfair competitive advantage to adjust its bid to undercut Boeing," Cantwell contended in a news release.

Responding to that call, EADS North America Chairman Ralph Crosby, Jr., said: "We would welcome an investigation by the DoD Inspector General -- if such an investigation does not delay the decision on acquisition of new tankers.

"Scandal and protest have kept this badly needed system out of the hands of our service men and women long enough. We are interested in illuminating unambiguous facts, not in a tactic for delaying the decision process."

All the best,

Steven Shirley, executive director of the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center, which investigated the incident, said a forensic analysis showed only one page was shown, for about three minutes, and found no evidence refuting EADS' sworn statement that the employee only actually viewed the screen for about 15 seconds.

In written testimony to the committee, EADS North America Chief Executive Officer Sean O'Keefe contradicted Shirley's account somewhat, writing: "The total time that the file was open was less than 15 seconds."

O'Keefe said the person who saw the data was "assigned to administrative duties separate from the KC-45 (tanker) program" until after the end of EADS and Air Force investigations.

"Clearly, it would have been preferable that the data disclosure by the U.S. Air Force had not happened. However, after a full and thorough review of EADS North America's actions, I can tell you with high confidence that our actions following awareness of the disclosure were timely, responsible and appropriate," O'Keefe wrote.

"Unfortunately, it appears that some are attempting to exploit the U.S. Air Force's inadvertent error by speculating on events which are not in evidence," he added. "Most disconcerting is the false assertion that EADS North America held for a month the competitor data incorrectly sent to us. I can assure the Committee that this allegation is simply untrue and is substantively contradicted by the government's investigation and detailed forensic analysis."

Cantwell mentioned the one-month figure earlier this month.

In his testimony, Boeing Defense, Space and Security President and Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg gently dug into EADS, writing: