farmerman wrote:Unlike AIrbus, whose rep , as defined by recent performance in the "Superliner" category, has been nothing less than sterling.
Im still more ineterested in specs than spin guys. head to head , Ive been told fuel economy, range, and payload. If thats true, then Boeing made a huge tactical error. If the specs are close, then Id want to see what alternative materials and design changes would have wrought.
I know its Monday morning Qbacking, but I seriously doubt that those on this thread were following the story while it was under review. What were reading now is packaged stuff from news wires.
Tankers are merely gas haulers. The refuelling (transfer) systems are more or less designed to Air Force detailed specifications -- needed to ensure safe interface with existing receiver aircraft. As long as speed/altitude capabilities are similar (they are), the only performance characteristics that are significant are payload, range, endurance, fuel consumption, and maintenance cost & complexity. Some structural features may be significant as the aircraft will be in service for decades.
Price is an important factor and historically successful tankers have been spinoffs from successful airline designs - as with the KC-135 (Boeing 707) and KC-10 (McDonnel-Douglas DC 10). Which bidder had or was expected to have the most reliable manufacturiung/delivery potential was also a likely consideration.
Competitions necessarily have winners & losers. Often the results are determined by differences that are relatively insignificant, but which are definite enough to give the bureaucrats the comfort they need that they chose "correctly". Politics does enter the equation, but it is a safe bet that the Northrup/EADS team distributed the cash flows for manufacturing across key states every bit as effectively as did Boeing.
The Air Force and Navy refuelling systems are indeed different. The Air Force system with a rigid boom is necessary for large aircraft like the B-52, C-141, C-5, B-1 & B-2. The Air Force uses the same system for its tactical aircraft simply for standardization. The Navy (& USMC) uses the NATO-standard hose and drogue system for its generally smaller tactical aircraft. The system is smaller & more compact than its alternatives and self-contained versions in drop tanks are available to temporarily make any aircraft a tanker (a big advantage on a crowded carrier). Air Force tankers are configured with both systems so they can routinely refuel Navy and NATO aircraft as well.
If this procurement is to be overturned , it is much more likely the Democrats will do it in the next administration -- the Dems are in a seriously protectionist mood right now. It will be amusing to watch the Europeans discover that they really won't like many of the "changes" ("yes we can") that may be in the offing.