The point you and everyone in Alabam is missing is simply this, once you have built the fourth of fith plane, it over for Alabama. They will incoporate all the design changes into the production and you will be finished and the plane will be 99 per cent built in Europe. The only parts that will be doen in Alabama is the secure, secret stuff. They will have some reason and it will sound valid but it will happen. Boeing may finalize the first few tankers somewhere else but evnetually 99 per cent of the USAF tanker will be done in a production line. That is the most profitable way to do it.

Your screen name is evidently a misnomer. If you would read the other comments that came before yours, then your question would be answered.

Secondly,

Northrup/EADS won fair and square, not cheating like Boeing did the first time. There has been huge investment in Mobile already, and it will only mushroom if it is awarded the way it should be. I am confused though by the “Buy America” notion. How can anyone expect any machine as complicated as an airplane to be produced all in America? Manufacturing jobs have been leaving our shores for decades now, so Boeing is hardly doing any better than NORTHRUP/eads would be in assembling them here. Parts and materials come from all over the world and are assembled here by MANY different companies. Even though it is fiction, I suggest you read “Airframe” by Michael Crichton as it is VERY informative on this topic.

“But if the requirements have not changed substantially then the balance would still seem to tilt toward Northrop Grumman. Northrop has one tanker built, a second airframe ready for conversion to a tanker and could field a total of five or six tankers in the two to four years before Boeing is likely to get a working tanker into the air. So even with a split buy, Northrop should be able to get plenty of time in the air demonstrating its capability and ironing out the inevitable problems that arise early in a program while Boeing would still be building its first planes.”

I just read that Boeing has delivered two (2) KC-767’s to Japan on a buy of three(3). If that is the case, it would seem Boeing is much farther along with their tanker than this article indicated. (Assuming the A/F still wants the 767 and not the 777) Also I believe the Italians have also taken delivery of their KC-767 as well but I have not confirmed this. If all this is true, then the reporting of these programs continue to be slanted towards Airbus/EADS.

Buying both is, from a user standpoint, just insane. Impracticable as well. However due to the blind politics it may be the only way left. However, I still can not forget that France is NOT our friend. I remember when we had to visit Libya our aircraft had to fly around France (not allowed to fly over) and return the same way. If France gets another wild hair and dislikes our politics or foreign policies, they could easily stop production of their portion of the tanker and/or spares that would cripple our air refueling capabilities. Yes, Boeing has portions of their 767 made overseas but they have the capability of producing the entire aircraft within the USA if need be. They are not totally dependant on a foreign source for sub-assemblies.

Boeing builds a lot of the aircraft they sell in China at: boeing China. The factory that NGC wants to build is in Alabama, USA.
Lets quit letting the crooks in congress drive this thing an go with the better aircraft.

DOD needs to buy the best tanker for the AF. Unfortunately, business interests, politics and just plain greed will play a much larger role than the AF requirement, no matter how much justification is behind the requirement.

Sure the USAF CAN operate 5 different tankers but it is foolish to do so when the job can be done BETTER & LESS COSTLY with fewer types of tankers.

Yes the USAF needs tankers. Yes the US economy needs stimulus. What it does not need is to waste limited defense dollars on a tanker that simply does not fit its requirements (too big to be a good KC-135 replacement ‘medium tanker’ & lacks the fuel capacity to be a good KC-10 replacement ‘large tanker’). It is not like the Obama administaration is taking advantage of the need for stimulus to INCREASE defense spending & ‘kick start’ the replacement of so much military hardware that NEEDS to be replaced — no, THAT would actually be GOOD for the country.

No my argument that the EADS (DO NOT BE FOOLED INTO THINKING IT IS A NORTHROP TANKER) is too big is undeniable fact. It is LARGER than ANY other aircraft currently in US inventory except for the C-5 & a handful of specialized 747-based aircraft (yet is 110,000 lbs short of fuel capacity vs the SMALLER & lighter KC-10 ‘large tanker’) AND would require MASSIVE infrastructure improvement to operate in sufficient numbers from sufficient airfields in order to even do as good a job as the KC-135R does.

_B-52: 160.9′ x 185.0′
_C-17: 174.0′ x 171.3′ (including winglets)
KC-10: 181.6′ x 165.4′
KC-30: 193.6′ x 197.8′

No the US does not need the too big to be a good KC-135 replacement ‘medium tanker’ & lacks the fuel capacity to be a good KC-10 replacement ‘large tanker’ KC-30. It needs a tanker no bigger than the 767–200 to replace the KC-135 [the KC-767AT is larger than the KC-135 & exceeds the KC-X fuel offload vs range requiremnts by >25,000 lbs or >500nm AS WELL AS the KC-X airlift requirements — i.e. something SMALLER than the KC-767AT could meet the requirements] & something like a 777–200 or A340 or A350 [similar/a bit larger in size as the KC-30 but capable of carrying MUCH more fuel].

Another way to look at it is IF the US were to DOUBLE the average fuel offload per sortie that it has been in recent conflicts (ODS & later) the KC-767AT is more than capable of doing so — the KC-30 OTOH requires MAJOR infrastructure improvement in order to operate in sufficient numbers from sufficient airfields in order to even do as good a job as the KC-135R does [we do not need to replace the KC-135R because it lacks the fuel capacity/offload capability but because it will not last forever].

And the fewer airfields you are able to operate from the MORE important it is to get as many tankers per airfield as you can.

Your argument that Northrop’ tanker is too big is specious.

The Air Force needs both tankers…not just the small Boeing offering. With Eastern European and Arabian airports becoming fewer, the sevice needs operationally longer range tankers and short range tankers.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

‘Only’ ~30% of the 767 AIRFRAME is manufactured overseas. Where as 95+% of the A330 AIRFRAME is manufactured overseas.

***

Radarnav & SamHouston,

There are mutiple problems which make buying BOTH the KC-767 & the KC-30 impractical.

First & foremost is that the KC-30 simply does not fit the US. It is too big (larger than all current US military aircraft except for the C-5 & a handful of specialized 747-based aircraft) to be a good KC-135 replacement ‘medium tanker’ & yet being BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 lack the fuel capacity to be a good KC-10 replacement ‘large tanker’.

Second is that the reason we need to start obtaining new tankers soon (aside from the fact that the 130+ KC-135Es have already been taken out of service thus we are now lacking sufficient numbers of tankers & wearing out the ones we do have faster than previously estimated) is because the idiots controlling the purse strings won’t provide enough funds to procure more than 12–15 tanker per year so it will take more than 35 years (from when we START) to replace the current fleet.

Third, given how long it will take to replace the current fleet & that the KC-30 does not cut it as a ‘large tanker’ (despite how truly LARGE it is) means that for a significant period of time we will likely operate FIVE different tankers [KC-135, KC-10, KC-767AT, KC-30 & some other KC-Y tanker] & possibly even SIX given that by the time we start with what is the KC-Z that it may be based on a platform not even flying today.

The 767 tanker is 90% plus USA made! Your thinking the 787.….check your facts!

Boeing’s major airframe components are manufactured overseas and shipped here for final assembly.

Airbus’ solution does the same.

Buy from an American company, then? Both Boeing and Northrop Grumman are American companies.

For all the “Buy American” protectionists, before you go too far, consider that the American Aerospace Industry sells more than 4x to Europe what European companies sell here. So, if we go protectionist, there will be huge layoffs in America as Europe retaliates and implements “Buy EU” requirements.

The real answer maybe just to consolidate all the Tanker X, Tanker Y, and Tanker Z buy numbers into a large multi-year procurement. Buying from both will get us the total number of Tankers needed while maintaining the current 2 logistical trails we have (KC-135 and KC-10).

***

Rob C,

Yes Mobile Alabama is in the U.S. BUT the KC-30 would only be ASSEMBLED there, it would STILL be MANUFACTURED in Europe. The 85% US content for the KC-767AT is more money in the US economy than the 58% US content (of which 15+% is the engines) for the KC-30 no matter how you want to try & spin it.

True the US tax payer should not be on the hook for a lesser product just to satsify politicians. Which is why the politicians should get out of the process. If not of all the politicians we would HAVE KC-767s already. But bigger is NOT better in this case. In fact the KC-X source selection team could not even justify how the KC-30 meet some of the requirements & remember how the model data had to be altered just so that the KC-30 COULD complete some scenarios…

Yes the Italian & Japanese KC-767s (of which there are 4 — at least 3 of which have transfered fuel in flight) are different from the KC-767AT proposed for the KC-X but the Australian KC-30B (of which there is 1 — which has FINALLY had its operational boom installed this year) is ALSO different from the KC-30 proposed for the KC-X.

Do you not realize that Boeing currently builds the most advandced airliner in the world? It is hardly behind the times.

It is time to by American….not France built Airbus

“But wait…France, Germany, and Spain might want to consider canceling the A400M and buying C-17s and C-130s in exchange for a hefty KC-30 buy? I’m sure something could be worked out under those conditions”

Like it or not, this procurement is so politically charged that what the USAF really wants is almost an afterthought.

Sole source it to Boeing. Its the only way the USAF will get a tanker. The French will just have to get over it.

But wait…France, Germany, and Spain might want to consider canceling the A400M and buying C-17s and C-130s in exchange for a hefty KC-30 buy? I’m sure something could be worked out under those conditions.…