Northrop just posted their No Bid Press Release. Link Provided above.

BS.

Boeing isn’t giving exact specification of its offering because it is none of your business what they are at this point. We intelligent & reasonably infomed people know the BASIC specifications of the KC-767 (ALL OF THEM).

It is MORE than obvious that the NewGen tanker uses the same 767-200ER airframe that EVERY PREVIOUS KC-767. It is also obvious to us that it uses the same 767-300F wing as the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT. Boeing has already stated that the cockpit uses 787 technology & the same engines as the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT. And EVERYONE can see that the NewGen tanker boom ‘looks’ different from previous KC-767 booms. The only ‘question’ is whether the NewGen tanker uses the 767-300ER landing gear & 767-400ER flaps as the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT or not.

Of course Boeing does not give the exact specification of the “NewGen” Tanker, It never gave the exact specification of the KC-767AT either. But it is quite clear from all the renderings (stills & videos) that the “NewGen” Tanker is essentially the same as the KC-767AT. The 767–200(ER) fuselage is easy to see as well as the 767-300F wings. Although if the higher MTOW 767-300ER/F landing gear & 767-400ER flaps are utilized may or may not be used & as has been stated the “NewGen” Tanker is borrows from the most advanced commercial airliner cockpit in the world.

The Australian KC-30 is behind schedule and over cost too.

*

Byron Skinner,

You are living in an EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid induced fantacy world. Boeing didn’t massage the RFP, the requirements are essentially the same as last time (which NG/EADS DID get massaged) and IF the KC-30 is truly less expensive as the Kool-Aid tells you then a RFP emphisizing cost SHOUD favor NG/EADS.

This has become a three ring circus. Lets see, Boeing massages the RFP to favor them, NG/EADS scream unfair, we will pick up or marbles and not play. Boeing does the new car salesman stunt, who is trying to unload the last dogs of a model year, the salesman says he/she will go to the General Manager and seeing what kind of a better deal he can make, and comes back and says “I twisted his arm and nearly broke it but I got you two more cup holders and floor mats at no additional cost.”, but I could move him on the price.

Of course we still haven’t hear from southern fried, most likely lead by the old Congressional pro himself Senator Richard Shelby. This like the F-35 will go on and on and on…

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Nice video though, guess they learned from Northrop Grumman to build a real mock up

But bailouts come first… yay…

Total cost of KC-X program: projected around $35B
GM bailout: $55B
AIG bailout: $85B
farm subsidies: $87B

If necessary and the right priorities are in place, that’s plenty of room to pay a bit more on a critical USAF $35B program and get the very best.

To see what it’s like to really be too broke to spend on the military, look at Poland in 1795;
country was partitioned between Russia, Prussia, Austria and the last Polish king died in
exile in Russia.

Thank goodness we’re nowhere near that broke.

——————————————————————————————————-

Incredible — bragging about the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned against, and touting it as an advantage — Ike must be rolling over in his grave. But at least it would mean buying American.

The 787 doesn’t have the lift capability required as well as the fact Boeing has no way to spin ANOTHER Dreamliner line up in a reasonable amount of time to start producing tankers, they’re already so far behind schedule to the airlines it isn’t funny.

The 767 is a hugely successful and proven widebody airframe that is readily available. To say it is beyond its useful life is absurd. There is a good chance that, like the new generation 747 (I suppose you think that’s useless too?) there will be design features taken from the 787 like the wing and avionics.

Also, all of you Airbus fanboys need a little reality check… to say the A330 is a better jet is a hard sell. To say Airbus can deliver the aircraft on time is even more far fetched. If the Air Force hadn’t screwed this up so bad Boeing would have won the original contract because, plain and simple, the 767-based tanker met the bid requirements more closely than the Airbus version.