USAF Tanker - No Bid Northrop or EADs

[texas-bill]

(snip) Now it comes around again and people are whining because the RFP was not changed to favor the larger A330 airframe. Then rather than offer a smaller airframe, Northrup takes their ball and goes home.

Thanks for cutting thru the BS and getting to the facts. Good job as usual, Dave.

Unfortunately, I doubt the truth will do little to stem the flow of misinforwhining emanating from across the Atlantic.

--

 

[Viperfixr]

But...

Look at the F-22 fiasco.

Maybe its time to manufacture new models of some of the older designs. Is there really anything wrong with the F-18 design? Or the F-16 design? I don't think so. Nothing that a new electronics package couldn't fix.

And this would be a HUGE boost to our economy. Right when we need it.

I'm not saying somebody -DID- get paid off, but it sure sounds like someone did. Somebody has a lot of explaining to do. And I expect some of that to be under oath.

Your suggestion that the F-22A is a waste is money or a fiasco of a program only exposes your ignorance of the aircraft's capabilities and air warfare as it is executed today, and expected to be fought tomorrow.

From my perspective as a career Air Force Airman with direct experience in every USAF fighter currently in use, and some retired, cancelling the F-22A is most likely a tragedy that we will not fully realize the magnitude of for many years to come. When and if that day of comes, the paltry 187 airplanes we bought will not seem nearly enough. And, indeed, it's a fraction of what we might need to address the threat posed by a major nation's adversary.

Rest assured, the jet is nothing short of amazing. Nothing else currently comes close. Buying 4th generation fighters like the 1960's designed F-18 or F-16 is reinvesting our precious tax payer dollars into yesterday's capabilities. True, we don't need F-22A for the current war on terror. That's not saying much from an airpower standpoint. OV-10 Bronco's would probably suffice for most of what we need if they were configured to drop smart weapons and carry some form of advanced targeting pod. That's not what the F-22A was made for, and it's a multitude of capabilities that took decades to develop (and at great expense).

While it's true that there is no threat that currently challenges the F-22A today, you need look no further than this article to know that this advantage is temporary. And, the older, 4th generation jets are just not competitive like they used to be, and are a burden to maintain. Why spend $60M on a Block 60 F-16 today when you can get a vastly superior F-35 for ~$75-100M (expected production cost--comes down over time)? Why reinvest in legacy technology and capabilities when far superior options exist?

Everyone likes to talk about how expensive the F-22A is and uses numbers like $300M per aircraft. Several weeks ago I literally talked with the guy who paid (on behalf of the USAF) for the very last F-22A to be built. Guess what it cost? Not $300M, but...wait for it...$97M. Considering the advantages the F-22A brings to the warfare table over and above any kind of upgraded F-18 or F-16, it's a bargain. If we had bought more, the price would have dropped even further. The Raptor is not an a evolutionary step up. It's nothing short of revolutionary. How, you might ask? Supercruise, sensor fusion and stealthiness all put together in one, amazing package. There is a reason our F-15/16 pilots don't like "training" against our F-22As.

Oh, and UAV advocates that think manned fighters have been passed over by advances in the RPV world, guess what? The UCAV's are just not there yet. It's coming, it's promising, but it's not ready for prime time YET.

The point is that those of us on the sharp edge of protecting this country hope to never be in a fight that is FAIR. Americans should WANT our armed forces to have as much of an advantage as possible on whatever battlefield we are asked to fight upon. US Taxpayers and the parents of our soldiers, sailors, marines and airman should not ever want it any other way. From that and many other perspectives/reasons, buying 5th generation aircraft (F-22A & F-35) is the only way to go. Anything less is irresponsible.

 

[ScrapDaddy]

*cough
I would like to point 2 things out, we, as Americans have never been attacked on home soil, hawii was not part of the us at the time and the only time that we were was during the war of 1812 which acctually started in 1811

 

[tbzep]

*cough
I would like to point 2 things out, we, as Americans have never been attacked on home soil, hawii was not part of the us at the time and the only time that we were was during the war of 1812 which acctually started in 1811

Yes we have, not counting the one where you just contradicted yourself (War of 1812).

 

[Viperfixr]

*cough
I would like to point 2 things out, we, as Americans have never been attacked on home soil, hawii was not part of the us at the time and the only time that we were was during the war of 1812 which acctually started in 1811

Do we want it any differently? Do American interests end at our borders? How do we support & defend vital national interests and allies? As a powerful nation, do we have vital obligations that go beyond the lines on a map? Isolationism is a dangerous mindset, one that some believe led to WWII.

And, according to law, an attack on US territory consitutes an attack on the US itself. That includes Guam, Puerto Rico, and used to cover Hawaii and Alaska before they became states.

 

[user 13]

Viperfixr is correct:

"Everyone likes to talk about how expensive the F-22A is and uses numbers like $300M per aircraft. Several weeks ago I literally talked with the guy who paid (on behalf of the USAF) for the very last F-22A to be built. Guess what it cost? Not $300M, but...wait for it...$97M. Considering the advantages the F-22A brings to the warfare table over and above any kind of upgraded F-18 or F-16, it's a bargain. If we had bought more, the price would have dropped even further. The Raptor is not an a evolutionary step up. It's nothing short of revolutionary. How, you might ask? Supercruise, sensor fusion and stealthiness all put together in one, amazing package. There is a reason our F-15/16 pilots don't like "training" against our F-22As."

This is a paradigm shift in fighter aircraft. a few years ago the Indian Air Force pilots came very close to defeating US F-15 pilots in an exercise.
I believe they were flying SU-30s.

If anyone wants to know why we need the F-22, one word China. The only problem is we need another 200 of them.

As for the high cost, I believe that the entire 10+ years of flight test were added into the cost per aircraft.

On the Tanker, It's bad that we are down to just one choice, but I'm not sure the KC-45 was the answer. It's too big, for the relatively small increase in the amount of fuel that can be transferred.

Remember bigger is not always better, Fighters will take a small amount of off load. It takes time for the fighters to find the tanker, hook up get gas, and go about their way. They typically don't have a lot of gas when they need it from the tanker, and tankers can not be close to the front. Many times 2 smaller tankers are better than one larger for war planers. The K/C-45 can only refuel one Airforce fighter at a time, just like a KC-767. 3 KC-767's are better than 2 KC-45s. Now look at the logistics. The KC-45 takes up more ramp space, due to less numbers you have fewer tankers which means you can't deploy them to as many airports. This Might limit your ability to fight. Also the KC-45 will fly longer missions (less booms, more gas to pass, fighters need gas NOW) so you will be flying augmented crews. This will partially offset the added crews needed for more KC-767's.

In my experience refueling the C-5. I always liked the KC-135 over the KC-10. The refueling was just easier behind the -135. True with the big off load a C-5 might need, hitting 2 KC-10s instead of 3 KC-135s might be better. But fighter needs drive all tanker decisions.

During the first gulf war it was not the amount of gas that was the limiting factor, it was the amount of booms.

 

[RangerStl]

the early bombers the b-9 (which lost the contract to the macdonald Douglas B-10)

Actually Douglas B-10. Old man Mac was just starting to sew fabric on the elevators and rudders of C47s in 1939 and McDonnell Aircraft wouldn't buy Douglas until 1967.

N

 

[ScrapDaddy]

Woops I can't seem to keep that staight; i used to only study the ww2 and before era aircraft maybe I should drop the poswar aircraft (keeping them alll straight is a pain

 

[RangerStl]

No big thing! Just happens to be a passion of mine. :cyclops:

N

 

[Fred22]

Viperfixr is correct:

"Everyone likes to talk about how expensive the F-22A is and uses numbers like $300M per aircraft. Several weeks ago I literally talked with the guy who paid (on behalf of the USAF) for the very last F-22A to be built. Guess what it cost? Not $300M, but...wait for it...$97M. Considering the advantages the F-22A brings to the warfare table over and above any kind of upgraded F-18 or F-16, it's a bargain. If we had bought more, the price would have dropped even further. The Raptor is not an a evolutionary step up. It's nothing short of revolutionary. How, you might ask? Supercruise, sensor fusion and stealthiness all put together in one, amazing package. There is a reason our F-15/16 pilots don't like "training" against our F-22As."

This is a paradigm shift in fighter aircraft. a few years ago the Indian Air Force pilots came very close to defeating US F-15 pilots in an exercise.
I believe they were flying SU-30s.

If anyone wants to know why we need the F-22, one word China. The only problem is we need another 200 of them.

As for the high cost, I believe that the entire 10+ years of flight test were added into the cost per aircraft.

On the Tanker, It's bad that we are down to just one choice, but I'm not sure the KC-45 was the answer. It's too big, for the relatively small increase in the amount of fuel that can be transferred.

Remember bigger is not always better, Fighters will take a small amount of off load. It takes time for the fighters to find the tanker, hook up get gas, and go about their way. They typically don't have a lot of gas when they need it from the tanker, and tankers can not be close to the front. Many times 2 smaller tankers are better than one larger for war planers. The K/C-45 can only refuel one Airforce fighter at a time, just like a KC-767. 3 KC-767's are better than 2 KC-45s. Now look at the logistics. The KC-45 takes up more ramp space, due to less numbers you have fewer tankers which means you can't deploy them to as many airports. This Might limit your ability to fight. Also the KC-45 will fly longer missions (less booms, more gas to pass, fighters need gas NOW) so you will be flying augmented crews. This will partially offset the added crews needed for more KC-767's.

In my experience refueling the C-5. I always liked the KC-135 over the KC-10. The refueling was just easier behind the -135. True with the big off load a C-5 might need, hitting 2 KC-10s instead of 3 KC-135s might be better. But fighter needs drive all tanker decisions.

During the first gulf war it was not the amount of gas that was the limiting factor, it was the amount of booms.

I have a few questions. Are reg force pilots getting enough time in on their aircraft to keep their hand in and or learn what they need to know? In the past that has been an issue with bothe CAF and USAF. That could be a big deal when it comes to the effectiveness of fighter or any other aircraft or is the SU30 just that good? I am referring to your comment about the narrow victory over the Indian pilots.
The F22 is an incredible aircraft but this reminds of the past when the eagle came out. Light years ahead of the competition but so expensive critics were saying nobody could afford enough. thats when the 18 and 16 were developed so quantity issues could be addressed. I wonder if a less capable version ie cheaper one could be built? The F35 seems mired in controversy as well.
I know others have mentionned it but whats wrong with a frequancy agile UAV. Years ago NASA tested HIMAT and it could do manouveurs that would turn a pilot into jelly. An umanned aircraft could could carry more payload and manouveur in a much more aggressive fashion. Is not using one of those a practical problem or a cultural one whereby people dont want to get out of the cockpit?
Your reasoning around tankers seems sound as does the rest of your comments You obviously know this stuff from a practical standpoint as well. Im honestly curious when I ask about UAVs though and i mean ones controlled like the Predator not an AI type thing.
I honestly dont know if Americans will ever have to dogfight with the Chinese but one is always wise to be prepared. Sometime the defence industries need a boogeyman to justify their product as it were but I certainly an not saying you are.
Cheers
fred

 

[user 13]

Thanks Fred. First let me say that it's been 18 years since I was in the C-5, I hang around in a 737 now. But I fly with pilots still in the reserves. I don't think the US pilots are wanting for flight time. Kind of the opposite from what I'm told. The F-15s and -16s are getting old. They are getting close to the end of the service life. The newer Russian fighters are very good. Our pilots are also very good, but when the wings start falling off of F-15s something needs to be done.

If I remember the Aviation week article, the Indian airforce is good and they have good equipment that is maintained well. I think the fact is the Mig 29 and SU-27/30 is a very capable aircraft, and in the hands of a capable pilot it can be a threat to the F-15.

The F-35 is the replacement for the F-16, F-18, AV-8, tornado, A-6, heck just about everything BUT the F-15. When done it should be a formidable asset, but it is trying to be everything. It will take time to work everything out.

If you want my opinion, The unmanned combat vehicles have a long way to go. Some day maybe, but never underestimate the value of a butt in the seat to make fast decisions. But remember I am employed as a pilot, so I might be a small bit biased.

Hopefully the west will NEVER have to dogfight the Chinese because the F-22's will kill all the adversaries from beyond visual range without ever being detected. The F-22 is that good. We just need more of them.

Mark

 

[cjl]

I agree that the F-22 is that good, and we should have more of them.

The F-15, 16, and 18 are excellent fighter aircraft, but when compared against the latest from other countries, they are beginning to fall behind. The Eurofighter, Rafale, and SU-35 (to name a few) could seriously challenge, if not outright defeat, the older generation of US fighters.

The F-22 is of course in a class of its own right now, though the Sukhoi PAK-FA looks intriguing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

 

[tbzep]

Fred, you should want us to load up on F-22's. The more we have stationed in our northern states, the less you have to buy to protect your country. Your fleet is aging just like ours. That way more of your tax dollars can be diverted to 2014 Olympic training for a bunch more gold medals, and important things like medical research, etc.

There are a lot of countries that depend on the USA to defend them in various capacities because they can't defend themselves from larger forces. Some of those countries are true allies. Some bad mouth us publicly but get bent out of shape if we don't give them money or military protection. Those countries may not admit it, but they likely wish we would load up on F-22's also.

 

[MysticalRockets]

Ok, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some kind of problem with the F-22? Something about some resin that was used or something? That's what I heard, but I wasn't sure.

Did I hear correctly somebody knock on the A-10? Don't you be knockin on the Warthog. She's not the prettiest girl at the ball, but she's the one you'd bring home to meet Momma.

 

[Fred22]

Fred, you should want us to load up on F-22's. The more we have stationed in our northern states, the less you have to buy to protect your country. Your fleet is aging just like ours. That way more of your tax dollars can be diverted to 2014 Olympic training for a bunch more gold medals, and important things like medical research, etc.

There are a lot of countries that depend on the USA to defend them in various capacities because they can't defend themselves from larger forces. Some of those countries are true allies. Some bad mouth us publicly but get bent out of shape if we don't give them money or military protection. Those countries may not admit it, but they likely wish we would load up on F-22's also.

Actually they could station F22's at Cold lake bagotville or anywhere they want up here We have been hosting American aircraft for years either as part of Norad deployments or exercises like Maple flag. It is interesting to note that due to high mission tempo Canadian interceptors looked after a great deal of American airspace. Its what friends and allies do for one another.
We just spent about 1.8 billion updating 80 hornets so we can theoretically use them till 2020. Then the F-35 is supposed to come on line. It too is sufferring from massive cost overuns. We'll see how it goes I guess.
How the US spends it's tax dollars for aircraft is very much their business. To me with this tanker thing it sounds like Boeing is going to produce a good aircraft in the US for the USAF. Thats a win win . Sounds like EADS and northrop got beat but that happens and these huge corporations will survive.
The US has never had a better friend and ally then Canada period IMHO. We have been guarding one another borders for decades and we have shed blood together on many battlefields. Sadly enough the necessity continues to the present day. People up here make anti-US statements ocasionally and are perfectly entitled to but the same thing happens on both sides of the border. The underlying relationship is and always will be sound as it gets between two distinct and sovereign nations.
The point I was going to make about UAVs is they could fill the role of the 18s and 16s in the American military arsenal in conjunction with F22's. In our own case we could probably use UAVs in conjunction with the F35 if that is the aircraft we use. It is a low cost way to augment the very capable manned aircraft. The F106 was for example largely controlled from the ground for weapons fire anyway. Why not just take the thing further. UAVs are cheaper more manouveuarble and can carry large payloads. Unlike our sons and daughters in these cockpits UAVs are also very expendable. I beleive a shift to remotely piloted UAV's for air to air is as much about air force culture as it is about technology(ours as well as yours ). Frankly I feel thats unfortunate because every UAV that gets taken out represents one less box being lowered into the ground whether its in Spokane or Toronto. But thats just my opinion and as a former grunt my perspective may be a little off
Cheers
fred

 

[tbzep]

The US has never had a better friend and ally then Canada period IMHO. We have been guarding one another borders for decades and we have shed blood together on many battlefields. Sadly enough the necessity continues to the present day.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[SpaceAXEplorer]

I third that! EH?
You bet! Hey, we even helped make Enfield rifles! (Savage)
..and, if I'm not mistaken, you guys created the ELCAN optics system for the M-16 series of rifles! (If I could afford one, it'd be on my M-4 now!)
...oh, and thanks for getting the hostages out of Iran back in 1979/1980!
and for Red-Green, and the Mc'Kenzie (sp) bros'!...and hockey!
...and Labatts!
Ok-Eh!
and to keep on topic...
Belgium invented the M-249 S.A.W. (Would you believe in my day, the going rumor was that it was French? ), that the Marine Corps uses (Semper-Fi) Which I am intimately familiar with.
Germany! HK is headquartered in Germany? So What? So- The 45-USP pistol! (Which I am also very familiar with)
OH! and how-bout that M-9 pistol? Berretta is originally an Italian company!
You want to get historical? How about the Krag series of rifles that saw action the Spanish American War... YEP- Originally Engineered in NORWAY!
They may all be manufactured in the U.S. now, but They have other foreign origins! JA-SO! Tenke pa det!
...and I'm extremely proud to say I have worked with the military's of all, and still can name friends from each! Hey I'm proud of America, especially Detroit! ...But I'm not xenophobic, and we are a whole globe now, so i have to agree, that whatever works the best, works; who cares where it's from, as long as it's from a friend

UH- I also have to agree that I'm a bit....tired of seeing 'made in China' on almost everything here!

BTW- I think Boeing had a way better design for the JSF than Lockheed for the X-35- YES 'X' Since Lockheed can't get the bugs out after almost, or is it 10 years?
HA! After 10 years, I can get that out!
PLPHH! :neener:

 

[dave carver]

....I dunno, you still owe us for sending Celine Dion and Brian Adams our way Rush makes up for a lot of that but the scale is still unbalanced, kinda like me:cyclops:

 

[Fred22]

....I dunno, you still owe us for sending Celine Dion and Brian Adams our way Rush makes up for a lot of that but the scale is still unbalanced, kinda like me:cyclops:

I raise your adams and dion with one milli vanilli and a back street boys. In all fairness you gave us CCR and Roy Orbison though
Cheers
fred

 

[ScrapDaddy]

I agree that the F-22 is that good, and we should have more of them.

The F-15, 16, and 18 are excellent fighter aircraft, but when compared against the latest from other countries, they are beginning to fall behind. The Eurofighter, Rafale, and SU-35 (to name a few) could seriously challenge, if not outright defeat, the older generation of US fighters.

The F-22 is of course in a class of its own right now, though the Sukhoi PAK-FA looks intriguing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

Actually The F-22 Already has a (debatable)competitor the Su-47

 

[Viperfixr]

Actually The F-22 Already has a (debatable)competitor the Su-47

The Su47 was an experimental jet, not intended for fielding. While very manuverable, it isn't stealthy or particularly fast. Wikipedia says:

"Originally known as the S-37, Sukhoi redesignated its advanced test aircraft as the Su-47 in 2002. Officially nicknamed Berkut (Golden Eagle), the Su-47 was originally built as Russia's principal testbed for composite materials and sophisticated fly-by-wire control systems. The aircraft makes use of forward-swept wings allowing superb maneuverability and operation at angles of attack up to 45° or more."
​

HERE is the first flight of the so-called Russian Raptor:
[YOUTUBE]qxWZiSdWvns[/YOUTUBE]

 

[user 13]

I raise your adams and dion with one milli vanilli and a back street boys. In all fairness you gave us CCR and Roy Orbison though
Cheers
fred

Don't forget Capt.Kirk! The Shat. It will be hard to pay you back for him! You guys have a positive trade balance!

 

[CF-105]

Ok, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there some kind of problem with the F-22? Something about some resin that was used or something? That's what I heard, but I wasn't sure.

Did I hear correctly somebody knock on the A-10? Don't you be knockin on the Warthog. She's not the prettiest girl at the ball, but she's the one you'd bring home to meet Momma.

Knocking the Warthog? Not smart. That gal can take care of herself The way I heard it, back before Desert Storm, they had planned to retire the whole fleet of A-10s. They more than proved their worth in Kuwait & Iraq, earning a reprieve of 20 years & counting.

Cutting edge tech will always encounter delays & cost overruns. You cannot accurately estimate time requirements or costs for something that hasn't been done before. How long has the V-22 Osprey been in development? Development times for the latest generation of aircraft has been very long.

 

[Fred22]

Don't forget Capt.Kirk! The Shat. It will be hard to pay you back for him! You guys have a positive trade balance!

I think the new Captian Kirk whose name escapes did a great job
Cheers
fred

 

[dave carver]

Knocking the Warthog? Not smart. That gal can take care of herself The way I heard it, back before Desert Storm, they had planned to retire the whole fleet of A-10s. They more than proved their worth in Kuwait & Iraq, earning a reprieve of 20 years & counting.

Cutting edge tech will always encounter delays & cost overruns. You cannot accurately estimate time requirements or costs for something that hasn't been done before. How long has the V-22 Osprey been in development? Development times for the latest generation of aircraft has been very long.

I live off the end of the Gowan Field National Guard base at the Boise airport and the A10's fly all the time training in our desert that looks very much like the Mid East. With an Air Force Combined Strike Force at Mt. Home AFB there's a lot of traning going on out in the desert year round. You see F15's, F 16's, FA 18 Hornets most of the time with an occasional exotic like a B2 or F 117.

When I was a kid the first jet fighters I remember are the F 86's

 

[mperdue]

I think the new Captian Kirk whose name escapes did a great job

He made a great punching bag! The real Captain Kirk would have whooped ass on all those pansies.

 

[user 13]

Chris Pine did a great job, but no one can ever beat Shatner!

Boy did this thread drift!

 

[Fred22]

Good conversations between friends do
Cheers
fred

 

[user 13]

And it is a good conversation my friend!

Thanks.

 

[user 13]

Fred, I thought you might like this, saw it in the Air and Space museum.

And had to add this:

BTW, I was the guest of the Canadian Air Force in 1991 for the Bagotville QC air show. I was took a C-5 in for a static display. You guys know how to show a crew a fine time! The most fun I've had at an air show.