Northrop/EADS Beats Boeing For Tanker Contract / KC-45 Contract Awarded

[FireLight]

You mean quality matrix?

I don't know where Verbal's from, but in Canada, a quality metric works fine.

metric; noun Statistics; statistic for measuring: a standard or a statistic for measuring or quantifying something else

Or we could just use the Imperial/U.S. Customary units instead.

[Verbal]

You mean quality matrix?

Quality metric: a tool used to track and quantify a specific measure of product quality.

Quality matrix: http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:177524

[tsv]

That's a very sweeping statement. To which quality metric are you referring? Please provide source. Thanks in advance.

I haven't time to source anything much at the moment but feel free to pick whichever metric you choose. If you research operating costs I'll bet the A330 wins. If you measure payload capacity virsus costs it will be the same story. And if you analyse reliability and downtime stats the A330 will win again. No contest. It is simply a generation ahead of the 767.

If you want something more specific I suggest referring to the US Airforce's tender summary. I'm sure they spelt out the pros and cons of each bid and the A330 was superior in nearly all the criteria.

And if you want a bit of anti-dotal evidence check out the commercial market. The A330 has virtually killed the 767 stone dead. Q. Why (or how) would a 767 tanker be superior to an A330 tanker? A. It isn't.

[Moose135]

is that the bailout hatch or an entrance into the plane? The 135 Wing I live near uses that to enter the aircraft.

unless that door comes off, you'll have a hard time opening it while flying to bail!

Both...it is used primarily as the entrance/exit into the airplane - that's a ladder extending down at the aft side of the opening. It's also used for bailout - you pull a large arm down over the opening in the cockpit, it jettisons the door, and a large metal "wind shield" drops down into the airstream to allow you to bail out. I'm not sure that I ever heard of any successful bail outs from the -135 though.

[Highkeas]

Both...it is used primarily as the entrance/exit into the airplane - that's a ladder extending down at the aft side of the opening. It's also used for bailout - you pull a large arm down over the opening in the cockpit, it jettisons the door, and a large metal "wind shield" drops down into the airstream to allow you to bail out. I'm not sure that I ever heard of any successful bail outs from the -135 though.

After I posted my question I was imformed that the KC-135 parachute escape option has been recently deleted as a cost saving.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...hutes_030608w/

[Verbal]

I haven't time to source anything much at the moment....

I thought so. In other words, parlour talk.

[tsv]

I thought so. In other words, parlour talk.

Really. Perhaps you have time to "source" something that contradicts some of my assertions.

Thanks in advance!

[Verbal]

Really. Perhaps you have time to "source" something that contradicts some of my assertions.

I am under no obligation to source anything. You made the original assertion; you need to substantiate it.

There are any number of quality measures that one can apply to jet aircraft. One is dispatch reliability. The airframe builders strive to exceed 99% on this criterion. Another is the number of measurable defects on the airplane when it is delivered. Still another is the frequency of "nuisance trips" or squawks in the cockpit. Is the number of service bulletins and airworthiness directives that the airplane is subject to reasonable or excessive? What is quality?

You also say that the A330 is a generation ahead of the 767. The 767 was designed in the early '80s, the A330 in the mid-to-late 80's. That's a generation? I think it is commonly accepted that both airplanes fall into the category of second generation widebodies (the first being the 747/DC-10/L-1011/A300 generation). The technology on the A330 may be newer, but it is not a quantum leap ahead of the 767.

Further, newer technology in this type of application is of less importance to the military than it is to commercial customers. Whatever the technology in use, whether it is new or old, the military wants it to be robust and proven.

You're trying to justify the choice of the A330 for the new tanker platform by citing its superiority as a commercial platform. Yet the military mission is vastly different from the commercial. CASM doesn't rate with the Air Force.

As for your statement that the A330 killed he 767 "stone dead", I have it on excellent authority that right now Boeing is actually considering increasing the 767 production rate. Quite impressive for a dead program.

So in essence, the only thing you can really substantiate is that the A330 won because it is bigger. That, I will grant you, with no need for proof.

Thanks in advance!

You're welcome in advance.

[tommyalf]

Could you plz try to stay on topic. This is not the place for an Airbus vs. Boeing war, nor the place for a Europe vs. America war.

agreed..

[AerLingusA330]

I don't think Boeing can be "blamed" for not winning the contract. It was obvious from the start they would only win if it was considered buying "Made in the USA" was more important than the quality of the product. If the decision was to be made primarily on the grounds of product quality they were never going to have a snowflakes chance in hell.



Exactly. Not only is the 767 smaller, it cannot match the A330 in other critical performance measures - which is why orders for the Commercial version have all but stopped. Boeing were simply caught at the wrong time in the cycle for this order. Maybe 15 or 20 years from now the 787 will be the right product at the right time for a large military order.



You can't design a new plane in every class every 5 years. There are times that your competitor is going to have a more modern product. Regardless of whether they were complacent or not they didn't have a product that could compete with the A330. And there was nothing they could do about it - except hope nationalistic sentiment would get them over the line.

Not accourding to Boeing, they say that there 767 can carry the same amount of cargo, over the same distance and be even more efficent to use, and is a safer plane to be in, tell me this has there ever been a serious amount of A330 hull losses, i dont think so.

Exactly when was a tanker made to doge bullets, or shoot down other aircract or bomb countries, i thought that is what the USAF fighters were for.

Seriously they need to get there heads out of the clouds and start to realise that there product was in no way going to out perform the A330 and stop protesting this and move on.

[Bok269]

Not accourding to Boeing, they say that there 767 can carry the same amount of cargo, over the same distance and be even more efficent to use, and is a safer plane to be in, tell me this has there ever been a serious amount of A330 hull losses, i dont think so.

Exactly when was a tanker made to doge bullets, or shoot down other aircract or bomb countries, i thought that is what the USAF fighters were for.

Seriously they need to get there heads out of the clouds and start to realise that there product was in no way going to out perform the A330 and stop protesting this and move on.

The fact that the 767 has had a few hull-losses has absolutely nothing to do with its ability to doge bullets or shoot down aircraft, or bomb countries. Not that a TANKER would be doing that anyway...

[AerLingusA330]

So what is Boeings problem with loosing this comp, and sayin that the 767 is more surviable in war situations???

Seriously, u tell the day that a plane that there is bullets fired at it, that it will stay in the air with out crashin to the earth...

A330 is designed sorry was designed always to be Multi purpose aircraft, it was always designed to take off and land with low speed, has a huge cargo capicty over the 767, hence why many airlines are replacing there old and i want to make that clear "OLD" 767 fleets, with more modern, fuel efficent A330, for once the American goverment made a right decision that didnt involve war

[Bok269]

Seriously, u tell the day that a plane that there is bullets fired at it, that it will stay in the air with out crashin to the earth...

I'll see your bullets and raise you a Surface-to-air Missile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Ba...tdown_incident.

But the point is a tanker isn't designed for heavy combat-that's what the Fighters and Bombers are for.

A330 is designed sorry was designed always to be Multi purpose aircraft, it was always designed to take off and land with low speed, has a huge cargo capicty over the 767, hence why many airlines are replacing there old and i want to make that clear "OLD" 767 fleets, with more modern, fuel efficent A330, for once the American goverment made a right decision that didnt involve war

And the 767 wasn't designed to be multi-purpose? The A330 was introduced 12 years after the 767-it's no wonder that there were some performance improvements.

And many airlines aren't going for the A330 to replace the 767-many are going for the 787.

[Verbal]

So what is Boeings problem with loosing this comp, and sayin that the 767 is more surviable in war situations???

Boeing's argument pertains to crew survivability in the event the airplane is hit by hostile fire. I believe it has to do with the crew's ability to escape a crippled aircraft.

[FireLight]

Boeing's argument pertains to crew survivability in the event the airplane is hit by hostile fire. I believe it has to do with the crew's ability to escape a crippled aircraft.

I agree with the expectation that crew survivability would be the bigger issue. I suspect that aircraft survivability is probably not much of a consideration because if an enemy gets close enough to fire a missile at one of these "cigarette lighters", I wouldn't expect the outcome to be a good one. The fighter's responsibilities are to make sure that this doesn't happen.