Boeing gets Tanker Contract
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
FullDeflection
Well-Known Member
op:
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
A380 had its growing pains too.
Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm tag...
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
How in the world could you possibly think I was serious? Is there ANYTHING in that post that gave ANY indication that I might be serious, at all, in any way? I even spelled dude with two zeros!!!
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Ty man.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Aw, you had me until you dissed my Black Opz. Where else is it socially acceptable to taunt a middle school kid to tears? That's "All your base are belong to us!" as it was *meant* to be carried out. Respect, foo!
Damn, how's the weather up there?
Next you'll be telling me that constructing my tower out of ivory was a crime against nature. The truth of that issue is that you're just a bigot because it's a giant white phallic symbol.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
How in the world could you possibly think I was serious? Is there ANYTHING in that post that gave ANY indication that I might be serious, at all, in any way? I even spelled dude with two zeros!!!
Sorry JTRAIN, you'r probably right, I should have picked up on it. But I've been pretty tired lately taking care of a pretty sick kid. Fortunately the little one is on the mend now after a week of no fun.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
CEOs are dumber than a box of hammers when it comes to long term strategy, granted. But they're sharper than a Riddle Ace's "crash knife" when it comes to shaving cents from the bottom line. New gen aircraft get procured because they're cheaper to operate, in spite of the leases and associated BS. Period. Now, I don't know how the aircraft stack up, but from everything I've read, the Airbus would have been a superior platform for the long term...bigger, more capable, and most of all, better equipped to handle all the crap that will get bolted to it over the next 30-40 years of its (extrapolated) service life.
Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about the particular merits of the aircraft, if you think military procurement has ability per dollar spent as the first, second, or third criterion, you're living in a fantasy world. There is nothing more political, except maybe the BCS.
Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about the particular merits of the aircraft, if you think military procurement has ability per dollar spent as the first, second, or third criterion, you're living in a fantasy world. There is nothing more political, except maybe the BCS.
fish314
Well-Known Member
Bigger isn't necessarily better when you are talking about a tanker. Having cargo capacity is a good thing, no doubt, and the KC-10 is actually a pretty capable cargo aircraft... especially compared to a -135! But given the choice, it is often better to have two smaller tankers than 1 large one. After all, whether the tanker is tiny or giant, it can only refuel one plane at a time (basically), and only in one location at a time. The LIMFAC most of the time is number of booms in the air rather than amount of fuel available for offload. That being the case, buying more units of the cheaper tanker is probably the correct decision.
Still, with budgets getting tighter it probably doesn't make sense to buy a tanker like the current -135, with virtually no cargo capability. So cargo capacity is definitely a plus up to a point... but it comes with drawbacks, too. After all, the bigger the airplane the more room it takes up on a crowded ramp during some contingency operation. I've been places where we've had jets parked on every parking spot and then started stacking them up in the taxi areas between the parking spots. In fact, that is usually the way it works in the operational setting.
On the whole, though, Boris has a really good point. Politics plays a huge role. As for this decision, though, I don't know how much politics went into it. After all, in part 2 of this competition the USAF picked the EADS bid. Did the politics change between then and a few days ago? I don't know. (Of course the AIRPLANES didn't change either... so maybe a change in politics explains the flip-flop).
Personally, I'm happy Boeing got the deal. I have a house in Wichita I'm going to need to sell one of these years. And I fly a 55 year old Boeing product that still gets the job done, so I have some product loyalty, I guess.
Still, with budgets getting tighter it probably doesn't make sense to buy a tanker like the current -135, with virtually no cargo capability. So cargo capacity is definitely a plus up to a point... but it comes with drawbacks, too. After all, the bigger the airplane the more room it takes up on a crowded ramp during some contingency operation. I've been places where we've had jets parked on every parking spot and then started stacking them up in the taxi areas between the parking spots. In fact, that is usually the way it works in the operational setting.
On the whole, though, Boris has a really good point. Politics plays a huge role. As for this decision, though, I don't know how much politics went into it. After all, in part 2 of this competition the USAF picked the EADS bid. Did the politics change between then and a few days ago? I don't know. (Of course the AIRPLANES didn't change either... so maybe a change in politics explains the flip-flop).
Personally, I'm happy Boeing got the deal. I have a house in Wichita I'm going to need to sell one of these years. And I fly a 55 year old Boeing product that still gets the job done, so I have some product loyalty, I guess.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
I was kinda telling Boris this a little.
The reason the EADS had their award pulled was because the Airforce never asked for that plane. They didn't request anything like it. Boeing went to the GAO and said (by that I mean a elected proxy went to the GAO and said "hey now!"), "Look, the chick we hired last time is in jail, this was a supposedly fair bid, and the group that won had a more expensive plane with a bunch of options the Airforce STILL (still) has not asked for. You can't just assign a bid because it's politically touchy to give the bid to a bunch of cheaters like us." GAO looked into it, and agreed with Boeing on most points. The Airforce gave the bid to EADS the second time because they didn't want the award to "look" bad.
Do what the GAO has been saying for more than a decade, bring a private citizen into a CEO type roll to watch the accounting and dollars and sense of the military. Personally I'd take someone from the GAO, they are already giving up millions of their income to serve their country as independent auditors. No bonus, no nothing, appointed by the President, majority + minority leaders of both House and Senate. It will be closed session, the vote has to be unanimous, and every year it is reviewed by the same positions. On top of that, make it a special room with a banner across the door that says, "leave politics out here", and if anyone tries making political hay out of the decision from the group of 5, the other 4 are honor bound to beat the hell out of him/her.
fish314
Well-Known Member
Re: What The Boeing Tanker Win Means
I didn't know that the NewsBot could reply to a thread... or has SkyNet finally become self aware?
I didn't know that the NewsBot could reply to a thread... or has SkyNet finally become self aware?
seagull
Well-Known Member
So you think that Boeing went to FBW for the 777 and 787 just because it was a fad?
Both are hydraulic, by the way. The difference is the way the flight controls connect to the hydraulics. FBW allows you to do things that conventional controls cannot. Chief among them is to move the CG aft to the point that you eliminate trim drag. You also can design aerodynamic surfaces that are a lot more efficient but normally would create too many adverse handling qualities.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Fixed.
Edit to add: I love these Boeing vs. Airbus debates, especially those that revolve around how automated the Airbus is compared to the big, manly Boeing. I hate to tell ya, but a 757/767 will fly itself to the moon in LNAV/VNAV, as long as you make sure to keep spinning the MCP window up.
Hate to tell you but the 757/767 and 777 are a generation behind the MD-11 in terms of automation and FMS architecture.
Pépé le Pilot
Well-Known Member
Nice to have someone who actually flies a widebody chiming in on this debate. Does the MD-11 compare to the A330 in terms of automation and FMS (I know no FBW for the MD-11) ?
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Not at all. My question was out of curiosity, not a challenge. I have no FBW experience.
Thank you for the information. Makes sense.
That's cool. Any specific differences you might be able to point out? Again, not challenging anyone here; I'm genuinely curious.
I fly a widebody! I'm new to the airplane, but I'm not making stuff up here. :crazy:
Sheesh, tough crowd tonight.
seagull
Well-Known Member
The MD-11 is a combination of cable and FBW. The autopilot utilizes FBW, and the handling qualities are augmented with FBW inputs, which are series as opposed to parallel inputs, with the exception of engine out or crosswind inputs. The FMS architecture of the two is fairly similar. I am not sure on the 330, although I know the -11 is more sophisticated than the A-300 in terms of FMS. The MD-11 systems are far more automated than the A-330.
Pépé le Pilot
Well-Known Member
I fly a widebody! I'm new to the airplane, but I'm not making stuff up here. :crazy:
Sheesh, tough crowd tonight.
Not saying that at all ! There are some guys chiming in with barely a PPL explaining evereything about evereything. I know that you are flying the 75, wich is one of my top 5 airplane. It seems that we are not that many here having line experience hence the value of guys like you, Seagull, MikeD, Doug etc.
MD-11 seems a fabulous airplane. There are a few here, it is glorious looking and seems a fabulous machine to fly.