Simviation Forum - Northrop drops out of tanker bid.

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Real World › Real Aviation › Northrop drops out of tanker bid.

(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Northrop drops out of tanker bid. (Read 311 times)

Mar 8^th, 2010 at 10:19pm

specter177 Offline
Colonel
Check out the Maverick
Flying Car!
I-TEC - X35

Gender:
Posts: 1406

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/northrop-drops-competition-pentagon-t...

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Mar 8^th, 2010 at 10:32pm

DaveSims Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa

Gender:
Posts: 2453

Probably figured it wasn't worth the effort, it would never go to them anyway, Boeing would see to that.

Dave

www.flymcw.com

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Mar 9^th, 2010 at 6:55am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Having won the competition with a more capable (and compared to the KC-767 offered*, more extant) airframe, one doesn't blame them considering the re-writing of the requirement to absolutely dismantle the advantages the larger tanker offered.

Sadly the only losers (other than the workers of Alabama) will be the USAF, who because certain parties were so against a foreign tanker from Boeing's main competitor, will now probably get the least Boeing can get away with to almost directly replace the KC-135. In doing so they've also shot themselves in the foot in possibly negating any need for the so called future "KC-Y" competition to replace the KC-10 (which could have been fulfilled by an extension of the KC-X order.

*the USAF would certainly not have wanted the KC-767 as supplied to the JASDF and the Italians.

Mind you, as I've said before, it's nice for the RAF for once to be able to say "I'm alright Jack!". Grin

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Mar 9^th, 2010 at 7:59am

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

Another tragic case of "protectionism" Roll Eyes

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Mar 9^th, 2010 at 8:49am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

The cost of no competition worries me.. but the initial cost is peanuts if we get Boeing-esque service life out of these air-frames. The KC-135 and B-52 have over a CENTURY of service between them.

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Mar 9^th, 2010 at 9:43am

specter177 Offline
Colonel
Check out the Maverick
Flying Car!
I-TEC - X35

Gender:
Posts: 1406

Yea, the B-52 is scheduled to be in surface until 2050. The youngest was built in the mid 70's, so that would be like having a biplane in front-line service today.

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Mar 9^th, 2010 at 1:02pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Brett_Henderson wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 8:49am:

The KC-135 and B-52 have over a CENTURY of service between them.

On the plus side, now Airbus/NG have pulled out, there's a chance of getting the near 50 year old -135 airframes out of service.

We parked next to a KC-135 at an event last year. We thought were were old in our 43 year old jet...

...until we spoke to the 135 crew who confirmed there's was a '61 vintage model!

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Mar 13^th, 2010 at 10:53am

OVERLORD_CHRIS Offline
Colonel
No C-17B's, C-5M's for
Every One!
Chalreston SC

Gender:
Posts: 1148

I'm still keeping up with this debacle of a tanker perches, just waiting on the "official" word that Boeing will get it by default.

Funny thing is, after 8 years of trying to jam the nearly out of production 767 down the USAF's throat, not one time did they ever build a prototype for the USAF to back up all the stuff they were saying.

And now only when Congress passed a law making NG give up the data on the KC-30, did Boeing go back and remodified the 767 to have the flight deck of the 787 and fly by wire & remote fuel station like in the NG KC-30.

IP Logged

Pages: 1

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Home

‹ Board

Top of this page