Dear Sir, I am writing this comment to express my dissappointment in the United States Air Force for making such a bad descision. I have travelled most of my life. Airbus makes good aircraft but I cannot understand why such an important contract would go to a company that would rely on production in another country. We are talking about the defense of The United States of America. Let the tools we use to defend America be made by the hands of Americans. Someone needs to let the U.S. Air Force know that taking jobs from the people of the nation you swore to defend is just plain wrong. If the goverment does not see it this way The Boeing Company should start submitting bids on the next super carrier the U.S. Navy will soon need. You people make the best...........best reguards and good luck........mike browning

I write to express disappiontment at Boeing's decision to protest.

1. The Air Force asked for a tanker between 300,000 and 1 million pounds gross weight.

2. The Air Force in it's RPF stated that they would award to the contrator who "met or exceeded the requirements."

3. The Air Force in its RFP stated this was a capabilities-based, best value competition

4. Northrop Grumman offered more for the same price.

5. Why did Boeing tout:
- Made in America
- Jobs
- Fuel Savings
- Size

None of these were AF requirments?

6. Boeing wasn't misled to offer the smaller tanker...the 777 would not have been ready. It's too immature as a platform.

7. Why didn't Boeing offer do more to improve performance? You are years late on Italy and Japan. You do not have your GEN 6 boom physically made.

Boeing's leadership needs to offer explanation to the American public, politicians, Boeing workers and stockholders why they ignored the AF stated requirements. You were arrogant with the AF...you are arrogant now.

You have lost the last 4 major Defense Competitions -- JSF, N-UCAS, KC-X and are losing CSAR-X.

Northrop Grumman is an American company bringing 48,000 jobs to the US. Boeign is an American company that has sent 80,000 jobs overseas. Do the math. Who do you want to work for? Who is more "American?"

So much nationalistic, patriotic, protectionist rhetoric and not enough technical data presented. But Boeing is building their airplanes anywhere in the world it fits their needs and I applaud them for that but it sound hypocritical to expect the government not to buy better products made somewhere else. Boeing is behaving as a monopoly and not putting their best forward and this is the result.

How can our government maintain a pro-free trade agenda when the Europeans zealously protect their Aerospace industry, particularly their military/defense sector. Note that I am not condemning the Euros for this practice, only to point out that we risk doing irreparable harm to our own industry with this short sighted, ill-considered, selection. Points to ponder:

1. The Europeans are opting to build their own global positioning satellite system (GPS) even though ours has been in existence for over
two decades. Why?

2. The finest military cargo plane in the world is the Boeing C-17, yet the French and Germans are developing their own cargo aircraft, the A400. This program has been plagued with cost over runs and lengthly delays, yet France and Germany steadfastly refuse to consider buying the C-17. Not only that but they spurned North American Pratt & Whitney, which had significant expertise in turboprop technology, in order to develop their own turboprop engine. This engine is also plagued with technical problems and delays.

3. France and Germany spurned Spirit Aerosystems' bid for the 6 EADS factories they are trying to "privatize", opting instead for the European solution. Euro politicians were candid that the move was to protect European jobs.

This needs to be part of the debate. We are, after all, not talking about a commercial program, but a capability that is absoultely vital to projecting military capability around the globe.

Frankly, if GAO rules against Boeing's protest, this issue needs to be injected big-time into the presidential race. I hope Congress also acts to with hold funding. We need a home grown tanker, not something that some Air Force general happened to like because it was bigger.

> Aurora:
> We need a home grown tanker,
> not something that some Air Force general
> happened to like because it was bigger.

Aurora, Air Force generals did not
"happened to like" the KC-30 (I assume)
"because it was bigger", but because it needed
fewer trips/sorties when multiple loads are required.

Fewer sorties means less fuel, less time, less wear and tear, less exposure to threats, fewer parking spaces, etc.

It's like using 40 - 80 pickup trucks,
or just one Mack truck. The Mack truck
uses more fuel per trip, but only needs to
make one trip to move all your household stuff.

A pickup truck make take 40 - 80 trips,
which uses a lot more fuel and time
than the one trip by a Mack truck.

Thank you,
Eddie Maddox

quoting:
Mark (Los Angeles, CA):
I heard that the EADS plane cannot refuel the V-22. If this is the case, maybe things will work in Boeing's favor!

- EADS have confirmed that the KC-30 can refuel the V-22.

Please just accept that the KC-30 is superior, just as the A330 is superior to the 767 and the 777 is superior to the A340.

You're just wasting american taxmoney with this protest.

''maybe use a 767-400 platform?''

- Just another point I'd like to make regarding the idea of using the 767-400 as a tanker. The 767-400ER would close the gap on the A330-200 in terms of troop capacity and cargo capacity. However:

1) It does not provide and payload weight increases over the 767-200ER.
2) The above means that it is limited to the same offloadable fuel capacity as the 767-200ER.
3) Because it has the same engine thrust as the -200ER (63,300lb x2) yet has a MTOW some 25 tonnes greater, it will almost certainly require longer runways which is something that the 767-200ER already falls behind on compared to the A330-200.
4) Its footprint is almost as large as the A330 - something that Boeing is percieving as a disadvantage although I dont personally agree.
5) It will have higher costs across the board compared to the 767-200ER sized proposal, inc fuelburn.
6)The 767-400ER has almost 1000 miles less range than the A330.

quoting aurora:

Ed From Ireland:
You conveniently ignore the fact that the existing GPS system is being replaced. The fact that the Euros want their own parallel system speaks to the fact that they don't want to rely on the U.S. for their GPS capability.

- Galileo is in fact a global system being used by the EU, China, Israel, India, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Ukraine and whoever else decides to join. Just because the EU is developing it does not mean it will be exclusivly for the EU's use. The Joint Strike Fighter is being developed in a similar context.

To Mark and the Boeing Tanker Community,

I'd probably be the least concerned about the KC-X Contest. But I am a Boeing admirer and I see fit where merit should be noted.

In a very exacting RFP and Selection process, the USAF erred by making Boeing to its specifications and giving NG/EADS valaue for exceeding these. It's not like we're buying and SUV - this is a vital procurement of a major warfighting equipment. Everyhting must come down the line, everything must be by the numbers.

The 767, as a platform has three body styles, of the same class, on a basic ariframe - the A330 has two, of differing class - where the -200 is midsize and the -300 is medium/large. The value - it means taht the KC-X Tanker can grow into different sizes thoughtout its cycle life without considerable changes in ramp footprint, logistics and support.

The 767 is a better cargo airplane - seen by the maturity of the commerical freighter. the A330 is only good as a lightweight freighter, given taht its cross section is not maximized except for underbelly LD3 units and a cramped passenger cabin, where the sidewalls " get in your face "

The A330 is a succesful airliner because paired with the A340 - which meant airlines a decade ago can get two airplanes serving different missions on almost the same flight crew. It is a bigger airplane - yes. BUt given is cross section and size, its size is hardly maximized as a cargo plane.

Most likely, the USAF would need several multi-role tanker / cargo types. This is why a 767 / 777 and 747-8 Trio will serve better.

On the spec card for the Italian KC-767, 395'000 is listed for the gross wt. That's 100,000 more than the 135. But the MAX FUEL is listed as 160,000 lbs, that's about 25,000 lbs LESS than the 135. Misprint? Were you stating Max fuel load or max fuel offload?
I flew Tankers for almost 18 years (different time different wars) but what I can say is 4 out of 5 flights were for crew (tanker & receiver) proficiency. A Nav leg, A rendezvous, 2 OR 3 hook-ups, a 3000 lb offload then back to the local area for a few approaches, a couple of touch and goes and a full stop.
The point of my rant is do we really need a Monster tanker to carry more cargo and more passengers. The 767 still looks best. And just for the numbers sake there were many 100,000 lb offloads by the earliest 135s.

To: Mark McGraw

There is only one important and meaningful issue re the tanker contract protest and that is did the Air Force conduct the process in a fair and consistent manner?

If as your protest asserts the process was seriously flawed, then the GAO should so find, and based on my limited review of your protest it certainly appears so.

You need to concentrate on the facts that show the errors made by the AF. Political positions and jobs are not the issue. Technical assessment and fairness in evaluation of both proposals is everything.

Good Luck!

Tom

As a 20 year member of the -135 community I must say that Boeing made one damn fine aircraft! However they are getting old and the maintenance hours are climbing. In our current conflict one of the problems we face MTOG (max tails on ground) Our forward bases have limitations set on them by that counties governments. The flip side of this is available ramp size. A smaller airframe gives you more flexibility for missions because there are more on-site. Whereas the bigger airframe holds more fuel for loiter time. So one has to figure out balance point. The only other thing is that I hope to GOD your wing pods are alot better than the FRL MPRS pod system. Good lord what a P.O.S

Boeing just builds a better product. Correct me if Im wrong but havent they been building planes for over 75 years? How long has Airbus been in business? Shouldnt that be worth something?

As I dig through these forms I noticed the distinction between those who are For and Against the KC-767. Those whom are against the 767 and favor the KC-30 came from two locations; Europe and Alabama. However those who favor the 767 are throughout the entire US. Notably and also the KEY is that who have and are currently using the KC-10 and KC-767, have only posted FOR the 767. None of the claimers in favor to the KC-30 show anything beyond the general press release information, let alone how the current US Tanker’s operate. Looking beyond the numbers in the page and forgetting the illegal substituting to EADS/Airbus and past the notion of EADS flipping the bird to the US in order to sell products IRAN…….Here in lies the cold blatant TRUTH that although the KC-30 is an admirable civilian passenger plane it is too large and overfills the role in which it is meant to fill. Then just tipping onto the iceberg, there is the huge financial burden that will arise out of a need to construct the ground facilities for such a larger airframe. All current ground fuel pits cannot support the A330 and hence shall be required to be rebuild, with high costs no doubt in mind. Then there are hangers which will be required a complete teardown and rebuild, yet another huge cost. Tie that into the 20% more cost in fuel per trip for the A330 given that the average Air Refueling is for only 5-6 fighters. More maintenance cost in parts, for as history has shown that the more parts one has the more will go wrong, also more maintenance personal due to the greater area of inspections that are need.
Sorry EADS/Airbus but just for bragging rights ….. The oldest operational aircraft tanker that I have ever seen was 1958 Boeing KC135, Can Airbus or EADS say the same? I think NO.