what do you expect ,stay with what works .the kc-10 still a good plane and so is the kc-135 they maybe a old air frame ,but i many hours of flight time and the kc -135 has gotten me home every time.its . i will stand behind the tankers any day kc-10/kc 135 they kept me employed for 16 years before some yahoo in dc decided that they should take are toys away.
i am just wondering what s wrong with are kc-10?the guard still flies the kc-135r we have had mods done to them and there still flying . why cant we do that the exsisting aircraft?. save some money.....
the usaf isn't replacing the kc-10s yet, they are just replacing around 100 of the oldest kc-135 to over a long period of time modernize the tanker fleet.
have they actually chosen the kc-30 yet because i heard that even after they restarted the kc-x program and picked the kc-30 they ran nto trouble again.
When Singapore Airlines sold their A340-200s to Boeing in exchange for 777s, Airbus was outraged and threatened not to sell parts for those airplanes. So Air force, if you pick the A330 tankers, please don't make Airbus and the French mad.
I didn't see any planes hooked up to that flying fuel hose. Does it work or not? So now the French and a few Alabamans are going to build American air tankers. Today is a sad day in American aviation.
By the way, Military can buy passengers version of Airbus A330-200 (already retired) for modification into A330-200 MRTT. Instead of waiting months from Boeing to built a new one as tanker.
This is not a option, because at the moment it's hard to get old A330s on the Market.
A330s and 767s are highly demanded because Boeing delayed it's 787 Dreamliner production. All the airlines that ordered one of these have to fill a huge gap within the next 2 - 3 years.
Crap, its a European company. Of course it does work. Its so advanced that it was chosen over the KC-767 in 4 from 5 competitions.
The RAF,RAAF,UAE, and now USAF all did choose the KC-30. What do you prefer: A almost 30 year design with cables or a 20 year design with flybywire and glass cockpit for your military?
There was no competition held for the RAF tankers. It was handed to a consortium composing of EADS, Thales, Rolls-Royce and other British companies. Hmmm, RAF and British companies no bidding. I think it's ok to be protectionist unless it's the Americans.
Like the same ones Boeing has been getting for decades for the Govt?
Tax breaks from Washington State for the siting of the factory, funding for 'R & D' defence projects that somehow never go anywhere, no-lose military tenders where even if Boeing loses the bid as it has in the past, it still gets awarded chunks of the contact to funnel money to it?
Why do you always revert to military projects for General Aviation purposes?? I must be mistaken in that the EU also provides R & D as a seperate but "no risk" function of industry input. Lets review a few other things, did the govt's sponsoring Airbus not upgrade roadway, harbors, canals for the benefit of moving oversized 380 components to the factory or did Airbus pay for that out of there own pocket?? One more - does EADs also receive military contracts for R & D??
There was an agreement in 1997 between Airbus and Boeing. As a condition for Airbus to agree on Boeing's merging with Mcdonnel Douglas, Boeing will share all the knowledge it learned from the military funded R&D that were applicable to commercial use. I am sure that Airbus used some technology learned from European military funded R&D also. But they did not shared it with Boeing.
As I understand, the issue has still to be decided by the world trade organisation. It ha been dragging on for quite some time now and looks set to continue for a while yet. Both sides claiming in various degrees of hair-splitting that what their Govt's provide doesn't officially amount to a 'subsidy'.
So at present the issue of mutual Govt funding has calmed down as long as the status quo is maintained in the interim.
Not to burst your bubble, but there is a difference between "Tax Breaks" and "not paying taxes". Boeing does receive tax breaks from certain municipalities, but I would venture to say that Airbus receives similar incentives from their respective Govt's of location. I guess the only way to level the playing field would be for the US Govt. to provide similar "start-up loans" to Boeing. That would settle the arguement, would it not?
No they don't get tax breaks. All they get is a loan guarantee from different countries when investing in a new plane. Boeing gets it's local subsidies like tax breaks and national subsidies on military contracts. The later one is what we can see now. All these tankers will never ever get build by airbus. Maybe in the end after the GOA thing is done, Airbus will get a contract to build 10 - 20 Tankers and the rest of the ~500 tankers to be replaced will be KC-767s from Boeing.
Personally, I would expect a 50/50 split on the Tanker deal ( I believe the airforce could use both size/capabilities of the 2 aircraft ). I don't hve a problem with loans from govts, I have a problem with the "payback criteria" in which the loan can be written off if the product is not "profitable" - or at least that is how the loans on "spun" in the media. The KC30 is a good plane, don't get me wrong. I'm more interested in the commercial side products and how companies compete.
Loads of crap. The FBW boom has already been tested on the A310 unlike the KC-767. Besides your posts is full of flaws and reflect your bias. I recommend you to do some research before posting this bullshit. The KC-30 is clearly superior to the untested kc-767 patchwork.
Exactly tested in an A310 not in the A330. The KC-767s have been delivered to Japan and Italy. Successfully off-loaded fuel (in a KC767 not in another testbed aircraft). You are the one need to do some research. How did you know that the KC-30 is superior? It can't even refuel all the airplanes in the USAF inventory. Has less survivability as the KC-767. It Requires longer runways and bigger area for parking. It is very subjective, it depends in the requirements where you can tell whose better.
It is not true that the KC-767J was flown to Japan and was not accepted by the JSDF. They refused for the airplane to be delivered because they want the FAA to fully certify the airplane. This is a new practice since military aircraft don't need to be fully certified by the FAA. This new rule will be applied to the KC-X competition. So your statement implying that the airplane was delivered and returned to sender because the end user was not happy is very untrue.
Read the post again. It wasn't returned to sender. It's yet to pass into operational service for the JASDF because it doesn't meet their requirements. So they arn't even using it yet.
At anyrate, insinuating that Military personel, should for some reason be exempt from duty of care of a safe and acceptable airframe from a recognised regulatory body, is really strange logic. And of course, it is a different model, and a different boom. The previous statement is Very true, perhaps too true.
You have just said that the EADS FBW boom is a wooden mock up. I think your disinformation campaign for the financial gain of the Boeing Company has no bounds, or completely ignorant. There's no point having an intelligent post with a Boeing Schrill, intent on muddying the waters so much as to put the lives of servicemen at risk through delayed BS.
El tio enano feo que sale en el minuto 00:51 que parece un troll borracho es amigo mio, yo lo conozco y sale en este video del youtube, ademas vi una foto suya en calzoncillos haciendo capoeira. Capo te quiero. Por cierto el machine tambien es gai.
what do you expect ,stay with what works .the kc-10 still a good plane and so is the kc-135 they maybe a old air frame ,but i many hours of flight time and the kc -135 has gotten me home every time.its . i will stand behind the tankers any day kc-10/kc 135 they kept me employed for 16 years before some yahoo in dc decided that they should take are toys away.
gablou14 3 years ago
i am just wondering what s wrong with are kc-10?the guard still flies the kc-135r we have had mods done to them and there still flying . why cant we do that the exsisting aircraft?. save some money.....
gablou14 3 years ago
the usaf isn't replacing the kc-10s yet, they are just replacing around 100 of the oldest kc-135 to over a long period of time modernize the tanker fleet.
have they actually chosen the kc-30 yet because i heard that even after they restarted the kc-x program and picked the kc-30 they ran nto trouble again.
joycenator 3 years ago
When Singapore Airlines sold their A340-200s to Boeing in exchange for 777s, Airbus was outraged and threatened not to sell parts for those airplanes. So Air force, if you pick the A330 tankers, please don't make Airbus and the French mad.
pinoyaggie 3 years ago
One of the main reason for USAF choosing MRTT is because MRTT was larger than Boeing KC-767.
Donz5885 3 years ago
THe most advanced tanker on earth. Great vid.
techdefined 4 years ago
I didn't see any planes hooked up to that flying fuel hose. Does it work or not? So now the French and a few Alabamans are going to build American air tankers. Today is a sad day in American aviation.
mcgrawtim123 4 years ago
Only eight Boeing KC-767 were built. Then, it will disappear from Boeing blue-plans.
Donz5885 4 years ago
The 767 line was anyway almost dead. Time for Boeing to move on and make room for the 787.
techdefined 4 years ago
and all those american jobs will disappear with it...vive le france. the 707 was dead until it was made into a tanker. parlez vouz frances?
mcgrawtim123 4 years ago
Wrong, it won't affect their job at all. Choosing KC-30 will create 10,000 job at Mobile, Alabama. It just like two bird one stone.
Donz5885 4 years ago
good luck dealing with the french. bon chance mon ami. merde.
mcgrawtim123 4 years ago
By the way, Military can buy passengers version of Airbus A330-200 (already retired) for modification into A330-200 MRTT. Instead of waiting months from Boeing to built a new one as tanker.
Donz5885 4 years ago
This is not a option, because at the moment it's hard to get old A330s on the Market.
A330s and 767s are highly demanded because Boeing delayed it's 787 Dreamliner production. All the airlines that ordered one of these have to fill a huge gap within the next 2 - 3 years.
mountainman1977 3 years ago
Vive LA France et parlez-vous françAIs ?
Thank you.
proudbelgian 4 years ago
Crap, its a European company. Of course it does work. Its so advanced that it was chosen over the KC-767 in 4 from 5 competitions.
The RAF,RAAF,UAE, and now USAF all did choose the KC-30. What do you prefer: A almost 30 year design with cables or a 20 year design with flybywire and glass cockpit for your military?
techdefined 4 years ago 5
There was no competition held for the RAF tankers. It was handed to a consortium composing of EADS, Thales, Rolls-Royce and other British companies. Hmmm, RAF and British companies no bidding. I think it's ok to be protectionist unless it's the Americans.
pinoyaggie 3 years ago
Europeens buy hundreds of JSF, why USA will not buy our tankers? 25 000 jobs will be created in america.
glup2glup 4 years ago 3
Fair enough, does this mean that AirBus will now discontinue the practice of "start-up" loans that for all practical purposes - are subsidies?
SMcG63 4 years ago
Like the same ones Boeing has been getting for decades for the Govt?
Tax breaks from Washington State for the siting of the factory, funding for 'R & D' defence projects that somehow never go anywhere, no-lose military tenders where even if Boeing loses the bid as it has in the past, it still gets awarded chunks of the contact to funnel money to it?
Hmm...Kettles and black pots?
marclowe 4 years ago
Why do you always revert to military projects for General Aviation purposes?? I must be mistaken in that the EU also provides R & D as a seperate but "no risk" function of industry input. Lets review a few other things, did the govt's sponsoring Airbus not upgrade roadway, harbors, canals for the benefit of moving oversized 380 components to the factory or did Airbus pay for that out of there own pocket?? One more - does EADs also receive military contracts for R & D??
SMcG63 4 years ago
There was an agreement in 1997 between Airbus and Boeing. As a condition for Airbus to agree on Boeing's merging with Mcdonnel Douglas, Boeing will share all the knowledge it learned from the military funded R&D that were applicable to commercial use. I am sure that Airbus used some technology learned from European military funded R&D also. But they did not shared it with Boeing.
pinoyaggie 3 years ago
As I understand, the issue has still to be decided by the world trade organisation. It ha been dragging on for quite some time now and looks set to continue for a while yet. Both sides claiming in various degrees of hair-splitting that what their Govt's provide doesn't officially amount to a 'subsidy'.
So at present the issue of mutual Govt funding has calmed down as long as the status quo is maintained in the interim.
Rgds,
ML
marclowe 4 years ago
For sure they will, but only if Boeing will pay taxes in WA, KS and IL :-)
mountainman1977 3 years ago
Not to burst your bubble, but there is a difference between "Tax Breaks" and "not paying taxes". Boeing does receive tax breaks from certain municipalities, but I would venture to say that Airbus receives similar incentives from their respective Govt's of location. I guess the only way to level the playing field would be for the US Govt. to provide similar "start-up loans" to Boeing. That would settle the arguement, would it not?
SMcG63 3 years ago
No they don't get tax breaks. All they get is a loan guarantee from different countries when investing in a new plane. Boeing gets it's local subsidies like tax breaks and national subsidies on military contracts. The later one is what we can see now. All these tankers will never ever get build by airbus. Maybe in the end after the GOA thing is done, Airbus will get a contract to build 10 - 20 Tankers and the rest of the ~500 tankers to be replaced will be KC-767s from Boeing.
mountainman1977 3 years ago
Personally, I would expect a 50/50 split on the Tanker deal ( I believe the airforce could use both size/capabilities of the 2 aircraft ). I don't hve a problem with loans from govts, I have a problem with the "payback criteria" in which the loan can be written off if the product is not "profitable" - or at least that is how the loans on "spun" in the media. The KC30 is a good plane, don't get me wrong. I'm more interested in the commercial side products and how companies compete.
SMcG63 3 years ago
Actually the boom is just a wooden mock-up. CASA (Spain) is still designing the thing.
pinoyaggie 3 years ago
Loads of crap. The FBW boom has already been tested on the A310 unlike the KC-767. Besides your posts is full of flaws and reflect your bias. I recommend you to do some research before posting this bullshit. The KC-30 is clearly superior to the untested kc-767 patchwork.
techdefined 3 years ago
Exactly tested in an A310 not in the A330. The KC-767s have been delivered to Japan and Italy. Successfully off-loaded fuel (in a KC767 not in another testbed aircraft). You are the one need to do some research. How did you know that the KC-30 is superior? It can't even refuel all the airplanes in the USAF inventory. Has less survivability as the KC-767. It Requires longer runways and bigger area for parking. It is very subjective, it depends in the requirements where you can tell whose better.
pinoyaggie 3 years ago
Uh huh, got any more propoganda. They have been flown to Japan, but not accepted by their end user... why might that be.
The FBW boom is different from that proposed on the KC 767, and even the airframe is too.
Go back to Boeing.
Chunderit 3 years ago
It is not true that the KC-767J was flown to Japan and was not accepted by the JSDF. They refused for the airplane to be delivered because they want the FAA to fully certify the airplane. This is a new practice since military aircraft don't need to be fully certified by the FAA. This new rule will be applied to the KC-X competition. So your statement implying that the airplane was delivered and returned to sender because the end user was not happy is very untrue.
pinoyaggie 3 years ago
Read the post again. It wasn't returned to sender. It's yet to pass into operational service for the JASDF because it doesn't meet their requirements. So they arn't even using it yet.
At anyrate, insinuating that Military personel, should for some reason be exempt from duty of care of a safe and acceptable airframe from a recognised regulatory body, is really strange logic. And of course, it is a different model, and a different boom. The previous statement is Very true, perhaps too true.
Chunderit 3 years ago
You have just said that the EADS FBW boom is a wooden mock up. I think your disinformation campaign for the financial gain of the Boeing Company has no bounds, or completely ignorant. There's no point having an intelligent post with a Boeing Schrill, intent on muddying the waters so much as to put the lives of servicemen at risk through delayed BS.
Chunderit 3 years ago
El tio enano feo que sale en el minuto 00:51 que parece un troll borracho es amigo mio, yo lo conozco y sale en este video del youtube, ademas vi una foto suya en calzoncillos haciendo capoeira. Capo te quiero. Por cierto el machine tambien es gai.
erseitzent 4 years ago