I guess Boeing has made it official that they will offer a 767-derivative using some 787 avionics and PW 40000-series engines. Not sure this is any surprise.http://www.unitedstatestanker.comThough I might say there is too much reflective shine on the exterior model. Like the VC though.scott s..

I like it!

Good to know that it can apparently defeat a surface to air missile by chopping the throttle and banking to the right a bit. If only all those B-52 and F-105 pilots shot down over North Vietnam had thought of that eh?Marketing cobblers aside, it does look pretty cool.Al

I guess Boeing has made it official that they will offer a 767-derivative using some 787 avionics and PW 40000-series engines. Not sure this is any surprise.http://www.unitedstatestanker.comThough I might say there is too much reflective shine on the exterior model. Like the VC though.scott s..

Just waiting on boeing to release it for FSX (with VC)

According to CNN it looks like Northrop/EADS called it quits!As for SAM avoidance I would imagine modern counter measures will be install and the break away manuever would just be for added effect.

According to CNN it looks like Northrop/EADS called it quits!As for SAM avoidance I would imagine modern counter measures will be install and the break away manuever would just be for added effect.

"Northrop Grumman pulls out of tanker bid" :( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34083.html

I get the impression the first solicitation was written in a way to punish Boeing for the 767 tanker lease scandal. Then when the winner of that solicitation was thrown out, USAF went back and rewrote the solicitation to favor Boeing (probably what they wanted all along), and N-G realized this so decided to cut their loses.scott s..

I get the impression the first solicitation was written in a way to punish Boeing for the 767 tanker lease scandal. Then when the winner of that solicitation was thrown out, USAF went back and rewrote the solicitation to favor Boeing (probably what they wanted all along), and N-G realized this so decided to cut their loses.scott s..

Actually the original RFP was for an aircraft that was similar in size to the current KC-135's so the Air Force wouldn't have to build new infrastructure to support them. It was The proponents of EADs, that changed it so they could compete, since AirBus didn't have a model of the size requested. This would have meant less aircraft that could be based on a field, new larger support hangers, that would have to be built, and overall higher operating costs. If the Air Force wanted a larger tanker to begin with Boeing would have submitted the KC-777 instead of the KC-767. This go around, the Air Force just went back to their original requirements.