Honestly, I suspect it's more a matter of the Russians taking a poke at us to have a little fun at this point. There is a 90% chance that the contract will be awarded to Boeing, as it's an American company. However I stand by my words when I say this, given recent Russian and Chinese military posturing, I would not be surprised in the least bit if they started pulling Cold War crap again. After seeing a ton of news stories about Chinese subs stalking US CBGs, and Russia's screwing with us flying bombers right along our airspace, and Russia's doing military practice maneuvers based on invading Poland, I am genuinely scared this could escalate.

I don't think the PACER CRAIG [sic] Block 40 KC-135Rs are as rickety as that link implies.scott s..

Uh, PACER CRAG is nothing more than an avionics upgrade. How does a new radar and GPS prevent the wings of a 55 year old airplane from coming off in turbulence?

Uh, PACER CRAG is nothing more than an avionics upgrade. How does a new radar and GPS prevent the wings of a 55 year old airplane from coming off in turbulence?

That 55-year old airplane is, in many ways, like the farmer's favorite axe. "It's had three heads and four handles." You're right in that the PACER CRAG mods don't address structure issues, but there was extensive structural work done as part of the R-model engine upgrades, as well as a steady stream of inspections and mods every time the jet goes through a depot maintenance cycle.Those airplanes' structures are x-rayed and otherwise inspected regularly with advanced NDI technology...advanced computer structure and stress cycle modelling also helps find structure problems before they occur.The real issue isn't the safety of the airframe...we haven't had a KC-135 flashing a "WING OFF" caution light and don't expect to...but the increasing amounts of maintenance required to counteract six decades of corrosion is very (and increasingly) expensive and urges acquiring a new airplane as soon as possible.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Hi Bob,I'm not well versed in Air Force depot maintenance, but I know from working in Maintenance QC at a (now defunct) DC-8 operator, that the CPCP programs and the C/D checks can keep airplanes healthy for a very long time. We had jets manufactured in the late 50's with more than 80,000 cycles on them... But despite dye penetrant, eddy current, and visual inspections of almost every conceivable area, at some point the airframe just runs out of useful life.I know the "R" model upgrade was a significant one, we accomplished the same kind of STC to our DC-8-61/63's to create the -71/73 models. But it didn't replace the spars or upper wing skins, and that's where the real limits were found, at least on the -8. And you're right, there haven't been any instances of "wing-off" caution lights - yet - but I've heard of a few "wing-on computer fail" lights, though. ;)But seriously, the C-130 is having some real corrosion issues, especially the E's but the H's aren't immune. And if memory serves, there have been several occurances of the wings coming off that airframe. Even the C-141 (God rest it's soul), had lots of wing issues at the end.So, I hear what you're saying...good maintenance performed by dedicated maintainers has really stretched the service life of many communities, especially the -135. But the time has come and gone for a replacement. And dare I say, the new tanker needs to be built by an American company.

A successful commercial aircraft makes money for its manufacturer and it operators. The VC-10 and Concorde failed

mgh,I guess we just have to agree to disagree.........The point made here is that there is more to life and flying and aircraft than just making money. If the USA followed this policy during the 60s - there would have never landed a man on the moon. If all we did was only motivated by crapping out a profit then we wouldn't get anywhere (as the stagnated world now demonstrates). It is about bettering ourselves, our achievements and our way of life. Counting pennies instead of recognizing and striving towards great technological (not only) achievements is something I disagree on. Economic and Financial rules and results do not always address the real-world situation. The recent economic crisis demonstrated this perfectly, there was no world-wide famine, world-wide disaster of any kind - yet we found ourselves in a global financial crisis because of over-investment in the US property market - there was no tangible reason for it beyond that.The Super VC-10 addressed a lot of the cost per passenger issue and the fact is that BOAC were making a tidy profit from their VC-10s during the time they served with the airline. The VC-10 certainly had Boeing worried. The RAF was interested in the VC-10 way back during the development stages of the aircraft and wanted it, if they were not happy with it how do you explain the fact that the VC-10 spent such a long time with the RAF, way beyond its original planned exit days. By going with Boeing, BOAC destroyed any chance for the UK airplane industry to ever again produce (independently, in-house) any type of long-range large successful airliner.Chock's points about the Concorde are very valid. Also as much as I like the Boeing 747, for me, the Concorde is a superior flying machine. One thing I dislike about the 747s and wide-body airliners in general nowadays is that they introduced the concept known as 'Cattle class', you try to enjoy flying in Economy over the Atlantic in the middle of the aircraft surrounded by people on each side, unable to move, nowhere near a window - its almost like the Underground. The only decent way to travel on a 747 is in first class (or as one of the pilots), which is achieved at substantial cost. Its why I prefer narrow-body paasenger jets - the VC-10 and Tu-154 were my favorites. I'd much rather cross the Atlantic on a B757 rather than a B747, 767, 777 or the Airbus equivalents.

Yes, we will have to disagree but let me challenge some of your views. I judge commercial aircraft on the basis of their success as transport systems - after all that's what they are.The moon landings are often brought up in these discussions but they were not commercial airliners and the criteria are different.It's easy to say "If all we did was only motivated by crapping out a profit then we wouldn't get anywhere". I suspect you'd think differently if you lost your job because your employer went bust by not "crapping out a profit".BOAC didn't "...destroy any chance for the UK airplane industry to ever again produce (independently, in-house) any type of long-range large successful airliner". The industry did that all by itself by misjudging the market and developing an aircraft that for which the was no demand: VC-10 sales 54: 707 sales 1000+. I imagine Boeing were worried all the way to the bank. Anyway it was never BOAC's job to keep the UK aircraft industry in business. It's job was to run an airline with using most suitable aircraft for its needs.

Yes, we will have to disagree but let me challenge some of your views. I judge commercial aircraft on the basis of their success as transport systems - after all that's what they are.The moon landings are often brought up in these discussions but they were not commercial airliners and the criteria are different.It's easy to say "If all we did was only motivated by crapping out a profit then we wouldn't get anywhere". I suspect you'd think differently if you lost your job because your employer went bust by not "crapping out a profit".BOAC didn't "...destroy any chance for the UK airplane industry to ever again produce (independently, in-house) any type of long-range large successful airliner". The industry did that all by itself by misjudging the market and developing an aircraft that for which the was no demand: VC-10 sales 54: 707 sales 1000+. I imagine Boeing were worried all the way to the bank. Anyway it was never BOAC's job to keep the UK aircraft industry in business. It's job was to run an airline with using most suitable aircraft for its needs.

I did lose a few jobs because my employers were too busy cost cutting in an attempt to secure their profits and that they did. But that is not a discussion for here, and I have no intention of entertaining yet another argument with you. I've said my views and you have yours and that's that, I'm happy to disagree with you.The situation between Vickers with their VC-10 and Boeing with the 707 from the past does have some similarities with today's USAF tanker program. In the sense that we have a US local producer 'Boeing' and foreign producers in the form of EADS (in collaboration with US corporation Northrop Grumman) and now a Russian company possibly 'bidding' (nothing official has been announced yet) for the USAF tanker contract. In the past the situation was the UK local producer Vickers having to fight off the foreign producer Boeing - I am sure all the dirty tricks of the game were used.For the moment it looks like Boeing hold the advantage, but it would be interesting to see what happens. Frankly I thought they had it in the bag once EADS and Grumman pulled out - up until that point it could have gone either way (seemed to be going EADS's way in fact). I was surprised by the Russian interest in the USAF aerial refueling tanker, whatever the motive it was unexpected. However it does show confidence on behalf of the Russians, perhaps we are beginning to see evidence of some recovery in their Aviation industry. Also it would be interesting to see now if EADS (with or without Grumman) go back into it too.

It will cost bidders millions to prepare and submit a bid and further millions to stay at the negotiating table until a decision is made.Given the history of this project, overseas bidders will have to think long and hard whether or not to bid. They must ask themselves is it worth it if Boeing will win anyway?

The reason EADS and now the Russian bids should not be entertained both aircraft doesn't meet the original RFP requirements by the USAF. They wanted a plane that was similar in size to the KC-135's so they wouldn't have to change out the existing infrastructure as well as be able to base the same amount of aircraft on the field. The KC-45 is even larger then the KC-10. The A310 (Which unfortunately is now out of production) would have been a better fit for what was requested. Airbus/EADS should bid the KC-45 for the KC-10 replacement program. Which of course Boeing will come back with the KC-777.

Our president deserves more credit than that, it's a tough job trying to fix our economy after eight years of fraud, waste, and abuse under Bush, Colonel.Jeff USAF (separated)

Thank you Jeff.

Thank you Jeff.

I do feel bound to remind this group that the reason Boeing got into this mess in the first place was a messy little corruption scandal. Of course politics are in play. But the taxpayer in me wouldn't mind seeing Boeing get spanked, and I am about to become a Puget Sound resident.

Thank you Jeff.I do feel bound to remind this group that the reason Boeing got into this mess in the first place was a messy little corruption scandal. Of course politics are in play. But the taxpayer in me wouldn't mind seeing Boeing get spanked, and I am about to become a Puget Sound resident.

Stay out of King county, hell stay out of Washington if you like your money. :(

An Update (for anyone who hasn't heard) regarding the Russian involvement in the U.S.A.F KC-X tanker contract:http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/press/news/index.php?id4=484It seems the Russians (UAC - United Aircraft Corporation) will not be getting involved, they also point out that the information on their possible participation was inaccurate.

This looked like a joke from the very beginning. I never gave it a second of real consideration.