>>unlikely with the current congress.They told the USAF to NOT go with the Boeing design when the USAF first made that decision...;)I actualy wanted to keep out of all this political debate, but I find it funny that most of the people who are now screaming that the KC767 should have won because it is 'American' are probably the same people who have no problem shoving F-35's and other millitary hardware trough Europe's throat. the A330 simply proved to be the best option for the USAF, and all other nations seeking for new tankers lately, save for Japan and Italy which are both heavily involved in the production of the KC767... so much for it being 'American'.another thing mentioned is a hypothetical KC777, the reasson no 777 variant was offered has nothing to do with size but anything with a certain paragraph in the RFP, namely runway performance. the RFP specifically stated that the KC-45 should be able to take off from a 7000 ft runway at MTOW, the 777 simply can't due to engine out requirements, the 762 as offered was barely able as well, while the A332 can, and actualy proved superior over the 767. for that same reasson Boeing couldn't base the tanker on the 763ER or even 764ER as they simply don't meet this criteria!anyway, thats my rant for today :)g'day all!-Sander

Finally a well informed unpolitical explanation. Thanx for the detailed info!RegardsBernt Capt 767

And as the saying goes, it costs only $0.41 to protest the award.scott s..

another thing mentioned is a hypothetical KC777, the reasson no 777 variant was offered has nothing to do with size but anything with a certain paragraph in the RFP, namely runway performance. the RFP specifically stated that the KC-45 should be able to take off from a 7000 ft runway at MTOW, the 777 simply can't due to engine out requirements, the 762 as offered was barely able as well, while the A332 can, and actualy proved superior over the 767. for that same reasson Boeing couldn't base the tanker on the 763ER or even 764ER as they simply don't meet this criteria!anyway, thats my rant for today I think you better check your facts again, the 767-200 only requires 5600ft to takeoff MTOW, while the A330-200 requires 7300ft. A B767-300 requires 7900 ft. So even with this critical criteria the 767-200 beats the Airbus!

>>I think you better check your facts again, the 767-200 only requires 5600ft to takeoff MTOW, while the A330-200 requires 7300ft. A B767-300 requires 7900 ft. So even with this critical criteria the 767-200 beats the Airbus!<http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdfhave a look at paragraph 3.3.1, some of the other paragraphs show an even greater length of RWY needed dependend on weather and runway condition (dry/wet)the 763ER with CF6-80C2B7 engines has a ballanced field requirement of around 8600 feetat 3.3.25 you can see that the 764ER has a balanced field requirement of more then 10,000 feetnow for the 777, the 777-200LR charts, as a hypothetical KC777 would be based on the 777-200LRF, shows that a 777-200LR at MTOW has a balanced field requirement of slightly more then 11,000 feet.http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdfsee paragraph 3.3.1

Oops! Your right about the model it is the 767-200LRF, which does have a higher runway length requirement, according to Boeing 8000ft. (Boy am I red faced!!). You know what though, I was looking at some of the conceptual videos of both these planes, and I see a problem in both of them. A little less in the Airbus, due to the longer wings. The Drogue pods on the wings when deployed seems like the receiving aircraft will be pretty close and parallel to the Tankers Jet thrust. With that method using a dangling hose, I can see the possibility of the receiving aircraft to drift into the jet wash of the tanker. The center boom don't have this issue being rigid and it dropping well below the aircraft. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to be flying anywhere near the exhaust end of a jet engine producing up to 70,000lbf of thrust!!!

the pilots are used to it. The KC10 can also be fitted with pods under the wing (not sure if it's done though), and the KA-6 used to have the hose dangling in between the engines.

The aircraft will be built in the US with partner Northrop Grumman. While I would love to see this go to Boeing, I think the USAF got a better tanker and better allied interoperability. Mobile Alabama is where this plane will get built and still there will be a American jobs. Eric

Aww.. Who needs airforce refuelers anyway....just build more Navy Carriers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*grin*EDIT: And more UNREP ships.... Like THis.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/aoe-7-rainier-2.jpg

And make them bigger too.The current little ones like the Vinson and the Reagan can't handle real aircraft like the B-1 and C-5 :)