KC-30 Tanker Aircraft

Another great way to waste our hard earned tax dollars...Thank you Northrop, and keep the change!

We can point fingers and call each other names. Waite, is that you? Are my kids logged in here? For god sake stop looking out my window and don't touch me. Mom, hes breathing my air.
Get my point. We can vote and voice our opinions or get involved in positive ways.

I was a transporter for over 21 years. I began with the little tiny C-141. Of course the KC-135, C-130, etc. were around as well. I loaded German, Russian, Israeli, Turkish, Egyptian, Canadian and other airframes. yata yata. I remember the PLUG that was put into the C-141 while stationed at McGuire NJ. Boy we hated it because now we had to plan larger loads of 13 pallet positions. How juvenile was that? I also have seen god knows how many versions of the C-130. I remember loading engines and engine stands on KC-135's. What a pain. I was taught by an older Sgt that if you took large plastic bags and sprayed the inside with a lubricant oil, hydraulic fluid etc. You could place the wheels on top of these bags and slide the axles of the engine stands much easier trying to get them in and around the corner of the KC-135 front door. I witnessed the delivery of the KC-10. We hated that because now we had to reconfigure it to meet several mission requirements. Seats and cargo less seats more cargo seat kits off and on for loading. Oh my, now we can send a fighter unit with spare parts, maintenance kits, tires and YES people to actually use the stuff all on one aircraft. Yes juvenile at that time. Then I remember getting the brochure for the C-17. WOW! Can operate long range, people, outsized cargo, in theater, unimproved runways now I am beginning to say. Wow what capabilities. What impressed me was the fact that I had the chance to go to a testing site and practice loading and off loading this aircraft. I, unfortunately, could not attend this early session but friends of mine went and THEY TRULY got a say in how the aircraft was or was not user friendly for the troops who actually do the maintenance and 2T2's who do the loading and off loading of this aircraft. WHAT A CADILAC! Now the "Tunner" the new K-loader as we call it was designed to keep up with the more advanced and larger load capacities of our new airframes. I hosted many a General at Ramstein Air Base that actually took the time to meet the troops who actually do the hands on work with this equipment. We actually let some of the Generals drive the Tunner. Well, ya know if they can get the keys to a fighter jet or the credit card for a transport aircraft, what the heck. I say that with all respect. My long drawn out point is this. I have seen our leaders grow and professionally mature with the times, keeping pace with the rapid advancements in overall Air Force effectiveness and global reach. A lesser leader would not take advantage of hands on experience. Hats off to fellow maintainers and transporters of the US Air Force. Use the suggestion program! It works.

U convince me I"ll take 2 no make it 3 I need one for my mom.

Can't we use an American Aircraft?

America/england stuff won't matter in the end because the chinese will copy everything in the end

There is an actual competition in the USA for the purchase of 100 airframes in the tanker/transport role. Boeing is offering the KC-767 a version based on the zivilian B-767 wide body jet airliner. Airbus/EADS in cooperation with the Northrop Grumman is offering the KC-30 the military version of the A-330 wide body airliner.

Now some facts about this programm:
1. The US Airforce was willing to purchase/lease 100 KC-767 four years ago, but a little financial scandal (boeing paying some guys in the service) canceld this programm.
2. The KC-767 is based on an airframe design which started the development in 1978, which in addition was strongly based on existing technologie of Boeings 707/727/737 programms to reduce development costs.
3. The KC-30 is based on an airframe design wich was developed strating 1987 with a blanc sheet using only state of the art technology.
4. The KC-767 is smaller and lighter than the KC-30 and can only take paket freight in the underbay cargo holds, while the KC-30 can use standard containers there.
5. The KC-30 can take off with more fuel than the KC-767, can be longer on a refuling point which is farther away from her airport and can there transfer more fuel than the KC-767.
6. The KC-30 is using a state of the art fly-by-wire system while the KC-767 is still using a servo hydraulic system, which is heavier and more liable for failures.

Disregarding any national preferences, and this is only my opinion, would the US Airforce be very good advised to place their money in the newer and more flexible aircraft which would be in this case the KC-30.

On a side note this aircrafts would be indeed be manufactured in the USA and therefore greating money and workplaces in a not so industrial rich area of the staates.