Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/148043/

Topic: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-11-01 12:40:52 and read 5937 times.

India has selected the Airbus A330 for it's new tanker. An initial order for six could be expanded to an eventual total of 12.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...y=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Quote:
NEW DELHI — Airbus has been selected as the preferred vendor over Russia’s Ilyushin to supply six aerial tankers for the Indian Air Force in a $1 billion tender, according to Indian Defence Ministry officials.

After the commercial bids were opened earlier this month, the base price of the Russian Il-78 tanker was quoted as lower than that of the A330, but when factoring in maintenance and fuel costs, the Airbus was the better value, said a Defence Ministry official.

...

Defence Ministry sources said it is not yet decided if a fresh tender will be opened to buy the remaining six or if a repeat order will be given to the winner to the current competition.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: vivekman2006
Posted 2012-11-02 02:57:39 and read 5704 times.

One more example of the IAF making its decision based on overall life-cycle cost instead of the per unit purchase cost.

This has been the trend in recent purchases, e.g. CH-47 Chinooks, AH-64D Apaches, and even the MMRCA contract.

Good decision I would say!

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-11-07 06:29:40 and read 5250 times.

IIRC, there were only two bidders, the A-330MRTT and the Il-78TT. Boeing did not bid the KC-767 or the KC-46.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: breiz
Posted 2012-11-07 07:29:19 and read 5250 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
IIRC, there were only two bidders, the A-330MRTT and the Il-78TT. Boeing did not bid the KC-767 or the KC-46.

Correct, Boeing withdrew from the competition in 2010. I do not recall why, though.

Quoting vivekman2006 (Reply 1):
One more example of the IAF making its decision based on overall life-cycle cost instead of the per unit purchase cost.

Colder political relations between India and Russia are also given as an explanation.

This is the second round. Last one?

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: sturmovik
Posted 2012-11-12 14:47:32 and read 5249 times.

Quoting breiz (Reply 3):
Colder political relations between India and Russia are also given as an explanation.

Weren't the original lot of 6 procured from Uzbekistan with Israeli equipment on board? The Pakistanis acquiring the same type was also mentioned as a reason for the shift away from the Il-78.

I wonder why the Israelis didn't jump into the fray with the IAI KC767 MMTT, though. That might just have trumped the others on cost, assuming that it would've met the technical requirements that the Il78 and the 330 MRTT cleared.

Somehow, with this tender, I get the feeling that it is a case of Shiny Jet Syndrome. Don't have any evidence to back that up, just a feeling in my gut.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2012-11-13 06:06:05 and read 5249 times.

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 4):

I wonder why the Israelis didn't jump into the fray with the IAI KC767 MMTT, though. That might just have trumped the others on cost, assuming that it would've met the technical requirements that the Il78 and the 330 MRTT cleared.

Life cycle cost may be higher.

Besides, does the IAI KC767 offer a boom with the higher flow rate? You would think India would want the higher flow rate in order to fuel up their P-8I and C-17.

bt

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2012-11-13 14:20:59 and read 5249 times.

I know our booms on the KC-135 flow in excess of 7k per minute with all 4 A/R pumps running.. they have a boom on the 767 capable of more than that? How much more?

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-11-13 15:49:39 and read 5250 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 5):
Quoting sturmovik (Reply 4):
I wonder why the Israelis didn't jump into the fray with the IAI KC767 MMTT, though. That might just have trumped the others on cost, assuming that it would've met the technical requirements that the Il78 and the 330 MRTT cleared.
Life cycle cost may be higher.

Besides, does the IAI KC767 offer a boom with the higher flow rate? You would think India would want the higher flow rate in order to fuel up their P-8I and C-17.
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 6):
I know our booms on the KC-135 flow in excess of 7k per minute with all 4 A/R pumps running.. they have a boom on the 767 capable of more than that? How much more?

The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom, it is probe and drogue refueling only. The IDFAF KC-707s, converted by IAI use the Boeing KC-135 Boom The IAI KC-767MMTT is a converted B-762ER. The KC-135 Boom can off-load up to 8500 lbs of fuel per minute and easily refuels the P-8 and C-17. It just takes a little longer than refueling from a 1200 ppm. The Boeing KC-767A/J Gen IV Booms have an 8500 ppm flow rate, and the KC-46 Gen V Boom will have a 1200 ppm. The Boom on the A-330MRTT also has a flow rate of 1200 ppm.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: rwessel
Posted 2012-11-14 01:16:35 and read 5249 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom, it is probe and drogue refueling only. The IDFAF KC-707s, converted by IAI use the Boeing KC-135 Boom The IAI KC-767MMTT is a converted B-762ER. The KC-135 Boom can off-load up to 8500 lbs of fuel per minute and easily refuels the P-8 and C-17. It just takes a little longer than refueling from a 1200 ppm. The Boeing KC-767A/J Gen IV Booms have an 8500 ppm flow rate, and the KC-46 Gen V Boom will have a 1200 ppm. The Boom on the A-330MRTT also has a flow rate of 1200 ppm.

I think all three of those 1200ppm numbers should be 1200gpm (*gallons* not pounds). Or about 8000ppm (assuming 6.7lbs/gal)...

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-14 02:09:02 and read 5249 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom

They do have a boom for the 767, A330, 737 and gulfstream.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-11-14 11:14:59 and read 5249 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom

They do have a boom for the 767, A330, 737 and gulfstream.

@Zeke, he was saying that the IAI's KC-767 is not fitted with a boom, only hose and drogue assy's as part of their configuration. He later stated that the other versions had it.

I have been enjoying reading your posts more lately.

Regards,
135Mech

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2012-11-14 16:41:16 and read 5249 times.

Weird, I just read through the KC-135 -1 last night as well as the 6GA trying to find some hard numbers for max fuel transfer rate, and the best I could find in the -1 was that it said maximum fuel dump rate with 4 A/R pumps running was around 6,500lbs/min. I wonder how we're able to squeeze another 1500-2000 lbs during normal fuel transfer based on the numbers supplied by TopBoom. I can't account for the discrepancy in numbers. The nozzle poppet is fully depressed whether in fuel dump or plugged into a receptacle.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-14 19:44:00 and read 5249 times.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 11):

The numbers I have for the KC-135 are
Fuel Transfer Rate. The tanker can transfer fuel at the following rates:
a. Boom. Exceeding 6000 lb/min (2722 kg/min) through the boom.
b. BDA. Exceeding 2800 lb/min (1270 kg/min) through the BDA.
c. MPRS. Exceeding 2680 lb/min (1216 kg/min) through the wingtip mounted MPRS AAR pods.

For the KC-10
Fuel Transfer Rate
a. Boom. 3630 kg/min (8000 lb/min) through the boom.
b. Centerline Hose. 1820 kg/min (4000 lb/min) through the centerline hose.
c. WARP. 11 kg/min (2400 lb/min) through the wing hoses.

For the A330 MRTT
Fuel Transfer Rate
a. ARBS 3630 kg/min (8000 lb/min) through the Airbus Military Aerial Refuelling Boom System.
b. FRU 1820 kg/min (4000 lb/min) through the Fuselage Refuelling Unit (Cobham FRU 805E).
c. Wing pods 1270 kg/min (2800 lb/min) through the wing hoses (Cobham 905E).

This is what the tanker is capable of giving, most receivers are not capable of getting the maximum rates.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2012-11-15 06:37:55 and read 5249 times.

Those are numbers I would expect to see. I would expect the fuel dump rate to be higher than fuel transfer rate as there would be basically little to no back pressure that the fuel pressure regulator would have to dump back into aft body.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-11-15 13:00:05 and read 5249 times.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 11):
Weird, I just read through the KC-135 -1 last night as well as the 6GA trying to find some hard numbers for max fuel transfer rate, and the best I could find in the -1 was that it said maximum fuel dump rate with 4 A/R pumps running was around 6,500lbs/min. I wonder how we're able to squeeze another 1500-2000 lbs during normal fuel transfer based on the numbers supplied by TopBoom. I can't account for the discrepancy in numbers. The nozzle poppet is fully depressed whether in fuel dump or plugged into a receptacle.


Just a thought... The KC-135 system (tubing and Venturi) are part of what limits it to the 6,500 ppm... but a KC-135 boom installed on another frame would not have the same plumbing prior to the boom, so could that be part of the increase?

"Those are numbers I would expect to see. I would expect the fuel dump rate to be higher than fuel transfer rate as there would be basically little to no back pressure that the fuel pressure regulator would have to dump back into aft body."

Absolutely...

135Mech

[Edited 2012-11-15 13:04:19]

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2012-11-15 17:30:20 and read 5249 times.

I was referring to the numbers that KC135TopBoom posted for fuel transfer rates. He stated a fuel transfer rate of 8,500 lbs/min. Perhaps it was a typo because the ,500 certainly does match the figured provided in the -1 for the max fuel dump rate. I was imagine a heavy like a C-17 or C-5 could take max fuel flow without causing any real backpressure during the transfer.

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-11-16 13:22:05 and read 5249 times.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 15):
I was referring to the numbers that KC135TopBoom posted for fuel transfer rates. He stated a fuel transfer rate of 8,500 lbs/min. Perhaps it was a typo because the ,500 certainly does match the figured provided in the -1 for the max fuel dump rate. I was imagine a heavy like a C-17 or C-5 could take max fuel flow without causing any real backpressure during the transfer.

Cool! I remember off loading to a B-2 (while it's testing in 95)... as much as we could, he drank and it was as fast as we could pump! I remember being shocked at max take off and 45 min later calling in with 16K left!

135Mech

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2014-03-07 02:30:13 and read 1309 times.

Bump.

Airbus and India are in final talks to buy 6 tankers.

http://twitter.com/ReutersAero/status/441882446922268672

Topic: RE: India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
Username: India1
Posted 2014-03-07 03:03:00 and read 1287 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 17):
Airbus and India are in final talks to buy 6 tankers.

Lord knows we need them, but this will take some time, Karel. We get into our elections in April/May and then a new Govt will come in (who will unfortunately re-visit this order, the armed forces be damned). Sorry, I'm sounding cynical, but that's the GoI & politics for you. It's the way things are with so much of our defense procurement...


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/