Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/70056/

Topic: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: WINGS
Posted 2007-08-01 20:00:20 and read 8817 times.

Airbus rolls out first A330 for USAF KC-X programme.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-a330-for-usaf-kc-x-programme.html

Airbus has completed assembly of the A330-200 earmarked to become the first development KC-30 for the US Air Force if Northrop Grumman wins the KC-X tanker competition, scheduled to be decided on 31 October.

The standard production aircraft, Airbus serial number 871, is in ground testing at Toulouse and will be ready to begin military modification in the USA in November, if the KC-30 is selected over Boeing’s KC-767.

Northrop says it decided to proceed with assembly of the aircraft, designated SDD-1, ahead of a downselect to underline the benefits of basing its tanker proposal on a commercial production line and supply chain.




Regards,
Wings

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Blackbird
Posted 2007-08-01 22:08:34 and read 8755 times.

Will Northrop modify the FBW as necessary to meet their personal requirements? Or will they use the FBW software exactly as is from Airbus?

Andrea Kent

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-01 22:33:47 and read 8735 times.

I was under the impression the KC-30 would be based on the A330F? Or do they built the prototype based on a normal A330 to get it ready early enough? What about the cargo gate? Could be become an odd bird, if they need to resell it after they have not got the final order ...

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-01 22:54:37 and read 8721 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 2):
I was under the impression the KC-30 would be based on the A330F? Or do they built the prototype based on a normal A330 to get it ready early enough? What about the cargo gate? Could be become an odd bird, if they need to resell it after they have not got the final order ...

There have been conflicting reports about which airframe will ultimately be used, so I share your questions about it. If, as I suspect, the KC-767ADV wins, this particular airframe will be flying for an existing MRTT customer.
I guess they could use it to supply the UK's MoD order.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: SNA350
Posted 2007-08-01 23:18:26 and read 8701 times.

What are they going to do when the KC 30 doesn't get selected
maybe another customer?

thanks

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Moo
Posted 2007-08-01 23:34:11 and read 8691 times.

Quoting SNA350 (Reply 4):
What are they going to do when the KC 30 doesn't get selected
maybe another customer?

Theres plenty of other customers it can go to, Airbus aren't losing out by doing this.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-02 08:38:28 and read 8558 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 3):
If, as I suspect, the KC-767ADV wins, this particular airframe will be flying for an existing MRTT customer.
I guess they could use it to supply the UK's MoD order.



Quoting Moo (Reply 5):

Theres plenty of other customers it can go to, Airbus aren't losing out by doing this.

There are certainly not loosing anything (it's a research effort at least), but in case they apply any non-reversible modifications to it (such as a main floor cargo gate), they cannot sell it to anyone who intends to lease it out for airline purposes (just as the RAF plans to do).

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Saintsman
Posted 2007-08-02 08:54:48 and read 8551 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 6):
There are certainly not loosing anything (it's a research effort at least), but in case they apply any non-reversible modifications to it (such as a main floor cargo gate), they cannot sell it to anyone who intends to lease it out for airline purposes (just as the RAF plans to do).

Just a small point. The RAF do not plan to lease out the aircraft. The aircraft are being provided to the RAF by a private company, AirTanker. The RAF do not require all the aircraft that have been converted unless there is some sort of additional conflict etc, so the 'spare' aircraft will be de-roled and leased out by AirTanker. The revenue that this will bring in will subsidise the overall tanker contract. There will be a clause in the leases for instant recall should the RAF need additional resources.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Scouseflyer
Posted 2007-08-02 09:20:27 and read 8537 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 6):
There are certainly not loosing anything (it's a research effort at least), but in case they apply any non-reversible modifications to it (such as a main floor cargo gate), they cannot sell it to anyone who intends to lease it out for airline purposes (just as the RAF plans to do).

Isn't there a pending order for the A330 tankers for Saudi Arabia so it could go to them.

Anyway it's not totally clear who will own the plane will it be EADS or will it be NG?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-02 09:27:29 and read 8536 times.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 7):

Just a small point. The RAF do not plan to lease out the aircraft. The aircraft are being provided to the RAF by a private company, AirTanker. The RAF do not require all the aircraft that have been converted unless there is some sort of additional conflict etc, so the 'spare' aircraft will be de-roled and leased out by AirTanker. The revenue that this will bring in will subsidise the overall tanker contract. There will be a clause in the leases for instant recall should the RAF need additional resources.

That is correct, although I knew it, I superficially ran over it. I think I should get myself a coffee ...  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Legs
Posted 2007-08-02 09:39:54 and read 8530 times.

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 8):
pending order for the A330 tankers for Saudi Arabia

Australia has some KC-30s on order as well, 4 i think, if memory serves

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-02 11:14:58 and read 8491 times.

Quoting Legs (Reply 10):
Australia has some KC-30s on order as well, 4 i think, if memory serves

Australia receives A330MRTT with a tail boom in addition to two underwing refueling pods. Apart from the boom and the related equipment they are like the RAF ones ... KC-30s are (were?) supposed to receive a real cargo floor and gate and larger fuel capacity than the MRTTs which are, apart from refueling equipment, in airline configuration.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Legs
Posted 2007-08-02 12:17:40 and read 8455 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 11):

I stand humbly corrected, thanks for the info

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: 747400sp
Posted 2007-08-02 21:18:35 and read 8307 times.

Will it have a A340 wing, are a stronger A330 wing for wing fueling?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-02 21:58:30 and read 8288 times.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
Will it have a A340 wing, are a stronger A330 wing for wing fueling?

Judged by its structure A340 and A330 share more or less the same wing. That make it so easy to convert A330 to tankers, because there is already a strengthened position, where the A340 would have its outer engines. The A330 wing also has the necessary ducts for the fuel pipes and wiring. There is still some work necessary, but don't need to strengthen anything or make way for pipes.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PC12Fan
Posted 2007-08-02 22:41:08 and read 8256 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 14):
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
Will it have a A340 wing, are a stronger A330 wing for wing fueling?

Judged by its structure A340 and A330 share more or less the same wing. That make it so easy to convert A330 to tankers, because there is already a strengthened position, where the A340 would have its outer engines. The A330 wing also has the necessary ducts for the fuel pipes and wiring. There is still some work necessary, but don't need to strengthen anything or make way for pipes.

I've wondered about this. Seems to me that two booms could be mounted in place of the out board engines. I played around with distances, and if this were done, two F-22's could refuel simultaneously with a comfortable gap between them. Someone made a point that drag would be a problem, however, in a case of engine failure, would not the drag factor have been engineered in the wing anyways?

Just thinking out loud.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-02 23:05:32 and read 8243 times.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 15):
Just thinking out loud.

I wonder whether a position on the outer wing offers sufficient stability to operate a boom. A centerline position is pretty immune against rolling movements along the horizontal axis. I think a boom on the outer wings would need some sort of stabilization.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: DL767captain
Posted 2007-08-03 00:00:12 and read 8212 times.

It seems weird to me that the USAF would chose a European plane rather than boeing, their home turf. What are the benefits of the 767 and A330 tankers, and has boeing talked about a 777 or 748 tanker

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Saintsman
Posted 2007-08-03 08:56:54 and read 8091 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 14):
Judged by its structure A340 and A330 share more or less the same wing. That make it so easy to convert A330 to tankers, because there is already a strengthened position, where the A340 would have its outer engines. The A330 wing also has the necessary ducts for the fuel pipes and wiring. There is still some work necessary, but don't need to strengthen anything or make way for pipes.

Sorry PADSpot I'm not picking on you but the A340 and A330 wings are only similar in shape. It's a common misconception that they are identical and the A330 wing is already strengthened around the outer engine positions. If you think about it, why would they build a wing with un-neccessary additional weight.

In the early days, EADS were saying that the wings were the same to play down the risk but they always knew that the A330 wing needed a fair bit of work. To fit pods to the wing, significant strengthening is required around the Rib 26 area and a large doubler is also fitted on the lower wing surface. It is though a relatively simple modification. You can see (I hope) half of the doubler on the photo (painted green) just above the orange hoisting bracket.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-03 09:33:43 and read 8077 times.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 18):

First, thanks for correcting me.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 18):
why would they build a wing with un-neccessary additional weight.

... to enjoy greater economies of scale in production? If the additional weight is negligible, it can be worthwhile to think about leaving it in order to streamline production.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: DeltaGuy
Posted 2007-08-03 14:24:38 and read 8025 times.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 17):
It seems weird to me that the USAF would chose a European plane rather than boeing, their home turf. What are the benefits of the 767 and A330 tankers, and has boeing talked about a 777 or 748 tanker

It is unsettling that we'd choose a french tanker to fuel our own warplanes. But, government contracts and competition being what they are, I suppose it has to be bid out. Boeing will somehow prevail, IMHO.

The day I take gas from a french-built tanker is the day I get out of the Guard.

DeltaGuy

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-03 14:33:21 and read 8021 times.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 17):
It seems weird to me that the USAF would chose a European plane rather than boeing, their home turf.

That's a very honest statement and I feel the same for my side of the pond, but the problem that it is not very clever to "define" monopolies of you are at the same time the customer. Boeing (or Airbus rerspectively) could call any price then ...

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PC12Fan
Posted 2007-08-03 15:36:57 and read 8008 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16):
I wonder whether a position on the outer wing offers sufficient stability to operate a boom. A centerline position is pretty immune against rolling movements along the horizontal axis. I think a boom on the outer wings would need some sort of stabilization.

Hmm, good point. That is something engineers will have to contend with if a flying wing design is adopted. I've seen illustrations of this concept with two outer booms. Still doesn't change the fact that this aircraft would also have a longitudinal axis. Longitudinal boom mount would be the most stable.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Saintsman
Posted 2007-08-03 16:27:49 and read 7983 times.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 20):
The day I take gas from a french-built tanker is the day I get out of the Guard.

The A330 is not built in France, it is assembled there. The KC30 will be assembled in the US.

Would you refuse to ride in cars that are not of US origin too, or not watch on a TV made abroad?

Or is it just France you have a problem with? (understandable  Wink )

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: DeltaGuy
Posted 2007-08-03 16:45:54 and read 7978 times.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 23):
Would you refuse to ride in cars that are not of US origin too, or not watch on a TV made abroad?

I've always wanted an Austin Healy, and my dad has a porche....so I love alot of non US cars Big grin

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 23):
The A330 is not built in France, it is assembled there. The KC30 will be assembled in the US.

Dressing the pig up is all it is...bottom line, it is still a French aircraft...just, some rivets applied here in the US to make it seem "American". Airbus is, well, an Airbus, no matter which continent it comes from.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 23):
Or is it just France you have a problem with? (understandable )

Right on, jolly good ol chap  Smile

DeltaGuy

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-03 17:01:37 and read 7975 times.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 24):
and my dad has a porche

It's PorSche!!!  Wow!

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 24):
bottom line, it is still a French aircraft

The wings are made in Britain, much of the fuselage comes from Germany. The landing gear might even be American (Goodrich?!) and the engines come from GE, PW or RR. It's really just assembled there. After all the French even bought your tankers  Silly

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Arluna
Posted 2007-08-03 17:44:53 and read 7964 times.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but won't the KC30 be assembled in France and then flown to the US to have it's military equipment installed?

If that's the case then it won't be built in the US, merely finished.

J

[Edited 2007-08-03 17:45:53]

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-03 17:54:05 and read 7949 times.

Quoting Arluna (Reply 26):
Please correct me if I'm wrong

You're not wrong.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2007-08-03 18:08:18 and read 7938 times.

There are no large commercial aircraft which are remotely "national" today. I'd suggest letting go of that infantile concept.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/benefits/commitment.html

If your concern as to being built somewhere or another is simply economic impact, the Northrop Alabama facility certainly will employ more folks than keeping the 767 line open for another 8 years to produce the Air Force' tankers, and would certainly open the door for more upside in the future (as in; it would be nice if Northrop Grumman came up with some other assembly work for the Alabama facility. It's not like Boeing is one line away from disappearing from Renton).


The Brookley Industrial Complex encompasses more than 4.5 million square feet of industrial space and is already home to aerospace manufacturing, aircraft maintenance and airfreight businesses. The site includes the Mobile Downtown Airport, which has an existing 9,600 foot long runway.



The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and create or support more than 25,000 U.S. jobs.

Inside the military, the KC-10 is widely used/preferred in lieu of the alternatives simply because it can also serve as a freighter. The 767 is certainly an improvement in freight capacity over the narrow-body -135s, but the -30 from a purely end-user perspective would be a much preferred aircraft.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-03 19:30:15 and read 7899 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 28):
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and create or support more than 25,000 U.S. jobs.

The extent of work being done in the US will depend on the actual order size. If the order is split or its size reduced Airbus will not set up an entire assembly line in Mobile. Such an event would invalidate the business case.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 28):
KC-10 is widely used/preferred in lieu of the alternatives simply because it can also serve as a freighter.

That topics popped up before here and ended abruptly with people saying that nowadays the KC-135 very seldomly flies freight, why should the KC-30 do it frequently? And who ships that freight now?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Blackbird
Posted 2007-08-03 19:48:28 and read 7887 times.

Let's hope the Europeans don't design the aircraft with some kind of device that enables them to takeover the plane or something... After some of the Europeans aren't too happy about us dragging on in Iraq.

Andrea Kent

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-03 20:01:20 and read 7878 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 28):
There are no large commercial aircraft which are remotely "national" today. I'd suggest letting go of that infantile concept.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/....html

Ah yes, quotes from NG. A truly unbiased source quoted. The KC-767Adv will have at least 85% U.S. content versus 50 or 65%, depending what day NG is quoted. And that includes the GE produced engines, which if not included reduces the percentage further. That may be "infantile" to you, but I can assure you that it isn't to Congress and the constituencies involved.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-03 21:10:42 and read 7846 times.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 30):
Let's hope the Europeans don't design the aircraft with some kind of device that enables them to takeover the plane or something...

??? You're watching the wrong type of movies, I presume.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Moo
Posted 2007-08-03 22:09:25 and read 7820 times.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 30):
Let's hope the Europeans don't design the aircraft with some kind of device that enables them to takeover the plane or something... After some of the Europeans aren't too happy about us dragging on in Iraq.

Your paranoia is starting to show.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-03 22:42:27 and read 7800 times.

Quoting Moo (Reply 33):
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 30):
Let's hope the Europeans don't design the aircraft with some kind of device that enables them to takeover the plane or something... After some of the Europeans aren't too happy about us dragging on in Iraq.

Your paranoia is starting to show.

As much as I disagree with her on her feelings on Iraq... Even dragging that discussion in, I don't think the statement should be taken as anything other then tongue-in-cheek. I don't think she's paranoid.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Arluna
Posted 2007-08-04 07:34:34 and read 7701 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 28):
Inside the military, the KC-10 is widely used/preferred in lieu of the alternatives simply because it can also serve as a freighter.

This is news to me, I spent twenty-one years in the Air Force in the tanker community and never heard of this. Please give us your source for this statement.

By the way, isn't the use of the word infantile just a little hostile?

J

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2007-08-04 16:27:32 and read 7603 times.

That's the thing, arluna, the tanker community doesn't appreciate that the -135's are useless for cargo. Obviously the AF can't recapitalize/grow the freighter fleet much, and single-role tankers will be history someday in the future (if they ever retire all the 135's, which I admit may never happen).

As to 'infantile,' no, I don't think it is hostile, but is an appropriate categorization of the attitude which puts the Northrop bid in the "evil french-european" airplane. It's also an appropriate moniker to describe the motivations of many congressmen, btw.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Tancrede
Posted 2007-08-04 17:01:27 and read 7595 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 21):
That's a very honest statement and I feel the same for my side of the pond, but the problem that it is not very clever to "define" monopolies of you are at the same time the customer. Boeing (or Airbus rerspectively) could call any price then ...

As much as I can understand nationalism, I just would like that some A.neters stop shouting and crying when, we French, try to avoid to buy American products. It seems for me as weird as for you when we have to get some military hardware from the other side of the Atlantic. At least, about the KC-30, it seems that the French AF is considering getting some pieces to replace the old American KC-135s.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 30):
Let's hope the Europeans don't design the aircraft with some kind of device that enables them to takeover the plane or something... After some of the Europeans aren't too happy about us dragging on in Iraq.

Perhaps, you are right  Silly, and about Iraq, stop staring on that topic as many people here in Europe don't even care about it any more because that's just history nowadays.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-04 18:31:06 and read 7562 times.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 37):
As much as I can understand nationalism, I just would like that some A.neters stop shouting and crying when, we French, try to avoid to buy American products. It seems for me as weird as for you when we have to get some military hardware from the other side of the Atlantic. At least, about the KC-30, it seems that the French AF is considering getting some pieces to replace the old American KC-135s.

I think I wanted more to point out, that nationalism is contra-productive because it tends to make defense procurements more expensive due to artificially defining monopolies. In the end it does more harm than good to your own country. If someone wants to keep an investment at home because of research, technology, jobs etc there are more intelligent and fair ways to do that other than to refer to nationalism.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 37):
Perhaps, you are right Silly, and about Iraq, stop staring on that topic as many people here in Europe don't even care about it any more because that's just history nowadays.

Off topic though but it does touch us in Europe to a far greater extent as the Americans at home. The normal guy on the street might not care, but the implications of what happened will have an equally severe (but still different) impact on Europe as on the US. The difference is: They get what they paid for (although it might not be what they expected) and we have to pay the bill for something we did not order.

But that shouldn't be part of this thread ... its about the KC-30 prototype. Let get back to that  Wink

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-04 18:44:21 and read 7559 times.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 23):
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 20):
The day I take gas from a french-built tanker is the day I get out of the Guard.

As you drive home in your foreign made import because you detest the Big 3 auotmakers in Detroit and their overpaid, fat, and lazy unions combined with the overall lack of quality of the product.  Smile

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 31):
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 28):
There are no large commercial aircraft which are remotely "national" today. I'd suggest letting go of that infantile concept.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/....html

Ah yes, quotes from NG. A truly unbiased source quoted. The KC-767Adv will have at least 85% U.S. content versus 50 or 65%, depending what day NG is quoted. And that includes the GE produced engines, which if not included reduces the percentage further. That may be "infantile" to you, but I can assure you that it isn't to Congress and the constituencies involved.

Let's be honest here, the 767 line is all but closed courtesy of the A-330 and it's success most notably in it's additional cargo capabilities. So you tell me, who should the USAF buy to last them for the next 30+ years, a one-trick pony of an airframe already 25+ years old and rendered obsolete by the commerical carriers or the more modern platform than can not only accomplish the mission but expound upon the success of the KC-10's dual capability of not just moving gas but moving equipment? Boeing's argument that the KC-30 is too big is about as logical as the debate for Al Gore's global warming - Boeing says the USAF would need all thes new hangars and ramp space if they went to the A-330 but my Gosh, what are all of these commerical A-330 operators around the world doing to satisfy their needs?! (Read: non-issue)

If it were the KC-787 I'd be all for Boeing in this deal but let's be real once again, even that aircraft is built all around the world now from Asia to Europe even if it is assembled in the United States, so I'm sure Boeing wasn't going to throw that aircraft in the bidding since it was no more US parts content than what the KC-30 would be.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Tancrede
Posted 2007-08-04 19:20:08 and read 7548 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 38):
Off topic though but it does touch us in Europe to a far greater extent as the Americans at home. The normal guy on the street might not care, but the implications of what happened will have an equally severe (but still different) impact on Europe as on the US. The difference is: They get what they paid for (although it might not be what they expected) and we have to pay the bill for something we did not order.

It is off topic, but I wanted to point out this comment because it seems that for many of our American friends, Iraq is an easy reason to explain every problems or any differences that raise between the US and Europe.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Arluna
Posted 2007-08-04 20:11:34 and read 7529 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 36):
That's the thing, arluna, the tanker community doesn't appreciate that the -135's are useless for cargo.

Please let us all know what your background is as far as the tanker community is concerned and how you know what the tanker community appreciates.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 28):
Inside the military, the KC-10 is widely used/preferred in lieu of the alternatives simply because it can also serve as a freighter.

You still haven't given your source for the above statement.

J

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Moo
Posted 2007-08-04 20:58:47 and read 7512 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 39):
As you drive home in your foreign made import because you detest the Big 3 auotmakers in Detroit and their overpaid, fat, and lazy unions combined with the overall lack of quality of the product.

Don't forget the foreign gas being pumped  Smile

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2007-08-04 23:10:55 and read 7460 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 36):
That's the thing, arluna, the tanker community doesn't appreciate that the -135's are useless for cargo. Obviously the AF can't recapitalize/grow the freighter fleet much, and single-role tankers will be history someday in the future (if they ever retire all the 135's, which I admit may never happen).

As to 'infantile,' no, I don't think it is hostile,

The KC-135 was designed and built as a derivitive of the B-367-80. The original specs. did not call for a duel role aircraft. The KC-135 was to have limited cargo capability, as the KC-97 did.

SAC wanted a jet tanker, and that is what they got.

The USAF had talked over the years about modifying the KC-135 to be a better cargo hauler, but that never even got to the budget phase. For example, around 1980, or so, SAC looked at changing out the plywood floor for a metal floor, with stoable rollers, and a cargo handleing system. The estimated costs was to be about $500,000 per airplane. At the time there were some 620 KC-135s, and the only place to get the money from was the KC-135R or KC-135E reengining program. We needed the engines more.

Again in the early 1990s, after AMC became the USAF Tanker Manager, it was looked at again. Again, no money.

But, AMC did use the KC-135 as a cargo hauler when the C-141B fleet was having it's structual problems.

Even though the cargo had to be man handled (because no cargo handleing system), the airplane worked just fine. The KC-135 can carry up to 83,000lbs of cargo. But it will bulk out long before it gets to that weight.

Know what you are talking about before you say anything. The KC-135 is a well loved airplane in the tanker communitee.

BTW, "infantile" is a hostial word.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2007-08-05 01:57:36 and read 7406 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 39):
Boeing's argument that the KC-30 is too big

The KC-30 is far closer to the KC-777 than the KC-767 in size? That the KC-767 is virtually identical in footprint to the KC-135, and even with the 767-400 wingtips, it will still be super close in size.

No amount of anti-american, anti-Boeing rhetoric will change that.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Dougloid
Posted 2007-08-05 02:59:18 and read 7380 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 38):
Quoting Tancrede (Reply 37):
Perhaps, you are right Silly, and about Iraq, stop staring on that topic as many people here in Europe don't even care about it any more because that's just history nowadays.

Off topic though but it does touch us in Europe to a far greater extent as the Americans at home. The normal guy on the street might not care, but the implications of what happened will have an equally severe (but still different) impact on Europe as on the US. The difference is: They get what they paid for (although it might not be what they expected) and we have to pay the bill for something we did not order.

Can you tell me how Europe-with the exception of Britain- is paying the bill for Iraq?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2007-08-05 03:29:44 and read 7370 times.

Thanks for the history lesson, but I do understand the history of the KC-135, the related Dash 80's impact on jet transport in general, and that the original specification did not anticipate hauling oversized cargo. (Admittedly, I hadn't heard of the consideration given to replacing the floor in the 80's.)

I am not claiming the -135's are poor airplanes due to their engineering, age, or mission, but that their replacement, and the need the DoD must face (what I would categorize as the over-arching goal, pardon the term), is that there won't be a tanker dedicated to just being a tanker in the future. If anything, the KC-X program under-whelms primarily in that as a stop-gap program it does not significantly help fill the need for strategic lift. The KC-10 case-in-point was, from an airframe perspective designed to handle cargo also (I know, not for the air force), and that is something airlift planners strongly appreciate.

I am not, contrary to your perception, trying to suggest that I know the tanker community inside and out, or that it is ignorant, or inferior to any other military community. But, tanker crews don't necessarily appreciate the depth of airlift shortage, or the insanity of continuing to procure dedicated tanker-only (PRIMARILY) airframes. 767 and A300 from an airframe perspective would both be huge improvements, and I don't know what became of the NSA (new strategic aircraft) program, but here is a link that gives an idea of where the service really needs to go.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/nsa.htm

Just as the 707/Dash-80 and -135 programs stimulated the revolution in transport 50 years ago, so too could the BWB concepts also meet military needs for tankers and transports. Outsize cargo requirements will only grow as missions throughout the middle east do over the next 20 years. CRAF-utilization, and other civilian-uses to get troops and equipment around the globe quickly, is not an acceptable, let alone good long-term solution.

The KC-30 isn't the solution either, but it will help more long-term than the KC-767, and that is my point. Why bicker over 20-30% U.S. content when we should be focused on the best platform to help the warfighter? Will that extra 20-30% content lead Boeing to design a new Y-2/Y-3 sooner which will ALSO have that extra American content which the military will ALSO be able to purchase? I think these are the appropriate questions and the answer is blatantly obvious, especially when considered within the context of how the 787 supply chain was (efficiently) assembled.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-05 09:46:45 and read 7303 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
BTW, "infantile" is a hostial word.



Quoting Arluna (Reply 35):
By the way, isn't the use of the word infantile just a little hostile?

Maybe "non-objective" is a better word and comes closer to what he meant? Just a guess ...

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 45):
Can you tell me how Europe-with the exception of Britain- is paying the bill for Iraq?

I wrote you an instant message in order not to hijack the thread.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Columba
Posted 2007-08-05 12:19:14 and read 7282 times.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 24):
bottom line, it is still a French aircraft..

...and what is bad about it ? The french airforce has KC 135, E3s, E2s, C130s. Also all the other European countries might disagree calling theA330 a french aircraft. It is just assembled in France with parts from all over Europe and even from the US. Designed in Belgium, France, Germany, UK and Spain.
I think since the EU and the US are allies and strategic partners it does not matter were a product is from.
The US is buying from the EU and the EU is buying from the US so what ?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-05 18:44:34 and read 7224 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 44):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 39):
Boeing's argument that the KC-30 is too big

The KC-30 is far closer to the KC-777 than the KC-767 in size? That the KC-767 is virtually identical in footprint to the KC-135, and even with the 767-400 wingtips, it will still be super close in size.

No amount of anti-american, anti-Boeing rhetoric will change that.

But what I am saying is that argument is for intent purposes illogical and invalid - it doesn't ¡phu¢king! matter - if NW airlines can figure it out and make do with it, than I am sure the USAF can, too.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Blackbird
Posted 2007-08-06 00:41:25 and read 7150 times.

Yes I was largely speaking in tongue in cheek when I was saying that the Europeans would design the plane with a back-door that would enable them to take control of the plane.

Is it possible though? It could be done... is it likely, no.

Andrea Kent

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Zeke
Posted 2007-08-06 01:06:06 and read 7146 times.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 50):
Yes I was largely speaking in tongue in cheek when I was saying that the Europeans would design the plane with a back-door that would enable them to take control of the plane.

Maybe.............if it was Greek  duck 

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-06 08:32:40 and read 7080 times.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 50):
Is it possible though? It could be done... is it likely, no.

Technically? Yes of course! But why should somebody do that? That is sabotage and a purely hostile act. I can hardy imagine anything more trust-devastating than that. Airbus would be extremely happy to get that trust, why should they disappoint it by bugging the airplane? That is sick?!

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-06 14:54:47 and read 7027 times.

More bad news for the NG/EADS consortium:

http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070806/43588_id.html?.v=1


"Pentagon refuses to split deal for tankers

11:42 p.m. ET Aug 5, 2007

The Pentagon will not split a lucrative contract to supply the US Air Force with refuelling tankers between Boeing and EADS, the European defence consortium, according to a senior US defence official.

Sue Payton, head of air force acquisitions, said splitting the deal for an initial 80 tankers would prove too costly at a time when the air force is grappling to fund several other expensive weapons programmes.

"Because we are trying to do so much, we don't have the money upfront that it would take to carry two or three [tankers] through development and then into procurement," she said. "

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-06 15:14:32 and read 7014 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 39):
Let's be honest here, the 767 line is all but closed courtesy of the A-330

Really? Ah, then I need to call UPS, ANA and LAN to tell them their desposits of new build 767 frames needs to be rethought because the assembly line is all but closed.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Zeke
Posted 2007-08-06 15:39:47 and read 7011 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 53):
More bad news for the NG/EADS consortium:

Is it ? the RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters, where does the 767 win ?

1) Air refueling capability
2) Fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135
3) Compliant Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment
4) Airlift capability
5) Ability to take on fuel while airborne
6) Sufficient force protection measures
7) Ability to network into the information available in the battle space
8) Survivability measures (defensive systems, Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening, chemical/biological protection, etc.)
9) Provisioning for a multi-point refueling system to support Navy and allied aircraft

from your article "Boeing is expected to win the contract based on its tanker experience. Payton said the Air Force cannot afford to fund more than one tanker through development and then into procurement."

Can I remind you what Ron Marcotte, manager of Boeing's tanker program said at the Paris air show :

"Boeing has consistently been named the favorite for the tanker contract by industry analysts, who point to the company's long history of supplying aircraft to the U.S. government and its powerful influence with Congress.

But Boeing's tanker program has hit a tough stretch in recent weeks. The company has acknowledged delays in delivering the KC-767 to customers in Italy and Japan, and it said Monday the hold-ups could extend into next year.

"We're obviously disappointed that we haven't been able to deliver when we said we would," Ron Marcotte, manager of Boeing's tanker program, said in an interview at the air show.

Marcotte said Boeing is working through the problems and should deliver the first two of four tankers to Japan by the end of the year. Italy's order for four planes, already two years late, will take at least another year to complete. "

from http://blog.al.com/live/2007/06/kc30_tanker_a_hit_at_paris_air.html

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-06 15:43:39 and read 7006 times.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
Is it ?

Most would agree that it is... I read your quotes from the Boeing Tanker Program director. I guess I'm missing your point.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2007-08-06 21:43:23 and read 6911 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 46):
The KC-30 isn't the solution either, but it will help more long-term than the KC-767, and that is my point. Why bicker over 20-30% U.S. content when we should be focused on the best platform to help the warfighter? Will

Because the 70-80% of the airplane that is built in the EU will effect the way the US does it's international business. If the EU decides the US should not bomb, etc. what ever country, they will shut off the parts supply of that 70-80% of the KC-30 in an attempt to influence US interests. The US Government cannot be held hostage to any other countries opinions on what actions we need to be involved in.

First of all, it remains to be scene if the KC-30 is the best candidate for the KC-X program for the USAF. Just because it was selected by the RAF, RAAF and RSAF doesn't mean it will also work well for the USAF. Nor does the fact the KC-767 being selected by Italy and Japan have anything to do with the USAF selection, either.

What makes the KC-135 such a great tanker and airplane is it does it's priomary job better than any other airplane. The KC-135s are used to set up the "tanker air bridges", needed to quickly move fighters, bombers, cargo transports, recces, and support aircraft to the foreward areas. Then the KC-135 is used, in theater as the primary tanker to refuel the shooters, and support aircraft of the operation. If you used the KC-135 for duel missions (cargo and tanker), not as many would be available for either the air bridge, or the combat operations. Cargo is strickly a secondary role for the KC-135, meaning, it will carry cargo if, and only if, it is not needed as a tanker.

The KC-10 is a different tanker all together, and it is not as effecent in the tanker mission as the KC-135. The KC-10 moves whole fighter units, but even doing this, it must have KC-135 tanker support, or it will end up landing for fuel every 2,000-3,000nm or so (depending on cargo weight).

The USAF is much better off with dedicated tankers and dedicated transports because the USAF can afford them. The RAF, RAAF, and RSAF cannot, because they all are much smaller Air Forces.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-06 21:54:56 and read 6906 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
Because the 70-80% of the airplane that is built in the EU will effect the way the US does it's international business. If the EU decides the US should not bomb, etc. what ever country, they will shut off the parts supply of that 70-80% of the KC-30 in an attempt to influence US interests.

Seriously, never heard such a non-sense. Both from a geostrategic, economic and plain political standpoint. Sorry, that I have to be that direct.

[Edited 2007-08-06 22:08:11]

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-06 22:45:48 and read 6880 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
Cargo is strickly a secondary role for the KC-135, meaning, it will carry cargo if, and only if, it is not needed as a tanker.

 checkmark  Despite all the protestations and noise about "cargo capacity", the USAF still wants a tanker firstly. Then there is this minor consideration:

Quote:
Boeing has estimated that the KC-767 contract would support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 U.S. suppliers.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Boeing_767_Tanker.html

Why this is so hard for some to figure out is beyond me. I don't like the fact that the C-17 has no chance in France or Germany, but I fully understand why they need to support their own economies and buy the A400, even if it doesn't start showing up in significant numbers for several years hence. Why don't these considerations apply to the USAF tanker competition? We've been over all this ad nauseam, but some folks still don't get it.  banghead 

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-07 01:14:17 and read 6811 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 54):
Really? Ah, then I need to call UPS, ANA and LAN to tell them their desposits of new build 767 frames needs to be rethought because the assembly line is all but closed.

Oh, you smartguy. That's why I said "all but." And go ahead and look at those orders, ANA has got 2763ER's on order to fill the gap between now and the 787, as in if they could have purchased 787's and taken delivery of them now instead they would have, and don't forget that Boeing cut them a sweet price because it enabled them to string the 767 line longer out in hopes of suckering the USAF into the KC-767 bid. As for UPS, what other aircraft did they have to choose from at the time they ordered? Personally, the 767 is a poor freightor because it can't carry 2 LD cargo containers side by side in the underbelly and that's why many airlines went to the A-330 instead; if UPS can use them in a niche so be it. And LAN of course, the order goes back to what, nearly 10 years ago when they placed orders for 26 767's; they have still only taken delivery of 16 of those 26 - me's a thinking they either don't want or can no longer afford to pay for them.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 59):
Why this is so hard for some to figure out is beyond me. I don't like the fact that the C-17 has no chance in France or Germany, but I fully understand why they need to support their own economies and buy the A400, even if it doesn't start showing up in significant numbers for several years hence. Why don't these considerations apply to the USAF tanker competition? We've been over all this ad nauseam, but some folks still don't get it.

Those numbers are misleading - Boeing already employees those people; with the KC-30 and the NG bid doing the mods in Mobile, EADS claims like 25,000 jobs. If Boeing has to lay off all these people they DON'T get the KC-767 bid than either Boeing hired too many people or they aren't smart enough to transistion to a new platform; no airplane line is open for ever. Let's see the numbers between the two that talk about "new" jobs, I think EADS wins in that department because they are basically "creating" an all new facility in Mobile where Boeing is just using existing workers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
What makes the KC-135 such a great tanker and airplane is it does it's priomary job better than any other airplane. The KC-135s are used to set up the "tanker air bridges", needed to quickly move fighters, bombers, cargo transports, recces, and support aircraft to the foreward areas. Then the KC-135 is used, in theater as the primary tanker to refuel the shooters, and support aircraft of the operation. If you used the KC-135 for duel missions (cargo and tanker), not as many would be available for either the air bridge, or the combat operations. Cargo is strickly a secondary role for the KC-135, meaning, it will carry cargo if, and only if, it is not needed as a tanker.

The KC-10 is a different tanker all together, and it is not as effecent in the tanker mission as the KC-135. The KC-10 moves whole fighter units, but even doing this, it must have KC-135 tanker support, or it will end up landing for fuel every 2,000-3,000nm or so (depending on cargo weight).

Your looking at it wrong - the benefit of the KC-30 is that it can carry in addition to the same fuel as the KC-767 but also "X" amount more of payload, we're not tallking about either or, but using one platform for two missions at the same time, that's all about planning and allocation as to who is where when. The fact of the matter is the USAF can no longer afford aircraft that just do ONE thing, we have seen this theory come to bear so many times in the recent history; the KC-30 is the better dual-purpose tanker on the market today. Now if Boeing would have offered the KC-777 based off the 777-200 airframe, they would have had a better product but they didn't, and I can only think that was because the USAF assured them that they had the deal per the RFP because Boeing could be selling ketchup popsicles in the summer time to the USAF in a white dress and they'd still go their way. Look at the 787, we're in a one-world global economy and the KC-30 regardless as to where it was designed is the better aircraft.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2007-08-07 01:20:53 and read 6808 times.

TopBoom,

Respectfully, I think your comments are revealing. Yes, it is definitely preferable within the tanker community to serve exclusively as tankers. I differ with you not with respect to any given airframe, or really from a preference that, all other things being equal, we buy domestic products, but rather in that I believe there is a critical shortage of funds for both tankers, and cargo aircraft, and that the US cannot in fact afford an adequate transport renewal moving forward versus projected and likely airlift needs. While in the 50's & 60's (when the KC-135's were designed and procured) there was an absolutely huge investment in an enormous tanker fleet to fuel a massive SAC bomber fleet (among others, obviously TAC needed lot's of support), today such an investment in either tanker renewal or the (comparatively modern) more important airlift requirements will not be made. It just won't and we all know it.

Likewise, I think your fears as to EU influence over US foreign policy by means of cutting off parts/support for the KC-30 are simply ill-informed. Just as Airbus won't be cutting off AA simply to spite US foreign policy objectives, it won't happen. Economics drives sanctions, and it is not plausible that the EU could enforce adequate sanctions to ground 50-200(?) A330's flown by the US Air Force.

It may not be popular within the Air Force community, let alone the tanker community, but the transportation of warfighters to the combat theater is a job which will have to be assumed more prominently in the future. The purchase of many dozens of widebody airliners should necessarily involve a great consideration of this mission. I believe it does.

While I accept your argument as to the inefficiency of the KC-10 vs. the KC 135 in some fixed tanker missions, I don't think the analogy extends much to the difference in said mission efficiency as between the KC-767/-30. Even if it does, so be it. There's a reason F- and A- series aircraft basically merged 20-30 years ago; missions and budgets.

(Just for the record, and the sake of argument, I'd love to see more study of the 787 for the tanker/transport role. Theoretically, the use of electro-mechanical flight controls (absence of pneumatics up to the pilots), and carbon fiber construction would open the door to a swing-tail (or nose) design for cargo, but I guess the business-/military-need isn't high enough to drive the development. I'd think the KC-330/KC-787 would be two of the most aesthetically beautiful aircraft ever built for the Air Force, at least since the Valkryrie.)

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TropicBird
Posted 2007-08-07 03:05:06 and read 6779 times.

According to a defense web-site...the KC-X decision has now been delayed until December.

Daily News:
Air Force Source Selection on KC-X Now Delayed Until December
DefenseAlert, Aug. 3, 2007 -- Air Force acquisition officials now expect to announce the winner of its next-generation aerial tanker platform competition by the end of 2007, nearly three months behind the service's originally anticipated award date, according to sources and documents.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Also..I have a question for the AMC folks. Does the AF have a requirement that there must be an ability to walk between and/or around the cargo pallets while in an aircraft?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Link to the defense web-site....see headline under "Daily News" middle of page right side.

http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com/

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-07 04:30:24 and read 6760 times.

Wow, the USAF needs the tankers like YEARS ago, and supossedly the ability of the winning manufactuer to deliever the said product on time is a huge factor in the decision, so what gives - why further delay the decision for 1/4 of an entire year? Like our wonderful Congress, did they need to take a Summer vbreak so that they could make more money on vacation than I make all year?!  Big grin

If the USAF cannot even make their mind up in time, how can they expect the new tanker to be on time?!

And if Boeing is all but assured the bid, and the fact that they need closure on the 767 line one way or another, IF they are to just award Boeing the deal than why keep busting their b@lls and dragging it out? Perhaps promising news for the KC-30?

Because curious minds want know!

Does Boeing have a comparable fact sheet on the KC-767?

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/data/kc30_trifold_4web.pdf

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Tancrede
Posted 2007-08-07 08:58:33 and read 6720 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
Because the 70-80% of the airplane that is built in the EU will effect the way the US does it's international business. If the EU decides the US should not bomb, etc. what ever country, they will shut off the parts supply of that 70-80% of the KC-30 in an attempt to influence US interests. The US Government cannot be held hostage to any other countries opinions on what actions we need to be involved in.

At least it shows that you lack a complete foreign politics knowledge, as what you said is a total non-sense.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 59):
Why this is so hard for some to figure out is beyond me. I don't like the fact that the C-17 has no chance in France or Germany, but I fully understand why they need to support their own economies and buy the A400

 checkmark 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
What makes the KC-135 such a great tanker and airplane is it does it's priomary job better than any other airplane.

It seems that you are living more and more in the past. The KC-135 was surely a great plane but very soon it will be history, hopefully replaced by the KC-767 or KC-30. That's how goes life.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-07 11:52:31 and read 6675 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
I think EADS wins in that department because they are basically "creating" an all new facility in Mobile where Boeing is just using existing workers.

They are creating a point booth. The aircraft will still be assembled in France.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-07 14:45:03 and read 6624 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 63):
Does Boeing have a comparable fact sheet on the KC-767?

Being a "smartguy",  sarcastic  and if I've read some of Boeing's comments correctly over these past few months, there are "improvements" made to the original designs RFP that are claimed to be "confidential". I don't think they are taking any chances, nor should they. They only recently confirmed that the Advanced Freighter design will not share the 764 wings. That information was not made public, until Scott Hamilton's Leeham Co. pressed the issue with some of Boeing's Tanker project's officials. Boeing's RFP is being kept very close to the vest.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-08-07 16:40:12 and read 6592 times.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 30):
Let's hope the Europeans don't design the aircraft with some kind of device that enables them to takeover the plane or something... After some of the Europeans aren't too happy about us dragging on in Iraq.

Andrea Kent

good to see there are still some good old, euro-phobic Americans out there:

Actually, a similar stunt was pulled on the 767 not so long ago:

Quote:
In 2000, the government of China purchased a 767-300ER as the official executive aircraft of President Jiang Zemin. The aircraft had originally been delivered to Delta Air Lines in June 2000 but was immediately resold to China United Airlines. After its transfer to the Chinese government, the plane was taken to San Antonio, Texas to be refitted with a custom interior.

In the fall of 2001, the Chinese government announced that it had discovered 27 covert listening devices embedded in the plane's interior. The Chinese government blamed the CIA for planting the bugs. The 22 Chinese military and government officials charged with overseeing the refit were arrested for suspicion of negligence and corruption.

source

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 36):
As to 'infantile,' no, I don't think it is hostile, but is an appropriate categorization of the attitude which puts the Northrop bid in the "evil french-european" airplane. It's also an appropriate moniker to describe the motivations of many congressmen, btw.

I think it is perfect way to describe it, couldn;t agree more..

Quoting Columba (Reply 48):
Designed in Belgium, France, Germany, UK and Spain

Don't forget the Netherlands Big grin

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
If the EU decides the US should not bomb, etc. what ever country, they will shut off the parts supply of that 70-80% of the KC-30 in an attempt to influence US interests. The US Government cannot be held hostage to any other countries opinions on what actions we need to be involved in.

where do you get this non-sense from? Are there more people like you, who would actually believe this? You are getting me worried...

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 59):
Why this is so hard for some to figure out is beyond me. I don't like the fact that the C-17 has no chance in France or Germany, but I fully understand why they need to support their own economies and buy the A400, even if it doesn't start showing up in significant numbers for several years hence. Why don't these considerations apply to the USAF tanker competition? We've been over all this ad nauseam, but some folks still don't get it.

I don;t believe you can compare these cases. The demand for an aircraft like the A400M is not the demand for an aircraft like the C-17. They are significantly different in every aspect. If we would need dozens of large strategic airlifters, the C-17 is the way to go.. What European countries need is a smaller, more flexible platform, and when they do need strategic airlifting, chartered Russian/Ukranian An-124 are much cheaper..

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-07 16:52:42 and read 6590 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 59):
I don't like the fact that the C-17 has no chance in France or Germany, but I fully understand why they need to support their own economies and buy the A400, even if it doesn't start showing up in significant numbers for several years hence. Why don't these considerations apply to the USAF tanker competition? We've been over all this ad nauseam, but some folks still don't get it.

You see the deadlock in it?

What I don't like about with this consideration is that it takes place on project level. Projects should be decided on the basis of requirements, proposals and prices. The issue of balancing out the overall value of defense procurement needs a big-picture approach. They (US and EU) should make an agreement that defines for instance that the extent of across-the-pond defense procurements needs to balance out over a 5-10 year moving average. Then they could also forget about all this counter trade bullshit, which also mixes up things that should not be mixed up.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-07 18:30:34 and read 6565 times.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 67):
don;t believe you can compare these cases.

You can and I am. It's the same thing--protecting one's own domestic military industrial complex. I'm afraid the USAF will never measure up to the "a.net standard" on this competition, but you'll just have to get over it, as we will with the A400.

[Edited 2007-08-07 18:32:42]

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2007-08-07 18:38:49 and read 6557 times.

It probably does balance out with total R&D respectively as the common denominator. EU spends a miniscule amount on major programs vs. the US. It took them 25 years plus to develop and build (shortly) the first prototype of a turboprop cargo plane, and about the same time to produce the Eurofighter. That's just aerospace but the EU generally takes longer to do any major defense programs due to, well, I'll just categorize it as "other factors" so as to avoid being castigated as hostile.

All politics is local, on both sides of the pond, and that won't be changing soon.

There was a time when I thought it ironic how dependent on contracted AN-124's the Germans etc. are now for lift, but now it just amazes me that the contractors have such a good overall safety/reliability record, vs. the ancient C-5's with 49% mission capable rates. The American ability to laugh at the non-deployable nature of the smaller European militaries is decreasing as the 80's boom in defense spending (for major equipment) recedes in the rear-view mirror.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2007-08-07 19:34:14 and read 6542 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 70):
There was a time when I thought it ironic how dependent on contracted AN-124's the Germans etc. are now for lift, but now it just amazes me that the contractors have such a good overall safety/reliability record, vs. the ancient C-5's with 49% mission capable rates. The American ability to laugh at the non-deployable nature of the smaller European militaries is decreasing as the 80's boom in defense spending (for major equipment) recedes in the rear-view mirror.

Not really relevant to the thread but interesting anyway, did you know that the US forces spend 160.000.000 $ on renting the big Antonov's for heavy transport in 2006!

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 70):
It took them 25 years plus to develop and build (shortly) the first prototype of a turboprop cargo plane, and about the same time to produce the Eurofighter.

It seems like that is the new trend all over the world with big defense projects.
The A400, EF, Rafale are all long overdue but the same thing starts happening in the US, the F22 project began before the EF project and was finished at +/- the same time, the V22 seems to take forever to come through and the C130J took forever to get all the bugs ironed out and that was only a new version of an old platform.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-07 19:39:05 and read 6538 times.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 64):
At least it shows that you lack a complete foreign politics knowledge, as what you said is a total non-sense.

No, it shows what we Americans call a "difference of opinion". Since you're a foreign policy expert, you will already know that differing opinions are quite common in western democracies.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Tancrede
Posted 2007-08-07 20:16:13 and read 6524 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 72):
No, it shows what we Americans call a "difference of opinion". Since you're a foreign policy expert, you will already know that differing opinions are quite common in western democracies.

Then, you are acknowledging the fact that the US 's western allies who own within their armies military American hardware (KC-135, C-17, Hawkeye,...) will be held hostage by the US government if major strategic vision differences occurred. So, what make you think that the European would also accept this situation?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-08-07 20:24:10 and read 6520 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 69):
You can and I am. It's the same thing--protecting one's own domestic military industrial complex. I'm afraid the USAF will never measure up to the "a.net standard" on this competition, but you'll just have to get over it, as we will with the A400.

ofcourse you can if you want, but it's silly, they are 2 very different aircraft, not 2 designs submitted for a single requirement package, like the kc767 and kc30, you can't possible compare this..

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 71):
It seems like that is the new trend all over the world with big defense projects.
The A400, EF, Rafale are all long overdue but the same thing starts happening in the US, the F22 project began before the EF project and was finished at +/- the same time, the V22 seems to take forever to come through and the C130J took forever to get all the bugs ironed out and that was only a new version of an old platform.

so very true

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-07 20:46:44 and read 6509 times.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 74):
ofcourse you can if you want, but it's silly, they are 2 very different aircraft, not 2 designs submitted for a single requirement package, like the kc767 and kc30, you can't possible compare this..

Well, I could have cited the C-130J, but would that have been too small? Point is not the specifications, nor the capability of one vis a vis the other; the point is, that at the end of the day, if given a choice to further one's industrial base with a military procurement, or to further someone else's, who will prevail?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2007-08-07 20:48:07 and read 6500 times.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 67):
What European countries need is a smaller, more flexible platform,

Possibly something like the shortened An-124-102 under study.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-looks-into-shortened-an-124.html

Quote:
"Russian outsize freight carrier Volga-Dnepr is conducting an in-depth feasibility study centred on a shortened version of the Antonov An-124, featuring a taller cargo hold, to broaden the type's potential freight portfolio, writes David Kaminski-Morrow.

Tentatively known as the An-124-102, the aircraft would incorporate a modified fuselage to accept loads, particularly heavy industrial assemblies, which Volga-Dnepr has previously been unable to accommodate owing to their physical dimensions."


But given that even the five-year old Indo-Russian Multi-Role Transport joint venture is floundering due to funding problems, prospects for this Ruslan variant doesn't seem too bright.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 67):
and when they do need strategic airlifting, chartered Russian/Ukranian An-124 are much cheaper..



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 70):
There was a time when I thought it ironic how dependent on contracted AN-124's the Germans etc. are now for lift, but now it just amazes me that the contractors have such a good overall safety/reliability record,

As I have posted in another thread, that could be a mixed blessing.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ces-an-124-outsize-freighters.html

Quote:
"Several operators of the Antonov An-124 outsize freighters are expected to line up to acquire more of the type from the Russian military as it prepares to dispose of its An-124 fleet. Overall, the country's defence ministry has 21 units - more than one-third of 56 heavylift transports manufactured by airframers Aviant and Aviastar since 1982. It stopped using them in December 2005 when they were grounded at an air force base near Bryansk.

[.....]

Citing industry sources, Russian media reports claim that defence minister Anatoly Serdyukov has issued a directive to offer four heavylifters for sale shortly and the rest before the end of this year. Ilyushin Aviation Complex, which along with Aviastar is part of state-controlled United Aircraft (OAK), will act as a seller by proxy. According to its general director Viktor Livanov, the military will contract transport services involving the use of An-124s from freight specialists if it requires its own capacity.

Although the technical state of the ex-air force aircraft is not clear, Volga-Dnepr vice-president Sergey Shklyanik expects intense competition for the freighters, given a lack of capacity in the outsize cargo market."


More An-124s being available will no doubt improve dispatch reliability. However, this could lull lessee countries into complacency, which could have serious implications when conflicts of interest arise.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-08-07 21:02:34 and read 6492 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 75):
Well, I could have cited the C-130J, but would that have been too small?

it would definitely make more sense, as those are aircraft who have similar operational capabilities and usage. Also, I believe all (correct me if I'm wrong) A400M customers are currently operating hercs and want to replace those with A400M's..

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 76):
Possibly something like the shortened An-124-102 under study.....

very good news, but I doubt it that air forces would buy them for themselves. I guess the operators will buy more and air forces will keep on chartering them..

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 76):
More An-124s being available will no doubt improve dispatch reliability. However, this could lull lessee countries into complacency, which could have serious implications when conflicts of interest arise.

I don't see why this will be a problem? Could you elaborate?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2007-08-07 21:35:25 and read 6480 times.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 77):
I don't see why this will be a problem? Could you elaborate?

Mainly because these are Russian aircraft being made available by the Russian military to Russian (mostly) companies. It doesn't take much imagination to know who would get priority over those transports (specially if based within the former USSR) should Moscow's interests diametrically oppose those of the renter nations. I highly doubt the lessors' drive for profit could override conscription orders.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-07 21:58:36 and read 6469 times.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 73):
Then, you are acknowledging the fact that the US 's western allies who own within their armies military American hardware (KC-135, C-17, Hawkeye,...) will be held hostage by the US government if major strategic vision differences occurred. So, what make you think that the European would also accept this situation?

Huh? No. The whole idea is silly to me. A project with such far reaching ramifications such as the KC-X program, with the nation's internal manufacturing, technical, and economic interests involved, will have a built-in preference for their own equipment... It goes for both the United States and Europe (Although some here seem to have a double standard).
My gripe was the tone of your criticism of KC135TopBoom. The man has many years of pratical experience with this particular subject.

While I enjoy your spritied debate, the tone seemed a bit harsh. And I'm quite sure that wasn't your intention.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-08-07 22:17:39 and read 6463 times.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 78):
Mainly because these are Russian aircraft being made available by the Russian military to Russian (mostly) companies. It doesn't take much imagination to know who would get priority over those transports (specially if based within the former USSR) should Moscow's interests diametrically oppose those of the renter nations. I highly doubt the lessors' drive for profit could override conscription orders.

why? This goes, as far as I understand the article, for the additional aircraft the Russian military will sell them. So overall, the capacity goes up.

I believe some operators aren;t even russian companies and they are commercial companies. If there is that much demand, Antonov is ready to re-open the production line

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-08 08:27:03 and read 6383 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 79):
My gripe was the tone of your criticism of KC135TopBoom. The man has many years of pratical experience with this particular subject.

Respect is a basic right of everyone here. But you cannot expect people to know the real life background of each and every member. On internet forums you are being judged for what you say and not for what you have doing for 25 years. KC135TopBoom's comment above was rather non-sense to say the least - notwithstanding he is usually one of most valuable contributors the the military section of this forum. Tancredes tone might have been a little harsh and disrespectful of KC135TopBoom's age and experience, but if you question the loyalty and fidelity of an allied nation then expect the reaction of the people that represent that nation to be that way ...

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Tancrede
Posted 2007-08-08 08:44:01 and read 6374 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 79):
Huh? No. The whole idea is silly to me. A project with such far reaching ramifications such as the KC-X program, with the nation's internal manufacturing, technical, and economic interests involved, will have a built-in preference for their own equipment... It goes for both the United States and Europe (Although some here seem to have a double standard).
My gripe was the tone of your criticism of KC135TopBoom. The man has many years of pratical experience with this particular subject.

I do fully approve you.  Smile In fact, it would be totally irresponsible for any European or American States to behave in such way with this kind of industrious programs and on that scale. Of course, I am only talking about allies.

You are speaking about experience. I do respect everybody’s experience, but that doesn't mean that you own all the universe knowledge and that you are foolproof on any matters.

Cheers

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-08 17:38:53 and read 6302 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 81):
but if you question the loyalty and fidelity of an allied nation then expect the reaction of the people that represent that nation to be that way ...

As usual, I respectfully disagree with you. I didn't read his comments that way. And I think it was probably taken out of context.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 82):
I do fully approve you. In fact, it would be totally irresponsible for any European or American States to behave in such way with this kind of industrious programs and on that scale. Of course, I am only talking about allies.

Ditto! And I couldn't agree more with your sentiments.  highfive 

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-08 20:12:59 and read 6265 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 83):
I didn't read his comments that way

I did though and apparently I was not alone.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 83):
And I think it was probably taken out of context.

I think the context is pretty clear as he directly quoted TexL1649 comment to which he replied. And only because I feel deep respect for his contribution to a.net and what he lived through and experienced, I will not reconstruct the context here again. From a political and geostrategic perspective he seemed to be utterly unaware of how things work in transatlantic diplomacy, to say the least. At best we don't discuss it any further ...

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-08 21:02:22 and read 6246 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 84):
At best we don't discuss it any further ...

Agreed.. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: JakeOrion
Posted 2007-08-08 21:21:47 and read 6236 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 84):
From a political and geostrategic perspective he seemed to be utterly unaware of how things work in transatlantic diplomacy, to say the least.

Its called worse case scenario. Just because we are allies today doesn't mean we'll be allies tomorrow.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) is somewhat an example of this, although that was more of a non-aggression agreement between Russia and Germany.

Found a better example, the Peloponnesian War.

Chances are highly unlikely in today's environment, but history being an indicator...

This order will most likely go to Boeing, because:

1) Euro vs. US Dollar (this is most likely the case to give Boeing the win)
2) Said scenario KC135 said above
3) USAF's history/relationship with Boeing

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-08-08 21:55:28 and read 6221 times.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 86):
Its called worse case scenario. Just because we are allies today doesn't mean we'll be allies tomorrow.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) is somewhat an example of this, although that was more of a non-aggression agreement between Russia and Germany.

I know this is not meant to go on, but I really have a huge problem with comparing the 50+ year relation of European NATO allies and the US, as Nazi-Germany and the Soviet-Union under stalin! This has nothing, really NOTHING to do with the current discussion and I find it extremely offensive

[Edited 2007-08-08 21:56:23]

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-08 22:48:32 and read 6205 times.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 86):
1) Euro vs. US Dollar (this is most likely the case to give Boeing the win)

Only indirectly relevant, as Airbus will not make a Euro-based offer. Judging just from the airframe, Airbus has more a reputation of selling at cheap prices, while being more expensive at services (which are less dependent on the Euro). Boeing has certainly an advantage, but none that would be special to this deal. It is even less significant compared to civil aviation deals, because the local content is much higher here.

I agree on 2. and 3. in case the Pentagon/Air Force is not defining its requirements around the Boeing product.
If ramp space is that important and hauling freight that unimportant, then the KC-767 is the better product, no questions asked. But if so, why is it necessary then to bitch about the Airbus being a French product or at least not an American one? That said the truthfulness of the entire discussion is rather doubtful. It leaves a bad taste in a way.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-09 03:07:46 and read 6159 times.

Boeing had this pep rally of sorts at their 767 line recently and wow, the ignorant rhetoric coming out of their camp embarasses me as a fan of Boeing.

Quote:

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and fellow Democratic U.S. Reps. Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, and Rick Larsen attended the rally and said Boeing's track record of building military air tankers gives it a major edge over the competition.

"We're in the World Series of aerial refueling," Inslee said. "And when you're in that situation ... and it's the bottom of the ninth, and the bases are loaded, you do not put in a new recruit from single-A baseball from France who may be good at soccer but should never play baseball."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/07/ap3995254.html

Quote:
Dicks is confident that the Air Force will choose Boeing. He said the KC-767 is cheaper and uses one-fifth less fuel than the competing aircraft. "In every comparison, the 767 is superior to Airbus," the congressman said. "We will win on merits."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/326572_tankerrally07.html

This is an all out political slugfest at it's ugliest; I thought Hillary leaving Arkansas for NYC was bad enough, but this is ridiculous - Boeing and their ilk are pandering to the uninformed and/or ignorant and really playing that "Made in the USA" bullsh!t that I would at least would be a lot more apt to buy had Boeing not decided that all future Boeing aircraft will be constructed in nearly every continent on the globe. If Boeing really gave a sh¡t about the USAF getting the best product they would have offered the KC-787 but there are two plain and simple reasons why Boeing didn't do that: 1) it would have cost Boeing money to abandon the KC-767 and develop the KC-787 and 2) than Boeing couldn't go on this Patriotic War Cry about how the KC-30 is a big, bad, foreign made aircraft when the facts are that the KC-30 will be more "Made in the USA" than the 787!

This is an all out political slugfest at it's ugliest and unfortunately I don’t believe the true merits of the KC-30 will ever be fully considered because the USAF will be too busy worrying about the length of their penises; I thought Hillary leaving Arkansas for NYC was bad enough, but this is ridiculous - Boeing and their ilk are pandering to the uninformed and/or ignorant and really playing that "Made in the USA" bullsh!t that I would at least would be a lot more apt to buy had Boeing not decided that all future Boeing aircraft will be constructed in nearly every continent on the globe. If Boeing really gave a sh¡t about the USAF getting the best product they would have offered the KC-787 but there are two plain and simple reasons why Boeing didn't do that: 1) it would have cost Boeing money to abandon the KC-767 and develop the KC-787 and 2) than Boeing couldn't go on this Patriotic War Cry about how the KC-30 is a big, bad, foreign made aircraft when the facts are that the KC-30 will be more "Made in the USA" than the 787!

Boeing tries to play the “we’re better because we’ve been here longer” sob story when the very same product they are trying to tell the USAF that is less risk and more ready to go is YEARS behind schedule to both Italy and Japan - Boeing and the KC-30 are even up on this one, at least the KC-30 to Australia is if anything more on target compared to the KC-767 to Italy and Japan.

So how much cargo can the KC-767 move when it’s also acting as an aerial tanker? The KC-767 doesn’t offer any more fuel than the KC-135 while the KC-30 will get you 245,000 pounds. The KC-30 can transport 226 passengers compared to the KC-767’s 190. Thirty-two 463L pallets compared to just nineteen (because the belly is too narrow – same thing that killed the 767 in the commercial sector.) How can the KC-767 be superior in any way? The only thing it’s got is that it’s a little less expensive (at least initially) but it can’t do a single thing better than the KC-30. Advantage KC-30.

Boeing could have offered the KC-787 and it’s more sophisticated flight control system but once again, that would have cost Boeing too much and instead they opted to go with 50 year old tech versus the KC-30’s fly by wire system: Advantage KC-30.

Avionics: even with the 764 flight deck it’s still not as advanced as the KC-30’s; there are nearly 700 of the modern A-330 flight decks operating around the world and only 38 of the 764's.

KC-30 uses reliable GE6-80E1 engines but once again, Boeing wanted to save some money and they took the bribe from P&W and said that unlike every KC-767 produced already, all future (read: USAF or nothing, no one else will buy this old tech aircraft and especially so if the USAF doesn’t select it Wink would be produced with the P&W engines. That’s bullsh¡t and an entirely separate contract that the buyer of the airframe should be selecting, especially if there are already more than one engine certified for the airframe – that just means the USAF pays a higher a price because not only would the GE CF6 give them more commonality with other similar engines in their service, but it would have given them the opportunity to negotiate a better price. Especially in this buy the GE CF6 is the better choice for the USAF regardless as to what aircraft it was going to power. Advantage: KC-30

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 66):
Being a "smartguy", and if I've read some of Boeing's comments correctly over these past few months, there are "improvements" made to the original designs RFP that are claimed to be "confidential". I don't think they are taking any chances, nor should they. They only recently confirmed that the Advanced Freighter design will not share the 764 wings. That information was not made public, until Scott Hamilton's Leeham Co. pressed the issue with some of Boeing's Tanker project's officials. Boeing's RFP is being kept very close to the vest.

That's nonsense and the only reason for it is because Boeing full well they have a technologically inferior product and that their only advantage is in price/quantity.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Zeke
Posted 2007-08-09 05:53:00 and read 6141 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 89):
Boeing had this pep rally of sorts at their 767 line recently and wow, the ignorant rhetoric coming out of their camp embarrasses me as a fan of Boeing.

interesting, considering this

Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
Ron Marcotte, manager of Boeing's tanker program said at the Paris air show :

"Boeing has consistently been named the favorite for the tanker contract by industry analysts, who point to the company's long history of supplying aircraft to the U.S. government and its powerful influence with Congress.

But Boeing's tanker program has hit a tough stretch in recent weeks. The company has acknowledged delays in delivering the KC-767 to customers in Italy and Japan, and it said Monday the hold-ups could extend into next year.

"We're obviously disappointed that we haven't been able to deliver when we said we would," Ron Marcotte, manager of Boeing's tanker program, said in an interview at the air show.

Marcotte said Boeing is working through the problems and should deliver the first two of four tankers to Japan by the end of the year. Italy's order for four planes, already two years late, will take at least another year to complete. "

from http://blog.al.com/live/2007/06/kc30_tanker_a_hit_at_paris_air.html



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 89):
That's nonsense and the only reason for it is because Boeing full well they have a technologically inferior product and that their only advantage is in price/quantity.

This maybe of some interest ....

As I posted above

Quoting Zeke (Reply 55):
Is it ? the RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters, where does the 767 win ?

1) Air refueling capability
2) Fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135
3) Compliant Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment
4) Airlift capability
5) Ability to take on fuel while airborne
6) Sufficient force protection measures
7) Ability to network into the information available in the battle space
8) Survivability measures (defensive systems, Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening, chemical/biological protection, etc.)
9) Provisioning for a multi-point refueling system to support Navy and allied aircraft

When on makes the comparison, taking away the red herrings, where does the 767 win ?



from http://blog.al.com/pr/documents/

Fleet Effectiveness Value is the primary metric the Air Force developed to measure the capability of each competitor. This metric is a combination of mission effectiveness and fleet availability. To determine mission effectiveness, the USAF specified a multi-conflict global scenario that compares the number of KC-135Rs, KC-30s, or KC-767s required to meet refueling demand. The scenario focuses on a broad range of refueling missions and reflects challenging assumptions concerning the parking capacity, runway length and bearing capacity at supporting airfields. USAF models were used in conjunction with the Tanker Analysis Tool and other supporting models to determine the number of full mission-capable aircraft required to meet refueling demands. To factor in fleet availability, the total fleet requirement was obtained by applying mission capability, depot, and training rates. Dividing the resulting number of KC-135s by the number of KC-30s or KC-767s required to do the same job yields the Fleet Effectiveness Value.

Aerial Refueling Mission Effectiveness is a key metric that reflects the inherent refueling capability of each full mission-capable platform. Dividing the number of full mission-capable KC-135s by the number of KC-30s or KC-767s yields this metric, which is also known as KC-135R equivalency. The RAND Corp. used KC-135R equivalency to estimate tanker performance in its Tanker Analysis of Alternatives.

These first two metrics demonstrate how KC-X aircraft performance factors interact to respond to the full range of tanker missions. Since different tanker missions stress different performance attributes, analyzing specific KC-X aircraft performance provides useful insights into aircraft operational value. Key performance attributes that affect refueling mission effectiveness include maximum fuel load, fuel offload at distance, takeoff performance, fuel efficiency, operational availability, and airfield availability. Cargo payload, pallet capacity, and passenger capacity provide insights into KC-X multi-mission flexibility.

The Maximum Fuel Load each aircraft can carry is a clear measure of refueling potential. This metric is most important when refueling large aircraft, such as bombers, ISR, and airlifters, which may require large amounts of fuel. It is also important when a tanker is used to support Forward Area Refueling Points (FARP), conduct deployments, refuel other tankers for force projection, or extend on-station time when serving as a "gas station in the sky."

Fuel Offload At Distance (which is a product of fuel load, takeoff performance, and fuel efficiency) is another key attribute of the KC-X. While it affects the full spectrum of refueling missions, it is most critical when large offloads are required, when tankers must fly great distances to the refueling points, or when tankers must provide coverage at a refueling point for a long period of time. The more fuel a tanker can potentially offload, the longer it can stay on station to meet refueling demand. Longer on-station times increase the efficiency of a tanker fleet and reduce the number of aircraft needed to meet boom demand over time.

The Takeoff Performance (Fuel Load from a 7,000-foot runway) metric is focused on operations from airfields with shorter runways. Refueling operations may be required in areas where longer runways do not exist or are not available for tanker use. Both KC-X candidates are more modern aircraft which feature composite materials for lighter weight, improved engines, and better aerodynamic efficiency. Both offer takeoff performance advantages over the KC-135R.

Aircraft Fuel Efficiency affects operating cost for all tanker missions, but is particularly important in scenarios where the available fuel at support bases is constrained. The Air Force's methodology to calculate tanker fuel efficiency divides fuel offloaded by the sum of fuel offloaded and fuel burned.

Operational Availability Rates incorporate mission capable and depot rates to determine how many total aircraft the Air Force must purchase in order to yield the required number for operations. The higher the availability rate, the better. Modern aircraft utilize advances in design and technology (higher reliability and maintainability, increased intervals between phase inspections) to generate higher operational availability rates than older aircraft like the KC-135.

Global Airfield Availability reflects how many airfields a tanker can operate from while carrying a useful load of fuel and provides insights into future basing flexibility. The axis on the chart compares the number of airfields in Air Mobility Command's airfield data base that each tanker can operate from carrying at least 200,000 pounds of fuel. The calculation uses military planning factors and incorporates runway length, strength, and elevation.

Payload, Pallet and Passenger Capacity rounds out the metrics on the chart. The entire Department of Defense will benefit greatly from the new tanker's airlift capability. Unlike the KC-135, the KC-30 and KC-767 can carry substantial tonnages and a much larger number of pallets and passengers (thus achieving the advantages seen with the KC-10). However, since the aircraft will be equipped with a self-defense suite, it will be able to conduct operations (i.e., direct delivery, aeromedical evacuation, etc.) in medium threat areas (such as Baghdad or Afghanistan). By delivering bulk cargo and passengers, the multi-mission KC-30 or KC-767 will be able to augment the C-17 and C-5 fleets, allowing them to focus on Out/Over Sized movements.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Thomas P. White is director and chief analyst for CAS, Inc., which provides management consulting and analytic services to government and industry.

White is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel with a BS from the Air Force Academy and three masters degrees (Systems Management, Operations Research, and Military Arts and Sciences). He flew C-130s and served as a senior mobility analyst. In his last government assignment, White was the lead airlift/tanker analyst for Program Analysis and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he provided advice on the Quadrennial Defense Review, C-17 procurement and C-5 modernization, the 2005 Tanker Requirements Study, and the KC-767 lease.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Sebolino
Posted 2007-08-09 11:01:09 and read 6097 times.

When will the choice be made ?
I have the feeling it's a neverending story.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-09 12:00:44 and read 6082 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 89):
This is an all out political slugfest at it's ugliest

Yes, at the end of the day, that is what it will come down to, protestations to the contrary. Point-by-point rebuttals, charts & graphs notwithstanding, the politics will decide this issue--just like the A400 or any other major defense procurement. Sorry, but that's the reality.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2007-08-09 15:22:58 and read 6029 times.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 58):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
Because the 70-80% of the airplane that is built in the EU will effect the way the US does it's international business. If the EU decides the US should not bomb, etc. what ever country, they will shut off the parts supply of that 70-80% of the KC-30 in an attempt to influence US interests.

Seriously, never heard such a non-sense. Both from a geostrategic, economic and plain political standpoint. Sorry, that I have to be that direct.

Then I guess you have never heard of France, and of course your own country, Germany. Both have done exactly that in the past (but not to the US), attempting to influence Isreal, and one other country that I forgot.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 64):
At least it shows that you lack a complete foreign politics knowledge, as what you said is a total non-sense.

See above. BTW, I am twice your age, and have traveled the world extensively. I understand the politics in countries, other than the US, more than you will ever know. Perhaps if you opened your eyes and ears, and listened to more than the politicians from France, the EU, and the UN, you would understand.

Now, I'm soprry I had to be so direct.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
What makes the KC-135 such a great tanker and airplane is it does it's priomary job better than any other airplane. The KC-135s are used to set up the "tanker air bridges", needed to quickly move fighters, bombers, cargo transports, recces, and support aircraft to the foreward areas. Then the KC-135 is used, in theater as the primary tanker to refuel the shooters, and support aircraft of the operation. If you used the KC-135 for duel missions (cargo and tanker), not as many would be available for either the air bridge, or the combat operations. Cargo is strickly a secondary role for the KC-135, meaning, it will carry cargo if, and only if, it is not needed as a tanker.

The KC-10 is a different tanker all together, and it is not as effecent in the tanker mission as the KC-135. The KC-10 moves whole fighter units, but even doing this, it must have KC-135 tanker support, or it will end up landing for fuel every 2,000-3,000nm or so (depending on cargo weight).

Your looking at it wrong - the benefit of the KC-30 is that it can carry in addition to the same fuel as the KC-767 but also "X" amount more of payload, we're not tallking about either or, but using one platform for two missions at the same time, that's all about planning and allocation as to who is where when. The fact of the matter is the USAF can no longer afford aircraft that just do ONE thing, we have seen this theory come to bear so many times in the recent history; the KC-30 is the better dual-purpose tanker on the market today. Now if Boeing would have offered the KC-777 based off the 777-200 airframe, they would have had a better product but they didn't, and I can only think that was because the USAF assured them that they had the deal per the RFP because Boeing could be selling ketchup popsicles in the summer time to the USAF in a white dress and they'd still go their way. Look at the 787, we're in a one-world global economy and the KC-30 regardless as to where it was designed is the better aircraft.

History has taught us, and the USAF, that single role aircraft are far superior in their primary role, than any multi-role aircraft can possibly be. One reason the USAF likes single role tankers is the fact the aircraft does not have to unload cargo at the destination. All it needs to do is reservice the airplane, put a new crew aboard, and the airplane is ready to go on another mission, up to 12 hours earlier than a duel-role tanker filled with cargo. Keeping a number of booms in the air is the main reason for the tanker,not carrying boxes. The USAF has C-5s, C-17s, and C-130s for that, along with CRAF aircraft.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 61):
There's a reason F- and A- series aircraft basically merged 20-30 years ago; missions and budgets.

No, it was the USN that merged the F & A missions, into the F/A-18. The USAF has pretty much gone for single role aircraft since the days of the F-4s. The F/FB/EF-111s, B-1s, B-2s, E-3s, E-4s, E-8s, C-17s, F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, A-10s, (future) F-35s, VC-25s, (future) AL-1 are all single role aircraft. Why? Because the USAF needs it's weapons systems to be the very best in the world at their primary roles. The KC-X program is designed to follow this established requirement. The USAF has cargo haulers, or can get them quickly through CRAF contracts.

For the USAF, the multi-role F-4C/D/Es are long gone.

Yes, both the F-15 and F-16 have models that are essentially bombers, The F-15E and F-16CJ. But even those aircraft do not have a primary fighter role. They carry AIM-7s and AIM-9s for self defense, but cannot carry the AIM-120 (clearly an offensive weapon).

The case of the F/A-18 for the USN was driven more by the available space on the CV/CVNs than anything else. That is why they wanted to turn the F-14As into F-14B/Ds (Bombcats). The F/A-18 is good in both the fighter and attack roles, but not nearly as good as their USAF counterparts. The A-10 is much better in ground attack and in the CAS (part of ground attack) than the F/A-18, as is the F-16 or F-15 are much better fighters than the Hornet/Super Bug.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2007-08-09 15:25:06 and read 6026 times.

The entire Department of Defense will benefit greatly from the new tanker's airlift capability. Unlike the KC-135, the KC-30 and KC-767 can carry substantial tonnages and a much larger number of pallets and passengers (thus achieving the advantages seen with the KC-10). However, since the aircraft will be equipped with a self-defense suite, it will be able to conduct operations (i.e., direct delivery, aeromedical evacuation, etc.) in medium threat areas (such as Baghdad or Afghanistan). By delivering bulk cargo and passengers, the multi-mission KC-30 or KC-767 will be able to augment the C-17 and C-5 fleets, allowing them to focus on Out/Over Sized movements.

Well put. I don't think this is as over as the B cheerleaders (and legislative cheerleaders) would have everyone think.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-09 15:25:37 and read 6026 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 92):
Yes, at the end of the day, that is what it will come down to, protestations to the contrary. Point-by-point rebuttals, charts & graphs notwithstanding, the politics will decide this issue--just like the A400 or any other major defense procurement. Sorry, but that's the reality.

Absolutely correct, not to mention the ramifications of being seen as "exporting" a project of this size and value, when, at best, the "inferiority" (Thank you AirRyan for pointing that out for us) of the KC-767 versus the KC-30 is debatable, at best.

The KC-30 is a good tanker for smaller air forces, that do not have the resources, nor global reach requirements that the USAF has. They want a tanker, pure and simple. The other requirements were "suggested" by nitwits like the esteemed Senator McCain.
This debate is fun for those of us on a.net. I doubt there is such a debate going on at the Pentagon's Procurement offices.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-09 15:46:42 and read 6014 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 95):
I doubt there is such a debate going on at the Pentagon's Procurement offices.

 checkmark  I can't see the Chief of the Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force sitting before a panel in Congress defending the rationale for selecting a foreign tanker when:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
History has taught us, and the USAF, that single role aircraft are far superior in their primary role, than any multi-role aircraft can possibly be.

They'd be daft to even try.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2007-08-09 15:54:47 and read 6013 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 94):
Unlike the KC-135, the KC-30 and KC-767 can carry substantial tonnages and a much larger number of pallets and passengers (thus achieving the advantages seen with the KC-10). However, since the aircraft will be equipped with a self-defense suite, it will be able to conduct operations (i.e., direct delivery, aeromedical evacuation, etc.) in medium threat areas (such as Baghdad or Afghanistan).

But, if the USAF wanted a duel-role tanker, wouldn't they place more emphisis on the cargo mission in the RFP?

Adding the self defense suite is a good thing, but having that will not move tankers any closer to hostial threat areas than they go now. Even during the Vietnam War, unarmed KC-135s were known to fly over Hanoi and Hiaphong Harbor to get fuel to someone who really needed it, or even tow a fighter out of harms way.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-08-09 18:10:21 and read 5986 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
Then I guess you have never heard of France, and of course your own country, Germany. Both have done exactly that in the past (but not to the US), attempting to influence Isreal, and one other country that I forgot.

Israel is not our most important strategic ally over 50 years in our NATO alliance, this is barely a comparison..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
See above. BTW, I am twice your age, and have traveled the world extensively. I understand the politics in countries, other than the US, more than you will ever know. Perhaps if you opened your eyes and ears, and listened to more than the politicians from France, the EU, and the UN, you would understand.

I believe we get by far more objective news overhere.. No offence to you or other american A.netters, but this vid really shows how well the average american is informed about the world..



concerning multi-role aircraft, the tendency in the US is also for more multi-role aircraft. The best example is the F-35, as it will replace A-10's, F16s, F/A-18's, F-111's, Harriers .. The F-16 is a truly multi-role aircraft, doing AtA and AtG not only for the smaller countries who only have one type of aircraft, but also for the USAF. F-15 was turned into a strike variant for convenience, so was the F-14. the A-6 was turned in to the EA-6B to have next to the attack function, also the electronic warfare function..

in 15 years the USAF will basically have 2 main aircraft to do fighting: F-22 , which is a truly single role air domination fighter, and the F-35, to do almost everything else (ofcourse the occasional B-2 and ofcourse the never-ending story of the B-52 will still be there)

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 94):
The entire Department of Defense will benefit greatly from the new tanker's airlift capability. Unlike the KC-135, the KC-30 and KC-767 can carry substantial tonnages and a much larger number of pallets and passengers (thus achieving the advantages seen with the KC-10). However, since the aircraft will be equipped with a self-defense suite, it will be able to conduct operations (i.e., direct delivery, aeromedical evacuation, etc.) in medium threat areas (such as Baghdad or Afghanistan). By delivering bulk cargo and passengers, the multi-mission KC-30 or KC-767 will be able to augment the C-17 and C-5 fleets, allowing them to focus on Out/Over Sized movements.

 checkmark  I reall think that this is the idea..

not even the USAF has enough air lifting capability to transport everything they want. That's why they charter commercial airliners, commercial airlifters, boats, container ships, you name it..

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 95):
The KC-30 is a good tanker for smaller air forces, that do not have the resources, nor global reach requirements that the USAF has.

it was shown over and over again in this thread that the KC-30 meets those requirements a lot better..

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-09 19:52:44 and read 5973 times.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 98):

it was shown over and over again in this thread that the KC-30 meets those requirements a lot better..

In your YOUR OPINION. Quoted from sources at Northrup Grumman. The same sources that internally, don't think they'll win this competition either. Gee, I wonder if your opinion is influenced by the fact that the airframe is of an European design? My guess, the guess of most of my former military colleagues here, most of us dumb Americans on A.Net and I strongly suspect, the Air Force Procurement office, differs with yours.

"Better" (A very subjective term) means something different to:

United States Air Force
United States Navy
United States Marine Corp
Royal Air Force
Royal Navy
Royal Australian Air Force

Add more here...

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Fairchild24
Posted 2007-08-09 20:17:49 and read 5965 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 96):
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 95):
I doubt there is such a debate going on at the Pentagon's Procurement offices.

I can't see the Chief of the Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force sitting before a panel in Congress defending the rationale for selecting a foreign tanker when:

Well perhaps we shall let the Marines to decide, they seems to have no problem with foreign Airplane like
the AV8.
The US Armed Force incl. the Coast Guard have had Foreign hardware before, like the Dassault 20, the Dolphin
Short C23 Shepra, Harrier.
So why not this time.

And in the same way The Europeans have had a lot of US Hardware build in respective Country like the F-104 , the Phantom and the F16.

So I think when it comes to the bottom line the buck will decided.

and as always when politicians plays around there is alot that happens in the background.

So perhaps one or two F-35 turns up in Europe in a Country unexpected.
As a counter deal.

Cheers

Göran

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-09 21:19:06 and read 5943 times.

Quoting Fairchild24 (Reply 100):
Well perhaps we shall let the Marines to decide,

As far as I know, the Marines aren't buying tankers, at least I have no knowledge of the USMC floating an RFP. Could you be referring to the marine force of another country?  Wink
Seriously, the Harrier deal was unique. Harrier offered a capability that the USMC greatly desired and there was really no viable competition, or U.S. domestic product. IMO, not really a valid comparison to the current tanker situation. And, as rancorous as our domestic politics were then, they are positively poisonous today!

Quoting Fairchild24 (Reply 100):
So why not this time.

I think if you go back and review the many posts on the many tanker threads, you will see that there is honest disagreement about which is the better aircraft for the USAF based on operational considerations and technical merit. However, like military procurements elsewhere, politics will be the deciding factor. Let me ask you this, would Sweden junk the Grippen to buy the F-22 or the F-35 or the Eurofighter or the Rafale? No, of course they wouldn't. Why would you ask us to sacrifice our military-industrial capability then?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Columba
Posted 2007-08-09 21:27:50 and read 5938 times.

I am really hoping that the Kc 30 will win for various reasons but also would like to see Germany ordering some C17s in return, doubtful that my wishes come true, though.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: ArniePie
Posted 2007-08-09 21:35:50 and read 5933 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 101):
Why would you ask us to sacrifice our military-industrial capability then?

Because that way we can make a quick profit!!!

Seriously now, the KC330 ain't going to happen for the USAF and the 767 will do the job just fine even if the 330 would be better in some cases.

The only way the 330 would happen would be if Germany+France would decide to buy a very substantial defense package from the US as compensation for the KC330.
Possibilities:
-500 JSF's for Germany+France
-100 C17
-one big supercarrier each with complete air-wing from the US
-....

All of the above just ain't going to happen and therefore the US-KC330 ain't happening either.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-09 21:43:49 and read 5925 times.

Quoting Columba (Reply 102):
I am really hoping that the Kc 30 will win for various reasons but also would like to see Germany ordering some C17s in return, doubtful that my wishes come true, though.

Exactly what I thought  checkmark .

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-09 21:47:12 and read 5921 times.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 103):
The only way the 330 would happen would be if Germany+France would decide to buy a very substantial defense package from the US as compensation for the KC330.

Well, I suggested earlier...only half in jest...that something might be / could have been worked out with a large C-17 package buy AND Airbus forsaking RLI, subsidies, government assistance forever. Of course, that will never happen!  Wink

We might have even bought an A400 or two. . . .

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2007-08-09 21:47:40 and read 5923 times.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 80):
why?

Here are two reasons why.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6898897.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6938856.stm

Please note that by "conscription orders" I did not mean orders to buy planes.



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 80):

I believe some operators aren;t even russian companies and they are commercial companies.

As indicated in the report, just two are held by a Libyan company who in turn leases one to a company in the UAR. The bulk is with Russian and Ukrainian entities.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 80):
If there is that much demand, Antonov is ready to re-open the production line

Quoting from the report.....

"'Conversion work on existing airframes is much cheaper than building such freighters from scratch,' he argues."

And as you yourself have said.....

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 77):
but I doubt it that air forces would buy them for themselves. I guess the operators will buy more and air forces will keep on chartering them..

So it's highly unlikely that Antonov could resume production based on a handful of orders from commercial operators (who in the first place would opt for the cheaper alternative.) Much less start a new program for the shortened version, as they couldn't even finish development of the An-70. And this has gone off-topic long enough.

[Edited 2007-08-09 22:05:08]

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Fairchild24
Posted 2007-08-09 22:03:31 and read 5912 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 101):
would Sweden junk the Grippen to buy the F-22 or the F-35 or the Eurofighter or the Rafale? No, of course they wouldn't. Why would you ask us to sacrifice our military-industrial capability then?



To be honest, Yes I think so in the future a small country like Sweden cannot afford to produce in my opinion a pretty stiff Fighter.
We should not produce the Gripen in the first place.
But when the Gripen was decided back in the end of the 80 the Russian Bear was still on our front porch
and we had this Neutral thing we bragged about.
It had been cheaper to buy F-18 as the Finns did.

But in the same time Sweden has always bought foreign stuff, everything from every one

And if you do as our European friend did when they produced the F-104 or the F-16, you will still have the know-how in the Country.
See it the other way around, as some of the posters saying if the assembly will be at Northrop/Grumman facility
that organisation will adapt and learn how to build big "commercial jets", and not leave that only to Boeing.
Perhaps we can get an internal US competition in future projects.
The reason for all this fuzz is that there is no real domestic contender except Boeing and if I recall right
they didn´t made a top performance last time the offered the KC-767.
If we had as in the old day 2 or 3 large Airplane manufacture in the US as we had before the MD merge into Boeing
and Lockheed still made Airliners.
you would never had seen a European design in this race for a new tanker.

Then if the design is is European who cares.
It probably will be called Northrop/Grumman KC-30 any way.

But as I said before it comes down to with General has the ear of the politicians.
If it is the Cargo General then perhaps KC-30 has a chance but if it´s the Tanker General who is the favorite for the day then the KC-30 has no chance.

Cheers

Göran

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: F27Friendship
Posted 2007-08-09 23:18:45 and read 5895 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 99):
In your YOUR OPINION. Quoted from sources at Northrup Grumman

not at all, simply comparing the aircraft specifications, which has been done over and over again in this thread.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 99):
Gee, I wonder if your opinion is influenced by the fact that the airframe is of an European design?

haha! Dutch aerospace industry was always far more aimed at the US from the beginning, starting with Fokker having factories in the US in the 1920;s, Fairchild producing friendships, Fokker producing F-104's and F-16's. Our industry did wind up in the European ball game, first with the Breguet Atlantic I and II (naval patrol aircraft), but despite the direct national economical interest, the naval air service got the lockheed P-3 orion anyway, because it was a far better plane!

Than we were there at the start of Airbus with the A300, wasn;t a good deal for us, because the other partners made us sell fuselage parts below the production-cost price, so Fokker was making losses continously, they backed out. We were in the MRCA programme in the start (which became Tornado), but went for the F-16 anyway. Than there was the merger with VFW, that became a disaster. In the early 80's, there was almost a merger between Fokker and McDonnel-Douglas. This bounced mainly on very poor soft-skills of Fokkers top management at the time. If this would have gone through, ties between US and Dutch industry would have been cast in gold. The Netherlands is a 2nd level partner in JSF and invested about a billion dollars in development. Over 70 Dutch companies are involved in it.

So... my country's aerospace industry had/has much stronger ties with American industry than with European industry, my country's airforce operates mainly american products and is actively involved in the biggest military programme ever (JSF), and you could say I'm a really big fan of it.

So, me favouring the KC-30, just because it's European is really silly.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 105):
buy AND Airbus forsaking RLI, subsidies, government assistance forever

right.. and you wouldn;t call those congressman and senators that were really nicely mentioned earlier in this discussion subsidies and government assistance? let's just not go there..

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 106):
So it's highly unlikely that Antonov could resume production based on a handful of orders from commercial operators (who in the first place would opt for the cheaper alternative.) Much less start a new program for the shortened version, as they couldn't even finish development of the An-70. And this has gone off-topic long enough.

I've heard directly from people inside Antonov they can start production of the An-124 and even the An-225 if there is demand for it. As long as there are old frames refitted, and that would make up for additional demand, that is ofcourse not considered as enough demand to restart the production line. Also mind that Antonov is basically a Ukranian company and not directly influenced by the Russian military or president

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-10 01:43:21 and read 5870 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
History has taught us, and the USAF, that single role aircraft are far superior in their primary role, than any multi-role aircraft can possibly be. One reason the USAF likes single role tankers is the fact the aircraft does not have to unload cargo at the destination. All it needs to do is reservice the airplane, put a new crew aboard, and the airplane is ready to go on another mission, up to 12 hours earlier than a duel-role tanker filled with cargo. Keeping a number of booms in the air is the main reason for the tanker,not carrying boxes. The USAF has C-5s, C-17s, and C-130s for that, along with CRAF aircraft.

But what worked 50, 20, or even 10 years ago does not mean that that is what will work in the next 10, 20, or 50 years.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
Yes, both the F-15 and F-16 have models that are essentially bombers, The F-15E and F-16CJ. But even those aircraft do not have a primary fighter role. They carry AIM-7s and AIM-9s for self defense, but cannot carry the AIM-120 (clearly an offensive weapon).

Huh, they can't carry AMRAAM's?  Confused

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
The F/A-18 is good in both the fighter and attack roles, but not nearly as good as their USAF counterparts.

The Hornet is very arguably a better strike aircraft than the F-16 but not near as good an aerial dogfighter as the Viper.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 95):
Absolutely correct, not to mention the ramifications of being seen as "exporting" a project of this size and value, when, at best, the "inferiority" (Thank you AirRyan for pointing that out for us) of the KC-767 versus the KC-30 is debatable, at best.

Hugs and kisses!  butthead 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
But, if the USAF wanted a duel-role tanker, wouldn't they place more emphisis on the cargo mission in the RFP?

They did...

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 96):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
History has taught us, and the USAF, that single role aircraft are far superior in their primary role, than any multi-role aircraft can possibly be.

They'd be daft to even try.

They can justify it via two ways: 1) they can simply argue the merits of the KC-30 and it soon becomes obvious who's the better airlift-tanker, and 2) they can simply cite Boeing's own 787 as no more US built than the KC-30, so Boeing's argument is flawed and invalid.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2007-08-10 03:03:22 and read 5850 times.

KC135TopBoom I'd like to state that I appreciate both your service and opinion here. Certainly we might disagree as to the inadequacy of airlift the US Air Force can provide today, but I respect and admire your service and views.

I've reviewed the dialog over the past year and really think both (a) the specification emphasizes the tanker-only role, and (b) the dual-role functional advantage of the A330 vs. the 767 is negated by the emphasis as to dual role on any given mission vs. an ability in a contingency situation to serve in the alternative as a freighter. This is probably an oversimplification on my part, but none the less, it is real in the RFP rationale.

When would you support more airlift vs. more booms?

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2007-08-10 04:06:42 and read 5837 times.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 110):
When would you support more airlift vs. more booms?

Whether deploying or sustaining the force, you can always rent cargo aircraft -- if that were the issue. Where does one rent flying gas stations? I'd opt for more booms in the sky.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Columba
Posted 2007-08-10 06:47:24 and read 5818 times.

Quoting Fairchild24 (Reply 107):
See it the other way around, as some of the posters saying if the assembly will be at Northrop/Grumman facility
that organisation will adapt and learn how to build big "commercial jets", and not leave that only to Boeing.
Perhaps we can get an internal US competition in future projects.
The reason for all this fuzz is that there is no real domestic contender except Boeing and if I recall right
they didn�t made a top performance last time the offered the KC-767.
If we had as in the old day 2 or 3 large Airplane manufacture in the US as we had before the MD merge into Boeing
and Lockheed still made Airliners.

My sentiments exactly.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Tancrede
Posted 2007-08-10 06:51:52 and read 5818 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
See above. BTW, I am twice your age, and have traveled the world extensively. I understand the politics in countries, other than the US, more than you will ever know. Perhaps if you opened your eyes and ears, and listened to more than the politicians from France, the EU, and the UN, you would understand.

BTW, the "I am twice your age" so I know better is so cliché that I begin almost to love it. But seriously, if you are admitting that this kind of problem could eventually raise between the US and Europe, it means then that the US could also rely on such trick against the Europeans.
Please update me on this matter.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 98):
Israel is not our most important strategic ally over 50 years in our NATO alliance, this is barely a comparison..

 checkmark 

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2007-08-10 08:56:03 and read 5802 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 89):
Boeing had this pep rally of sorts at their 767 line recently and wow, the ignorant rhetoric coming out of their camp embarasses me as a fan of Boeing.

ah, judging by your every post, you are as much of a fan of Boeing as I am of being burned at the stake.

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: PADSpot
Posted 2007-08-10 09:24:56 and read 5797 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):

Then I guess you have never heard of France, and of course your own country, Germany. Both have done exactly that in the past (but not to the US), attempting to influence Isreal, and one other country that I forgot.

??? Germany is second most important external contributor to Israeli defense expenditures. We do this, because the Federal Republic of Germany feels some sort of national guilt towards Israel because of the Holocaust. We even accepted that they upgraded submarines that we donated so that they are now capable to deliver nuclear weapons. It is absolutely inconceivable due to reason of state, that Germany would ever try to blackmail Israel in that regard if it endangers their national security. This is the main reason we do that at all. To secure their national well-being.

I recommend that you immediately stop talking about things that you apparently have not the foggiest notion of! This is becoming embarrassing, really.

[Edited 2007-08-10 09:28:34]

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2007-08-10 15:14:09 and read 5743 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 109):
Hugs and kisses!

Back at ya Buddy!  duck   liar 

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-10 19:58:14 and read 5680 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 114):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 89):
Boeing had this pep rally of sorts at their 767 line recently and wow, the ignorant rhetoric coming out of their camp embarasses me as a fan of Boeing.

ah, judging by your every post, you are as much of a fan of Boeing as I am of being burned at the stake.

Blind arrogance does not a fan make, but that is generally the US American way given their relationship in sports between fans and cheerleaders - rah, rah, rah, My team is the best and is going to "Beat the Hell Outta" you as what is my college's slogan of preference.

Perhpaps part of the reason I am quick to be critical of Boeing is because I actually care about the direction and image of the company?

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 116):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 109):
Hugs and kisses!

Back at ya Buddy!

All in good jest, of course!

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Zeke
Posted 2007-08-21 03:52:24 and read 5279 times.

from http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/...070615_mtad_mrtt-first_flight.html

Successful first flight of EADS� A330 MRTT Multi Role Tanker Transport

Madrid, 15 June 2007

Today, the first aircraft of the new generation A330 MRTT successfully performed its first flight at the conversion centre of EADS CASA in Getafe near Madrid.

The aircraft performed a 180 minutes flight going through a planned se-ries of tests. This new MRTT is now ready to fly to the Le Bourget Airshow in Paris where it will be presented for the first time to the public and the international press.

Miguel Morell Fuentes, Head of the A330 MRTT program at EADS CASA commented: �This is a significant milestone and provides confidence that we are progressing to schedule for delivery of the first new tankers in 2009. EADS CASA is heading in the right direction to become a key player in the world�s market for multi role tanker transports. The A330 MRTT is the most modern and state-of-the-art air-to-air refuelling aircraft which is available today.�

This aircraft is the first A330 MRTT to be delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force as part of the contract signed on December 20, 2004, between EADS CASA and the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Royal Australian Air Force A330 MRTT is outfitted with a state-of-the-art centerline ARBS (Air Refueling Boom System) with fly-by-wire controls, plus two under-wing hose and drogue pods. In addition, the aircraft will carry an electronic warfare suite that protects against surface-to-air missile threats, along with a Link 16 network system that provides real-time air-borne connectivity.

EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2006, EADS generated revenues of � 39.4 billion and employed a workforce of about 116,000. The Group includes the aircraft manufacturer Airbus, the world's largest helicopter supplier Eurocopter and EADS Astrium, the European leader in space programmes from Ariane to Galileo. EADS is the major partner in the Eurofighter consortium, develops the A400M military transport aircraft, and holds a stake in the joint venture MBDA, the international leader in missile systems.

http://www.eads.com/web/pressdbdata/en/1024/content/OF00000040950509/3/70/41665703.jpg
http://www.eads.com/web/pressdbdata/en/1024/content/OF00000040950509/1/70/41665701.jpg
http://www.eads.com/web/pressdbdata/en/1024/content/OF00000040950509/5/70/41665705.jpg
http://www.eads.com/web/pressdbdata/en/1024/content/OF00000040950509/7/70/41665707.jpg

video http://balancer.streamfarm.net/tv1/c...m/sequence_1_schaefer_750K.wmv.asx

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2007-08-21 05:17:06 and read 5249 times.

Looks like a highly competent and technologically advanced aerial tanker to me. The 764 pit is not bad by any means but the A330 flight deck is really a more advanced and user friendly pit.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © EDDL Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lucien Schranz




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Craig Murray

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2007-08-22 14:23:40 and read 5010 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
If the EU decides the US should not bomb, etc. what ever country, they will shut off the parts supply of that 70-80% of the KC-30 in an attempt to influence US interests. The US Government cannot be held hostage to any other countries opinions on what actions we need to be involved in.

Given the huge amount of equipment purchased from the USA by European armed forces, compared to the relatively tiny amounts of equipment purchased by the US government from overseas, I find this an extraordinary statement.

If the USA really wanted to screw up just about ANY European/NATO country, they'd find it extraordinarily simple.
Yet other European/NATO countries don't seem to exhibit this type of paranoia.
(JSF??????)
(Thinking on though, maybe this is why Tony Blair jumped into Iraq the way he did.........  Wow!)

Don't you think that risk mitigation strategies can be put in place to guard against such an eventuality?

Regards

Topic: RE: Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X)
Username: Playloud
Posted 2007-08-23 09:06:43 and read 4849 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
Yes, both the F-15 and F-16 have models that are essentially bombers, The F-15E and F-16CJ. But even those aircraft do not have a primary fighter role. They carry AIM-7s and AIM-9s for self defense, but cannot carry the AIM-120 (clearly an offensive weapon).

The F-15E cannot carry the AIM-120? Are you sure about that?


According to the USAF site...

Quoting http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102:

Armament: One 20mm multibarrel gun mounted internally with 500 rounds of ammunition. Four AIM-7F/M Sparrow missiles and four AIM-9L/M Sidewinder missiles, or eight AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. Any air-to-surface weapon in the Air Force inventory (nuclear and conventional)


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/