Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15657 times:
Airbus hopes to sell 50 more A330-based tanker transports outside the USA. Current orders of the A330 MRTT stand at 5 for Australia, 6 for Saudi Arabia, 3 for the United Arab Emirates and 14 for the UK.
Prospects are South Korea, Singapore, India, Middle East / North African nations, Brazil, France and the UAE for a follow-on order.
Airbus does not expect stiff competition from the KC-767. "We are going to get all the market, we don't have competition today, to be honest."
Military certification of the A330 MRTT is targeted for April following up to 120 test flights, of which 57 have been completed.
For KC-X, the USAF's requirements will dictate whether the the passenger or freighter version of the A330-200 will be offered as baseline. "It could be passenger aircraft, freighters or [a combi version]," says Morell
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22948 posts, RR: 78 Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15644 times:
I thought India already decided on the A330 MRTT over the IL-78?
And with a total sales market of 50, it's clear why Airbus needs the USAF contract to help generate the proper RoI. The 100 sales I suggest under an initial dual-buy would triple the total order book for the model which should help the RoI. And building another 50 A330 MRTTs in Alabama would allow that line to push out 15 planes a year for a decade which would be a nice utilization rate, I would think.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7303 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 15624 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Airbus hopes to sell 50 more A330-based tanker transports outside the USA. Current orders of the A330 MRTT stand at 5 for Australia, 6 for Saudi Arabia, 3 for the United Arab Emirates and 14 for the UK.
And they have 4 uncompleted frames they can use towards that production run.
Apparently the US government will be paying a large portion of the costs of those frames, so they should be hugely profitable.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 15620 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 2): Apparently the US government will be paying a large portion of the costs of those frames, so they should be hugely profitable.
I seems the MRTT would be certificated and several delivered long before the USAF would get a first one..
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15395 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): I thought India already decided on the A330 MRTT over the IL-78?
Yes, they did, IIRC, India will be ordering 3-4 A-330MRTTs
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): I seems the MRTT would be certificated and several delivered long before the USAF would get a first one..
I would hope so. If the KC-X programs goes as scheduled today, and no one protests the decision next October, the USAF is not scheduled to get the first SDD until Ovtober 2013, and all four of them by October 2014. That is if the SDD schedule remains the same as the last RFP.
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Military certification of the A330 MRTT is targeted for April following up to 120 test flights, of which 57 have been completed.
The RAAF KC-30B has been in flight testing for almost 3 years now. I would have expected it to have flown more than 57 times. Is there a problem?
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Airbus does not expect stiff competition from the KC-767. "We are going to get all the market, we don't have competition today, to be honest."
Perhaps they should not count the chicks before the eggs hatch?
The KC-767AT is a very good design, and don't forget, the KC-777F is also hanging out there.
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Prospects are South Korea, Singapore, India, Middle East / North African nations, Brazil, France and the UAE for a follow-on order.
Well, let's look at your list a little more closely. Brazil is going with its home grown KC-390, so I don't see any A-330MRTT there.
South Korea is not actively looking for tankers, but if they do, they could get second hand KC-135A/Es from the USAF and reengine them. Another good prospect is used B-767s converted by IAI, or even new build KC-767s. They just don't need as much airlift capability as the A-330 offers.
Singpore doesn't need new tankers, they have 3 KC-135Rs they got just 10 years ago.
India already selected the A-330MRTT.
I don't see any need for North African nations to get into the power projection business.
Middle East nations? Perhaps the best possibilities would be Iran, who would go with the IL-78. They just lost their IL-78 AWACS earlier this week, and need to replace it, so buying tankers based on the IL-78 airframe makes sense. Iraq, who would look at both the KC-767 and A-330MRTT. Every other big player already has tankers on order, or has them now.
France will select the A-330MRTT, and may even get them free as a pay-off for the much delayed A-400M. Perhaps the UK should make the same demand.
You forgot Israel. They will need something soon to replace their KC-707s My guess is that since IAI is developing a B-767 to KC-767 conversion, for Poland, I look for the IDAF to also go with converted KCB-767s. but perhaps based on the B-767-300ER/ERF airframe.
Don't forget, there are several A-340-500s out there that are also avalible to convert to tankers, too.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10392 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15303 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): The KC-767AT is a very good design, and don't forget, the KC-777F is also hanging out there
The KC-777 is nothing more than a nice CGI in a Boeing presentation. It's even less "out there" than the KC-767AT.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): My guess is that since IAI is developing a B-767 to KC-767 conversion, for Poland
Which is nothing more than a proposal for which the Polish Government withdrew the budget. I don't think there's much development going on without any customers.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15259 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The KC-767AT is a very good design, and don't forget, the KC-777F is also hanging out there
The KC-777 is nothing more than a nice CGI in a Boeing presentation. It's even less "out there" than the KC-767AT.
Kind of like the A-330F/MRTT?
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
My guess is that since IAI is developing a B-767 to KC-767 conversion, for Poland
Which is nothing more than a proposal for which the Polish Government withdrew the budget. I don't think there's much development going on without any customers.
My guess is here that IAI began looking into this for some reason other than two conversions for Poland. My guess is the IDFAF is secretly lookin for a new tanker, and asked IAI if they could provide the modification work on used B-767s.
The Polish tanker request was strange, to say the least. They wanted two tankers, and selected a contractor to do the conversion work, then decided they didn't have the money in the budget.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2797 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 15130 times:
Then why hasn't the KC30B transfered exactly 0lbs of fuel on its boom, some 1/2 year past its contracted EIS date?
The boom is not supposed to be operational in the RAAF until the end of 2010, the aircraft was supposed to be initially only cleared for hose operations, i.e. replacing the previous 707 tanker capability.
One aircraft is not enough to train all the crews on various type for AAR, it is logical that the hose refueling is done first as the F/A-18s have the major requirement for that capability.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14994 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The KC-767AT is a very good design, and don't forget, the KC-777F is also hanging out there
The KC-777 is nothing more than a nice CGI in a Boeing presentation. It's even less "out there" than the KC-767AT.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Kind of like the A-330F/MRTT?
The A330F is scheduled for first flight in November
Who said anything about the A-330F? BTW, the B-777F is already in airline service.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7): As you know, the A330MRTT is currently completing flight testing.
Not according to Keesje, he said in the thread start post;
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Military certification of the A330 MRTT is targeted for April following up to 120 test flights, of which 57 have been completed.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Military certification of the A330 MRTT is targeted for April following up to 120 test flights, of which 57 have been completed.
The RAAF KC-30B has been in flight testing for almost 3 years now. I would have expected it to have flown more than 57 times. Is there a problem?
Neither is the B-777F. But, since Boeing says they might offer the KC-777F, and NG/EADS might offer the A-330F/MRTT, i think both are just paper projects right now.
The boom is not supposed to be operational in the RAAF until the end of 2010, the aircraft was supposed to be initially only cleared for hose operations, i.e. replacing the previous 707 tanker capability.
One aircraft is not enough to train all the crews on various type for AAR, it is logical that the hose refueling is done first as the F/A-18s have the major requirement for that capability.
The RAAF KC-30B was slipped for "political" reasons, mostly to avoid embarrassing EADS (possibly for the 2008 USAF tanker comp?). The Boom isn't suppose to work until next year because it hasn't worked all along and is in need of additional parts. The delay in "not needing the boom until next year" is BS. the RAAF just paid a lot of money to the USAF for tanker support to move their F-111Gs and C-17s to and from their recent Red Flag exercise. They have four C-17s the USAF is refueling for them, along with refueling training for the F/RF-111C/G crews in Oz. The RAAF tanker crews have completed training on the KC-135 at Altus AFB, OK. The RAAF Boom Operators are still there to maintane profenicy, I don't know about the RAAF pilots.
It seems that EADS has found a cooperative government.
The part about the "delay is also related to bringing the KC-30 to the Paris Air Show" is also BS. That show was in June 2007, and at most delayed the delivery by about one month.
Even your reference is a little vague on the boom requirement for the KC-30B. It says:
" The new aircraft, to be known as the KC-30A, will be capable of refuelling F/A-18, F-111, Airborne Early Warning and Control, C-17 and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, as well as having a significant strategic airlift capability. The Tanker will also refuel other KC-30B Tankers." The F-111s, AWACS, C-17s and KC-30s all require Boom Refueling. The RAAF has not yet said if they want the USAF Boom Refueling, or USN Probe and Drogue refueling for their JSF F-35s, yet. My gut is that since they selected the USAF F-35A version, they will us Boom Refueling for it, or pay for the R&D for the Probe and Drogue capability.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 14978 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10): But, since Boeing says they might offer the KC-777F, and NG/EADS might offer the A-330F/MRTT, i think both are just paper projects right now.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 14956 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
But, since Boeing says they might offer the KC-777F, and NG/EADS might offer the A-330F/MRTT, i think both are just paper projects right now.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 14943 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 13): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Who said anything about the A-330F?
You did in reply 6!
I didn't say A-330F, I said A-330F/MRTT, which is something NG mentioned recently as a possibly offering from them and EADS.
Here is the whole conversation
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The KC-767AT is a very good design, and don't forget, the KC-777F is also hanging out there
The KC-777 is nothing more than a nice CGI in a Boeing presentation. It's even less "out there" than the KC-767AT.
Kind of like the A-330F/MRTT?
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 13): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Not according to Keesje, he said in the thread start post;
You're just playing semantics. If something is in the process of completing, it means it hasn't yet completed. Standard English usage.
I agree with you on that. I was just pointing out Keesje said otherwise, and he is just about the biggest Airbus cheerleader here, as I hope I am as big a Boeing cheerleader.
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14928 times:
I'm not a cheerleader for either company. I'm a big fan of Chinook (though not for CSAR duties), of the Little Bird, of the Growler, of the C-17 for top-end transport, of the E-3, and of the Super Hornet over Rafale.
As a pure passenger airliner, I believe that the 777 is a better bet for most carriers than the A330.
The 747 dominated in its day, for good reason.
If 787 works out, I expect it to be a game-changing aeroplane, and I'm by no means sure that the A350 is the right response.
I judge aircraft on their merits and fitness for purpose, and not on country of origin or manufacturer.
But in the case of the tanker, the A330MRTT is demonstrably superior. It's largely down to luck. Airbus happened to have two aircraft in their product range that make ideal tankers (A310 and A330), able to lift large fuel loads and to carry significant amounts of cargo, yet capable of operating from a shorter 'balanced field' than the narrower body (a drawback for this role) 767 or the huge 777.
Had Boeing been given the go ahead to design a new tanker from the ground up, with the brief of bettering the A330MRTT, I am entirely confident that Seattle could have done it. They might even manage to do that if they were able to put an entirely new wing, undercarriage, thrust reversers, slats and flaps on the existing 767, though that cross section isn't as well suited. But on its own, that's not too big a deal.
But once they were directed to use a minimum change version of either the 767 or the 777, Boeing were on to a hiding to nothing. They are unlucky. They just don't have as suitable a starting point.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10392 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14922 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14): I didn't say A-330F, I said A-330F/MRTT, which is something NG mentioned recently as a possibly offering from them and EADS.
OK I now see what you meant, but no such designation exists. The way you wrote it made it look as though you were talking about two separate aircraft.
Quote: The Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team has eliminated the pure freighter version of the Airbus A330-200 airliner as a competitor for the US Air Force KC-X contract.
Unless the newly released DRFP moves the goalposts a lot (and I don't think it does), the KC-30 will be based on the A330-200.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2797 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14922 times:
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 15): But once they were directed to use a minimum change version of either the 767 or the 777, Boeing were on to a hiding to nothing. They are unlucky. They just don't have as suitable a starting point.
Jack, we have been over this. The KC30 requires a footprint nearly the size of the 777 to haul less fuel than a KC10. The KC767AT is a FAR better KC135 replacement due to a wide range of factors... Including the fact that the KC30 as proposed FAILED to meet 2 of the requirements set out by the USAF. They failed to prove it could refuel all required USAF inventory, and they INTENTIONALY failed a requirement to bring MX capiblity into the USAF within 2 years. The USAF and NG both failed to provide any evidence to refute Boeing's claims despite months of time allowed to.
More important to me, they were demanding the USAF change a critical safety directive to allow it to refuel certain aircraft. Put it simply, your "BEST" choice required a change to the KC30 being allowed to DIVE to pull away from a overrun situation. Doing the basic math here in a serious overrun situation this would create the doctrine for the tanker pilot to intentionaly put his aircraft into the flightpath of the fighter that clearly isn't in control.
I'm sorry if you can't see that a selection that went down this badly returns exactly no proof of better for the winning party. Even worse is the failures brought out into the public domain are very damaging to the programs image IMO.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14910 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 16): Unless the newly released DRFP moves the goalposts a lot (and I don't think it does), the KC-30 will be based on the A330-200.
The last line of the article linked in the opening post says:
For KC-X, the USAF's requirements will dictate whether the Northrop/EADS bid will be baselined on the passenger or freighter version of the A330-200. "It could be passenger aircraft, freighters or [a combi version]," says Morell.
I think the last line makes clear they keep all options open. E.g. just the A330F's nose landing gear might be a welcome improvement. Then their is of course the door and maybe some other items. Previously it was mentioned that the A330F has a strenghtened floor and cargo loading system not required for the KC-X, adding OEW.
I really wonder why none of new new available engines are offered. It improves capabilities, is cleaner, quieter and ensures longer term parts availability.. GE proposed it yrs ago for the A330 and Boeing mentioned it too a few months ago : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...sidering-genx-for-kc-x-tanker.html
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 14786 times:
It was mentioned again within the last few months, too Then again, if the KC-30A wins again, as the KC-45A, the A-330F/MRTT could be offered later in the contract as a KC-45B.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): I think the last line makes clear they keep all options open. E.g. just the A330F's nose landing gear might be a welcome improvement. Then their is of course the door and maybe some other items. Previously it was mentioned that the A330F has a strenghtened floor and cargo loading system not required for the KC-X, adding OEW.
I agree, keep all options open. An A-330F offered as a tanker would give them more cargo weight capability than an A-330MRTT would. You may recall, the B-767-200LRF (KC-767AT) did carry the same cargo weight as the A-330MRTT, but about 16 fewer pallets.
I suspect that Boeing and NG/EADS is looking closely at this. Boeing may have the upper hand, as the B-747-8F engines and stuts are an easy bolt onto the B-767-200LRF wing. Airbus would need to do some engineering work, but it is not beyond their capability. In both cases, I suspect they are looking closely at the additional costs of adding the GEnx-2B engines over the currently offered CF-6-80 or PW-4062A engines.
Since the USAF has stated the final adjusted cost factor will make the decision, I suspect both OEMs will not adjust their bid prices or configuerations by to much.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6562 posts, RR: 72 Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 14781 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17): The KC30 requires a footprint nearly the size of the 777 to haul less fuel than a KC10.
The footprint is a non-issue in the new SRD, the bare base operations use a 100,000 square foot area. Time to get some new material, the new RFP is out see 2009 KC-X Tanker Modernization Program (by Zeke Sep 25 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17): Including the fact that the KC30 as proposed FAILED to meet 2 of the requirements set out by the USAF.
Incorrect, the GAO said they failed to find enough documentation.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17): Including the fact that the KC30 as proposed FAILED to meet 2 of the requirements set out by the USAF. They failed to prove it could refuel all required USAF inventory, and they INTENTIONALY failed a requirement to bring MX capiblity into the USAF within 2 years.
Incorrect, the USAF did not specify the exact procedure to be used. They have changed that now. The method of compliance that NG used in the last RFP has now been explicitly included in the new RFP.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17): More important to me, they were demanding the USAF change a critical safety directive to allow it to refuel certain aircraft. Put it simply, your "BEST" choice required a change to the KC30 being allowed to DIVE to pull away from a overrun situation.
Incorrect, the USAF did not specify the exact procedure to be used, that have changed that now.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I agree, keep all options open. An A-330F offered as a tanker would give them more cargo weight capability than an A-330MRTT would. You may recall, the B-767-200LRF (KC-767AT) did carry the same cargo weight as the A-330MRTT, but about 16 fewer pallets.
Looking at the SRD, they have not specified an amount of cargo that should be carried except for a self deploy situation ( 50 252 kg). What seems to be more rstrictive is the passenger configuration, minimum is 148 pax (inc crew), at 250 lb per person, each with 280 lb of baggage.
So I do not see any value going to the higher floor loading for Boeing or NG.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22948 posts, RR: 78 Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 14778 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): I really wonder why none of new new available engines are offered.
A combination of risk and time-to-market issues, I expect.
Time to market issues? The USAF wants the first plane in five years. That might be too tight for GE to develop GEnx model for the A330 MRTT platform. There is also the risk that a GEnx for the A330 MRTT might encounter issues that delays it.
GE has stated that they will perform significant upgrades to the CF6-80 for the entire A330 family if they win the KC-X engine contract (via the KC-30A winning the airframe contract) because they will have enough of an RoI to make it worth the effort - plus it should help them become more competitive with the Trent 700 on commercial birds which will help generate additional sales.
As for Pratt, they don't have a next-generation engine to offer with the 767. They might perform some upgrades to the PW4062, but the likelihood of selling engines on new-build commercial 767s is very low.
Then again, if Boeing is not bidding the KC-767AT, will they even use Pratt? The KC-767A and KC-767J both had GE CF6-80C2 so is GE going to power the Boeing model, as well?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 14770 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 20): Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
Including the fact that the KC30 as proposed FAILED to meet 2 of the requirements set out by the USAF.
Incorrect, the GAO said they failed to find enough documentation.
Both NG and the USAF had months to submit the documents the GAO wanted, and neither submitted them. The GAO did a lot of looking at the 2 year maintenance requirement, that NG/EADS refused to accomplish, except for the four SDD airplanes. The GAO also had doubts about the KC-30's ability to refuel the CV-22 and a few other fixed wing aircraft. The USAF never disputed those doubts. There were other questions the GAO had that neither NG/EADS nor the USAF answered clearly, like the breakaway manuver requirement and the KC-30 refueling receptical strenght questions.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 21): As for Pratt, they don't have a next-generation engine to offer with the 767. They might perform some upgrades to the PW4062, but the likelihood of selling engines on new-build commercial 767s is very low.
Then again, if Boeing is not bidding the KC-767AT, will they even use Pratt? The KC-767A and KC-767J both had GE CF6-80C2 so is GE going to power the Boeing model, as well?
At this point, no one knows which engines Boeing will offer, except for the GE-90-115B for the B-777-200LRF. Since the DOD made P&W the exclusive engine vendor for the F-35 series JSF program, they may feel it is GE's turn for the engine. Then again, the GE CF-6-80C2 engines on the KC-767A/J have about 60,200 lbs of thrust and the PW-4062A offered on the KC-767AT had about 63,500 lbs of thrust. Then again the KC-767AT is also 20K lbs heavier for the MTOW than the KC-767A/J.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, RR: 84 Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 14735 times:
In 1936, with a potential war now looking more likely, the British Air Ministry specified a monoplane 4 engined heavy bomber, a real departure from the types in service or otherwise in development.
A vital project for the RAF, with their still bomber biased doctrine.
But buried within this spec, was a requirement that the new aircraft be able to fit in existing hangars .
Right, so a new larger aircraft, had to fit in facilities designed for much smaller types.
How to do this? The winners, Shorts Aircraft, restricted the wingspan of their proposal, which came to be known as the Stirling .
So the first of the RAF's 4 engined 'heavies' with literally clipped wings suffered from a rather lower service ceiling than was required for long range bombing over heavily defended German targets.
The losses, even by Bomber Command's standards, were appalling.
Unlike the slightly later Lancaster and Halifax bombers, the Stirling was withdrawn from front line operations way before the end of the war, by 1944 the survivors relegated to roles like target towing.
This is why it is a largely forgotten aircraft.
Here endeth the lesson, the lesson on the folly of bending your design to such, by comparing of cost, technology and effort, trivia as airfield facilities.
So this line that 767 proponents come out with about the A330 based aircraft's 'footprint' should be seen in that light.
What are the priorities here? Surely the performance, in range, payload, fuel offload are the primary ones.
Frankly, the 'footprint' objection, however really applicable in real life, smacks of desperation.
I have this image of the vast fields built for SAC in the era of the domination of the bomber, the B-36, B-47, B-52, (complete with Hollywood shooting a movie with James Stewart), supported from the late 50's by all those KC-135's.
Yet other AF's with nothing like that kind of real estate have chosen the A330 Mrtt.
If you take that logic to it's ultimate conclusion, you'd better not design an aircraft that could not fit into the Wright Brothers bicycle workshop!
Having been privy in recent times to potential plans for new hangar at LHR, which we thought we'd need for our upcoming A380's, I was surprised both at how relatively cheap new hangars are, but also with how what was initially deemed impossible, adapting the existing infrastructure for A380's, has turned out to be perfectly possible and is in fact what we are going to do.
Since the A330 Mrtt has become a real programme, offered to AF's, how many evaluations from AF's seeking new tankers has the 767 based ones won against the A330?
None. The Italian and Japanese ones were selected before the A330 Mrtt came to market.
So hubristic as it's sounds, EADS might well be right.
Potential other customers?
Even with the potential French AF buy of Brazilian aircraft as part of the Rafale deal, it is likely that A330 will also be procured eventually, maybe fewer than might have been before, but the sheer capacity and range of the A330 Mrtt will be needed given that France maintains forces worldwide.
They will be in time getting around to replacing their KC-135's.
Given the amount of 'out of area' deployments that smaller NATO AF's are doing, I would not be surprised if a similar arrangement as those C-17's in the 'Partnership For Peace' occurs with A330 Mrtt's, given that these smaller nations cannot really justify buying dedicated jet tankers just for themselves.
Ironically, if there is one thing that does prevent other NATO nations buying dedicated tankers, it could be the use of, when they finally reach service, A400M's in the tanker role.
But I doubt if EADS will be too concerned about that!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14699 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 23): So this line that 767 proponents come out with about the A330 based aircraft's 'footprint' should be seen in that light.
What are the priorities here? Surely the performance, in range, payload, fuel offload are the primary ones.
Frankly, the 'footprint' objection, however really applicable in real life, smacks of desperation.
I have this image of the vast fields built for SAC in the era of the domination of the bomber, the B-36, B-47, B-52, (complete with Hollywood shooting a movie with James Stewart), supported from the late 50's by all those KC-135's.
Yet other AF's with nothing like that kind of real estate have chosen the A330 Mrtt.
None of those other Air Forces are buying up to 179 new tankers, either. The biggest single A-330MRTT order is for the 14 aircraft to the RAF, everyone else has ordered 5 or less.
The "footprint" does make a difference when you deploy 25 tankers to one overseas airport. The 25 A-330MRTTs will take up 50% more ramp spsce required by 25 KC-767ATs. Don't forget, tankers will not be to only USAF airplane type using that airport, C-5s, C-17s, C-130s, AWACS, J-STARS, and maybe fighters could RON or transit that same airport.
25 GDB: I did think of the issue of where the aircraft would be deployed to, the USAF has in the large number of operational major deployments of the past 20
26 Scbriml: To match the capability of 25 KC-30s, you'd need a lot more KC-767s. Anyway, it's a totally moot point since, I believe, ramp space is not considered
27 474218: What is "military certification"? I have never heard of a military aircraft having to be certified? Normally military are are flight tested by the OE
28 Zeke: Incorrect. The GAO never had never information, it only had information supplied to the USAF during the original RFP (as that is all it is allowed to
29 KC135TopBoom: No, the KC-135 has been heaverily involved in just about every deployment, unless it only involved one KC-10, and even then, it usually had to refuel
30 EPA001: Just a small update on www.flyglobal.com on the progress of testing the A330-MRTT for the Australian Airforce: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...
31 KC135TopBoom: I couldn't get the links to work. Do you have another one?
33 Par13del: And that small little thing if the A330 or the 777 is selected will result in tax payors spending millions to upgrade facilities around the world. A
34 Scbriml: While ramp space is effectively not considered (by virtue of the large area the USAF say the plane must fit in), I believe MILCON costs of the 11 nom
35 Par13del: They are, thats the reason why I said remove / adjust. If a A330 or 777 is selected, we really believe that only the 11 bases listed will be used? It
36 KC135TopBoom: The 11 bases is where the infaststructures dollars will be spent. These will be the home bases for the KC-X, but it will fly in and out of other base
37 Zeke: The military does issue a military type certificate, that military type certificate is issued when the aircraft has met the military certification re
38 KC135TopBoom: There are slighly over 12,000 aircraft in the "west" that are receivers for refueling, of those about half, or 6000 of them have a receptical.
39 Par13del: Do you mean the US Military or the rest of the world? Based on your numbers, what percentage of that 6,000 is a/c assigned to the US military, I woul
40 KiwiRob: Is that really true, I read this on Wikipedia (not the best but disputes what you said). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_bomber "The aircraft s
41 KC135TopBoom: Well, the trend is for most heavies around the world to go to Boom refueling, because it is much faster. For the USN, the E-6B alreaqdy has a recepti
42 Scbriml: Does the RFP actually say they are, or is that your assumption?
43 KC135TopBoom: That is the current 11 planned bases.
44 Zeke: That is not what I said. I said the bigger need is for hoses. Even for the US military. What KC135TB does not want to state is that during the past f
45 Par13del: As it relates to this RFP, is the need for more hoses a US Air Force military requirement for their a/c or is it for their role as the "world's polic
46 KC135TopBoom: Wrong, it is close to 50/50. More and more countries are going with Boom refueling as opposed to probe and drogue refueling because of the effeiencie
47 Zeke: They do refuel coalition aircraft. Likewise coalition and civil tankers have been refueling US aircraft as they did not have enough hoses. But the ma
48 KC135TopBoom: The USAF will not drogue refuel 3 receivers at one time. The most it will refuel is 2 at one time, as it does now on the KC-135 and KC-10. At a max t
49 KiwiRob: The way you wrote the original sentace inferred that a KC135 could refuel any aircraft regardless of system.
50 Jackonicko: More nonsense, KC? “At a max transfer rate of 400 GPM, the WARPS will not off-load more fuel or at a faster rate than the 1200 GPM Boom.” Depends
51 Par13del: Typhoon is a 5th gen fighter, the F-15 and F-16 are 4th gen or lower, I think the point that was being made was whether the exitsing fleet could soldi
52 Zeke: Yes it does. A KC-135 with a boom attached hose can only refuel hose equipped aircraft, and only one at a time. You will not get 6000 lb/min out of a
53 KC135TopBoom: The time to cycle will be about the same for both drogue and Boom refueling 1. No they get better fighters. 2. France and the UK have sold the IDF ai
54 Zeke: I was. Will have to take you word for that. I thought the RAF and French E-3s were only cleared for boom refilling off USAF KC-135/KC-10s. I would be
55 Cargotanker: Some info from what I've witnessed: MPRS (multi point refueling system, that's -135 talk for WARPS) offload rates to drogue recievers using two hoses
57 KC135TopBoom: I agree. While any pilot can win any engagement at any time, the odds are much better for the better pilots. A very good pilot in a F-4E can get a ki
58 KC135TopBoom: The RAF E-3D; http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/awacs/gallery/ukawacs1.html http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/awacs/gallery/ukawacs2.html T
59 KC135TopBoom: This is the first I have seen of "significant costs overruns on the A-330MRTT". Does anyone have any information on this? "The financial drain across
60 Keesje: If you are looking for wild accusation's on anything Airbus / EADS you'll never be disappointed at GLG. You'll notice the hit rate is almost 100%. ht
61 KC135TopBoom: Your guessing and just grabbing at straws, Keesje. For all you know, I could be the GLG Expert. So, I guess GLG has hit it right on the head, the A-3
62 EPA001: Maybe you should ask Boeing where the B767 based tankers are much and much more delayed.
63 Keesje: Come on KC135TB, check your sources first..Doug-McVitie is the a glgroup "Council-Member" and you can recognize his extreme anti anything Airbus whin
64 Scbriml: Indeed, hell hath no fury like an ex-employee armed with uncorroborated "facts". What knife-edge exactly?
65 Zeke: If they do it is against USAF published procedures. Having a probe does not automatically permit that type or AAR procedure, as I stated earlier, it
66 Astuteman: Well there you go. Straw well and truly clutched. Again. I'll echo the . It appears to me to be a damned sight less "knife-edged" than the 787 "glory
67 KC135TopBoom: The difference appears to be that the two current versions of the KC-767 actually do work. We cannot say that for the two current versions of the A-3
68 Evomutant: At least you have finally admitted it. That you are cheering for Boeing. And that is presumably the reason for your visceral hate of all things Airbu
69 Revelation: I think it's because the Aussie government is making it clear they want their delay payments from Boeing, whereas I don't think there is any such del
70 KC135TopBoom: I have never denied that I am pro-Boeing. Airbus is fine at building less than superior aircraft, if that is the kind of airplane you want. Nope, the
71 KiwiRob: You can't compare them, they are existing tried and tested products built on a current production line.
72 KC135TopBoom: Isn't the A-330 a tried and tested product, too?
73 Zeke: You have not provided any means to verify that information. Your comments to date on the various tanker and receiver performance/capabilities has bee
74 EPA001: Less then superior must mean that the Boeing products are all at least sub-standard as in the long history no Boeing product has ever come close to t
75 Scbriml: A pedant would be tempted to point out the true parentage of those two products!
76 Zeke: Not sure about the C-17, however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy. Boeing has no direct contract with the RAAF for t
77 KC135TopBoom: As usual you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to military aircraft and how they are used. Again you are wrong. The ITAF KC-767A
78 EPA001: Yes, exactly those sorry excuses for airplanes from Boeing is what I am talking about. (Which is rubbish of course but I am sorry to say that sometim
79 Zeke: Excuse me, why do you have to be so rude, do you think it helps to establish your lack of credibility ? I have provided links etc to support my comme
80 Zeke: Actually, I am wrong with this, April should be Q2.
81 KC135TopBoom: While I fully admit I am a staunch Boeing supporter, that by no means indicates I do not have a healthy respect for airplanes built/modified by other
82 Zeke: Does that mean it is not happening ? e.g. night refueling from the RAAF KC-30 The cargo handling system already had an STC for Japan, the differance
83 Overcast: Here the link to the nighttime refuelling. http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/184525.asp
84 EPA001: Though I might not totally agree with you, your reaction is fair enough imho. But that is also something very different from categorizing Airbus as a
85 KC135TopBoom: No reversal, we were both right and we were both wrong. Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no
86 Zeke: Oh really.... "Australia is not actually buying from Boeing. It is buying this warplane from the US Navy, so Australia is getting the US Navy's prici
87 Keesje: TopBoom, EADS says the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pound
88 Zeke: An update today on the Italian KC-767 problem http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4366294
89 KC135TopBoom: because the RAAF is not buying the airplanes from the USN, it is buying them from the FMS Office. The FMS Office is in the DOD, but is not part of th
90 Zeke: May I ask you you know better than the Boeing Hornet VP which I quoted word for word ? May I suggest you provide evidence of your claims. Like I have
91 KC135TopBoom: Okay, the RAAF F/A-18F sale is a DOD FMS sale action, not a USN sale. http://www.ciponline.org/facts/fms.htm http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2
92 Scbriml: Of course it "looks wrong". It's a 2-D photo of a 3-D computer screen image. http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/...b/20091022_eads_arbs_a330mrtt.htm
93 Zeke: The DoD does not do the negotiations of sale themselves, they are done by an "implementing agency", in this case it was the US Navy. The first link y
94 SpeedyGonzales: Are there any good descriptions or pictures of the boom operator console around? Neiter the EADS nor the Airbus websites had any details.
95 XaraB: You seem to know really detailed what the USAF will and will not do in the future... Granted, as an ex-employee you probably still have some contacts
96 Zeke: This is the Remote Air Refueling Operator station on the A310, similar but not the same as the RAAF one.
97 KC135TopBoom: I know it is a 2-D picture of a 3-D system. I said that here; There are plenty of pictures on the web showing the KC-767 in contact with various rece
98 XaraB: Incorrect. Businesses only run by profit goals are often bad-run. Just as important is the allocation of resources (be it troops, vehicles, equipment
99 Zeke: NVG images are generally green, night vision systems use cameras that pickup the normal visible spectrum as well as frequencies which humans cannot s
100 Par13del: The "wee bit" comment is interesting. This contract for a new tanker is on it's way to being the largest single military contract ever given out by t
101 XaraB: The comment was aimed at the operations of the aircraft, not the size of the order. I'll elaborate: Whether the USAF orders Airbus or Boeing, they'll
102 Par13del: In hind sight that is probably what they should have done, somehow someone convinced them that purchasing an off the shelf product would be cheaper.
103 Scbriml: So you accept all this from Boeing without ever questioning it, but are not prepared to apply the same standards to EADS? It's not his statement, it'
104 KC135TopBoom: You have no idea what you are talking about. Military forces are not for profit or non-profit. Efficiencies and effectiveness have different meanings
105 XaraB: You're emphasizing the wrong part of the argument. My point is, no matter what kind, an organization has to deal with allocation of resources, and st
106 Cargotanker: Xara, just a few pointers from someone who has no clue what the simplex algorithm is. It is cheaper and more efficient for the USAF to park its plane
107 Scbriml: Successful testing of the A330MRTT continues: http://www.deagel.com/library/A330-m...fuelling-pods_m02009060100002.aspx Hmm, I wonder what else could
108 KC135TopBoom: You are more than welcome to your opinions. You do have impressive credentials. But, I must point out that reality is not close to what is taught in
109 keesje: I think the MRTT situation changed as a result of NG/EADS pulling out of the competition. - The KC767 will be in production for a longer time then for
110 Stitch: I'm sure the A330MRTT will win the vast majority of any new RFPs. The USAF is unique in it's size, breadth of equipment and scope of deployment. They
111 KC135TopBoom: I would not jump the gun on the KC-X tanker program just yet, Keesje. Looking at what Bush said when he announced NG would not bid, it seems to me to
112 rheinwaldner: Why? Because the USAF has no efficient box cargo planes. They could buy a tanker however that turns the table. Like everybody else the USAF uses more
113 PolymerPlane: Because one tanker used for hauling cargo is one tanker short in the battle field. USAF does have box cargo planes, KC-10 and KC-135. It could actual
114 keesje: The promoted idea that it is cheaper to have hundreds of dedicated tankers sitting on the platform & buying or hiring cargo capasity else where do
115 XT6Wagon: sigh. So you want our tankers out hauling cheerios to nowhere when suddenly a fighter package near its base needs tankering? TANKERS ARE NOT CARGO PL
117 474218: I thought the RAF tanker program used A330-200's, not A330 MRTT? Back when the USAF had seperate commands, SAC, TAC, MATS, etc. we used KC-135's as t
119 11Bravo: Actually it's called the "Too Expensive" school. The NG/EADS product is too expensive. I suspect if it were possible to produce new-build KC-135s, th
120 PolymerPlane: That proves nothing. It only shows that KC-135 has lower capacity. It does not show causation as you boldly stated as fact : It's like saying that th
121 XT6Wagon: yes, I know. Its used, but people are not wanting to use them for self-deploy or other limited actions, they think the tanker fleet should be subject
122 XaraB: I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Rheinwaldner: The defenders of the separated tanker/cargo plane argument (a new favourite of the 767 cheerleaders
123 KC135TopBoom: Yes, but the USAF also has a number of dedicated mission only aircraft, which is one reason why it is the world's best and most successful and effice
124 XaraB: I'm not advocating any particular solution. I'm advocating a different approach to the entire tanker issue. I'm sure I explained that pretty elaborat
125 Stitch: How people are defining "sub-optimal" appears to be based solely on whether or not they support the KC-30A or the KC-767. When the KC-30A won the las
126 XT6Wagon: I think the last one was reasonably fair in how it was written (milcon my main beef with it), its the fact that the selection commitee didn't apparen
127 KC135TopBoom: The primary mision will always be air refueling, which the KC-X will do some 95% of the time (either in training or operationally), the secondary mis
128 keesje: No it was the USAF who thought so. It's why the KC45A won the previous selection, before politics took over, started flag waving and customized the s
129 Revelation: No, it wouldn't hurt, but why would you pay extra for it? As above, NG can still submit A330MRTT but they won't because they know it costs more and t
130 XaraB: Inaccurate analogy. The USAF cannot receive a tanker without getting a significant cargo carrying capacity as well ( you can't just "remove" the carg
131 Revelation: Yes, but the cost of having some tiedowns on the deck would be negligible compared to the cost of the carrier, which go for $8B or so when all is sai
132 XaraB: I'll gladly admit that I don't However, I used "inefficiency" based on the following definitions. The opposite of waste is resources, and what is not
133 KC135TopBoom: Wrong, as usual. You are again trying to rewrite history. The KC-30 (the USAF has forbidden NG from using the MDS KC-45A) did not "win" the last sele
134 XaraB: Only if mission ready Empty weight + Max fuel is equal to or above MTOW, which it won't be for any of these. The additional fuel usage for the extra
135 KC135TopBoom: Well, first you need to understand that military forces (anyone's) use a much different definition of efficiency. They are not in business to make mo
136 rheinwaldner: For the additional benefit! There is no free benefit, also not from Boeing.
137 KC135TopBoom: The RAF flys some 6 C-17s, with at least 2 more on order, some 24 C-130Js and C-130J-30s, plus several C-130Ks (although they do want to retire those
138 scbriml: Don't quite see why a "non choice" by the USAF (assuming Boeing can actually meet all the KC-X RFP requirements), would influence other air forces ar
139 KC135TopBoom: I doubt Boeing would propose the KC-767NG unless they were sure it will meet all 372 requirements. Of course the final evaluation is still up to the
140 scbriml: I'm glad to see you're man enough to admit you were premature in claiming a loss for EADS. India selected the A330MRTT, but never placed an order bec
141 KC135TopBoom: Thanks. Do you think the MoF will also deny the IAF request for 10 C-17s, too? I believe the C-17s have not been ordered, yet, either.
142 ThePointblank: I am going to call you on this, as the KC-767 has NEVER refuelled a V-22, just like the KC-30. The only aircraft that have is the KC-10 and the KC-13
143 rheinwaldner: That's not all! The KC-767 boom has NEVER had any contact with any aircraft at all! (the RFP demands a new boom that was not yet attached to a 767, I
144 XaraB: Correct. As of March 4th, Boeing has announced it is officially proposing the NewGen tanker (KC-767NG), which, among other improvements, includes an
145 KC135TopBoom: No, the KC-130 and KC-30 WARPs are different, but the WARPs on the KC-30 and KC-767 are the same. The WARPs on both the KC-767 and KC-30 can refuel a
146 scbriml: We all know what a stickler you are for demanding proof that the exact boom has passed fuel on the exact plane, so I'm shocked how easily you seem to
147 keesje: Yes, we can say nothing on the A400M or KC30 because zero have delivered and none proven in combat. This takes some mental flexibility.. I think the
148 KC135TopBoom: No, it doesn't have the advanced systems, but it does have earlier systems that work just fine, and it is a 1200 gpm Boom.
149 ThePointblank: Wrong, the WARPs on the KC-30 are Cobham/Sargent Fletcher-built 900E Mark 32B. The KC-767 uses the Smith Aerospace (now GE Aviation) WARPs. While the
150 KC135TopBoom: The the current MC/HC/KC-130s of the USAF and USMC use the CSF 700 series WARPS, the same WARPs as the KC-135 and KC-10. The 900 seies has been qualif
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22948 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10392 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6562 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
