Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (2 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 16103 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, 23596 posts, RR: 79 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 16090 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, 8051 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 16070 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 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 16066 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, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15841 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, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15750 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.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15705 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, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15576 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, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15440 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 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15424 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, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 15402 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, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 15389 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 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15374 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, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15368 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.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15368 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 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15356 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, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 15232 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, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 15227 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, 23596 posts, RR: 79 Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 15224 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, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15216 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, 12356 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 15181 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, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15145 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12356 posts, RR: 83 Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 15142 times:
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 years or so, managed as far as I can see, not so much in the case of KC-135's, but KC-10's and other pure transport large types.
I'm not saying it's a total non issue, but rather in the greater scheme of things how should it really measure up?
Naval architects have a saying, steel is cheap and air is free .
Well is it not the case that concrete is cheap and the so is the labour, be they locals or service personnel.
Also, since Boeing might be offering a KC-777, how does this whole argument stack up in that case?
(And they won't be about to revive the early considerations early in the civil 777 development, for folding wings).
If the USAF ever does get 179 new tankers, which in reality is far from certain, the new aircraft, as a KC-135 replacement, will not be near to a one to one replacement.
Therefore, you perhaps want the more capable aircraft from choosing between two.
Also, the USAF tactical air combat fleet is going, in the years ahead, to shrink substantially, the F-35A's will not and never were, even if the planned procurement stays as it is, going to replace the types it is slated to one for one.
The F-22 is dead in the water procurement wise.
So the new tanker/transports will probably have more emphasis on the 'transport' side of the mission than the KC-135's ever did.
One reason given back when the KC-10's were brought, was that they could also, while tanking in support of a tactical combat aircraft deployment, carry a lot of support both material and personnel associated with this mission.
Here the A330 based solution will have an edge, which could often negate the larger footprint issue, fewer aircraft needed to do the same job.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 15490 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): 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.
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 in the RFP.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 11 Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 15502 times:
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.
What is "military certification"? I have never heard of a military aircraft having to be certified?
Normally military are are flight tested by the OEM first, the a joint OEM/military test force and finally the military. After flight all testing is complete and the aircraft has proven it can meet the military requirements it is then declared "operational".
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15476 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
Both NG and the USAF had months to submit the documents the GAO wanted, and neither submitted them.
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 do). The GAO recommended in its findings that the USAF get that extra information by re-opening dialog, but that got canned by a political process.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15412 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 25): 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 years or so, managed as far as I can see, not so much in the case of KC-135's, but KC-10's and other pure transport large types.
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 the KC-10 at least once.
Quoting GDB (Reply 25): If the USAF ever does get 179 new tankers, which in reality is far from certain, the new aircraft, as a KC-135 replacement, will not be near to a one to one replacement.
Actually, they do, if they buy the entire 179 new tankers. They are replacing all 157 KC-135Es and some 24 attriction losses (crashed, destroyed, or burned KC-135s).
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 26): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
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.
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 in the RFP.
As I have said many times, it is not the amount of fuel you have available in your tankers, it is the number of booms you have available.
Both NG and the USAF had months to submit the documents the GAO wanted, and neither submitted them.
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 do). The GAO recommended in its findings that the USAF get that extra information by re-opening dialog, but that got canned by a political process.
The GAO never got all the "propritoary" information from NG that had been submitted during the compitition. You are correct on your second point.
Out of the article: "The aircraft is the type's first non-Getafe conversion. The work was done by Qantas Aviation Services, which will also convert the remaining three aircraft destined for the RAAF, which will receive the first aircraft by mid-2010."
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14175 times:
Out of the article: "The aircraft is the type's first non-Getafe conversion. The work was done by Qantas Aviation Services, which will also convert the remaining three aircraft destined for the RAAF, which will receive the first aircraft by mid-2010."
I couldn't get the links to work. Do you have another one?
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, RR: 7 Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14148 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 26): Anyway, it's a totally moot point since, I believe, ramp space is not considered in the RFP.
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.
Quoting GDB (Reply 23): 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.
A historical question would be did the manufacturer meet the government specs and did they government get and accomplish the goal that they desired? Long term benefit can be questioned, but we live in the now and plan for the future, can't blame the a/c for the customers lack of vision. On an off note, the Sherman tank with its gas engine, weak armour and 75mm low velocity gun was inferior to many of the German designs, but it did have its uses.
Quoting GDB (Reply 25): Also, since Boeing might be offering a KC-777, how does this whole argument stack up in that case?
(And they won't be about to revive the early considerations early in the civil 777 development, for folding wings).
Now that the Air Forces has decided to remove / adjust the funding cost for base improvements, Boeing and Airbus could even offer the 747 and A340, the sky is now the limit, but you cannot blame Boeing or its supporters for listing the size issue from the initial RFP as it did play into the cost of the a/c.
At the end of the day, the US Airforce has screwed itself by going out requesting bids for an off the shelf a/c, other than the A320 and B737, neither OEM has similar capacity a/c at least within small percentage points of each other. To better the 767 Airbus made the A330 larger, to better the A330 Boeing made the 787 larger, to better the 747 Airbus made the A380 larger, to better the 787 Airbus made the A350 larger. Subjective analysis will always be a key in this project and the bill payors will have their say which at the end of the day, will have absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of the a/c or its mission.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13910 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 33): 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.
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 nominated bases are factored in to the adjusted costs of each offer.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, RR: 7 Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13862 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 34): 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 nominated bases are factored in to the adjusted costs of each offer.
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?
Quoting Par13del (Reply 33): Now that the Air Forces has decided to remove / adjust the funding cost for base improvements,
It can not be argued that the larger size a/c will cost more in infrastructure cost, that's a given, the benefit is supposed to be adding additional capability - cargo - to the tanker a/c. Take the EADS boom for example, other than the US, is anyone else thinking of switching from hose to boom, has the boom been designed strictly for the US market, if so, it means the market is given some consideration. Consider also that among the nations that have selected the A330 version, none have the native cargo capacity that the US Airforce has, from C-130, C-17, C5 plus some smaller a/c, should those market capabilities not be considered. Regardless of which a/c is selected, the ability to carry more cargo will either not be used or for political reasons to justify the purchase, the Air Force will be mandated to park a few C-17, C-130's etc.
All in all, this is another screwed up military purchase, the warfighters and their needs are secondary to the share holders and other financial participants.
My opinion only
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13679 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 34): 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 nominated bases are factored in to the adjusted costs of each offer.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 35): 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?
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 bases, too.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 35): Take the EADS boom for example, other than the US, is anyone else thinking of switching from hose to boom, has the boom been designed strictly for the US market, if so, it means the market is given some consideration. Consider also that among the nations that have selected the A330 version, none have the native cargo capacity that the US Airforce has, from C-130, C-17, C5 plus some smaller a/c, should those market capabilities not be considered. Regardless of which a/c is selected, the ability to carry more cargo will either not be used or for political reasons to justify the purchase, the Air Force will be mandated to park a few C-17, C-130's etc.
The RAAF was the first to order the A-330MRTT with a Boom, other nations have a need for Boom refueling, too. The USAF will not park cargo aircraft to use the KC-X in the cargo role.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 37, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13668 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 27):
What is "military certification"? I have never heard of a military aircraft having to be certified?
The military does issue a military type certificate, that military type certificate is issued when the aircraft has met the military certification requirements. Operational status is another step again, it follows the military certification, means the training has been complete for the aircraft to do its role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29): As I have said many times, it is not the amount of fuel you have available in your tankers, it is the number of booms you have available.
Just how many aircraft need booms ..... not many, more need hoses.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The GAO never got all the "propritoary" information from NG that had been submitted during the compitition.
Says who ? the GAO got everything the USAF had, plus it got to interview other people.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 13571 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 37): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
As I have said many times, it is not the amount of fuel you have available in your tankers, it is the number of booms you have available.
Just how many aircraft need booms ..... not many, more need hoses.
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.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, RR: 7 Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13542 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 37): Just how many aircraft need booms ..... not many, more need hoses.
Do you mean the US Military or the rest of the world?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38): 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.
Based on your numbers, what percentage of that 6,000 is a/c assigned to the US military, I would assume the majority, since only the Navy and Marines use the hose and they do not make up the bulk of the US air assets. So in terms of a US military buy of a tanker, their requirement would be boom over hose, and since the initial order of 179 is probably more than the rest of the world combined who would purchase the Airbus product - minus Russian and China - for the US market the boom is key.
Certainley the US Air Force could dump all their boom capable fighters for Eurofighters and Rafales which use hose, for this purchase the customer is already being "shaped" to move more cago by their tanker, what's an additional adjustment?
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 3611 posts, RR: 2 Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13523 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 23): 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
Is that really true, I read this on Wikipedia (not the best but disputes what you said).
"The aircraft should also be able to be used as a troop transport for 24 soldiers.[2] The idea was that it would fly troops to far corners of the British Empire and then support them with bombing. To help with this task as well as ease production, it needed to be able to be broken down into parts for transport by train. Since it could be operating from limited "back country" airfields, it needed to lift off from a 500 ft (150 m) runway and able to clear 50 ft (15 m) trees at the end, a specification most small aircraft would have a problem with today. It is often said that the wingspan was limited to 100 ft (30 m) so the aircraft would fit into existing hangars,.[3][4] but the maximum hangar opening was 112 ft, and specification required outdoor servicing. The wingspan limit was imposed in an (unsuccessful) attempt to ensure the Stirling's weight was kept down."
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13367 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 39): I would assume the majority, since only the Navy and Marines use the hose and they do not make up the bulk of the US air assets. So in terms of a US military buy of a tanker, their requirement would be boom over hose, and since the initial order of 179 is probably more than the rest of the world combined who would purchase the Airbus product - minus Russian and China - for the US market the boom is key.
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 receptical, and the P-8A will have one. The international cuctomers for aircraft like the E-3 and C-17 have kept the recepitical, the RAAF Wedgetail has a recepitical, as do all the USAF versions of fighters sold overseas under FMS.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 39): Certainley the US Air Force could dump all their boom capable fighters for Eurofighters and Rafales which use hose, for this purchase the customer is already being "shaped" to move more cago by their tanker, what's an additional adjustment?
First, why would the USAF want to dump their A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s for aircraft that are inferior to what the USAF needs?
Second, even EADS has recongnised the need for Boom refueling.
The DRFP for the KC-X requires a Boom and three drogues on the new tanker. The cargo moving for the KC-X, and any USAF tanker will always be a secondary role.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13218 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 42): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
These will be the home bases for the KC-X, but it will fly in and out of other bases, too.
Does the RFP actually say they are, or is that your assumption?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 44, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13160 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38): 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.
That is not what I said. I said the bigger need is for hoses.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 39): Do you mean the US Military or the rest of the world?
Even for the US military. What KC135TB does not want to state is that during the past few conflicts, there have been hose only aircraft that were not able to get fuel, and large number of KC-135s booms fitted with a hose attachment. The "boom" capable tankers were made hose only. And the USAF also saw the need to add wing pods to the KC-135.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): Well, the trend is for most heavies around the world to go to Boom refueling, because it is much faster.
The trend for the new heavies is to have the range not to need refueling for a lot of operational missions.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): First, why would the USAF want to dump their A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s for aircraft that are inferior to what the USAF needs?
F-15/F-16/F/A-18s have been "shot down" by Eurofighter and Rafale aircraft, the F-22 is better than them, but it comes at a huge cost.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): Second, even EADS has recongnised the need for Boom refueling.
For their customers.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 42): Does the RFP actually say they are, or is that your assumption?
It is his assumption. The USAF actually published on their website a list of the future KC-X tanker bases. They pulled the it down, however I did post a link to it a year or two ago. KC-X tankers will go to both the USAF and ANG.
The bases looked at in the RFP are listed to get a consistent baseline for comparison. They may not end up basing any KC-X tankers at those bases, they maybe KC-Y bases.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, RR: 7 Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13058 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 44): Even for the US military. What KC135TB does not want to state is that during the past few conflicts, there have been hose only aircraft that were not able to get fuel, and large number of KC-135s booms fitted with a hose attachment. The "boom" capable tankers were made hose only. And the USAF also saw the need to add wing pods to the KC-135.
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 policeman" where they are refuelling a/c for other countries?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 44): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Second, even EADS has recongnised the need for Boom refueling.
For their customers.
The reason for my initial question, the bulk of US Air Force a/c are boom capable.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 37): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
As I have said many times, it is not the amount of fuel you have available in your tankers, it is the number of booms you have available.
Just how many aircraft need booms ..... not many, more need hoses.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 46, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13062 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 44): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
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.
That is not what I said. I said the bigger need is for hoses.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 39):
Do you mean the US Military or the rest of the world?
Even for the US military. What KC135TB does not want to state is that during the past few conflicts, there have been hose only aircraft that were not able to get fuel, and large number of KC-135s booms fitted with a hose attachment. The "boom" capable tankers were made hose only. And the USAF also saw the need to add wing pods to the KC-135.
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 effeiencies. Australia, Singapore, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Japan, Italy, Sauda Arabia, UAE, France, and others all have tankers with Booms now. Of the countries who have ordered the A-330MRTT, only the UK has ordered it without a Boom.
As far as combat operations go, no receiver has ever been turned away because his refueling system was incompatabable. There have been receivers that went to the wrong tanker, but tanker and package planners have enough drogues and Booms, and gas, airborne to service everyone.
Combat operations is not "ad hoc" scheduling. Zeke, you normally don't spread outright lies, but this one here crossed the line, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 44): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Well, the trend is for most heavies around the world to go to Boom refueling, because it is much faster.
The trend for the new heavies is to have the range not to need refueling for a lot of operational missions.
Which ones? The only new "heavy" designed in the last 50 years without a receptical is the A-400M, and it has a probe for drogue refueling.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 44): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
First, why would the USAF want to dump their A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s for aircraft that are inferior to what the USAF needs?
F-15/F-16/F/A-18s have been "shot down" by Eurofighter and Rafale aircraft, the F-22 is better than them, but it comes at a huge cost.
As have the F-15s and F-16s shot down the Europeans in mock dogfights.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 44): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Second, even EADS has recongnised the need for Boom refueling.
For their customers.
Which want Booms on their tankers.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 45): Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
Even for the US military. What KC135TB does not want to state is that during the past few conflicts, there have been hose only aircraft that were not able to get fuel, and large number of KC-135s booms fitted with a hose attachment. The "boom" capable tankers were made hose only. And the USAF also saw the need to add wing pods to the KC-135.
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 policeman" where they are refuelling a/c for other countries?
The primary refueling "customers" of the new tanker will be USAF, USN, and USMC receivers, both Boom and probe and drogue. Allied refueling is also accomplished, but to a loesser degree.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 47, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13046 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 45):
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 policeman" where they are refuelling a/c for other countries?
They do refuel coalition aircraft. Likewise coalition and civil tankers have been refueling US aircraft as they did not have enough hoses. But the main need is for supporting USMC/Navy aircraft which have limited fuel payload when operating off a carrier.
Coalition boom equipped tankers also refuel USAF boom only aircraft. Cobham has a drop tank that can be added to such aircraft to give them hose capability.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46): More and more countries are going with Boom refueling as opposed to probe and drogue refueling because of the effeiencies.
It is less efficient to refuel one smaller aircraft at a time when you can do 3 via hose, the receiver rates for smaller aircraft are not the same as a C-5.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46): Australia, Singapore, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Japan, Italy, Sauda Arabia, UAE, France, and others all have tankers with Booms now.
That is news to everyone.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46): Of the countries who have ordered the A-330MRTT, only the UK has ordered it without a Boom.
B-2, C-17, P-8, Wedgetail all "have the range not to need refueling for a lot of operational missions".
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46): As have the F-15s and F-16s shot down the Europeans in mock dogfights.
That would be combat flight sim. The Typhoon radar is more powerful than the F-15 one, Typhoon also has the wing about the size of the F15, but an empty weight of an F/A-18. I give the F-15 credit where it is due, it can run away from a fight faster.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 48, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12859 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 47): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
More and more countries are going with Boom refueling as opposed to probe and drogue refueling because of the effeiencies.
It is less efficient to refuel one smaller aircraft at a time when you can do 3 via hose, the receiver rates for smaller aircraft are not the same as a C-5.
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 transfer rate of 400 GPM, the WARPS will not off-load more fuel or at a faster rate than the 1200 GPM Boom.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 47): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
As far as combat operations go, no receiver has ever been turned away because his refueling system was incompatabable
That is also news to everyone .... "no receiver has ever".
Okay, I'm calling you out on that. When has a KC-135 ever turned away a receiver, who had compatable refueling equipment?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 47): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
As have the F-15s and F-16s shot down the Europeans in mock dogfights.
That would be combat flight sim. The Typhoon radar is more powerful than the F-15 one, Typhoon also has the wing about the size of the F15, but an empty weight of an F/A-18. I give the F-15 credit where it is due, it can run away from a fight faster.
This statement proves you have not got a clue of what you are talking about.
If the Typhoon was so good, why isn't the Israeli Air Force flying it?
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11 Reply 50, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12831 times:
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 on the receiver’s rate, too, don’t forget, and the time taken to cycle tacair through the boom. It’s usually acknowledged that probe and drogue gets it done quicker for tactical receivers, especially packages of FJs.
”If the Typhoon was so good, why isn't the Israeli Air Force flying it?’
1) Because they can effectively get US fighters for nothing.
2) Because we Europeans don’t like selling to that loathsome regime.
”Why isn't the USAF, USMC, or USN flying it?”
1) Because you don’t buy fighters offshore.
2) Because the USAF has invested in F-22 instead, and is investing in F-35, therefore thinks that it has no requirement.
Typhoon is streets ahead of the teen series, Toppers. A better radar (yes, even in the Captor-M), better aerodynamic and turn performance, superior MMI and a better chance of killing the enemy. In no way is Typhoon “inferior to what the USAF needs”, and it’s certainly not inferior to the A-10, F-15 and F-16.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, RR: 7 Reply 51, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12858 times:
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 soldier on with new buys now that the F-22 has been killed.
If the US Air Forces does not buy the Silent Eagle, there will be a gap as the older F-15C's are retired as they will not be replaced by F-22's and the number of F-35's will probably decline because of cost. Either another a/c will be required or they will do the down size thing to accomodate what they have and have not.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 52, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12755 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48): 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 transfer rate of 400 GPM, the WARPS will not off-load more fuel or at a faster rate than the 1200 GPM Boom.
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 boom attached hose, it is more like 2800 lb/min.
You also need to look at the receiver rates, some typical maximum receiver rates from a KC-135, as you should know, this rate also changes with the fuel state of the receiver.
F-15 3400 lb.min
F-16 2000 lb/min
F/A-18 2000 lb/min
F-22 3000 lb/min
EA-6B 1000 lb/min
Tornado 2400 lb/min
The theoretical maximum flow rate for a centreline hose drum is about 40% higher than the wing pods as well (4000 lb/min vs 2800 lbs/min), but I cannot think of a receiver that presently can take advantage of that, maybe a Russian model (e.g. Bear).
Refuelling efficiency is not determined by the theoretical maximum flow rates of the tanker alone, and they are different between types. The KC-10 generally has higher refuelling rates than the KC-135 when you look at each receiver.
Some typical maximum receiver rates from a KC-10 (same qualification for receiver fuel state as before):
F-15 4000 lb/min
F-16 3000 lb/min
F/A-18 2300 lb/min
F-22 3000 lb/min
EA-6B 2500 lb/min
Tornado 2200 lb/min
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48): Okay, I'm calling you out on that. When has a KC-135 ever turned away a receiver, who had compatable refueling equipment?
That is not what you said originally, "no receiver has ever been turned away because his refueling system was incompatabable". The KC-135 have turned away an aircraft, also the USMC/Navy kept breaking the hose attachment to the KC-135 boom, hence the reason why that training is now supplemented by a civilian contractor.
Need only look back at the justification used to put the limited number of wing pods on the KC-135.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48): If the Typhoon was so good, why isn't the Israeli Air Force flying it?
They are going down the F-22/F-35 path of replacement. The F-22 is better than Typhoon, particularly with stealth and super cruise. The stealth aspects will be overcome with time as radar technology improves.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 50):
Typhoon is streets ahead of the teen series, Toppers. A better radar (yes, even in the Captor-M), better aerodynamic and turn performance, superior MMI and a better chance of killing the enemy. In no way is Typhoon “inferior to what the USAF needs”, and it’s certainly not inferior to the A-10, F-15 and F-16.
I agree with that to a point, you can always improve engines and radar. Radar technology tends to improve by a measurable amount every 18 months. avionics and pilot integration wise, the suite that is on Typhoon is better than what the F-15/16/18 has.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 53, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 12592 times:
“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 on the receiver’s rate, too, don’t forget, and the time taken to cycle tacair through the boom. It’s usually acknowledged that probe and drogue gets it done quicker for tactical receivers, especially packages of FJs.
The time to cycle will be about the same for both drogue and Boom refueling
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 50): ”If the Typhoon was so good, why isn't the Israeli Air Force flying it?’
1) Because they can effectively get US fighters for nothing.
2) Because we Europeans don’t like selling to that loathsome regime.
”Why isn't the USAF, USMC, or USN flying it?”
1) Because you don’t buy fighters offshore.
2) Because the USAF has invested in F-22 instead, and is investing in F-35, therefore thinks that it has no requirement.
1. No they get better fighters.
2. France and the UK have sold the IDF airplanes in the past, the UK and Germany gave them SSKs, too.
3. What about the USMC AV-8A/B? The Marines bought a lot of both versions.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 50): In no way is Typhoon “inferior to what the USAF needs”
Quoting Par13del (Reply 51): If the US Air Forces does not buy the Silent Eagle, there will be a gap as the older F-15C's are retired as they will not be replaced by F-22's and the number of F-35's will probably decline because of cost. Either another a/c will be required or they will do the down size thing to accomodate what they have and have not.
Agreed, that is what the politicians will do.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 52): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
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 transfer rate of 400 GPM, the WARPS will not off-load more fuel or at a faster rate than the 1200 GPM Boom.
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 boom attached hose, it is more like 2800 lb/min.
I said nothing about using the BDA kit.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 52): The theoretical maximum flow rate for a centreline hose drum is about 40% higher than the wing pods as well (4000 lb/min vs 2800 lbs/min), but I cannot think of a receiver that presently can take advantage of that, maybe a Russian model (e.g. Bear).
RAF and French E-3s, some European C-130s, VC-10s (soon to end), Nimrod, and the A-400M (will be).
Quoting Zeke (Reply 52): Refuelling efficiency is not determined by the theoretical maximum flow rates of the tanker alone, and they are different between types. The KC-10 generally has higher refuelling rates than the KC-135 when you look at each receiver.
Correct, it is variable and more dependent on the current state of the receiver fuel load.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 52): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
If the Typhoon was so good, why isn't the Israeli Air Force flying it?
Since when was that the litmus test ?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
Why isn't the USAF, USMC, or USN flying it?
They are going down the F-22/F-35 path of replacement. The F-22 is better than Typhoon, particularly with stealth and super cruise. The stealth aspects will be overcome with time as radar technology improves.
Well, since the IDFAF and US fighter pilots seem to be the world's most experienced, and best at what they do.........................
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53): RAF and French E-3s, some European C-130s, VC-10s (soon to end), Nimrod, and the A-400M (will be).
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 surprised if the C-130 is that high as well, off the boom it is around 3000 lb/min.
I am unable to comment on the RAF specifics, would need someone like Jackonicko to provide factual information. I do however remember reading that receiver rates were being looked at as they were filling up the tanks in the wrong order to preserve structural life.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
Well, since the IDFAF and US fighter pilots seem to be the world's most experienced, and best at what they do.........................
Cargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 88 posts, RR: 1 Reply 55, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12549 times:
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 was typically about 2.5 - 3 times faster than using the BDA (boom-drogue adapter). This is VERY dependent on boom operator and receiver abilities, especially for smaller fighters, like F-18s. A four ship of F-18s needing 4k each can cycle through very fast if the pilots and boom operator are determined. It goes a lot slower with less experienced folks, especially a BO who isn't adept at juggling aircraft from wingtip to precontact to contact to back to precontact to the other wingtip. So, offload rates are aren't as important as they would seem to be, especially with multiple receivers. I'm sure that the centerline hoses on the KC-330 and KC-767 have higher offload rates than the KC-135 BDA, so that will affect comparisons as well.
One thing that's important when comparing hoses to a boom is the is the much greater durability of the boom. With a boom you can refuel in much higher levels of turbulence, icing, and precip than you can with hoses. I have had times when Navy fighters diverted in bad weather when a boom-equipped receiver would most likely have gotten the fuel. The boom also seems to be a lot more reliable in my experience. The WARP/MPRS pods on US tanker are known for poor reliability. I don't know who is building the pods, but they need improvement.
Three receivers on one tanker? It can be done for an airshow or photo shoot, but I don't think there will be too many practical situations for it, and I think the tradeoff of added complexity and decreased safety will cancel out any benefit of reduced time with the tanker.
I don't know what offload rates are for centerline hoses, but I think for large aircraft a boom/drogue configuration is nearly intolerable. A 100K offload to a single receiver can take close to 20 minutes with a KC-135/KC-10. What would it take with a hose? 30-45 minutes? That would be excessive for say, an E-3 leaving its orbit to get gas from the tanker. My thoughts only.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 56, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12542 times:
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 55): Three receivers on one tanker? It can be done for an airshow or photo shoot, but I don't think there will be too many practical situations for it, and I think the tradeoff of added complexity and decreased safety will cancel out any benefit of reduced time with the tanker.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 57, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12256 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 54): I thought the RAF and French E-3s were only cleared for boom refilling off USAF KC-135/KC-10s. I would be surprised if the C-130 is that high as well, off the boom it is around 3000 lb/min.
Well, since the IDFAF and US fighter pilots seem to be the world's most experienced, and best at what they do.........................
That is a credit to the pilots, not the aircraft.
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 kill on an average pilot in a F-16C, more often than the other way around.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 56): Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 55):
Three receivers on one tanker? It can be done for an airshow or photo shoot, but I don't think there will be too many practical situations for it, and I think the tradeoff of added complexity and decreased safety will cancel out any benefit of reduced time with the tanker.
It can be done ...
Yes, and the USAF use to do in back in the 1950s with KB-50 tankers. Although that was a propeller driven tanker with turbo jet fighter receivers, that accident rate was still very high.
I don't see any operational need to refuel three probe and drogue receivers at one time.
Cargotanker is right, the rate receivers cycle through the tanker is more dependent on the Boom Operator's and Receiver Pilot's experience levels that the rate of fuel off-loaded per minute. A good Pilot or Boom Operator can get a good contact in seconds in high stress situations (turbalance, weather, combat ops, etc.) while those with less experience may take up to minutes.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 58, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12134 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 54): I thought the RAF and French E-3s were only cleared for boom refilling
As you can see only the RAF E-3D and French E-3F have a probe for probe and drogue refueling. They do both types of refueling, Boom and probe and drogue. The French C-135FRs have a Boom, and often use the BDA. The RAF has refueled their E-3 from VC-10 tankers. Both the British and French AWACS refuel from USAF KC-135s and KC-10s, as well as the Dutch KDC-10.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 59, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11999 times:
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 EADS is also a big concern."
"Significant cost overruns on the A330MRTT and A400M, a multi-billion dollar black hole in the A350XWB and penalty payments to consider for a range of delays across the EADS businesses – the pressure next year will be to maintain delivery rates and thereby maintain revenue."
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 61, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11938 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 60): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
Does anyone have any information on this?
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%.
GLG Expert Contributor is mostly Doug McVitie, somehow he thinks anonymity gives him more credibility.
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-330MRTT is running significantly over budget. The question now is is this for the RAAF KC-30A, the RAF A-330MRTT, or both?
We already know the RAAF tanker is two years behind schedule, about where the B-787 is, except the A-330 is a developed and in service airplane. Why is it so difficult to convert it into a tanker that works? How much more money will it cost the RAF, RAAF, RSAF, IAF, and others? Will this price increase be passed onto the USAF in the KC-X bid?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 63, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11870 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61): Your guessing and just grabbing at straws, Keesje. For all you know, I could be the GLG Expert.
Come on KC135TB, check your sources first..Doug-McVitie is the a glgroup "Council-Member" and you can recognize his extreme anti anything Airbus whining within a sentence or 3..
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 64, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11855 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 63): Come on KC135TB, check your sources first..Doug-McVitie is the a glgroup "Council-Member" and you can recognize his extreme anti anything Airbus whining within a sentence or 3..
Indeed, hell hath no fury like an ex-employee armed with uncorroborated "facts".
Quote: The A330 too is on a knife-edge despite its brief sales surge
What knife-edge exactly?
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 65, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11862 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58): Both the British and French AWACS refuel from USAF KC-135s and KC-10s, as well as the Dutch KDC-10.
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 is not permitted by USAF KC-135/KC-10 aircraft.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58): Both the British and French AWACS refuel from USAF KC-135s and KC-10s, as well as the Dutch KDC-10.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8605 posts, RR: 96 Reply 66, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11785 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61): So, I guess GLG has hit it right on the head, the A-330MRTT is running significantly over budget
Well there you go. Straw well and truly clutched. Again.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 64): Quote:
The A330 too is on a knife-edge despite its brief sales surge
What knife-edge exactly?
I'll echo the .
It appears to me to be a damned sight less "knife-edged" than the 787 "glory boys" would have had us believe a few years ago.........
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 67, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11710 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 62): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
Why is it so difficult to convert it into a tanker that works?
Maybe you should ask Boeing where the B767 based tankers are much and much more delayed.
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-330MRTT, can we?
Quoting Keesje (Reply 63): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
Your guessing and just grabbing at straws, Keesje. For all you know, I could be the GLG Expert.
Come on KC135TB, check your sources first..Doug-McVitie is the a glgroup "Council-Member" and you can recognize his extreme anti anything Airbus whining within a sentence or 3..
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 64): Indeed, hell hath no fury like an ex-employee armed with uncorroborated "facts".
Oh, I understand now. An ex-Boeing employee is fully creditable and can always be believed, but any and all ex-Airbus employees are liers.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 65): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
Both the British and French AWACS refuel from USAF KC-135s and KC-10s, as well as the Dutch KDC-10.
Only via the boom on USAF tankers, not by hose.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 65): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 58):
Both the British and French AWACS refuel from USAF KC-135s and KC-10s, as well as the Dutch KDC-10.
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 is not permitted by USAF KC-135/KC-10 aircraft.
Correct, they cannot refuel from the USAF drogues. But they have refueled from RAF VC-10s and French C-135FRs with the BDA. No, I cannot explain why.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 66): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
So, I guess GLG has hit it right on the head, the A-330MRTT is running significantly over budget
Well there you go. Straw well and truly clutched. Again.
It is funny how quite the Aussie government is on the KC-30 while yelling about the delays on the Wedgetail. The KC-30 is almost delayed as long as the Wedgetail, and apparently is still having problems. But we are to assume the program is on budget? Some of you guys like to look at EADS with your horse blinders on, don't you? But you also see things that just don't exsist on the Boeing side. Is it time for new glasses?
Evomutant From Canada, joined May 2006, 365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11688 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67): It is funny how quite the Aussie government is on the KC-30 while yelling about the delays on the Wedgetail. The KC-30 is almost delayed as long as the Wedgetail, and apparently is still having problems. But we are to assume the program is on budget? Some of you guys like to look at EADS with your horse blinders on, don't you? But you also see things that just don't exsist on the Boeing side. Is it time for new glasses?
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 Airbus/EADS.
No doubt you rage against the Ariane V rocket too eh? The first one blew up! Why didn't they just accept that us Americans have been making good heavy(ish) lift commercial rockets for years.
No doubt you are against the European Galileo GPS system. Because the American invented GPS, and that works just fine!
I may be wrong. But what I get from all your commentary is rampant "America is bestism". That's fine. Just let those poor old Euro's get on with it and drive themselves to ruin. The you will be happy. You should be cheering on their "follies".
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8051 posts, RR: 13 Reply 69, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11672 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67): It is funny how quite the Aussie government is on the KC-30 while yelling about the delays on the Wedgetail.
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 delay payments in the A330 contract. If there are, they aren't being publicly disclosed.
The same thing happened when the A380 was delayed. Those customers who screamed the loudest seemed to get the best compensation from Airbus. Of course, I don't have privileged information so I can't confirm that, all I am speaking to is the public perception. And yes, those who screamed the most about the B787 also seem to be immediately rewarded with some form of compensation.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 70, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11675 times:
Quoting Evomutant (Reply 68): 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 Airbus/EADS.
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.
Quoting Evomutant (Reply 68): No doubt you rage against the Ariane V rocket too eh? The first one blew up! Why didn't they just accept that us Americans have been making good heavy(ish) lift commercial rockets for years.
Nope, the Ariane V is a good system. maybe someday it will grow to be as big and powerful as the biggest most pwerful rocket ever built, the US 1960s vintage Saturn V-B (BTW, the Saturn V never had a failure).
Quoting Evomutant (Reply 68): No doubt you are against the European Galileo GPS system. Because the American invented GPS, and that works just fine!
The US system does work just fine. But, unlike Galileo, it is exclusively used by military forces.
Quoting Evomutant (Reply 68): I may be wrong. But what I get from all your commentary is rampant "America is bestism". That's fine. Just let those poor old Euro's get on with it and drive themselves to ruin. The you will be happy. You should be cheering on their "follies".
Yeap, you are wrong. The Europeans have build some excellent weapons systems, like Tornado, Lancaster, Vulcan, Hurricane, Spitfire, Eurofighter, V-1 Buzzbomb, V-2 rocket, Me-262, etc.. They have built some real dogs, too, like the KGV BBs and the French Sho-sho machine gun, the Magino Line.
European engineering has built the world's longest tunnels, a tunnel under a major water way (the English Channel), the super colliter, etc.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 69): 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 delay payments in the A330 contract.
Why would the RAAF write delay penalties into the Wedgetail contract and not into the KC-30 contract? That just does not make any sense. Do they expect delays from American companies, but not from a European company?
You do know the RAAF just took delivery of their third F/A-18F last week, don't you? It was delivered 3 months early. In fact all three have been delivered 3 months early, each. The RAAF also got the 4 C-17 on an average of 4 months early.
Oh wait a minute, weren't both of those Boeing contracts?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 72, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11573 times:
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 71): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
Oh wait a minute, weren't both of those Boeing contracts?
You can't compare them, they are existing tried and tested products built on a current production line.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 73, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11543 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67): Correct, they cannot refuel from the USAF drogues. But they have refueled from RAF VC-10s and French C-135FRs with the BDA. No, I cannot explain why.
You have not provided any means to verify that information. Your comments to date on the various tanker and receiver performance/capabilities has been demonstrated above to be less than accurate a number of times.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67): The difference appears to be that the two current versions of the KC-767 actually do work.
That is incorrect. The Italian tanker is still having problems with its maximum speed, wing pods, and hose refuelling. As far as I know, no tankers have been delivered to Italy, let alone operational.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67): It is funny how quite the Aussie government is on the KC-30 while yelling about the delays on the Wedgetail. The KC-30 is almost delayed as long as the Wedgetail, and apparently is still having problems.
That statement is not factual.
The KC-30 is only supposed to achieve RAAF military certification this quarter, it will miss that target by 3-6 months, with delivery mid next year. It is not contractually late "yet" (it will be in the future). At this stage it looks like the KC-30 will actually be operational before Wedgetail (2010 for the KC-30 vs 2011-2013 for Wedgetail).
Wedgetail is aparently significantly later than you described. Wedgetail has had a a series of rolling delays like the 787.
Quote: This was extended by two years in February 2007 as part of a March 2007 schedule replan and with a further revision in early-2008 booking additional delays against the contract baseline. Boeing advised 10 June 2008 a 10 month delay, and in November a further two month delay to delivery of the first fully mission capable aircraft, now set for March 2010, a total delay of 40 months against the contract baseline.
It then needs to achieve RAAF certification, then become operational.
Quote: Initial operating capability (IOC) is now targeted for late-November 2011 – with final operating capability by either end-2012 or early-2013
Quoting Revelation (Reply 69):
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 delay payments in the A330 contract. If there are, they aren't being publicly disclosed.
They would not be due, as it is technically not late "yet". In any case, I would see the RAAF paying less for the options they selected in lieu of an actual payment.
Also I have seen no evidence to show that Boeing has actually made any payment to the Australian Government for Wedgetail being late, they have taken a charge on their books, but that is not the same as an actual payment. It maybe an offset against progress payments.
Quote: The in-service date (comprising two aircraft, completion of qualification testing and issue of the military airworthiness certificate) is planned for late 2009.
As you are aware, EADS has two tankers in the flight test phase now, military certification is now due 2010Q1.
Quote: Military certification of the A330 MRTT is targeted for April following up to 120 test flights, of which 57 have been completed. Handover of the first aircraft to the RAAF, following conversion in Madrid, is due in mid-2010. Australia's remaining aircraft are being converted in Brisbane.
As you may or may not be aware, the RAAF in 2006 changed the way the flight testing is being done on the KC-30, instead of the aircraft being delivered without RAAF military certification, EADS and the RAAF have combined the Spanish STC/EASA TC, and RAAF military certification process in one longer test phase.
For the aircraft to become operational, all they need to do is to train up the crews to operational standard after delivery, no additional flight testing should be needed at ARDU as was the previous normal practice to get RAAF military certification.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2928 posts, RR: 16 Reply 74, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11528 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70): 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.
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 the performance and advancement of any Airbus product.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 76, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11485 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70): You do know the RAAF just took delivery of their third F/A-18F last week, don't you? It was delivered 3 months early. In fact all three have been delivered 3 months early, each. The RAAF also got the 4 C-17 on an average of 4 months early.
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 the F/A-18F.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 75): A pedant would be tempted to point out the true parentage of those two products!
No need to, everyone know that !!! However, many would also point out that McDonnell Douglas was smart enough to buy Boeing with Boeings money. Look at who really runs Boeing these days (McDonnell Douglas managers).
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 77, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11419 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 73): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
Correct, they cannot refuel from the USAF drogues. But they have refueled from RAF VC-10s and French C-135FRs with the BDA. No, I cannot explain why.
You have not provided any means to verify that information. Your comments to date on the various tanker and receiver performance/capabilities has been demonstrated above to be less than accurate a number of times.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to military aircraft and how they are used.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 73): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
The difference appears to be that the two current versions of the KC-767 actually do work.
That is incorrect. The Italian tanker is still having problems with its maximum speed, wing pods, and hose refuelling. As far as I know, no tankers have been delivered to Italy, let alone operational.
Again you are wrong. The ITAF KC-767A received its FAA STC on 23 Sept. 2009. There is no airspeed, WARP flutter, or drogue hose problems. You are correct the KC-767A has not been delivered to the ITAF yet. But, one is currently being used for crew qualification here in the US, two others are still qualifing receiver aircraft and other minor flight testing. They are also being used (with Italian approval) for USAF, then USN Military Utility Observation (MUO) required under contract. The ITAF will receive its first in 2010. The JASDF will receive its last KC-767J by the end of this year.
The KC-767A and KC-767J are the only tankers in the world with a STC.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 73): As you are aware, EADS has two tankers in the flight test phase now, military certification is now due 2010Q1.
Quote:
Military certification of the A330 MRTT is targeted for April following up to 120 test flights, of which 57 have been completed. Handover of the first aircraft to the RAAF, following conversion in Madrid, is due in mid-2010. Australia's remaining aircraft are being converted in Brisbane.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 74): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
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.
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 the performance and advancement of any Airbus product.
Do you mean the sub standard B-777 compared to the A-340/A-330? Or the sub standard B-767 compared to the A-300/A-310? Or the sub standard B-737NG compared to the A-32X series? Or the sub standard B-757 compared to the.......oops wait a minute, Airbus doesn't have anything to compare to the B-757. Maybe you mean the A-380 cargo lift capability compared to the B-747-400/-8.......oops again, the B-747 lifts more than the A-380, sorry. How about the B-707 or B-727? Ooops again, Airbus doesn't have aircraft that competed with them, either.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 76): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 70):
You do know the RAAF just took delivery of their third F/A-18F last week, don't you? It was delivered 3 months early. In fact all three have been delivered 3 months early, each. The RAAF also got the 4 C-17 on an average of 4 months early.
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 the F/A-18F.
Ah, wrong again. The RAAF F/A-18Fs are all new build airplanes under a RAAF/Boeing contract. None are coming from either the USN production line positions or the USN current fleet. About half of the RAAF F/A-18Fs will be wired for future modification to the EA-18G Growler standard something that is not done to USN F/A-18E/Fs. Also all 24 RAAF Super Hornets are two seaters, with a WSO as the GIB, and double as pilot trainers. The USN F/A-18Fs are all pilot training aircraft only and will not carry a WSO.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2928 posts, RR: 16 Reply 78, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11411 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): Do you mean the sub standard B-777 compared to the A-340/A-330? Or the sub standard B-767 compared to the A-300/A-310? Or the sub standard B-737NG compared to the A-32X series?
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 sometimes (and even a bit more than sometimes ) the level of your debating is too. Boeing and Airbus make wonderful airliners. Sometimes the Boeing product is overall better, and sometimes it is the Airbus which is better. By posting such imho stupid remarks you are provoking a stupid reply. I just can not believe how much your personal preference can blind you so much for reality. Especially since you seem to be well informed, but are probably only reading and believing the things you want to. Also that preference makes you imho not an aviation fan, but a Boeing fan and a Boeing fan only. Even if they were to switch to producing dish washers you would probably state that these are superior. That is too bad imho. ).
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 79, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11376 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77):
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to military aircraft and how they are used.
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 comments. You have not provided anything for anyone to verify the information you have provided. I ask you again to provide means to verify the information you claim as fact.
I have clearly shown that information you post time and time again is factually wrong, these claims "you have no idea what you are talking about" can clearly been seen from the above posts to be baseless.
Not at all, you admit that no tanker has been delivered to Italy, nor does it have military certification. The STC does not include the refuelling equipment (no civil certification standard exists for that), it is for the civil certification of the moving cargo barrier etc.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): There is no airspeed, WARP flutter, or drogue hose problems.
Quote: But Boeing has been especially challenged by flutter of the wing pods and of the hose-and-drogue as these are extended. These aerodynamic issues proved especially vexing to fix.
With an order for only four aircraft, Boeing has only one airplane to perform all tests. Contrast this with plans to have six airplanes flying in the 787 test program, each assigned specific testing tasks.
“We should not have put all testing on one airplane,” Barksdale acknowledged. “We need multiple test assets. We did not lay out a schedule that was realistic.”
We were told about six weeks ago that these issues remain and the KC-767I has to fly at 400 knots to avoid flutter. Barksdale declined to comment on these specific issues, saying only that by the time the first KC-767I is delivered this year, the pods and drogues will work just fine.
Quote: One of the problems with the Italian tanker–which is very similar to the specifications the USAF had for the KC-X in the 2006 competition–was flutter issues with the wing refueling pods. Boeing, after a long and difficult period, fixed this problem. But we are told it has not fixed aerodynamic problems with the centerline fuselage hose-and-drogue system (which is in addition to the aft refueling boom). This is said to be the cause behind the continuing delays.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): The JASDF will receive its last KC-767J by the end of this year.
So why is Boeing saying 2010 ?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): I think you had a typo here as April is 2010Q2.
No, military certification due April 2010, that is Q1, originally in 2004 that was planned for Q4 2009, slippage of 1 quarter. The RAAF should get their first aircraft mid next year in Q2.
Sorry, my comments were correct as usual. These comments are from Bob Gower, the Hornet program vice-president at Boeing.
Quote: The deal was covered by a government-to-government foreign military sale agreement, the first involving the Super Hornet, and Australia paid the same price for the advanced aircraft as its main operator, the US Navy, Mr Gower said yesterday.
"Australia is not actually buying from Boeing. It is buying this warplane from the US Navy, so Australia is getting the US Navy's pricing.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 80, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11338 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 79):
No, military certification due April 2010, that is Q1, originally in 2004 that was planned for Q4 2009, slippage of 1 quarter. The RAAF should get their first aircraft mid next year in Q2.
Actually, I am wrong with this, April should be Q2.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 81, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11103 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 78): (Which is rubbish of course but I am sorry to say that sometimes (and even a bit more than sometimes ) the level of your debating is too. Boeing and Airbus make wonderful airliners. Sometimes the Boeing product is overall better, and sometimes it is the Airbus which is better. By posting such imho stupid remarks you are provoking a stupid reply. I just can not believe how much your personal preference can blind you so much for reality. Especially since you seem to be well informed, but are probably only reading and believing the things you want to. Also that preference makes you imho not an aviation fan, but a Boeing fan and a Boeing fan only. Even if they were to switch to producing dish washers you would probably state that these are superior. That is too bad imho. ).
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 companies, including Airbus/EADS. I have stated repaetedly on the A-400M thread that I want to see her fly, and soon. I just have doubts as to when that will happen. I have also been critical on Boeing management for the B-787 program. I have no doubt the A-330-200, A-330-300 and A-330-200F are good airplanes. Boeing does not have a product that equilly mimics ther capabilities. The B-777 and B-767 are one step above and below the A-330 capability. But, I also believe the A-330s stable sister, the A-340 is a complete dog. Only the B-737NG and A-32X compete head to head directly with near capability. The Boeings have a slight range advantage (except for the A-319), payload advantage, and slightly less fuel burn. But the A-32X series I have flown on seem quiter and slightly more roomy, something passengers want.
As far as the tankers go, I have a lot of experience and admeration for Boeing tankers. I flew one type for years. I do have doubts about the A-330MRTT and do take liberties with its long flight test program. It seems to me that it is well beyond the time it shoud have taken, as the KC-767J/A (I ?). But I also get to see a lot more information on the KC-767 flight testing than EADS, or anyone else releases on the varoius A-330MRTT versions.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 79): I have clearly shown that information you post time and time again is factually wrong, these claims "you have no idea what you are talking about" can clearly been seen from the above posts to be baseless.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 79): Not at all, you admit that no tanker has been delivered to Italy, nor does it have military certification. The STC does not include the refuelling equipment (no civil certification standard exists for that), it is for the civil certification of the moving cargo barrier etc.
It is not just the cargo barrier, but the entire cargo handling system that received the STC. the way Boeing worded it leaves doubt as to if the refueling equipment is part of the STC, or not. Then again EADS plays these word games too.
Boeing’s International Tanker Program on Sept. 23 completed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification requirements for Italy’s KC-767 Tanker, receiving FAA approval for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC).
The Italian Air Force configuration for its KC-767A aerial refueling tanker, with the ability to carry all passengers, all cargo, or a combination of passengers and cargo, is one not normally found on military aircraft. The FAA-issued STC approval provides certification for those enhanced capabilities.
“This is an extremely important achievement and significant milestone for our International Tanker Program and the development of the KC-767A tanker for our Italian customer,” said Dave Bowman, vice president and general manager of Boeing Tanker Programs.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 79): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77):
The JASDF will receive its last KC-767J by the end of this year.
So why is Boeing saying 2010 ?
My mistake in typing and not reading it before posting. It should have said "next" year.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 79): Not at all, you admit that no tanker has been delivered to Italy, nor does it have military certification. The STC does not include the refuelling equipment (no civil certification standard exists for that), it is for the civil certification of the moving cargo barrier etc.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77):
There is no airspeed, WARP flutter, or drogue hose problems.
I think there is a lot of confusion on these issues about the KC-767. the different writters with Leeman News do add to the confusion. Some indicate there is a flutter problem below 400 knots (KTAS), and some say there isn't. NG says there is, Boeing says there isn't. Boeing say one thing about the A-330MRTT, EADS denies it.
This is from your own Leeman's web page, which is a little dated now with a print date of 10 June 2009.
" During the Round 2 competition, Boeing and its supporters tried to gain traction on the fact that up until then, EADS/Airbus had not tested and passed fuel through its newly designed flying refueling boom—which was true then, and as this is written, remains true with respect to not having passed fuel from the MRTT to a receiving airplane in flight. (Northrop and EADS responded at the time that Boeing’s 6th Generation flying boom hadn’t either, but this is probably more ‘Inside Baseball’ stuff than something Members of Congress really care about.)
But just as Boeing used the intervening year to deliver its KC-767Js and get them operational, Northrop is perhaps weeks away from doing an in-flight refueling test. As for the RAAF, here what it had to say about the EADS flying boom:
“Testing of the new Advanced Refueling Boom System (ARBS) on the A330 MRTT commenced earlier this year and has so far confirmed good correlation between the boom behaviour on the A310 demonstrator with the behaviour on the A330 MRTT. This testing provides confidence that further testing of the boom, including dry and wet contacts, planned for later this year will lead to successful certification and qualification of the new ARBS.”
Then Leemams turns it around and says;
"As described above, the KC-767I wing pods and hose-and-drogue have been vexing for Boeing. But carefully reading the RAAF response to our question about how well the MRTT wing pods and refueling system worked shows there were some challenges for EADS/Airbus as well.
“The first phase of flight testing, completed in February 2008, confirmed that the A330 MRTT, with boom and pods, is free of flutter throughout the flight envelope. As risk mitigation, the aerodynamic behaviour of the hoses, during trail and re-wind, was also tested during the first phase of flight testing instead of the planned second phase of testing. As an outcome of these tests, there has been optimisation of the pod rear fairing to improve hose stability. These changes were successfully flight tested in early-2009; albeit with further testing to be conducted during the remainder of the flight test program.”
This is Boeing's mistake with the ITAF KC-767A, and until the second KC-30 joined the testing in Spain recently the same problem EADS had;
“We should not have put all testing on one airplane,” Barksdale acknowledged. “We need multiple test assets. We did not lay out a schedule that was realistic.”
But for this, the question of where Leeman got its information, and how accurate it is reamins for these comments;
"We were told about six weeks ago that these issues remain and the KC-767I has to fly at 400 knots to avoid flutter."
Who said this?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): The KC-767A and KC-767J are the only tankers in the world with a STC.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 79): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77):
I think you had a typo here as April is 2010Q2.
No, military certification due April 2010, that is Q1, originally in 2004 that was planned for Q4 2009, slippage of 1 quarter.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 80): Actually, I am wrong with this, April should be Q2.
I don't see this as a problem, I think we were quibiling over a one month period. Sorry. In the big things of the KC-30 or KC-767, one month is nothing.
As far as the contract from the RAAF for the F/A-18Fs, it is really a FMS contract that allows Boeing to build the RAAF airplanes beside the USN airplanes. These F/A-18s never become part of the USN inventory and do not receive USN BuNum. They get painted as RAAF airplanes with RAAF tail numbers. There are minor differences in the USN and RAAF F/A-18Fs. Because this is a FMS contract, and not a direct Boeing contract, the Aussie payments go to the US DOD, then are sent onto Boeing. The same for the maintenance,spares, and training contract, it is administered through the FMS Office. So, I think we both said the same thing, just in differnet ways.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 82, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11069 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81): But I also get to see a lot more information on the KC-767 flight testing than EADS, or anyone else releases on the varoius A-330MRTT versions.
Does that mean it is not happening ? e.g. night refueling from the RAAF KC-30
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81): It is not just the cargo barrier, but the entire cargo handling system that received the STC. the way Boeing worded it leaves doubt as to if the refueling equipment is part of the STC, or not.
The cargo handling system already had an STC for Japan, the differance with Italy was the moving cargo/smoke barrier to make it a combi configuration.
Refuelling equipment does not get the STC, as no cival certification standard exist for it.
It is commentary from Leehman.net, which on past performance I take over anything Boeing has said in public in the last two years.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81): Because this is a FMS contract, and not a direct Boeing contract, the Aussie payments go to the US DOD, then are sent onto Boeing.
Just a minor reversal from this ...
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): Ah, wrong again. The RAAF F/A-18Fs are all new build airplanes under a RAAF/Boeing contract.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2928 posts, RR: 16 Reply 84, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 11019 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81): 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 companies, including Airbus/EADS. I have stated repaetedly on the A-400M thread that I want to see her fly, and soon. I just have doubts as to when that will happen. I have also been critical on Boeing management for the B-787 program. I have no doubt the A-330-200, A-330-300 and A-330-200F are good airplanes. Boeing does not have a product that equilly mimics ther capabilities. The B-777 and B-767 are one step above and below the A-330 capability. But, I also believe the A-330s stable sister, the A-340 is a complete dog. Only the B-737NG and A-32X compete head to head directly with near capability. The Boeings have a slight range advantage (except for the A-319), payload advantage, and slightly less fuel burn. But the A-32X series I have flown on seem quiter and slightly more roomy, something passengers want.
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 company building sub-standard products for customers who want sub-standard products. Their products are on par with Boeing's, sometimes even a bit better, sometimes just a bit worse. That both companies share the world market in civilian aviation about 50%-50% says a lot. The market thinks that the products are pretty equal overall. In this number of 50%-50% you have to calculate that Airbus is still pretty new in some parts of the civilian market, so it had to draw customers away from Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas first. And with some airlines that is almost impossible which makes this 50%-50% number for Airbus actually a very good achievement.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 85, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11018 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 82): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81):
Because this is a FMS contract, and not a direct Boeing contract, the Aussie payments go to the US DOD, then are sent onto Boeing.
Just a minor reversal from this ...
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77):
Ah, wrong again. The RAAF F/A-18Fs are all new build airplanes under a RAAF/Boeing contract.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 76): Not sure about the C-17, however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy.
No reversal, we were both right and we were both wrong.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 82): Does that mean it is not happening ? e.g. night refueling from the RAAF KC-30
Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat. I know it is suppose to be a 3-D picture the Boom Operator sees at his station, but the picture looks all wrong. The shadow of the ruddervators across the receiver just foreward of the receptical really is screwing up the visual clues a Boom Operatior looks for. The lighting is all wrong, it is shinning on the lower portion of the telescoping fuel tube, not on the ball joint or nozzle. The lighting between the F-16 left and right wing is not even. There is a bright light spot at the base of each ruddervator. These lighting effects will make for a very confusing refueling picture in weather and clouds.
Maybe the problem is all the individual lights need to be properly aimed, or the worst case, they need to be moved to different locations.
The worst case I can think of is operational night refuelings where the tanker lighting is off to prevent downward shinning lights. These refueling are done today with KC-135s and KC-10s. The KC-30 will have to do them, too.
This refueling must have taken place out over water as there is no ground lighting in the background.
I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that? I would have also wanted to see the exterior formation lighting on the KC-30, the strip lights.
The story that came with some thjings that are not correct. It said the KC-30 has off loaded 40,000 lbs, it has not, it off loaded aboput 3600lbs last week and about 3300 this week, less than 7,000 lbs. I wonder about the large and rapid CG change for a big offload.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 84): Their products are on par with Boeing's, sometimes even a bit better, sometimes just a bit worse. That both companies share the world market in civilian aviation about 50%-50% says a lot.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 86, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11023 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): No reversal, we were both right and we were both wrong.
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 pricing." from the Boeing Hornet VP
How is that differnt from "however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy" which is what I said ?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it.
Of course you do, nothing in that photo is a Boeing product. Get used to it.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I wonder about the large and rapid CG change for a big offload.
That is a problem with the Boeing tankers, not the KC-30. Basically all the fuel for the KC-30 is in the wing on the CG, it is not also stored unevenly in the underfloor cargo holds away from the CG like on Boeing tankers.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 87, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11018 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that? I would have also wanted to see the exterior formation lighting on the KC-30, the strip lights.
TopBoom, EADS says the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel. Are you suggesting they (and the RAAF) are lying?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 88, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11009 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): The ITAF KC-767A received its FAA STC on 23 Sept. 2009. There is no airspeed, WARP flutter, or drogue hose problems. You are correct the KC-767A has not been delivered to the ITAF yet. But, one is currently being used for crew qualification here in the US, two others are still qualifing receiver aircraft and other minor flight testing. They are also being used (with Italian approval) for USAF, then USN Military Utility Observation (MUO) required under contract. The ITAF will receive its first in 2010.
An update today on the Italian KC-767 problem
Quote: ROME - Boeing's delivery of 767 tanker aircraft to the Italian Air Force has slipped again as the company fixes a problem with the hose-and-drogue refueling system, a senior Italian defense source said.
Quote: And with Boeing still testing its fix on the central drogue stability issue, no date had been fixed for the U.S. Navy MUO to start, the Italian source said.
If the MUO is successful, the TFA could start in January and would last around 60 days, said the source, meaning the first tanker could be ready for delivery in March.
In September 2008, Boeing officials said all four aircraft would be delivered during 2009.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 89, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10910 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 86): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
No reversal, we were both right and we were both wrong.
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 pricing." from the Boeing Hornet VP
How is that differnt from "however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy" which is what I said ?
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 the USN, or USAF.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 86): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it.
Of course you do, nothing in that photo is a Boeing product. Get used to it.
I already made some comments why. You are not a Boom Operator, you are a pilot, and should understand problems like depth perseption. The lighting problems I pointed out are fixable. But I don't know if it is fixed by reaiming the lighting, or if the placement has to be moved. If that is the case, the engineers will need to readdress the lighting placement and come up with a new design.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 86): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I wonder about the large and rapid CG change for a big offload.
That is a problem with the Boeing tankers, not the KC-30. Basically all the fuel for the KC-30 is in the wing on the CG, it is not also stored unevenly in the underfloor cargo holds away from the CG like on Boeing tankers.
Yes, the fuel on the KC-30 is all in the wings, and the wings have an aft moment, except for possibly the center wing tank, depending on its location. Airplanes with body fuel tanks have much more control of the CG as they can select fuel movement from the foreward or aft body tanks in a sequence that will maintane the CG where they need or want it. They have the same ability to move fuel from the wings as the A-330 does, except they can control the CG movement aft by draining or pumping fuel into the foreward bady tank if they need to.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 87): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that? I would have also wanted to see the exterior formation lighting on the KC-30, the strip lights.
TopBoom, EADS says the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel. Are you suggesting they (and the RAAF) are lying?
Yes, they are lying. The KC-30 has only made those few wet contact with the Boom last week and this week. They transferred less than 7,000 lbs, according to their own press releases to 3 F-16 receivers. They have not transferred 40,000 lbs inflight through the Boom from the KC-30.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 88): An update today on the Italian KC-767 problem
Yes, did you notice these?
The source said the start date was subsequently pushed back to the end of November 2009.
"That provisional TFA date has now slipped to January 2010," he said. "But that is just guesswork, and things could change from week to week." If the January appointment is kept, all four tankers could yet be delivered during 2010, he added.
and this?
The new problem, said the source, concerns the stability in flight of the central drogue, or basket, fixed to the end of the refueling hose that is extended from the center line of the fuselage.
"Boeing is dedicating a team to fixing this latest problem," the source said. "They appear to have found a solution, but test flying has yet to confirm it, and we have been down this road before."
That would be the upcoming USN MUO testing using the ITAF KC-767As.
This is what happened during the USAF MUO testing last summer.
Boeing's main focus, added Sanchez, was to "complete the Italy flight test program, complete Federal Aviation Administration Supplemental Type Certification [STC] and then work with the U.S. Navy to complete a Military Utility Observation [MUO] required under contract. That is similar to the MUO we conducted with the U.S. Air Force earlier this year."
During the U.S. Air Force MUO in June, two of the tankers destined for Italy used their booms during test flights at Edwards Air Force Base, offloading 100,000 pounds of fuel during 65 tanker-to-tanker contacts.
The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
"We have completed the FAA STC certification requirements," Sanchez said. "Once flight testing has been completed and all resultant findings have been addressed, we'll work with the U.S. Navy to schedule the MUO requirement. Once the MUO requirement has been completed, we'll begin the [TFA] process with our Italian customers and deliver their advanced KC-767 tanker."
While the flight testing with the U.S. Air Force put the boom to the test, the testing with the U.S. Navy will check the workings of the hose and drogue. And with Boeing still testing its fix on the central drogue stability issue, no date had been fixed for the U.S. Navy MUO to start, the Italian source said.
If the MUO is successful, the TFA could start in January and would last around 60 days, said the source, meaning the first tanker could be ready for delivery in March.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 90, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10833 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
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 the USN, or USAF.
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.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): You are not a Boom Operator, you are a pilot, and should understand problems like depth perseption.
Like I have never flown a block hole approach, or taken off/landed in fog or heavy rain.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): The lighting problems I pointed out are fixable.
Yet another unfounded comment, you have not seen the boom operators console.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): Yes, the fuel on the KC-30 is all in the wings, and the wings have an aft moment, except for possibly the center wing tank, depending on its location.
Not true (common theme with the junk in your posts)
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): Airplanes with body fuel tanks have much more control of the CG as they can select fuel movement from the foreward or aft body tanks in a sequence that will maintane the CG where they need or want it.
Except when you have a pump or electrical failure and you are unable to gravity feed uphill. Tell me exactly how many Boeing commercial aircraft or their derivatives use fuel for CG control ?
What experience does Boeing have in this area ?
How does the aircraft know its CG at any point in time ?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): They have the same ability to move fuel from the wings as the A-330 does, except they can control the CG movement aft by draining or pumping fuel into the foreward bady tank if they need to.
Incorrect, in the case of total failure, EMP etc, the A330 can gravity feed.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
Yes, they are lying. The KC-30 has only made those few wet contact with the Boom last week and this week. They transferred less than 7,000 lbs, according to their own press releases to 3 F-16 receivers. They have not transferred 40,000 lbs inflight through the Boom from the KC-30.
More unfounded statements, You cannot provide ANYTHING to support those claims.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 91, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10732 times:
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 the USN, or USAF.
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.
Okay, the RAAF F/A-18F sale is a DOD FMS sale action, not a USN sale.
Of course I don't really expect you to accept these facts, you haven't accepted any other facts I pointed out.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
You are not a Boom Operator, you are a pilot, and should understand problems like depth perseption.
Like I have never flown a block hole approach, or taken off/landed in fog or heavy rain.
Like I said, you should understand depth perseption.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
The lighting problems I pointed out are fixable.
Yet another unfounded comment, you have not seen the boom operators console.
I didn't comment on the Boom Operator's console. You are right, I have not seen it. I commented on the KC-30 external air refueling lighting, and what I thoulght of the lighting shown in the picture.
Don't believe me, go ask another Boom Operator.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
Yes, the fuel on the KC-30 is all in the wings, and the wings have an aft moment, except for possibly the center wing tank, depending on its location.
Not true (common theme with the junk in your posts)
Do you really understand how airplanes fly? Are you really a co-pilot, or do you just play one on the internet?
Maybe you should ask a Captain some of these questions?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
Airplanes with body fuel tanks have much more control of the CG as they can select fuel movement from the foreward or aft body tanks in a sequence that will maintane the CG where they need or want it.
Except when you have a pump or electrical failure and you are unable to gravity feed uphill. Tell me exactly how many Boeing commercial aircraft or their derivatives use fuel for CG control ?
What experience does Boeing have in this area ?
How does the aircraft know its CG at any point in time ?
I don't know about Airbus airplanes, but Boeing airplanes have more than one pump in each fuel tank. So a single pump failure will not prevent pumping fuel into another tank or the engines. These pumps are often of different electrical systems**, yes, commerical airplanes have more than one electrical system, powered by generators on different engines. BTW, it is the same for the more than one hydraulic systems, too.
**hydraulicly driven fuel pumps, like air refueling pumps, are also on seprate hydraulic systems.
Airplane operators, both Boeings and Airbuss burn fuel according to a established sequence, from one (or more tanks) to another, depending on the fuel load they took off with. Different tanks have different pumps that will pump at a higher pressure than the wing boost pumps, thus you do not have to shut the boost pumps off when you burn from, say. a center wing tank (in airplanes that have them). Some fuel tanks only gravity drain into a tank with fuel pumps. In most Boeing airplanes, the reserve fuel tanks are in the outboard sections of the wing (an aft moment), these tanks can be drained, once there is enough room for the fuel in the main wing tank to accept it, thus moving the CG foreward. Airplanes with center wing tanks generally have them foreward of MAC, thus burning fuel from it will shift the CG aft.
Airplane with body fuel tanks, like the KC-135 and KC-10 have even more control and faster control over the airplanes CG because of pumping large offloads to large receivers.
Try offloading 100,000 lbs, or more, of fuel sometime and see how it works.
For those airplanes that do not have a constant CG read display, you know it is within the CG limits by looking at the horizontal trim indicators. generally, if the airplane will fly "straight and level" it is properly trimmed and within the CG limits.
BTW, if Boeing did not understand CG and percent of MAC, they would not be in the airplane building business. It is just one of a thousand differnt thing they need to understand to make an airplane fly.
Any more questions about CG, or percent of MAC?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
They have the same ability to move fuel from the wings as the A-330 does, except they can control the CG movement aft by draining or pumping fuel into the foreward bady tank if they need to.
Incorrect, in the case of total failure, EMP etc, the A330 can gravity feed.
So can Boeing airplanes. But, in the case of total electrical failure, or an EMP spike, moving fuel around the airplane is the least of your problems.
You should try that in the sim sometime. USAF aircrews do.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 92, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10713 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat. I know it is suppose to be a 3-D picture the Boom Operator sees at his station, but the picture looks all wrong.
Of course it "looks wrong". It's a 2-D photo of a 3-D computer screen image.
Quote: Aerial refueling operations are controlled from a state-of-the-art Remote Aerial Refueling Operator console in the cockpit behind the pilots, incorporating the enhanced vision system with laser infrared lighting and high-definition digital stereoscopic viewing.
“I have situational awareness and a field of view that far exceed anything I ever had during my Air Force career,” Cash said, “with crystal-clear visuals night or day.”
Maybe you should try it before you knock it?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that?
If they had, what would you have said? Maybe something along the lines of "that photo doesn't prove it was a wet contact"? As far as you're concerned, when it comes to EADS, you won't believe anything they say. Yet, when Boeing say something like:
Quote: The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
you don't demand photographic evidence or question why only 5,000lbs of fuel was transferred in more than 100 contacts. If this was the ARBS, you'd be demanding to know why they're still having problems with it.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): Yes, they are lying. The KC-30 has only made those few wet contact with the Boom last week and this week. They transferred less than 7,000 lbs, according to their own press releases to 3 F-16 receivers. They have not transferred 40,000 lbs inflight through the Boom from the KC-30.
Where did anyone claim the 40,000+lbs of fuel transferred by the A330MRTT boom was all "in flight"? Don't you think it would have been sensible to do some wet transfer testing "on the ground" first? Or didn't that happen because they haven't published a photo of it?
[edit - corrected spelling]
[Edited 2009-11-10 14:32:07 by scbriml]
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 93, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10636 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Okay, the RAAF F/A-18F sale is a DOD FMS sale action, not a USN sale.
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 you posted states this, " An implementing agency within the Pentagon -- the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Defense Logistics Agency, depending on the type of item being considered -- negotiates the terms of the sale. If agreement is reached, both parties sign a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA), the contract which sets an FMS "case" in motion."
The FMS role in this case is to oversee the process, and make the appropriate notifications to congress. They do not do the direct negotiations with the suppliers, nor do the do the military support. It is the implementing agency that signs the agreement with the supplier, in this case the US Navy.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): Of course I don't really expect you to accept these facts, you haven't accepted any other facts I pointed out.
I accept the links you posted, they contradict what you have been saying as usual, and just goes to confirm what the Boeing Hornet VP was saying. You do realise, that it would have been the Hornet VP at Boeing that would have represented Boeing to the implementing agency, I am sure is he aware who he was dealing with, i.e. the US Navy.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): You are right, I have not seen it. I commented on the KC-30 external air refueling lighting, and what I thoulght of the lighting shown in the picture.
I actually see a photos that was taken without lighting, under a night vision system, that is pretty obvious when you look at the roundels. The "shadows" you complain about would be due to the fact earth only has one moon, I guess only having one moon is also the fault of EADS.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): Don't believe me, go ask another Boom Operator.
Don Cash has already made numerous comments on this, you dismiss his comments and have even claimed at times he is not operating the boom.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Do you really understand how airplanes fly? Are you really a co-pilot, or do you just play one on the internet?
I am well aware of how aircraft fly. I am also well aware of where fuel is stored on the A330, it is not " all in the wings" as you claim, it has 2 inner wing tanks 67,200 kg, 2 outer wing tanks 5,840 kg, centre fuselage tank 33,248 kg, and an aft trim tank (in horizontal tail) 4,984 kg (all based upon a SG of 0.8)
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Airplane operators, both Boeings and Airbuss burn fuel according to a established sequence, from one (or more tanks) to another, depending on the fuel load they took off with. Different tanks have different pumps that will pump at a higher pressure than the wing boost pumps, thus you do not have to shut the boost pumps off when you burn from, say. a center wing tank (in airplanes that have them). Some fuel tanks only gravity drain into a tank with fuel pumps. In most Boeing airplanes, the reserve fuel tanks are in the outboard sections of the wing (an aft moment), these tanks can be drained, once there is enough room for the fuel in the main wing tank to accept it, thus moving the CG foreward. Airplanes with center wing tanks generally have them foreward of MAC, thus burning fuel from it will shift the CG aft.
On the A330, fuel is always taken from the collector cells in the inner tanks, the only exception would be in the case of an engine failure or if the cross feed is opened where fuel maybe taken from the cross feed manifold.
The fuel is transferred as follows,
* ACT (if applicable) fuel transferred to the center tank
* Center tank fuel transferred to the inner tanks
* Inner tanks down to a given level
* Trim tank fuel transferred to the inner tanks
* Inner tanks is emptied down to a second given level
* Outer tanks fuel transferred in the inner tanks
* Inner tanks (until empty)
On the CG envelope, this sequence is depicted by the red line, as you can see, fuel burn cause forward and aft CG movement, and aircraft CG can actually be anywhere within the forward of aft limits.
Normal practice however is to load the aircraft with an aft CG as this reduces fuel burn, and then the FMEGC will control the CG in flight for minimum fuel burn (normally within 2% (+/-0.5%) of the aft limit), so in most cases on the A330 fuel burn will cause the CG to move forward after it has reached the initial cruise altitude (the aircraft normally pumps fuel into the tail on climb to get the desired aft CG). All A330/A340/A380 have active CG control in flight, the aircraft knows at ALL times the CG position.
Your statement that "burning fuel from it will shift the CG aft" is false as usual.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): For those airplanes that do not have a constant CG read display, you know it is within the CG limits by looking at the horizontal trim indicators. generally, if the airplane will fly "straight and level" it is properly trimmed and within the CG limits.
So you answered the question, the aircraft does not know the CG position, unlike the A300/A310/A320/A330/A340/A380.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): So can Boeing airplanes. But, in the case of total electrical failure, or an EMP spike, moving fuel around the airplane is the least of your problems.
You should try that in the sim sometime. USAF aircrews do.
I have done flights in the sim with smoke removal or electrical failure working off essential backup electrical systems only, it is not big a deal. I also know we can run the engines without any fuel pumps on, we do regulatory flight tests on the airframes to prove that every year.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10552 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36): The USAF will not park cargo aircraft to use the KC-X in the cargo role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): The cargo moving for the KC-X, and any USAF tanker will always be a secondary role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48): The USAF will not drogue refuel 3 receivers at one time.
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. However, I do hope that you are wrong about these statements:
If true, the USAF strikes me as one of the most inefficient and stagnant organizations I have ever come across in my business education. If you, as an ex-emplyee, are able to predict these things, the USAF has a non-existent improvement programme for their operations. I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
If so, the departure from the pioneering work of USAF employee George Dantzig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig) in 1946 with the operational optimization Simplex algorithm is a giant step backwards. This method, still used today in a vast number of applications, helped the USAF (and many others since then) utilize their resources better, and have benefitted greatly from that.
If today's USAF fails to recognize operational improvements (which always involve CHANGES) as a useful tool, the USA should better not be sending any money that way, as it will be spent in a horribly inefficient way compared to other national defences in no more than ten years from now...
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 96, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10533 times:
Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 94): Are there any good descriptions or pictures of the boom operator console around? Neiter the EADS nor the Airbus websites had any details.
This is the Remote Air Refueling Operator station on the A310, similar but not the same as the RAAF one.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 97, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10474 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 92): Of course it "looks wrong". It's a 2-D photo of a 3-D computer screen image.
Quote:
Aerial refueling operations are controlled from a state-of-the-art Remote Aerial Refueling Operator console in the cockpit behind the pilots, incorporating the enhanced vision system with laser infrared lighting and high-definition digital stereoscopic viewing.
“I have situational awareness and a field of view that far exceed anything I ever had during my Air Force career,” Cash said, “with crystal-clear visuals night or day.”
Maybe you should try it before you knock it?
I know it is a 2-D picture of a 3-D system. I said that here;
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I know it is suppose to be a 3-D picture the Boom Operator sees at his station, but the picture looks all wrong. The shadow of the ruddervators across the receiver just foreward of the receptical really is screwing up the visual clues a Boom Operatior looks for. The lighting is all wrong, it is shinning on the lower portion of the telescoping fuel tube, not on the ball joint or nozzle.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 92): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that?
If they had, what would you have said? Maybe something along the lines of "that photo doesn't prove it was a wet contact"? As far as you're concerned, when it comes to EADS, you won't believe anything they say. Yet, when Boeing say something like:
Quote:
The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
you don't demand photographic evidence or question why only 5,000lbs of fuel was transferred in more than 100 contacts. If this was the ARBS, you'd be demanding to know why they're still having problems with it.
There are plenty of pictures on the web showing the KC-767 in contact with various receivers, including F-16, F-15s, and B-52s. If EADS had posted an external picture of the A-330MRTT refueling the F-16, in contact on the Boom, like the KC-767 has done, I would be satisfied.
The KC-767 has offloaded 5000 to a F-16, and over 100,000 lbs in total between the two KC-767As that were tested at EDW this past summer.
The source said the start date was subsequently pushed back to the end of November 2009.
"That provisional TFA date has now slipped to January 2010," he said. "But that is just guesswork, and things could change from week to week." If the January appointment is kept, all four tankers could yet be delivered during 2010, he added.
and this?
The new problem, said the source, concerns the stability in flight of the central drogue, or basket, fixed to the end of the refueling hose that is extended from the center line of the fuselage.
"Boeing is dedicating a team to fixing this latest problem," the source said. "They appear to have found a solution, but test flying has yet to confirm it, and we have been down this road before."
That would be the upcoming USN MUO testing using the ITAF KC-767As.
This is what happened during the USAF MUO testing last summer.
Boeing's main focus, added Sanchez, was to "complete the Italy flight test program, complete Federal Aviation Administration Supplemental Type Certification [STC] and then work with the U.S. Navy to complete a Military Utility Observation [MUO] required under contract. That is similar to the MUO we conducted with the U.S. Air Force earlier this year."
During the U.S. Air Force MUO in June, two of the tankers destined for Italy used their booms during test flights at Edwards Air Force Base, offloading 100,000 pounds of fuel during 65 tanker-to-tanker contacts.
The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
"We have completed the FAA STC certification requirements," Sanchez said. "Once flight testing has been completed and all resultant findings have been addressed, we'll work with the U.S. Navy to schedule the MUO requirement. Once the MUO requirement has been completed, we'll begin the [TFA] process with our Italian customers and deliver their advanced KC-767 tanker."
While the flight testing with the U.S. Air Force put the boom to the test, the testing with the U.S. Navy will check the workings of the hose and drogue. And with Boeing still testing its fix on the central drogue stability issue, no date had been fixed for the U.S. Navy MUO to start, the Italian source said.
If the MUO is successful, the TFA could start in January and would last around 60 days, said the source, meaning the first tanker could be ready for delivery in March.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 95): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
The USAF will not park cargo aircraft to use the KC-X in the cargo role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
The cargo moving for the KC-X, and any USAF tanker will always be a secondary role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
The USAF will not drogue refuel 3 receivers at one time.
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. However, I do hope that you are wrong about these statements:
If true, the USAF strikes me as one of the most inefficient and stagnant organizations I have ever come across in my business education. If you, as an ex-emplyee, are able to predict these things, the USAF has a non-existent improvement programme for their operations. I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
The USAF, nor any other military force is not a "business". Business management courses do not apply because the USAF is not in the profit making business. I am not an "ex-employee", nor is any other veteran of military service.
The USAF is very efficient for what they do. They are not stagnant. Tactics are reviewed and changed as needed. Does the USAF ever make mistakes? do they ever miss future projections? You bet they do, as does any organization that is run by human beings. But they do get it right more often than they get it wrong. Can GM or Chrysler say that?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 96): Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 94):
Are there any good descriptions or pictures of the boom operator console around? Neiter the EADS nor the Airbus websites had any details.
This is the Remote Air Refueling Operator station on the A310, similar but not the same as the RAAF one.
Zeke's picture, as he said, is that of the KC-310 refueling station. He is right the KC-30 refueling station is similar, but I believe it is also a generation improvement over the KC-310. The picture I have seen, show multi screens for the Boom Operator and Instructor Boom Operator, as well as a third set for an observer. I do not know if theis is what the RAAF has on their KC-30, or something else that is more, or even less capable. But it for sure more capable than the system on the KC-310.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 87): TopBoom, EADS says the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel.
This is what I dispute, Keesje's statement the KC-30 has offloaded 40K through the Boom and has made 70 contacts. Maybe he is just confusing the KC-30 with the KC-310, which has had more contacts and offloaded more fuel.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 93): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
You are right, I have not seen it. I commented on the KC-30 external air refueling lighting, and what I thoulght of the lighting shown in the picture.
I actually see a photos that was taken without lighting, under a night vision system, that is pretty obvious when you look at the roundels. The "shadows" you complain about would be due to the fact earth only has one moon,
That is not moon light, nor is it a picture taken through NVG. If you think it is moon light, explain the shin on the lower fuel tube section, which would be on the bottom. and sheilded from the moon light. Explain why the right wing (which is the left wing in the picture) is darker than the left wing (right wing in the picture). Explani why the ruddervator shadow is so wide. If this were a moon light shadow, it would be no wider than the ruddervators themselves. It is a picture taken with the external refueling lights on.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 93): I guess only having one moon is also the fault of EADS.
That statement is so stupid it needs no reply.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 93): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Don't believe me, go ask another Boom Operator.
Don Cash has already made numerous comments on this, you dismiss his comments and have even claimed at times he is not operating the boom.
Don works for EADS, he is helping them to try to sell EADS tankers. In that respect, he is a lot like me and my defense and preference for Boeing tankers. Don is not paid to say anything negitive, or identify any problems he finds publicly. He will only discuss any of those issues with EADS. I doubt he will even discuss them with the RAAF. Don is just being a company paid salesman. Some how I think Don Cash is not the only person operating the boom, as the engineers would want other inputs from others, too. I read somewhere that EADS also employed a retired French AF Boom Operator, that is also involved with the flight testing, at least on the KC-310, but I cannot find it now. I do not know if the French Boom Operator has flown the KC-30, or not. Nor, did I recongnise his name (it was mentioned in the artical). I have only met a few French Boom Operators.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10440 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): The USAF, nor any other military force is not a "business". Business management courses do not apply because the USAF is not in the profit making business.
Incorrect. Businesses only run by profit goals are often bad-run. Just as important is the allocation of resources (be it troops, vehicles, equipment, money, weapons etc.), which is as valid for non profit organizations (such as the military) as for profit organizations. Why else would the USAF benefit from the Simplex algorithm???? It's all about optimization, and cost is just a tiny bit of that. Operations are much more important, hence my skepticism to the USAF being reluctant to change theirs.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): I am not an "ex-employee", nor is any other veteran of military service
You provided your personal services, they gave you money. That's pretty much the definition of an employee in a general sense. Of course, employees within different sectors might have specific names, such as surgeons, lawyers, officers, waiters, soldiers, consultants, pilots and (full time) politicians.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 99, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10407 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
That is not moon light, nor is it a picture taken through NVG
NVG images are generally green, night vision systems use cameras that pickup the normal visible spectrum as well as frequencies which humans cannot see and convert it to grey scale image that a human can see. They intensify any light that is available, including formation lights, skud lights, receptacle lights, pilot director lights, moon light etc.
How do I explain the greyscale image... it is not representative of what one would see with the naked eye, it is an enhanced image. It is a product of the digital night vision system (infrared lasers and a digital 3D infrared cameras), as I pointed out before, the roundel is too bight, so is the formation light illumination of the drop tanks for it to be normal flood lighting.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
Don works for EADS, he is helping them to try to sell EADS tankers. In that respect, he is a lot like me and my defense and preference for Boeing tankers. Don is not paid to say anything negitive, or identify any problems he finds publicly. He will only discuss any of those issues with EADS. I doubt he will even discuss them with the RAAF. Don is just being a company paid salesman. Some how I think Don Cash is not the only person operating the boom, as the engineers would want other inputs from others, too.
Don Cash did the actual boom hook-ups on all the initial boom refuelling tests on both the A310-MRTT and KC-30. The rest of your allegations are baseless, he is employed be EADS in a flight testing role, not as a salesmen.
e.g. the A310-MRTT
Quote: "Multiple boom hook-ups were conducted with the F-16. The ARBS was controlled by Don Cash, a 21-year U.S. Air Force veteran and refueling boom operator, using the A310's Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO) console. The RARO station employs a three-dimensional vision surveillance system, providing a high-fidelity visual representation of the boom's position during the entire air-to-air refueling process. Today's flight test was the 60th for the boom, totaling more than 160 flight hours."
the KC-30
Quote: “The ARBS was just as smooth and easy to control during these contacts as it has been in all our prior work with it,” said Don Cash, boom operator for the A330 MRTT test flight. “The precision of the system makes the boom feel just like an extension of my arm.”
Cash is a retired U.S. Air Force boom operator with more than 20 years’ experience aboard the KC-135 and KC-10, and has been on the ARBS design team for five years. “I’ve had the needs of the warfighter in mind from the beginning, and we’ve arrived at a system that offers them a level of performance and reliability unmatched by any system available in the world today and for the foreseeable future.”
The RAAF are an active participant in the flight testing, as far as I am aware they have a test pilot and/or flight test engineer on every KC-30 certification flight test. The RAAF are also an active participant in the post flight reviews, nothing is being "hidden", it is a joint civil/military certification process.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): I read somewhere that EADS also employed a retired French AF Boom Operator, that is also involved with the flight testing, at least on the KC-310, but I cannot find it now. I do not know if the French Boom Operator has flown the KC-30, or not.
It would not surprise me if they had ex-tanker crew from many countries, that would not make them any less skilled in the task, if anything it would help internationalise the procedures.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, RR: 7 Reply 100, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10396 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 95): I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
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 the US Military, which will run for decades, wee bit is an understatement. Even the European recognize this, reason for the big "fight".
The US Air Force presently has a huge dedicated cargo fleet, from the C-130, C-17 and C5's, the C5's being the smallest fleet - I have exclude a/c below the C-130 which they also operate. The cargo capabilities of the KC-30 are less valuable to the US Air Force, whether they want to change or not. Change would require parking C-17's which even though are hard pressed are still being built, and provided whether the Air Force wants them or not - politicians - . The C5 re-engine program could be cancelled, however, the KC-30 will not replace or take on the job that the C5 was doing, more of those are being done by the C-17 or chartered a/c. So if the cargo capabilities of the KC-30 are to be used, missions would either have to be co-ordinated around re-fuelling and dropping off cargo, or doing a solo cargo run, the experts will have to speak to the number of re-feulling missions presently being conducted which can be combined with a cargo run. Based on the number of receiver a/c in the US Air Force I would assume that they are a large number of missions where only fuel is required, such as training, or dragging a/c across country.
Is there any other country that has over 100 cargo a/c and 100 tankers, even 50?
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 end up with a number of tankers that also have a not insignificant amount of cargo/passenger capacity. Failing to recognize this and not use this capacity would be mismanagement of resources, in that the USAF can either get rid of uplift shortage or can get rid of excess capacity (dedicated cargo/passenger aircraft) when utilizing the tankers' capacity whenever possible (which again frees up other resources such as manpower, money, fuel, spare parts etc). The first step of using this capacity will probably be to "tag along" some troops or cargo on missions similar to the ones the USAF flies today. The next step might be to alter the tanker missions a bit, to better use the aircrafts' joint capabilities, and the ultimate action might be a complete reshuffle of aircraft usage throughout all the fleets in the AF. Fighters, bombers, tankers and cargo planes might end up doing VERY different missions from today 20 years from now, if deemed more efficient resource-wise by the AF.
I reacted to KC135TopBoom's rather definitive claims that the Air Force wouldn't change ANYTHING to accommodate an aircraft with different capabilities than the ones they have today. My above listed "first step" is the least they should do when the new tankers arrive, which is exactly a "wee bit" of change form today. If the Air Force really is serious about not changing anything, they should have requested a plane with NO uplift capacity, since every unused capability must be considered a waste until utilized. But I doubt KC135TopBoom speaks on behalf of the USAF.
My argument is valid for both the tanker planes. The only thing that differs between them is the amount of fuel and uplift they provide.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, RR: 7 Reply 102, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10570 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): If the Air Force really is serious about not changing anything, they should have requested a plane with NO uplift capacity, since every unused capability must be considered a waste until utilized.
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.
We are three competitons in, a few million has been spent and no a/c has yet been ordered, hard to imagine it taking this long to settle on a new design and award a contract for a purpose built tanker, but then what do I know
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 103, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10524 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): The KC-767 has offloaded 5000 to a F-16, and over 100,000 lbs in total between the two KC-767As that were tested at EDW this past summer.
So you accept all this from Boeing without ever questioning it, but are not prepared to apply the same standards to EADS?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): This is what I dispute, Keesje's statement the KC-30 has offloaded 40K through the Boom and has made 70 contacts.
Quote: To date, the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel. Overall, the ARBS has completed more than 250 wet and dry contacts with a wide range of receiver aircraft, in a full range of operating conditions and throughout its flight envelope, during evaluations aboard the A330 MRTT and from a test-bed aircraft.
Again, there's no claim by EADS that all that fuel was transferred "in flight".
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 104, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10500 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 98): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
The USAF, nor any other military force is not a "business". Business management courses do not apply because the USAF is not in the profit making business.
Incorrect. Businesses only run by profit goals are often bad-run. Just as important is the allocation of resources (be it troops, vehicles, equipment, money, weapons etc.), which is as valid for non profit organizations (such as the military) as for profit organizations. Why else would the USAF benefit from the Simplex algorithm???? It's all about optimization, and cost is just a tiny bit of that. Operations are much more important, hence my skepticism to the USAF being reluctant to change theirs.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Military forces are not for profit or non-profit. Efficiencies and effectiveness have different meanings in the military compared to a business.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 98): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
I am not an "ex-employee", nor is any other veteran of military service
You provided your personal services, they gave you money. That's pretty much the definition of an employee in a general sense. Of course, employees within different sectors might have specific names, such as surgeons, lawyers, officers, waiters, soldiers, consultants, pilots and (full time) politicians.
I provided more than "personal services" for the small compensation I got. An employee works a clock and gets paid for his time on that clock. Soldiers are always "on duty", they do not get paid by the hour. Soldiers are expected to make sacrifices. Employees are not. Part of a Soldiers "job" is to "kill people and break things". Many Soldiers give up their lives to accomplish those goals. Your assembly line worker only has to build what ever is built on his line, no more, no less. He is not expected to give his life doing his job.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): Whether the USAF orders Airbus or Boeing, they'll end up with a number of tankers that also have a not insignificant amount of cargo/passenger capacity. Failing to recognize this and not use this capacity would be mismanagement of resources, in that the USAF can either get rid of uplift shortage or can get rid of excess capacity (dedicated cargo/passenger aircraft) when utilizing the tankers' capacity whenever possible (which again frees up other resources such as manpower, money, fuel, spare parts etc). The first step of using this capacity will probably be to "tag along" some troops or cargo on missions similar to the ones the USAF flies today. The next step might be to alter the tanker missions a bit, to better use the aircrafts' joint capabilities, and the ultimate action might be a complete reshuffle of aircraft usage throughout all the fleets in the AF. Fighters, bombers, tankers and cargo planes might end up doing VERY different missions from today 20 years from now, if deemed more efficient resource-wise by the AF.
I reacted to KC135TopBoom's rather definitive claims that the Air Force wouldn't change ANYTHING to accommodate an aircraft with different capabilities than the ones they have today.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): My argument is valid for both the tanker planes. The only thing that differs between them is the amount of fuel and uplift they provide.
Different airplanes have different mission values to the USAF. It is more important to the USAF for the tanker to provide fuel to the strike mission aircraft (being a force multiplyer), or recce, AWACS, cargo, etc. than for the tanker to carry boxes. Yes, the tanker can carry boxes, just like any other cargo aircraft. But for every pound it carries in boxes, is one less pound of fuel it can give to a receiver. Tankers will do the tanker mission 95%-97% of the time. The USAF will always be able to move that box in another airplane. The USAF has been doing what it does long before you were born, and it does it veru well. Just because you took some business management course somewhere does not make you an expert in anything, not even management.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10491 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): You have no idea what you are talking about. Military forces are not for profit or non-profit. Efficiencies and effectiveness have different meanings in the military compared to a business.
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 strives to do so in an efficient manner (with "efficient", I mean in whatever way suits the organization's purpose best. I'd be stunned to know if the military was an exception, since I can't possibly imagine why they would not want the most out of their resources, and they themselves decide what "the most" means). Since the resources (in this case; tanker equipment) and organizational objectives are always subject to change, so will the optimal use of said resources. No matter how little the USAF needs the extra space of the tankers today, they are worse off not using it when they can (without disrupting primary tasks) than using it, since the capacity is then effectively wasted, inducing an inefficiency in their operations. One that is easily rectified, if one has the will to do so.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): Soldiers are always "on duty", they do not get paid by the hour. Soldiers are expected to make sacrifices.
This is slightly off topic: You obviously have strong feelings on the subject. I respect that, and apologize if you found my comments out of line. I had no intention of belittling your contribution to your country. However, consider the similarities between soldiers on duty and doctors on duty. Both have to be available and alert during duty time, and both "professions" involve dealing with life and death in pressured situations, turning joy into tragedy and vice versa in split-second decisions. Doctors are employees by definition, but obviously prefer to be referred to more specifically (as doctors/surgeons/appropriate title), and I expect soldiers do as well.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): Tankers will do the tanker mission 95%-97% of the time. The USAF will always be able to move that box in another airplane.
Yes, today. Who knows tomorrow? The USAF specified it wanted cargo/passenger capacity, signalling that they need it and want to use it. We both might see in 20 years time that they decided it could move boxes and fuel at the same time... Remember that neither of the planes' MTOW is lower than OEW+Max Fuel. Thus, they'll always have room for some boxes. Summed up across the entire fleet, it is a significant amount of lift, that can either be viewed as increased capacity or replacement capacity. Apparently neither of us know what the AF prefers.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): The USAF has been doing what it does long before you were born, and it does it veru well. Just because you took some business management course somewhere does not make you an expert in anything, not even management.
Yes, I'm young. Yes, I have a Master's Degree in Industrial Economy & Technology Management. No, that doesn't make me an expert. Yes, my education involved lots of optimization cases, quite a few of which were military related. Whatever credibility (or lack thereof) you decide to extend me is entirely at your discretion.
Cargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 88 posts, RR: 1 Reply 106, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10333 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): Whether the USAF orders Airbus or Boeing, they'll end up with a number of tankers that also have a not insignificant amount of cargo/passenger capacity. Failing to recognize this and not use this capacity would be mismanagement of resources, in that the USAF can either get rid of uplift shortage or can get rid of excess capacity (dedicated cargo/passenger aircraft) when utilizing the tankers' capacity whenever possible (which again frees up other resources such as manpower, money, fuel, spare parts etc).
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 planes instead of fly them.
It is cheaper and more efficient for the USAF to pay Atlas, Evergreen, and FedEx to fly its cargo than it is to do that by itself.
And that is what the USAF does. Take a visit to any east coast AMC base and you'll see civil cargo 747s loading up pallets to take to the middle east. The C-17s and C-5s haul the stuff that's too big for the 747s, such as MRAPs and helicopters. The C-17s and C-5s also hang out down range, flying cargo into fields that require defensive systems.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 95): If true, the USAF strikes me as one of the most inefficient and stagnant organizations I have ever come across in my business education. If you, as an ex-emplyee, are able to predict these things, the USAF has a non-existent improvement programme for their operations. I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
I don't think any military is truly efficient compared to businesses. But the USAF innovates better than any other Air Force out there. Global Hawks and Reapers are bringing the cost and risk of combat way down, and the USAF is way out in front of other nations with those. Look at JDAMs and SDBs, JSTARS, GPS, and plenty more on the horizon. All USAF and DOD innovations. Non-existent improvement program? Please.
Plus, we have lots of recycling bins in my squadron!
On one of my staff tours I got to work with analysts, brainiacs with math and statistics PhDs from MIT and CalTech. They analyzed every mission we did, plugged those into crazy mathematical formulas, and came up with more efficient ways to use airlift in theater. With budget crunches and limited assets the USAF is trying many different methods to cut costs.
[quote=XaraB,reply=101]If the Air Force really is serious about not changing anything, they should have requested a plane with NO uplift capacity, since every unused capability must be considered a waste until utilized.
I personally feel that the USAF is overemphasizing cargo capabilities with this new tanker. Any cargo improvement over the -135 is welcome but 19 or 26 pallets worth? Thats alot of empty space for most missions. Problem is the -135 can carry 200K of fuel yet its max gross is only 323K. What modern airplane comes close to that ratio? Any plane today that carries 200K of gas has to be a widebody. At least the 767 and A330 are designed to be efficient.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 107, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10319 times:
Quote: The hose-and-drogue "wet contacts" occurred November 10 during a mission that utilized both the A330 MRTT left and right under-wing pods, with more than 9,200 lbs of fuel transferred to a NATO F/A-18 fighter aircraft.
Hmm, I wonder what else could possibly be wrong with it?
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 108, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10333 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 105): Yes, I'm young. Yes, I have a Master's Degree in Industrial Economy & Technology Management. No, that doesn't make me an expert. Yes, my education involved lots of optimization cases, quite a few of which were military related. Whatever credibility (or lack thereof) you decide to extend me is entirely at your discretion.
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 the classroom. Please don't take my comments personally. My military brothers and sisters are very close and important to me and my heart.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 105): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104):
Soldiers are always "on duty", they do not get paid by the hour. Soldiers are expected to make sacrifices.
This is slightly off topic: You obviously have strong feelings on the subject. I respect that, and apologize if you found my comments out of line.
Not a problem.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 107): Successful testing of the A330MRTT continues:
Quote:
The hose-and-drogue "wet contacts" occurred November 10 during a mission that utilized both the A330 MRTT left and right under-wing pods, with more than 9,200 lbs of fuel transferred to a NATO F/A-18 fighter aircraft.
Hmm, I wonder what else could possibly be wrong with it?
Well, congradulations, and it is about time. BTW, the seal in the drogue needs to be replaced, it leaks (look at the F/A-18 canopy). I do really mean that. EADS seems to be moving in the right direction, with the A-330MRTT, now.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 109, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8402 times:
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 foreseen, economies of scale
- The KC767 will mature because of the USAF product development
- Further MRTT development is no longer focussed on restricted USAF requirements
- New engines, the A330F nose wheel, cargo deck/door etc. are a step closer
- Other airforces might be more interested in a powerfull multirole platform.
- The KC30 alliances with NG will probably end. Other partners / production facilities might be under consideration
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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23596 posts, RR: 79 Reply 110, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8383 times:
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 don't operate a handful of aircraft that need to be "jacks of all trades" out of a handful of airfields. The multi-role capabilities of the A330MRTT are unneeded and just result in a more expensive aircraft that cannot be purchased in the quantities necessary because of that extra cost. The USAF needs a tanker first and foremost and they need a lot of them to provide the necessary number of "booms in the air". For the USAF's needs, 200 KC-767s are better than 150 KC-30As even if 150 KC-30As can haul the same amount of cargo and fuel as 200 KC-767s can.
For most of the rest of the world's air forces, they must make do with fleet's orders of magnitude smaller than the USAF and only need base them at a handful of facilities. For them, it makes perfect sense to purchase larger, more expensive multi-role aircraft like the A330MRTT over the KC-767.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 111, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8325 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 109): - The KC767 will be in production for a longer time then foreseen, economies of scale
- The KC767 will mature because of the USAF product development
- Further MRTT development is no longer focussed on restricted USAF requirements
- New engines, the A330F nose wheel, cargo deck/door etc. are a step closer
- Other airforces might be more interested in a powerfull multirole platform.
- The KC30 alliances with NG will probably end. Other partners / production facilities might be under consideration
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 be a high price for either the KC-30 or KC-767NG. Bush said the unit flyaway costs per KC-30, in 2008, for the first 68 airplanes was going to be $184M each (averaged). The GAO said, when they upheld Boeing's protest in 2008, the NG offer was some $10M higher than Boeing's offer. That tells me that in 2008, the Boeing KC-767AT bid actually came out to be some $174M unit flyaway costs for 68 airplanes (averaged). While the lower costs would accumulate to some savings of $6.8B over the first 68 airplanes, that was still a drop in the money bucket for a (up to) $40B contract. There was no garauntee to the USAF that savings rate would continue over the remaining 111 new tankers. That would have been true for either Boeing, or EADS/NG.
There is no garauntee right now there will ever be a KC-X. Right now the only offer on the USAF's table appears to be the Boeing KC-767NG. The USAF still has to select an offer, or it can reject it in favor of reengining the KC-135Es.
OTOH, I am sure Boeing already knows this, and realizes their KC-767NG is now competing against their own product in the form of the KC-135E. Boeing will price the KC-767NG in an area that still allows a profit margin and an incentive to the USAF to actually buy their new product.
Other Air Forces, that have yet to consider ordering new tankers (or conversions from airliners to tankers), will be watching closely what the USAF does. If the USAF orders new build KC-767NGs, the price may be attractive enough to win orders away from the EADS A-330MRTT. They may also submit FMS bids to the USAF for refurbished KC-135Es once they know the USAF will no longer have a use for them.
For future orders, beyond the USAF, Boeing can now offer a tanker version of the B-767-300ERF, which would be a near match for an A-330MRTT in the airlift role, and still only a 20% lower off-load compared to the big Airbus.
NG gave up the ball to Boeing yesterday, and that may hurt EADS more than anyone.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1874 posts, RR: 6 Reply 112, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8003 times:
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 106): It is cheaper and more efficient for the USAF to pay Atlas, Evergreen, and FedEx to fly its cargo than it is to do that by itself.
Why? Because the USAF has no efficient box cargo planes. They could buy a tanker however that turns the table.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 110): The USAF is unique in it's size, breadth of equipment and scope of deployment. They don't operate a handful of aircraft that need to be "jacks of all trades" out of a handful of airfields.
Like everybody else the USAF uses more and more aircrafts which combined roles. Can you tell me why the tanker role is more outstanding than e.g the A/G fighter role? The USAF would be double as big if for each current multi-role aircraft two or more single-role duplicates would exist.
And why should it be easier for the UK, Australia to combine tanker and cargo role with smaller fleets? The smaller the fleet the MORE complicated logistic and planning gets. Their fleets are not so small because they don't need more but because they combine roles. According to your logic the UK could also have bought 12 KC-767's and to compensate the lost cargo lift just have bought more A400M's (or book extensive charter operations). Is this considered cost effective in the U.S.? Why would such a weird strategy save costs in the U.S. and the other countries aim for multirole solutions?
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 113, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7895 times:
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112): Why? Because the USAF has no efficient box cargo planes. They could buy a tanker however that turns the table.
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.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112): And why should it be easier for the UK, Australia to combine tanker and cargo role with smaller fleets? The smaller the fleet the MORE complicated logistic and planning gets. Their fleets are not so small because they don't need more but because they combine roles. According to your logic the UK could also have bought 12 KC-767's and to compensate the lost cargo lift just have bought more A400M's (or book extensive charter operations). Is this considered cost effective in the U.S.? Why would such a weird strategy save costs in the U.S. and the other countries aim for multirole solutions?
It could actually be cheaper for UK to have bought 12 KC-767 and book charter operations when needed. Your logic is false. UK RAF is not in the business of hauling cargo, thus having a plane sitting in the tarmac is basically waste of money. How often do you think the UK is going to use the plane to haul cargo? Even as it is structured now, the RAF is not going to owned the plane, rather lease it from a private company that is going to be able to utilize the aircrafts while they are not needed by RAF.
The most efficient method is to buy/own/lease the minimum amount of tanker a country would need for aerial refueling and sub contract the cargo transport to other companies who actually utilizes the cargo planes much better than the military.
For RAF, the fact that the A330 MRTT does not require cargo hold fuel bladder probably contributes significantly to the flexibility of the private company to be able to utilize the plane more efficiently in commercial operation, thus reducing the overall cost for RAF.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 114, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7851 times:
The promoted idea that it is cheaper to have hundreds of dedicated tankers sitting on the platform & buying or hiring cargo capasity else where doesn't sticks with me either. It was reality with the low usage KC135s because it hardly has cargo capability / space left. To copy that inefficient process into the future seems a bad idea except for commercial airframers that want to sell / maintain both tankers and freighters..
The "too capable" school of thoughts will quickly vanish after this competition I think.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 115, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7842 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 114): The promoted idea that it is cheaper to have hundreds of dedicated tankers sitting on the platform & buying or hiring cargo capasity else where doesn't sticks with me either. It was reality with the low usage KC135s because it hardly has cargo capability / space left. To copy that inefficient process into the future seems a bad idea except for commercial airframers that want to sell / maintain both tankers and freighters..
The "too capable" school of thoughts will quickly vanish after this competition I think.
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 PLANES. When you need a tanker you need a tanker then. When you need a cargoplane you don't need a tanker hauling several tons of useless expensive junk around that does absolutely nothing for hauling cargo.
More to the point Militaries by thier very nature can't preplan everything. So all those planes "sitting around doing nothing" are actualy "sitting around doing exactly whats needed". That thing needed is to be ready at short notice to go to work. Something a tanker can't do when its not at its base, parked, ready to go.
The final nail in this coffin is that... The USAF can buy new or used frieghters just like UPS or FedEx use. Why haven't they? Its cheaper to contract out cargo ops than to operate the same equipment internaly. They have had decades and decades of cold hard data proving this, and thus they haven't even asked about bringing it in-house. They also wouldn't be trying to turn down the "free" C17 frames Congress gives each year instead asking for the money to be put elsewhere. A C17 isn't much different in cost than a KC767 and is far better at cargo ops.
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 116, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7673 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 114): It was reality with the low usage KC135s because it hardly has cargo capability / space left
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 11 Reply 117, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7654 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 113): For RAF, the fact that the A330 MRTT does not require cargo hold fuel bladder probably contributes significantly to the flexibility of the private company to be able to utilize the plane more efficiently in commercial operation, thus reducing the overall cost for RAF.
I thought the RAF tanker program used A330-200's, not A330 MRTT?
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 115): TANKERS ARE NOT CARGO PLANES. When you need a tanker you need a tanker then. When you need a cargoplane you don't need a tanker hauling several tons of useless expensive junk around that does absolutely nothing for hauling cargo.
Back when the USAF had seperate commands, SAC, TAC, MATS, etc. we used KC-135's as transports, because to use a MATS transport took a lot of "red tape". We used them to transport our spare engines, start carts, oxygen and nitrogen crafts, spare parts and personal baggage. When we went on deployments it was always on KC-135's.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 118, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7670 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 116): Quoting keesje (Reply 114):
It was reality with the low usage KC135s because it hardly has cargo capability / space left
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 13 Reply 119, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7599 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 114): The "too capable" school of thoughts will quickly vanish after this competition I think.
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, that option would be preferable to the current Boeing offering, assuming a new KC-135 was significantly less expensive than the KC-767.
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 120, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7509 times:
That proves nothing. It only shows that KC-135 has lower capacity. It does not show causation as you boldly stated as fact :
Quoting keesje (Reply 114): It was reality with the low usage KC135s because it hardly has cargo capability / space left
It's like saying that there's hardly any pax transported between Mobile and Atlanta, because the 737 has so little pax capability/ space left. LOOK why don't delta buys A380 for that route, it has more capability, thus we will transport more pax with it.
If you can show that there are massive amount of cargo left behind while KC-135 and KC-10 is filled to the brim, than you have a point. Otherwise, your statement is wrong and not based on reality.
Quote: However, when the report of the Mobility Capabilities Study was released in 2005, it did not identify a passenger and cargo gap or shortfall, concluding instead that combined U.S. and host nation transportation assets were adequate to meet U.S. objectives with acceptable risk. The study did note that a passenger- and cargo-capable refueling aircraft could be used in a secondary mission role when not being used in its primary mission. However, the Mobility Capabilities Study also identified a refueling aircraft shortfall in all refueling-required scenarios but one and concluded that the number of aircraft needed to satisfy refueling needs ranges from 520 to 640 total aircraft, a range that exceeds the current Air Force inventory of 590 refueling aircraft.
KC-X's cargo capability will only be secondary to other assets, USAF barely has enough tanker to fulfill its tanking needs, let alone cargo needs.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 121, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7428 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 117): Back when the USAF had seperate commands, SAC, TAC, MATS, etc. we used KC-135's as transports, because to use a MATS transport took a lot of "red tape". We used them to transport our spare engines, start carts, oxygen and nitrogen crafts, spare parts and personal baggage. When we went on deployments it was always on KC-135's.
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 subjected to the cargo needs/whims of the USAF in addition to thier own duties.
The defenders of the separated tanker/cargo plane argument (a new favourite of the 767 cheerleaders, I can see), correctly states that the 767 tanker combined with dedicated cargo planes will be a better fit for the USAF in their CURRENT operating scheme, because it is exactly the same. Of course it's a better fit; that's a no-brainer.
However, the discussion in this tanker competition should run more along the lines of which operating doctrine (combined or segregated planes) will give the USAF the most "bang for the buck", as in max utilization for minimum cost. And to be frank, the USAF (and the entire US armed forces) HAVE to cut their costs soon to prevent your economy from tanking permanently; the current expenditure level is unsustainable. I haven't seen any indication or analysis as to which plane/scheme gives a fleet wide mission wide (across the entire AF, not just the tankers) highest utilization. The RFPs published have not focused on this at all, rather which plane fits the current model best. As I said earlier in this thread, the apparent unwillingness to explore other strategic, tactical and operational approaches by the USAF baffles me, and is historically very unlike the American armed forces (in fact, they pioneered some of the most used practices throughout newer history).
In my eyes, this situation looks like this:
PROBLEM:
How to maintain a sufficient amount of tanker availability/capability and cargo carrying capacity, both in order to carry out individual missions as effectively as possible, and to assist the other branches of the Armed Forces in the best possible way, in order to maximize their mission success.
SOLUTION (as is today):
Have a huge fleet of dedicated tankers, and a huge fleet of dedicated cargo planes (and a charter division), who operates their own seperate missions, each maximizing usage of its primary ability.
What the Air Force is currently doing, is throwing money at the existing SOLUTION. However, doing that is never going to significantly improve the solution's effectiveness for this problem. IMO, if they want the best possible solution, they should be throwing money at the PROBLEM, and then pick whatever solution returns the best value, regardless of how small or big departure from the current operational scheme that solution is.
As to those who'll say that "this has already been done, and the current solution returned the best results", I'd firstly ask you to provide sources. Secondly: If you look at the present solution presented above, you'll see that each division is maximizing their isolated efforts. However, as anyone who knows basic Strategic Management or Operations Research (which has its origins in the USAF, actually) will know, this will result in suboptimalization, yielding poorer result for the organization as a whole (here, USAF). Studies and experience shows that optimization across the organization or value chain yields better results (as in better availability at lower costs), even if every division performs below their maximum abilities. Based on this, I simply cannot understand why the USAF have gone away from the multirole RFP towards a more specialized one, and I strongly believe they are making a costly mistake.
Disclaimer: I'm questioning the set of minds in the boards that designed the RFPs (and the strategy behind them), NOT the actual airplane choice. To me, the biggest flaw in this competition is failure to apply decades of fairly simple knowledge in order to improve the organization (as this is central in my education). I'm completely indifferent to whichever manufacturer gets the order if it fulfills a well thought out RFP.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 123, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7116 times:
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112): Quoting Stitch (Reply 110):
The USAF is unique in it's size, breadth of equipment and scope of deployment. They don't operate a handful of aircraft that need to be "jacks of all trades" out of a handful of airfields.
Like everybody else the USAF uses more and more aircrafts which combined roles.
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 efficent Aor Force. Those single use airplanes include the B-1, B-2, and B-52, the KC-135, C-130, C-17, and C-5, as well as the F-15C/D, F-16C/D, and A-10.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112): Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 106):
It is cheaper and more efficient for the USAF to pay Atlas, Evergreen, and FedEx to fly its cargo than it is to do that by itself.
Why? Because the USAF has no efficient box cargo planes.
They do, but most times the USAF does not need a lot of "box carrier" capacity. The "box carrier" is a surge mission needed directly in wartime, and not as much in peacetime.
Quoting keesje (Reply 114): The promoted idea that it is cheaper to have hundreds of dedicated tankers sitting on the platform & buying or hiring cargo capasity else where doesn't sticks with me either.
Well, maybe you need to become an advisor to the USAF?
Quoting keesje (Reply 114): It was reality with the low usage KC135s because it hardly has cargo capability / space left. To copy that inefficient process into the future seems a bad idea except for commercial airframers that want to sell / maintain both tankers and freighters..
The cargo compartment in the KC-135 is 80' long of usable floorspace. The floorspace on a KC-767, KC-30, would be just as underused. The KC-10 is different as it does have a secondary AMC channel mission, although not nearly what the C-17, C5, and C-130 has.
By you own chart, the KC-777F would be, by far, the most efficent tanker/cargo duel mission airplane, having the best of both worlds, a very large fuel capacity and a very large cargo pallet and passenger capacity. So wouldn't that make the A-330MRTT a "second rate" tanker/cargo airplane as you claim the KC-767 is?
Quoting XaraB (Reply 122): In my eyes, this situation looks like this:
PROBLEM:
How to maintain a sufficient amount of tanker availability/capability and cargo carrying capacity, both in order to carry out individual missions as effectively as possible, and to assist the other branches of the Armed Forces in the best possible way, in order to maximize their mission success.
SOLUTION (as is today):
Have a huge fleet of dedicated tankers, and a huge fleet of dedicated cargo planes (and a charter division), who operates their own seperate missions, each maximizing usage of its primary ability.
What the Air Force is currently doing, is throwing money at the existing SOLUTION. However, doing that is never going to significantly improve the solution's effectiveness for this problem. IMO, if they want the best possible solution, they should be throwing money at the PROBLEM, and then pick whatever solution returns the best value, regardless of how small or big departure from the current operational scheme that solution is.
So, you are also advocating the USAF buy KC-777Fs, just as Keesje is?
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7090 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 123): So, you are also advocating the USAF buy KC-777Fs, just as Keesje is?
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 elaborate in my previous reply. Whichever plane they end up with is less important than not having a suboptimal (and possibly flawed) way of procuring it.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23596 posts, RR: 79 Reply 125, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7069 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 124): Whichever plane they end up with is less important than not having a suboptimal (and possibly flawed) way of procuring it.
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 last RFP, the procurement process was held up by Airbus Aficionados as being fine while Boeing Boosters said it was unfair.
Now that the KC-767 (appears to have) won the current RFP, it's the Airbus Aficionados who are decrying the process as unfair and the Boeing Boosters now claiming all is right with the world.
This is the third time an RFP has been filed.
The first time (2001's lease deal), the USAF was ruled to have improperly favored Boeing by freezing out NG/Airbus and the award was overturned.
The second time, the USAF was ruled to have improperly favored NG/Airbus by using criteria which effectively froze out Boeing and the award was again overturned.
Now this third time, both Boeing and NG/Airbus claimed they were being frozen out: Boeing before the RFP was issued and Airbus after.
NG/Airbus could have bid and if they had lost, they then could have appealed as Boeing did last time and then we could have a fourth RFP, but they have instead chosen to not compete and complain to the EU how "mean" the United States is.
And now some EU Heads of State are attempting to apply the same political pressure to select/favor Airbus that many non-US members have accused US politicians of having done to select/favor Boeing, which makes their arguments now look hypocritical (if after the fact).
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 126, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6810 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 125): When the KC-30A won the last RFP, the procurement process was held up by Airbus Aficionados as being fine while Boeing Boosters said it was unfair.
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 apparently bother to actualy read it before making thier selection that is the problem.
The current one is also fine. All NG needs to do is have the cheaper plane that meets the minimum requirements to replace KC135R. There is nothing cute in there preventing the KC30 from winning. Heck they even got another pass on the milcon costs.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 127, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6753 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 124): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 123):
So, you are also advocating the USAF buy KC-777Fs, just as Keesje is?
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 elaborate in my previous reply. Whichever plane they end up with is less important than not having a suboptimal (and possibly flawed) way of procuring it.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 125): How people are defining "sub-optimal" appears to be based solely on whether or not they support the KC-30A or the KC-767.
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 missions of carrying passengers, cargo, aeromedical airlift, etc. will mostly be done by other airplane types first, then charters, and finally tankers. That is no different than the KC-10s and KC-135s of today.
The proposed KC-767NG can refuel all current and known future USAF refuelable fixed wing aircraft, using current procedures, the KC-30 cannot. The KC-30 can off-load more fuel to receiver aircraft, that it can refuel, but the max off-load is only 14%-20% more than the KC-767NG.
The mandatory requirement is to match the off-load capability of the KC-135R at range, both the KC-30 and KC-767NG can do that. In fact both offers exceed the capability of the KC-135R, which is a non-mandatory requirement. Another non-mandatory requirement is the ablilty to refueld the MV/CV-22, which the KC-767NG can do, but apparently the KC-30 cannot.
Part of the mandatory refueling requirements require the new tanker to be able to complete the current emergency breakaway manuver, which the KC-767NG can do, but the KC-30 requires a modification to the manuver to be able to do it.
So, it appears the KC-30 cannot meet at least one of the 372 mandatory requirements.
The emergency breakaway manuver may be a reason why Boeing still proposes the PW-4062 engines. My guess is it has a faster and more responsive engine spool-up time when compared to the GE CF-6-80E engine. I do not know for sure, that is a guess. The engines of the KC-10 are slightly different engines, they are GE CF-6-50C engines. Those engines produce less thrust than the PW-4062s, which is probibly wht Boeing did not offer the CF-6-50C engine or CF-6-80C engine (the CF-6-80E will not fit under the B-767 wing).
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 128, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6507 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 123): Well, maybe you need to become an advisor to the USAF?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 123): Quoting keesje (Reply 114):
The promoted idea that it is cheaper to have hundreds of dedicated tankers sitting on the platform & buying or hiring cargo capasity else where doesn't sticks with me either.
Well, maybe you need to become an advisor to the USAF?
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 selection process for the home team.
Page 6 of 21
Because DoD’s last tanker requirements study is outdated, and because subsequent
analyses failed, for many, to provide increased insight into tanker and airlift requirements,
many significant acquisition and force structure questions remain unclear. One question was
alluded to earlier in this testimony: “how much airlift capability should the aerial refueling
fleet provide?”
It appears that some within DoD believe that the KC-X program should provide for
more airlift capability than it currently does. Last spring, DoD’s top military transportation
commanders expressed a strong preference for a multi-role tanker. Gen. Norton Schwartz,
Commander U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) testified that
"What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that
can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane
to go wherever we need to take it....if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over
Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive.
But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25
years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission
airplane to me makes sense.14"
The Defense Science Board agreed with Gen. Schwartz’s opinion on refueling
requirements and the availability of tankers to provide airlift missions. “The major driver for
future aerial refueling needs is the number and type of nearly simultaneous “major”
operations. Demands on aerial refueling are particularly stressed when time is of the essence
for the mission and when local infrastructure is immature.”15
The amount of airlift ultimately to be provided by the tanker fleet could have important
implications for other programs under this subcommittee’s purview.
However everybody is now in a massive effort to forget, ignore, ridicule an obvious multirole advantage. Would it hurt if the KC135 had good cargo capabilities or if the C-17 was an efficient tanker too?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8051 posts, RR: 13 Reply 129, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6499 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 128): Would it hurt if the KC135 had good cargo capabilities or if the C-17 was an efficient tanker too?
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 the USG won't pay for the extra capacity it does not intend to use. Given the current economic situation why would you advocate that?
We could also make a requirement that our next aircraft carrier must be able to stack standard shipping containers on its decks. Then on long deployments from the US to Asia or Europe we can recover some of the cost by carrying cargo too. Given the long transit times, the onload/offload time is negligible and the cost of having some tiedowns on the deck would be negligible compared to the cost of the carrier.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6495 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 129): We could also make a requirement that our next aircraft carrier must be able to stack standard shipping containers on its decks. Then on long deployments from the US to Asia or Europe we can recover some of the cost by carrying cargo too. Given the long transit times, the onload/offload time is negligible and the cost of having some tiedowns on the deck would be negligible compared to the cost of the carrier.
Inaccurate analogy. The USAF cannot receive a tanker without getting a significant cargo carrying capacity as well ( you can't just "remove" the cargo deck of a 767...), while one would have to specifically order extra pallet space on an aircraft carrier. Big difference!
Quoting Revelation (Reply 129): the USG won't pay for the extra capacity it does not intend to use.
As I said above, they'll receive a lot of capacity anyway. Why are they insisting not to use it at all? That's inefficiency (by failing to use available resources) introduced in the USAF's total operations right there... But I agree, they shouldn't pay for ADDITIONAL capacity if what they receive is sufficient for their needs. However, they seem to disagree a bit with themselves as to what "sufficient" is in this case.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8051 posts, RR: 13 Reply 131, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6475 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 130): Inaccurate analogy. The USAF cannot receive a tanker without getting a significant cargo carrying capacity as well ( you can't just "remove" the cargo deck of a 767...), while one would have to specifically order extra pallet space on an aircraft carrier. Big difference!
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 said and done.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 130): As I said above, they'll receive a lot of capacity anyway. Why are they insisting not to use it at all?
They have been getting that capability with KC10s and not using it very much either.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 130): That's inefficiency (by failing to use available resources) introduced in the USAF's total operations right there...
Why do you presume you know their operational models better than they do?
They could be getting more "efficiency" by your measure by insisting industry build them a tanker that had no unused space, but of course it'd probably have a purchase cost several times over the current cost.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 130): However, they seem to disagree a bit with themselves as to what "sufficient" is in this case.
And that's natural. It seems the last general in charge anticipated more value in cargo capacity than the current one does, and he also got to operate in a better economic climate than the current one does. That doesn't make either one right or wrong, just different. Had the last general made sure his underlings applied the rules of the last RFP correctly we might not be in the current situation.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 132, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6471 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 131): Why do you presume you know their operational models better than they do?
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 waste is a resource. Proper usage of a resource increases efficiency. Thus, not realizing that resource's full potential lowers the efficiency gain from the potential maximum, introducing an inefficiency.
It's a bit of a school book definition, I know, and not necessarily universally valid in the real world. The principal, however, is important.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 131): They could be getting more "efficiency" by your measure by insisting industry build them a tanker that had no unused space, but of course it'd probably have a purchase cost several times over the current cost.
Yes. There are several types of efficiency, and they are seldom totally compatible. Here, I was referring to operational efficiency, which is completely different from cost efficiency, as you correctly pointed out.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 133, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6483 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 128): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 123):
Quoting keesje (Reply 114):
The promoted idea that it is cheaper to have hundreds of dedicated tankers sitting on the platform & buying or hiring cargo capasity else where doesn't sticks with me either.
Well, maybe you need to become an advisor to the USAF?
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 selection process for the home team.
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 selection. The scales were tipped into the NG proposal because NG threatened to walk out on that comp. too. Then the scales were again tipped by putting cargo airlift on the same level as air refueling. Finally the scales were tipped in NG's favor by adding false numbers to the KC-767 for fuel burn, basing and MilCon. Then the USAF ignored the fact that NG refused to support the KC-30 after delivery.
Politics was all over the 2008 KC-X decision, and that is why it was thrown out.
However everybody is now in a massive effort to forget, ignore, ridicule an obvious multirole advantage. Would it hurt if the KC135 had good cargo capabilities or if the C-17 was an efficient tanker too?
Yes, it would hurt Boeing..
Wrong, you refuse to acknowledge the KC-767NG also has multi-role capabilities, too.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 130): Quoting Revelation (Reply 129):
We could also make a requirement that our next aircraft carrier must be able to stack standard shipping containers on its decks. Then on long deployments from the US to Asia or Europe we can recover some of the cost by carrying cargo too. Given the long transit times, the onload/offload time is negligible and the cost of having some tiedowns on the deck would be negligible compared to the cost of the carrier.
Inaccurate analogy. The USAF cannot receive a tanker without getting a significant cargo carrying capacity as well ( you can't just "remove" the cargo deck of a 767...), while one would have to specifically order extra pallet space on an aircraft carrier. Big difference!
No, the big difference is for every pound of cargo you put on a KC-767 or a KC-30 is one LESS pound of fuel you can carry or transfer.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 131): 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 said and done.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 131): Quoting XaraB (Reply 130):
That's inefficiency (by failing to use available resources) introduced in the USAF's total operations right there...
Why do you presume you know their operational models better than they do?
He doesn't. He has been jacking around with us, and I have been jacking around with him. There is no way a 21 year old from Norway can fully understand how and why the USAF operates the way it does.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 134, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6467 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 133): No, the big difference is for every pound of cargo you put on a KC-767 or a KC-30 is one LESS pound of fuel you can carry or transfer.
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 kilograms of cargo is VERY small, if you look at what the airlines are quiting as fuel burn figures per passenger per mile (at 75 kilograms + luggage).
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 133): There is no way a 21 year old from Norway can fully understand how and why the USAF operates the way it does.
Of course not. I cannot follow the USAF's operations as closely as those living in the US, or those actually in the AF (as I know you have been, KC). You conveniently chose the lower end of the age span I'm within to support your argument, though...
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 133): He has been jacking around with us, and I have been jacking around with him.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion, and genuinely try to draw upon my education, work experience and opinions to contribute. If that's "jacking around", I'll have more of that, please!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 135, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6347 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 132): However, I used "inefficiency" based on the following definitions. The opposite of waste is resources, and what is not waste is a resource. Proper usage of a resource increases efficiency. Thus, not realizing that resource's full potential lowers the efficiency gain from the potential maximum, introducing an inefficiency.
It's a bit of a school book definition, I know, and not necessarily universally valid in the real world. The principal, however, is important.
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 money, they are not in business to be "meals on wheels" (although they are often used in that role). Military forces have only two objectives, to kill people and break things, and all efforts are geared towards the most efficient way to do those things. The sideline benefit of that also increases efficiency of things like meals on wheels and humanitarain missions.
So, you are right, effeiciency for different groups does have different meanings.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1874 posts, RR: 6 Reply 136, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6262 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 113): UK RAF is not in the business of hauling cargo, thus having a plane sitting in the tarmac is basically waste of money.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 129): No, it wouldn't hurt, but why would you pay extra for it?
For the additional benefit! There is no free benefit, also not from Boeing.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 137, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6151 times:
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 136): Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 113):
UK RAF is not in the business of hauling cargo, thus having a plane sitting in the tarmac is basically waste of money.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 129):
No, it wouldn't hurt, but why would you pay extra for it?
For the additional benefit! There is no free benefit, also not from Boeing.
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). They have 24 A-400Ms on order to replace the C-130Ks, when or if they ever actually take those is anyone's guess right now.
The new A-330MRTT (14 on order) will replace the L-1011s for refueling and passenger hauling, but will not be a primary cargo hauler, it will only put cargo on the lower deck cargo compartments (it will not have a main deck cargo door or cargo floor).
Right now, EADS estimates additional sales of some 50 non-US A-330MRTTs, or KC-30s. However, if the USAF chooses the new KC-767NG as its new tanker, some of those countries may order KC-767s instead of KC-30s. I believe the only future order that EADS can firmly count on is the 8-12 KC-30 order to France. They have already lost the 6 airplane KC-30 orders to India.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 138, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6137 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 137): However, if the USAF chooses the new KC-767NG as its new tanker, some of those countries may order KC-767s instead of KC-30s.
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 around the World. Especially given the 767 has never been chosen over an A330-based tanker.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 137): They have already lost the 6 airplane KC-30 orders to India.
Are you not a little premature there? I thought I'd read that India would be re-issuing their RFP?
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 139, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6139 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 138): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 137):
However, if the USAF chooses the new KC-767NG as its new tanker, some of those countries may order KC-767s instead of KC-30s.
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 around the World. Especially given the 767 has never been chosen over an A330-based tanker.
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 USAF to grade it. Just because the KC-767, in any form has not beat the KC-30/A-330MRTT in any form yet, does not mean it won't. I cannot recall if the A-330MRTT/KC-30 was offered in time for the Italian and Japanese tankers, do you? The A-330MRTT was offered to the USAF in the 2002 lease deal, but at that time it was far from ready.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 138): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 137):
They have already lost the 6 airplane KC-30 orders to India.
Are you not a little premature there? I thought I'd read that India would be re-issuing their RFP?
Correct. Why would they re-issue their RFP if they stiill had those KC-30s on order?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 141, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5972 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 140): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
if they stiill had those KC-30s on order?
India selected the A330MRTT, but never placed an order because the Ministry of Finance wouldn't approve the Air Force's request.
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.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 711 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5918 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 127):
The proposed KC-767NG can refuel all current and known future USAF refuelable fixed wing aircraft, using current procedures, the KC-30 cannot. The KC-30 can off-load more fuel to receiver aircraft, that it can refuel, but the max off-load is only 14%-20% more than the KC-767NG.
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-130. In fact, the KC-30 uses the same wing drogue system as the KC-130, which is the primary tanker for the V-22.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1874 posts, RR: 6 Reply 143, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5807 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 142): I am going to call you on this, as the KC-767 has NEVER refuelled a V-22, just like the KC-30
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, IIRC Boeing doesn't even currently have such a boom).
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 144, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5724 times:
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 143): The KC-767 boom has NEVER had any contact with any aircraft at all!
Correct. As of March 4th, Boeing has announced it is officially proposing the NewGen tanker (KC-767NG), which, among other improvements, includes an all-new boom. More information (and a presentation video) can be found here: http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2010/03/newgen_tanker.html
A completely new test regime for new boom therefore seems to be in order before Boeing can claim total (and real, not theoretical) compatibility with other airplanes.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 145, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5667 times:
The proposed KC-767NG can refuel all current and known future USAF refuelable fixed wing aircraft, using current procedures, the KC-30 cannot. The KC-30 can off-load more fuel to receiver aircraft, that it can refuel, but the max off-load is only 14%-20% more than the KC-767NG.
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-130. In fact, the KC-30 uses the same wing drogue system as the KC-130, which is the primary tanker for the V-22.
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 at 190 KIAS, but that is different than the airframes themselves doing it. BTW, the KC-135R with MPRPs has also refueled the CV-22.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 143): Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 142):
I am going to call you on this, as the KC-767 has NEVER refuelled a V-22, just like the KC-30
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, IIRC Boeing doesn't even currently have such a boom).
Quoting XaraB (Reply 144): Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 143):
The KC-767 boom has NEVER had any contact with any aircraft at all!
Correct. As of March 4th, Boeing has announced it is officially proposing the NewGen tanker (KC-767NG), which, among other improvements, includes an all-new boom. More information (and a presentation video) can be found here: http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2010/03/newgen_tanker.html
A completely new test regime for new boom therefore seems to be in order before Boeing can claim total (and real, not theoretical) compatibility with other airplanes.
The Boom offered on the KC-767NG has not flown, so you are right. But, if you look at the Boeing Gen. VI Boom, and read the specs. on it, you will see it is an updated version of the KC-10A Boom, it is not like the KC-767A/J Gen. IV Boom or the proposed Boeing Gen. V Boom of the KC-767AT.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 146, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5591 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 145): The Boom offered on the KC-767NG has not flown, so you are right.
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 be prepared to accept this at face value.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 147, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5561 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 146): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 145):
The Boom offered on the KC-767NG has not flown, so you are right.
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 be prepared to accept this at face value.
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 KC-10 boom doesn't have the advanced load ellevation and steering the new will have.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 148, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5473 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 147): I think the KC-10 boom doesn't have the advanced load ellevation and steering the new will have.
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.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 711 posts, RR: 0 Reply 149, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5456 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 145): 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 at 190 KIAS, but that is different than the airframes themselves doing it. BTW, the KC-135R with MPRPs has also refueled the CV-22.
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 KC-30 WARPs have had wet contact with aircraft and passed fuel, and are in service with the MC-130H, C-130E, C-130H, KDC-10, A310 MRTT (Germany and Canada), and the KC-30, the KC-767 ones have not been tested and are not in service with any nation in the world. Cobham/Sargent Fletcher pods are in service with the USAF, USN, and USMC and many allied nations around the world.
The KC-30, MC-130 and the KC-130's WARPs are capable of refuelling at a rate of up to 450 GPM (1703 L/min) up to 50 PSI. Furthermore, they can refuel fixed wing aircraft between speeds of 185 – 350kts, and rotary wing aircraft from 100 – 200kts. I believe the flight envelope for the KC-767 is slightly more limited, and has a slower refuelling rate as well.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11022 posts, RR: 53 Reply 150, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5280 times:
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 qualified on the C-130 series tankers, but the US does not use them.
The 700 series WARPs also have up to a 450 gpm rate of transfer.
The CSF 900 series WARPs on the KC-30 are still in flight testing, but will most likely be completed soon.
You are right, and me bad.....GE Aviation is providing the WARPs for the KC-767. The WARPs offered by GE provide up to 600 gpm, but I am sure the rate for the KC-767 is around 400-450 gpm.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23596 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5100 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 3611 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 365 posts, 
) the level of your debating is too. Boeing and Airbus make wonderful airliners. Sometimes the Boeing product is overall better, and sometimes it is the Airbus which is better. By posting such imho stupid remarks you are provoking a stupid reply. I just can not believe how much your personal preference can blind you so much for reality. Especially since you seem to be well informed, but are probably only reading and believing the things you want to. Also that preference makes you imho not an aviation fan, but a Boeing fan and a Boeing fan only. Even if they were to switch to producing dish washers you would probably state that these are superior. That is too bad imho. 
).
From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 608 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1874 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
