Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9774 times:

Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them) today comparing the LCC of the B-767-200ER to the A-330-200, in 10 different scenarios. Each only compares the basic commerical airliner of each model. For the comparison, AeroStrategy Management Consulting only considered the B-767 equipped with PW-4000 94" fan engines and the A-330 equipped CF-6-80E engines, near the same engines offered by each OEM.

They used the USAF provided 2.5% annual fuel price increase and 489 annual flying hours, the US DOE 5.1% annual fuel price increase and a USAFannaual flying rate of 750 hours, as well as a commerical airliner annual flying hours or 4,000 hours.

The end results, according to Boeing and AeroStrategy is the smaller B-767-200ER is 20% to 25% less costly to 'own' over the expected 40 year life of 179 airplanes. AeroStrategy only used the commerical airliner configuerations of each airplane and not the heavier tanker configueration with WARPs (which will increase the drag index for both offers).

I expect some of the EADS supporters, for the KC-X to discredit this study because Boeing paid for it. But, I have not seen a similar study paid for by EADS.

http://static.unitedstatestanker.com...p3272064&utm_medium=e&sc=sp3272064

This report is the entire 12 page assessment released by Boeing, not the shortened 2 page report.

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9750 times:

Without being unduly cynical, I would have been surprised at any other verdict.

Like going to Court and saying "I must be innocent, my Wife, Mother and Attorney all agree".  


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9668 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Without being unduly cynical, I would have been surprised at any other verdict.

Like going to Court and saying "I must be innocent, my Wife, Mother and Attorney all agree".

Perhaps that is true, but so is the assessment. The B-767-200ER does have a lower LCC when compared to the A-330-200. But, the B-767 also carries fewer passengers and cargo compared to the A-330, too.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9643 times:

This study is not worth the paper it is written on...


If civil versions of the B762 and A332 are compared, then probably the study should have found an answer why the B762 is virtually out of the market in the civil area - in contrast to the A332...


This study is a bit like a german joke, which says:

"A new study clearly showed that smoking is not dangerous (signed by Dr. Marlboro...)"


 


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5613 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9620 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 3):
If civil versions of the B762 and A332 are compared, then probably the study should have found an answer why the B762 is virtually out of the market in the civil area - in contrast to the A332...

Well anyone can tell that, and in fact KC135TopBoom did:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
the B-767 also carries fewer passengers and cargo compared to the A-330,

The key question is *IF* an airline only wanted an airplane that could carry 250 passengers, did not need much cargo capacity, and did not care about resale value, who would they choose?
The commercial world is very different from the military world.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9619 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
The commercial world is very different from the military world.

Agreed!


I think, this contest is real comedy already.

Both the B762 and A332 won the competition one time.

Now it is trial number three and i guess we will see a split order.


User currently onlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9592 times:

Anybody got the phone number to Embraer? I think I am going to call them to tell that Preben Norholm Aircraft Consulting Inc for a hundred quid can make them a report stating that a fleet of 179 E-170ER MRTTs utilized 479 hr/yr over 40 years can save $50bn or 75% over a similar A330 fleet.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
...I have not seen a similar study paid for by EADS.

Neither have I. But I have seen EADS paid figures telling about unit costs for delivering X lbs of fuel Y miles from base. But that was ten or fifteen years ago, long time before the whole KC-X program ran politically crazy.

Excuse me, but I cannot understand why the USAF doesn't just order those KC-767 today. After all it is the only politically correct outcome of this decades old drama. Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 850 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9571 times:

Does it mention fuel upload, and number of sorties required for total fuel upload required? At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.
Boeing funded comparison smells of boeing-sided bias.



Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3567 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
Boeing funded comparison smells of boeing-sided bias.



lets stay away from this traditional smoke screen.. if the premise was comparing two commercial equivalents, that's what it is... all the pissing and moaning about bias isn't going to change anything.. bottom line it's the customers choice.


User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 850 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9546 times:

Pissing and moaning? Haha... It's just clear that it's not going to be a fair comparison, why would boeing pay to find in airbus' favour? Regardless of fuel burn alone for a given number of sorties and aircraft, more trips to deliver the same re-fuel capability as the a330 based tanker means more fuel burned, more crew time and greater wear and tear on the airframe to drag the same number of fighters.

I do try not to get involved in the a vs b war on this forum, people do get kind of heated about this! But I do find it amusing that boeing ended up bringing a knife to a gunfight, now it's all down to protectionist politics. If they'd proposed the 777 as a tanker, they'd be sitting pretty. But anyway, I'm routing for an ANTONOV tanker, or better yet lets rebuild the runway at Brooklands and put the VC-10 back into production, the RAF is still doing alright with those, right?   Kidding, btw - don't take me too seriously



Resident TechOps Troll
User currently onlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 9512 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
...bottom line it's the customers choice.

  
The remaining problem is only to find out who the customer is.

If the customer had been the Air Force, then they made up their mind on 29 February 2008.

Is it the DoD? GOA? The president? Or....?

One day we will know who the customer is. It will be the "strongest" agency, the agency which comes out as the winner of the "KC-X civil war" which has been going on for... I don't know how long time.

And they will choose the KC-767. And at the same time they will tell the air force why their choise was wrong two and a half years ago.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
...I'm routing for an ANTONOV tanker...

Antonov is already out of the competition. Well, they never got into it. They delivered their proposal five minutes late on 9 July this year. (How could they be 5 minutes late when they had fifteen years already?)

Realistically speaking, then this thing was settled when Northrop stepped out. Northrop are insiders, they know when continued efforts are fruitless. EADS only resubmitted their bid in order to be able to say "What did we say" some time in 2015 or 2020 when Boeing is down on the knees begging DoD for coverage of cost overruns and delays.

And in the end this program will have followed exactly the same scheme as all other such major programs since 1945.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 9504 times:

I think a big disadvantage of the B767 is the cruise speed.

It is a remarkable slow aircraft with most NAT crossings at M.80...
Therefore it has the nickname "Track-Blocker"...

Speed could be an issue if a tanker should reach a refueling area quickly or when it comes to very long flights to foreign bases.


But i am sure, the USAF will get the best or second best tanker...


 


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 9488 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them)

Any study released and or funded by either of the three competitors (Boeing, Airbus, United Aerospace/Antonov) is not worth the paper it is written on, because they all naturally talk up their own bid and put down those of the others.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6):
Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.

I have a feeling that the only correct outcome is to cancel the entire process, retire large numbers of planes and put the extra funding into solving the huge debt crisis and claim the high ground on economic management (austerity measures).  


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 9471 times:

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.
Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
Regardless of fuel burn alone for a given number of sorties and aircraft, more trips to deliver the same re-fuel capability as the a330 based tanker means more fuel burned, more crew time and greater wear and tear on the airframe to drag the same number of fighters.

Based on those two assumptions one wonders why more 747's and A380's are not in use, after all they carry more fuel and pax and would ultimately require less a/c, less flights, less crew and less wear and tear.
Unfortunately, size is not the end all to everything for this requirement, every tanker mission is not a fighter drag across the pond, some are simple training missions, presently the smaller KC-135's do not carry a full load and usually do not offload all fuel uplifted, and they carry less than the 767 or A330, so are we in to overkill and if so how much is acceptable?

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
But I do find it amusing that boeing ended up bringing a knife to a gunfight, now it's all down to protectionist politics. If they'd proposed the 777 as a tanker, they'd be sitting pretty.

The US AirForce in their infinite wisdom decided to have a commercial off the shelf competition, other than the A320 and B-737, which two a/c from either OEM is of similar size? Infrastructure was always a factor, the makers of the RFP did their best to somehow accomodate two vastly dissimilar size a/c, the crux of the entire problem.


Quoting cpd (Reply 12):
Any study released and or funded by either of the three competitors (Boeing, Airbus, United Aerospace/Antonov) is not worth the paper it is written on, because they all naturally talk up their own bid and put down those of the others.

You should include the US Air Force in that crew, their number crunching to get comparitive numbers between these two a/c and the infrastructure and total ownership cost is impressive to say the least, especially since they first showed that the KC-135's should have fallen out of the sky a couple years ago, the 767 was best with a no bid contract, the A330 was best after fudging the competition, and the number of years they have delayed the whole process.
Good cannon fodder for discussion though  


User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9386 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 11):
Speed could be an issue if a tanker should reach a refueling area quickly or when it comes to very long flights to foreign bases.

On a 5000nm flight, the A330 would have around a 15 minute advantage, assuming a nominal cruise speed of M82 vs M80. I don't think that would be a big issue in most cases for repositioning.

Of course, when a tanker is urgently needed, both aircraft have a comparable dash speed in the M84 to M86 range, though the 767 would obviously take a bigger hit on operational range and offload when compared to the A330.

Thus, I don't think the speed itself is a disadvantage, but when both aircraft are at max cruise, the A330s advantage in offload capability will become even larger.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 9263 times:

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
Does it mention fuel upload, and number of sorties required for total fuel upload required? At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.

That is not how the tanker mission works. The boom saturation ratio is 6 receivers to one tanker. That means if you have a 7:1 ratio, by the time you refuel all receivers, the first receiver has less fuel than when it started the refueling when #7 has finished its refueling.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
It's just clear that it's not going to be a fair comparison, why would boeing pay to find in airbus' favour? Regardless of fuel burn alone for a given number of sorties and aircraft, more trips to deliver the same re-fuel capability as the a330 based tanker means more fuel burned, more crew time and greater wear and tear on the airframe to drag the same number of fighters.

Also, what do you do with all that fuel on a tanker when one tanker/boom cannot refuel due to it breaking inflight or air aborts? The problem is solved by maximumizing the number of usable booms airborne, not the amount of fuel carried by those tankers.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
...bottom line it's the customers choice.


The remaining problem is only to find out who the customer is.

If the customer had been the Air Force, then they made up their mind on 29 February 2008.

Yes, after they twisted and violated their own rules, and those of the rest of the government. To do this, the USAF had to "adjust" the price of Boeing's bid up significantly as well as reduce the capabilities of the, then, KC-767AT, and applying the same MilCon costs to both bids. Even after all of that, the Boeing bid came within $30M spread over 25 years.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 11):
I think a big disadvantage of the B767 is the cruise speed.

It is a remarkable slow aircraft with most NAT crossings at M.80...
Therefore it has the nickname "Track-Blocker"...

Speed could be an issue if a tanker should reach a refueling area quickly or when it comes to very long flights to foreign bases.

That is crap. The B-767 and A-330 are both capable of nearly the same cruise airspeed. Just because one opts to fly a little slower, usually to reduce fuel burn rates does not mean the airplane is not capable of flying faster. Most NAT-TRACK flying is done between M .70 and M.75 anyway, not M.80 or higher. In the KC-135A/Q, we had a max airspeed of M .95, but often flew training missions or ops missions around M .72. The KC-135R/T has a max airspeed of M .90, well above the max airspeed of either bids.

BTW, very long flights to foreign bases are flown at normal cruise airspeeds, they just adjust the departure time to get their on time.

Quoting cpd (Reply 12):
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6):
Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.

I have a feeling that the only correct outcome is to cancel the entire process, retire large numbers of planes and put the extra funding into solving the huge debt crisis and claim the high ground on economic management (austerity measures).

Refurbishing the KC-135Es has been my top choice for a long time. But to retire a large number of airplanes is not Constitutional in the US. We can reduce the overall size of the DOD, but must "provide for the common defense".


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9109 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9246 times:

Glancing through the document I noticed the statement

"The standard Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) intervals for C-checks and D-checks are the same for the B767 and the A330 at 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for C-checks and 24,000 flight hours or 72 months for the D-checks."

That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.

Makes one wonder what else is inaccuate if the detail is reviewed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8285 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9168 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6):
Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.

Considering our economic situation these days it might be wisest to spend the money upgrading what we have, scheduling upgrades as necessary.

Bit weird that the continues to be fit for service when the KC-135's are not.  
Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.

But at what point? And what percentage of operational lights will that occur in? And can the 10s handle those situations?

Looks to me that there is no reason to spend 1¢ more than is absolutely necessary. Especially with the replenishment of military supplies and equipment after two wars are over.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
why would boeing pay to find in airbus' favour?

Maybe Boeing has the confidence to go with an independent evaluation.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
If the customer had been the Air Force, then they made up their mind on 29 February 2008.

Or they would have taken the 767s from the first round. No one has ended up in prison from the second time around, but the GAO slammed the USAF hard enough to publicly disgrace those playing the illegal games.

So McCain got his name in the paper and the USAF still doesn't have those tankers. Nor do workers have those jobs.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
And at the same time they will tell the air force why their choise was wrong two and a half years ago.

Take away the games that should have sent some brass to prison and Lord only knows what the choice would have been. I don't know, but I can guess.  
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
when Boeing is down on the knees begging DoD for coverage of cost overruns and delays.

Like the M400?

Or are you saying that Airbus doesn't get down on their knees?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3567 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
That is not how the tanker mission works. The boom saturation ratio is 6 receivers to one tanker. That means if you have a 7:1 ratio, by the time you refuel all receivers, the first receiver has less fuel than when it started the refueling when #7 has finished its refueling.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The B-767 and A-330 are both capable of nearly the same cruise airspeed. Just because one opts to fly a little slower, usually to reduce fuel burn rates does not mean the airplane is not capable of flying faster. Most NAT-TRACK flying is done between M .70 and M.75 anyway, not M.80 or higher. In the KC-135A/Q, we had a max airspeed of M .95, but often flew training missions or ops missions around M .72. The KC-135R/T has a max airspeed of M .90, well above the max airspeed of either bids.



I love these gems you pull out of the hat...it'a always amazing how the "experts" can only rationalize choices based on commercial operator criteria.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
The standard Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) intervals for C-checks and D-checks are the same for the B767 and the A330 at 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for C-checks and 24,000 flight hours or 72 months for the D-checks."

That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.



Please remember the AF sets it's own criteria and doesn't (generally) use commercial criteria.. this is because they have differing missions, more people to keep busy and endless regs dreamed up by bureaucrats to promote jobs... There was study I believe in Canada where a fleet on new trucks was split into three groups, one maintained by military procedures, one by manufacturer's procedures and one received no maintenance .. the results were the no maintenance lasted longest, the manufacture's was next and the military maintenance planned vehicles were scrapped first.. worn out!


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9109 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9055 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
Please remember the AF sets it's own criteria and doesn't (generally) use commercial criteria..

I fully understand, however the paper was comparing current procedures, and they claimed to get the numbers from the current maintenance planning documents which is not true.

If it was a true comparison on the military effectiveness, they would use the AMC tasking software to task the same groups of aircraft launched from various bases, and that would give a real representation of the effectiveness of the two tankers. It takes for example less KC-30s for a 24/7 combat air patrol.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8551 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9033 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
The key question is *IF* an airline only wanted an airplane that could carry 250 passengers, did not need much cargo capacity, and did not care about resale value, who would they choose?
The commercial world is very different from the military world.

The true answer of "which is cheaper" depends on the financial arrangement.

We can expect that the true long-term financial arrangement is so unbelievably complicated, estimates could vary as much as 200%. Either company could begin charging a fortune for spare parts, certifications.... anything. This is the problem with non-OTS components and possible bad faith conduct by either party.

My guess is that Boeing will use their political power to charge a much higher price than Airbus. But this is only a guess. Determining the true long-term cost would require 100 accountants, about a dozen crystal balls, some psychologists, political scientists etc. This is all theater. Boeing could probably merge with Airbus and they'd still be giving themselves patriotic awards.

The stat might be true but there is no way to tell.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 8969 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them) today comparing the LCC of the B-767-200ER to the A-330-200, in 10 different scenarios.


What does the "Boeing study" have to do with the "KC-X Bids"?

The Bids are what was submitted to the DoD and they are not for public consumption. In other words you title is mis-leading!


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8930 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.

Is this revision 16 already in effect for all A330's in operation, I recall reading last year I believe that Airbus was adjusting their maintenance intervals based on data from continuing operations.

Another question would be whether such new "specs" would be valid to use for this RFP, would they be regarded as unproven since no a/c has yet skipped 6 years and gone to 8 in practice?

I agree however that it is a technical point which at this point is all that is being looked at, the 787 is not yet in service so it 8 year interval is also unproven.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8810 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
"The standard Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) intervals for C-checks and D-checks are the same for the B767 and the A330 at 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for C-checks and 24,000 flight hours or 72 months for the D-checks."

That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.

The DOD does heavy maintenance on a 5 year schedule, and the schedule "D" check change from Airbus on the A-330 is recent. It is funny how they did not include the A-340 in that change.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.

But at what point? And what percentage of operational lights will that occur in? And can the 10s handle those situations?

Good question.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 21):
So which part of the constitution is it in ??

The Preamble, which in part says "provide for the common defense".

Quoting 474218 (Reply 22):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them) today comparing the LCC of the B-767-200ER to the A-330-200, in 10 different scenarios.


What does the "Boeing study" have to do with the "KC-X Bids"?

The Bids are what was submitted to the DoD and they are not for public consumption. In other words you title is mis-leading!

The initial bids have been submitted by Boeing and EADS. After the USAF Q&A period, each OEM will have an opportunity to 'adjust' their bids accordingly.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8879 times:

But what does "provide for the common defense" actually mean.

The US Govt has retired lots of planes, tanks, ships etc over the years.

If that was Unconstitutional, surely someone would have sued by now.  


25 A342 : AFAIK they did.
26 KC135TopBoom : Those retired weapons systems have always been replaced by newer and more capable weapons systems. Perhaps you are right, but I don't remember seeing
27 Zeke : Airbus released version 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document at the same time they released revision 17 of the A340 Maintenance Planning Docu
28 McG1967 : Did this study take into account the likely lower initial cost of the A330 as all of the design work has already been done for it, and a similar versi
29 kanban : I understand your premise, however I think this is stretching it a bit... and yes parking all the KC135's would inhibit providing defense however we
30 KC135TopBoom : Thanks, I had seen the A-330 v.16 and did not see a seperate A-340 v.17 document. Actually, there are lots of differences between the RAAF KC-30A and
31 Post contains images 328JET : What?!? In the seventies, or today...? Every a/c, which is slower than M.82 on the NAT Track is blocking the airspace for quicker aircrafts. The resu
32 Post contains links and images keesje : I think the trick (this time) is excluding the benefits from operating a capable tanker transport instead of a tanker. A KC30 is able to move lots of
33 KC135TopBoom : The USAF is looking for a tanker, with some airlift capability. Both the KC-30 and KC-767 can move cargo across the Atlantic, unrefueled, as can the
34 Ken777 : When you make that comparison the 777 should be compared to the current Airbus offerings. If the USAF really wants a transport then why go small. Mig
35 474218 : When I was in the USAF I flew on KC-135Q's about a half a dozen times. Each flight was full of cargo: J-58 engines, start carts, liquid oxygen and ni
36 Post contains images par13del : The "off the shelf" product is in name only, the USAF requirements has many dofference's from what the RAAF or UK have or will have in their tanker.
37 keesje : 777 & 747 do not meet the runway requirements.
38 474218 : Stopping in Hawaii would mean we would have to completely unload the aircraft, clear customs, reload the aircraft and arrive home approximately 12 ho
39 KC135TopBoom : Actually, an SR-71 J-58 engine weighs about 7500 lbs on the transport cart. The MD-3M start cart, and MA-1A jet start cart weigh about 2000 lbs for t
40 McG1967 : Thanks for the info.
41 Post contains links keesje : Just state it firmly, maybe they won't check? http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdf 3.3.3 http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air
42 dw747400 : Sea level ISA or something else? Both aircraft ARE slightly over 10,000 foot runs at max gross, but I don't see any reason why Boeing couldn't bid wi
43 kanban : thank goodness that the A/F defined the aircraft requirements so it would fit their mission profile, otherwise A.netters would have them flying 3/4 e
44 Post contains images WarRI1 : [quote=kanban,reply=43]so several smaller tankers can refuel more a/c in a shorter time enhancing mission success. Amen Brother, it makes sense to me
45 KC135TopBoom : Both correct.
46 Zeke : Poor analogy, most mosquitoes remain within a 1 mile radius of their breeding site. Like the KC-135, the mosquito does not have the endurance to fly
47 par13del : We agree, but this point is also valid. If you need a tanker to drag a/c across the pond or the Pacific then you already have forward bases to base t
48 474218 : How about typical six (6) hour mission SR-71 mission out of Kadena, they required twelve (12) tankers. Five (5) or six (6) refuelings during the miss
49 par13del : KC135TopBoom can chime in but I believe that would have been the entire tanker force for the SR-71 they had special KC-135's as the fuel required was
50 474218 : There were over 50 dedicated KC-135Q's. The USAF had to retire the SR's as their operation costs (like needing 12 tankers for a 6 hour mission) were
51 Blackbird1331 : Okay, let's build the tanker first, and then a commercial version. The 797.
52 par13del : One of the lucky few, I hope to finally see her at the Smithsonian.
53 WarRI1 : They do not have to, there are so many of them, they can be everywhere, such as a large fleet of smaller tankers.
54 cpd : I'd like to see how a KC-25 would compare against those.
55 ThePointblank : But the manpower requirements to fly and maintain the large number of smaller tankers would be much higher than a smaller fleet of larger tankers. An
56 KC135TopBoom : Operational Habu missions always had a spare tanker for refueling. They were spaced up to 100 nm apart from the primary tanker. The Habu had a very h
57 474218 : Actually the reason for the twelve tankers was: The first refueling required two tankers, one primary and one (1) backup. The second refueling was af
58 KC135TopBoom : That was the usual plan for more than one pass in the mission areas. Thanks.
59 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Here are some more things to compare..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...cifications-for-kc-767-newgen.html Quote: "Boeing's proposed KC-767 N
60 WarRI1 : I understand the expense part, but we are talking a war sceanrio. I think we remember at Pearl Harbor the wisdom of concentrated manpower, and equipm
61 KC135TopBoom : I thought Boeing is saying it is using cockpit displays from the B-787?
62 DEVILFISH : Farther down the report it says..... Quote: ".....also confirms that the tanker's cockpit will feature four large Rockwell Collins displays similar t
63 Boeing1970 : I think the comedy of it is that both options will be outdated technology wise before the first flight. The only options that should on the tabel her
64 Boeing1970 : Wanna play again Keesje? Hot day (+27) range at 99,000lbs payload from 10,000-feet of runway: Aircraft: Range: A330-200F 5,000 777-2F 8,750 747-8F 8,
65 BoeEngr : Hmmm...but the displays that are installed on the 777 and 767-400ER are not similar to those on the 787... My understanding is still that they'll be
66 Rheinwaldner : We got used to innaccurate Boeing PR regarding the KC-X. If misinformation is in the detail how can we be sure about the rest? IMO Boeing exploits th
67 KC135TopBoom : Since the KC-767NG Boom is an update to the current KC-10A Boom, I don't see many problems with it. The KC-10 Boom has been refueling now for over 25
68 kanban : when facts disagree sling mud... PR work was never about truth, it is about swaying public opinion. and not tipping ones hand to the competition, and
69 KC135TopBoom : What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
70 Rheinwaldner : Why did you see many problems with the EADS boom mounted on the A310? Even if the KC-30 boom existed you did not believe that it works until it prove
71 Burkhard : Wow - I don't need an expensive study to predict a VW Golf to have lower operation costs than a Mercedes. The B762 is less capable and cheaper to oper
72 KC135TopBoom : The EADS Boom is a completely new design, it did not exist 6 years ago. It is not a "KC-310 Boom" simply mounted on a KC-30, it was designed for the
73 keesje : In that case, an "update" might be a bit of an understatement. More importantly it doesn't fly, the KC30 boom does. I think the capabilities were lob
74 Ken777 : Since we are replacing the KC-135s isn't smaller what you're looking for? We still have the 10s for heavier fuel missions and, AFAIK, we are not tryi
75 KC135TopBoom : Both are correct Ken. I have heard rumoprs that EADS has released their own new study that compares KC-X aircraft. Has anyone seen it, or is it just
76 Post contains links JPRM1 : Airbus published their own study. Here the link with some comments on the study. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/author/leehamnet/ Debates will start,
77 keesje : from this leeham article: EADS immediately criticized the report as comparing commercial apples to military oranges. In a short, EADS internal study i
78 Post contains images EPA001 : Well, that certainly puts the Boeing numbers in a different perspective. But their PR department cooked up a good move to hide the fact that their of
79 kanban : so now both companies have released propaganda "studies" to sway public and governmental agencies (including the AF) to see things "their" way. Does T
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Settles Over KC-10 Work posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:05:16 by Revelation
Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X posted Wed Jun 18 2008 10:18:03 by NYC777
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II posted Thu Jun 12 2008 16:18:47 by RedFlyer
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award posted Fri Mar 14 2008 16:13:12 by RedFlyer
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
New Boeing CH-47F Helicopter Takes Flight posted Thu Oct 26 2006 09:53:54 by Columba
The New Boeing Pelican? posted Mon Oct 17 2005 20:50:17 by PhatAlbert
Boeing Says KC-X Contest Enters "phase 2" posted Fri Aug 20 2010 16:39:45 by KC135TopBoom
New Boeing High Altitude Long Endurance A/C posted Sat Aug 27 2011 21:17:50 by Geezer
New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest posted Sat Oct 3 2009 07:31:38 by DEVILFISH
Boeing Settles Over KC-10 Work posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:05:16 by Revelation
Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X posted Wed Jun 18 2008 10:18:03 by NYC777
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II posted Thu Jun 12 2008 16:18:47 by RedFlyer
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award posted Fri Mar 14 2008 16:13:12 by RedFlyer
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
New Boeing CH-47F Helicopter Takes Flight posted Thu Oct 26 2006 09:53:54 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format