Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Gen Promoting Civil 767 Freighter  
User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7400 times:

According to this article linked below the USAF General that oversees the KC-46 says that because FedEx ordered (30) 767-300 Freighters that should help reduce the risk with the KC-46. He says that Boeing will have developed a cargo floor and cargo door for the FedEX 767-300F's which will reduce the risk for Boeing on the KC-46. Someone needs to tell him that Boeing already developed a 767-300 Freighter and that UPS operated the first one in 1995 and many others currently fly them.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-767-2c-as-civil-freighter-370214/

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7253 times:

Makes sense to all concerned, the Air Force, Fed Ex and Boeing, It does sound like Fed Ex will receive new builds more in common with the KC-46A then with currently available freighter versions that are being delivered to UPS.


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7198 times:

I think MGen Bogdan was talking more about the marketability of the B-767-2C commerical freighter/combi than the FedEx B-767-300ERF. Although both models will share many common features. Bogdan is also talking about reducing the risk level of the KC-46A, because of its commonality with the B-767Fs.

Any commerical version of the B-767-2C will not have, or need the body fuel tanks being designed for the KC-46A, thus it will have a fore and aft lower deck, with right side cargo doors available for cargo, just as the B-767-300ERF has.


User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7173 times:

The article specifically talks about the cargo floor and door. Is FedEx getting a new type of cargo floor and door in the 767-300F? I know the FedEx aircraft will have a new cockpit but the article does not mention that. Either the article is misleading or the general is trying to impress Congress with the lack of risk by mentioning items that are certain to be low risk such as the door and floor.

Due to the problems with the F-35 and "concurrency" which the KC-46 program will also participate in, I suspect the USAF is trying to mitigate any such concerns recently discussed by the GAO. The article linked below is found in another thread and mentions the concerns.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...oeing-tanker-idUSL2E8EQJ1720120327


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7139 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 3):
Is FedEx getting a new type of cargo floor and door in the 767-300F?

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe Boeing offered something newer and lighter to the Air Force, and FedEx is buying it, too?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7104 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Thread starter):
According to this article linked below the USAF General that oversees the KC-46 says that because FedEx ordered (30) 767-300 Freighters that should help reduce the risk with the KC-46. He says that Boeing will have developed a cargo floor and cargo door for the FedEX 767-300F's which will reduce the risk for Boeing on the KC-46. Someone needs to tell him that Boeing already developed a 767-300 Freighter and that UPS operated the first one in 1995 and many others currently fly them.

Believe the KC-46 will have a B767-400 cockpit and FCS. There's some risk there.

On this topic, LockMart and many in the American forces have been preaching the value of interoperability. In the tanker world, the most advanced frame is the A330-200MRTT, which is already in service, and which Airbus Miltiary promised to build in Mobile, Alabama, for any American order. Can lift more, further. Can support both the boom and the hose and drogue.

What about the value of interoperability there ? Or does it have value only when it benefits American industry ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7020 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 5):
Believe the KC-46 will have a B767-400 cockpit and FCS. There's some risk there.

I believe it's a 787 based cockpit and therein lies risk, which I don't see as high. If it were a 767-400 based cockpit wouldn't there be minimal risk since its already/has been flying?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 5):
On this topic, LockMart and many in the American forces have been preaching the value of interoperability. In the tanker world, the most advanced frame is the A330-200MRTT, which is already in service, and which Airbus Miltiary promised to build in Mobile, Alabama, for any American order. Can lift more, further. Can support both the boom and the hose and drogue.

What about the value of interoperability there ? Or does it have value only when it benefits American industry ?

Wasn't this discussion answered last year? One could question interoperability from Italy's and Japan's point of view as well. In that instance, one could can argue exactly the same thing with respect to the A330 MRTT.
I'm still of the belief that both platforms had strengths and weaknesses. Both will be state-of-the-art tanker transports.
Fed Ex could have ordered the A330F, but didn't and I doubt you could argue that Fed Ex had "industrial base" concerns in mind when picking the 767-300F.









[Edited 2012-04-01 12:39:44]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6970 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 6):
I believe it's a 787 based cockpit and therein lies risk, which I don't see as high. If it were a 767-400 based cockpit wouldn't there be minimal risk since its already/has been flying?

Last I had read was a 767-400 cockpit, but that may well have been changed to 787. Hopefully doesn't impose a 3 year program delay !  
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 6):
One could question interoperability from Italy's and Japan's point of view as well

A fair point. Based on the original schedule Italy and Japan made prudent choices, however, everything got delayed significantly, so the A330-200MRTT _might_ have been a wiser choice - at least for Italy as they are a NATO member.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6957 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 5):
In the tanker world, the most advanced frame is the A330-200MRTT, which is already in service, and which Airbus Miltiary promised to build in Mobile, Alabama, for any American order. Can lift more, further. Can support both the boom and the hose and drogue.

Actually, the A-330MRTT proposed for the USAF had less interoperability as it did not have a cargo floor, it was a pax model with the A-300 cargo door slapped on the left side. The A-330MRTT also cost some 10% more, according to the USAF bids. IIRC the USAF and DOD said the two bids weren't even close. The KC-46A can lift the same amount of cargo weight as the A-330 tanker can, and it burns 15% less fuel. There is less Air Force Base infastructure needed for the Boeing tanker vs. the EADS tanker. That also means the KC-46 can use more airfields throughout the world than the A-330MRTT can, because of the heavier weight, longer fuselarge, and bigger wingspan of the A-330. In many required areas of 'interoperability' the KC-46 outclassed the bigger tanker.

Also, the KC-46A is currently the most advanced tanker in the world.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 5):
Believe the KC-46 will have a B767-400 cockpit and FCS. There's some risk there.
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 6):
I believe it's a 787 based cockpit and therein lies risk, which I don't see as high. If it were a 767-400 based cockpit wouldn't there be minimal risk since its already/has been flying?

Correct, the KC-46A will fly with the B-787-8 cockpit avionics, which is also flying and in airline service, reducing the risk. But even using the B-764 avionics, they were more advanced than what the A-330 has.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6885 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Based on the original schedule Italy and Japan made prudent choices, however, everything got delayed significantly, so the A330-200MRTT _might_ have been a wiser choice - at least for Italy as they are a NATO member.

I understand where you are coming from an "interoperability" standpoint, but both the KC-46A and KC-30s can service all NATO aircraft. The KC-767 has already been proven to service all U.S. military aircraft and my guess is the KC-30 should be able as well.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6666 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 9):
I understand where you are coming from an "interoperability" standpoint, but both the KC-46A and KC-30s can service all NATO aircraft. The KC-767 has already been proven to service all U.S. military aircraft and my guess is the KC-30 should be able as well.

Well, also thinking from an mx p.o.v. that if all NATO parties (or at least the Euro members) were using the MRTT, a pooled mx op could be set up to reduce costs. One might suppose the French would insist it be at Toulouse...

For sure, a big issue is local pols insisting on "Buy American"or "Buy European". It tends to muddy a decision that should be based strictly on capability and affordability.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
There is less Air Force Base infastructure needed for the Boeing tanker vs. the EADS tanker. That also means the KC-46 can use more airfields throughout the world than the A-330MRTT can, because of the heavier weight, longer fuselarge, and bigger wingspan of the A-330.

No doubt the A330MRTT has a bigger footprint on the ramp and hangar fit could be an issue.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Also, the KC-46A is currently the most advanced tanker in the world.

How so ? Pls explain.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6644 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):Also, the KC-46A is currently the most advanced tanker in the world.

How so ? Pls explain.

It will have the world's most advanced Air Refueling Boom flying, a true Gen VI Boom, not a Gen V Boom that is on the A-330 tanker. It will have the most advanced avionics and air refueling Boom Operator position, as well as the most advanced external and air refueling lighting systems. It will have very advanced cargo handling systems, and a true advanced cargo floor. The KC-46 will burn less fuel and will not have a need to be leveled for cargo loading/unloading operations, like the converted pax version of the A-330MRTT will (EADS never offered the A-330F as the base line airplane for the KC-X program).


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6637 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):

A fair point. Based on the original schedule Italy and Japan made prudent choices, however, everything got delayed significantly, so the A330-200MRTT _might_ have been a wiser choice

For Japan, they still would have stuck with the 767 platform because they were already operating 767 AWACs. Japan probably would not have worried much about interoperability with NATO. Also, Japanese companies are major Boeing suppliers. So, self interest probably contributed to the decision.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6606 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):

For Japan, they still would have stuck with the 767 platform because they were already operating 767 AWACs. Japan probably would not have worried much about interoperability with NATO. Also, Japanese companies are major Boeing suppliers. So, self interest probably contributed to the decision.

Yah, certainly aware of those points. I was more interested I suppose in the Italian decision, but as I noted, the original schedule indicated delivery at least 2 years earlier than it actually happened. Had they known of the actual delivery dates, might that have prejudiced the decision in favour of the MRTT ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The KC-46 will burn less fuel and will not have a need to be leveled for cargo loading/unloading operations, like the converted pax version of the A-330MRTT will (EADS never offered the A-330F as the base line airplane for the KC-X program).

It should burn less fuel since it's a smaller a/c, but its' offload capacity must surely be smaller. But I was not aware the MRTT was not being offered w/o the nose gear extension. OTOH, since it doesn't have a freight floor, that makes sense.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
But I was not aware the MRTT was not being offered w/o the nose gear extension. OTOH, since it doesn't have a freight floor, that makes sense.

Airbus considered offering the A330-200F for KC-X, but in the end decided not to.


The A330MRTT is clearly the more capable platform, but folks need to remember that while the rest of the world's air forces will operate tanker squadrons, the USAF will operate tanker wings. As such, the USAF does not need to maximize capability per airframe because of the number of airframes that will be in service.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6506 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 3):
Either the article is misleading or the general is trying to impress Congress with the lack of risk by mentioning items that are certain to be low risk such as the door and floor.

Due to the problems with the F-35 and "concurrency" which the KC-46 program will also participate in, I suspect the USAF is trying to mitigate any such concerns recently discussed by the GAO.

By stating the obvious the general was, IMO, allaying fears in Government that the tanker contract would go through similar extreme cost escalation and delays as the F-35. At the same time, he could be subtly hinting that the program might need supplemental development funds (given ongoing program cuts and production holds) which may hopefully be subsidized by the mooted civilian freighter sales.

The question then becomes which cargo company would buy this mil-spec'd (thus expensive) variant when there are its more optimised stablemates and competitors, not to mention the many and varied, relatively young models available cheap for conversion. I don't suppose they could persuade those doing contract flying for the Government to ditch their old equipment unless they offer them new 767-2C frames in trade at a price they couldn't refuse.     



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6504 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
Had they known of the actual delivery dates, might that have prejudiced the decision in favour of the MRTT ?

If the Italian could have seen the future, they would have avoided their current financial crisis or would have lessen it by not buying the tankers in the first place.  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):

You forgot to mention that the rest of the world don't have a large fleet of C-17's or lucrative contracts with commercial carriers, so they have to use tankers as transport planes.  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6450 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 15):
The question then becomes which cargo company would buy this mil-spec'd (thus expensive) variant when there are its more optimised stablemates and competitors, not to mention the many and varied, relatively young models available cheap for conversion. I don't suppose they could persuade those doing contract flying for the Government to ditch their old equipment unless they offer them new 767-2C frames in trade at a price they couldn't refuse.

I would think a new 767-300F or converted 767-300BCF would be more cost efficient than a new build 767-2C. Even a 767-200 converted by IAI would be less expensive.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6418 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 17):
I would think a new 767-300F or converted 767-300BCF would be more cost efficient than a new build 767-2C.

I don't know about the cost of a conversion aircraft, but if you consider new built, then buying a 767-2C MAY INDEED cost less than an 767-300F. This comes about because of savings Boeing can achieve if they buy in bulk.

When Boeing buys parts to assemble the airplanes, they get better pricing if the quantity goes up. It's not surprising if you order one or two of a part and they ended up 5-10 times more expensive (per part) than if you order them in batches of 5 or 10. This is specially true when the part require significant set up time to produce. Considering that the 767 orders are dwindling and Boeing will be running at a low production rate, this will be especially true . . . even for off-the-shelf items.

Now, you may ask: "Why don't they just build/buy a whole bunch of parts at one time and sell/use them as they need 'em"
Doesn't work like that any more. No one have the money to spend up front build parts that may not be needed if the US decide not to proceed with the tanker for one reason or another.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6355 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Based on the original schedule Italy and Japan made prudent choices, however, everything got delayed significantly, so the A330-200MRTT _might_ have been a wiser choice - at least for Italy as they are a NATO member.
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
For Japan, they still would have stuck with the 767 platform because they were already operating 767 AWACs. Japan probably would not have worried much about interoperability with NATO. Also, Japanese companies are major Boeing suppliers. So, self interest probably contributed to the decision
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 13):
Yah, certainly aware of those points. I was more interested I suppose in the Italian decision, but as I noted, the original schedule indicated delivery at least 2 years earlier than it actually happened. Had they known of the actual delivery dates, might that have prejudiced the decision in favour of the MRTT ?

But the A-330MRTT was almost 3 years late for the first delivery to the RAAF, too. Japan got all four of their KC-767Js and Italy got two of their KC-767As before Austraila got their first KC-30A. I agree the KC-767A/Js were very late, but so was the KC-30A, too.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6210 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Thread starter):
According to this article linked below the USAF General that oversees the KC-46 says that because FedEx ordered (30) 767-300 Freighters that should help reduce the risk with the KC-46. He says that Boeing will have developed a cargo floor and cargo door for the FedEX 767-300F's which will reduce the risk for Boeing on the KC-46.

The article is indeed confusing.

It say that FedEx bought 767-300Fs, yet we know the KC-46A is a 737-200 derivative.

It says:

Quote:

Some of the design and engineering features including the cargo door and cargo floor are the same as for the KC-46, Bogdan says. "So there is obviously some synergy for Boeing there," he says.

... which would be of course true if the 767-2C and 767-300F share the existing -300F floor and door, OR if there is a new and improved floor and door design.

And:

Quote:

"There will be lessons learned from the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] testing that Boeing's got to do for the model version of the FedEx airplane."

implies there needs to be testing for FedEx's -300Fs, but doesn't say what will be tested.

The FedEx announcement: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-signs-on-for-27-767-300fs-366066/ doesn't mention anything special about their -300Fs.

However, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-identity-of-kc-46a-tanker-357700/ says:

Quote:

Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes. The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

The 767-2C configuration also includes a cargo floor and door, a 787-based large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, such as hose and drogue and boom refuelling systems, Boeing said.

So we know there are changes being made for -2C, but we don't know which ripple back to FedEx's -300Fs, but the fact that FAA testing is needed on the FedEx birds implies some changes are being made, unless the testing happens to be related to manufacturing changes, but the overhaul of the 767 line happened a while ago.

Very confusing...

Add to that the USAF guy saying that some commercial customers may want a -2C, meaning a -200 combi, yet the FAA won't certify combis for commercial use any more unless you put in a fixed partition, and you get even more noise.

Maybe he's saying some commercial customers may want a heavy-lift 200F, but who would that be?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6170 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
FAA won't certify combis for commercial use any more unless you put in a fixed partition,

Or you put the cargo up front and the passenger behind the partition.
Wonder if there is any traction for this configuration  

Why don't the FAA like the "non-fixed" partition?
Is it because of strength? Or evacuation requirement?

If it's evacuation, then there's not many place you can put the partition (primarily next to an exit door).

If it's 9G crash requirement, then you can always design something that will meet the requirements (with the penalty of cost and weight)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
commercial customers may want a heavy-lift 200F, but who would that be?

Those who would use the extra lift capability to carry more fuel for longer non-stop flights. Which leads back to your question . . . 'who would that be"?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinewrenchon727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5460 times:

FDX is going with Rockwell Collins Large Display system that will have to get certified. The first two aircraft will have the old cockpit layout and the third aircraft will get the large displays and be used for certification.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5331 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Also, the KC-46A is currently the most advanced tanker in the world.

I doesn't even exist yet does it??


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4068 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
It will have very advanced cargo handling systems, and a true advanced cargo floor

Don't get carried away!
We agree that the B767 is the right aircraft for the USAF, but how advanced can a cargo floor be?
The B777 and A330 both work very well. You stand at the door and move a lever and the pallets move around.
What does the B767 have? an IFE systen to keep the pallets occupied?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 6):

I believe it's a 787 based cockpit and therein lies risk, which I don't see as high.

The risk is that the 767 is not a digital aircraft, to make the 787 avionics working an analogue aircraft, you have to fool the 787 avionics that the 767 is actually a digital aircraft. Boeing has a number of similar issues with the on the 747-8.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):

Actually, the A-330MRTT proposed for the USAF had less interoperability as it did not have a cargo floor, it was a pax model with the A-300 cargo door slapped on the left side.

The A330 does have a cargo floor, A330 tanker has the normal cargo hold under floor that was available ontop of the main deck. The 767 HAS to have a cargo floor on the main deck as it has no under floor cargo capacity. The A330 is able to carry more cargo and passengers than the 767 tanker ever could.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The A-330MRTT also cost some 10% more, according to the USAF bids.

Boeing have already telegraphed they will blow their bid price for the first 4 SDD aircraft by 40 % (3.9 billion to 5.2 billion, of the US taxpayer is funding 600 million of that), 300 million blow out per aircraft.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
IIRC the USAF and DOD said the two bids weren't even close.

Where does that include the 1.2 billion blow out on the 4 SDD aircraft ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The KC-46A can lift the same amount of cargo weight as the A-330 tanker can, and it burns 15% less fuel.

No.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
There is less Air Force Base infastructure needed for the Boeing tanker vs. the EADS tanker.

No

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
That also means the KC-46 can use more airfields throughout the world than the A-330MRTT can, because of the heavier weight, longer fuselarge, and bigger wingspan of the A-330.

No, the A330 is used extensively world wide without issues you claim, and as a tanker now in service with the RAF and RAAF.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):

It will have the world's most advanced Air Refueling Boom flying, a true Gen VI Boom, not a Gen V Boom that is on the A-330 tanker.

And yet the USAF said the EADS boom had a larger boom envelope. And I note that Boeing dropped the GE pods on the KC-767, and went for the British pods as per the A330.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
It will have the most advanced avionics and air refueling Boom Operator position, as well as the most advanced external and air refueling lighting systems.

Proof ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
It will have very advanced cargo handling systems, and a true advanced cargo floor.

Come on...grasping at straws, you seen inside an A330 before ? it is not exactly wood and fabric.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The KC-46 will burn less fuel and will not have a need to be leveled for cargo loading/unloading operations,

The 767 floor is not totally level either. The attitude of all aircraft changes depending on the load they carry, this was never a shop stopper, nor do I recall a KC-X requirement.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): IIRC the USAF and DOD said the two bids weren't even close.
Where does that include the 1.2 billion blow out on the 4 SDD aircraft ?

Where did I say actual costs as opposed to bids? Also the bids were for 18 new tankers, not just the 4 SDD aircraft.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): The KC-46A can lift the same amount of cargo weight as the A-330 tanker can, and it burns 15% less fuel.
No.

Ahhh, yes. The A-330 tanker only has the lower cargo holds, which have a cubic capacity of 136 m2, or about 4800 cu ft. It would have another 12000 cu ft, or so, if it had a main deck cargo floor. The KC-46A carries the same cargo weight of about 65,000 lbs as the KC-30 does.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): There is less Air Force Base infastructure needed for the Boeing tanker vs. the EADS tanker.
No

Wrong again. The A-330 requires a 500' wide RSA due to its 193' wingspan, it is also has about 100,000 lbs MTOW, and it will not fit in exsisting hangers, when compared to the KC-46 wingspan of 158' and will fit in USAF hangers, with some modifications to the hanger.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): That also means the KC-46 can use more airfields throughout the world than the A-330MRTT can, because of the heavier weight, longer fuselarge, and bigger wingspan of the A-330.
No, the A330 is used extensively world wide without issues you claim, and as a tanker now in service with the RAF and RAAF.

The RAAF and RAF tankers haven't gone anywhere, yet. Both need a 10,000' runway for TO at MTOW, as written in the KC-X RFP.

The A-330MRTT is an ADG-V aircraft while the KC-46A is an ADG-IV aircraft, according to the FAA. For ICAO, that is a group 5 for the A-330 and group 4 for the KC-46.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): It will have very advanced cargo handling systems, and a true advanced cargo floor.
Come on...grasping at straws, you seen inside an A330 before ? it is not exactly wood and fabric.

Yes, I have been in an A-330, and I never said it was all wood and fabric.

Quoting zeke (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): The KC-46 will burn less fuel and will not have a need to be leveled for cargo loading/unloading operations,
The 767 floor is not totally level either. The attitude of all aircraft changes depending on the load they carry, this was never a shop stopper, nor do I recall a KC-X requirement.

You are correct in saying the attitude cahnges with all aircraft as they are loaded/unloaded. But the A-330 starts out with a very visible nose down attitude as it sits on the ground. Airbus, when they designed the A-330-200F didn't just take out the pax windows and slap on a cargo door and extend the NLG (with its distinctive aerodynamic dome) of an A-330-200 pax model. They had to extend the NLG just to level it for cargo loading and unloading. they had to design a full cargo floor made of metal and with a roller system, all mounted floor beams (latitudely and longitudely) on 20" (about 560 mm, or 56 cm) centers, as opposed to 24" centers of the pax model.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):

Where did I say actual costs as opposed to bids? Also the bids were for 18 new tankers, not just the 4 SDD aircraft.

So in your mind Boeing should not be accountable for the price they bid on ?

The whole idea of the competitive bid process is to get the best value to the tax payer, it make a mockery of the system when they have exceeded the bid on the first 4 SDD aircraft by so much, and the costs are still going up. We have no idea how much the remaining aircraft will blow out by.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
The A-330 requires a 500' wide RSA due to its 193' wingspan, it is also has about 100,000 lbs MTOW, and it will not fit in exsisting hangers, when compared to the KC-46 wingspan of 158' and will fit in USAF hangers, with some modifications to the hanger.

The A330 does not REQUIRE any additional RSA for military applications over and beyond what the USAF has as standard, a number of aircraft types in the ADG-V group are used already in military applications, as well as the CAFR. Practically I cannot think of a single runway where a 767 can get in and out of, and an A330 cannot in the civil world.

The 767 will not fit into all hangers that the USAF has without modification, and will not fit as many in as they can KC-135s without modification, same with the A330s. That is not as important as the fleet size will be reduced, and the maintenance hours per flight hour would be about 1/8 of a KC-135. Hanger space is cheap compared to the 1.2 billion dollar blow out on the SDD aircraft.

To assert that the USAF has NO hangers that an A330 can use unmodified into is false, and to suggest that no hangers would not need modification to fit A330s is also false.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):

The RAAF and RAF tankers haven't gone anywhere, yet. Both need a 10,000' runway for TO at MTOW, as written in the KC-X RFP.

The A330 tankers are operational with both the RAF and RAAF. They DO NOT need 10,000 ft of runway, A330s operate worldwide on much shorter runways than that on a daily basis. The RAAF and RAF have already operated out of airports with runways short than 10,000 ft, it is not a hypothetical point of debate.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):

The A-330MRTT is an ADG-V aircraft while the KC-46A is an ADG-IV aircraft, according to the FAA. For ICAO, that is a group 5 for the A-330 and group 4 for the KC-46.

Very true, however that is meaningless in the USAF context, it does not have an operational impact. The USAF standard runway design is more than adequate for a KC-30 (or VC-25/C-5), and most USAF bases has apron parking stands, again more than adequate for A330s.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
Airbus, when they designed the A-330-200F didn't just take out the pax windows and slap on a cargo door and extend the NLG (with its distinctive aerodynamic dome) of an A-330-200 pax model. They had to extend the NLG just to level it for cargo loading and unloading.

The A330F has the same nose gear as the every other A330, all they have done is lowered the mounting point. It is not necessary to have it, it is there to reduce loading times, as in civil operations people are concerned with fast turn around times . As people see every day around the world, cargo is loaded in containers and pallets underfloor on A330s worldwide easily without the nose extension.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
they had to design a full cargo floor made of metal and with a roller system, all mounted floor beams (latitudely and longitudely) on 20" (about 560 mm, or 56 cm) centers, as opposed to 24" centers of the pax model.

The cargo loading system on the A330F is an STC developed by Ancra (a US company), they also make cargo loading systems for a large range of Boeing and Airbus aircraft, passenger and freight. This is an STC, thus is means is can be applied to any A330.

http://www.ancra.com/aircraft/pdf/ACPress08-25-10.pdf

Changing the floor beams is not uncommon between passenger and freighter conversions, even converted 767s have their floors replaced, seat tracks removed, and floor panels replaced.

See slide 8 http://www.staero.aero/downloads/uploadedfiles/767-300BCF.pdf



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4892 times:

Since some of the participants want to rehash the recent USAF tanker selection, this thread is now locked.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What If The Usaf Needed A Smaller Tanker? KC-767? posted Mon Mar 31 2008 14:36:41 by Jackonicko
Return Of The 767-400ER - Usaf Bird Assigned Line# posted Sat Jan 19 2008 12:09:11 by Stitch
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
Who Selected P&W For Usaf KC-767? posted Wed Jul 27 2005 23:54:26 by AirRyan
New York Time Article Usaf 20 Bill 767 Deal.. posted Wed Sep 3 2003 10:54:44 by Keesje
Boeing Gets Usaf 767 Tanker Deal posted Fri May 23 2003 20:35:19 by United777
When Will The Usaf Order The 767 Tankers? posted Sat Oct 26 2002 21:22:04 by CX747
Possible Usaf C-27Js To Uscg posted Sun Mar 11 2012 10:08:34 by andydtwnwa7
Usaf Cancels Contract For Super Tucanos posted Tue Feb 28 2012 14:16:29 by voar
Usaf U-28 Crash In Djibouti posted Mon Feb 20 2012 08:33:36 by Spacepope
Rare Event: Usaf C-5 Lands At HND Rjtt Japan posted Tue Mar 18 2014 03:17:33 by smolt