Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India Select A330 For Tanker (again)  
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12808 posts, RR: 46
Posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

India has selected the Airbus A330 for it's new tanker. An initial order for six could be expanded to an eventual total of 12.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...y=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Quote:
NEW DELHI — Airbus has been selected as the preferred vendor over Russia’s Ilyushin to supply six aerial tankers for the Indian Air Force in a $1 billion tender, according to Indian Defence Ministry officials.

After the commercial bids were opened earlier this month, the base price of the Russian Il-78 tanker was quoted as lower than that of the A330, but when factoring in maintenance and fuel costs, the Airbus was the better value, said a Defence Ministry official.

...

Defence Ministry sources said it is not yet decided if a fresh tender will be opened to buy the remaining six or if a repeat order will be given to the winner to the current competition.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinevivekman2006 From India, joined May 2006, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7299 times:

One more example of the IAF making its decision based on overall life-cycle cost instead of the per unit purchase cost.

This has been the trend in recent purchases, e.g. CH-47 Chinooks, AH-64D Apaches, and even the MMRCA contract.

Good decision I would say!


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6845 times:

IIRC, there were only two bidders, the A-330MRTT and the Il-78TT. Boeing did not bid the KC-767 or the KC-46.

User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6845 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
IIRC, there were only two bidders, the A-330MRTT and the Il-78TT. Boeing did not bid the KC-767 or the KC-46.

Correct, Boeing withdrew from the competition in 2010. I do not recall why, though.

Quoting vivekman2006 (Reply 1):
One more example of the IAF making its decision based on overall life-cycle cost instead of the per unit purchase cost.

Colder political relations between India and Russia are also given as an explanation.

This is the second round. Last one?


User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 514 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting breiz (Reply 3):
Colder political relations between India and Russia are also given as an explanation.

Weren't the original lot of 6 procured from Uzbekistan with Israeli equipment on board? The Pakistanis acquiring the same type was also mentioned as a reason for the shift away from the Il-78.

I wonder why the Israelis didn't jump into the fray with the IAI KC767 MMTT, though. That might just have trumped the others on cost, assuming that it would've met the technical requirements that the Il78 and the 330 MRTT cleared.

Somehow, with this tender, I get the feeling that it is a case of Shiny Jet Syndrome. Don't have any evidence to back that up, just a feeling in my gut.



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 4):

I wonder why the Israelis didn't jump into the fray with the IAI KC767 MMTT, though. That might just have trumped the others on cost, assuming that it would've met the technical requirements that the Il78 and the 330 MRTT cleared.

Life cycle cost may be higher.

Besides, does the IAI KC767 offer a boom with the higher flow rate? You would think India would want the higher flow rate in order to fuel up their P-8I and C-17.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

I know our booms on the KC-135 flow in excess of 7k per minute with all 4 A/R pumps running.. they have a boom on the 767 capable of more than that? How much more?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6845 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 5):
Quoting sturmovik (Reply 4):
I wonder why the Israelis didn't jump into the fray with the IAI KC767 MMTT, though. That might just have trumped the others on cost, assuming that it would've met the technical requirements that the Il78 and the 330 MRTT cleared.
Life cycle cost may be higher.

Besides, does the IAI KC767 offer a boom with the higher flow rate? You would think India would want the higher flow rate in order to fuel up their P-8I and C-17.
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 6):
I know our booms on the KC-135 flow in excess of 7k per minute with all 4 A/R pumps running.. they have a boom on the 767 capable of more than that? How much more?

The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom, it is probe and drogue refueling only. The IDFAF KC-707s, converted by IAI use the Boeing KC-135 Boom The IAI KC-767MMTT is a converted B-762ER. The KC-135 Boom can off-load up to 8500 lbs of fuel per minute and easily refuels the P-8 and C-17. It just takes a little longer than refueling from a 1200 ppm. The Boeing KC-767A/J Gen IV Booms have an 8500 ppm flow rate, and the KC-46 Gen V Boom will have a 1200 ppm. The Boom on the A-330MRTT also has a flow rate of 1200 ppm.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom, it is probe and drogue refueling only. The IDFAF KC-707s, converted by IAI use the Boeing KC-135 Boom The IAI KC-767MMTT is a converted B-762ER. The KC-135 Boom can off-load up to 8500 lbs of fuel per minute and easily refuels the P-8 and C-17. It just takes a little longer than refueling from a 1200 ppm. The Boeing KC-767A/J Gen IV Booms have an 8500 ppm flow rate, and the KC-46 Gen V Boom will have a 1200 ppm. The Boom on the A-330MRTT also has a flow rate of 1200 ppm.

I think all three of those 1200ppm numbers should be 1200gpm (*gallons* not pounds). Or about 8000ppm (assuming 6.7lbs/gal)...


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom

They do have a boom for the 767, A330, 737 and gulfstream.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

The IAI KC-767MMTT does not have a Boom

They do have a boom for the 767, A330, 737 and gulfstream.

@Zeke, he was saying that the IAI's KC-767 is not fitted with a boom, only hose and drogue assy's as part of their configuration. He later stated that the other versions had it.

I have been enjoying reading your posts more lately.

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Weird, I just read through the KC-135 -1 last night as well as the 6GA trying to find some hard numbers for max fuel transfer rate, and the best I could find in the -1 was that it said maximum fuel dump rate with 4 A/R pumps running was around 6,500lbs/min. I wonder how we're able to squeeze another 1500-2000 lbs during normal fuel transfer based on the numbers supplied by TopBoom. I can't account for the discrepancy in numbers. The nozzle poppet is fully depressed whether in fuel dump or plugged into a receptacle.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 11):

The numbers I have for the KC-135 are
Fuel Transfer Rate. The tanker can transfer fuel at the following rates:
a. Boom. Exceeding 6000 lb/min (2722 kg/min) through the boom.
b. BDA. Exceeding 2800 lb/min (1270 kg/min) through the BDA.
c. MPRS. Exceeding 2680 lb/min (1216 kg/min) through the wingtip mounted MPRS AAR pods.

For the KC-10
Fuel Transfer Rate
a. Boom. 3630 kg/min (8000 lb/min) through the boom.
b. Centerline Hose. 1820 kg/min (4000 lb/min) through the centerline hose.
c. WARP. 11 kg/min (2400 lb/min) through the wing hoses.

For the A330 MRTT
Fuel Transfer Rate
a. ARBS 3630 kg/min (8000 lb/min) through the Airbus Military Aerial Refuelling Boom System.
b. FRU 1820 kg/min (4000 lb/min) through the Fuselage Refuelling Unit (Cobham FRU 805E).
c. Wing pods 1270 kg/min (2800 lb/min) through the wing hoses (Cobham 905E).

This is what the tanker is capable of giving, most receivers are not capable of getting the maximum rates.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

Those are numbers I would expect to see. I would expect the fuel dump rate to be higher than fuel transfer rate as there would be basically little to no back pressure that the fuel pressure regulator would have to dump back into aft body.

User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 11):
Weird, I just read through the KC-135 -1 last night as well as the 6GA trying to find some hard numbers for max fuel transfer rate, and the best I could find in the -1 was that it said maximum fuel dump rate with 4 A/R pumps running was around 6,500lbs/min. I wonder how we're able to squeeze another 1500-2000 lbs during normal fuel transfer based on the numbers supplied by TopBoom. I can't account for the discrepancy in numbers. The nozzle poppet is fully depressed whether in fuel dump or plugged into a receptacle.


Just a thought... The KC-135 system (tubing and Venturi) are part of what limits it to the 6,500 ppm... but a KC-135 boom installed on another frame would not have the same plumbing prior to the boom, so could that be part of the increase?

"Those are numbers I would expect to see. I would expect the fuel dump rate to be higher than fuel transfer rate as there would be basically little to no back pressure that the fuel pressure regulator would have to dump back into aft body."

Absolutely...

135Mech

[Edited 2012-11-15 13:04:19]

User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

I was referring to the numbers that KC135TopBoom posted for fuel transfer rates. He stated a fuel transfer rate of 8,500 lbs/min. Perhaps it was a typo because the ,500 certainly does match the figured provided in the -1 for the max fuel dump rate. I was imagine a heavy like a C-17 or C-5 could take max fuel flow without causing any real backpressure during the transfer.

User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 15):
I was referring to the numbers that KC135TopBoom posted for fuel transfer rates. He stated a fuel transfer rate of 8,500 lbs/min. Perhaps it was a typo because the ,500 certainly does match the figured provided in the -1 for the max fuel dump rate. I was imagine a heavy like a C-17 or C-5 could take max fuel flow without causing any real backpressure during the transfer.

Cool! I remember off loading to a B-2 (while it's testing in 95)... as much as we could, he drank and it was as fast as we could pump! I remember being shocked at max take off and 45 min later calling in with 16K left!

135Mech


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Bump.

Airbus and India are in final talks to buy 6 tankers.

http://twitter.com/ReutersAero/status/441882446922268672



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineIndia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 17):
Airbus and India are in final talks to buy 6 tankers.

Lord knows we need them, but this will take some time, Karel. We get into our elections in April/May and then a new Govt will come in (who will unfortunately re-visit this order, the armed forces be damned). Sorry, I'm sounding cynical, but that's the GoI & politics for you. It's the way things are with so much of our defense procurement...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 19, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

Interview with the Chief of Air Staff:

http://www.forceindia.net/Interview_ArupRaha.aspx



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic India Select A330 For Tanker (again)
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...
A330 For French AF posted Wed Sep 17 2008 15:00:05 by Breiz
Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X) posted Wed Aug 1 2007 20:00:20 by WINGS
Airbus Does Hard Sell For Tanker Under BA's Nose.. posted Wed Sep 15 2004 17:52:50 by KEESJE
Australia Selects A330-200 For Air Force Tanker posted Fri Apr 16 2004 11:06:30 by KEESJE
UK Gov Offered Converted Air Tanker For VIP Jet posted Sat Apr 21 2012 01:54:17 by speedbird9
India Goes American (Boeing) Again.. posted Tue Oct 25 2011 07:39:21 by mffoda
10 C-17's For India posted Wed Nov 10 2010 04:35:51 by JoeCanuck
737 Awacs For India? posted Sun Oct 24 2010 15:43:37 by DEVILFISH
India's New Tanker RFI posted Wed Sep 29 2010 08:01:42 by DEVILFISH
India Purchases 42 More Su-30MKIs For 3 Billion posted Fri Jun 25 2010 19:32:45 by Shmertspionem

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format