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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2594 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.
breiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1808 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2594 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.
sturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 262 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2593 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.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1588 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2593 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.
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2593 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?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2594 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.
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1988 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
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)...
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.
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2593 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.
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
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2593 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.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
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."
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2593 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.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
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!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11357 posts, 
From India, joined May 2006, 514 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2005, 1808 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7722 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
