Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4048 times:
USAF officials to favour a joint tanker and cargo capability.
Northrop Grumman and EADS plan to introduce a freighter variant of the Airbus A330 as they prepare to offer the KC-30 for the US Air Force’s tanker competition.
Boeing refuses to specify its planned offering until the requirement is defined, but says the KC-767A still makes the most sense on cost and general performance.
The air force has now completed an analysis of alternatives for the requirement, but has frozen the programme until external consultants complete reviews of the report.
Northrop has shifted its campaign emphasis from being a “smart tanker” provider to offering a freighter version of the A330 in response to an apparent shift among USAF officials to favour a joint tanker and cargo capability.
The company is also looking to replace a number of current equipment suppliers, because its current KC-30 proposal only betters a Buy American requirement for a 50% US supplier base by 2%.
Northrop aims to increase this total to 60%, but will not specify which systems or parts are being targeted.
However, Northrop’s senior executive vice-president for the tanker programme, Marty Dandridge, confirms: “Essentially what you are going to do is move French jobs to the USA.”
EADS North America Defense president David Oliver believes the USAF’s best option would be to split the tanker buy between the two bidders, because this would enable the rivals to compete for yearly contract awards.
I think this is the final confirmation that the "to much of an aircraft", "we already have the KC10" stories brought up were not realistic.
If you are gonna fly your asset for 40 years, you want it to be as versatile as possible.
The ability to ALSO fly 290 people with luggage and/or a serious cargo load from e.g. LAX to Kabul with one stop is valuable, as it the extra range and fuel off load capacity of a KC30/KC787 seized aircraft.
Northrop seems to take an active role in the project, trying to increase the US made part to 60%
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4365 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4030 times:
How many freighter flights does the KC-10 operate? A recent review just went over the mistake of looking at tankers for cargo capacity because during conflicts they are going to be passing gas.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4365 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3952 times:
Is there a set date as to when both companies have to put forth their respective offers? In recent reports, Boeing has begun to lean towards offering the 787. In my opinion that would be an outstanding choice. Think of all the Reserve and Guard units who have pilots flying for the major airlines. Training would be extremely simple. I fly the 787 for United during the week and the KC 787 for the Air Guard on the weekends!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4459 posts, RR: 27 Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 3901 times:
Don't want to sound like a broken record but with the estimates coming in from the hurricane Katrina and now Rita cleanups I have a feeling the tanker program might be put on hold.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 755 posts, RR: 54 Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 3894 times:
>> Don't want to sound like a broken record but with the estimates coming in from the hurricane Katrina and now Rita cleanups I have a feeling the tanker program might be put on hold.
The federal government doesn't have to shell-out 100% of the dollars for Katrina and Rita relief. While there's $300 billion dollars in property damage, think of all the insurance that will cover that.
The government cannot and will not come to stop because of the damage to Lousiana, Mississippi, and Texas. There is business to be done, and for something as long-term as a 40-year tanker deal, a piss-ass hurricane simply isn't going to stop the show.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4459 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 3884 times:
Yes I realize that the federal government does not pick up the entire tab for the recovery efforts. However it is still going to cost the feds billions of dollars, $62 billion has already been alloted. Considering the current budget deficit I have a feeling that the tanker program might be put on hold. Just my opinion.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12359 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 3812 times:
KC-30 only has 'French' written all over it to the terminally stupid and paranoid.
Since the man who coined the absurd 'Freedom Fries' insult has publicly renounced this, I'd not rely too much on this to prevent a proper competition.
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4736 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 3784 times:
Why don't they just tell Boeing how they want their 767 and order it, they will never ever order the A330 and just waste their time, Airbus' time and the time of anybody interested.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 3774 times:
Boeing says its refueling tanker would be low-risk
"Assuming that we have an Air Force program, that will be tested, fielded and we will have produced eight airplanes ... with a lot of this new technology. We think that makes us a very low-risk technological competitor," Sams said.,/i>
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4365 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 3717 times:
What I think we need to do is take a wait and see approach. I don't think even the Air Force knows exactly what it is looking for. When it does and they actually put out an RFP, then we will see what Boeing and Northrop Grumman are offering. Also, the "low risk" doesn't mean a dumb platform or old platform, what is means is a platform that has been tested extensively and put through its paces ala with the Italian Air Force.
That being said, I would personally like to see a mix of 787 and 777 tankers purchased. The 787s to replace KC-135s and 777s to replace some of the older KC-10s. Using the KC-777s and KC-10s for fighter drags across the Atlantic and Pacific would be the best bet. Letting KC 787s, KC 130s and R model 135s operate in theater would round out the tanker fleet.
[Edited 2005-09-28 18:28:51]
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
N328KF From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 6203 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 11): The 787s to replace KC-135s and 777s to replace some of the older KC-10s.
There's only a seven year spread in the deliveries.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Ruger11 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 3661 times:
While I like the A330 aircraft, I think Airbus proposed a "Split" between itself and Boeing simply as a last ditch effort to divert Some contracts away from the KC-767
That said, the 767 is relatively small for a "widebody" aircraft, I would think the 777 would be more capable alround. Correct me if I'm wrong there... maybe the 777 would be too big? I have no clue, just guessing.
Glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1475 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3631 times:
Quoting Racko (Reply 9): Why don't they just tell Boeing how they want their 767 and order it, they will never ever order the A330 and just waste their time, Airbus' time and the time of anybody interested.
They will, and they know they are. Airbus needs to wake up and pull out now.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
Duce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3622 times:
I think airbus is doing the smart thing; waiting for boeing to shoot itself in the foot again, then be numero uno with a contract and a viable aircraft available. It's their best shot and they'd be fools to not try it.
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): USAF officials to favour a joint tanker and cargo capability.
What a shocker: The AF and Boeing 25 years behind the times. A tanker that can do both A/R and cargo on the same leg? What a novel concept! Too bad McDonnell Douglas didn't think about this one!
IMHO, Boeing's learning curve with tankers is fairly shallow; the 747 tanker had the boom laying on his stomach still, and slapped a 135 boom on there. The 767, thankfully the boom will be in a chair, but it'll be with RARO and they're slapping the same POS 135 boom on it. Meanwhile the 10's boom is proven, safe, and FAR more capable. But, nah, let's just stick ol' reliable on there. A**holes!
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3566 times:
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 14): They will, and they know they are. Airbus needs to wake up and pull out now.
I think EADS is pursuing a long term strategy. In a few years the USAF will possibly find out the large Herc fleet is getting old & the J just isn't the quantum leap for the next 40 years and w'll see the circus all over again..
Maybe A is promising a cargo conversion line for the A330/340 in Alabama one day..
On the KC30, the alternatives are KC767, KC777 and KC787.
- IMO the KC767 is simply less capable & dated.
- The KC777 would be much to large & a KC10 replacement
- Boeing until recently said the 787 design wasn't suitable for militairy applications (wing pot location, cutting cargo doors etc..)
To disregard the KC30 the operational/financial requirements simply must be put aside. That has become more difficult for Boeing and the Patty Murrays & Maria Cantwells aggressively supporting them.
If LMP737 is true (there's no money) IMO the USAF should consider buying a large bunch of used 762/763's and e.g. open a low rate conversion line standarizing them on CF6 and making them ready for 25 years of tanker services, and hire a private supplier to take care of a large part of the US training operations.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4459 posts, RR: 27 Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3515 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 16): If LMP737 is true (there's no money) IMO the USAF should consider buying a large bunch of used 762/763's and e.g. open a low rate conversion line standarizing them on CF6 and making them ready for 25 years of tanker services, and hire a private supplier to take care of a large part of the US training operations.
Problem would be finding enough 767 with enough life left for the next 25 years. IMHO I don't think the new tanker program would be killed all together. Chances are it would be put on the back burner for about ten years, IMO. If we were to see anything we might see the remaining KC-135E upgraded with CFM-56.
Thumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3495 times:
Buying a new tanker is simply not going to happen in the foreseeable future. I would be surprised that it has not been discussed here earlier but none of the air force tankers need to be replaced. In fact most of them have over 30 years left on their airframes.
There are two problems. One real and short term, one potential for the medium term. The 127 KC135Es have engine strut problems and old non compliant engines. Other than that the airframes are fine. There needs to be a short term fix for this. The KC-10 while relatively young may no longer be able to be maintained economically sometime after 2010. The reason for this is that the civilian base is shrinking and there is not a whole lot of spares available. The same however could be said for the KC-135 and they always seem to come up with a way to keep them current so I would not be too concerned about the KC-10.
All 127 KC-135Es can be refurbished for 3.6 billion. New engines, struts etc. This will enable them to continue to fly through at least 2030.
As for the cargo issue, the KC-10s handle that very well. They are designed to support forward deployed fighter squadrons with fuel, support personel and their equipment. As such they do not generally fly in warzones and do not need to be able to carry oversize loads such as tanks or helicopters as the C-17 and C-5 do. There are 59 of them active. More than enough to support the mission that they are assigned.
Given these public facts, once the airforce tanker study and it's conclusions become public there should be no doubt that new tankers are not going to be procured anytime soon. The airforce will refurbish the KC-135Es and use the money they save to buy more C-17s which are true cargo aircraft.
As for Keesje's comment about the Hercules, Lockheed has developed and fielded the C-130J. It is an all new aircraft that will replace the old model C-130s. It is larger and outperforms the older C-130s in just about every way. The airforce has already budgeted to modernise the C-130 fleet through the low rate aquisition of the C-130J.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 19): As for Keesje's comment about the Hercules, Lockheed has developed and fielded the C-130J. It is an all new aircraft that will replace the old model C-130s. It is larger and outperforms the older C-130s in just about every way. The airforce has already budgeted to modernise the C-130 fleet through the low rate aquisition of the C-130J.
This isnt quite true, the C-130Js have had more than their fair share of problems, especially engine and engine management systems related.
In 2003, the RAF took delivery of the last of their 25 J models as replacement for the oldest 25 aircraft in the fleet. During 2003, the availability of the J series aircraft fell below 75% several times as up to 30% of the fleet were out of action in unscheduled major maintenance.
At one point in May 2003, 31% of the J model aircraft were grounded.
To me it doesnt sound like it outperforms older models 'in every way'. It might do soon, but its not currently reliable.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4365 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3472 times:
Whie the J model hasn't exactly set the world on fire, it is a new aircraft that is going through many of the teething problems that new platforms do. The J model though will continue to be procured for the USAF and begin to make its mark. The C-130Es are just plain tired.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Thumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3443 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 20): To me it doesnt sound like it outperforms older models 'in every way'. It might do soon, but its not currently reliable.
Reread what I wrote. "just about every way" is not "every way", maybe in English it is but in American it ain't.
I acknowledge that the C-130J has teething problems. It is virtually a brand new plane and perhaps not enough development work went in to it before commencing low rate production. Never fear, once our British friends finish de-bugging the plane for us it will be ready for large scale production for service with the US DOD.
The point being made about Keesje's comment is that obviously the C-130J is the plane they want for the future. It is flying and it is being funded.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
Anyone know when the A330 MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transport) aircraft are being delivered to UK and Australian air forces...would having a developed and tested product help the A330 bid in the USA ?
Didn't the RAF have a A330 MRTT demo at the Royal International Air Tattoo in 2003 ?
A330 MRTT - General
Crew : 2 plus 1 Mission System Operator for the air-to-air refuelling tasks
Passengers : 293 in two-class configuration (30 + 263) or 380 in single class
Freight : 26 x LD3 containers or 8 NATO pallets (88 x 108 inch) plus 2 LD3s in cargo hold plus bulk items (19,7 cu m). Total volume 136,0 cu m.
Boeing TTSC Tanker - General
Crew : 2 plus one tanker operator
Passengers : 252 to 278
Cargo : 24 pallets (88 x 108 inch) on the main deck, plus additional cargo in the lower holds depending on how much auxiliary tanks are fitted.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12359 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4736 posts, 
, 6203 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
