Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition  
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Posted (8 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

something of interest....

" bizjournals.com
Tanker study opens Boeing, Airbus competition
Friday January 27, 5:09 pm ET

The findings of a Rand Corp. study suggests both the Boeing Co. and Airbus have jets that would be suitable for the U.S. Air Force to use as its next generation of aerial refueling tankers.

But the report does not set a timetable for a tanker program.
The study narrowed the possibilities to Boeing's 767, 777, 787 or 747 jets and Airbus' A330 and A340.

New tankers are needed to replace the fleet of KC-135 tankers that average 44 years old."

--------------------------

what I find interesting is this tidbit of information...

"There is a lot of information that needs to come out about this," says Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan. "Basically what it comes down to is if there is a competition, and most likely there will be, I think that Boeing has a very good shot at winning."

--------------

entire article can be found at..

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060127/1221715.html?.v=2


I still think Boeing will be able to pull this off........


"Up the Irons!"
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12266 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 4276 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

What would the American residents think if Airbus won the contract? Its obvious Boeing will win.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4217 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
What would the American residents think if Airbus won the contract?

Probably the same as Europeans seeing JSF´s..

A lot of new types have been drawn into competion after the fact became accepted that the KC-30 outdoes the KC767 (without extra fuel tanks e.g.)

If the EADS adds additional fuel tanks to the kc-30 the kc767 will be even more outclassed. Of course the KC777 will be brought forward.

However "just too much" can also be a criterium. Their is a ceiling to what is sensible.

Perhaps not. Interestingly the A340 is considered. KC340-200/300 used airframe or A340-500 super tanker transport? Transporting troop/goods LAX-Kabul/Kuwait directly would become possible..

Objectively I think the KC30 fits best/ offers best value for money. However: "objectively"

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/images/media_center/library/img_003hr.jpg


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Objectively I think the KC30 fits best/ offers best value for money

Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 3):
Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?

Surely the extra costs on top of the airframe to make it "combat worthy" would be approximately the same for any aircraft.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months ago) and read 4172 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?

For the KC-30 the cost have already been made / issues solved.

I´ve always wondered if the airforce would be able to get their hands on 100 757´s. They seem to approach the kc135 most closely.


User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months ago) and read 4172 times:

If the Us starts buying foreign tankers I am sure there will be a lot of pissed of taxpayers.

User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months ago) and read 4168 times:

Nothing we didn't pretty much already know about the competition. I wouldn't really call it a 'competition' though, I think the American military and John Q. Taxpayer feel pretty strongly about this.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Objectively I think the KC30 fits best/ offers best value for money.

Thanks for the spin keesje...we can always count on you showing up in these tanker threads. Nice cheap photoshop work on that photo by Northrop, looks like they hired a junior high student to do it.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months ago) and read 4167 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 6):
If the Us starts buying foreign tankers I am sure there will be a lot of pissed of taxpayers.

Should I, as a UK taxpayer, be pissed because of the F-35? How about all the tomahawks we bought from the US, and then immediately used in the Iraq invasion?


User currently offlineRedAirForce From Ukraine, joined Aug 1999, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

Maybe you should be pissed, thats up to you. But when Airbus and Boeing are neck and neck for a US military contract there is only one logical choice. If the LW or French air force goes with Airbus I would not complain, its a great product too.

You get to decide what you should be pissed about. Can you make your own alternative to Tomahawks? If not, then maybe not.


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
For the KC-30 the cost have already been made / issues solved.

Show me where Airbus is doing this kind of (quite expensive) engineering for their Faux Warbird offerings.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...y/mma/news/2005/q2/nr_050418m.html

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 4):
Surely the extra costs on top of the airframe to make it "combat worthy" would be approximately the same for any aircraft.

Point is Boeing is well down the road with such efforts...and they are making their efforts public as well.
What have we heard about vulnerability reduction from EADS/Airbus?
Well, a Google search vividly illustrates the paucity of any efforts apparently ongoing by them.

I've brought this up before as well. Airbus will be facing a very, very expensive effort to incorporate Vulnerability Reduction attributes into their flight control software-much more so than Boeing (which is apparently working on the problem as we speak).

A cautionary Lesson Learned about approaching Survivability late in the game can be gleaned from the F-22 program. It gets more expensive the longer it takes to "discover" there is an issue.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/f-22_ote_report.htm

Looks like EADS Airbus is more about coming up with a spiffy marketing plan than a truly Combat Worthy aircraft.

[Edited 2006-01-28 22:14:23]


the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 8):
Should I, as a UK taxpayer, be pissed because of the F-35?

No, because the UK wanted to benefit from the very large investment that the US was making in the JSF program, and because the UK would have a workshare roughly proportional to their purchases.

But I suspect the UK won't end up getting any JSFs.

Anyway, if the US buys the KC-30 or any other Airbus tanker, they should demand 100% offsets like other countries are demanding of US defense suppliers.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/DefenseIndust...IES/offsets/OffsetXFinalReport.pdf

Based on this report I suspect there was very little wealth transfer for those Tomahawks, as the UK seems to have gotten very high offsets for the past decade.

[Edited 2006-01-28 22:12:53]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

Quoting RedAirForce (Reply 9):
You get to decide what you should be pissed about. Can you make your own alternative to Tomahawks? If not, then maybe not.

Red brings up a good point. It's not like the US isn't capable of building it's own tanker, far from it in fact....on the contrary, we have produced two highly successful tankers, and should continue to build a third one...we're not in a situation where we need to look 'out of house' for another one. I think Boeing has proved themselves to be an asset to this nation's defense. EADS, not so much.

Now, if BAE or someone else in the UK wants to build a better cruise missile, then by all means....

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 10):
Looks like EADS Airbus is more about coming up with a spiffy marketing plan than a truly Combat Worthy aircraft.



Quoting Sidishus (Reply 10):
What have we heard about vulnerability reduction from EADS/Airbus?

This being a military project, I doubt there will be much in the press compared to civilian projects.
However, there is a certification plan in place for all these matters and work is being done.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12):
Now, if BAE or someone else in the UK wants to build a better cruise missile, then by all means....

It's called the Apache/Storm Shadow Big grin (but I don't know if it's better or not!)


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4124 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 13):
This being a military project, I doubt there will be much in the press compared to civilian projects.
However, there is a certification plan in place for all these matters and work is being done.

Boeing is making it a point to publicize their efforts with the P-8A-which is not a civil project. And you can bet such efforts will be directly useable in their tanker offering.

Again, show me a similar effort being conducted by EADS for their militarized airliner offerings.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 3):
Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?

What is "combat worthy" the RAF L-1011 and VC-10 have flown many thousands of sorties in support of combat missions and I don't remember have to make them "combat worthy".


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4113 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
What is "combat worthy" the RAF L-1011 and VC-10 have flown many thousands of sorties in support of combat missions and I don't remember have to make them "combat worthy".

You need to look at the threats being specifically designed to kill such aircraft such as the KS-172, S-400, R77, and FT-2000.
The aircraft that will replace the current flock of tankers will have to be very "combat worthy" indeed.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 14):
Again, show me a similar effort being conducted by EADS for their militarized airliner offerings.

Just because something isn't being publicised doesn't mean it's not happening.
I find in Europe these things aren't as publicised as in the US.
One example I saw (not related to aircraft) was a TV documentary showing the faces of Navy SEALS and them exiting a submarine. In the UK they black out faces of members of the SAS/SBS etc. Only if they died are their faces shown.


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 17):
Just because something isn't being publicised doesn't mean it's not happening.

Funny how Boeing isn't being shy on the subject.

We shall see whose product best meets the requirements of Section 2366 Title 10 US Code for a specified amount of money.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/presentations/Coyle052698/coyle052698.pdf



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4085 times:

As an afterthought - isn't it Northrop who will be doing most of the military systems integration?

[Edited 2006-01-29 00:05:48]

User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 19):
As an afterthought - isn't it Northrop who will be doing most of the military systems integration?

Yeah, and Lockheed-the maker of the SR-71-was "integrating" the ACS into an aircraft that was a remarkably stupid choice, and Northrop's platform choice for the ACS was just as stupid becuase it couldn't be made into a satisfactory warbird either.
In the case of the tanker contract, Northrop may well find their platform of choice may well be too expensive once the required survivability attributes are back engeineered into the design. And no matter what you intimate, EADS seems to be paying little heed to the issue.
Point is, backfitting survivability attributes into an airliner design is an expensive prospect. Very expensive. Boeing has a lead with the work already underway on the P-8....
And that's the bottom line.

[Edited 2006-01-29 00:22:26]


the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 20):
And no matter what you intimate, EADS seems to be paying little heed to the issue.

Out of interest - Do you have an insight into the progress reports etc from EADS/Northrop to make a judgement? (I.e. do you have a second job apart from wreaking travel plans Big grin ) Just realised... Why am I defending EADS-CASA/MTAD... I have my gripes with them too! Big grin

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 20):
Point is, backfitting survivability attributes into an airliner design is an expensive prospect. Very expensive. Boeing has a lead with the work already underway on the P-8....

What about the FSTA and A330's for Australia, do they have survivability attributes in them?
So regarding total cost, a KC-777 will be cheaper than a KC-30?


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 21):
What about the FSTA and A330's for Australia, do they have survivability attributes in them?

Apparently not and it's to their eventual peril. Problem is its an uphill battle to get program managers...and even end users to understand the vital importance of Survivability Engineering...
From a post I made some time back:

http://jas.jcte.jcs.mil/news/pdf/1998_spring.pdf

Vulnerability Reduction Deserves Some Respect
RADM Robert H. Gormley USN, (Ret)

The JTCG/AS has chosen wisely to devote this issue of Aircraft Survivability
to vulnerability reduction technology. The Combat Survivability Division of the
National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) certainly endorses the theme of
this edition of the newsletter since we believe aircraft vulnerability reduction has not received sufficient attention in recent years. For this reason, the program for our October 1997 symposium was structured to shed light in this darkening vulnerability “corner” — to see how technological advancements might contribute to enhancing the survivability of both military and civil aircraft.
In the survivability field, fiscal constraints can lead to a hyperfocus on susceptibility reduction since hit avoidance is without question the first thing one should do to enhance combat survivability. So, the logic might then go, let’s not attempt to improve damage resistance and damage tolerance of new
air platforms. Or alternatively, why not relax vulnerability requirements in order
to save on development and procurement costs?
I urge caution here, particularly in the case of manned aircraft. It seems to me that those who determine aircraft requirements and characteristics
would do well to avoid being too quickly dismissive of vulnerability considerations.
They need to look carefully at the full range of possible tactical employment
scenarios for proposed new aircraft, giving weight to the historical combat
usage record of earlier planes. And before making a final decision on aircraft characteristics, into which the affordability factor must clearly weigh, requirements and acquisition officials should ask themselves two key questions relating to survivability:
“If hit, do we really want this new bird to
be more likely to be lost than the plane it
is to replace?” And, “Is there a need for it
to be less vulnerable than the predecessor
system?”


In the case of the proposed new US tanker fleet, the answer to those last two questions is a very definite YES!

[Edited 2006-01-29 00:49:39]


the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4050 times:

Surely this is a "NO"?

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 22):
“If hit, do we really want this new bird to
be more likely to be lost than the plane it is to replace?”


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4049 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 23):
Surely this is a "NO"?

Yeah, my bad.



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
25 Post contains links Sidishus : http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Wedgetail-0705.pdf Modern wars, especially air wars, can be described as ‘information centric’, in that, the abilit
26 Post contains images Keesje : It becomes more and more clear EADS forgot something crusial. I think they better withdraw their current operation tankers..
27 Post contains links Sidishus : Some nice pix of some pretty Faux Warbirds keesje. Its a shame emerging threats will render them obsolescent in just a few years. Maybe Germany and C
28 Sidishus : More from the same article that gets to the heart of the matter... Airliner Air Force: Survivability for Militarized Commercial Aircraft While this co
29 Bennett123 : Boeing have modified the B737 into the P8, people therefore assume that uprating the B767 to the KC767 will be equally straightforward. I am not clear
30 Post contains links Sidishus : Apparently not because the Italian government hasnt demanded it, but US law dictates that a live fire test and evaluation be done on manned weapons s
31 Sidishus : As one whose day job demands being quite familiar with modern transport category aircraft, I can tell you such engineering changes cost money...alot
32 Bennett123 : The points that I am making are as follows; 1. That the Italian Air Force KC767 is not the same as the possible USAF KC767, unless the USAF are prepar
33 Sidishus : Which has been my point on this venue for two years...hence the term Faux Warbirds And thats why Boeing is a leg up when it comes to the oft ignored
34 Sidishus : ...And another thing. I wouldnt hold out much hope Northrops integrators have a clue about Survivabilty Engineering (at this point anyway). Heck Lockh
35 Keesje : I was was asked to speak to a conference about a technical issue for airlines. I turned out the company had found a solution for a problem. The only t
36 Sidishus : keesje, it is not what happened in the last fifty years that matters; it is what will happen during the next fifty during which the new aircraft will
37 Bennett123 : I still say if Airbus were smart they would make such efforts known in the same general sense (and totally unclassified) way Boeing has... IF such eff
38 Post contains links Sidishus : And Boeing is being stupid by publishing this how? http://www.navair.navy.mil/mma/index..._item&news_id=24¤t_page=home No real specifics are given (
39 Bennett123 : Given that the P8 programme is already public knowledge, there is less scope/point in secrecy.
40 Post contains links Sidishus : Mighty weak argument Bennett. Why don't you take the time to actually read this newsletter. Most of it is devoted to large aircraft survivability...a
41 Bennett123 : Very interesting newsletter. However, I stand by my original point. The existance of the P8 is a known fact. There is therefore no disadvantage in ext
42 A319XFW : Aibus hasn't released anything because Airbus does not equip the A330 for the military tanker. They will deliver a green aircraft to EADS/Northrop an
43 Atmx2000 : I don't think green aircraft would be delivered for a KC330. I was under the impression only parts would be delivered.
44 A319XFW : True, my mistake - I was referring to the FSTA and KC-330 for the Australian Air Force. The KC-30 would be built in Mobile, but I don't know if the p
45 Sidishus : Trying to back fit Vulnerability Reduction into an existing aircraft would be a total Mission Impossible. It will take more than a run of the mill so
46 Bennett123 : How much of this would also apply to the KC767 or a KC777. It sounds that you are arguing for a new build aircraft that will have little in common wit
47 Scbriml : If it saves them billions of said tax $$$s? They can demand all the offsets they want. In the history of offsets has anyone ever got what they were s
48 Post contains links and images Sidishus : All of it. Mind you I am not advocating B over A just because I am a Southern Redneck (and proud of it too!!!!). I have more than a few friends alrea
49 LongbowPilot : Which ever airframe is elected to become the next tanker for the air force. If it is airbus then it should be the design, but 100% American Made. No f
50 Bennett123 : Sidishus What does the word redneck mean to you. I agree 100%. Longbowpilot The problem is that Lockheed and Northrop Grumman no longer design/make co
51 Post contains links and images Sidishus : Cmon down here to the Redneck Riviera and Ill show yah Bennett.   http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/...egori=NEWS01&Lopenr=1211002&Ref=PH And jus
52 Atmx2000 : Perhaps because Poland was receiving 200% offsets, an outrageous amount.
53 Bennett123 : So which picture are you in.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition
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...
Rand Tanker Study Says Buy New Frames posted Wed Mar 8 2006 04:10:57 by Echster
The Boeing 777 Tanker posted Thu Sep 28 2006 00:35:18 by NWDC10
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:25:04 by Justloveplanes
Pentagon OKs Tanker Competition posted Fri Apr 14 2006 21:21:35 by RedFlyer
Boeing Willing To Use 787 As Tanker posted Wed Sep 14 2005 16:10:29 by N328KF
767 Tanker Deal: Bailout For Boeing posted Fri Jun 10 2005 07:52:13 by Scotron11
Airbus To Decide By June 23 On Jet Plant, Tanker posted Mon May 23 2005 23:23:34 by Keesje
Bill Shields Boeing Tanker posted Sat May 21 2005 03:26:56 by Boeing7E7
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format