Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary  
User currently offlineUAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 567 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9710 times:

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn_2_062006.pdf

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

UAL747-600

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4151 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9659 times:

Sorry, but what have these warmed-over comments to do with the A380? Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking. And: Airbus would just be providing a green airframe, with Northrop Grumman doing the fitting out - where the heck does that mean large development costs for Airbus?!?!


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9645 times:

Not surprising and I'm sure it's a dillema Airbus faces across many projects, not just the KC-30, as a result of the issues faced by the A380.

BTW, this may belong over in Mil Av & Space forum.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9595 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
And: Airbus would just be providing a green airframe, with Northrop Grumman doing the fitting out - where the heck does that mean large development costs for Airbus?!?!

The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9578 times:

Good summary of the "talking points" by Mr. Hamilton, IMO. I guess he reads A.net regularly! Big grin


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4151 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9505 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.

Already underway for the Australian and the British MRTTs, which will both be A330 based.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9417 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 5):
Already underway for the Australian and the British MRTTs, which will both be A330 based.

Those aircraft are not based on freighter versions, just the normal passenger version.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6294 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 9176 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.

An A330 freighter is not a real development job. It is fitting A300F/A310F hardware to the identical A330 fuselage barrels.

So for all practical things, the KC-30 is an available off the shelf product. Only a few stringers in the aft fuselage have to be reinforced to accept the old KC-135 booms to be bolted on.

But of course there will never be a USAF A330 based tanker. That would be totally politically incorrect in that country. No politician would ever survive signing such a contract.

Airbus and Northrop Grumman are only "used" to get the KC-767 price right. It is also in the interest of Airbus and Northrop Grumman that Boeing doesn't get zillions of unfair profit on that deal since there happens to be no competitor. Incidentally also the interest on US taxpayers.

In reality the IL-76 is probably a more realistic competitor than the KC-30. That doesn't mean that the IL-76 will have a chance either.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8687 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.

Airbus has said they will develope the A-330-200F. They just haven't done that, yet.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 5):
Already underway for the Australian and the British MRTTs, which will both be A330 based.

The RAF and RAAF tankers are both based on the A-330-200, not any A-330-200F.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
An A330 freighter is not a real development job. It is fitting A300F/A310F hardware to the identical A330 fuselage barrels.

So for all practical things, the KC-30 is an available off the shelf product. Only a few stringers in the aft fuselage have to be reinforced to accept the old KC-135 booms to be bolted on.

Really? I don't think you have any idea what the difference is between a passenger and freighter airplane is. Why do you think there are so many companies out there that do pax to cargo conversions (BTW, the designs have to be flight certified by the FAA/JAA).

Now, when you get to tankers, that is a very different airplane from even a freighter. I doubt that Airbus was planning to slab Boeing KC-135 Booms on the KC-30. Airbus is developing their own boom.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
In reality the IL-76 is probably a more realistic competitor than the KC-30. That doesn't mean that the IL-76 will have a chance either.

Well, maybe we can reopen the B-707/KE-3 production line, too.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 8470 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
So for all practical things, the KC-30 is an available off the shelf product. Only a few stringers in the aft fuselage have to be reinforced to accept the old KC-135 booms to be bolted on.

Airbus would not use old KC-135 booms, as they have developed their own flying boom.


User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 8116 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
But of course there will never be a USAF A330 based tanker. That would be totally politically incorrect in that country. No politician would ever survive signing such a contract.

I would have agreed not too long ago. Boeing is now less PC than France, thanks to the co-opting of a few key senators. Bash-Boeing/stress jobsjobsjobs/play down France .. works.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 8093 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Airbus = French

If it's not, why all the turmoil in France right now?

Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second. They test and assemble the planes in France, the prime and foreign ministers are the most vocal in persuading countries to buy it, they are willing to give china technology to sell jets to them, etc. Germany is a strong part of things, but Airbus is seen as French, despite the interest of the Germans and the British and Spanish...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCoa747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 8083 times:

If the French govenrment has to step in a bail out Airbus you better believe any slim hope Airbus had of landing the Air Force tanker contract just went right out the window. Any talks of launch aid and government subsidies to Airbus will be worse than irrelevant as the bailout will prove Airbus can't stand on its own without government support.

I can tell you that the KC30 isn't going to win because while it is better that the 767 the Air Force in my estimations will opt for the 777 platform to provide greater capacity in fuel and freight thus fulfilling two missions in one. Airbus has no effective response to a 777 based tanker. That means game over for Airbus.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1546 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6931 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Sorry, but what have these warmed-over comments to do with the A380? Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking. And: Airbus would just be providing a green airframe, with Northrop Grumman doing the fitting out - where the heck does that mean large development costs for Airbus?!?!

I couldnt agree more. Anyway a a380 would be to big and to expensive used as tanker.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second.

You dont want admit it!!  Yeah sure
Thats just not true germans DONT see Airbus as french  no .
Im not french or german i'm from spain and switzerland and everbody knows its a European project.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6872 times:

The article mentions most people think objectively the KC30 is a superior aircraft over the KC767. Looking at the numbers it is. It has superior range, tajke off performance, off load capasity & is a modern full efficient airliner at the same time.

Will the Air Force like to have the second best option? Tankers don't have to be the newest aircraft, but the 767, well..


User currently offlineKLMcedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 810 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6810 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
If it's not, why all the turmoil in France right now?

Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second. They test and assemble the planes in France, the prime and foreign ministers are the most vocal in persuading countries to buy it, they are willing to give china technology to sell jets to them, etc. Germany is a strong part of things, but Airbus is seen as French, despite the interest of the Germans and the British and Spanish...

It seems to me you desperately want it to be recognised as french, now that hard times have knocked at Airbus' door. I wonder, when things will be better at Airbus if you'll still make so much fuzz about it being a french company.
Airbus is a European company, deal with it!!!


User currently offlineDazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 578 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6545 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second.

Maybe in the States. Which again shows the amount of knowledge and predjudice that is involved in Airbus discussions across the pond.

ciao
Daniel


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
An A330 freighter is not a real development job. It is fitting A300F/A310F hardware to the identical A330 fuselage barrels.

Really? I don't think you have any idea what the difference is between a passenger and freighter airplane is. Why do you think there are so many companies out there that do pax to cargo conversions (BTW, the designs have to be flight certified by the FAA/JAA).

Prebenorholm has explained why the job is so easy on the A330: The A300/310, more than 200 of which are freighters, use the same fuselage sections.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKdm From New Zealand, joined Feb 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5980 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Germany is a strong part of things, but Airbus is seen as French, despite the interest of the Germans and the British and Spanish...

I have to disagree, Airbus is European through and through, it is the first time I have seen it referred to as being mostly French.


User currently offlineDeltadude From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5830 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking.

Obviously you don't understand American politics. Airbus = French may not be true, but Airbus = Europe is. That's all it takes for US Congressmen.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

Quoting Kdm (Reply 18):

While most people involved in the aviation industry know that Airbus is a European company, most uninformed people in the states see it as a French company. One reason for this might be that all the safety cards for Airbus aircraft in the states say "Assembly of this aircraft was completed in France" The ones completed in Hamburg say Germany however, but there are only a couple completed there (A318 and A319?)

The Boeing safety cards say "Assembly of this a/c was completed in the USA." I doubt the lay-person on either side of the pond understands the international effort that goes into building these a/c. Heck some people here forget that too  Wink


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

Quoting Kdm (Reply 18):
I have to disagree, Airbus is European through and through, it is the first time I have seen it referred to as being mostly French.

While I agree with your sentiments, no other European government has a direct stake in EADS/Airbus. The French government does... About 15% if I've read correctly, and is talking about raising that figure.

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 12):
I can tell you that the KC30 isn't going to win because while it is better that the 767 the Air Force in my estimations will opt for the 777 platform to provide greater capacity in fuel and freight thus fulfilling two missions in one. Airbus has no effective response to a 777 based tanker.

Answers this:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
The article mentions most people think objectively the KC30 is a superior aircraft over the KC767. Looking at the numbers it is. It has superior range, tajke off performance, off load capasity & is a modern full efficient airliner at the same time

I too believe that the 777 will be chosen to replace the KC-135s. With the Air Force asking the vendors for any all all subsidises they may or may not be receiving, this clearly puts the Northrup/Airbus offering at a disadvantage.
Given recent events, I think the people at Airbus have higher priorities at this time. This may be too ambitious at this stage of the game.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5761 times:

Quoting Deltadude (Reply 19):
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking.

Obviously you don't understand American politics. Airbus = French may not be true, but Airbus = Europe is. That's all it takes for US Congressmen.

And to think I chose to move to the US. Look what kind of BS bickering my tax money is being used for...

Lest things have changed over night, I have to ask: Is the US still in NATO? Are they not allied militarity with practically every country in Western Europe (France is not in NATO but still an ally)? Do they not buy military hardware every day from foreign countries. Heck, the US has bought tracked vehicles (H�gglunds 206) and anti-tank systems (Carl-Gustav and AT-4/PS-86) from Sweden, which until recently wasn't even an ally! While we're at it, how many electronic components in military hardware are sourced from China?

Here's a thought for the politicians: Why don't you buy the product that best meets the need and has the best price? Is that so hard? I realize strategic considerations might preclude buying hardware from the Central African Republic, but Germany/France/Spain? Hardly a risk. And besides production would likely be in the US anyway.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKdm From New Zealand, joined Feb 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5747 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 20):
The Boeing safety cards say "Assembly of this a/c was completed in the USA."

I'm impressed, when I read the safety cards (which is rare) I have never noticed the "Made in China" statement.

Your points are of course valid, I guess after living in the UK for a number of years you just know that Airbus is not French.

I wonder where people think the Eurofighter is made?


User currently offlineKellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 683 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5667 times:

All of this bashing of the US political process/perpective ignores all of the European designs that the US has bought over the years for its military, from the B57 (Canberra) to the Harrier to the BAE Hawk for the US Navy to the US Coast Guard with the Aerospatiale Dauphin and Dassault Falcon, to the recent EH-101 (US-101) for the US President!. It also ignores the Europeans' own highly protective position on the A400M, (also an Airbus product) where US competition was clearly shut out politically even though it offered a far superior product at far less cost, not just for the airframe but for the engines as well, even after Pratt had won the competition for the engine.

So as far as I am concerned, more power to the B777 for the US Air Force. It would be a great tanker/freighter aircraft and would be superior in capability to the KC-30, just as the KC-30 is superior to the B767. And Airbus just has not shown themselves to be worthy of the award, between the A400M business and the recent problems with the A380 and A350, or A350NG or A370 or whatever.


25 USAF336TFS : While some of your points are valid, please allow me to correct a few points... Sensitive military electronics are produced in the United States. It'
26 Starlionblue : I wonder who writes it on the cards. I get the feeling it's the airline. Isn't the 777 a mite large for the job? Problems with runways and taxiways.
27 Coa747 : The 777 is the ideal choice because the Air Force like all other branches of the military is under pressure to streamline and become more efficient. T
28 Post contains images AutoThrust : Exactly Couldnt agree more, the national proud of some americans dont allow to accept that the A330 would be the perfect aircraft. The 777 with the 1
29 ScottB : What all of you forget is that perception is reality. It matters not that Airbus is a consortium among several European countries -- the perception i
30 AislepathLight : Hands down the KC30 is better than the KC767 is. You have to remember that Boeing has basically ruined any chance that the KC767 will become the the
31 AirRyan : Even as a Boeing supporter, the basis of the author's arguments "Airbus is a French company and Boeing is not" is hardly worth even reading; that's "i
32 Halls120 : Because, as Kellmark notes, it isn't a level playing field.
33 MigFan : I think the same reasons as to why a Boeing 747 was never used as a tanker would prevail here in this issue. It would be cool to see though... I am bi
34 Post contains links Lumberton : This thread first appeared on Gen Av and I was tempted to post links to the numerous Mil Av tanker threads, but was to lazy to do it. Anyway, I don't
35 Post contains images USAF336TFS : The Air Force will BUY some Boeing product, especially if one of the government's involved raises it's stake in EADS. I'm becoming more convinced it'
36 Post contains links Confuscius : "...any hard-core republican will be humiliated in his district/state if he votes for or allows an Airbus to become a workhorse of our military" Not t
37 Post contains images Halls120 : I think the 767 has too much baggage on the Hill - unless Boeing moves it's plant to Arizona. I'll put my money on 777's now, and 787's later.
38 AirSpare : Here is a stupid question- Could Boeing offer a KC767 built from airliners renewing their fleet? Why not? To many cycles, to expensive to modify, the
39 Lumberton : As I recollect, there are a couple of threads in the Mil Av archive that address this issue in depth. Check it out; very good reading.
40 Baron95 : Hummmm... Really? What government other than France owns a large piece of Airbus through their ownership in EADS? None. What government other than Fr
41 AislepathLight : Probably not. The KC767 is not an optimal aircraft for tanking, as it is one of the smaller and older competitors in the field (KC30,KC777, etc). Als
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary
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...
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:14:36 by Solnabo
KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50 posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:38:41 by AirRyan
Katrina Impact On Shuttle Processing posted Thu Sep 8 2005 05:53:51 by SATL382G
Info On VS-30 "Diamondcutters" posted Wed May 4 2005 18:56:13 by Spartan13
More Insight On 787-10/Possible KC-777? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 15:17:58 by USAF336TFS
Impact Of The Pentagon's Tanker Decision On Brac? posted Sat Jun 4 2005 04:08:53 by STT757
Space A Travel On Uscg Aircraft posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:40:00 by Reedyreed
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp
Museum C-141 On Sale For Scrap posted Thu Nov 2 2006 18:07:23 by DeltaGuy
Rcaf Order Status On C-17 posted Wed Nov 1 2006 07:13:19 by ZBBYLW

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format