"USAF acquisition chief Sue Payton told Reuters a team of 150 officials is working to determine which aircraft -- Boeing's KC-767, or the Northrop/EADS KC-30 -- best suits the service's needs. That team has submitted over 500 engineering notices to the two companies, asking for clarifications or notifying the companies of perceived weaknesses."
"The meetings would take place after Thanksgiving. Both companies are expected to submit final bids in December, or early January; a decision by the Air Force is expected in February, about a month later than originally planned."
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3082 times:
It's about time the USAF is finally getting down to a selection on the KC-X.
Quoting Zeke (Thread starter): That team has submitted over 500 engineering notices to the two companies, asking for clarifications or notifying the companies of perceived weaknesses."
It seems like the USAF has a lot of questions about both proposed airplanes. This is unusual this late into a compitition program like this. That is unless the 500 engineering questions asked, by the USAF, are all questions asked since the KC-X program began 3 years ago.
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Quoting Zeke (Thread starter): "USAF acquisition chief Sue Payton told Reuters a team of 150 officials is working to determine which aircraft -- Boeing's KC-767, or the Northrop/EADS KC-30 -- best suits the service's needs. That team has submitted over 500 engineering notices to the two companies, asking for clarifications or notifying the companies of perceived weaknesses."
From appearances, it seems the KC-30 is being taken seriously as a viable contender. Something tells me the KC-30 could actually win this one. And this could set a precedent; shake up the military industrial complex to the fact that there are truly other options.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3025 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 5): From appearances, it seems the KC-30 is being taken seriously as a viable contender. Something tells me the KC-30 could actually win this one.
I'm not so sure on that.
It would seem to me that this late in the KC-X game the USAF has already made up it's mind on the airplane they want. They are just going through the motions now so they don't have the same BS going on like the CSAR-X program. I don't think it is going to work. Loosing a $40B contract to your competitor is going to be very difficult for someone.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
Quoting Zeke (Thread starter): a decision by the Air Force is expected in February, about a month later than originally planned."
What they should've said is that it's a month later than the last deadline that was set. This competition has had several delays so far.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): It seems like the USAF has a lot of questions about both proposed airplanes. This is unusual this late into a compitition program like this.
With so much money AND politics riding on the final selection, it is not surprising.
Quoting Michlis (Reply 8): Quoting N74jw (Reply 7):
Anyone want to place a bet?
A better bet would be whether the loser contests the decision.
That would be a poor bet because you KNOW the loser is going to contest the final decision.
A better bet, IMO, would be what the chances are the final-final decision wll be delayed until after the new administration takes over in 2009. I can see the decision being announced in February, 2008; loser cries; USAF reconsiders and final decision and awarding of contract are delayed until after the new administration is sworn in in January, 2009.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2989 times:
Quoting Michlis (Reply 4): Of course, it might drag on longer if the CSAR procurement is a harbinger.
At least the CSAR-X threads here on a.net were less affacted by trans-atlantic trench warfare than the KC-X and A-400M threads, while the latter will go on for some time ...
Quoting N74jw (Reply 7): Anyone want to place a bet?
KC-767 or KC-30 ? Would the KC-767 be called that if selected?
Better don't ask for that. I already know what way this thread will take ... I keep my mouth shut
Michlis From United States, joined Jul 2007, 726 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2977 times:
More interesting (and probably more optimistic) is what units will be the first to get the new tankers. I'm guessing (and that's all that it is) the 157th Air Refueling Group at Pease ANG in New Hampshire will be amongst the first units. I am basing that on their receipt of the KC-135Rs that the group currently operates.
N74JW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2953 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9): That would be a poor bet because you KNOW the loser is going to contest the final decision.
A better bet, IMO, would be what the chances are the final-final decision wll be delayed until after the new administration takes over in 2009. I can see the decision being announced in February, 2008; loser cries; USAF reconsiders and final decision and awarding of contract are delayed until after the new administration is sworn in in January, 2009.
That makes a great deal of sense, too bad it has to be this much of a big deal. Hopefully, the Dems or the new administration doesn't shoot the whole idea down.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2934 times:
Quoting N74jw (Reply 7): Would the KC-767 be called that if selected?
I hope not. The designation was silly from the start, in 2002. It reminds people of the failed and stupid "lease-a-tanker" deal. Call it the KC-44 (or is it KC-42?), like it should have been called.
Quoting Michlis (Reply 12): More interesting (and probably more optimistic) is what units will be the first to get the new tankers. I'm guessing (and that's all that it is) the 157th Air Refueling Group at Pease ANG in New Hampshire will be amongst the first units. I am basing that on their receipt of the KC-135Rs that the group currently operates.
That would almost make sense to make the NHANG one of the first units to get the new tanker, and move their KC-135Rs to other units. But, I think the first unit would have to be the MEANG, 101 AREFG, at Bangor IAP, ME, they are still flying the KC-135E.
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2735 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (2 years 13 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17): Quoting DL767captain (Reply 16):
why aren't they looking at 777 version or why isn't it offered
According to Boeing, that airframe is not ideally sized for the USAF's requirements (which include things other than total fuel load).
and the 777 line is pretty full up with orders whilst the 767 is trickling along at a couple of frames a month to keep it open for when/if they get this contract when it will be ramped up - cheaper plane for the USAF & better profits for Boeing
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 12069 posts, RR: 54 Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 hours ago) and read 2717 times:
I would not rule out a split order, perhaps 90 from each manufacturer.
Quoting Michlis (Reply 12): More interesting (and probably more optimistic) is what units will be the first to get the new tankers. I'm guessing (and that's all that it is) the 157th Air Refueling Group at Pease ANG in New Hampshire will be amongst the first units. I am basing that on their receipt of the KC-135Rs that the group currently operates.
The 108th ARW at McGuire AFB has publicly stated their hopes of getting the new tankers, they are right now transitioning from 16 KC-135Es to 8 KC-135Rs. However on their homepage they announced they will be getting a second squadron.
"'Brown Sugar' could save the world..." Eddie Vedder 10/14/97 Oakland, California
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 hours ago) and read 2710 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 20): I would not rule out a split order, perhaps 90 from each manufacturer.
I would. The USAF is not interested in doubling their maintenance costs, logistical costs, and training costs. This will be a winner take all contract for all 179 airplanes.
Quoting STT757 (Reply 20): The 108th ARW at McGuire AFB has publicly stated their hopes of getting the new tankers, they are right now transitioning from 16 KC-135Es to 8 KC-135Rs. However on their homepage they announced they will be getting a second squadron.
Becaues they are transistioning to the KC-135R right now, that is the reason they will not be near the top of the KC-X list. The way I see it, the KC-X will go to one active training squadron (Altus) two NE tanker ANGs, then to 4 active squadrons, then to two USAFR sq., then 2 more ANG units (perhaps west coast?)
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 12069 posts, RR: 54 Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 hours ago) and read 2710 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21): I would. The USAF is not interested in doubling their maintenance costs, logistical costs, and training costs. This will be a winner take all contract for all 179 airplanes.
They would not be doubling their costs if their long term goal was to replace their current tanker fleet of KC-135s and KC-10s with KC-30s and KC-767s.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21): Becaues they are transitioning to the KC-135R right now, that
The Maine ANG are also transitioning from the E to the R model yet you think they would get the new KC-X over McGuire? I definately think the 108th has the edge over any other ANG Unit to get the new KC-X, the 108th has a huge ramp, hangars and support facilities at McGuire which were built in the late 1990s. The 108th is much larger than the ME or NH ANG Units, two squadrons at McGuire plus a Special Ops detachment flying two C-32s.
"'Brown Sugar' could save the world..." Eddie Vedder 10/14/97 Oakland, California
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 hours ago) and read 2685 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 22): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
I would. The USAF is not interested in doubling their maintenance costs, logistical costs, and training costs. This will be a winner take all contract for all 179 airplanes.
They would not be doubling their costs if their long term goal was to replace their current tanker fleet of KC-135s and KC-10s with KC-30s and KC-767s.
Currently the replacement of the entire KC-135 and KC-10 fleet is spread over three programs, the KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z programs.
The KC-X program is to replace all 157 already retired or remaining KC-135E aircraft, this program is scheduled to go through 2020.
The KC-Y program, scheduled for 2020-2045 will replace up to 59 KC-10A and the 48 currently remaining KC-135T (or if necessary the 48 worst KC-135R) aircraft. Up to 125 other KC-135Rs may also be replaced in the KC-Y program, for a total of 202 aircraft.
The KC-Z program will replace all remaining KC-135R/T (up to 285) aircraft, beginning in 2045 and will last up to 20 years. This is the largest of the three programs
Theroreticly, the last KC-135 could retire from the USAF inventory in 2065, 110 years after the first of the type was ordered by SAC.
Currently there are no garantees there will ever be the KC-Y or KC-Z programs as currently planned.
Quoting STT757 (Reply 22): The Maine ANG are also transitioning from the E to the R model yet you think they would get the new KC-X over McGuire? I definately think the 108th has the edge over any other ANG Unit to get the new KC-X, the 108th has a huge ramp, hangars and support facilities at McGuire which were built in the late 1990s. The 108th is much larger than the ME or NH ANG Units, two squadrons at McGuire plus a Special Ops detachment flying two C-32s.
I didn't know the MEANG 101st was converting from the KC-135E to the KC-135R. If that is true, then it would make sense to convert the NJANG 108th to the KC-X as the first operational unit. I thought the 101st AREFG was getting all of the best conditioned "E" airframes until they were retired from the fleet (this was to last until 2020, I thought)
It is true that currently the NJANG 108th is bigger than the NHANG 157th or the MEANG 101st, but both New Hampshire and Maine currently have more KC-135s than New Jersey does (due to BRAC retirements), and they also have more room to park them.
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 12069 posts, RR: 54 Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23): I didn't know the MEANG 101st was converting from the KC-135E to the KC-135R. If that is true, then it would make sense to convert the NJANG 108th to the KC-X as the first operational unit. I thought the 101st AREFG was getting all of the best conditioned "E" airframes until they were retired from the fleet (this was to last until 2020, I thought)
All the KC-135Es are being retired, BRAC is moving KC-135Rs around to fill in. Niagara Falls and March ARB are losing their KC-135Rs. The March KC-135Rs are going to McGuire and the Niagara Falls KC-135Rs are going to Bangor.
Here's the BRAC Aircraft lay down list for the Air National Guard, the DOD list is what was proposed to the BRAC committee, the BRAC list is the ultimate decision of Aircraft lay down from the BRAC committee. These changes are occurring right now, all KC-135s in service after these changes occur with be the KC-135 R/T models. All KC-135E's will be gone by 2010.
Note that the NH ANG and ME ANG will have fewer KC-135Rs than the DOD proposed, this is to accommodate 8 KC-135Rs for McGuire's 108th ARW which under the DOD proposal would have lost all aircraft.
The KC-135E is no longer going on deployments, their flying is restricted to close to home training sorties. The KC-135Es are being retired right now, all should be in the Boneyards by 2010.
Michlis From United States, joined Jul 2007, 726 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2557 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 22): The 108th is much larger than the ME or NH ANG Units, two squadrons at McGuire plus a Special Ops detachment flying two C-32s.
I recall NHANG getting some significant federal $$$ to upgrade their facilities. Perhaps in anticipation of a new tankers? Pease does have a lot of ramp space (of course if they kicked the civilians out off the flight line they would have a lot more!)
26 KC135TopBoom: I know. The problems is the BRAC is all politicols, none have military expertise. They really have no idea on the best place to move military assets.
27 STT757: That's not true , there were retired Air Force, Army Generals as well as a Retired Navy Admiral on the Committee. They made the specific recommendati
28 STT757: Niagara Falls has a Air Force Reserve KC-135R squadron, those aircraft are going to the Maine ANG. The Air Force Reserve Unit at Niagara Falls will t
29 PC12Fan: KC135TopBoom, You may have seen me post this link before, but what is your opinion of a possible "KC-748F" with the on board loading option shown on p
30 STT757: I would think the wake behind the 747 is too much for it to be a good tanker.
31 Glideslope: Ah, the good old days. Man do I miss the F-111 at Plattsburgh. With the Northrop partnership I assume the KC-30 will be priced in Dollars, not Euros?
32 F27Friendship: all airbus aircraft are sold in dollars anyway (what's one of the major burdens of EADS at the moment, as a large chunk of it's costs are in Euro's)
33 Lumberton: I realize that there are those here who don't want to hear this, but .... I've seen the Reuters report where EADS is going to ask (according to the ar
34 KC135TopBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-...2.pdf I have a copy of this RAAF KC-33A power point. It is very good. But, to answer your ques
35 Lumberton: Or vigorously argue that it shouldn't matter? Good luck. Its part of the political calculus, or will be if they go back to the well for state aid. I
36 F27Friendship: Will be very interesting if this happens, as the A350 was supposed to be financied solely out of company means. Nevertheless, I think these matters a
37 KC135TopBoom: Actually, if the A-350 program is looking at state aid for developement, it should have nothing to do with NG, and that will be the position they wil
38 Lumberton: I could be wrong, but there is nothing to prevent EADS from going back to the well and asking for aid at this point. The risk is that it could be rul
39 KC135TopBoom: The real problem here is, it may eliminate the A-350 from the KC-Y compitition with either the B-777 or B-787. EADS/NG will not be able to compete the
40 Lumberton: I agree. But KC-Y is a long way off. I would think that Northrop-Grumman's concerns are much more immediate and they need this subsidy issue creeping
42 PC12Fan: Actually sir, I was wondering if you think the "Boeing on board loading system" would be an attractive option when marketing the 748F as a potential
43 F27Friendship: this is indeed what I meant. This could be indeed an issue. Nevertheless, the A350 is much more important for EADS than the KC-X. A lot of people arg
44 Lumberton: You will get no argument from me on any of this. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out and whether, as I said, Northrop-Grumman can tak
45 KC135TopBoom: No, I doubt the USAF would be to interested in the on board loading system for the B-747-8F. The USAF has plenty of 25, 40, and 60 K-Loaders.
46 PC12Fan: Yea, that makes sense. Why modify a 748F and add extra weight when you could just use a C5 or C-17 to bring them in. Neat feature though.
47 KC135TopBoom: If EADS hangs NG out into the political winds to dry, they won't ever see another US manufacture help them get US military contracts again. What EADS
49 RedFlyer: I don't see the KC-X being a cash-cow for EADS if their KC-30 wins. In fact, given that it's an FP contract, that will put a lot of pressure on them
50 EBJ1248650: Why should it matter? If EADS needs aid from the state, so be it. What matters over here is whether or not the airplane ultimately chosen will do the
51 Michlis: Don't underestimate the political factor. Then of course there were the loan guarantees for Chysler and other forms of corporate welfare, but that do
52 Echster: Those were just the ANG tankers. March had 16 tankers, all R models. 8 x AFR, 8 x ANG. March now has 12 x Rs, getting 4 from the March ANG BRAC. The
53 Michlis: If history is any indicator, back in the late 80s early 90s, the NHANG got the re-engined 135s before the air refueling group that was attached to th
54 KC135TopBoom: Actually the NHANG, 157th was never attached to the 509th, they were based with us. Now they own the base. When the 157th got their KC-135Es, the 509
55 Michlis: Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I had the opportunity to work the flight-line as a cadet during a Class A encampment with NHCAP and the OMS crew I
56 Blackbird: Regarding the KC-767 Tanker (I'm not sure I got an answer on a previous post), what mach number did they redesign the wing to perform? Mach 0.82, or M
57 Scbriml: I would hope the AF chooses the plane that is best for the missions they need. If that happened to be the KC-30, why would it be sad?
58 KC135TopBoom: My guess is it will be closer to .92 Mach capable. The new tanker needs to be able to cruise, during air refueling at .90 Mach, or better, for the re
59 Scbriml: I absolutely agree. If I were a US taxpayer I would want the AF to decide which platform is best for the jobs they need it to do. I would then want t
60 KC135TopBoom: It will be interesting to see if Boeing or NG contribute the most money to several re-elction campaigns (EADS cannot legally contribute).
61 TropicBird: I believe the current KC-X RFP was based on the original Operational Requirements Document (ORD) from the KC-767 tanker lease deal. You may recall Bo
62 PADSpot: Will that information be made public? However, I find it a bit dangerous to have an election system that favors the candidate that collected the most
63 Moose135: Was just at the USAF Museum a couple of weeks ago. In a parking lot across the street from Wright-Patterson AFB, side-by-side, some 20 feet apart, we
64 RedFlyer: That's not a very flattering picture of the KC-30. Not that a billboard will decide the outcome of this competition, but since it is a media blitz yo
65 Columbia107: Frankly, surely the USAF already has a hot favourite to the USAF. In the meantime, last summer, Boeing officials at the Air Force Association's 2007 A
66 Blackbird: Is this BWB Aircraft (KC-Y) going to be manned or unmanned? Andrea Kent
67 KC135TopBoom: No, it is not. While it there are some requirements that are the same between the RFP and the ORD, the KC-X is a new program, and is not dependent on
68 Zeke: No way it will do 0.92, 0.92 is beyond the Mmo for the 767 without the mods (M0.86). They are having trouble with the pods of increasing it from 0.79
69 KC135TopBoom: Yes, you are correct. The wingtip pod problem is fixed (after 2 years of work). "Problems discovered during the tanker flight test program led to a s
70 Zeke: It is not fixed, it is improved, they are still speed limited, it cannot do the Mmo of the unmodified 767. The 767 was never designed to have outboar
71 KC135TopBoom: Either were the KC-135 or KC-10, but thiers work well. The A-330/A-340 wing wasn't designed for an air refueling pod, but it can handle it. True the
72 RedFlyer: That might present some unique issues of its own, such as the receiver aircraft in the centerline position having a smaller refueling envelope positi
73 Zeke: The 340 was designed to have the engine out with the fan stopped in the same location as the pod on the KC-30. The mass of the pod is a smaller fract
74 KC135TopBoom: The USAF (and I'm sure most other airplane users) uses a maximum fuel manifold pressure of 45psi. So, you will not see any pressures higher than that
75 Bennett123: KC135Topboom Do you comments about wake turbulence with the B747-8 Tanker take account of differences between the existing tankers which were based on
76 KC135TopBoom: Since the wing of the B-747-100 and the B-747-8 are very different (as well as the max weight), I would guess there would be extensive wind tunnel te
77 Zeke: The aeroelastic problem on the wing is that the pod being a bluff body generates lift and yaw moments, it has its own centre of pressure, centre of l
78 KC135TopBoom: Thanks. So it is (for Boeing) almost the same problem as why the early B-737NGs could not have blended winglets installed without additional outer wi
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4743 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2735 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
