AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2501 posts, RR: 7 Posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8127 times:
I know this is NG talking here but in which ways might Boeing contest this? Is this not a transparent formula designated by the USAF designed to determine which tanker best meets the needs and requirements of it's KC-X program?
All logic and my brain tell me the KC-30 is the superior bid but by gut rumbles like all you can eat at the Mexican food buffet that Boeing still wins.
Quote: Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker is 20 Percent More Capable According to US Air Force Evaluation Model
(Source: Northrop Grumman Corp.; issued Feb. 18, 2008)
WASHINGTON --- Northrop Grumman Corporation stated today that a U.S. Air Force Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment (IFARA) evaluation model indicates that the KC-30 Tanker proposed to the U.S. Air Force in the KC-X Tanker Replacement Program is over 20 percent more capable than its competitor, the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT).
“To ensure a fair and transparent proposal evaluation process, the Air Force added a fifth evaluation criteria, called IFARA, to measure the overall refueling capability of the tankers competing in the KC-X Program,'' said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman vice president and general manager of the KC-30 Tanker program. “Air Force methodology for calculating IFARA clearly shows the KC-30 is superior to the less capable KC-767AT. Contrary to Boeing's computations and assertions, these are not formulas devised by Northrop Grumman to favor Northrop Grumman in this competition but rather are capabilities-based evaluation criteria established by the Air Force to help it select the best platform for the warfighter. This was done across the full spectrum of future tanker employment using Air Force and TRANSCOM leadership's new CONOPS for keeping fuel forward.''
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2307 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8111 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): Is this not a transparent formula designated by the USAF designed to determine which tanker best meets the needs and requirements of it's KC-X program?
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): "To ensure a fair and transparent proposal evaluation process, the Air Force added a fifth evaluation criteria , called IFARA, to measure the overall refueling capability of the tankers competing in the KC-X Program,'' said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman vice president and general manager of the KC-30 Tanker program.
If you read the article is says IFARA is one of five evaluation criteria. How do the tankers compete in the other 4 criteria? (whatever those may be) For all we know the KC-767 is better in all of the other categories and Airbus is going to go on a PR blitzkrieg with this one.
This will obviously be played up by the very vocal KC-30 supporters on here. I am sure we will be hearing from Keesje and Zeke about this soon along with the usual posting of the spider chart and a picture of a KC-30.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8000 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 1): If you read the article is says IFARA is one of five evaluation criteria. How do the tankers compete in the other 4 criteria? (whatever those may be) For all we know the KC-767 is better in all of the other categories and Airbus is going to go on a PR blitzkrieg with this one.
That is true, and it appears the USAF hasn't said anything about which airplane leads in the other four catagories. Is it the HG jumped the gun on this one?
I would challenge the 20% more capable claim.
It is true that the KC-30A carries 20% more fuel than the KC-767AT does. But that is sitting on the ramp. The KC-30 also (is reported) to burn 9% more fuel than the KC-767 does. That will mean (if true, and I have not scene if NG/EADS has disputed that number, or not) it will burn 9% more out to the refueling areas, 9% more during the refueling, and 9% more on the return trip.
So, if the KC-767 burns 20K per hour, average, in cruise, 3 hours into the mission, then the KC-30 will be burning 24.5K per hour, average. I am assuming both took off at max gross weight here. That means that just 3 hours into a mission, the KC-30 has already decreased the additional 45K of fuel (advantage) by almost 50%, or slightly over 22K (22,050lb by my calculations) or 9% of the original 245K. This is the additional fuel the KC-30 will burn, not only the 3 hours of fuel burn. So, the 20% advantage (in additional fuel capacity) decreases sharply the further you get away from the departure base of the KC-30A. This is all additional fuel burned over what Boeing says the KC-767AT will burn, it is not what will actually be fuel still on board..
Now, if NG is only talking about cargo capability, the KC-767 will only carry 19 pallets, the KC-30 can actually carry 26 pallets, which is a 27% increase over the KC-767. But since the cargo mission is secondary, this actually means less to the USAF.
But, the KC-30A will have a max ramp weight about 513,700lbs (the NG KC-30 site does not list a gross weight).
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7937 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 1): This will obviously be played up by the very vocal KC-30 supporters on here. I am sure we will be hearing from Keesje and Zeke about this soon along with the usual posting of the spider chart and a picture of a KC-30.
And at some point thereafter, this thread will be locked!
In this morning's post, NG ran a full page ad pointing out how supposedly father along the KC-30 is.
I didn't realize that was one of the bidding criteria.
What was funny about the ad is that they affixed a prominent "northrup grumman" on the photo of the KC-30, as if we are all supposed to forget that it is actually an EADS/Airbus aircraft.
USAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1366 posts, RR: 54 Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7908 times:
In a related news release, Boeing has delivered the first Japanese KC-767:
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7902 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): Some other comparison KC-135R equivalents
KC-135E 0.84
KC-10A 1.95
With the KC-135R being the standard here, it is 1.0, so Zeke is correct
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): Quoting NorCal (Reply 1):
If you read the article is says IFARA is one of five evaluation criteria. How do the tankers compete in the other 4 criteria? (whatever those may be) For all we know the KC-767 is better in all of the other categories and Airbus is going to go on a PR blitzkrieg with this one.
That is true, and it appears the USAF hasn't said anything about which airplane leads in the other four catagories. Is it the HG jumped the gun on this one?
Now what is not clear is if one airplane leads in 3 out of 5 categories, is that the winning bid?
I do not know. This appears to be a new developement.
Sorry about the HG in my reply #3, that is atypo that should have been NG.
It is not the "standard" just an arbitrary baseline, it could have just as easily have been with reference to the KC-10A or KC-135E, for example in terms of KC-135Es
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4078 posts, RR: 32 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7656 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): It is not the "standard" just an arbitrary baseline
"Arbitrary"? As in an airman stood at one end of a room and threw darts at a list of tankers at the other end and just happened to hit the one that said KC-135R?
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2846 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7609 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): It is not the "standard" just an arbitrary baseline, it could have just as easily have been with reference to the KC-10A or KC-135E, for example in terms of KC-135Es
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7580 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9): "Arbitrary"? As in an airman stood at one end of a room and threw darts at a list of tankers at the other end and just happened to hit the one that said KC-135R?
" The Air Force refueling fleet is made up of KC-10A (59), KC-135E (133), and KC-135R (411) aircraft (FY02 fleet structure). In order to make an "apples-to-apples" comparison, a common metric is needed to describe the effectiveness of these various aircraft. TRS-05 and other tanker force structure studies discuss the air refueling requirement in terms of KC-135R-model equivalents. The conversion factors used to obtain these equivalencies are strongly based on offload capacity but also take into account tanker compatibility with receivers as well as boom demand of the warfight scenarios."
"The results of TRS-05 identify a need for 500-600 R-equivalents "available" on a daily basis to meet the wartime requirement. "Available" is defined as aircraft not in a "school house" capacity or depot-possessed. TRS-05 assumes these "available" aircraft meet and maintain the AMC standard mission capable rate (MC Rate = 85%) during wartime, leaving 15% as non-mission capable (NMC). In terms of mission capable aircraft, the requirement ranges from 425 to 510 mission capable R-equivalents (600 x 85% = 510; 500 x 85% = 425). It is important to note that this is a wartime mission capability. Day-to-day peacetime maintenance management practices often do not sustain a fleet wide MC Rate of 85%. Applying peacetime actual MC Rates does not accurately portray the wartime capability of the air refueling fleet."
If the 600 R-equivalents is what they need, with 175 KC-767AT you would need about 250 KC-135Rs in addition to the KC-10As, with 175 KC30As you would need 50 less KC-135Rs (about 200).
TRS-05 was essentially written by the same person who wrote the advanced tanker program operational assessment report that the Alabama newspaper made its famous spider chart from. The "conversion factors" from what I understand he used in his advanced tanker program report were substantially similar to the ones he used when he was the lead mobility analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the program analysis and evaluation division.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4078 posts, RR: 32 Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7563 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 12): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9):
"Arbitrary"? As in an airman stood at one end of a room and threw darts at a list of tankers at the other end and just happened to hit the one that said KC-135R?
It is not the "standard" just an arbitrary baseline, it could have just as easily have been with reference to the KC-10A or KC-135E, for example in terms of KC-135Es
I would think it would be easier for Congress to digest the numbers, if you used the tanker with the greatest fleet impact (number of airplanes and total refueling capability). That is why, I think, the KC-135R was selected as the standard. Since neither the KC-30A nor KC-767AT are a real airplane, right now (as far as the USAF is concerned), and the KC-135E is retiring (FY-07 Budget and BRAC ordered the retirement of another 75 KC-135Es, by FY-09, leaving 14 in the inventory, I don't know where the 133 KC-135E number came from, but the USAF fleet in 2004 listed 157 KC-135Es), that just leaves the KC-10A and KC-135R/T to chose from.
We are only talking about USAF aircraft here. The RAAF KC-30B is not considered in these numbers.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7516 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13): So where in what you referenced does it mention that the selection of the KC-135R was "just an arbitrary baseline" (your words in Reply 8)?
It comes from the "Tanker Requirements Study 2005", which was completed in early 2001 but was never officially approved. For it to be non-arbitrary, the baseline would have to be fixed in some form a specific law or statute.
The USAF does not have a legal baseline of KC-135R equivalent tankers it must have operational.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7515 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 15): For it to be non-arbitrary, the baseline would have to be fixed in some form a specific law or statute.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 15): The USAF does not have a legal baseline of KC-135R equivalent tankers it must have operational.
I had never heard there was a law that says what you can and cannot use to establish a "standard" for any comparision. Can you send the link, or reference?
Are we breaking the law when we compare the standard C-17 to the C-130, C-130-30, C-5, or A-400M?
The USAF also uses the B-52H as a "standard" comparison to the bomb loads hauled by the B-1 and B-2, simply because there are more B-52s than the other two bombers.
If the USAF cannot use "equivalent" (standard) KC-135Rs or B-52Hs, how are they to express to Congress, in numbers even a politician can understand, a comparision to other airplanes of thoe same type?
I think if the USAF said, the KC-135R is just an "arbitray" number we picked to explain it to dumb Congressmen and Senators, they may get held in contempt of Congress (never mind the fact Congress is always in contempt of the US).
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7505 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
I had never heard there was a law that says what you can and cannot use to establish a "standard" for any comparision. Can you send the link, or reference?
"Baseline" and "standard" do not mean the same thing, the USAF uses "baseline" as an arbitrary reference point for comparative purposes.
They use standards to define physical properties or processes, the most common standard that is in use in the military is "mil-spec", there is no single mil-spec to define a KC-135 or a medium tanker, whist many parts and processes of the airframe/construction would be mil-spec.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7485 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 17): "Baseline" and "standard" do not mean the same thing, the USAF uses "baseline" as an arbitrary reference point for comparative purposes.
They use standards to define physical properties or processes, the most common standard that is in use in the military is "mil-spec", there is no single mil-spec to define a KC-135 or a medium tanker, whist many parts and processes of the airframe/construction would be mil-spec.
While that is all true, I didn't use the word "baseline". But, baseline, standard, and arbitrary, are all really just semantics.
Now, "mil-specs." often define components, as well as a full weapons system. For example, the F-15 itself is a military specification, because the military asked for it specifically. OTOH, they did not ask for the KC-135, per say, so the airframe is not a "mil-spec" design. Boeing offered it from their B-367-80 designed prototype airplane, then designed the B-707-120 and KC-135 (B-717-100) concurrently off the design of the -80 (the KC-135 actually came out first as Boeing had that 29 airplane order before they got the PanAm order).
Now, all of the electronics and avionics inside the KC-135 are mil-specs. So, the mil-spec can be the whole airplane, or just parts of the airplane (USN ships are all mil-specs).
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7469 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18): all of the electronics and avionics inside the KC-135 are mil-specs
I find that hard to believe, not all the Flight2 avionics package was mil spec, and I am sure other parts of the aircraft are not either, like the FADEC on the CFM56.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7436 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 19): I find that hard to believe, not all the Flight2 avionics package was mil spec, and I am sure other parts of the aircraft are not either, like the FADEC on the CFM56.
Mil-spec means what ever features and capabilities the subsystems have. The USAF doesn't always use all of the features a commercial airliner may use if they install the same avionics package. The military also may have features programmed into these avionics that a commercial airliner may not use.
For example, the CFM-56-2B engines on the KC-135R (military designation F-108-100), is very similar to the CFM-56-2B engines on the DC-8-70 series. Except the KC-135 does not have the thrust reverser package. The USAF version of the engine doesn't even have the lugs used to mount the hydraulic actuators (this saves about 4lbs per engine). I don't know if the FADEC is a standard commercial model, or modified for the USAF.
I'm not sure of everything the 1556 bus link ties together today. It (the 1556) was just being installed when I retired, then it tied the FASCAS, VHF radio, electronic fuel panel, and rendezvous equipment (beacons but not air to air TACAN, that stayed as a separate function). The UHF (with HAVE QUICK features) radios, HF radios, APN-59E radar (now replaced), INS, DNS, (now triple INS and single or duel GPS) and the FD-109 Flight Director system (being replaced under Pacer Craig) were not run through the 1556, at that time. The multi-mode IFF/SIF transponder also did not run thru the bus link, nor did the AFSATCOM.
I may have only flown on 3-5 airplanes that had the new bus before I retired.
But, today, even though it may look similar to an off the shelf system, not all the functions are the same (but many other functions are identical).
Something you may find interesting with the old FD-109 system, at least two SAC Wings had their KC-135s modified to add a MLS approach system, in addition to the standard ILS. The crews at these bases were MLS qualified. These were very interesting approaches, and very steep. There were four US airports that had MLS, in the 1980s, BOS, Valdez, AK and two others that I forgot now. Two Air Force Bases also had MLS, PSM and OFF. Elison AFB, AK was going to get it, but I don't think it was ever installed a rapidly fell out of favor for the USAF and FAA after the TC-135S accident at Valdez.
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2307 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7390 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): It is not the "standard" just an arbitrary baseline, it could have just as easily have been with reference to the KC-10A or KC-135E, for example in terms of KC-135Es
This equation obviously favors the bigger = better mentality (No wonder EADS was so quick to publish the results of this 5th standard). According to this equation we should find a whole bunch of parked DC-10s and convert those into KC-10s. If we really want to get that efficiency number up we should be buying 747-8Fs and converting those into tankers. A KC-747 has got to be a 4.0+ according to this equation.
MOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7258 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 1): Airbus is going to go on a PR blitzkrieg with this one.
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5): What was funny about the ad is that they affixed a prominent "northrup grumman" on the photo of the KC-30, as if we are all supposed to forget that it is actually an EADS/Airbus aircraft.
Airbus will be supplying the airliners, and NG will be solely responsible for the militarization of them.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7189 times:
Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 23): Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
What was funny about the ad is that they affixed a prominent "northrup grumman" on the photo of the KC-30, as if we are all supposed to forget that it is actually an EADS/Airbus aircraft.
Airbus will be supplying the airliners, and NG will be solely responsible for the militarization of them.
I realize that.
As I noted in another thread, it;s sad that two historic names in aviation - Northrop and Grumman - that used to design and build their own aircraft have been reduced to "militarizing" someone else's airframe.
RomeoKC10FE From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7118 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24): As I noted in another thread, it;s sad that two historic names in aviation - Northrop and Grumman - that used to design and build their own aircraft have been reduced to "militarizing" someone else's airframe.
Very well said, and Lockheed doesn't build large aircraft anymore either.
25 KC135TopBoom: Well, Northrop did build the B-2. Grumman's last build was the last of the "cats" for the USN, the F-14. Since then they converted the F-111A into th
26 RedFlyer: That is rich. A "legal" baseline??? That is a very amusing and entertaining point of view.
27 Revelation: Did this make anyone other than me think of the beginning sequence of Dr. Strangelove?
28 Revelation: Did this make anyone other than me think of the beginning sequence of Dr. Strangelove? Or a really relaxed stallion?
29 RedFlyer: Almost. But not quite. In Dr. Strangelove the sequence shows the planes flying from right-to-left.
30 FRNT787: Perhaps they could just convert some C-5 galaxies, or order some AN-225s, how high would their index be...
31 Zeke: What he was saying is not so silly, they did look a few years back at getting some more DC-10s out of the desert and converting them. Like the conver
32 FRNT787: I realize this, what I was pointing out is that the index, from the numbers given above, seems to favor size and hauling capability. Personally (Yes
33 F27Friendship: please tell us what you have read and where you have read it..
34 Rheinwaldner: What are you speaking about? In this thread Usaf Decided On KC-30 (by Andrej Feb 29 2008 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)#1, post 7 you can read
35 NorCal: FYI I made my post before the decision was made, looking at how the contest turned out it is clear that the KC-30 is the best choice. Originally I th
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2501 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
