Since GE started talking on offering the GENX for the A330F instead of the CF6-80E1, the fuel prices have exploded strenghtening the business case. A A330F offers more ground clearance then a A330, making a bigger fan / higher BPR easier.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2781 posts, RR: 75 Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2820 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): If there will be a rebid, will NG / EADS offer the same proposal or will changes be made.
Keesje, you bring up a various good points. I also see the way forward for NG/EADS and GE to come out ahead winning is by offering the GENX for the A330F/A330MRTT/TANKER.
GE will soon start to gather vital information from the 748i/F certification, and could lead the way into an offering for the USAF, as it could also be applied to the A332F. Either way GE would have nothing to loose.
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2908 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): Does PW currently have any plans for a PW4000-class GTF that could be used on the KC-767?
aren't they only interested in CFM56/V25000 sized engines for the GTF right now? also the other issue was reliability which is ok for short haul which is what that market is primarily but some people have questions about the gear boxes reliability for long haul operations
DL767captain From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1707 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
I would think they would need to make some changes from the current build to make it more attractive so there isn't such a close match between the two tankers. If Boeing is smart with this "redo" they will offer both a 767 and 777 tanker to show the AF that the 767 can replace the 707s and the 777 can replace the DC-10s giving them better commanality (if that even matters to them). But having both types would give them great flexibility. The problem using Airbus is the A330 is the only one they really have to offer, they don't have an aircraft except for the A340 to compete with the 777 and I doubt we'll see an A340 tanker anytime soon.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Probably they have learned after submitting the proposal & could make changes.
I think both manufacturers have learned after submitting the proposal, but in particular Boeing. I don't expect Boeing to take anything for granted the next time around.
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Since GE started talking on offering the GENX for the A330F instead of the CF6-80E1
While that would certainly make the KC-30 more attractive, what does that do about NG/EADS' argument that the competition's plane "hasn't even flown yet"? A GEnX A330F is itself a paper airplane, no?
XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 1823 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2463 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6): I think both manufacturers have learned after submitting the proposal, but in particular Boeing. I don't expect Boeing to take anything for granted the next time around.
I don't think they did last time either. Unless they took for granted that the USAF would tell them the truth in their communications to Boeing.
as for the GEnX, I don't see how it would be possible at all. To switch to the A330F in the bid would raise the price. To switch to GEnX on a the KC30 would raise the price. To offer a A330F with GEnX right now would REALLY raise the price. This is when they are already being pushed off a cliff by exchange rates.
The delay will help them prove the boom, and sort out the servicing requirement they failed, but the problem is I think the delay will add too much to their bid cost wise to hope to win.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 5): I would think they would need to make some changes from the current build to make it more attractive so there isn't such a close match between the two tankers.
I think there isn't such a close match (I won't post the spider chart this time )
Unlike the current KC767, the current KC30 offering includes no additional fuel tanks on top of the normal A330-200 fuel tanks. It just wasn't neccesary. Maybe it would be a good idea to add the option of additional fuel tanks in front of and aft the big center fuel tank. It could further boost flexibilty and would be better fitted to optionally support bigger aircraft like C-17, B52, C5 etc. or simply further increase tanker range / offload when future requirements might come up..
Then it suddenly popped up the KC30 would not be able to support Osprey's. I'am wondering why, the KC30 with its bigger wing and fly by wire should perfectly be able to do just that. Anyone has the story behind this? Anyway should be fixed if included in the requirements,
Diamond From United States, joined Apr 2004, 3252 posts, RR: 82 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1664 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Moderator note:
Unfortunately, one off-topic post triggered a cascade of referenced post deletions. Fourteen, to be exact.
Some of your posts were mostly on-topic but contained one unfortunate quotation to the off-topic post and had to be removed.
You're welcome to repost your content that did not specifically refer to the question, "Why should there be a new RFP? (You'll find your original post at the bottom of your deletion notice, if you received one.)
It's a valid question but deserves its own thread.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2455 posts, RR: 20 Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1632 times:
I don't think NG should base their tanker on a different plane.
The KC-45 is technically greatly supperior to any 767-based tanker, as the USAF has concluded as 6th airforce in a row.
If the new RFP is drafted in such a way it takes into account the needs and wishes of the USAF, it is a given the KC-45 will come out first again.
There simply is nothing Boeing can do to match it. The KC-767 is too limited as a tanker (it even fails to meet some basic criteria like take off at full fuel load from an 8,000ft long runway) whereas a potential KC-777 is well beyond the operational scope of what the USAF is currently looking for and it would delay the tanker replacement even further.
No, if the USAF can draft their own RFP the way they want it, the KC-45 is going to win outright every single time....
Now, if the USAF is forced to re-write the RFP in such a way that it perfectly suits the KC-767 however, then there is basically nothing NG can do about it: they can't beat political choices with clear technical merits.... if politicians absolutely want it to select an inferior and greatly limited platform (already in today's environment) for the next 50 years, then so be it.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 968 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1589 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 11): There simply is nothing Boeing can do to match it. The KC-767 is too limited as a tanker (it even fails to meet some basic criteria like take off at full fuel load from an 8,000ft long runway) whereas a potential KC-777 is well beyond the operational scope of what the USAF is currently looking for and it would delay the tanker replacement even further.
No, if the USAF can draft their own RFP the way they want it, the KC-45 is going to win outright every single time....
Now, if the USAF is forced to re-write the RFP in such a way that it perfectly suits the KC-767 however, then there is basically nothing NG can do about it: they can't beat political choices with clear technical merits.... if politicians absolutely want it to select an inferior and greatly limited platform (already in today's environment) for the next 50 years, then so be it.
I agree with you that the way in which a possible rewritten RFP is drawn up will decide the next outcome. The last RFP still was basically still a B767 RFP with add-ons "demanded" by NG-EADS to have a chance of winning. The choice for the KC-45 was therefore a surprise to many who were following this. And the add-ons which were criticised by the GAO however.
If the USAF really "fell" for the NG-EADS proposed platform, and I really think they did fell for the undoubtedly better plane, the next or adapted RFP will look more like "we want the KC-45" with then Boeing (for a change) only having the outsider role.
But that itself could spark another protest by Boeing as NG-EADS itself did for that famous extra points paragraph. On the other hand, maybe the USAF has gotten cold feet now after several RFP's for which they were officially reprimanded by the GAO. And therefore maybe the USAF wants to have this over and done with a.s.a.p. A choice for the Boeing proposal would in my opinion be most likely if the circumstances turn out to be that way.
Now on the changes that NG-EADS could made: the suggestions made by Keesje are very, very interesting. But I am not sure though if they stand a real chance, especially if the USAF is in a hurry to get this thing over and done with. The time it would take to develop all the modifications could be too short for the designated EIS of the new tanker. On the other hand, if the "new time-line" (if it is established) and possible other criteria in the bid make it possible, it could be attractive to offer some of these improvements.
Extra tanks for the KC-45 could be an option, especially if the next bid is based on the A330-200F. And they still would not need external tanks. But the price to pay of course is additional costs and some of the current superior take-off performance advantages could diminish (on maximum loading). In maximum off-loadable capacity the change would create even better grades then the current proposal and widen the already significant gap with the Boeing proposal. But all modifications will be a balancing act which are not easily decided.
The same (to a lessor extend) goes for Boeing. They have much less room to improve their bid as it stands. The older and less flexible airframe with the limited wing capabilities and older technological platform is of course the cause for that. But even they, with some parts of their original proposal not even designed yet, will have to go through this balancing act regarding what to change for the next round of the bidding.
In my opinion we better await the next moves the USAF is going to make first. They still have 50 days or so to react officially on the GAO's findings. That reaction might give a hunch how this complicated but exciting process will continue!
NicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 757 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7): I don't think they did last time either. Unless they took for granted that the USAF would tell them the truth in their communications to Boeing.
Yeah, right...
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7): as for the GEnX, I don't see how it would be possible at all. To switch to the A330F in the bid would raise the price. To switch to GEnX on a the KC30 would raise the price. To offer a A330F with GEnX right now would REALLY raise the price. This is when they are already being pushed off a cliff by exchange rates.
Yes, true
But please also add, that operating cost would most certainly drop significantly, especially the so stressed fuel consumption. Wasn't it a main argument, that the bigger KC-30 guzzles more fuel than the KC767?
It would only be an argument if there was no gain for the pain...
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 796 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
In any case the KC30 offers much better prospects for future improvements.
Maybe in ten years deliveries could switch to something along Keesje's proposal.
Fact: The KC30 is much more future proof and has much more room for improvements.
Be reminded: The proposed KC30NG would blow everything offered by the KC767. Of course advantages from being larger and more capable get accentuated. But also in areas where the smaller 767 has advantages by being smaller (absolute fuel usage) the KC30 could become an absolute winner.
The KC30NG could offer cargo services so efficiently and cheap that the USAF will just love the multi-role capability (and save many tax-$).
BHMBAGLOCK From United States, joined Jul 2005, 2693 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 11): I don't think NG should base their tanker on a different plane.
I don't think that's at all what Keesje was getting at. The last thing NG/EADS needs is to get dinged on additional risk for moving to the A350. They also would never make the timetable even with the addional delays now being put into the program.
As far as changes I could see for the program:
1. A crash program to get the boom into the air on the back of a 330 and actually linking up and passing gas prior to the re-selection would, while not really a change, be a huge plus for the program.
2. Since we're now roughly a year from EIS for the A330F, it might now be practical to use it for the baseline design particularly if it's possible to shift the two existing frames to an existing tanker customer. I don't see this increasing cost but rather reducing it as it will reduce modifications required to build the aircraft and will allow the line in Mobile to work more efficiciently with the corresponding reduction in variation of product from one frame to the next.
3. As others have noted, new engines could result in more capability and/or better efficiency. While the price will certainly be higher as a result, the lifetime cost could easily drop. Realistically this is unlikely before the second batch of airframes due to the time to re-certify and the added risk.
4. If NG/EADS are confident that the V-22 can be safely refueled from the 330 then they should make every effort to demonstrate this given the additional time they now have available. They'd better be damn confident though as a V-22 crash during testing would, regardless of real fault, ignite a storm of finger pointing of epic proportions.
5. Larger, more advanced winglets would provide several benefits but again are unlikely due to the added risk. One use would be to potentially extend the refueling speed envelope to lower speeds which would be helpful with aircraft like the V-22. Another possible benefit would be to reduce the ground footprint of the aircraft which has been a criticism of the A330.
6. One potentially good move, both politically and fiscally, would be to move some portion of the fuselage production to the US; possibly the section with the cargo door. This would swing more $ to the US content and also help with currency issues. This could also potentially help increase Airbus' total wide body production capacity which is potentially good for them as well. This could also save on logistics by allowing some degree of back hauling to Europe on the ships and/or Belugas used to bring parts to the US.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 15): 1. A crash program to get the boom into the air on the back of a 330 and actually linking up and passing gas prior to the re-selection would, while not really a change, be a huge plus for the program.
I think this won't be much of a crash action because it is close to get in service and the competition tanker and boom exists on paper only.
BHMBAGLOCK From United States, joined Jul 2005, 2693 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 16): I think this won't be much of a crash action because it is close to get in service and the competition tanker and boom exists on paper only.
Good point, although the quicker they can succeed with this, the better. If the first Aussie tanker delivery goes smoothly, this will really swing the risk factors in NG/EADS favor.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 16): and the competition tanker and boom exists on paper only.
And just how many pounds of fuel has the EADS tanker passed in the air?
Further I would add the EADS tanker according to the GAO doe not meet the basic requirements of the RFP.
In fact the real title of this thread should be "If we need a tanker now, why not the KC-767? Unlike the competition it met or exceeded all RFP requirements and will be build on a proven, established production line".
Flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 233 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1169 times:
I doubt that there will be a new RFP. A new RFP and along with it the rating would only make sense when it would be possible that the KC-45 would get additional poínts where it is over exceeding the specification. In case the Air force would change the RFP then there should be a bandwidth the plane is operated and can achieve 'points'.
However Boeing will for sure make all efforts that this does not happen. They will protest everything which would 'count' the advantages of the KC45 where the KC767 can not compete. All know now the counting method and all know the advantages and disadvantages of both tankers. So it must be in Boeings interest to make all KC45 advantages ' none countable' while making the advantages well countable and it will be in NG's interest to make the advantages of the KC45 as much countable as they can.
This can be an endless game going to nowhere.
I believe, that when the Airforce wants to get the KC45 as they believe it is the better aircraft, they may not have another choice then to split the offer and buy both.
The only other solution I see is, when it is so highly politically motivated, that the EU ans US politicians sit together and in favor for a KC45 decision Europe will bring the US military buys into the game.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2455 posts, RR: 20 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1166 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 18): Unlike the competition it met or exceeded all RFP requirements and will be build on a proven, established production line".
Nice way to describe the KC-767.
First of all, I didn't know the A330 product line was unproven still... I'd bet to have seen heaps of them around airports! Afghanistan must surely be the only place on earth where the A330 hasn't shown up.
Besides, calling the 767 product line 'established' is a bit of an overstretch, don't you think?
In fact it is on full life support and the reason is the 767 is generally seen by the commercial market as outright inferior to the A330 and the USAF thinks the same about it.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1165 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 18): And just how many pounds of fuel has the EADS tanker passed in the air?
Further I would add the EADS tanker according to the GAO doe not meet the basic requirements of the RFP.
In fact the real title of this thread should be "If we need a tanker now, why not the KC-767? Unlike the competition it met or exceeded all RFP requirements and will be build on a proven, established production line".
The aircraft and boom both have been flown and tested. The proposed KC767 and proposed boom prototypes have yet to be build. Imagine Boeing would have to build them for a fly-off: $$.. Some how they will try to prevent this.
I honestly expected you to jump on this & rip the kc767 propasal apart as fully unproven For good reason Boeing doesn't want to take the Italian and Japanese tankers as reference..
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2781 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4743 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2004, 5589 posts, 
) 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2455 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 757 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 796 posts, 
From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
