Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2  
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8832 times:

Here is some new information. If elected, it sounds like the Obama administration might go with a dual buy.


Kaminski: Obama camp considering all tanker options, including dual buy

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=29130

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8824 times:



Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
Obama administration

Did I sleep through November already?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8792 times:

Sounds like sitting in the middle of the fence, with one foot on both sides. How is the USAF going to support both types?

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8700 times:

If I read the article correctly, the manufacturer that provides the best product will get the larger orders and these will come annually. So you're not going to get an even numbered mixed fleet. Rather you may get a large fleet of one tanker and a smaller fleet of the other; a much smaller fleet appears possible.

The first thought that crossed me mind is that Obama appears to be trying to make points on both continents. Boeing will get their tanker order; Airbus will benefit in Europe and Northrop/Grumman will have work to do here. Everybody's happy but I'm not confident the Air Force will get what it needs. The logistics problem will be multiplied; you'll have to have double the training program to get both jets operational.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8637 times:



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 1):
Did I sleep through November already?

Note I said "if elected" for those who would question what I said. I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9047 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8632 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Sounds like sitting in the middle of the fence, with one foot on both sides. How is the USAF going to support both types?

I guess you have to remember the politicians ways on this one. To say anything that anyone wants to hear and worry about the results later. They want to be all things to all people until after the election. Then reality sets in.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1101 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8626 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):
They want to be all things to all people until after the election

To be fair, isn't that what it seems most people wanted to be treated like?  Wink


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9047 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8598 times:



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 6):
To be fair, isn't that what it seems most people wanted to be treated like?

I agree and that is what gets us into all this trouble, people do want respect and to be considered. Unfortunately, that is not what happens after the election. Special interests take over, and the "people" do not fit into the category, "special" I am afraid, I am a cynic.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8587 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
If I read the article correctly, the manufacturer that provides the best product will get the larger orders and these will come annually.

That still leaves it open for interpetation. How do you define "best product"? Is it the OEM that can provide the most votes to politicians for reelection? Or will the USAF have a say?


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 867 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8566 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
How do you define "best product"?

And if you do have a best product, what are you doing buying the other product which is not as good?


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12722 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (5 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8534 times:



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 1):
Did I sleep through November already?



Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
If elected,

Well, it seems you are sleeping through October!  Smile



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBOACVC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 615 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8415 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
The first thought that crossed me mind is that Obama appears to be trying to make points on both continents. Boeing will get their tanker order; Airbus will benefit in Europe and Northrop/Grumman will have work to do here. Everybody's happy but I'm not confident the Air Force will get what it needs. The logistics problem will be multiplied; you'll have to have double the training program to get both jets operational.

Could potentially the Boeing and Airbus tanker cockpit be mandated by the Air Force to be one and the same ? I recall somewhere that during World War II or just before, the US Army had no standardised transport vehicle, and the Willys Jeep configuration was the one contract that started the contractor/supply relationship with stipulation that you could supply as much as possible, as long as they conformed to the Army spec.

Of course there would be some give and take on the cockpit layout and controls, but consider that it could streamline ops and crew, perhaps worth a shot ?

Quote:
By July 1941, the War Department desired to standardize and decided to select a single manufacturer to supply them with the next order for another 16,000 vehicles. Willys won the contract mostly due to its more powerful engine (the "Go Devil") which soldiers raved about, and its lower cost and silhouette. Whatever better design features the Bantam and Ford entries had were then incorporated into the Willys car, moving it from an "A" designation to "B", thus the "MB" nomenclature. For example, if the gasoline tank was directly beneath the driver's seat, combining the two main target areas into one, it would lessen the chance of a catastrophic hit.

ref: Wikipedia Willys Jeep.

BOACVC10



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8397 times:



Quoting BOACVC10 (Reply 11):
Could potentially the Boeing and Airbus tanker cockpit be mandated by the Air Force to be one and the same ? I recall somewhere that during World War II or just before, the US Army had no standardised transport vehicle, and the Willys Jeep configuration was the one contract that started the contractor/supply relationship with stipulation that you could supply as much as possible, as long as they conformed to the Army spec.

Of course there would be some give and take on the cockpit layout and controls, but consider that it could streamline ops and crew, perhaps worth a shot ?

That, my friend would add uncountless $$ to the price of each individual airplane. The KC-30 is a FBW with side stick controllers. The KC-767AT is not FBW, and has a yoke.

It could be done, but it will cost billions.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8272 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
If I read the article correctly, the manufacturer that provides the best product will get the larger orders and these will come annually.

That still leaves it open for interpetation. How do you define "best product"? Is it the OEM that can provide the most votes to politicians for reelection? Or will the USAF have a say?

Indeed. And what if the USAF makes the wrong choice?

 Wink


User currently offlineBBaldwin09 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8225 times:

I am just throwing this in there because I didn't see it mentioned above, but I just read that due to the delay in the decision making process, Boeing will now explore the 777F and KC-764 tanker options (which in the article was listed as being possibly to big fuselage wise), but boeing is now got the option of looking at converting the 787 Dreamliner to a tanker. The catch is that at the same time Airbus now have time to refine the KC-30 option by maybe offering it with the GEnx Engines and a 5 tonne increase to the MTOW.

The source was my Australian Aviation Magazine.

Sounds like its going to get very interesting. I am interested to see which direction Boeing will go.



BBaldwin09
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8211 times:



Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
If elected, it sounds like the Obama administration might go with a dual buy.

If elected this will probably change the day after the election to "we don't need a tanker".


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8127 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15):
Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
If elected, it sounds like the Obama administration might go with a dual buy.

If elected this will probably change the day after the election to "we don't need a tanker".

I agree.

Quoting BBaldwin09 (Reply 14):
Boeing will now explore the 777F and KC-764 tanker options (which in the article was listed as being possibly to big fuselage wise), but boeing is now got the option of looking at converting the 787 Dreamliner to a tanker. The catch is that at the same time Airbus now have time to refine the KC-30 option by maybe offering it with the GEnx Engines and a 5 tonne increase to the MTOW.

It may now be a waste of time for both Boeing and EADS/NG.

But for Boeing, they should not consider the B-767-400ER, but offer the B-767-300ERF, with the -400 landing gear and wings for a 450,000lbs MTOW. I like the idea of the B-777-200LRF tanker, but I was one thinking the KC-30 was to big. A KC-777 would be even bigger and have more logistical problems, on small airfields that the KC-30 would.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8104 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
It may now be a waste of time for both Boeing and EADS/NG.

I think there are more tankers up for replacement (like the french AF) maybe they'll try to benefit from the product development done by EADS / NG for the USAF.

I cheap solution IMO could be to order say 50-80 KC-X aircraft spread them & fly the hell out of them for the first 8 years, tanker & cargo. Keeping the aging KC135's & expensive C-17 fleets out of the wind & by 2015 have another look.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 8041 times:

WIth the huge deficits we are running don't be suprised we see KC-135E's at least the 57 models on up converted over to the R model sans the APU, the APU the E has would do just fine and be able to give bare base capability or start replacing the TF-33 mounts with new struts and nacelles at $1M a apiece, the airframe still has alot of life in it. Another possibility is to mount JT8d engs or TF -33 -P- 100a(E-3 Sentrys power) The jt8d has better fuel burn but the P-100 has more power or thrust 21000 pounds at sea level and more resposive to throttle movements due to its 2 bleed valve system.Plus eases logistics because Tanks and E-3's are always together deployed. The the TF-33 P 102 the current power for most E's is a piece of crap that was modified from the JT3D. With the new carbon fiber brakes we could due away with the mx intensive clamshell thrust reversers.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (5 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 7858 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
WIth the huge deficits we are running don't be suprised we see KC-135E's at least the 57 models on up converted over to the R model. . . .

 checkmark Fiscal reality is bound to intrude into the decision making process at some point. If it comes down to new tankers or new tactical aircraft and making do with refurbished tankers, the latter option will prevail.

Also, seems to me we discussed the possibility of the JT8D here before, perhaps in connection with another airframe? IMO, not a bad idea.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7806 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
How is the USAF going to support both types?

They already support two types (KC-10, KC-135).

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15):
If elected this will probably change the day after the election to "we don't need a tanker".

I Strongly disagree.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7798 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 20):
They already support two types (KC-10, KC-135).

To be technical you can split the 135's into E,RT,R,an T models and don't forget the MC-130's that Ar cabability for helos



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12722 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7717 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
WIth the huge deficits we are running don't be suprised we see KC-135E's at least the 57 models on up converted over to the R model sans the APU, the APU the E has would do just fine and be able to give bare base capability or start replacing the TF-33 mounts with new struts and nacelles at $1M a apiece, the airframe still has alot of life in it. Another possibility is to mount JT8d engs or TF -33 -P- 100a(E-3 Sentrys power) The jt8d has better fuel burn but the P-100 has more power or thrust 21000 pounds at sea level and more resposive to throttle movements due to its 2 bleed valve system.Plus eases logistics because Tanks and E-3's are always together deployed. The the TF-33 P 102 the current power for most E's is a piece of crap that was modified from the JT3D. With the new carbon fiber brakes we could due away with the mx intensive clamshell thrust reversers.

Wow, dude, that sounds awesome!

I think you have a new career coming on a TV show called Pimp My KC-135:

Quote:
Here we are today at Davis-Monthan AFB with expert KC-135 Pimper Venus6971. Today we're going to see how he took a KC-135 that looked like this:

http://www.rob.com/pic/KC135/Resize_of_KC_135_pres1.sized.jpg

Quote:
And made it look like this:



Sorry, Kessje, for working your side of the street....



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7650 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 19):
Also, seems to me we discussed the possibility of the JT8D here before, perhaps in connection with another airframe? IMO, not a bad idea

You probably got it mixed up with the E-8 JStar getting the JT8D, very little engineering costs since it will bolt right into the existing 3 mounts. Not sure about power feeders and accessories. Plus it the most reliable engine for its time that Pratt and Whitney built, every night with the JT3d's on my C-137B we were doing some type of high powered engine run for throttle alignment or failing to reach target.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Re-engining-the-E-8-JSTARS-04891/



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7550 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 20):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
How is the USAF going to support both types?

They already support two types (KC-10, KC-135).

Correct, that will make 4 tanker types, KC-135 (4 current models), KC-10A, KC-767AT, and KC-30A. I was talking only about addint the two new types, the KC-30 and KC-767.

So, you would have four different tankers in an air fprce that flys just three fighter types, F-15, F-16, F-22, three bomber types, B-1, B-2, B-52, and three main cargo types, C-5, C-17, C-130.


25 STT757 : KC-135s would be retired as KC-767s, KC-30s are added. For a period of time yes you would have a diverse fleet of tankers, over time that can be redu
26 Post contains links Lumberton : Probably the last word on things tanker from the current administration--before the election at any rate. If McCain comes from behind and prevails I s
27 Flyf15 : It seems to me like having these massive aircraft as our smallest tanker is a dumb idea from a lot of different perspectives. Why not get a dual fleet
28 Post contains links Venus6971 : It sounds like good common sense but again we are talking about the federal government. The 737 is a fine acft but which series do we use, has anybod
29 Oroka : IMO that would be the best solution, and with the USN getting P-8s, that is another 100ish airframes that could be common. 737s will be around till t
30 Venus6971 : I did not see that acft blow up but I heard it go pop. Pure stupidity or lack of paying attention.Civilian OCALC techs were doing the pressure run an
31 Post contains links Legoguy : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7702654.stm Landing gear door falls off a USAF KC-135 during a flight from RAF Mildenhall
32 KC135TopBoom : A program like that will still take 30-40 years to replace all the KC-135s and KC-10s. In the mean time, when the new KC-30s and KC-767s begin coming
33 Venus6971 : Sounds like someone did not make sure the pin was fully engaged or the the 2 balls at the end of the pin were worn out and wiggled out during flight,
34 Legoguy : Thanks for the info. I'm interested to see if anybody finds it and hands it in. Would make a nice mantlepiece ornament.
35 KC135TopBoom : It would have most likely come off when the gear was cycled, after take-off, or before landing. If it was before landing, that would account why the
36 Arluna : Well folks, Kiss the tanker competiton goodbye. Our new president will most likely cancel it for good. J
37 Lumberton : Cancel? My guess is that it will be sole-sourced. Where? Count the votes on the appropriations and armed services committees. Doesn't look good for A
38 Gsosbee : I will split to the middle. I do not see where the new administration will find the funds with everything else they said they wanted to do, but if the
39 Lumberton : Also, the funding issue alone will be enough to derail any talk of a split purchase--not to mention the USAF has repeatedly said they don't want a sp
40 Arluna : Guys, Guys! This president will have little, if any, regard for the military or it's needs. His staff has already hinted at a 25% cut in military spen
41 KC135TopBoom : I think you are correct, Arluna. I think the only option left for the USAF tankers, now is to reengine/upgrade the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs, or even a ne
42 Lumberton : Arluna, I can't find the reference to "the president" in my posts! I wasn't aware that Obama's staff floated the 25% cut proposal. I thought that was
43 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : President Obama still wants to invest in the KC-X: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...rt%20Defense,%20Space%20Technology Quote: "We need greater i
44 Arluna : What you need to understand here is that presidential candidates here in the US will say anything they need to say in order to get elected. Once they
45 Arluna : Lumberton, You're right and I was wrong, it was Barney Frank who hinted at a 25% cut in military spending. I think, however, that it's not too far-fet
46 TexL1649 : KC-X represents an opportunity to extract power/money/influence from parties competitively seeking massive taxpayer dollars. Some things don't "change
47 Ken777 : This is especially true for anyone following Bush/Cheney. McCain would have found the same financial problems that Obama is going to face. As for Fra
48 Arluna : J
49 KC135TopBoom : Once 1/20/09 comes around, we may very well hear a different tune for Prsident Elect Obama. It was Frank, and he did say a 25% cut in the "toys" that
50 Rheinwaldner : I think the KC-X will come very similar to the last RFP. The USAF is tempted too much by the dual-role deployment strategy. Probably the savings would
51 Lumberton : Hmm...one would hope they've learned a lesson or two in the politics of procurement. There is no doubt in my mind that many senior leaders in the USA
52 Gsosbee : Le't hope so, but history says no. Someone gave Frank the OK to throw out the 25% number (even he isn't stupid enough to go down that route by himsel
53 Post contains links Oroka : I dont know if someone posted this yet, but here is an Obama quote about the C-17 and KC-X... not that bleak. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s
54 Gsosbee : The statement was made before the election and the current economic problems.
55 Oroka : Oh, I guess Obama is full of himself and wont stick to his word cause a few details have changed. He also stated in that article that he could cut fun
56 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Obama may be smart enough not to do this, I'm not so sure about Reid and Pelosi. Actual FY-2009 approved defense budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/om
57 Venus6971 : dis= "this" for those unfamiliar on Chicago lingo da = "the" for those unfamiliar on Chicago lingo d= any word dat starts with a th duff= he is a fri
58 Venus6971 : My bad "Da Country Dat Works"
59 Lumberton : Good grief! You can't be implying that there would have been more of a "two way street" in the defense trade with the hated Bush administration, than
60 Gsosbee : FY2009 is already on the books and is the current budget (remmeber the US fiscal year is 01 Oct-30 Sept.). The issues will start with the FY2010 budg
61 Venus6971 : Deir is a US Attorney in Chicago named Peter Fitzgerald the same one dat put Scooter Libby in da big house, he duz a outstanding job in Illinois putt
62 KC135TopBoom : I think there were only two Republicans in Illinois anyway (and none in Chicago). You mean they are both in jail now?
63 MOBflyer : Obama is NOT president yet! He is (unfortunately for our future) President ELECT... - George Bush is still the POTUS. I know it seems trivial, but pl
64 Post contains links Trex8 : http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...tilitiesNews/idUSN1141236520081211 WASHINGTON, Dec 11 (Reuters) - The two Republican senators from Alabama urge
65 Trex8 : Rod the Blag was actually preceeded by about 4 republican governors. Obama probably would have had a fight on his hands to get elected to the senate
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2
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...
KC-X Tanker Competition Canceled! posted Wed Sep 10 2008 06:40:05 by Observer
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
Usaf Tanker Expected Date? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 15:52:16 by Tigerotor77W
Next Usaf Tanker posted Sun Jul 30 2006 09:07:28 by AislepathLight
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
Pentagon OKs Tanker Competition posted Fri Apr 14 2006 21:21:35 by RedFlyer
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan
Usaf Tanker Wildcard...MD-11 posted Tue Aug 10 2004 14:17:54 by Miamiair
Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement posted Mon Mar 8 2004 14:37:01 by KEESJE
Usaf Tanker Replacement Low Cost Option? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 11:38:27 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format