jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:41 pm

something of interest....

" bizjournals.com
Tanker study opens Boeing, Airbus competition
Friday January 27, 5:09 pm ET

The findings of a Rand Corp. study suggests both the Boeing Co. and Airbus have jets that would be suitable for the U.S. Air Force to use as its next generation of aerial refueling tankers.

But the report does not set a timetable for a tanker program.
The study narrowed the possibilities to Boeing's 767, 777, 787 or 747 jets and Airbus' A330 and A340.

New tankers are needed to replace the fleet of KC-135 tankers that average 44 years old."

--------------------------

what I find interesting is this tidbit of information...

"There is a lot of information that needs to come out about this," says Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan. "Basically what it comes down to is if there is a competition, and most likely there will be, I think that Boeing has a very good shot at winning."

--------------

entire article can be found at..

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060127/1221715.html?.v=2


I still think Boeing will be able to pull this off........
"Up the Irons!"
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9855
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:51 pm

What would the American residents think if Airbus won the contract? Its obvious Boeing will win.
Head Forum Moderator
moderators@airliners.net
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:51 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
What would the American residents think if Airbus won the contract?

Probably the same as Europeans seeing JSF´s..

A lot of new types have been drawn into competion after the fact became accepted that the KC-30 outdoes the KC767 (without extra fuel tanks e.g.)

If the EADS adds additional fuel tanks to the kc-30 the kc767 will be even more outclassed. Of course the KC777 will be brought forward.

However "just too much" can also be a criterium. Their is a ceiling to what is sensible.

Perhaps not. Interestingly the A340 is considered. KC340-200/300 used airframe or A340-500 super tanker transport? Transporting troop/goods LAX-Kabul/Kuwait directly would become possible..

Objectively I think the KC30 fits best/ offers best value for money. However: "objectively"

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/images/media_center/library/img_003hr.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:22 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Objectively I think the KC30 fits best/ offers best value for money

Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:41 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 3):
Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?

Surely the extra costs on top of the airframe to make it "combat worthy" would be approximately the same for any aircraft.
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:00 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?

For the KC-30 the cost have already been made / issues solved.

I´ve always wondered if the airforce would be able to get their hands on 100 757´s. They seem to approach the kc135 most closely.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:01 am

If the Us starts buying foreign tankers I am sure there will be a lot of pissed of taxpayers.
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:13 am

Nothing we didn't pretty much already know about the competition. I wouldn't really call it a 'competition' though, I think the American military and John Q. Taxpayer feel pretty strongly about this.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Objectively I think the KC30 fits best/ offers best value for money.

Thanks for the spin keesje...we can always count on you showing up in these tanker threads. Nice cheap photoshop work on that photo by Northrop, looks like they hired a junior high student to do it.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:15 am

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 6):
If the Us starts buying foreign tankers I am sure there will be a lot of pissed of taxpayers.

Should I, as a UK taxpayer, be pissed because of the F-35? How about all the tomahawks we bought from the US, and then immediately used in the Iraq invasion?
 
RedAirForce
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 4:04 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:52 am

Maybe you should be pissed, thats up to you. But when Airbus and Boeing are neck and neck for a US military contract there is only one logical choice. If the LW or French air force goes with Airbus I would not complain, its a great product too.

You get to decide what you should be pissed about. Can you make your own alternative to Tomahawks? If not, then maybe not.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:57 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
For the KC-30 the cost have already been made / issues solved.

Show me where Airbus is doing this kind of (quite expensive) engineering for their Faux Warbird offerings.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...y/mma/news/2005/q2/nr_050418m.html

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 4):
Surely the extra costs on top of the airframe to make it "combat worthy" would be approximately the same for any aircraft.

Point is Boeing is well down the road with such efforts...and they are making their efforts public as well.
What have we heard about vulnerability reduction from EADS/Airbus?
Well, a Google search vividly illustrates the paucity of any efforts apparently ongoing by them.

I've brought this up before as well. Airbus will be facing a very, very expensive effort to incorporate Vulnerability Reduction attributes into their flight control software-much more so than Boeing (which is apparently working on the problem as we speak).

A cautionary Lesson Learned about approaching Survivability late in the game can be gleaned from the F-22 program. It gets more expensive the longer it takes to "discover" there is an issue.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/f-22_ote_report.htm

Looks like EADS Airbus is more about coming up with a spiffy marketing plan than a truly Combat Worthy aircraft.

[Edited 2006-01-28 22:14:23]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:58 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 8):
Should I, as a UK taxpayer, be pissed because of the F-35?

No, because the UK wanted to benefit from the very large investment that the US was making in the JSF program, and because the UK would have a workshare roughly proportional to their purchases.

But I suspect the UK won't end up getting any JSFs.

Anyway, if the US buys the KC-30 or any other Airbus tanker, they should demand 100% offsets like other countries are demanding of US defense suppliers.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/DefenseIndust...IES/offsets/OffsetXFinalReport.pdf

Based on this report I suspect there was very little wealth transfer for those Tomahawks, as the UK seems to have gotten very high offsets for the past decade.

[Edited 2006-01-28 22:12:53]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:20 am

Quoting RedAirForce (Reply 9):
You get to decide what you should be pissed about. Can you make your own alternative to Tomahawks? If not, then maybe not.

Red brings up a good point. It's not like the US isn't capable of building it's own tanker, far from it in fact....on the contrary, we have produced two highly successful tankers, and should continue to build a third one...we're not in a situation where we need to look 'out of house' for another one. I think Boeing has proved themselves to be an asset to this nation's defense. EADS, not so much.

Now, if BAE or someone else in the UK wants to build a better cruise missile, then by all means....

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:31 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 10):
Looks like EADS Airbus is more about coming up with a spiffy marketing plan than a truly Combat Worthy aircraft.



Quoting Sidishus (Reply 10):
What have we heard about vulnerability reduction from EADS/Airbus?

This being a military project, I doubt there will be much in the press compared to civilian projects.
However, there is a certification plan in place for all these matters and work is being done.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12):
Now, if BAE or someone else in the UK wants to build a better cruise missile, then by all means....

It's called the Apache/Storm Shadow Big grin (but I don't know if it's better or not!)
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:40 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 13):
This being a military project, I doubt there will be much in the press compared to civilian projects.
However, there is a certification plan in place for all these matters and work is being done.

Boeing is making it a point to publicize their efforts with the P-8A-which is not a civil project. And you can bet such efforts will be directly useable in their tanker offering.

Again, show me a similar effort being conducted by EADS for their militarized airliner offerings.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:01 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 3):
Have you factored in the likely (very high) cost to make this aircraft "combat worthy"?

What is "combat worthy" the RAF L-1011 and VC-10 have flown many thousands of sorties in support of combat missions and I don't remember have to make them "combat worthy".
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:05 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
What is "combat worthy" the RAF L-1011 and VC-10 have flown many thousands of sorties in support of combat missions and I don't remember have to make them "combat worthy".

You need to look at the threats being specifically designed to kill such aircraft such as the KS-172, S-400, R77, and FT-2000.
The aircraft that will replace the current flock of tankers will have to be very "combat worthy" indeed.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:26 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 14):
Again, show me a similar effort being conducted by EADS for their militarized airliner offerings.

Just because something isn't being publicised doesn't mean it's not happening.
I find in Europe these things aren't as publicised as in the US.
One example I saw (not related to aircraft) was a TV documentary showing the faces of Navy SEALS and them exiting a submarine. In the UK they black out faces of members of the SAS/SBS etc. Only if they died are their faces shown.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 17):
Just because something isn't being publicised doesn't mean it's not happening.

Funny how Boeing isn't being shy on the subject.

We shall see whose product best meets the requirements of Section 2366 Title 10 US Code for a specified amount of money.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/presentations/Coyle052698/coyle052698.pdf
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:52 am

As an afterthought - isn't it Northrop who will be doing most of the military systems integration?

[Edited 2006-01-29 00:05:48]
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:08 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 19):
As an afterthought - isn't it Northrop who will be doing most of the military systems integration?

Yeah, and Lockheed-the maker of the SR-71-was "integrating" the ACS into an aircraft that was a remarkably stupid choice, and Northrop's platform choice for the ACS was just as stupid becuase it couldn't be made into a satisfactory warbird either.
In the case of the tanker contract, Northrop may well find their platform of choice may well be too expensive once the required survivability attributes are back engeineered into the design. And no matter what you intimate, EADS seems to be paying little heed to the issue.
Point is, backfitting survivability attributes into an airliner design is an expensive prospect. Very expensive. Boeing has a lead with the work already underway on the P-8....
And that's the bottom line.

[Edited 2006-01-29 00:22:26]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:25 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 20):
And no matter what you intimate, EADS seems to be paying little heed to the issue.

Out of interest - Do you have an insight into the progress reports etc from EADS/Northrop to make a judgement? (I.e. do you have a second job apart from wreaking travel plans Big grin ) Just realised... Why am I defending EADS-CASA/MTAD... I have my gripes with them too! Big grin

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 20):
Point is, backfitting survivability attributes into an airliner design is an expensive prospect. Very expensive. Boeing has a lead with the work already underway on the P-8....

What about the FSTA and A330's for Australia, do they have survivability attributes in them?
So regarding total cost, a KC-777 will be cheaper than a KC-30?
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:44 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 21):
What about the FSTA and A330's for Australia, do they have survivability attributes in them?

Apparently not and it's to their eventual peril. Problem is its an uphill battle to get program managers...and even end users to understand the vital importance of Survivability Engineering...
From a post I made some time back:

http://jas.jcte.jcs.mil/news/pdf/1998_spring.pdf

Vulnerability Reduction Deserves Some Respect
RADM Robert H. Gormley USN, (Ret)

The JTCG/AS has chosen wisely to devote this issue of Aircraft Survivability
to vulnerability reduction technology. The Combat Survivability Division of the
National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) certainly endorses the theme of
this edition of the newsletter since we believe aircraft vulnerability reduction has not received sufficient attention in recent years. For this reason, the program for our October 1997 symposium was structured to shed light in this darkening vulnerability “corner” — to see how technological advancements might contribute to enhancing the survivability of both military and civil aircraft.
In the survivability field, fiscal constraints can lead to a hyperfocus on susceptibility reduction since hit avoidance is without question the first thing one should do to enhance combat survivability. So, the logic might then go, let’s not attempt to improve damage resistance and damage tolerance of new
air platforms. Or alternatively, why not relax vulnerability requirements in order
to save on development and procurement costs?
I urge caution here, particularly in the case of manned aircraft. It seems to me that those who determine aircraft requirements and characteristics
would do well to avoid being too quickly dismissive of vulnerability considerations.
They need to look carefully at the full range of possible tactical employment
scenarios for proposed new aircraft, giving weight to the historical combat
usage record of earlier planes. And before making a final decision on aircraft characteristics, into which the affordability factor must clearly weigh, requirements and acquisition officials should ask themselves two key questions relating to survivability:
“If hit, do we really want this new bird to
be more likely to be lost than the plane it
is to replace?” And, “Is there a need for it
to be less vulnerable than the predecessor
system?”


In the case of the proposed new US tanker fleet, the answer to those last two questions is a very definite YES!

[Edited 2006-01-29 00:49:39]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:58 am

Surely this is a "NO"?

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 22):
“If hit, do we really want this new bird to
be more likely to be lost than the plane it is to replace?”
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:02 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 23):
Surely this is a "NO"?

Yeah, my bad.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:10 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 22):
Quoting A319XFW (Reply 21):
What about the FSTA and A330's for Australia, do they have survivability attributes in them?

Apparently not and it's to their eventual peril.

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Wedgetail-0705.pdf
Modern wars, especially air wars, can be described as ‘information centric’, in that, the ability to apply coordinated military force rapidly and precisely hinges on the ability to achieve information superiority, which amounts to having a superior picture of the battlespace relative to an opponent. This is achieved by having airborne ISR systems, including AEW&C, and the electronic combat and offensive capabilities to deny the use of such systems to an opponent. NCW for all of its merit is little more than providing fast digital connections between the ISR systems and combat elements - take away the ISR systems in a networked force and the system collapses.
The reality of any high intensity air wars fought in the 21st Century is that air
superiority can only be achieved through prior information superiority. In such
an environment ISR systems, especially AEW&C aircraft, and electronic
combat systems, such as jamming aircraft, become the highest priority targets
in an air battle. The player who can kill the opponent’s AEW&C and jamming
aircraft first, or drive them out of the battlespace, achieves information
superiority and thereafter, air superiority, winning the battle.
The Soviets recognised this reality in 1982, after the Israelis using E-2C
AEW&C aircraft and Boeing 707 standoff jammers completely routed Syrian
forces in the battle for Lebanon. The message was reinforced in 1991, when
the US Air Force and Navy repeated this success against the much stronger
Iraqi air defence system.
The result of these experiences was a concerted effort, through the 1980s and continued during the early 1990s, to devise weapons capable of defeating
airborne ISR platforms, especially AEW&C aircraft, and airborne standoff
jamming aircraft such as the EF-111A Raven and EA-6B Prowler.
The design aims of the Antey S-300V/VM and later variants of the Almaz S-300PMU SAM systems included attacking ISR aircraft and airborne jammers
from very long ranges. The model centres on the idea of driving highly mobile
S-300V/VM or S-300PMU-2/S-400 missile batteries as close to the FEBA as
possible, in radar/radio silence, and then sniping at ISR aircraft and airborne
jammers with long-range missile shots from concealed positions. The stated
role of the 9M82 Giant (S-300V/SA-12a) SAM and newer long-range missiles
in the S-300PMU-2 Favorit and S-400 suites is exactly this. With ranges
against high flying targets between 100 and 200 NMI, this class of long-range
SAM presents a genuine risk to an AEW&C platform. Moreover, trading an S-300V, S-300PMU-2 or S-400 battery for an AEW&C aircraft in battle is typically
worthwhile, in dollars and combat effect. It is worth observing that China
operates at least 12 batteries of S-300PMU SAMs, and is expected to acquire
the S-400. Vietnam has ordered the S-300PMU-2, while Indonesia is claimed
to have also sought these missiles.
Soviet thinking on achieving information superiority was not confined to using
long-range SAMs. One of the intended roles of later variants of the MiG-25
Foxbat, and the MiG-31 Foxhound, was to fly high altitude high-speed dashes
to take shots at NATO ISR aircraft, especially the E-3 AWACS. This is inherently expensive in combat losses, as multiple Foxhounds or Foxbats would have to be traded for each AWACS, JSTARS, Rivet Joint or Raven killed. By the early 1990s Soviet thinking shifted to the use of very long-range BVR AAMs, allowing the fighter - and aircrew - to survive most attacks and be reused. The result was the emergence of the KS-172 and R-37 missiles during the early 1990s, and reported adaptations of the Kh-31 missile. These missiles are now appearing in Asia, with India collaborating on the R-172 and China claimed to have licenced the Kh-31.
The evolution of specialised ‘counter-ISR’ weapons is a direct consequence of
Western information superiority and should be seen as such.
The big issue for Australia in the longer term is developing a fighter force, and
operational doctrine, which permits the ‘Wedgetail’ force to survive in an
environment where arbitrary regional nations may be operating weapons like
the S-300PMU-2/S-400, R-37, R-172 and Kh-31 - or have the option of
fielding such weapons with a warning time of as little as months. The US Air
Force approach has centred on using the F/A-22A to kill the S-300PMU-2/S-400, Sukhoi fighters carrying BVR missiles such as the R-172, R-37 or Kh-31,
and opposing ISR and jamming platforms.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:15 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 10):
What have we heard about vulnerability reduction from EADS/Airbus?

It becomes more and more clear EADS forgot something crusial. I think they better withdraw their current operation tankers..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:00 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
It becomes more and more clear EADS forgot something crusial. I think they better withdraw their current operation tankers..

Some nice pix of some pretty Faux Warbirds keesje. Its a shame emerging threats will render them obsolescent in just a few years.
Maybe Germany and Canada will be able to recoup some of their investment by converting them back into freight dawgs.



They apprently have ignored something crucial-but thats not unique to them-that will leave EADS with a competitive disadvantage when selling to the US military.

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/PDF/AS_Newsletter2005_spring.pdf
Since commercial aircraft weren’t designed to operate in a combat environment, survivability wasn’t considered in their designs. One thing is certain though—it’s more difficult to include these features in existing commercial designs for various reasons. Commercial aircraft designs can provide huge cost benefits when applied to military program needs, but programs should consider that, in part, these savings result from reduced survivability. The programs must recognize and accept the costs necessary to get survivability back into the system. Programs should plan for the expenses of these systems and the design efforts necessary to ensure their effective implementation.
Programs need to understand the differences in philosophy in designing
commercial versus combat aircraft and evaluate the design with these differences in mind. This may help to identify survivability weaknesses
that might have otherwise been overlooked. This gives the program a chance to correct these deficiencies and make significant improvements in the aircraft’s overall effectiveness.


[Edited 2006-01-29 21:32:13]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:40 am

More from the same article that gets to the heart of the matter...

Airliner Air Force: Survivability for Militarized Commercial Aircraft

While this cost saving [of using airliner designs] may be extremely appealing, there are hidden costs that must be understood. In the area of survivability, you get what you pay for.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:36 pm

Boeing have modified the B737 into the P8, people therefore assume that uprating the B767 to the KC767 will be equally straightforward.

I am not clear to two points;

Firstly is the KC767 being built for Italy upgraded in survivability terms, or would a USAF KC767 be substancially different.

Secondly, what are the implications on application of that technology to the B767.

Finally, people assume that Airbus are not carrying out their own research.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:32 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 29):
Firstly is the KC767 being built for Italy upgraded in survivability terms, or would a USAF KC767 be substancially different.

Apparently not because the Italian government hasnt demanded it, but US law dictates that a live fire test and evaluation be done on manned weapons systems.
The 767 lease deal would have not been required to be subjected to LFT&E.
The C-130J contract-which is a bit shady in its own right-also did an end run around the rules about LFT&E. But some folks involved made sure the right thing was done...

http://assf.wpafb.af.mil/Survivabili..._live_fire_test_and_evaluation.asp
C-130J acquisition by the Air Force is taking place in a nontraditional manner. As a commercial off-the-shelf system, this latest version of the venerable C-130 aircraft presents new issues concerning whether or not it is covered by the live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) requirements of Title 10 United States Code (USC) Section 2366 and Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation 5000.2-R.

The LFT&E statute ties the Live Fire Test (LFT) program to formal milestones found in standard DoD acquisition programs. However, the C-130J acquisition is not structured according to these milestones because of the nontraditional acquisition approach. To preserve the spirit of LFT&E and "do the right thing," the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), jointly committed to a C-130J LFT&E program that meets the intent of a high-quality LFT&E program, whether or not this is required by law. This commitment was formalized in a memorandum signed by both agencies in March 1998.

The backdrop for the joint Air Force and DOT&E memorandum is a C-130H and C-130J vulnerability analysis completed in 1996. This analysis identified the major ballistic vulnerability contributors and areas where data voids existed. In response to the study findings, the Air Force structured a multiphase C-130 Vulnerability Reduction Program (VRP) to better quantify the aircraft's vulnerabilities and investigate the feasibility of vulnerability reduction approaches. In addition, DOT&E and the Air Force agreed on other vulnerability areas to investigate under a C-130J LFT&E.

The outcome of discussions between the Air Force and OSD is the C-130J LFT&E program depicted in Figure 1. The Air Force agreed to fund the VRP and other testing and analysis efforts that would have been conducted as part of the C-130J acquisition. OSD agreed to fund the hydrodynamic ram testing and a mission abort study through its Joint Live Fire (JLF) program. All of the LFT&E program elements were added to the C-130J Test and Evaluation Master Plan. As the elements are completed, the results will be reported to DOT&E and included in the reports required by the LFT law. Through this spirit of doing the right thing, the USC Section 2366 requirements will be met, a more survivable weapon system will result, and the lives of operators will be protected to the maximum extent possible.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:54 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 29):
Secondly, what are the implications on application of that technology to the B767.

As one whose day job demands being quite familiar with modern transport category aircraft, I can tell you such engineering changes cost money...alot of money. Look at the foot dragging the airlines are putting up just for the OBIGGS for the center tanks on Boeings.
The P-8 will not be your standard 737, and because Boeing is spending money on that aircraft now, the lessons learned will be cheaper for their tanker offering(s).

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 29):
Finally, people assume that Airbus are not carrying out their own research.

If they have an active effort in place, then it would behoove them to advertise it.
Also, their flight control software will have to be modified to deal with a damaged aircraft much more so than Boeing will have to tinker with theirs. And that promises to be seriously expensive since it goes to the heart of of the certification of the aircraft.

[Edited 2006-01-30 20:11:40]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:42 am

The points that I am making are as follows;

1. That the Italian Air Force KC767 is not the same as the possible USAF KC767, unless the USAF are prepared to accept an aircraft without enhanced survivability.

2. That whilst research on the P8 will help, that it will mean changes to the KC767 and that this will be expensive.

3. I have no evidence that Airbus is carrying out comparable research, I am merely pointing out that the fact that it is not publicly acknowledged does not mean that it does not exist. I am certain that Boeing are also carrying out research that is not on their website.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 32):
1. That the Italian Air Force KC767 is not the same as the possible USAF KC767, unless the USAF are prepared to accept an aircraft without enhanced survivability.

Which has been my point on this venue for two years...hence the term Faux Warbirds

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 32):
2. That whilst research on the P8 will help, that it will mean changes to the KC767 and that this will be expensive

And thats why Boeing is a leg up when it comes to the oft ignored subject of Survivability Engineering.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 32):
3. I have no evidence that Airbus is carrying out comparable research, I am merely pointing out that the fact that it is not publicly acknowledged does not mean that it does not exist. I am certain that Boeing are also carrying out research that is not on their website.

I still say if Airbus were smart they would make such efforts known in the same general sense (and totally unclassified) way Boeing has... IF such efforts exist at all.
I will bet they do not.

[Edited 2006-01-30 22:08:11]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:02 am

...And another thing. I wouldnt hold out much hope Northrops integrators have a clue about Survivabilty Engineering (at this point anyway). Heck Lockheeds integrators for the ACS had zero clue about the concept of maximum take off weight when asked about it during a Pentagon briefing when somebody questioned the viability of the EMB-145 for the ACS mission.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
keesje
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:42 am

I was was asked to speak to a conference about a technical issue for airlines. I turned out the company had found a solution for a problem. The only thing was the airlines didn´t see the problem.

Then the company turned out to the authorities to address the safety issue. They didn´t see it either.

Then they went public with scary videos of exploding laptops. However it didn´t work.

The owner & inventor of the solution for this "danger" never convinced the world there was a problem. His solution therefor never made it. It was about exploding laptop batteries on in-flight laptop power. Don´t remember the guys name, he was everywhere in the late nineties.

What I want to say most airforces obviously don´t see the problem. Endless technical quotes haven´t convinced me (and many airforces) there is a huge problem looming. I remember reading in an other thread that during the last 50 years hardly any tanker has been shot down.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:54 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 35):
I remember reading in an other thread that during the last 50 years hardly any tanker has been shot down.

keesje, it is not what happened in the last fifty years that matters; it is what will happen during the next fifty during which the new aircraft will operate.
By your logic the Western armies of 1939 would have had absolutely nothing to fear from mechanized warfare since the concept had never won a war...Oh wait!! They did think that...

[Edited 2006-01-30 22:59:05]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:47 am

I still say if Airbus were smart they would make such efforts known in the same general sense (and totally unclassified) way Boeing has... IF such efforts exist at all.
I will bet they do not.

I do not know if they have or not, but I doubt that they are stupid enough to tell you or Boeing about it.

Quite why the smart thing would be to publish their research for the benefit of the opposition is beyond me.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:20 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 37):
I do not know if they have or not, but I doubt that they are stupid enough to tell you or Boeing about it.

And Boeing is being stupid by publishing this how?
http://www.navair.navy.mil/mma/index..._item&news_id=24¤t_page=home

No real specifics are given (which would be determined by the the Joint Survivability folks and classified anyway) and Im sure they see it as a selling point for their product...A selling point that Airbus is apparently unable to match?

While the whole topic of Aircraft Survivability is necessarily a secretive topic, its no secret-except maybe to many denizens of this board- that the KC-135 replacement will be increasingly threatened, and that vulnerabilty reduction will a requirement of the design.
Maybe Airbus is keeping mum on the subject because they do not want it known how much it will take to make their aircraft meet the standard.

Also this may well explain the hi/low mix that the Rand study purportedly is advocating.

[Edited 2006-01-31 02:35:16]
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:18 pm

Given that the P8 programme is already public knowledge, there is less scope/point in secrecy.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:35 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 39):
Given that the P8 programme is already public knowledge, there is less scope/point in secrecy.

Mighty weak argument Bennett. Why don't you take the time to actually read this newsletter. Most of it is devoted to large aircraft survivability...and notice who published it. If these folks have no problems with discussing the topic in general terms then what reason would Airbus have in hiding their (supposed) efforts? Boeing has given up no competitive advantage through the little they have put out on the subject. Indeed, they are making a stronger case to buy Boeing by doing so.
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/PDF/AS_Newsletter2005_spring.pdf
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:13 pm

Very interesting newsletter.

However, I stand by my original point.

The existance of the P8 is a known fact. There is therefore no disadvantage in extolling, (in general terms) it's many features.

Airbus do not have a P8 equivalent, consequently whatever research they have done is not at the testbed stage. If there Airbus A310 had been modified, then they would have said so. There is no point saying what research they have attained because it only highlights that Boeing are ahead.

My understanding of the Newsletter is that substancial differences will be needed to bring a basic airliner up to this standard.

Given that the KC330 is a PFI project in the UK, I do not see it having these features, the authors seemed fairly dismissive of the KC767 as well. Given that the E10 is by no means certain, they seem to be looking to the next generation.
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:33 am

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 40):
If these folks have no problems with discussing the topic in general terms then what reason would Airbus have in hiding their (supposed) efforts?



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 41):
Airbus do not have a P8 equivalent

Aibus hasn't released anything because Airbus does not equip the A330 for the military tanker.
They will deliver a green aircraft to EADS/Northrop and then issue SB's to modify the affected computers.

EADS/Northrop will then do the rest.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:38 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 42):
They will deliver a green aircraft to EADS/Northrop and then issue SB's to modify the affected computers.

I don't think green aircraft would be delivered for a KC330. I was under the impression only parts would be delivered.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:52 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 43):
I don't think green aircraft would be delivered for a KC330. I was under the impression only parts would be delivered.

True, my mistake - I was referring to the FSTA and KC-330 for the Australian Air Force.
The KC-30 would be built in Mobile, but I don't know if the plant would be operated by Airbus or EADS or Northrop (I'm guessing Airbus, as the new Airbus Engineering Centre has just started to be built there). So if it is operated by Airbus the aircraft would be modified on the final assembly line already (this is my guess here, so if someone knows better please say).
But the engineering work for that (i.e. all military systems) is being done by EADS/Northrop.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:31 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 42):
Aibus hasn't released anything because Airbus does not equip the A330 for the military tanker.
They will deliver a green aircraft to EADS/Northrop and then issue SB's to modify the affected computers.

EADS/Northrop will then do the rest.

Trying to back fit Vulnerability Reduction into an existing aircraft would be a total Mission Impossible. It will take more than a run of the mill software change...Way More. Dont forget about extra dry bay fire protection, hardening of critical cabling, hardening of avionics bays, reconfiguring fuel tanks to lessen the threat of hydrodynamic ram...to name a few of the bigger jobs.
Only way to make all that happen is to have a plan in place before metal is cut (or the autoclave is heated up).
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:06 am

How much of this would also apply to the KC767 or a KC777.

It sounds that you are arguing for a new build aircraft that will have little in common with the B767 or B777.

In that case, you are presumably looking at the KC135 remaining in service until the medium/long term.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13367
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:23 am

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 6):
If the Us starts buying foreign tankers I am sure there will be a lot of pissed of taxpayers.

If it saves them billions of said tax $$$s?

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 11):
Anyway, if the US buys the KC-30 or any other Airbus tanker, they should demand 100% offsets like other countries are demanding of US defense suppliers.

They can demand all the offsets they want. In the history of offsets has anyone ever got what they were supposed to? Let's ask Poland.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:16 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 46):
How much of this would also apply to the KC767 or a KC777.

All of it. Mind you I am not advocating B over A just because I am a Southern Redneck (and proud of it too!!!!). I have more than a few friends already working at BFM.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/257590_airbus31.htm
Who knows, you may find me working there if Airbus wins!!!  Wink

From what I know of airliners, I think that at this juncture Boeing is going to have the most easily adaptable aircraft for the mission and probably deliver it for the best money.
I see Airbus missing the boat by not advertising how tough they can make their airplanes.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 46):
It sounds that you are arguing for a new build aircraft that will have little in common with the B767 or B777.

I have argued that, but the RAND study-which still isn't public but widely leaked-is advocating a commercial derivative. Anyway you look at it though, once done, you will have a substantially different aircraft.

I am advocating that the best platform for the warfighter be built for the money. I don't pay taxes in Italy Japan Germany Canada, or wherever else Airbus and Boeing have foisted their flying deathtrap Faux Warbirds. Y'all do what you want.
I have real heartburn when I see my tax dollars spent on half-A$$ed systems that are all about fatteing just a few pockets in executive offices and on Wall Street and can't used to full advantage in a scrap because of it.
A pox on their houses!!!

Of note Boeing now says that little of their design effort will be transferable from the 767 to the 777:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...y_story.jsp?id=news/BTANK01316.xml
Boeing is hoping the Air Force will select its 767 tanker, which it has been developing since 2002. Boeing has indicated in the past it would consider keeping its 767 production line warm during the gap between when back orders are completed and the Air Force makes a decision. Sams said he didn't know when 767 production might have to shut down. "We'll make that decision whenever we need to make that decision," Sams said, adding: "it might be this year, it might be next year." Boeing will be delivering 767 tankers to Italy and Japan this year, Sams said.

Sams said Boeing was prepared to deliver an aircraft that meets Air Force requirements whether or not it's the 767. "We've made a lot of investment in the 767," Sams said, adding that about half of the completed research and development probably wouldn't be transferable to another Boeing aircraft like the 777.


Given that this is from the same crowd that first said the 787 can't be made into a tanker and 13 months later was offering it up as a tanker option, I'm not too keen on believing this kind of rhetoric from Boeing at this point.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 46):
In that case, you are presumably looking at the KC135 remaining in service until the medium/long term.

If all that gets Bought for Billions is a rehash of the 50 year old strategic tanker idea -which is an increasing obsolete system for this century's wars- then spend way less money on the extant capability until something better can be afforded and fielded.
If the new stuff ain't no better than the old then I see little need for spending the money on it.
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/01/the_wings_are_n.html

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/13732014.htm
A long-awaited Pentagon report on Air Force tankers doesn't recommend Boeing jets, Airbus jets or even a timeline for when the Air Force should replace its current fleet.
the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
LongbowPilot
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:16 am

RE: Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:24 pm

Which ever airframe is elected to become the next tanker for the air force. If it is airbus then it should be the design, but 100% American Made. No foreign countrymen will touch so much as a nut on the airframe. It should create jobs for our countrmen.

IMHO it should be an American company. Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, who cares as long as it bolsters our economy.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests