ual747-600
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 1999 12:57 pm

A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:20 pm

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn_2_062006.pdf

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

UAL747-600
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:33 pm

Sorry, but what have these warmed-over comments to do with the A380? Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking. And: Airbus would just be providing a green airframe, with Northrop Grumman doing the fitting out - where the heck does that mean large development costs for Airbus?!?!
Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:36 pm

Not surprising and I'm sure it's a dillema Airbus faces across many projects, not just the KC-30, as a result of the issues faced by the A380.

BTW, this may belong over in Mil Av & Space forum.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:46 pm

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
And: Airbus would just be providing a green airframe, with Northrop Grumman doing the fitting out - where the heck does that mean large development costs for Airbus?!?!

The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:50 pm

Good summary of the "talking points" by Mr. Hamilton, IMO. I guess he reads A.net regularly! Big grin
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:02 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.

Already underway for the Australian and the British MRTTs, which will both be A330 based.
Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:27 am

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 5):
Already underway for the Australian and the British MRTTs, which will both be A330 based.

Those aircraft are not based on freighter versions, just the normal passenger version.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6445
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:37 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.

An A330 freighter is not a real development job. It is fitting A300F/A310F hardware to the identical A330 fuselage barrels.

So for all practical things, the KC-30 is an available off the shelf product. Only a few stringers in the aft fuselage have to be reinforced to accept the old KC-135 booms to be bolted on.

But of course there will never be a USAF A330 based tanker. That would be totally politically incorrect in that country. No politician would ever survive signing such a contract.

Airbus and Northrop Grumman are only "used" to get the KC-767 price right. It is also in the interest of Airbus and Northrop Grumman that Boeing doesn't get zillions of unfair profit on that deal since there happens to be no competitor. Incidentally also the interest on US taxpayers.

In reality the IL-76 is probably a more realistic competitor than the KC-30. That doesn't mean that the IL-76 will have a chance either.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:25 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
The KC-30 will likely have to be based on a freighter model. They need to develop that.

Airbus has said they will develope the A-330-200F. They just haven't done that, yet.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 5):
Already underway for the Australian and the British MRTTs, which will both be A330 based.

The RAF and RAAF tankers are both based on the A-330-200, not any A-330-200F.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
An A330 freighter is not a real development job. It is fitting A300F/A310F hardware to the identical A330 fuselage barrels.

So for all practical things, the KC-30 is an available off the shelf product. Only a few stringers in the aft fuselage have to be reinforced to accept the old KC-135 booms to be bolted on.

Really? I don't think you have any idea what the difference is between a passenger and freighter airplane is. Why do you think there are so many companies out there that do pax to cargo conversions (BTW, the designs have to be flight certified by the FAA/JAA).

Now, when you get to tankers, that is a very different airplane from even a freighter. I doubt that Airbus was planning to slab Boeing KC-135 Booms on the KC-30. Airbus is developing their own boom.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
In reality the IL-76 is probably a more realistic competitor than the KC-30. That doesn't mean that the IL-76 will have a chance either.

Well, maybe we can reopen the B-707/KE-3 production line, too.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:56 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
So for all practical things, the KC-30 is an available off the shelf product. Only a few stringers in the aft fuselage have to be reinforced to accept the old KC-135 booms to be bolted on.

Airbus would not use old KC-135 booms, as they have developed their own flying boom.
 
707lvr
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:41 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:07 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
But of course there will never be a USAF A330 based tanker. That would be totally politically incorrect in that country. No politician would ever survive signing such a contract.

I would have agreed not too long ago. Boeing is now less PC than France, thanks to the co-opting of a few key senators. Bash-Boeing/stress jobsjobsjobs/play down France .. works.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:13 pm

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Airbus = French

If it's not, why all the turmoil in France right now?

Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second. They test and assemble the planes in France, the prime and foreign ministers are the most vocal in persuading countries to buy it, they are willing to give china technology to sell jets to them, etc. Germany is a strong part of things, but Airbus is seen as French, despite the interest of the Germans and the British and Spanish...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:17 pm

If the French govenrment has to step in a bail out Airbus you better believe any slim hope Airbus had of landing the Air Force tanker contract just went right out the window. Any talks of launch aid and government subsidies to Airbus will be worse than irrelevant as the bailout will prove Airbus can't stand on its own without government support.

I can tell you that the KC30 isn't going to win because while it is better that the 767 the Air Force in my estimations will opt for the 777 platform to provide greater capacity in fuel and freight thus fulfilling two missions in one. Airbus has no effective response to a 777 based tanker. That means game over for Airbus.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:21 pm

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Sorry, but what have these warmed-over comments to do with the A380? Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking. And: Airbus would just be providing a green airframe, with Northrop Grumman doing the fitting out - where the heck does that mean large development costs for Airbus?!?!

I couldnt agree more. Anyway a a380 would be to big and to expensive used as tanker.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second.

You dont want admit it!!  Yeah sure
Thats just not true germans DONT see Airbus as french  no .
Im not french or german i'm from spain and switzerland and everbody knows its a European project.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9078
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:34 pm

The article mentions most people think objectively the KC30 is a superior aircraft over the KC767. Looking at the numbers it is. It has superior range, tajke off performance, off load capasity & is a modern full efficient airliner at the same time.

Will the Air Force like to have the second best option? Tankers don't have to be the newest aircraft, but the 767, well..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:45 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
If it's not, why all the turmoil in France right now?

Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second. They test and assemble the planes in France, the prime and foreign ministers are the most vocal in persuading countries to buy it, they are willing to give china technology to sell jets to them, etc. Germany is a strong part of things, but Airbus is seen as French, despite the interest of the Germans and the British and Spanish...

It seems to me you desperately want it to be recognised as french, now that hard times have knocked at Airbus' door. I wonder, when things will be better at Airbus if you'll still make so much fuzz about it being a french company.
Airbus is a European company, deal with it!!!
 
dazeflight
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 1999 1:32 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:47 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Germans don't want to admit it, but Airbus is seen as French first, European second.

Maybe in the States. Which again shows the amount of knowledge and predjudice that is involved in Airbus discussions across the pond.

ciao
Daniel
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:54 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 7):
An A330 freighter is not a real development job. It is fitting A300F/A310F hardware to the identical A330 fuselage barrels.

Really? I don't think you have any idea what the difference is between a passenger and freighter airplane is. Why do you think there are so many companies out there that do pax to cargo conversions (BTW, the designs have to be flight certified by the FAA/JAA).

Prebenorholm has explained why the job is so easy on the A330: The A300/310, more than 200 of which are freighters, use the same fuselage sections.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
kdm
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:15 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:43 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Germany is a strong part of things, but Airbus is seen as French, despite the interest of the Germans and the British and Spanish...

I have to disagree, Airbus is European through and through, it is the first time I have seen it referred to as being mostly French.
 
deltadude
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:53 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:10 pm

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking.

Obviously you don't understand American politics. Airbus = French may not be true, but Airbus = Europe is. That's all it takes for US Congressmen.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:16 pm

Quoting Kdm (Reply 18):

While most people involved in the aviation industry know that Airbus is a European company, most uninformed people in the states see it as a French company. One reason for this might be that all the safety cards for Airbus aircraft in the states say "Assembly of this aircraft was completed in France" The ones completed in Hamburg say Germany however, but there are only a couple completed there (A318 and A319?)

The Boeing safety cards say "Assembly of this a/c was completed in the USA." I doubt the lay-person on either side of the pond understands the international effort that goes into building these a/c. Heck some people here forget that too  Wink
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:17 pm

Quoting Kdm (Reply 18):
I have to disagree, Airbus is European through and through, it is the first time I have seen it referred to as being mostly French.

While I agree with your sentiments, no other European government has a direct stake in EADS/Airbus. The French government does... About 15% if I've read correctly, and is talking about raising that figure.

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 12):
I can tell you that the KC30 isn't going to win because while it is better that the 767 the Air Force in my estimations will opt for the 777 platform to provide greater capacity in fuel and freight thus fulfilling two missions in one. Airbus has no effective response to a 777 based tanker.

Answers this:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
The article mentions most people think objectively the KC30 is a superior aircraft over the KC767. Looking at the numbers it is. It has superior range, tajke off performance, off load capasity & is a modern full efficient airliner at the same time

I too believe that the 777 will be chosen to replace the KC-135s. With the Air Force asking the vendors for any all all subsidises they may or may not be receiving, this clearly puts the Northrup/Airbus offering at a disadvantage.
Given recent events, I think the people at Airbus have higher priorities at this time. This may be too ambitious at this stage of the game.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17212
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:22 pm

Quoting Deltadude (Reply 19):
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking.

Obviously you don't understand American politics. Airbus = French may not be true, but Airbus = Europe is. That's all it takes for US Congressmen.

And to think I chose to move to the US. Look what kind of BS bickering my tax money is being used for...

Lest things have changed over night, I have to ask: Is the US still in NATO? Are they not allied militarity with practically every country in Western Europe (France is not in NATO but still an ally)? Do they not buy military hardware every day from foreign countries. Heck, the US has bought tracked vehicles (H�gglunds 206) and anti-tank systems (Carl-Gustav and AT-4/PS-86) from Sweden, which until recently wasn't even an ally! While we're at it, how many electronic components in military hardware are sourced from China?

Here's a thought for the politicians: Why don't you buy the product that best meets the need and has the best price? Is that so hard? I realize strategic considerations might preclude buying hardware from the Central African Republic, but Germany/France/Spain? Hardly a risk. And besides production would likely be in the US anyway.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
kdm
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:15 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 20):
The Boeing safety cards say "Assembly of this a/c was completed in the USA."

I'm impressed, when I read the safety cards (which is rare) I have never noticed the "Made in China" statement.

Your points are of course valid, I guess after living in the UK for a number of years you just know that Airbus is not French.

I wonder where people think the Eurofighter is made?
 
kellmark
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 12:05 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:37 pm

All of this bashing of the US political process/perpective ignores all of the European designs that the US has bought over the years for its military, from the B57 (Canberra) to the Harrier to the BAE Hawk for the US Navy to the US Coast Guard with the Aerospatiale Dauphin and Dassault Falcon, to the recent EH-101 (US-101) for the US President!. It also ignores the Europeans' own highly protective position on the A400M, (also an Airbus product) where US competition was clearly shut out politically even though it offered a far superior product at far less cost, not just for the airframe but for the engines as well, even after Pratt had won the competition for the engine.

So as far as I am concerned, more power to the B777 for the US Air Force. It would be a great tanker/freighter aircraft and would be superior in capability to the KC-30, just as the KC-30 is superior to the B767. And Airbus just has not shown themselves to be worthy of the award, between the A400M business and the recent problems with the A380 and A350, or A350NG or A370 or whatever.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:39 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 22):
And to think I chose to move to the US. Look what kind of BS bickering my tax money is being used for...

Lest things have changed over night, I have to ask: Is the US still in NATO? Are they not allied militarity with practically every country in Western Europe (France is not in NATO but still an ally)? Do they not buy military hardware every day from foreign countries. Heck, the US has bought tracked vehicles (H�gglunds 206) and anti-tank systems (Carl-Gustav and AT-4/PS-86) from Sweden, which until recently wasn't even an ally! While we're at it, how many electronic components in military hardware are sourced from China?

Here's a thought for the politicians: Why don't you buy the product that best meets the need and has the best price? Is that so hard? I realize strategic considerations might preclude buying hardware from the Central African Republic, but Germany/France/Spain? Hardly a risk. And besides production would likely be in the US anyway.

While some of your points are valid, please allow me to correct a few points...
Sensitive military electronics are produced in the United States. It's the law.
There are also existing laws governing sensitive technologies and their export to China. Ask Boeing about that. They paid dearly for selling the 737 without an export license and the required modifications to make it legal.
The KC-30 will be ASSEMBLED in the U.S.
60% of the airframe will be shipped from Airbus factories.
And, if I'm right and the USAF chooses the 777, your point becomes totally valid. They would have picked the best solution for their needs.
Whether we all like it or not every single nation on this planet makes it's purchasing decisions based at least in part on politics, whether internal, external or both.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17212
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:50 am

Quoting Kdm (Reply 23):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 20):
The Boeing safety cards say "Assembly of this a/c was completed in the USA."

I'm impressed, when I read the safety cards (which is rare) I have never noticed the "Made in China" statement.

I wonder who writes it on the cards. I get the feeling it's the airline.

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 24):

So as far as I am concerned, more power to the B777 for the US Air Force. It would be a great tanker/freighter aircraft and would be superior in capability to the KC-30, just as the KC-30 is superior to the B767. And Airbus just has not shown themselves to be worthy of the award, between the A400M business and the recent problems with the A380 and A350, or A350NG or A370 or whatever.

Isn't the 777 a mite large for the job? Problems with runways and taxiways. Not to mention the high wheel loading.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 25):

While some of your points are valid, please allow me to correct a few points...
Sensitive military electronics are produced in the United States. It's the law.
There are also existing laws governing sensitive technologies and their export to China. Ask Boeing about that. They paid dearly for selling the 737 without an export license and the required modifications to make it legal.

I stand corrected. And with military applications it's a reasonable policy.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 25):
The KC-30 will be ASSEMBLED in the U.S.
60% of the airframe will be shipped from Airbus factories.

Granted. But are not the 767 and 777 full of foreign components?

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 25):
And, if I'm right and the USAF chooses the 777, your point becomes totally valid. They would have picked the best solution for their needs.

As I said above, it's a bit large no? And very costly, at least if you compare airliner pricing for 330 vs 777, or even compared to the 767.

But hey, if it's the best aircraft, so be it.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 25):
Whether we all like it or not every single nation on this planet makes it's purchasing decisions based at least in part on politics, whether internal, external or both.

Agreed. I was just venting. I have no doubt that politicians will always be motivated more by Macchiavellian politics than economics.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:02 am

The 777 is the ideal choice because the Air Force like all other branches of the military is under pressure to streamline and become more efficient. The 777 would allow them to fulfill the military airlift requirements in addition to tanker requirement. Why buy two aircraft when one can do the mission. While the 777 may be more expensive on the front end its dual role capability more than makes up for that. Plus considering the KC10's the Air Force already operates the 777 makes sense.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:57 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
Quoting Kdm (Reply 23):Quoting NorCal (Reply 20):
The Boeing safety cards say "Assembly of this a/c was completed in the USA."

I'm impressed, when I read the safety cards (which is rare) I have never noticed the "Made in China" statement.

I wonder who writes it on the cards. I get the feeling it's the airline.

Exactly  checkmark 

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
Isn't the 777 a mite large for the job? Problems with runways and taxiways. Not to mention the high wheel loading.


Couldnt agree more, the national proud of some americans dont allow to accept that the A330 would be the perfect aircraft.

The 777 with the 1xxx parts not made in USA i wouldn't call that an argument.But ppl dont look at such details when the decide motivated by nationalism.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
ScottB
Posts: 5505
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:41 am

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Besides, propaganda ala "Airbus = French" does show that the author doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking.



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
Thats just not true germans DONT see Airbus as french no .
Im not french or german i'm from spain and switzerland and everbody knows its a European project.



Quoting KLMcedric (Reply 15):
Airbus is a European company, deal with it!!!



Quoting Kdm (Reply 18):
I have to disagree, Airbus is European through and through, it is the first time I have seen it referred to as being mostly French.

What all of you forget is that perception is reality. It matters not that Airbus is a consortium among several European countries -- the perception in the U.S. is that Airbus is French. And to some degree, it is -- it was originally set up under French law, and final assembly of most Airbus models is indeed accomplished in France. And given that the last head of Airbus was French (and a largely political appointee), not to mention the uproar over the A380 debacle in the French government, it is not difficult to gain the impression that Airbus Industrie = France.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
where the heck does that mean large development costs for Airbus?!?!

You're missing the point -- it's not about development costs for the KC-30. The point is that the A380 debacle and BAE Systems' decision to exercise its put option on its Airbus stake will place significant financial pressure on EADS. As a result, EADS will not have the cash (or credit rating) needed to finance the new, more costly A350 on its own and will ask the governments of the U.K., France, Germany, and Spain for launch aid which on this side of the pond is seen as an unfair subsidy. This perceived unfair subsidy for the A350 (seen as taking away jobs from Americans at Boeing) will torpedo any chance that the KC-30 might have had.
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:28 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
The article mentions most people think objectively the KC30 is a superior aircraft over the KC767. Looking at the numbers it is. It has superior range, tajke off performance, off load capasity & is a modern full efficient airliner at the same time.

Hands down the KC30 is better than the KC767 is. You have to remember that Boeing has basically ruined any chance that the KC767 will become the the workhorse of the American tanker fleet. They screwed themselves with the whole lease thing with a little too much force put against the government.

Quoting Deltadude (Reply 19):
Obviously you don't understand American politics. Airbus = French may not be true, but Airbus = Europe is. That's all it takes for US Congressmen.

I know and agree with this statement. But how many other Americans do? Remember that any hard-core republican will be humiliated in his district/state if he votes for or allows an Airbus to become a workhorse of our military

Quoting NorCal (Reply 20):
While most people involved in the aviation industry know that Airbus is a European company, most uninformed people in the states see it as a French company

See above.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 21):

I too believe that the 777 will be chosen to replace the KC-135s.

That would make sense. I wouldn't want a whole fleet of KC777s, but one of KC777s and KC737NG's. This will allow for large scale tanking to continue, but also have other aircraft to base in areas were KC777s are too big or are at too much risk

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
Isn't the 777 a mite large for the job? Problems with runways and taxiways. Not to mention the high wheel loading.

Folding wings. It adds a little weight, but gives roughly the same footprint as a KC767.
bleepbloop
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:39 am

Even as a Boeing supporter, the basis of the author's arguments "Airbus is a French company and Boeing is not" is hardly worth even reading; that's "intelligence in the aviation community?"
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:49 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 22):
Here's a thought for the politicians: Why don't you buy the product that best meets the need and has the best price? Is that so hard? I realize strategic considerations might preclude buying hardware from the Central African Republic, but Germany/France/Spain? Hardly a risk. And besides production would likely be in the US anyway.

Because, as Kellmark notes, it isn't a level playing field.

Quote:
It also ignores the Europeans' own highly protective position on the A400M, (also an Airbus product) where US competition was clearly shut out politically even though it offered a far superior product at far less cost, not just for the airframe but for the engines as well, even after Pratt had won the competition for the engine.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:56 am

I think the same reasons as to why a Boeing 747 was never used as a tanker would prevail here in this issue. It would be cool to see though...

I am biased, I just like the A380...

/M
UH-60's suck!!!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:42 am

This thread first appeared on Gen Av and I was tempted to post links to the numerous Mil Av tanker threads, but was to lazy to do it. Anyway, I don't see any new info here at all. All the Scott Hamilton article did was summarize the issues--quite well IMO.

For anyone out there who still thinks a "french" airplane will have a snowball's chance take a look at this article. It just about sums up the sentiments of most congresspersons towards EADS/Airbus. Before anyone cries foul, read Halls120's post in reply#32 about the A400.

Quote:
The troubled Airbus A380 programme was dealt another blow on Friday when an influential US congressmen said federal funds should not be used to upgrade airports to accommodate the world's largest passenger aircraft.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13505686/

At the risk of repeating myself, IMO the only way for the KC-30 to win this is part of abroader WTO settlement on the subsidies (RLI, launch aid, whatever) issue. Given the politics on both sides of the pond--never happen.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:43 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 34):
At the risk of repeating myself, IMO the only way for the KC-30 to win this is part of abroader WTO settlement on the subsidies (RLI, launch aid, whatever) issue. Given the politics on both sides of the pond--never happen.

 checkmark 

The Air Force will BUY some Boeing product, especially if one of the government's involved raises it's stake in EADS. I'm becoming more convinced it'll be a mixture of 767 (because they are flying today and cheaper) and 777s (Because of their excellent capability).
I wouldn't doubt that people at Northup are second guessing themselves on this one.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:59 am

"...any hard-core republican will be humiliated in his district/state if he votes for or allows an Airbus to become a workhorse of our military"

Not the hardcore Republicans from these states.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/272475_jetride02.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/272477_alabama02.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/272480_mississippi02.html
Ain't I a stinker?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 35):
I'm becoming more convinced it'll be a mixture of 767 (because they are flying today and cheaper) and 777s (Because of their excellent capability).

I think the 767 has too much baggage on the Hill - unless Boeing moves it's plant to Arizona.  biggrin  I'll put my money on 777's now, and 787's later.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:51 am

Here is a stupid question-

Could Boeing offer a KC767 built from airliners renewing their fleet? Why not? To many cycles, to expensive to modify, the cheaper airframes would be offset by modification costs? I'd love to see AA have a chance to economicly replace their 767s with 787s on a "trade-in" so to speak.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:32 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 38):
Could Boeing offer a KC767 built from airliners renewing their fleet? Why not? To many cycles, to expensive to modify, the cheaper airframes would be offset by modification costs? I'd love to see AA have a chance to economicly replace their 767s with 787s on a "trade-in" so to speak.

As I recollect, there are a couple of threads in the Mil Av archive that address this issue in depth. Check it out; very good reading.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:08 am

Quoting KLMcedric (Reply 15):
Airbus is a European company, deal with it!!!

Hummmm... Really? What government other than France owns a large piece of Airbus through their ownership in EADS? None.

What government other than France's has veto power of the appointment of the Chairmen and CEOs of Airbus and its parent EADS? None.

What president other than France's gets on newspapers to admit, defend and explain Airbus' problems? None.

Where is Airbus headquatered? France. Where are their main assembly, testing, certification, etc? France.

What country had the greatest number of Airbus employees? France.

But it is not really French because some subassemblies and final assembly for some of their smallest jets is done elsewhere. OK.

With that logic, Being is not really American - it is hummmm earhly because of all the subcontracting done in Japan, UK, Russia, etc.

Give me a break!!!!!

There is NO SUCH THINK AS AN EUROPEAN COMAPANY. AFAIK there is no way to incorporate, file and pay income taxes to "Europe" - you have to pick a country in Europe.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: A380 Impact On KC-30 - Leeham Commentary

Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:54 pm

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 38):
Could Boeing offer a KC767 built from airliners renewing their fleet?

Probably not. The KC767 is not an optimal aircraft for tanking, as it is one of the smaller and older competitors in the field (KC30,KC777, etc). Also, making a tanker is not as easy as slapping a boom on an aircraft. You have to do all manner of structural changes in order to increase payload of both fuel and cargo. The KC767 has already been denied using new airframes, so their is no chance of them being used as tankers.
bleepbloop

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cumulushumilis, scbriml and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos