User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:31 pm

The RAAF KC-30B is a derivetive of theA-330-200, and the proposed (USAF version) KC-30A will be an off shoot of the new A-330-200F.

The commerical A-330 has a maximum airspeed of 475 knots, or .83 Mach. I don't see any tanker version of the A-330 (A-330TT, A-330MRTT, KC-30A/B) being able to exceed that speed. In fact, the tanker versions may be slightly slower, since they can be slightly heavier, but have the same engines and wings of the basic A-330-200.

Here is what the problem is for the USAF. That 475 knots of airspeed is TAS (true airspeed). Air refueling air speed is dictated by the receiver type, for example the B-52 and C-135 types refuel at 450 KTAS (275 KIAS), many of the fighter types begin refueling at 475-500 KTAS or higher (F-15/F-16 refuel at 510 KTAS or 330 KIAS).

Air refueling speeds are set as optimum speeds for the receivers. The KC-135E/R/Ts are currently some of the fastest large airplanes flying today (currently only the B-747-SP can fly as fast) with a maximum airspeed of 550 KTAS, or .95 Mach.

BTW, the proposed USAF version of the KC-767 (the B-767-200LRF) has a (proposed)maximum true airspeed of 525 KTAS, or .92 Mach. This is significantly faster than the "normal" B-767-200/-300/ER/F, which has a speed of .87 Mach
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4110
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:01 pm


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joan Martorell


This may not be optimal, but I'm sure USAF fighters and bombers can slow down a few knots to Airbus speed. Why is that a problem?

Peter Smile
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
overcast
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:20 pm

I think you must be mixing up the Maximum speeds somewhere. The civil 767 has speeds largely similar to the A330, maybe you have picked the Normal cruise speed for the A330 and Max Mach for the 767. I'm sure that to be able to increase the normal cruise speed of the 767 to 0.92 Mach, you would be burning so much fuel that it wouldn't have much left to transfer.

Can you provide links to where you have got the speeds from
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:49 pm

Quoting Overcast (Reply 2):
I think you must be mixing up the Maximum speeds somewhere. The civil 767 has speeds largely similar to the A330, maybe you have picked the Normal cruise speed for the A330 and Max Mach for the 767. I'm sure that to be able to increase the normal cruise speed of the 767 to 0.92 Mach, you would be burning so much fuel that it wouldn't have much left to transfer.

As I understand it, Boeing is making aerodynamic changes to the B-767-200LRF to get the increased airspeed required by the tanker mission. Yes, you do burn more fuel, but offload less, fighters don't need as much as a B-52 or E-3.

I got the airsapedd numbers from the airplane type section here at a.net. The question is, are they correct?

The B-767-200LRF speeds are from the Boeing site.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:40 pm

only an idiot would fly longer periods of time at Mach 0.92.. Sonic cruiser anyone?
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:57 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Boeing have already enough aerodynamic issues to solve with its much simpler 767 tanker platform that they are building for the Italian and Japanese air forces?

If they would be redesigning , what is basically a 25yr old design, to achieve a higher Max. speed and cruise speed seems somewhat ridiculous to me certainly if you talk about going closer to the mach barrier which can create all kinds of nasty problems aerodynamically.

I think the USAF would be more than happy if Boeing could keep economics and cruising speed equal to the existing B767-200ER model with the boom and lord know what other kind of equipment installed.
[edit post]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:02 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 4):
only an idiot would fly longer periods of time at Mach 0.92.. Sonic cruiser anyone?

Shhhh, don't tell the SR-71, FB-111, or KC-135Q guys.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 5):
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Boeing have already enough aerodynamic issues to solve with its much simpler 767 tanker platform that they are building for the Italian and Japanese air forces?

There are no aerodynamic issues with the JSDAF KC-767s. The problem with the Italian tankers only centers on the wingtip refueling pods, and that may be solved by now. To increase cruising speed all you need to do is some wingtip and wing root redesigns. I believe they are doing this because the B-767-200LRF they are proposing to the USAF uses the B-767-400ER wing and raked wing tips.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:53 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The commerical A-330 has a maximum airspeed of 475 knots, or .83 Mach.

Make that Mach 0.86, the design cruise speed is M0.82.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:29 pm

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
This may not be optimal, but I'm sure USAF fighters and bombers can slow down a few knots to Airbus speed. Why is that a problem?

Refueling is a very tricky operation, and the receiving plane needs to be able to fly stably in the wake of the tanker. Higher speed is going to help, and so I would say this would be a significant problem.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:52 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):

KC135, not that I doubt your standpoint that the KC330 might be too slow for certain aircraft but I cannot find a link towards a reputable site that this is even an issue working against the 330.
Did somebody involved in the acquisition program (USAF/MoD/Boeing/Northrop/....) make some statement about this speed issue and if so would you be so kind to provide a link or maybe quote something from a newspaper or so?

Also, if this would be true than I wouldn't really see why Airbus/Northrop cannot redesign some parts as Boeing is doing.
If, like you said ,it wouldn't be too complicates to do so.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
To increase cruising speed all you need to do is some wingtip and wing root redesigns.
[edit post]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:52 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The commercial A-330 has a maximum airspeed of 475 knots, or .83 Mach.

Incorrect Vmo/Mmo is 330/0.86 with a crossover at 29878 ft.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
In fact, the tanker versions may be slightly slower, since they can be slightly heavier, but have the same engines and wings of the basic A-330-200.

Incorrect, the maximum speed is the same regardless of mass.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Air refueling air speed is dictated by the receiver type, for example the B-52 and C-135 types refuel at 450 KTAS (275 KIAS), many of the fighter types begin refueling at 475-500 KTAS or higher (F-15/F-16 refuel at 510 KTAS or 330 KIAS).

I dont believe the numbers you have presented. Just about every fast aircraft I have seen with a refuelling envelope is between 19,000 and 27,000 ft, 360-430 KTAS. This is well within the operating envelope of the A330 of 330KIAS at those heights.

330KIAS is the following

19000 ft 431 KTAS
20000 ft 437 KTAS
21000 ft 444 KTAS
22000 ft 451 KTAS
23000 ft 457 KTAS
24000 ft 464 KTAS
25000 ft 471 KTAS
26000 ft 478 KTAS
27000 ft 485 KTAS.

In fact the A400M with a Vmo/Mmo of 300/0.72 can refuel every fast jet and helicopter on the market at the moment.

Your analysis is flawed, the A330 can do M0.86 at 30,000 ft which is over 500 KTAS.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):

BTW, the proposed USAF version of the KC-767 (the B-767-200LRF) has a (proposed)maximum true airspeed of 525 KTAS, or .92 Mach. This is significantly faster than the "normal" B-767-200/-300/ER/F, which has a speed of .87 Mach

I dont believe this, I have seen the opposite reported, due to aeroelastic/flutter problems with the wing pods and boom, the 767 speed will be reduced, it is one of the reasons for the two year delay.

The commercial 767 airframe is SLOWER than an A330, the A330 has a more advanced wing with a supercritical aerofoil.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
As I understand it, Boeing is making aerodynamic changes to the B-767-200LRF to get the increased airspeed required by the tanker mission. Yes, you do burn more fuel, but offload less, fighters don't need as much as a B-52 or E-3.

I dont believe a word of that. The changes Boeing would need to make aeroelastic/structural changes, not aerodynamic, maximum speed is a function of the aircraft's flutter characteristics, not drag.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:55 am

The publicised tanking speed range for the A330 is 180 - 325 Kts IAS
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:22 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):

The A330-MRTT and KC-30 are both derivatives of the same A330-200 airframe, wings, gear, and systems.
The Vmo/Mmo speed you cited for the A330 and 767/"B-767-200/-300/ER/F" is incorrect.
The maximum speed of the A330-200 or KC-30 tanker is the same regardless of mass
The in flight refuelling envelopes you have cited for various aircraft is incorrect, I suspect you are confusing indicated, true, knots, and miles per hour.
The A400M with a maximum operating envelope (Vmo/Mmo 300/0.72) slower than a 767/A330 and will be capable of refuelling just about every aircraft about at the moment.
The KC-30 and KC-10 have similar operating speeds, the KC-767 is about M0.02 slower.

The speed you have mentioned for the KC-767 are incorrect, looks like the maximum speed for the KC-767 with wing pods is going to be slightly slower than the civil 767 airframe due to flutter problems encountered by placing the pods of the wings. The maximum speed for jets is largely derived from flutter requirements. Placing a pod on a wing changed the centre of mass and aerodynamic centre of the wing, the combination of the two and their associated aeroelastic characteristics determines the flutter characteristics.

Boeing have almost overcome the problems they have had on the KC-767, but in the wisdom with the Frankenstein aircraft they have proposed for the KC-767Adv with bits and pieces of different 767 models combined together in an unproven and risky combination. The KC-767Adv does not have the same wing as the Japanese or Italian KC-767s, so all the flutter testing will have to be done all over again. This was one of the main contributors to the current 2+ year delay on the KC-767.

They have also decided to use a different boom (Gen 6), wing and centre systems than the Italy and Japan 767 aircraft. So all the flight testing to date for the 767 tanker is basically useless for the USAF contract.

The KC-30 has a similar base wing as that of the A340 (over 90% structural commonality) was designed with the addition of a pod placed outboard of the engines (the additional engine on the A340). The 767 never had such a design in place hence the problems it is having putting a high drag mass so far outboard.

The maximum speed for current wing refuelling pods such as those found on the KC-135, KC-10, VC-10, B707, A310, A330, KC-130, A400 is 325 KIAS. The two main suppliers for them are Flight Refuelling ( a division of Cobham ) or Smiths Aerospace ( a division of GE ).

Your stated reasons for being able to increase cruising speed is incorrect, the main driving factor is FAR 25.629

Quote:
Sec. 25.629 Aeroelastic stability requirements.

(a) General. The aeroelastic stability evaluations required under this section include flutter, divergence, control reversal and any undue loss of stability and control as a result of structural deformation. The aeroelastic evaluation must include whirl modes associated with any propeller or rotating device that contributes significant dynamic forces. Compliance with this section must be shown by analyses, wind tunnel tests, ground vibration tests, flight tests, or other means found necessary by the Administrator.

(b) Aeroelastic stability envelopes. The airplane must be designed to be free from aeroelastic instability for all configurations and design conditions within the aeroelastic stability envelopes as follows:

(1) For normal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, all combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the VD/MD versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude. In addition, a proper margin of stability must exist at all speeds up to VD/MD and, there must be no large and rapid reduction in stability as VD/MD is approached. The enlarged envelope may be limited to Mach 1.0 when MD is less than 1.0 at all design altitudes, and

(2) For the conditions described in Sec. 25.629(d) below, for all approved altitudes, any airspeed up to the greater airspeed defined by;

(i) The VD/MD envelope determined by Sec. 25.335(b); or,

(ii) An altitude-airspeed envelope defined by a 15 percent increase in equivalent airspeed above VC at constant altitude, from sea level to the altitude of the intersection of 1.15 VC with the extension of the constant cruise Mach number line, MC, then a linear variation in equivalent airspeed to MC+.05 at the altitude of the lowest VC/MC intersection; then, at higher altitudes, up to the maximum flight altitude, the boundary defined by a .05 Mach increase in MC at constant altitude.

(c) Balance weights. If concentrated balance weights are used, their effectiveness and strength, including supporting structure, must be substantiated.

(d) Failures, malfunctions, and adverse conditions. The failures, malfunctions, and adverse conditions which must be considered in showing compliance with this section are:

(1) Any critical fuel loading conditions, not shown to be extremely improbable, which may result from mismanagement of fuel.

(2) Any single failure in any flutter damper system.

(3) For airplanes not approved for operation in icing conditions, the maximum likely ice accumulation expected as a result of an inadvertent encounter.

(4) Failure of any single element of the structure supporting any engine, independently mounted propeller shaft, large auxiliary power unit, or large externally mounted aerodynamic body (such as an external fuel tank).

(5) For airplanes with engines that have propellers or large rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces, any single failure of the engine structure that would reduce the rigidity of the rotational axis.

(6) The absence of aerodynamic or gyroscopic forces resulting from the most adverse combination of feathered propellers or other rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces. In addition, the effect of a single feathered propeller or rotating device must be coupled with the failures of paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section.

(7) Any single propeller or rotating device capable of significant dynamic forces rotating at the highest likely overspeed.

(8) Any damage or failure condition, required or selected for investigation by Sec. 25.571. The single structural failures described in paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section need not be considered in showing compliance with this section if;

(i) The structural element could not fail due to discrete source damage resulting from the conditions described in Sec. 25.571(e), and

(ii) A damage tolerance investigation in accordance with Sec. 25.571(b) shows that the maximum extent of damage assumed for the purpose of residual strength evaluation does not involve complete failure of the structural element.

(9) Any damage, failure, or malfunction considered under Secs. 25.631, 25.671, 25.672, and 25.1309.

(10) Any other combination of failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions not shown to be extremely improbable.

(e) Flight flutter testing. Full scale flight flutter tests at speeds up to VDF/MDF must be conducted for new type designs and for modifications to a type design unless the modifications have been shown to have an insignificant effect on the aeroelastic stability. These tests must demonstrate that the airplane has a proper margin of damping at all speeds up to VDF/MDF, and that there is no large and rapid reduction in damping as VDF/MDF, is approached. If a failure, malfunction, or adverse condition is simulated during flight test in showing compliance with paragraph (d) of this section, the maximum speed investigated need not exceed VFC/MFC if it is shown, by correlation of the flight test data with other test data or analyses, that the airplane is free from any aeroelastic instability at all speeds within the altitude airspeed envelope described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

Boeing has had aerodynamic issues with the Japan tankers as well, they had the same boom problems as the Italian tankers. It did not have the wing flutter problems, as it does not have the wing pods which is a requirement for the USAF. They were rolled out on 05/04/05, and still have not been delivered.

The KC-767ADV (KC-Frankenstein) configuration is as follows (from a KC-767ADV presentation by Mark McGraw, Vice President Tanker Programs The Boeing Company last month), the comment "they are proposing to the USAF uses the B-767-400ER wing and raked wing tips" is incorrect, they will be using the 764 generators, flaps, and cockpit, but the 300ER wing, no raked wing tips.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I got the airsapedd numbers from the airplane type section here at a.net. The question is, are they correct?

No, they are not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
The B-767-200LRF speeds are from the Boeing site.

No, they are not.

In general, in my view your whole post/replies are not factual in any respect.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3183
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:14 pm

Will the KC-30, based on the A330F, have that strange nosewheel fairing?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:28 pm

The point is, IF it is possible to increase airspeed (cruise and max) of the KC-767 by 0.05-0.07Mach, WHY should that not be possible with the KC-30??? A further doubt of mine is, that 0.05-0.07Mach is a relevant difference to the receiving aircraft.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:04 pm

If maximum speed is unaffected by weight, then the increased usable fuel capacity exceeding USAF requirements offered by this announced "body fuel tank system" would boost the KC-767AT's chances of selection.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...An8AAAEAACi6S0AAAAAD&modele=jdc_34

Quote:
"'With these body fuel tanks, the KC-767's usable fuel capacity exceeds what the U.S. Air Force requires,' said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. 'Sargent Fletcher's system extends the KC-767's range and off-load capacity without sacrificing size.'

[.....]

Boeing formally submitted its KC-X proposal to the Air Force on April 10. The offering, the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, is designed for aerial refueling of other aircraft, but also is able to move cargo, passengers, patients and medical crewmembers. These capabilities, combined with best-in-competition fuel efficiency, global flexibility and space usage, provide a strong value proposition to the Air Force."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:41 am

I thought the US Air Force did not request wing tip refuelling, if so, how does the Italian issue affect them?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:26 pm

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071011b_nr.html

Boeing Signs Agreement with Sargent Fletcher for KC-767 Fuel Tank Systems

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 11, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Sargent Fletcher, Inc., of El Monte, Calif., a Cobham plc [LSE: COB] company, to provide the body fuel tank system for the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT).

"With these body fuel tanks, the KC-767's usable fuel capacity exceeds what the U.S. Air Force requires," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "Sargent Fletcher's system extends the KC-767's range and off-load capacity without sacrificing size."

Boeing's choice of Sargent Fletcher followed a best-value source selection process that focused on technical readiness, price and supportability. The MOA provides the terms under which Sargent Fletcher may be awarded subcontracts for the fuel tank system if the KC-767AT is selected in the U.S. Air Force's KC-X tanker competition.

Boeing formally submitted its KC-X proposal to the Air Force on April 10. The offering, the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, is designed for aerial refueling of other aircraft, but also is able to move cargo, passengers, patients and medical crewmembers. These capabilities, combined with best-in-competition fuel efficiency, global flexibility and space usage, provide a strong value proposition to the Air Force.

The Boeing Global Tanker Team producing the KC-767 Advanced Tanker includes Delta TechOps, Rockwell Collins, Vought Aircraft Industries, Pratt & Whitney, Smiths Aerospace, Honeywell and Spirit AeroSystems. This experienced group of partners has proven expertise in aerial refueling systems, network centric operations, integrated avionics solutions and lean manufacturing concepts, which will offer the Air Force high levels of reliability and unique technical advancements.

Boeing has produced nearly 2,000 tankers in its history and currently is building four KC-767 tankers each for Italy and Japan.

You can also get more information here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/aerial-refueling?cat=technology

This site also has info and links to just about every airplane (except the KDC-10) that has ever been used, converted to, or built as a tanker.

Global Tanker Team

The Global Tanker Team has supplied more than 90% of the aerial refueling tankers flying today -- expertise that is being used today in advancing aerial refueling capability with the KC-767.
Global Tanker Team Pledge

* To build the safest, most reliable tankers for the world's air forces
* To ensure the confidence of our customers in the quality and integrity of our people, products and processes
* To use 75+ years of unmatched air refueling experience to build the world's most advanced and capable tankers
* To maintain steadfast commitment to the men and women of our armed forces

Advanced Tanker Suppliers

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank...images/advancedTankerSuppliers.jpg
 
Norlander
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:36 pm

Having read the various treads on the tanker discussion on this board for the last 4 years, I'm amazed that this issue isn't solved yet. The KC-30 is faster to produce (the first unit is already underway), more able (the spider diagram posted in a thread a few months back illustrates that clearly) and newer design then the KC-767. It doesn't require extensive modifications of the base aircraft, unlike the KC-767 does (diagram posted by Zeke above).

They're both "made in the USA" and "Foreign" in the sense that both companies (NG and Boeing) outsource large amounts of their work, and both company profits from this program will be spread throughout the global financial world. And all that currently remains is for the US Congress to agree if this is a job subsidy for the Northwest or the South.

I for one would love to see Northrop Grumman return to aircraft, even if it's based on a A330-200, I'll not deny that, but in the case of the A330-200 vs the B767-200, the capability difference it's as clear as it can be in aviation.

Why doesn't Boeing switch strategies and offer the dual setup of the KC-737 and a KC-777 as the complete replacement for all the KC-135 and KC-10 over a period of 25 years? The B777-200 is an even more capable aircraft then the A330-200, and if the ramp space is such a problem then a KC-737 supplementing it would alleviate that problem.
Longtime Lurker
 
texl1649
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:45 pm

Norlander,

Good post. I think Boeing has just decided to stick to it's guns with decisions made to market the 767 as the tanker solution. It's becoming more awkward as this draws out for them, though, as while your suggestion makes short-term/rational sense, the bigger picture is that the 737 replacement and 777 update/replacement programs haven't been unveiled today, but certainly will be over the next several years. Boeing sales and production figures for those types are doing quite well, but their major updates would not integrate well with the procurement/beauracracy nightmare that is DoD major systems acquisitions.

They screwed the pooch once with the lease fiasco, twice with the scandal involving the former AF procurement official (Darla?), and three times with repeated insistence that ramp space and mission dictate the 767 alone is the ideal airframe. They are essentially stuck with the 767 now as their bid, and the air force has all but backed themselves into buying the frames and using them through 2060, even though it is self-evidently the inferior option of the two proposals. Good enough for government work, I suppose.
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:33 pm

Quoting Norlander (Reply 18):
the first unit is already underway

That is just a demonstrator. The final KC-30 will be based on the A332F.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:15 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Boeing Signs Agreement with Sargent Fletcher for KC-767 Fuel Tank Systems

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 11, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Sargent Fletcher, Inc., of El Monte, Calif., a Cobham plc [LSE: COB] company, to provide the body fuel tank system for the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT).

"With these body fuel tanks, the KC-767's usable fuel capacity exceeds what the U.S. Air Force requires," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "Sargent Fletcher's system extends the KC-767's range and off-load capacity without sacrificing size."

Seems like Boeing doesn't like telling the public all what their KC-767 ADV proposal actually has in it, and that's fine to a point but I sure hope they haven't submitted a bid and expect to or are allowed to continue update/refine it as they go along?

Also, why no GENx for the KC-30? Could the USAF and/or NG still offer/outfit this engine on the KC-30 if the USAF so desired? Seems to me that that would be the logical choice and as much as either company (Boeing or Airbus) may not want to allow that because it would make their 787 and A50XWB aircraft that much less superior, you'd think for this particular order the size that it is that just about any request could be met if it meant winning the bid or not.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:01 pm

I believe either will work. If the USAF disqualifies one on the lack of speed, there will be no award as the loser will bitch and the effort will stall.

The best for the USAF would be to split all of the orders which would: (a) save months on IOC as all of this silliness would go by the wayside and frames would be started and finished; (b) two lines mean same number of aircraft delivered in less time; and (c) turn the 135's into beer cans before the wings start coming off.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:32 pm

Quoting Norlander (Reply 18):
The KC-30 is faster to produce (the first unit is already underway), more able (the spider diagram posted in a thread a few months back illustrates that clearly) and newer design then the KC-767. It doesn't require extensive modifications of the base aircraft, unlike the KC-767 does (diagram posted by Zeke above).

Actually, both airplanes proposed (as the new builds) are extensively modified from their original designs. The A-330-200 will be an A-330-200F (which is an extensive design change in itself), and the B-767-200LRF, which is essentially a new model. Then, both airplanes will require body fuel tanks, something only the KC-767s for Japan and Italy have now (but that, too, was an extensive modification). On both airplanes, the KC-767, and the RAAF KC-30B, and proposed USAF KC-30A, a flying boom is added.

There is another proposal we hardly ever talk about here. It is the cheapest proposal by far, and the quickest (yes iot will require a short flight test program as there are changes over the current KC-135R). That proposal involves converting the stored KC-135Es to an improved KC-135R, probibly to be designated the KC-135U, but that is a guess on my part.

Quoting Norlander (Reply 18):
I for one would love to see Northrop Grumman return to aircraft, even if it's based on a A330-200, I'll not deny that, but in the case of the A330-200 vs the B767-200, the capability difference it's as clear as it can be in aviation.

NG is already going back to building airplanes, anyway. They are building the new USN (and eventual FMS) E-2D

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 20):
That is just a demonstrator. The final KC-30 will be based on the A332F.

That is correct, as is the already built (less engines) original KC-767, built back in 2002.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 21):
Also, why no GENx for the KC-30?

Good question! Why not use the GEnx or new RR equivilent, on either airplane. Both offer an increase thrust (by about 5,000-10,000lbs) over the PW-4062s, or CF-6-80s, and a lower fuel comsumption.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
I believe either will work. If the USAF disqualifies one on the lack of speed, there will be no award as the loser will bitch and the effort will stall.

It is clear that the loser (only Boeing or NG/EADS) in the KC-X will file a protest with the GAO, much like the CSAR-X program now. That may kill the intire program as the contract winner will not be able to meet any milestones. All work (design, production, testing, etc.) must stop, but costs keep increasing, and you cannot even hire the needed new employees. Congress can reallocate the money to other programs. A protest can take anywhere from 100 (working) days to a year in a half (like CSAR-X is now).

Of course Congress can order thew award of an interium contract to someone else. That would be the company who wants to upgrade the KC-135Es.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:23 pm

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 20):
That is just a demonstrator. The final KC-30 will be based on the A332F.

The RFP is for 4 test/development aircraft and 175 production aircraft. As it currently stands the KC-30 bid was based on the standard A330-200, just like the A330-MRTT for the RAAF. The A332F may end up being the new base airframe, but that was not was submitted.

The change from A330 to A330F is minor, much of the work had already been done with the A300-600F/A310F, both share the same cargo door and fuselage cross section as the A330F, with many examples already flying.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Actually, both airplanes proposed (as the new builds) are extensively modified from their original designs. The A-330-200 will be an A-330-200F (which is an extensive design change in itself), and the B-767-200LRF, which is essentially a new model. Then, both airplanes will require body fuel tanks, something only the KC-767s for Japan and Italy have now (but that, too, was an extensive modification). On both airplanes, the KC-767, and the RAAF KC-30B, and proposed USAF KC-30A, a flying boom is added.

More misleading information.

1) The KC-30 as submitted was not based on the A332F, that may come, but it was not a part of the original proposal.

2) The KC-30 fuel is in existing fuel tanks, no underfloor cargo space is being used to carry fuel.

3) Airbus had already developed "Additional Centre Tanks" for the A310-MRTT (same fuselage cross section as the KC-30 and same cargo bay cross section) and A330/A340 corporate jet models. Each tank holds about 12500 lb, but as it stands, the A330-MRTT and KC-30 will not have these, they are not required, The aircraft already has ample space in the standard aircraft fuel tanks for fuel.

Having fuselage tanks according to the RFP is a negative, not a positive aspect.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
There is another proposal we hardly ever talk about here. It is the cheapest proposal by far, and the quickest (yes iot will require a short flight test program as there are changes over the current KC-135R). That proposal involves converting the stored KC-135Es to an improved KC-135R, probibly to be designated the KC-135U, but that is a guess on my part.

That is not cheap or quick, look at the cost and time required to replace the engines on the C5. Studies of that program has shown a new aircraft not only would be quicker, but also gives additional capabilities, and lower maintenance costs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Good question! Why not use the GEnx or new RR equivilent, on either airplane. Both offer an increase thrust (by about 5,000-10,000lbs) over the PW-4062s, or CF-6-80s, and a lower fuel comsumption.

Its called fan diameter, the GEnx for he 748 might fit, it is smaller than the 787 engine.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
It is clear that the loser (only Boeing or NG/EADS) in the KC-X will file a protest with the GAO, much like the CSAR-X program now.

The helicopter chosen for the CSAR-X is seen by many as being much better for the role than the warmed over Chinook. The same helicopter type has also been chosen to be the next Presidential Helicopter in the USA, and chosen by Portugal, Denmark, Japan and Canada in recent competitions.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:58 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Good question! Why not use the GEnx or new RR equivilent, on either airplane. Both offer an increase thrust (by about 5,000-10,000lbs) over the PW-4062s, or CF-6-80s, and a lower fuel comsumption.

Its called fan diameter, the GEnx for he 748 might fit, it is smaller than the 787 engine.

I have Boeing desktop models of the 787 and 748 right next to each other in my study and I was noticing this just last night as well - the GEnX for the 787 is actually quite a huge engine but the 748i's version of the GEnX looks like a perfect fit. The only question is the economics of outfitting the first "x" amount of KC-X with engines currently available and then going back and retrofitting those "x" number of aircraft once the 748i version of the GEnx would be available. Probably not very plausible I would assume, especially considering that the vendors would much rather sell their existing tech while they can - sort of like gravy for them at this point.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
It is clear that the loser (only Boeing or NG/EADS) in the KC-X will file a protest with the GAO, much like the CSAR-X program now.

The helicopter chosen for the CSAR-X is seen by many as being much better for the role than the warmed over Chinook. The same helicopter type has also been chosen to be the next Presidential Helicopter in the USA, and chosen by Portugal, Denmark, Japan and Canada in recent competitions.

I agree, the US-101/H-71 is so much better of a rotary winged platform than is the Chinook for this role and what baffles me is this simple logical point: if the USAF thinks the HH-47 is such a magnificent platform than how come they didn't select in 1980(est.) instead of the MH-53J when they did?

Sounds to me like the USAF has already turned down the HH-47 once already for the role so why award a double-digit multiple billion dollar deal to the platform they already said "no" to now, when the aircraft is of an older design then any of the crews who will be using it?
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:47 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
Its called fan diameter, the GEnx for he 748 might fit, it is smaller than the 787 engine.

And the best of all, it has bleed air! But at 66,500lbf, the thrust is too low. The KC-30 would make use of the highest thrust ratings currently found on the A330, which are about 72,000lbf.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
The aircraft already has ample space in the standard aircraft fuel tanks for fuel.

 checkmark  If you add 111 tonnes of fuel to the OEW of a standard A332, you are already over MTOW!
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:30 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 4):
only an idiot would fly longer periods of time at Mach 0.92.. Sonic cruiser anyone?



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Shhhh, don't tell the SR-71, FB-111, or KC-135Q guys.

Or Citation X pilots.
I love ASO!
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:52 pm

What modifications are they making to the wings of the 767 to jack it's speed up to Mach 0.92?

Andrea Kent
 
Tancrede
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:54 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
In general, in my view your whole post/replies are not factual in any respect.

You are entirely right. The starter of this thread is so biased in his opinion that the overall feeling when reading his writing is to damage or put down the performances of one aircraft.
I am very surprise that someone seeing by many in this forum as expert in air-refuelling seems actually not so expert.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:22 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
The RFP is for 4 test/development aircraft and 175 production aircraft.

Zeke, you finally got something correct, I am proud of you.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
1) The KC-30 as submitted was not based on the A332F, that may come, but it was not a part of the original proposal.

2) The KC-30 fuel is in existing fuel tanks, no underfloor cargo space is being used to carry fuel.

You had better go back and re-read the USAF KC-X RFP. It specifies a freighter version of the submitted proposal.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
There is another proposal we hardly ever talk about here. It is the cheapest proposal by far, and the quickest (yes iot will require a short flight test program as there are changes over the current KC-135R). That proposal involves converting the stored KC-135Es to an improved KC-135R, probibly to be designated the KC-135U, but that is a guess on my part.

That is not cheap or quick, look at the cost and time required to replace the engines on the C5.

It is a lot cheaper than either the KC-30 or KC-767. BTW, the KC-135R program was a total success, and came in under budget, it is nothing like the C-5M re-engining program.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Good question! Why not use the GEnx or new RR equivilent, on either airplane. Both offer an increase thrust (by about 5,000-10,000lbs) over the PW-4062s, or CF-6-80s, and a lower fuel comsumption.

Its called fan diameter, the GEnx for he 748 might fit, it is smaller than the 787 engine.

Where did I suggest which version of these engines should have been mounted on either the KC-30 or KC-767? I just thought it was a good, and valid, question.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
It is clear that the loser (only Boeing or NG/EADS) in the KC-X will file a protest with the GAO, much like the CSAR-X program now.

The helicopter chosen for the CSAR-X is seen by many as being much better for the role than the warmed over Chinook.



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):
I agree, the US-101/H-71 is so much better of a rotary winged platform than is the Chinook for this role and what baffles me is this simple logical point: if the USAF thinks the HH-47 is such a magnificent platform than how come they didn't select in 1980(est.) instead of the MH-53J when they did?

Without getting to far into the CSAR-X, both of you should know that politics play a role in some military weapons programs. I'm not a helio guy, and don't profess to be, I don't know a lot about them.

But, I have this feeling that either Boeing, or EADS/NG, will protest the contract award with the GAO. I have no respect for those of either company that go crying when they don't win, or think their product is exactly what the USAF needs, even if the USAF doesn't know that. That is why I mentioned the CSAR-X program. The protest there by Lockheed/Martin has cost the warfighter valuable time in getting a new weapons system. So, don't tell me that LM supports the troops.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 29):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
In general, in my view your whole post/replies are not factual in any respect.

You are entirely right. The starter of this thread is so biased in his opinion that the overall feeling when reading his writing is to damage or put down the performances of one aircraft.
I am very surprise that someone seeing by many in this forum as expert in air-refuelling seems actually not so expert.

Okay, Zeke. I have never hid my preference for a Boeing product (if it ain't Boeing, it ain't going). Unlike you, who plays the "I'm unbiased game", why do you only have Airbus products on your a.net id page? I flew the KC-135 for 22 years, and loved that airplane, and love Boeing airplanes (yes, I had some stick time, too, as well as landings and TOs). In my opinion, and we can only express opinions here, the Boeing KC-767-200LRF best meets the USAF requirements. I donb't care the KC-30 hauls around more fuel. That works against the strike packages. Boom satueration is the limiting factor with tankers, not how much gas you got. When refueling fighters, 6 is about all you can handle. Why? Because by the time you complete refueling fighter #6, fighter #1 already has less fuel than before his refueling (when he has a high drag index).

Ramp space is another thing the USAF is concerned about, that is why Boeing did not offer a KC-777-200LRF, the airplane is to big.

Yes, I am an expert in the air refueling business, Tancrede.

What do you fly, Zeke, and for what airline (so I don't by a ticket by mistake). Pilots are not the all knowing, all seeing guys they say they are. Pilots are not speicial people, they are truck drivers. Pilots have a very limited amount of knowledge about other aspects of aviation, unless they go into management positions. All you have to do is make sure you don't hurt yourself, and your pax are okay.

You are certinatly entitled to your opinion about Boeing, Airbus, or anything else. I will read them. I may or may not agree with you. but I will read them.

BTW, I get many of my facts from the internet, just like you do. Yes, I believe we both understand that facts on the internet may or may not be completely correct, even from the OEM's web sites.
 
Norlander
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:11 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):



Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):

This thread is going the same way as the 50 others before it, with the usual suspects starting out with well-reasoned posts and ending up with opinionated attacks. Only need Keesje and UH60FtRucker to join up to complete the deja-vu.

[Edited 2007-10-16 03:14:36]
Longtime Lurker
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:22 pm

Quoting Norlander (Reply 31):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):



Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):

This thread is going the same way as the 50 others before it, with the usual suspects starting out with well-reasoned posts and ending up with opinionated attacks. Only need Keesje and UH60FtRucker to join up to complete the deja-vu.

He he. Yeah, but it is fun, LOL  bigthumbsup 
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 24):

This thread is going the same way as the 50 others before it, with the usual suspects starting out with well-reasoned posts and ending up with opinionated attacks. Only need Keesje and UH60FtRucker to join up to complete the deja-vu.

He he. Yeah, but it is fun, LOL

I agree, I enjoy the debate - and I don't know what is taking the USAF so long to make their mind up?! (I think they already have but as they said they are trying to make their award bullet proof against a protest.)
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:09 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 33):
and I don't know what is taking the USAF so long to make their mind up?!

The consolation prize for the loser?.....  Wink

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...potentially-a-c-5-replacement.html
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:32 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 33):
I agree, I enjoy the debate - and I don't know what is taking the USAF so long to make their mind up?!

The person responsible just committed suicide. Charles Riechers was principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition. He was working on the USAF highest priority weapons programs, including the $40 billion KC-X aerial refuelling tanker, and the $15 billion combat search and rescue helicopter (CSAR-X).

Some contracts are being investigated regarding him, including a $1+ billion contract awarded to Boeing for depot maintenance of the KC-135 refuelling tanker fleet, and the awarding of the CSAR-X to Boeing (decision was overturned by the GAO).

The KC-135 work had previously been done by Pemco in Alabama, which has worked in KC-135 tankers at the Birmingham airport since 1969, the same state NG would like to build the KC-30. Pemco raised questions about a possible conflict of interest with the GAO regarding Charles Riechers because at the start of the year he worked for Commonwealth Research Institute, which its corporate parent, Concurrent Technologies Corp., and Boeing are said to have a close relationship.

Charles Riechers predecessor Darleen Druyun, served nine months in jail in 2005 for violating federal conflict of interest laws by taking a job with Boeing while still overseeing billions of dollars of its work for the Air Force. That scandal prompted Congress to scrap a $23.5 billion tanker deal with Boeing.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:01 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
The person responsible just committed suicide. Charles Riechers was principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition. He was working on the USAF highest priority weapons programs, including the $40 billion KC-X aerial refuelling tanker, and the $15 billion combat search and rescue helicopter (CSAR-X).

Zeke, are you saying his suicide was directly related to his work on the KC-X and CSARX programs?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Some contracts are being investigated regarding him, including a $1+ billion contract awarded to Boeing for depot maintenance of the KC-135 refuelling tanker fleet, and the awarding of the CSAR-X to Boeing (decision was overturned by the GAO).

That's quite a stretch.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Pemco raised questions about a possible conflict of interest with the GAO regarding Charles Riechers because at the start of the year he worked for Commonwealth Research Institute, which its corporate parent, Concurrent Technologies Corp., and Boeing are said to have a close relationship.

CRI has close relationships with a lot of defense contractors.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Charles Riechers predecessor Darleen Druyun, served nine months in jail in 2005 for violating federal conflict of interest laws by taking a job with Boeing while still overseeing billions of dollars of its work for the Air Force. That scandal prompted Congress to scrap a $23.5 billion tanker deal with Boeing.

That's probably the only factual statement you've made in this post.

Take a napkin and wipe the drool from the corners of your mouth, Zeke. Even the Washington Post, which loves scandal, found the only scandal to be how the USAF coddled the guy for two months to ensure he'd make it through the confirmation process. In fact, if you read the original October 1 piece, Riechers wasn't ashamed nor afraid to discuss his two-month "free ride" with CRI and the Air Force fully backed its decision to help him bridge his income gap during the confirmation process. It seems the only "unethical" aspect of this deal was that he was drawing a paycheck from CRI for two months during which he did work for the USAF/DOD. Essentially, the ethical violation was that he worked in a capacity that is sometimes not condoned:

Quote:
Specialists in federal contracting law said Commonwealth Research's arrangement with Riechers may have violated regulations governing how the Air Force is permitted to hire and use contractors, including a prohibition on certain uses of consultants to augment the federal workforce.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...3001402_2.html?sid=ST2007101501770

The rest of the article talks about CRI and Concurrent taking advantage of certain tax shelters, specifically non-profit ones.

Really, Zeke, you are exhibiting the traits of a rabid extremist. What's despicable this time is that you are dancing on the death of someone who may have very likely committed suicide for very personal reasons. Give it a rest.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 33):
and I don't know what is taking the USAF so long to make their mind up?!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
The person responsible just committed suicide.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36):
Really, Zeke, you are exhibiting the traits of a rabid extremist.

Zeke only proposes an answer to AirRyan's open question, with bringing facts which currently make the news regarding the person following up this project.

Zeke only mentions that some investigations are taking place, not that the guy was guitly of anything, just happened that he committed suicide for possibily some other reasons (I believe you are not more aware than Zeke or anybody else about the reason behind this drama).

Good way to shoot the messenger.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:00 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36):
Zeke, are you saying his suicide was directly related to his work on the KC-X and CSARX programs?

I did not say "his suicide was directly related to his work on the KC-X and CSARX programs" did I ?

I just stated he committed suicide and his former work responsibilities. This is his bio http://www.sstc-online.org/Speaker/Keynotes/Keynotes.cfm?sid=61

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36):
That's quite a stretch.

According to news articles Pemco went to the GAO last Friday about the KC-135 contract, we have already had a long thread about the CSAR-X GAO decision on this forum.

"Pemco Aviation Group on Friday amended its protest to the Government Accountability Office over the contract, which fell under Riechers' purview. It raised questions about a possible conflict of interest because of purported ties among Commonwealth, its corporate parent, Concurrent Technologies Corp., and Boeing."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/us_nm/airforce_death_dc_6

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36):
Really, Zeke, you are exhibiting the traits of a rabid extremist. What's despicable this time is that you are dancing on the death of someone who may have very likely committed suicide for very personal reasons. Give it a rest.

I have not done so, over 50 articles are available about this at the moment, all saying much the same thing.

As for reason, cause of death and time of death, all unknown. Despite apparently killing himself by running his car's engine in his enclosed garage, some people are suggesting foul play.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:32 pm

Quoting Knoxibus (Reply 37):
Good way to shoot the messenger.

This messenger deserved to be shot. A good messenger delivers just the facts and does not embellish them nor add innuendos or scurrilous allegations. A total sleeze piece by Zeke and if you want to pay homage to his sleeze then go right ahead.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
knoxibus
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:25 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 39):
This messenger deserved to be shot.

Well at least in his previous posts on this thread, and on the contrary to you so far, he brought some answers and facts to the actual thread opener's queries or statement.

Look at his post aboye yours and you'll see he only grabbed facts from the news.

Coming back to the topic by the way (which at least I am trying to do), I have access to several specification documents for the KC-30 (or at least the A330 MRTT).

As soon as I can find something useful in terms of Mach number, speed, in direct relation to the tanker RFP, I'll see if I can shed some light here.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:26 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
The person responsible just committed suicide. Charles Riechers was principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition. He was working on the USAF highest priority weapons programs, including the $40 billion KC-X aerial refuelling tanker, and the $15 billion combat search and rescue helicopter (CSAR-X).

Yes he did have overall resposibility over both those programs, as well as the C-17 buy. But most suicides are committed for personal reasons (marriage, money, etc.), not for professional reasons. I don't know which is the case here, but it appears, based on the programs he managed, they were not the reason for his demise.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Some contracts are being investigated regarding him, including a $1+ billion contract awarded to Boeing for depot maintenance of the KC-135 refuelling tanker fleet, and the awarding of the CSAR-X to Boeing (decision was overturned by the GAO).

The KC-135 work had previously been done by Pemco in Alabama, which has worked in KC-135 tankers at the Birmingham airport since 1969, the same state NG would like to build the KC-30. Pemco raised questions about a possible conflict of interest with the GAO regarding Charles Riechers because at the start of the year he worked for Commonwealth Research Institute, which its corporate parent, Concurrent Technologies Corp., and Boeing are said to have a close relationship.

Yes, Pemco has filed a protest with the GAO over the KC-135 heavy maintenance contract. In this case, Boeing simply under bid Pemco, by a small amount. Pemco would have done the work at BHM, Boeing will do it at their Kelly facility in San Antonio. The USAF has cited Pemco in the past for work not completed, or low quality work, not up to contract standards. This contract was awarded before Riechers became involved with it, according to the GAO.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Charles Riechers predecessor Darleen Druyun, served nine months in jail in 2005 for violating federal conflict of interest laws by taking a job with Boeing while still overseeing billions of dollars of its work for the Air Force. That scandal prompted Congress to scrap a $23.5 billion tanker deal with Boeing.

Yes, she should have gone to jail, and for a lot longer than 9 months. Even I wasn't in favor of leasing 100 KC-767s from Boeing at a "write your own check price". But, this has nothing to do with Riechers, or the way he manages the KC-X competition (which is all it is at this point in time).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36):
Zeke, are you saying his suicide was directly related to his work on the KC-X and CSARX programs?

No, Zeke didn't say that.
 
Norlander
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:36 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):

Yes he did have overall resposibility over both those programs, as well as the C-17 buy. But most suicides are committed for personal reasons (marriage, money, etc.), not for professional reasons. I don't know which is the case here, but it appears, based on the programs he managed, they were not the reason for his demise.

As I noted in the other thread on his suicide. It is quite suspect that a career driven, ambitious high level government employee commits suicide 2 weeks after a major newspaper starts digging into his professional life (as opposed to his private life). I'll not be the least bit surprised that there is a lot of dirt under all of this and as a result he committed suicide because he knows his career is now over.
Longtime Lurker
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:04 pm

Quoting Norlander (Reply 42):
As I noted in the other thread on his suicide. It is quite suspect that a career driven, ambitious high level government employee commits suicide 2 weeks after a major newspaper starts digging into his professional life (as opposed to his private life). I'll not be the least bit surprised that there is a lot of dirt under all of this and as a result he committed suicide because he knows his career is now over.

About 10 years ago the USN CNO committed suicide, IIRC (sometime between 1996 qnd 1998?). There was a newspaper story about him wearing military decorations he did not earn, shortly before his death. But, didn't the investigation find out his wife and a US Senator was fooling around together?

I remember the CNO suicide, but don't remember all the facts released about it. So, I may be slightly off.
 
Norlander
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:42 pm

As I remember, and wikipedia in a sourced article backs me up, Jeremy Michael Boorda was the focus of a scandal of wearing decorations he didn't earn, and he committed suicide as he realized that this was a scandal rolling.

Anyhow that is a bit off-topic for this thread.

[Edited 2007-10-18 09:43:30]
Longtime Lurker
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:09 pm

Unions are getting more strident and there's now an ethnic element involved!
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idUKN1846770620071018?rpc=44



Quote:
WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - Hispanic and labor groups urged the U.S. government on Thursday to pick Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) over Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and its European teammate to build a new $40 billion fleet of Air Force aerial refueling planes.

"We hope that our government will stand up for American workers," said Rosa Rosales of the League of United Latin American Citizens, which calls itself the the oldest and largest Hispanic membership group in the United States.

Northrop has partnered with the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co to offer a modified Airbus A330 airliner built largely in France. It would put the planes together in Mobile, Alabama.

Boeing would build its plane, based on the 767 airliner, at Everett, Washington, then add a refueling boom and other military components at a plant in Wichita, Kansas.

The latest anti-EADS push, in a telephone conference involving three groups, followed similar moves by organized labor. Earlier this month, for instance, the California arm of the AFL-CIO labor confederation urged the Air Force to halt any actions that would "lead to the outsourcing of defense contracts," especially the refueling tanker.

Meanwhile, Alan McArtor, Chairman of Airbus North America and a retired USAF 4 star, ups the rhetoric level.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071018/airbus_boeing.html?.v=3

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ongoing trade battle between Airbus and Boeing Co. is "bad for the industry" but is unlikely to be resolved until the U.S. Air Force awards a $40 billion contract for tanker aircraft, an Airbus official said Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT
"I don't think it's going to happen," Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor told reporters when asked about efforts to resolve a pair of pending cases before the World Trade Organization involving the two firms.

McArtor described the dispute between his firm, which is a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. NV, and Boeing as a "waste of time and resources."

"Government support to this industry on both sides of the Atlantic is part of the DNA," McArtor said. "You ask the question, 'Why are we still doing this?'"

McArtor said he would prefer the two companies, along with U.S. and European trade officials, negotiate a settlement of the WTO complaints. But, he said, that step is unlikely because of the attention surrounding the decision on the tanker program.

The U.S. Air Force is set to replace its fleet of air refueling tankers, setting off a fierce competition between Boeing and a partnership of Airbus and Northrop Grumman Corp. The contract is expected to be awarded by the end of the year.

In response to McArtor's comments, a coalition of minority labor groups expressed concern Thursday about the potential for Airbus to be awarded the contract.

"We are strongly opposed to the outsourcing of defense jobs," said Gabriela Lemus, executive director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement.

Her group, along with the League of United Latin American Citizens and the A. Phillip Randolph Institute, issued a joint statement accusing EADS of "anti-competitive business practices."

McArtor said the Air Force decision could clear the way for trade officials to settle the two WTO complaints between the U.S. and European Union over government subsidies to the firms. Describing the WTO process as "not as precise as you might think," McArtor said any major movement on the cases was unlikely until after the first of the year.

Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said his company is open to discussions with its rival, but that the subsidy issue needs to be addressed.

"We're certainly willing to negotiate and talk about anything they want to put on the table, but practices that are WTO-inconsistent need to stop," Neale said.

Great theater! Sounds like the Boeing PR campaign is taking it's toll on nerves at EADS.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Norlander
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:39 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:45 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 45):

Meanwhile, Alan McArtor, Chairman of Airbus North America and a retired USAF 4 star, ups the rhetoric level.

Any reference on McArtor being a 4 star? I can only find him being a command pilot before going into the private sector...
Longtime Lurker
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:39 pm

Now that you ask, I can't find any reference either! Sorry, I thought I had read that he was a retired 4 star.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:45 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
About 10 years ago the USN CNO committed suicide, IIRC (sometime between 1996 qnd 1998?). There was a newspaper story about him wearing military decorations he did not earn, shortly before his death. But, didn't the investigation find out his wife and a US Senator was fooling around together?

I remember the CNO suicide, but don't remember all the facts released about it. So, I may be slightly off.

Borda will forever best be known and remembered for his rise from the enlisted ranks all the way to the CNO and the subsequent program that the USN still has which takes select enlisted sailors and grooms them for a commission as an officer.

Anyways, the recent banter from the Unions is bogus, playing politics rather than allowing the USAF to choose the best platform is bad policy.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf?

Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:23 am

Quoting Norlander (Reply 18):
Having read the various treads on the tanker discussion on this board for the last 4 years, I'm amazed that this issue isn't solved yet.



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 33):
and I don't know what is taking the USAF so long to make their mind up?!

C'mon, we all know that they're waiting to make the call when Tim Clark does  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
The best for the USAF would be to split all of the orders which would:

-Validate the last minute exclusion of PW from the A400M program.
-Source critical hardware from a French company with major Russian investment

At the end of the day, the KC767 is what the USAF wants and needs. If they wanted something bigger the KC777 would be offered by Boeing. Plain and simple, so simple in fact I think its silly that we argue amongst ourselves as to which is the better choice between the two competitors.

iwok

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests