redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:18 pm

We're closing in on the expected deadline for the GAO ruling and the other thread is getting a little long. So here's a little something hot off the press to chew over:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Air Force has conceded it chose the more expensive option in awarding a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. instead of Boeing Co., the companies said Thursday.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/12/news....ap/index.htm?section=money_latest

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of detail regarding what specifically led to the miscalculation. Hopefully, we'll know some details soon.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:36 pm

That is not going to matter. Dicks and Murtha are trying to bring the entire process to a halt:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...nnel=defense&id=news/HALT06128.xml

Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777, but they succumbed to their greed and put forward an airplane that does not exist. They lost, now their whining and misinformation is close to keeping new airplanes from the airmen who fly them.

I hope both of these guys are still alive when the 135's start falling from the sky (assuming they get off the ground). This has all of the making for a real national shame.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:52 pm

And the dust settles...

Quote:

UPDATE: Well, looks like there's a math error in the Reuters story and Northrop release! If you subtract $108.01 billion from $108.44 billion, you get a difference of $430 million, NOT $34 million per airplane. Boeing says it was briefed by the Air Force earlier that $108.44b should actually be $108.044 billion, which would give you the correct $34 million difference. Maybe we all need new calculators.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25124767
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:21 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777,

The 777 was not able to be bid as it did not meet the bid criteria. It was too big. And Yes, I know the KC-45 is "bigger" than the 767 but it is still a mid-size - albeit a large mid-size - plane, not a "large aircraft" as defined by the bid criteria.

The whole 777 option is a red herring.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:44 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777, but they succumbed to their greed

That's a little dramatic, don't you think? Are you implying that Northrup-Grumman was not greedy and not driven by profit motives and their only reason for teaming with an off-shore entity was purely altruistic in nature?

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
I hope both of these guys are still alive when the 135's start falling from the sky

In 2040 when the KC-135Rs will start to hit their maximum (as of current configuration) flight/cycle hours, Rep. Dicks will be 100 years old and Rep. Murtha will be 108 years old. Doubtful either will live to see those ages nor to experience the ramifications of their conduct, however ignoble they may be.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 3):
The 777 was not able to be bid as it did not meet the bid criteria. It was too big.

Just curious, but what bid criteria did it not meet? (Sorry, I've been traveling extensively the last few months and haven't kept up on all the facts and back-and-forth like I used to so I'd be genuinely curious to know.)
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:56 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Let me say upfront that I would have preferred Boeing to put the flight crews in front of their own greed and offered the 777, but they succumbed to their greed and put forward an airplane that does not exist.

Do you also prefer NG/EADS also put the crews ahead of greed? BTW, none of them existyet, neither the KC-777, KC-767AT, or KC-45A.,

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
I hope both of these guys are still alive when the 135's start falling from the sky (assuming they get off the ground). This has all of the making for a real national shame.

How about a little shame in making a stupid statement like that? Congress, the USAF, any airline, or anyone else that funds/flys airplanes will not put any airplane in the air if there is a safety issue.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:51 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
How about a little shame in making a stupid statement like that? Congress, the USAF, any airline, or anyone else that funds/flys airplanes will not put any airplane in the air if there is a safety issue.

Flight safety is the greatest flight issue; however, it is not the issue between the airplanes. Congress will do what ever it takes to either get votes or not lose votes.

If what all of you infer is that the 777 was not an option, then thank you as all of this up to the Congressional action is a non-issue. The only thing that will stop the award to NG is if the GAO finds documented proof that the Air Force told Boeing not to bid their 777. Absent that I would seriously doubt there will be enough to overturn the award.

However, what about Boeing's boasts that if the Air Force had wanted a larger airplane all they had to do is tell Boeing? Obviously that would have been the 777, but we know now, like the 767-AT it does not exist and cannot meet the maximum weight take off requirement.

KC135TopBoom you will fly what you are ordered to fly or get out. Complaining because you do not get the equipment you want is a little to E-2'ish.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:30 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 6):
However, what about Boeing's boasts that if the Air Force had wanted a larger airplane all they had to do is tell Boeing? Obviously that would have been the 777, but we know now, like the 767-AT it does not exist and cannot meet the maximum weight take off requirement.

We know nothing of the kind. Its been stated here ALOT by people who would support Airbus if they made thier hydraulic fluid with the blood of newborns, which is hardly PROOF.

All Boeing would have to do is quote a TOW/Payload for the 7K ft runway length. It wouldn't actualy have to meet that at the real MTOW to meet the requirement. It boggles the mind how people here spout utter nonsense day in day out thinking its the truth. The A330 is almost the same size as a 777 and yet somehow the 777 is this magical albatross incapible of doing anything at all because of those couple extra feet. Yet the HUGE difference in wingspan and length between the 767 and A330 is meaningless.


Oh and whoever posted the pictures of the Airbus "refueling" planes. ITS AN A310 NOT A A330. I might point out that reading skills goes a long way in life. The A330 still hasn't refueled a single plane. ITS A FACT. Why if Airbus is so completely done with the A330 tankers that its no risk at all has it not completed this basic step?

Why if its so risk free have 0 A330 planes been assembled anywhere outside of France, much less any assembled in a factory not even starting construction yet?

Am I to beleive that a design of an aircraft based entirely on existing parts that hasn't been built based on a tanker in actual service is riskier than the design of an aircraft based entirely on existing parts that hasn't been built based on a tanker not in actual service with a supply and manufacturing setup that doesn't even exist? That is what I am told here often. Yet the KC45 doesn't exist. Its parts are in testing on other aircraft but I might point out that the KC767AT has all its parts being used on actual in service aircraft. Where is the difference?


Oh and last I'd point out that the USAF has stated that the current boom used by EDAS is unacceptable for the actual production tankers. When will we see an actual boom that is up to thier standards? How does that not increase the program risk?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:47 am

I found this little bit to be to the most interesting and less biased comments recently on the tanker issue:
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...r-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/

Quote:
After months of complaining to everyone who would listen (and to many of those who wouldn’t, apparently), Boeing softened its approach to this. In a May 22 press release, Boeing claimed the Air Force only “seemed” to favor a medium sized tanker:

“The Air Force Request for Proposals seemed to call for a medium-sized tanker designed to meet the unique needs of today’s expeditionary Air Force.” (Emphasis added.)

Well, did it? And did this preclude Boeing from offering a KC-777?

In the Rand Corp. Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) conducted specifically for the eventual KC-X competition, Rand concluded “after about two years of extensive analysis that the USAF should procure a derivative of a medium (300-550K lbs) to large (550-1,000K lbs) commercial airliner,” notes a person close to the procurement process. Boeing’s KC-767 and Northrop’s KC-30 fall into the medium category; the KC-30, although about a third larger than the KC-767, nonetheless classifies as a medium airliner at 512,000 lbs. The KC-777 would have been based on the 777-200LRF, which has a maximum take-off weight of 766,000 lbs, according to Boeing’s website—and wouldn’t have classified as a medium tanker. For all the complaints about the KC-30 being a “large” tanker, in fact it isn’t by the Rand definition—it’s merely “larger” than the KC-767. Also, news articles of the era, such as those that can be found published by Flight International via www.flightglobal.com, placed the KC-30 and KC-767 in the same “medium” category and the 777 in the same “large” description as the Airbus A340.

The RFP didn’t specify weight categories but sought proposals for medium- to large tankers. Given the Rand AOA, the definitions of the airplane categories seem obvious, as do which airplanes fall into which categories.

The evidence, therefore, seems conclusive that all the rhetoric about the KC-30 being a “large” tanker is simply hyperbole without foundation; it’s simply “larger” than the KC-767.

….

The 777-200LRF rolled out of Boeing’s factory in May. First flight is due soon and first delivery is due later this year. But a full KC-777 development likely would have meant the first test airplane would not have been delivered to the Air Force in 2009; observers believe the initial production KC-777 could not have been delivered before 2014, largely due to the full production lines of the commercial 777 that are sold out until 2012 or 2013. Any KC-777 production would have to be integrated into the commercial line and—given the number of orders for the 777 even back in late 2006 when the KC-777 concept was revealed—would have had to displace commercial customers, a prospect considered highly unlikely.

Also, according to a person close to the competition, the Air Force’s RFP called for the KC-X’s engines to be able to fit into the Lockheed C-130 for transport—presumably for spares or repairs. The engines of the 777 are too big to fit, according to this person—which would have disqualified the KC-777. Additionally, since the KC-777 is significantly larger than the KC-30 in all respects, the runway loading, parking footprint and the whole host of other issues Boeing asserted as arguing against the KC-30 would have applied even more so against the larger KC-777.

But what of Boeing’s contention in its reply to NA KOA that there were public statements by the Air Force, as “verified” by Google searches, that the Air Force wanted a “medium” tanker? NA KOA says it could not find any.

Flight International reported the conflict within the Air Force over medium- and large tankers. In a March 14, 2006, item, Flight wrote that “USAF officials testifying to Congress have differed on which way to go, with [the]…Air Mobility Command favoring a mix of medium- and large tankers for flexibility.” The deputy for Air Force Acquisition “says the first 100 aircraft should ‘all look the same’ and be medium tankers on cost grounds.” [Emphasis added.]

The same article once again classified the KC-767 and KC-30 as medium tankers and the KC-777 and A340 as large tankers.

Another Flight article (January 2, 2007) quotes Lt. Gen. Donald Huffman of the Air Force’s acquisition office, saying, “first and foremost the KC-X is the next generation on aerial refueling.”

The Flight International articles lend at least some credence to the assertion by Boeing that there were public indications that the Air Force wanted a “medium” airplane. But there was also a very public debate among generals of the Air Force, who differed on the potential mission requirements that, at best, represented conflicting desires about exactly what airplane would best serve the Air Force.

Furthermore, Asmus responds that for Boeing to rely on news articles to make a multi-billion dollar decision about which airplane to offer to the Air Force—without private assurances from Air Force officials—is absurd on its face, and he wants to know who in the Air Force told Boeing it did not want a “large” airplane.

Asmus also points to a June 2008 article just published by Air Force Magazine, which contains this paragraph:

If Boeing was listening to senior serving generals, its notions about size were probably reinforced. Privately, top USAF officers frequently said they were looking for an ability to put many tankers on forward runways at once, since strike packages involve many airplanes, and each tanker can only refuel one other boom-receptacle airplane at a time. (Both the KC-30 and KC-767 can simultaneously refuel two other aircraft if the receiving airplanes are equipped with probe-and-drogue type refueling gear). However, those generals were quick to point out that they had no say in the acquisition process, and the outcome of the competition bore that out.



Boeing has softened its rhetoric on this issue and in fact some in the company believe this is the weakest argument it has; the technical and process issues are where officials believe they have the best chance of prevailing.

We may find out on June 19 if the GAO thinks this issue has any merit—for Boeing or for NA KOA.

By Scott Hamilton, June 2, 2008

I don't much care about Asmus' complaints but the article reveals some good info. The issue of the engines is a new one to me and definitely a good one to remove an aircraft from contention. As to the boom question, for obvious reasons Boeing will not share the technology they have developed with NG so this must be developed "new" and has been done so quite successfully. Though there are issues that must be addressed, the EADS does actually exist and can be measured and adjusted just like any development of technology goes. Just like Boeing has done and would have to do to bring their current 5th gen boom to the proposed 6th generation. The Osprey is another red-herring because the KC-45 can fly low and slow enough to refuel it, it just wasn't in the bid pack (Boeing did include and mention it in theirs).

I am very much looking forward to the GAO's report to put and end to the speculation (well OK it won't end) and provide some facts at last.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:54 am

While perusing through this article from the Guardian (a lot of which is a rehash of news reports earlier today), I saw a couple of interesting items...

Quote:
Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said his company's bid prevailed for many reasons, including lower development costs and risks, unit costs that were $10 million to $15 million lower per aircraft;

How does Airbus produce an airframe that is substantially larger than the competing article, ship the subassemblies thousands of miles to a final assembly process that has yet to be built, and still sell them for $10 - $15 million LESS per unit? I don't care how efficient Airbus' manufacturing processes are, their airplanes incorporate far more content alone given the airplane's substantially larger size (I won't even address their Euro/Dollar problem).

***

And for those that love to quote Loren Thomson, he seems to suddenly be taking up the recent mantra of a few A.Netters:

Quote:
Defense analyst Loren Thompson said it was reasonable for the Air Force to add cost to Boeing's proposal since it had never built the version of the 767 that it had proposed, but he questioned why it did not "find similar risk in the Northrop proposal, since they've never produced this plane in Alabama."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7582502
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:55 am

Personally I'm hoping that the GAO takes a very hard look at the decision. The recent shake-up at from the UASF Sec down is a pretty good indication that a lot of things were screwed up and a bit too casual for SecDef. The tanker decision may well fit into their problem areas - it certainly does politically.

Selecting a more expensive option is, in my opinion, a fair indication that the Generals have yet to understand the countries economic realities - even those that relate to Defense. With a $3 Trillion long term cost of the Iraq War I believe it's more important to focus capital expenditures on what is most critical and tankers are second tier in my book. For me it is smarter to shift money for primary fighter aircraft and continuing technological development.

Maybe everyone would be well served if the decision and funding was put off until after the election and inauguration. If McCain wins then Airbus should be a shoe in, but otherwise it's an open game and finances will be a critical factor in the direction the tanker goes.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:03 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 3):
The 777 was not able to be bid as it did not meet the bid criteria. It was too big. And Yes, I know the KC-45 is "bigger" than the 767 but it is still a mid-size - albeit a large mid-size - plane, not a "large aircraft" as defined by the bid criteria.

The whole 777 option is a red herring.

Actually it is not. According to the Air Force filing with the GAO requesting Boeing's protest be dismissed, they discuss the aircraft size issue. What I find interesting is that Boeing has now gone quiet about the AF discouraging them from offering the 777. Here is an excerpt.


"In this case, the AF set forth its requirements for the KC-X tanker in the SRD, which made no reference to size...As such Boeing's protest that the replacement vehicle for the KC-135 is allegedly limited to medium aircraft is also insufficient basis for a protest because the SRD did not establish any size for the aircraft. Further, Boeing knew prior to the due date for its proposal that its chief rival and competitor, NG, "was back in the game" and would propose a bigger aircraft. Under these circumstances, Boeing's protest about the size of NG's successful aircraft is untimely, fails to state a sufficient basis for protest, and should be dismissed.

Likewise, Boeing's discussion regarding why it decided not to offer its larger 777 aircraft is interesting, but is an insufficient basis to support a protest.
[Air Force Request for Partial Summary Dismissal of Protest - Page 16-17]


Air Force Document here...

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

Boeing's response here...

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Public...ResponsetoRequestsforDismissal.pdf
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:07 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 10):
Defense analyst Loren Thompson said it was reasonable for the Air Force to add cost to Boeing's proposal since it had never built the version of the 767 that it had proposed, but he questioned why it did not "find similar risk in the Northrop proposal, since they've never produced this plane in Alabama."

Uhhh because building an airplane in Alabama isn't of any concern? I mean I know its Alabama and all and that but I'm betting (well really really hoping) that the people there aren't as stupid and dull as some people like to imply, that they'll be able to build the aircraft as well as people in say Kansas or Washington.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:31 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 8):
[quoting Leeham] the USAF should procure a derivative of a medium (300-550K lbs) to large (550-1,000K lbs) commercial airliner

I'm not sure what the problem is that the article is trying to point out with regards to the 777. The Rand study states explicity that the USAF should procure a derivative that includes a "large" commercial airliner, which the 777 is. Obviously, it would have fit in just fine with the Rand findings.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 8):
[quoting Leeham] The evidence, therefore, seems conclusive that all the rhetoric about the KC-30 being a "large" tanker is simply hyperbole without foundation; it's simply "larger" than the KC-767.

I think the hyperbole is the fact that no one meant that the KC-30 was a "large" tanker in the true specification. It's just a very large tanker relatively speeking. The hyperbole rests with the Leeham article.

By the way, I never knew Leeham was so unbiased.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):
Uhhh because building an airplane in Alabama isn't of any concern?

The issue isn't Alabama. The issue is a phantom supply chain and final assembly factory and employees that don't exist yet.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):
I mean I know its Alabama and all and that but I'm betting (well really really hoping) that the people there aren't as stupid and dull as some people like to imply, that they'll be able to build the aircraft as well as people in say Kansas or Washington.

I don't think anyone meant that, unless of course those people who are simple-minded and tend to be racist or stereotype certain geographies. Keep those comments where they belong - they don't belong on here.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:37 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 10):
How does Airbus produce an airframe that is substantially larger than the competing article, ship the subassemblies thousands of miles to a final assembly process that has yet to be built, and still sell them for $10 - $15 million LESS per unit? I don't care how efficient Airbus' manufacturing processes are, their airplanes incorporate far more content alone given the airplane's substantially larger size (I won't even address their Euro/Dollar problem).

Your point has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing the item, it has to do with the margins being employed by the manufacturers on the items. Looking at the list prices on the 787 compared to the 330/350/777 suggests the points you have raised are nothing but red herrings.

All you comment says to me is that Boeing is gouging the US government as they deem it a military project. I suspect the KC-767AT base airframe is almost double of what UPS paid. I seem to recall similar observations made during the investigation into the failed KC-767 lease.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:11 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
Oh and whoever posted the pictures of the Airbus "refueling" planes. ITS AN A310 NOT A A330. I might point out that reading skills goes a long way in life.

It was I that posted the pictures and articles. I suggest that you go back and re-read the article. I was very specific about the content.

Seems that it is you that has to go and practice your reading skills.  Wink

The following picture is of the A330MRTT with the F18 of the RAAF. The BOOM system was demonstrated via an A313 on a F16 from the Portuguese Air Force.



February 12, 2008

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/operations/program_update.html

Recent flight test milestones have demonstrated the maturity and low development risk for the state-of-the-art refueling system on Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker.

Evaluations with the aircraft's all-digital FRL 905E-series refueling pods were made using the Royal Australian Air Force's no. 1 A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), underscoring their "rock solid" stability at a full range of speeds and altitudes. For the testing, an F/A-18 combat aircraft made operational-type approaches behind the extended hoses and drogues as they trailed from the pods under the [/b]A330 MRTT's[/b] left and right wings - with the fighter moving into very close proximity at the pre-contact position.

The hoses and drogues were extended at lengths of 75 ft., 82 ft. and 90 ft. during multiple deployments at altitudes from 10,000 ft. to 35,000 ft., and at airspeeds ranging from 180 kts. to 300 kts. These deployments were made as the A330 MRTT flew in both level flight and while banking, reflecting typical operational profiles during refueling missions. In all scenarios, the Cobham/Sargent Fletcher-built FRL 905E-series hose and drogue system exhibited total and complete stability, which is critical for successful refueling of probe-equipped receiver aircraft.

During the same flight, the Royal Australian Air Force's A330 MRTT joined up with the A310 demonstrator aircraft that carries the Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS), confirming the ARBS' compatibility with large receiver aircraft. The ARBS was extended to various points throughout the refueling envelope as the A330 MRTT moved to within six inches of the all-electric fly-by-wire boom.


Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:03 pm

About the 777 as better base aircraft for Boeing to select:
Hardly any topic generated as much posts in this forum like the topic "the A330 as tanker is too big vs. 767". That now the opposite shall be true and the real meaning suddenly is "the A330 is to small vs. a real winning-777 tanker" shows a fully screwed reasoning.

It seems any size of a Boeing aircraft is the right one. The 767 size would be brilliant just like the 777 size. Only the size between must be a black hole.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:05 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Your point has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing the item, it has to do with the margins being employed by the manufacturers on the items.

My point has everything to do with the cost of manufacturing an item.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
All you comment says to me is that Boeing is gouging the US government

That's just your opinion (biased against Boeing, but no surprise there) and it is not substantiated by any fact.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:08 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):

Uhhh because building an airplane in Alabama isn't of any concern? I mean I know its Alabama and all and that but I'm betting (well really really hoping) that the people there aren't as stupid and dull as some people like to imply, that they'll be able to build the aircraft as well as people in say Kansas or Washington.

Thank you!

As of the current time, Airbus has an engineering facility at BFM that does work on all the current widebody lines. There is also a Teledyne Continental Motors manufacturing plant, and Singapore Technologies/Mobile Aerospace MRO facility that does work for major carriers around the world. Not to mention that the Brookley Complex's mere existence is owed to the fact that it used to be Brookley Air Force Base.

We aren't dummies nor inexperienced.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:10 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 16):
That now the opposite shall be true and the real meaning suddenly is "the A330 is to small vs. a real winning-777 tanker" shows a fully screwed reasoning.

No, the reverse is whats happening here. We are being told that the A330's 42 feet extra wingspan and 33 feet extra length over the KC767 is meaningless. Yet the 777's extra 14.5 foot extra span and 16 foot extra length over the KC30 is just too large. SAY WHAT?

I'd also be interested to findout how the KC30 apparently requires far less runway than the A332. 2,650 -2,700M seems to be the only lenght I can find quoted for the A332. Thats 8,000ft. Seems like magic that it can see a MTOW bump on the same old platform and suddenly get 1/8th of its takeoff distance removed too. not attacking, just wondering what they changed from the A332 to get this extra performance
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:35 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
No, the reverse is whats happening here. We are being told that the A330's 42 feet extra wingspan and 33 feet extra length over the KC767 is meaningless. Yet the 777's extra 14.5 foot extra span and 16 foot extra length over the KC30 is just too large. SAY WHAT?

I am a size 7 shoe, I don't buy 12s and I don't buy 4s  Wink

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:46 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
No, the reverse is whats happening here. We are being told that the A330's 42 feet extra wingspan and 33 feet extra length over the KC767 is meaningless. Yet the 777's extra 14.5 foot extra span and 16 foot extra length over the KC30 is just too large. SAY WHAT?

Of course that what happened here. You have three options before you a station wagon, a minivan, or a full sized van. The station wagon won't carry everything you need and want it to carry but gets good mileage and is maneuverable, the van carries everything but is just too big, gets poor gas mileage, and the engine is hard to work on, meanwhile the minivan while bigger than you initially wanted, carries everything you want, gets decent if not great mileage, is decently maneuverable, and is within your price range, so of course you pick it. What's wrong whit that? Two planes were offered (with a third unoffered but thought of as an option) and the Air Force selected the one that presented the best total package, it was the largest of the two without being overly large.

You might remember the old story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, that will clarify the situation for you...... Though it's a children's story, the story goes straight to the point.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:53 pm

Hi XT6Wagon,

Such a shame that you conveniently skipped my reply to you. What's wrong ? Maybe its rather hard to swallow the truth?

When I get something wrong, (at times happens) I'm the first to admit my errors, yet you simply prefer to skip over them, despite being proven wrong, and with detailed information to go with it.

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
trex8
Posts: 4578
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:30 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
That's just your opinion (biased against Boeing, but no surprise there) and it is not substantiated by any fact.

except that there is precedent on "gouging" by B on tankers for the AF, ask that senator from AZ.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:44 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 23):
except that there is precedent on "gouging" by B on tankers for the AF, ask that senator from AZ.

Why don't you try Google'ing on Northrop Grumman and their infamous U.S. Navy contract wherein they deliberately sold defective parts to the Navy?

When you're done, come back and I'll give you more scandals to research pertaining to NG's contracting practices.  

[Edited 2008-06-13 14:50:48]
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
trex8
Posts: 4578
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:16 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 24):
Why don't you try Google'ing on Northrop Grumman and their infamous U.S. Navy contract wherein they deliberately sold defective parts to the Navy?

The point is someone made a valid point and you thought it wasn't valid but it is, and what NG or anyone else has done has nothing to do with what B may be doing now on this issue. Or are you also saying NG/EADS are dumping?

I know all about "crooked" US suppliers, I spent a big chunk of 6 years of my life explaining to FMS customers how they got screwed but in a polite way so they didn't think the Pentagon and the USG was directly responsible for doing it!
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:29 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 25):
The point is someone made a valid point and you thought it wasn't valid but it is,

No, they didn't make a valid point. They claimed Boeing is gouging (present tense) the U.S. government and didn't offer any proof. And all you did was dig up past dirt as proof that they are gouging (present tense) the U.S. Government. Both his and your points are invalid.

As you said, what NG has done in the past has no bearing on this issue. Just as what Boeing may have done in the past has no bearing on this issue. I wouldn't make the leap that NG's deliberate sale of faulty equipment to the DoD in the past means that they are selling faulty tankers to the USAF now, just as I wouldn't make the leap that Boeing's past 'gouging' on the tanker deal means they are currently 'gouging' the USAF.

[Edited 2008-06-13 16:36:42]
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:18 am



Quoting WINGS (Reply 22):
Such a shame that you conveniently skipped my reply to you. What's wrong ? Maybe its rather hard to swallow the truth?

Um, I don't see what I have to respond too, the boom has never been used on the KC30. Which is 99.9% of the point for a KC-135 replacement since by thier very nature do almost entirely boom refueling.

You might ask yourself why hasn't the A330 been used for boom testing? Why use a A310?

Might ask yourself why it was thought to be no risk, when the USAF itself said that the boom was unsutable for its use even now due to design flaws? Why was it give no risk when at the time of the selection it had not passed any fuel. If you read the A310 at that point had only made CONTACTS not passed any fuel at all.


As to the "right size" people. It has a larger footprint than a B52, yet you don't see a basing issue with that? The KC135 flys home on virtualy all missions with gas left in the tanks after taking off below max fuel? Cargo is better shipped by civilian contractors, both in effcency and cost. How is having even more fuel that you don't need a benifit. How is more cargo capactity that costs more to use better? How is clogging up the tarmac and hangers with fewer frames even when it does fit better?

How is higher operating costs better? How is a higher purchace price better?

Lets put it this way, if its the right size, why has the USAF NEVER purchaced more KC10? The KC10 is a SMALLER plane that carries MORE fuel than the KC30. Strange. Even when DC10's were avalible used in huge numbers. Even when they would have sold them cheap to keep frames moving out the door new.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:49 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):

OH NO! You know I think the USAF may have been wrong on their decision, quick go tell them they need to get the Boeing one, I'm sure they'll be very grateful  Yeah sure

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:12 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
You might ask yourself why hasn't the A330 been used for boom testing? Why use a A310?

If you would have read the other threads about this issue carefully, you would not be asking this question. You proved that by asking the question about the A310-MRTT in the picture. And you did not reply properly to RM WINGS.

And even your last reply to WINGS misses the point completely! That is a shame. Now everyone has stuck their heels in the ground on this issue. Let us wait what the GAO comes up with.

If there were procedural mistakes, we will hear about it. If all was done correctly, than the decision made by the USAF stands. Either way it will never take away the fact that, especially according to the specifications of the RFP as drawn up by the USAF, the A330-MRTT (whether or not it is called an KC-30 or KC-45) is the better platform compared to the B767-AT. That has been proven so many times on so many internet forums, and more important, has been proven by this platform by winning the last 5 out of 5 competitions worldwide.

But you probably know some things the Air Forces of all these countries did not know. Also while being in these losing bidding processes Boeing must have forgotten to tell those Air Forces what the secret qualities of the B767 are compared to the A330-MRTT. Otherwise the B767 could never have lost? Am I right? Then you better tell Boeing what it is so that they can start winning bids with that older and technically inferior airframe compared to the A330-MRTT.

Regards.
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:15 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):

Um, I don't see what I have to respond too, the boom has never been used on the KC30. Which is 99.9% of the point for a KC-135 replacement since by their very nature do almost entirely boom refueling.

XT6Wagon,

It would seem that you suffer short term memory loss. I will gladly remind you what you affirmed and have yet to prove me wrong, or admit you mistake.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/85718/

Reply nº 325

Ok, I don't know how many times its been pointed out but the A330MRTT is merly flying, its not done any tanker tasks. Yet somehow this is better than the KC767's that are fully certified and delivered to the customer.

er.... right. whatever.


I was unaware that Boeing had already built the KC767 to the USAF specifications. Would love to see some pictures of that 767-200 fuselage with the 767-400's wings, and the very same BOOM system that is to be used by the USAF.

Good luck with that.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/operations/program_update.html

February 12, 2008

Recent flight test milestones have demonstrated the maturity and low development risk for the state-of-the-art refueling system on Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker.

Evaluations with the aircraft's all-digital FRL 905E-series refueling pods were made using the Royal Australian Air Force's no. 1 A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), underscoring their "rock solid" stability at a full range of speeds and altitudes. For the testing, an F/A-18 combat aircraft made operational-type approaches behind the extended hoses and drogues as they trailed from the pods under the A330 MRTT's left and right wings - with the fighter moving into very close proximity at the pre-contact position.

The hoses and drogues were extended at lengths of 75 ft., 82 ft. and 90 ft. during multiple deployments at altitudes from 10,000 ft. to 35,000 ft., and at airspeeds ranging from 180 kts. to 300 kts. These deployments were made as the A330 MRTT flew in both level flight and while banking, reflecting typical operational profiles during refueling missions. In all scenarios, the Cobham/Sargent Fletcher-built FRL 905E-series hose and drogue system exhibited total and complete stability, which is critical for successful refueling of probe-equipped receiver aircraft.

During the same flight, the Royal Australian Air Force's A330 MRTT joined up with the A310 demonstrator aircraft that carries the Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS), confirming the ARBS' compatibility with large receiver aircraft. The ARBS was extended to various points throughout the refueling envelope as the A330 MRTT moved to within six inches of the all-electric fly-by-wire boom.


If this wasn't good enough you personally attacked my reading skills with the following reply.

Oh and whoever posted the pictures of the Airbus "refueling" planes. ITS AN A310 NOT A A330. I might point out that reading skills goes a long way in life. The A330 still hasn't refueled a single plane. ITS A FACT.

Practice what you peach, and you might also learn some manners while you are at it.  Wink

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:43 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
I'd also be interested to findout how the KC30 apparently requires far less runway than the A332. 2,650 -2,700M seems to be the only lenght I can find quoted for the A332. Thats 8,000ft. Seems like magic that it can see a MTOW bump on the same old platform and suddenly get 1/8th of its takeoff distance removed too. not attacking, just wondering what they changed from the A332 to get this extra performance

"The KC-30's superior performance characteristics ensure the tanker will be able to deploy from the largest number of airfields and airports possible. The aircraft's excellent takeoff performance allows it to depart from a 7,000-ft. runway fully loaded."

from http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/performance/deploying.html

The KC-767AT cannot even takeoff from 8,000 ft at MTOW

"The ability to take off at near maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway gets the KC-767 closer to the action and brings increased mission flexibility"

from http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html

The A330-200E available today has better performance than the A330-200 that rolled off the assembly line 10 years ago.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
You might ask yourself why hasn't the A330 been used for boom testing? Why use a A310?

KC-767J first flight : 21 May 2005
First GEN 5 boom deployed : Feb. 21, 2007

KC-30 first flight : 26 Sep 2007
ARBS Boom test (on A310) passing fuel : 10 Dec 2007

Seems the boom testing for the KC-30 is well ahead of the program that Boeing had for the KC-767J, using the two frames seems to be accelerating the test schedule.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
As to the "right size" people. It has a larger footprint than a B52, yet you don't see a basing issue with that?

Not with the bases that the USAF had on the web site as being the KC-X bases, I guess the RAF, RSAF, RAAF etc also do not see the problem.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
The KC135 flys home on virtualy all missions with gas left in the tanks after taking off below max fuel?

Someone said the opposite on the last part

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
Cargo is better shipped by civilian contractors, both in effcency and cost.

Like ATA who recently went broke ?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
How is clogging up the tarmac and hangers with fewer frames even when it does fit better?

Less airframes that do more, should be more room.

BTW about 100 KC-135s are in maintenance at any one time, the arrival of the KC-30 should empty some hangers, but increase the KC-135 footprint in the graveyard.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
How is higher operating costs better?

Airlines seem to be able to grasp that concept when they select the A330 over the 767.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
How is a higher purchace price better?

KC-30 has a lower purchase price from what I understand.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
Lets put it this way, if its the right size, why has the USAF NEVER purchaced more KC10?

The base airframe is out of production ?

The airframe lacked the came capability as asked for from the KC-X ?

Quoting WINGS (Reply 30):
767-200 fuselage with the 767-400's wings

Just the 764 flaps, below is the Boeing photo/rendering

We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:37 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
"The KC-30's superior performance characteristics ensure the tanker will be able to deploy from the largest number of airfields and airports possible. The aircraft's excellent takeoff performance allows it to depart from a 7,000-ft. runway fully loaded."



Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
The KC-767AT cannot even takeoff from 8,000 ft at MTOW

I find an interesting peculiarity in the above two statements - why is it NG/EADS refers to the KC-30 as "fully loaded" when touting its ability to take-off in 7,000 ft, but when referencing Boeing's KC-767 the specification of 'MTOW' is used to show it can't perform the same? There is a difference between the definition of 'fully loaded' vs. 'MTOW'. So, I'm curious to know: when NG/EADS says 'fully loaded', do they mean fully loaded with fuel only on a tanker mission, or do they mean fully loaded at MTOW?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
Cargo is better shipped by civilian contractors, both in efficiency and cost.

Like ATA who recently went broke ?

That's a false argument because ATA filed BK because it lost the government contract - the government did not lose the lift capability because ATA filed BK. FedEx awarded the military lift business to NW, which led to the demise of ATA. The other reason it's a lame argument is because, regardless of an airline filing BK or shutting down, there's always another one around that will take its place.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
BTW about 100 KC-135s are in maintenance at any one time, the arrival of the KC-30 should empty some hangers, but increase the KC-135 footprint in the graveyard.

And how many of those are the older, maintenance-heavy 'E' models vs. the refurbished and upgraded 'R' models? The 'E' model is what the KC-X competition was intended to replace, so even the KC-767 should "empty some hangars". (By the way, that's spelled h-a-n-g-A-r. You should know that as a pilot.)

Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
Airlines seem to be able to grasp that concept when they select the A330 over the 767.

How many aerial refueling missions are performed each day by the world's passenger airlines? What airframes are most commonly used by commercial passenger airlines and which airline has the largest fleet of aerial tankers? Which airline do you think is going to place an order for their next aerial refueling tanker upgrade? I'd like to keep a close eye on that particular pending order because only then will we know if the USAF made the right choice in selecting the KC-30 for their particular aerial refueling requirements.  

Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
Lets put it this way, if its the right size, why has the USAF NEVER purchaced more KC10?

The base airframe is out of production ?

Why didn't the USAF purchase more when the base airframe was still in production up until 1998 (including the MD-11)?

[Edited 2008-06-14 14:45:16]
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
dougbr2006
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:44 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:55 pm

I think we shall all have a better idea after the 19th.

I am sure that whichever way the GOA decide will have to be supported by lots of evidence and corroboration, which even the congress will have to acknowledge.

In my opinion most of these congressmen seem only to be vote interested instead of what the USAF needs sooner rather than later. The fact that the first Boeing award was corrupt and then congress decided on an open bid system makes the Boeing and congressional protests rather meaningless.

Again the US Congress seem to be two faced, if Boeing had won they would have been praising themselves over the selection process. Instead the competition won and many congressmen were probably looking at third party funding disappearing, in whichever way you want to describe it.

Thats why they are protesting now, not because they have the best interests of the Boeing employees and the US nation at interest. Its how they appear in the papers and TV reports that matters to them, especially during election times!!!!
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:22 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
I find an interesting peculiarity in the above two statements - why is it NG/EADS refers to the KC-30 as "fully loaded" when touting its ability to take-off in 7,000 ft, but when referencing Boeing's KC-767 the specification of 'MTOW' is used to show it can't perform the same? There is a difference between the definition of 'fully loaded' vs. 'MTOW'. So, I'm curious to know: when NG/EADS says 'fully loaded', do they mean fully loaded with fuel only on a tanker mission, or do they mean fully loaded at MTOW?

It may be written in different words, but they mean the same thing. The A330-MRTT can take-off at MTOW from a 7.000 ft balanced field runway. The B767-AT can only take off at MTOW from a balanced airfield runway of 8.000 ft. And carries less fuel then the A330-MRTT.

See also below from another thread:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
"The KC-30 aircraft can deploy fully loaded from airports and airfields with a 7,000ft runway."

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc30tanker/

"The KC-30's superior performance characteristics ensure the tanker will be able to deploy from the largest number of airfields and airports possible. The aircraft's excellent takeoff performance allows it to depart from a 7,000-ft. runway fully loaded."

from http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/performance/deploying.html

"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

from http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/2007...0.htm


Also see this:

The KC-767AT cannot even takeoff from 8,000 ft at MTOW

"The ability to take off at near maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway gets the KC-767 closer to the action and brings increased mission flexibility"

from http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html

[Edited 2008-06-14 15:24:17]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:55 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
The other reason it's a lame argument is because, regardless of an airline filing BK or shutting down, there's always another one around that will take its place.

That is not true, companies do not sit around and have the spare capacity just on the off chance the will pick up some work. The operational side of things also need to be in place, crewing, fuel, hotel, insurance, ground equipment, overflight clearances etc

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
And how many of those are the older, maintenance-heavy 'E' models vs. the refurbished and upgraded 'R' models?

Dont know, only 481 KC-135s are in service, 48 of the E models are set to be retired this year.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
How many aerial refueling missions are performed each day by the world's passenger airlines?

None, no 767s and no A330s.

What airlines are finding is the extra capacity is worth it, and that the extra size of the aircraft is not preventing it from being purchased or working operationally.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
Why didn't the USAF purchase more when the base airframe was still in production up until 1998 (including the MD-11)?

Dont know, not good enough for what they wanted ? Going out of production ?

Why did airlines stop buying them ?

[Edited 2008-06-14 17:55:52]
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:36 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 34):
It may be written in different words, but they mean the same thing.

I'm sorry, but they do NOT mean the same thing. Not by a long shot. An airplane can take off "fully loaded", but it may be no where near its MTOW.

Now, I'll grant you that perhaps NG/EADS does intend that "fully loaded" means MTOW, but that's what I want to know - do they in fact mean that? And if they do, why don't they just use the term "MTOW"? That is the proper term to use in aviation when referencing an aircraft that is taking off at its maximum weight.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
The other reason it's a lame argument is because, regardless of an airline filing BK or shutting down, there's always another one around that will take its place.

That is not true, companies do not sit around and have the spare capacity just on the off chance the will pick up some work.

Perhaps, but it boils down to supply and demand. Somebody will step in to fill the void, and if times are good they will charge a premium. But in this era of airlines benching hundreds of aircraft at a shot (see UA and US just for starters), I'm sure they would have no issue taking up the slack for a good price to the government. And don't forget: government contract work, while not as profitable, is CONSISTENTLY profitable through the term of the contract regardless of economic conditions.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
And how many of those are the older, maintenance-heavy 'E' models vs. the refurbished and upgraded 'R' models?

Dont know, only 481 KC-135s are in service, 48 of the E models are set to be retired this year.

Okay.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
How many aerial refueling missions are performed each day by the world's passenger airlines?

None, no 767s and no A330s.

I know that. My comment was sarcasm, hence the smiley at the end (  Wink ).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
Why didn't the USAF purchase more when the base airframe was still in production up until 1998 (including the MD-11)?

Dont know, not good enough for what they wanted ? Going out of production ?

Why did airlines stop buying them ?

From what I recall, LH and others (but particularly LH) were actually eager to buy more MD-11s for cargo when Boeing shut down the line after their purchase of MD.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:44 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 34):
"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

And given the KC-30's ~25% larger size, a lot of that additional fuel capacity will burn off just getting it to it's off-load station, loitering, and then back to its base.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
trex8
Posts: 4578
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:58 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
Why didn't the USAF purchase more when the base airframe was still in production up until 1998 (including the MD-11)?

because at that time they had higher priorities for other toys they wanted to fund like the F22 and C17?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:29 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 37):
And given the KC-30's ~25% larger size, a lot of that additional fuel capacity will burn off just getting it to it's off-load station, loitering, and then back to its base

Well, that is not entirely correct. Fuel consumption of the A330-MRTT is estimated at 6-9% higher on maximum take-off weight. And development measures to increase the fuel efficiency on the A330 airframe are a continues effort worked on by Airbus. Late this year or early next year yet another fuel consumption improvement package will be standard on all A330 airframes.

If the A330-MRTT is not filled to its full capacity, and that capacity is as you also stated significantly larger than that of the B767-AT, the differences are even smaller. Hence, the A330-MRTT will be more fuel efficient than the B767-AT if they carry the same loads. Of course the type of mission that it has to fulfill also plays a role here, as are other factors. But these factors will vary also for any other plane which has to fulfill that same mission.

So yes, the A330-MRTT is larger, but aerodynamically clearly superior to the B767, mainly because of its much more advanced and fuel efficient wing. That is why this airframe is still very successful today (breaking its own records btw) and the B767 is almost out of production. And as I said continues improvements on the airframe and engines are still being developed, contrary to the older B767-AT airframe which is at the end of its development cycle.

It is in this department where the A330-MRTT gains a lot back on the initial higher fuel consumption due to its weight compared to the lighter B767. And as Astuteman and others have pointed out in several threads about a topic about fuel consumption, drag on an airframe is the main reason for fuel consumption, not weight.

So even when weighing more then the B767-AT, and while carrying more fuel for itself and carrying much more fuel which can be offloaded to receiving aircraft, the A330-MRTT can still fly further compared to the B767-AT. Which needs auxiliary tanks btw to keep its deficit in this department "acceptable" where the A330-MRTT does not need such extra tanks.

Remember that according to Singapore Airlines the initial fuel burn of the A380 in the first two months of operating them was less than 0.5% higher when compared to the B747-400. But the A380 weighs a lot more than the B747-400ER. The A380 weight is 560 tonnes, or in imperial values 1,235,000 lbs. The B747-400 weighs 412.7 tons or 910,000 lbs. And this figure came from the short stretches from Singapore to Sydney. The A380 can of course fly much further then that.

On longer stretches like i.e. from SIN to LHR the A380 is actually already more fuel efficient, and is carrying a lot more passengers and thus weight when it flies. The improvement comes mostly from the superior aerodynamics of the A380 airframe and wing. Also the newer engine technology will help here also. And the A380 is only at the beginning of a weight cutting and engine improvement process that will go on for years to come.

This is partly also true for the A330. It has seen a lot of improvements over the years, and will see more of those in the years to come. Because airline customers demend these improvements and Airbus wants to keep the airframe competative for many years to come. Since this is not an issue for the B767 family, which nowadays hardly receives any orders from any airline, the "gap" will at some stage in the program be negliagable where the A330-MRTT will have increased its basic stronger points compared to the B767-AT.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:30 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 37):
And given the KC-30's ~25% larger size, a lot of that additional fuel capacity will burn off just getting it to it's off-load station, loitering, and then back to its base.

How do you work that out?
Size and weight are just about irrelevant. It's DRAG that determines fuel burn.......
The A330 baseline has a dramatically better L/D than the 767 baseline.

Rgds
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:51 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 40):

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 37):
And given the KC-30's ~25% larger size, a lot of that additional fuel capacity will burn off just getting it to it's off-load station, loitering, and then back to its base.

How do you work that out?

Size and weight are just about irrelevant.

Weight is irrelevant? Really? I had no idea. I didn't realize airlines struggle to contain weight on their airplanes nor that Boeing and Airbus are always trying to figure out ways to shave weight off of their existing and future models just for the sheer fun of it.  Wink

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 39):

Since you (and others) seem to know this issue so well, let me pick your brain for a moment with a hypothetical, the answer to which I'd genuinely be interested in knowing:

Let's say a KC-30 and a KC-767 took off from the same airbase, both destined for the same rendezvous point, and each loaded with 100,000 lbs of fuel to off load to a flight of four F-15s (a VERY typical tanker mission). Which aircraft would require the most total fuel to complete the mission? (Total fuel = off-load fuel + fuel to fly to rendezvous point, loiter, return to base + reserves.)
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:09 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41):
Since you (and others) seem to know this issue so well, let me pick your brain for a moment with a hypothetical, the answer to which I'd genuinely be interested in knowing:

Let's say a KC-30 and a KC-767 took off from the same airbase, both destined for the same rendezvous point, and each loaded with 100,000 lbs of fuel to off load to a flight of four F-15s (a VERY typical tanker mission). Which aircraft would require the most total fuel to complete the mission? (Total fuel = off-load fuel + fuel to fly to rendezvous point, loiter, return to base + reserves.)

In this question some important variables are missing. How far away are the F15s needing fuel? Meaning, how long do the tankers have to fly before they reach their fighter colleagues needing fuel. And at what altitude will the refuelling be done?

Still I give it try to answer this. Since the 100.000 lbs is way below the maximum load of both tanker aircraft, the initial fuel burn advantage will be imho with the A330-MRTT. But if the flight is very short and at high altitude, the weight penalty of the A330-MRTT compared to the B767-AT will be a factor. Because more weight has to be lifted to a certain altitude. But the longer the flight, the better the numbers for the A330-MRTT will be since it is aerodynamically superior to the B767-AT.

Kind regards.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:14 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
I suspect the KC-767AT base airframe is almost double of what UPS paid.

Zeke, you really need some oxygen. The Boeing price to the USAF for the KC-767AT was $120M (averaged) each fly away costs. Boeing lists the B-767-300ERF freighter as $151M-$162M each. While I agree with you that UPS got discount pricing, I doubt Boeing took off $100M per airplane.

Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 20):
I am a size 7 shoe, I don't buy 12s and I don't buy 4s

In the US, your shoe size would be 11.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 23):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
That's just your opinion (biased against Boeing, but no surprise there) and it is not substantiated by any fact.


except that there is precedent on "gouging" by B on tankers for the AF, ask that senator from AZ.

What defense supplier hasn't? NG has quite a record, too.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):
Quoting WINGS (Reply 22):
Such a shame that you conveniently skipped my reply to you. What's wrong ? Maybe its rather hard to swallow the truth?

Um, I don't see what I have to respond too, the boom has never been used on the KC30. Which is 99.9% of the point for a KC-135 replacement since by thier very nature do almost entirely boom refueling.

You might ask yourself why hasn't the A330 been used for boom testing? Why use a A310?

There seems to be concern among the USAF Refueling community that the EADS Boom doesn't work. The few wet and dry contacts the KC-310 test airplane has come at a very high maintenance costs, something like 120 maintenance hours per refueling contact. Of the RAAF KC-30B tankers, only one has a Boom on it that is fully assembled. The other two are incomplete.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:23 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 40):
Size and weight are just about irrelevant.

You mentioned that in an earlier thread/reply and I did not bother to comment. Let me ask you a question if size and weight are irrelevant. Why is it that larger, heavier airframes require larger more powerful engines? Could it be that the amount of thrust needed for roll out, takeoff and climb are greater for a larger heavier airframe? Could it be there is something called inertia and gravity at work here?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:36 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 42):
How far away are the F15s needing fuel?

I'll let you pick the distance. But if you'd like, let's just say something that is very typical, such as 500nm.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 42):
And at what altitude will the refuelling be done?

Again, something very typical: FL280

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 42):
Since the 100.000 lbs is way below the maximum load of both tanker aircraft

You do realize that the vast majority - VERY VAST - are rarely flown at maximum capacity, right? (That includes the ubiquitous KC-135.)
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:42 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
BTW about 100 KC-135s are in maintenance at any one time, the arrival of the KC-30 should empty some hangers

Since about 20% of all USAF types are in some stage of maintenance at any one time,, having 100 KC-135E/Rs out of 512 is not unusual.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 35):
Dont know, only 481 KC-135s are in service, 48 of the E models are set to be retired this year.

Actually, that number is now down to 17 KC-135Es going to DM this year, they will go to storage, not retirement. The remaining 31 are to be put into storage at ANG bases around the US. The retirement of the KC-135E has been stopped, for now, or at least slowed.
 
trex8
Posts: 4578
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:34 am

 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3784
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:35 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 45):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 42):
How far away are the F15s needing fuel?

I'll let you pick the distance. But if you'd like, let's just say something that is very typical, such as 500nm.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 42):
And at what altitude will the refuelling be done?

Again, something very typical: FL280

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 42):
Since the 100.000 lbs is way below the maximum load of both tanker aircraft

You do realize that the vast majority - VERY VAST - are rarely flown at maximum capacity, right? (That includes the ubiquitous KC-135.)

Well I do not have all the data at hand. And since I am at the office, even when it it 6:30 pm, it would take too much time to actually calculate. But given the figures you provided in such a flight the fuel consumption benefit could very well be with the B767-AT. Which is more or less in line with my earlier statements a few posts ago where I said that the initial fuel consumption difference between the two airframes is estimated at 6-9%.

So the possible outcome is just a guess of mine. Maybe someone better than me on calculating the actual numbers which would come out of this equation can help us out here? Big grin

Kind regards.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award Pt. II

Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:45 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 31):
The A330-200E available today has better performance than the A330-200 that rolled off the assembly line 10 years ago.

Zeke, the KC-30B/-45A is not based on the A-330-200E.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 48):
Well I do not have all the data at hand. And since I am at the office, even when it it 6:30 pm, it would take too much time to actually calculate.

The KC-45A, or KC-767AT would not be tactically (or strategically) used any differently than the current KC-135E/R/-10A

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests