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

New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:13 pm

Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them) today comparing the LCC of the B-767-200ER to the A-330-200, in 10 different scenarios. Each only compares the basic commerical airliner of each model. For the comparison, AeroStrategy Management Consulting only considered the B-767 equipped with PW-4000 94" fan engines and the A-330 equipped CF-6-80E engines, near the same engines offered by each OEM.

They used the USAF provided 2.5% annual fuel price increase and 489 annual flying hours, the US DOE 5.1% annual fuel price increase and a USAFannaual flying rate of 750 hours, as well as a commerical airliner annual flying hours or 4,000 hours.

The end results, according to Boeing and AeroStrategy is the smaller B-767-200ER is 20% to 25% less costly to 'own' over the expected 40 year life of 179 airplanes. AeroStrategy only used the commerical airliner configuerations of each airplane and not the heavier tanker configueration with WARPs (which will increase the drag index for both offers).

I expect some of the EADS supporters, for the KC-X to discredit this study because Boeing paid for it. But, I have not seen a similar study paid for by EADS.

http://static.unitedstatestanker.com...p3272064&utm_medium=e&sc=sp3272064

This report is the entire 12 page assessment released by Boeing, not the shortened 2 page report.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:03 pm

Without being unduly cynical, I would have been surprised at any other verdict.

Like going to Court and saying "I must be innocent, my Wife, Mother and Attorney all agree".  
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:51 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Without being unduly cynical, I would have been surprised at any other verdict.

Like going to Court and saying "I must be innocent, my Wife, Mother and Attorney all agree".

Perhaps that is true, but so is the assessment. The B-767-200ER does have a lower LCC when compared to the A-330-200. But, the B-767 also carries fewer passengers and cargo compared to the A-330, too.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:37 pm

This study is not worth the paper it is written on...


If civil versions of the B762 and A332 are compared, then probably the study should have found an answer why the B762 is virtually out of the market in the civil area - in contrast to the A332...


This study is a bit like a german joke, which says:

"A new study clearly showed that smoking is not dangerous (signed by Dr. Marlboro...)"


 
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6086
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:08 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 3):
If civil versions of the B762 and A332 are compared, then probably the study should have found an answer why the B762 is virtually out of the market in the civil area - in contrast to the A332...

Well anyone can tell that, and in fact KC135TopBoom did:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
the B-767 also carries fewer passengers and cargo compared to the A-330,

The key question is *IF* an airline only wanted an airplane that could carry 250 passengers, did not need much cargo capacity, and did not care about resale value, who would they choose?
The commercial world is very different from the military world.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:12 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
The commercial world is very different from the military world.

Agreed!


I think, this contest is real comedy already.

Both the B762 and A332 won the competition one time.

Now it is trial number three and i guess we will see a split order.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:08 pm

Anybody got the phone number to Embraer? I think I am going to call them to tell that Preben Norholm Aircraft Consulting Inc for a hundred quid can make them a report stating that a fleet of 179 E-170ER MRTTs utilized 479 hr/yr over 40 years can save $50bn or 75% over a similar A330 fleet.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
...I have not seen a similar study paid for by EADS.

Neither have I. But I have seen EADS paid figures telling about unit costs for delivering X lbs of fuel Y miles from base. But that was ten or fifteen years ago, long time before the whole KC-X program ran politically crazy.

Excuse me, but I cannot understand why the USAF doesn't just order those KC-767 today. After all it is the only politically correct outcome of this decades old drama. Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:34 pm

Does it mention fuel upload, and number of sorties required for total fuel upload required? At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.
Boeing funded comparison smells of boeing-sided bias.
Resident TechOps Troll
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:46 pm

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
Boeing funded comparison smells of boeing-sided bias.



lets stay away from this traditional smoke screen.. if the premise was comparing two commercial equivalents, that's what it is... all the pissing and moaning about bias isn't going to change anything.. bottom line it's the customers choice.
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:22 am

Pissing and moaning? Haha... It's just clear that it's not going to be a fair comparison, why would boeing pay to find in airbus' favour? Regardless of fuel burn alone for a given number of sorties and aircraft, more trips to deliver the same re-fuel capability as the a330 based tanker means more fuel burned, more crew time and greater wear and tear on the airframe to drag the same number of fighters.

I do try not to get involved in the a vs b war on this forum, people do get kind of heated about this! But I do find it amusing that boeing ended up bringing a knife to a gunfight, now it's all down to protectionist politics. If they'd proposed the 777 as a tanker, they'd be sitting pretty. But anyway, I'm routing for an ANTONOV tanker, or better yet lets rebuild the runway at Brooklands and put the VC-10 back into production, the RAF is still doing alright with those, right?   Kidding, btw - don't take me too seriously
Resident TechOps Troll
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:31 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
...bottom line it's the customers choice.

  
The remaining problem is only to find out who the customer is.

If the customer had been the Air Force, then they made up their mind on 29 February 2008.

Is it the DoD? GOA? The president? Or....?

One day we will know who the customer is. It will be the "strongest" agency, the agency which comes out as the winner of the "KC-X civil war" which has been going on for... I don't know how long time.

And they will choose the KC-767. And at the same time they will tell the air force why their choise was wrong two and a half years ago.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
...I'm routing for an ANTONOV tanker...

Antonov is already out of the competition. Well, they never got into it. They delivered their proposal five minutes late on 9 July this year. (How could they be 5 minutes late when they had fifteen years already?)

Realistically speaking, then this thing was settled when Northrop stepped out. Northrop are insiders, they know when continued efforts are fruitless. EADS only resubmitted their bid in order to be able to say "What did we say" some time in 2015 or 2020 when Boeing is down on the knees begging DoD for coverage of cost overruns and delays.

And in the end this program will have followed exactly the same scheme as all other such major programs since 1945.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:46 am

I think a big disadvantage of the B767 is the cruise speed.

It is a remarkable slow aircraft with most NAT crossings at M.80...
Therefore it has the nickname "Track-Blocker"...

Speed could be an issue if a tanker should reach a refueling area quickly or when it comes to very long flights to foreign bases.


But i am sure, the USAF will get the best or second best tanker...


 
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:26 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them)

Any study released and or funded by either of the three competitors (Boeing, Airbus, United Aerospace/Antonov) is not worth the paper it is written on, because they all naturally talk up their own bid and put down those of the others.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6):
Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.

I have a feeling that the only correct outcome is to cancel the entire process, retire large numbers of planes and put the extra funding into solving the huge debt crisis and claim the high ground on economic management (austerity measures).  
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:01 am

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.
Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
Regardless of fuel burn alone for a given number of sorties and aircraft, more trips to deliver the same re-fuel capability as the a330 based tanker means more fuel burned, more crew time and greater wear and tear on the airframe to drag the same number of fighters.

Based on those two assumptions one wonders why more 747's and A380's are not in use, after all they carry more fuel and pax and would ultimately require less a/c, less flights, less crew and less wear and tear.
Unfortunately, size is not the end all to everything for this requirement, every tanker mission is not a fighter drag across the pond, some are simple training missions, presently the smaller KC-135's do not carry a full load and usually do not offload all fuel uplifted, and they carry less than the 767 or A330, so are we in to overkill and if so how much is acceptable?

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
But I do find it amusing that boeing ended up bringing a knife to a gunfight, now it's all down to protectionist politics. If they'd proposed the 777 as a tanker, they'd be sitting pretty.

The US AirForce in their infinite wisdom decided to have a commercial off the shelf competition, other than the A320 and B-737, which two a/c from either OEM is of similar size? Infrastructure was always a factor, the makers of the RFP did their best to somehow accomodate two vastly dissimilar size a/c, the crux of the entire problem.


Quoting cpd (Reply 12):
Any study released and or funded by either of the three competitors (Boeing, Airbus, United Aerospace/Antonov) is not worth the paper it is written on, because they all naturally talk up their own bid and put down those of the others.

You should include the US Air Force in that crew, their number crunching to get comparitive numbers between these two a/c and the infrastructure and total ownership cost is impressive to say the least, especially since they first showed that the KC-135's should have fallen out of the sky a couple years ago, the 767 was best with a no bid contract, the A330 was best after fudging the competition, and the number of years they have delayed the whole process.
Good cannon fodder for discussion though  
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:12 am

Quoting 328JET (Reply 11):
Speed could be an issue if a tanker should reach a refueling area quickly or when it comes to very long flights to foreign bases.

On a 5000nm flight, the A330 would have around a 15 minute advantage, assuming a nominal cruise speed of M82 vs M80. I don't think that would be a big issue in most cases for repositioning.

Of course, when a tanker is urgently needed, both aircraft have a comparable dash speed in the M84 to M86 range, though the 767 would obviously take a bigger hit on operational range and offload when compared to the A330.

Thus, I don't think the speed itself is a disadvantage, but when both aircraft are at max cruise, the A330s advantage in offload capability will become even larger.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:19 pm

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
Does it mention fuel upload, and number of sorties required for total fuel upload required? At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.

That is not how the tanker mission works. The boom saturation ratio is 6 receivers to one tanker. That means if you have a 7:1 ratio, by the time you refuel all receivers, the first receiver has less fuel than when it started the refueling when #7 has finished its refueling.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
It's just clear that it's not going to be a fair comparison, why would boeing pay to find in airbus' favour? Regardless of fuel burn alone for a given number of sorties and aircraft, more trips to deliver the same re-fuel capability as the a330 based tanker means more fuel burned, more crew time and greater wear and tear on the airframe to drag the same number of fighters.

Also, what do you do with all that fuel on a tanker when one tanker/boom cannot refuel due to it breaking inflight or air aborts? The problem is solved by maximumizing the number of usable booms airborne, not the amount of fuel carried by those tankers.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
...bottom line it's the customers choice.


The remaining problem is only to find out who the customer is.

If the customer had been the Air Force, then they made up their mind on 29 February 2008.

Yes, after they twisted and violated their own rules, and those of the rest of the government. To do this, the USAF had to "adjust" the price of Boeing's bid up significantly as well as reduce the capabilities of the, then, KC-767AT, and applying the same MilCon costs to both bids. Even after all of that, the Boeing bid came within $30M spread over 25 years.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 11):
I think a big disadvantage of the B767 is the cruise speed.

It is a remarkable slow aircraft with most NAT crossings at M.80...
Therefore it has the nickname "Track-Blocker"...

Speed could be an issue if a tanker should reach a refueling area quickly or when it comes to very long flights to foreign bases.

That is crap. The B-767 and A-330 are both capable of nearly the same cruise airspeed. Just because one opts to fly a little slower, usually to reduce fuel burn rates does not mean the airplane is not capable of flying faster. Most NAT-TRACK flying is done between M .70 and M.75 anyway, not M.80 or higher. In the KC-135A/Q, we had a max airspeed of M .95, but often flew training missions or ops missions around M .72. The KC-135R/T has a max airspeed of M .90, well above the max airspeed of either bids.

BTW, very long flights to foreign bases are flown at normal cruise airspeeds, they just adjust the departure time to get their on time.

Quoting cpd (Reply 12):
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6):
Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.

I have a feeling that the only correct outcome is to cancel the entire process, retire large numbers of planes and put the extra funding into solving the huge debt crisis and claim the high ground on economic management (austerity measures).

Refurbishing the KC-135Es has been my top choice for a long time. But to retire a large number of airplanes is not Constitutional in the US. We can reduce the overall size of the DOD, but must "provide for the common defense".
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9941
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:46 pm

Glancing through the document I noticed the statement

"The standard Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) intervals for C-checks and D-checks are the same for the B767 and the A330 at 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for C-checks and 24,000 flight hours or 72 months for the D-checks."

That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.

Makes one wonder what else is inaccuate if the detail is reviewed.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:48 pm

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6):
Maybe except refurbishment of (part of) the present KC-135 fleet to last until 2050.

Considering our economic situation these days it might be wisest to spend the money upgrading what we have, scheduling upgrades as necessary.

Bit weird that the continues to be fit for service when the KC-135's are not.  
Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.

But at what point? And what percentage of operational lights will that occur in? And can the 10s handle those situations?

Looks to me that there is no reason to spend 1¢ more than is absolutely necessary. Especially with the replenishment of military supplies and equipment after two wars are over.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 9):
why would boeing pay to find in airbus' favour?

Maybe Boeing has the confidence to go with an independent evaluation.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
If the customer had been the Air Force, then they made up their mind on 29 February 2008.

Or they would have taken the 767s from the first round. No one has ended up in prison from the second time around, but the GAO slammed the USAF hard enough to publicly disgrace those playing the illegal games.

So McCain got his name in the paper and the USAF still doesn't have those tankers. Nor do workers have those jobs.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
And at the same time they will tell the air force why their choise was wrong two and a half years ago.

Take away the games that should have sent some brass to prison and Lord only knows what the choice would have been. I don't know, but I can guess.  
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 10):
when Boeing is down on the knees begging DoD for coverage of cost overruns and delays.

Like the M400?

Or are you saying that Airbus doesn't get down on their knees?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:09 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
That is not how the tanker mission works. The boom saturation ratio is 6 receivers to one tanker. That means if you have a 7:1 ratio, by the time you refuel all receivers, the first receiver has less fuel than when it started the refueling when #7 has finished its refueling.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The B-767 and A-330 are both capable of nearly the same cruise airspeed. Just because one opts to fly a little slower, usually to reduce fuel burn rates does not mean the airplane is not capable of flying faster. Most NAT-TRACK flying is done between M .70 and M.75 anyway, not M.80 or higher. In the KC-135A/Q, we had a max airspeed of M .95, but often flew training missions or ops missions around M .72. The KC-135R/T has a max airspeed of M .90, well above the max airspeed of either bids.



I love these gems you pull out of the hat...it'a always amazing how the "experts" can only rationalize choices based on commercial operator criteria.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
The standard Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) intervals for C-checks and D-checks are the same for the B767 and the A330 at 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for C-checks and 24,000 flight hours or 72 months for the D-checks."

That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.



Please remember the AF sets it's own criteria and doesn't (generally) use commercial criteria.. this is because they have differing missions, more people to keep busy and endless regs dreamed up by bureaucrats to promote jobs... There was study I believe in Canada where a fleet on new trucks was split into three groups, one maintained by military procedures, one by manufacturer's procedures and one received no maintenance .. the results were the no maintenance lasted longest, the manufacture's was next and the military maintenance planned vehicles were scrapped first.. worn out!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9941
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:57 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
Please remember the AF sets it's own criteria and doesn't (generally) use commercial criteria..

I fully understand, however the paper was comparing current procedures, and they claimed to get the numbers from the current maintenance planning documents which is not true.

If it was a true comparison on the military effectiveness, they would use the AMC tasking software to task the same groups of aircraft launched from various bases, and that would give a real representation of the effectiveness of the two tankers. It takes for example less KC-30s for a 24/7 combat air patrol.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:58 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
The key question is *IF* an airline only wanted an airplane that could carry 250 passengers, did not need much cargo capacity, and did not care about resale value, who would they choose?
The commercial world is very different from the military world.

The true answer of "which is cheaper" depends on the financial arrangement.

We can expect that the true long-term financial arrangement is so unbelievably complicated, estimates could vary as much as 200%. Either company could begin charging a fortune for spare parts, certifications.... anything. This is the problem with non-OTS components and possible bad faith conduct by either party.

My guess is that Boeing will use their political power to charge a much higher price than Airbus. But this is only a guess. Determining the true long-term cost would require 100 accountants, about a dozen crystal balls, some psychologists, political scientists etc. This is all theater. Boeing could probably merge with Airbus and they'd still be giving themselves patriotic awards.

The stat might be true but there is no way to tell.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:04 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them) today comparing the LCC of the B-767-200ER to the A-330-200, in 10 different scenarios.


What does the "Boeing study" have to do with the "KC-X Bids"?

The Bids are what was submitted to the DoD and they are not for public consumption. In other words you title is mis-leading!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:41 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.

Is this revision 16 already in effect for all A330's in operation, I recall reading last year I believe that Airbus was adjusting their maintenance intervals based on data from continuing operations.

Another question would be whether such new "specs" would be valid to use for this RFP, would they be regarded as unproven since no a/c has yet skipped 6 years and gone to 8 in practice?

I agree however that it is a technical point which at this point is all that is being looked at, the 787 is not yet in service so it 8 year interval is also unproven.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:13 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
"The standard Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) intervals for C-checks and D-checks are the same for the B767 and the A330 at 6,000 flight hours or 18 months for C-checks and 24,000 flight hours or 72 months for the D-checks."

That is not true for the A330, revision 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) refers. The A330 has the same maintenance intervals as the 787 (yes eight), D checks every 12 years, not 6 as they claim.

The DOD does heavy maintenance on a 5 year schedule, and the schedule "D" check change from Airbus on the A-330 is recent. It is funny how they did not include the A-340 in that change.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 7):
At some point, the A330 based tanker becomes more cost effective because it's a larger aircraft and can carry more tankable fuel than the smaller 767, thus fewer flights are made for a set number of aircraft needing re-fuel.

But at what point? And what percentage of operational lights will that occur in? And can the 10s handle those situations?

Good question.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 21):
So which part of the constitution is it in ??

The Preamble, which in part says "provide for the common defense".

Quoting 474218 (Reply 22):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Boeing released a new study (yes funded by them) today comparing the LCC of the B-767-200ER to the A-330-200, in 10 different scenarios.


What does the "Boeing study" have to do with the "KC-X Bids"?

The Bids are what was submitted to the DoD and they are not for public consumption. In other words you title is mis-leading!

The initial bids have been submitted by Boeing and EADS. After the USAF Q&A period, each OEM will have an opportunity to 'adjust' their bids accordingly.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:51 pm

But what does "provide for the common defense" actually mean.

The US Govt has retired lots of planes, tanks, ships etc over the years.

If that was Unconstitutional, surely someone would have sued by now.  
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:09 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
It is funny how they did not include the A-340 in that change.

AFAIK they did.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:02 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 25):
But what does "provide for the common defense" actually mean.

The US Govt has retired lots of planes, tanks, ships etc over the years.

If that was Unconstitutional, surely someone would have sued by now.

Those retired weapons systems have always been replaced by newer and more capable weapons systems.

Quoting A342 (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
It is funny how they did not include the A-340 in that change.


AFAIK they did.

Perhaps you are right, but I don't remember seeing anything about the A-340 when the maintenance interval was increased for the A-330.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9941
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:27 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Perhaps you are right, but I don't remember seeing anything about the A-340 when the maintenance interval was increased for the A-330.

Airbus released version 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document at the same time they released revision 17 of the A340 Maintenance Planning Document. Both have the same airframe service intervals.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
McG1967
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:38 pm

Did this study take into account the likely lower initial cost of the A330 as all of the design work has already been done for it, and a similar version is already flying for the Australian air force?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:31 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
So which part of the constitution is it in ??

The Preamble, which in part says "provide for the common defense".

I understand your premise, however I think this is stretching it a bit... and yes parking all the KC135's would inhibit providing defense however we still have the KC10's... I think it only becomes unconstitutional if they disband all the arm forces...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:33 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Perhaps you are right, but I don't remember seeing anything about the A-340 when the maintenance interval was increased for the A-330.

Airbus released version 16 of the A330 Maintenance Planning Document at the same time they released revision 17 of the A340 Maintenance Planning Document. Both have the same airframe service intervals.

Thanks, I had seen the A-330 v.16 and did not see a seperate A-340 v.17 document.

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 29):
Did this study take into account the likely lower initial cost of the A330 as all of the design work has already been done for it, and a similar version is already flying for the Australian air force?

Actually, there are lots of differences between the RAAF KC-30A and what the USAF wants in their new tanker. The USAF version will haver a centerline drogue, a side cargo door and floor, different comm suit, including AFSATCOM and Have Quick, a full defensive system (the RAAF has only a part of what the USAF wants), armored cockpit, provisions for up to 15 crew members, Smart Tanker technology, and other features. It is true, the RAAF KC-30A configueration does have some of what the USAF wants in their new tanker.

But, the KC-30A is not yet flying in the RAAF, it is still in flight testing in Spain.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:23 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
Most NAT-TRACK flying is done between M .70 and M.75 anyway, not M.80 or higher

What?!?

In the seventies, or today...?


Every a/c, which is slower than M.82 on the NAT Track is blocking the airspace for quicker aircrafts.
The result is, that very often requested higher levels are denied by ATC, which significantly increase the fuel burn.

The normal cruise speed is:

A310: M.80
B767: M.80
B777: M.84-85
A330: M.82-84
B747: M.85-86


 
 
keesje
Posts: 8865
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:11 am

I think the trick (this time) is excluding the benefits from operating a capable tanker transport instead of a tanker.

A KC30 is able to move lots of freight accross the oceans unrefuelled, muchg more efficient then e.g. C-5s or C-17s.

There is a big difference with th KC767 there.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/business/links/tanker26.gif

Ignoring that is a choice Boeing made in their contract with Aerostrategy.

AeroStrategy is not lying & they are upfront about the financing of this report (contrary to "Lexington Institute").

It just about focusing / "leaving out" information that doesn't support the goals of the client (Boeing).

A 757 uses less fuel and has lower operating costs then a 767. But that's only half the story.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:08 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 34):
I think the trick (this time) is excluding the benefits from operating a capable tanker transport instead of a tanker.

A KC30 is able to move lots of freight accross the oceans unrefuelled, muchg more efficient then e.g. C-5s or C-17s.

The USAF is looking for a tanker, with some airlift capability. Both the KC-30 and KC-767 can move cargo across the Atlantic, unrefueled, as can the C-5, C-17, and C-130. None can move cargo across the Pacific unrefueled, or stopping in Alaska, Hawaii, Japan, or Guam.

The KC-135 can carry up to 83,000 lbs of cargo, or about 37,727 kg. That means it can carry the weight of 2 20.5 ton Strikers, or one 25 ton Bradley M-2/M-3 fighting vehicle. But they simply will not fit in the KC-135. KC-767, or A-330MRTT. I don't think the KC-135 ever carried that much cargo weight, except in flight tests carrying concrete blocks, as it usually cube out in bulk cargo before it reaches the cargo weight limits. The same will happen with the A-330MRTT or the KC-767NG. The KC-135, KC-767, KC-10, or KC-30 are not equipped to carry outsized/heavy cargo, which is where you would get close to reaching the max cargo weight.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:35 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 34):
I think the trick (this time) is excluding the benefits from operating a capable tanker transport instead of a tanker.

When you make that comparison the 777 should be compared to the current Airbus offerings.

If the USAF really wants a transport then why go small. Might even look at the 748F.

As long as the KC-X is replacing the KC-135 then the focus should be on the least expensive when all costs are added up. Maybe the cost per boom in operational use.

If we need freight hauling then we need to look at freighters, not tankers.

Of maybe some new transport ships. They can move freight far cheaper than a combined tanker/freighter.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:38 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
I don't think the KC-135 ever carried that much cargo weight, except in flight tests carrying concrete blocks, as it usually cube out in bulk cargo before it reaches the cargo weight limits.


When I was in the USAF I flew on KC-135Q's about a half a dozen times. Each flight was full of cargo: J-58 engines, start carts, liquid oxygen and nitrogen carts, personal baggage and spare parts.

When I rotated back to the States from Okinawa in 1969 the pilot said he had to off load some of our personal baggage (stereos, china, cameras, etc) or fuel because we were 1,000 lbs overweight. No one was willing to leave there stuff behind and if we off loaded the fuel we would have to stop in Hawaii. He was talked into recalculating the load and we made directly to Beale. However, I do have to admit that the takeoff roll was longer than normal.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:09 pm

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 29):
Did this study take into account the likely lower initial cost of the A330 as all of the design work has already been done for it, and a similar version is already flying for the Australian air force?

The "off the shelf" product is in name only, the USAF requirements has many dofference's from what the RAAF or UK have or will have in their tanker. Now if Airbus gets the USAF to dump a lot of their mandatory requirements once they have the contract to save money ................. 
Quoting 474218 (Reply 37):
When I rotated back to the States from Okinawa in 1969 the pilot said he had to off load some of our personal baggage (stereos, china, cameras, etc) or fuel because we were 1,000 lbs overweight. No one was willing to leave there stuff behind and if we off loaded the fuel we would have to stop in Hawaii. He was talked into recalculating the load and we made directly to Beale. However, I do have to admit that the takeoff roll was longer than normal.

Good to know that you did not have to take the scenic route home.
Since then the USAF have added a few hundred more KC-135, retired one major jet cargo a/c and introduced a new one the C-17, hopefully such a scenario does not happen again.

Cheers
 
keesje
Posts: 8865
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:07 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 36):
When you make that comparison the 777 should be compared to the current Airbus offerings.

If the USAF really wants a transport then why go small. Might even look at the 748F.

777 & 747 do not meet the runway requirements.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:32 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 38):
Good to know that you did not have to take the scenic route home.

Stopping in Hawaii would mean we would have to completely unload the aircraft, clear customs, reload the aircraft and arrive home approximately 12 hours later. When you have been gone for months every minutes counts.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:13 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 37):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
I don't think the KC-135 ever carried that much cargo weight, except in flight tests carrying concrete blocks, as it usually cube out in bulk cargo before it reaches the cargo weight limits.


When I was in the USAF I flew on KC-135Q's about a half a dozen times. Each flight was full of cargo: J-58 engines, start carts, liquid oxygen and nitrogen carts, personal baggage and spare parts.

Actually, an SR-71 J-58 engine weighs about 7500 lbs on the transport cart. The MD-3M start cart, and MA-1A jet start cart weigh about 2000 lbs for the MD-3 and 1400 for the MA-1A. Oxygen and nitrogen carts are relitively light at about 500 lbs each. Throw in the cargo bins for baggage and parts, and you have cubed out, these bins weigh between 1500 lbs and 3500 lbs. So you had about 40,000 lbs of cargo, at the most.

Quoting keesje (Reply 39):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 36):
When you make that comparison the 777 should be compared to the current Airbus offerings.

If the USAF really wants a transport then why go small. Might even look at the 748F.

777 & 747 do not meet the runway requirements.

The runway requirement for this year is 10,000'. This is easily with the capability of the B-777F and B-747-8F at MTOW.
 
McG1967
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:48 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
Actually, there are lots of differences between the RAAF KC-30A and what the USAF wants in their new tanker. The USAF version will haver a centerline drogue, a side cargo door and floor, different comm suit, including AFSATCOM and Have Quick, a full defensive system (the RAAF has only a part of what the USAF wants), armored cockpit, provisions for up to 15 crew members, Smart Tanker technology, and other features. It is true, the RAAF KC-30A configueration does have some of what the USAF wants in their new tanker.

Thanks for the info.
 
keesje
Posts: 8865
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:35 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
777 & 747 do not meet the runway requirements.

The runway requirement for this year is 10,000'. This is easily with the capability of the B-777F and B-747-8F at MTOW.

Just state it firmly, maybe they won't check?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777rsec3.pdf 3.3.3
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/747_8.pdf page 35
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:02 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):

The runway requirement for this year is 10,000'. This is easily with the capability of the B-777F and B-747-8F at MTOW.

Sea level ISA or something else? Both aircraft ARE slightly over 10,000 foot runs at max gross, but I don't see any reason why Boeing couldn't bid with a weight limited aircraft to meet the requirement. Loosing 10 to 20 thousand pounds off the takeoff weight isn't a good thing, but it still leaves both the 777 and 747 far beyond the 767 and A330 in terms of capability.

Of course, if that 10,000 foot requirement specifies something above ISA and sea level, the weight limit would get very painful very quickly.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:57 pm

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 42):
Loosing 10 to 20 thousand pounds off the takeoff weight isn't a good thing, but it still leaves both the 777 and 747 far beyond the 767 and A330 in terms of capability.



thank goodness that the A/F defined the aircraft requirements so it would fit their mission profile, otherwise A.netters would have them flying 3/4 empty A380's... The constant recurring argument through these threads seems to be commercial economics vs mission requirements. the A/F dosn't run that way. As KC135TopBoom has noted (if I read his words correctly) a tanker can only refuel so many a/c before the first refueled needs fuel again... and there is a limit on loiter time... so several smaller tankers can refuel more a/c in a shorter time enhancing mission success. to accomplish the same feat with a 747 would require refueling 6-8 or more a/c simultaneously... and with that many drogues first it would look like a porcupine (hedgehog to some) and probably fly like one.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8748
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:52 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 43):
thank goodness that the A/F defined the aircraft requirements so it would fit their mission profile, otherwise A.netters would have them flying 3/4 empty A380's...

[quote=kanban,reply=43]so several smaller tankers can refuel more a/c in a shorter time enhancing mission success.


Amen Brother, it makes sense to me. A swarm of misquitos is a lot harder to hit than one large fat one.   
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:18 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 43):
As KC135TopBoom has noted (if I read his words correctly) a tanker can only refuel so many a/c before the first refueled needs fuel again... and there is a limit on loiter time... so several smaller tankers can refuel more a/c in a shorter time enhancing mission success.
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 44):
Amen Brother, it makes sense to me. A swarm of misquitos is a lot harder to hit than one large fat one.

Both correct.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9941
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:20 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 44):

Amen Brother, it makes sense to me. A swarm of misquitos is a lot harder to hit than one large fat one.

Poor analogy, most mosquitoes remain within a 1 mile radius of their breeding site.

Like the KC-135, the mosquito does not have the endurance to fly long distances and then refuel aircraft. Important if you want to drag a lot of aircraft across the Atlantic, Pacific, of if countries next to the next conflict do not allow you to park tankers there, you need aircraft with legs.

Forward bases should be for fighter/attack aircraft where time is always critical, not tanker/transports.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:43 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
Forward bases should be for fighter/attack aircraft where time is always critical, not tanker/transports.

We agree, but this point is also valid.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
Important if you want to drag a lot of aircraft across the Atlantic, Pacific, of if countries next to the next conflict do not allow you to park tankers there, you need aircraft with legs.

If you need a tanker to drag a/c across the pond or the Pacific then you already have forward bases to base the fighters,
if the base is safe for the fighters it should also be safe for the takners, now if we are talking about B2, B1 or B52 bombers, thats another story.

If a strike is made up of stealth a/c only and no co-ordination is required, a/c can refuel and proceed to target, if a joint package, then a/c have to wait around while their mates take on fuel. It is one operational aspect of combat that those who take bigger as being better have a hard time grasping, especially if they forget that the majority of the US military a/c use booms, the Air Force vastly out-numbers the Navy and since carriers are on the way down, the number of Navy a/c may be also.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:56 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 47):
If you need a tanker to drag a/c across the pond or the Pacific then you already have forward bases to base the fighters, if the base is safe for the fighters it should also be safe for the takners, now if we are talking about B2, B1 or B52 bombers, thats another story.


How about typical six (6) hour mission SR-71 mission out of Kadena, they required twelve (12) tankers. Five (5) or six (6) refuelings during the mission with a back-up tanker for each refueling.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New Boeing Study Compares KC-X Bids

Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:38 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 48):
How about typical six (6) hour mission SR-71 mission out of Kadena, they required twelve (12) tankers. Five (5) or six (6) refuelings during the mission with a back-up tanker for each refueling.

KC135TopBoom can chime in but I believe that would have been the entire tanker force for the SR-71 they had special KC-135's as the fuel required was "special".
I have a video documentary of the a/c, those in the know could always tell if a mission would be in the area when those special tankers showed up. Unfortunately, the US Air Force retired that a/c much too quickly, I understand the cost involved but its capabilities were so unique.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests