Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:47 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 99):

I think Keesje was being facetious  Smile
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:40 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 100):
I think Keesje was being facetious  

Quite honestly "flatulent" would be far more appropriate.  bigthumbsup 

200 KC-767 will be the order. Airbus would be wise to move the A400 assembly to Alabama. We can "Get ur dun."  Wink
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:50 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 100):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 99):


I think Keesje was being facetious



Quoting Glideslope (Reply 101):
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 100):
I think Keesje was being facetious

Quite honestly "flatulent" would be far more appropriate.

200 KC-767 will be the order. Airbus would be wise to move the A400 assembly to Alabama. We can "Get ur dun."

I know. I just wanted him to understand exactly what kind of airplane the KC-135 is now, and what it would take to replace it.

200 KC-767s? Well, there goes Boeing's hope for starting a second B-787 line, unless they move the KC-767 production line to Long Beach.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:52 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 102):

200 KC-767s? Well, there goes Boeing's hope for starting a second B-787 line, unless they move the KC-767 production line to Long Beach.

I know a lot of people who would be happy with that. The southern CA congressional delegation, for starters.

If I were Boeing, I'd be floating that rumor throught SoCal.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:10 am

The recent revelations from NG/EADS about some sort of collusion within the DOD to procure only the 767 will force Congress to take a hard look at this procurement (here we go again). Even if the USAF works out some sort of agreement with NG/EADS, the damage is done and the matter of what has really been going on, will need to be addressed.

I suspect that when they do conduct oversight hearings (which Sen. Levin the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee has said they will do with Sen. McCain being the ranking Republican). Then who knows where this matter will end up? The KC-135's are currently doing well and they may stick with them as a simple way to get out of this mess.

In the meantime, if NG/EADS stays in, watch Boeing go with the "large" category 777 because they need to offer something bigger in size and performance over the 330. It will then be interesting to see how NG/EADS counters this move.

With such a move by Boeing, then all the arguments that the "medium" sized platform being paramount will no longer be important. And was it ever really important? Instead, I believe that it was just a ploy by those within the DOD to promote the 767 over any other competitors. As was stated in this BB before, the 767 was the only aircraft the USAF ever really wanted. I also feel that this policy has now gotten them in trouble again. Stay tuned.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14532
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:24 am

I think EADS would be wise not to get confrontational if the tanker contract does go to Boeing, I think they should go to Congress and the Pentagon offering to set up a plant in the US to assemble the A400 should they want. The A400 could replace older C-130s, and fill a gap between the C-17 and the newer C-130s.

If they team up with Northrup Grumman again, with the Southern US manufacturing site, and target the replacement of older C-130s they have a good chance IMO. I would especially entice Politicians with Air National Guard Units who would love to bring these aircraft to their district.

That would give the Air Force a strong line up of transport aircraft:

C-5, C-17, A-400, C-130H/J, C-27J
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 105):
That would give the Air Force a strong line up of transport aircraft:

C-5, C-17, A-400, C-130H/J, C-27J

Could you please explain your rationale why the USAF needs the A400 in terms of capability, please? As far as I understand it the A400, though wonderful an airlifter in its own right, is a compromise for countries who want strategic airlift capability, but cannot afford the C 17. As such, the A 400 falls into the strategic airlifter category, flying inter-theater/intercontinental. Meanwhile the C 130 is designed to be intratheater, tactical airlift, capable to land in smaller forward/fire support combat base. The USAF already has 2 strategic airlifters in the C-5, and C-17 (of the latter it has close to 200, and conceivably more in future funding), why would it need a less capable strategic airlifter in the A 400 (not to say the A 400 is not a good plane)? The A 400 is too much plane for tactical lift in the USAF; it could not land in some small, tight airlfield, or forward/combat base that the C 130 currently operate into. And that's not factored in the A 400 would be an odd ball in the line up in terms of maintenance, and support. Sure some would point out the RAF operates C 17, C 130, and in the future A 400. But that's not because of choice, but necessity. The RAF could not wait for the A 400 to get off drawing board, and had to lease the C 17, and promptly fell in love with the C 17, hence the buy.
Lastly, in the next 20 yrs when the C 130 fleet truly needs replacement, I am sure Lockheed or Boeing would propose a "killer" tactical airlifter to replace the workhorse C 130, and conceivably make the A 400 obsolescent in tactical airlift. Sure, personally I wish the USAF would gobble up as many good airplanes as there are out there, but from capability standpoint the USAF has no need whatsoever for the A 400. IMHO the A 400 has less chance to be in the USAF line up than the KC 30, not to say the KC 30 has a good chance to begin with.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:22 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 104):
The recent revelations from NG/EADS about some sort of collusion within the DOD to procure only the 767 will force Congress to take a hard look at this procurement (here we go again). Even if the USAF works out some sort of agreement with NG/EADS, the damage is done and the matter of what has really been going on, will need to be addressed.

They will do that, or threaten to sue the USAF for not selecting their tanker. That is what EADS/Airbus always does. Look at the IA deal in 2005, and in the CF C-130J deal recently they threatened to sue.

What Airbus really needs to do, to line them selves up for some future airplane for the USAF (no, it will not be the A-400M), is ask the Air Force why their poposal did not win, if the Boeing poposal wins.

One thing they may have to do is total airplane design and assembly in the US, with only parts and sections manufactured in Europe.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:11 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 104):
As was stated in this BB before, the 767 was the only aircraft the USAF ever really wanted.

The reality is less helpfull.

Afew years back the USAF took a long hard look of what they needed as a future tanker for the next 40 years. They summarized it in 26 requirements, regardsless of tanker supplier & send out an RFP. That's how they got in trouble.

Turns out Boeing's KC767 meets 7 of the requirements. EADS KC30 meets 20 of the requirements. EADS makes a better deal (-$10B).....

The shit hits the fan & the old boys network jumps in the "fix" this. (DoD & Boeing rewrite the specs, give EADS 12 days to respond & disqualify it)

One thing goes wrong, McCain ask to see the paperwork..

The rest in history Boeing CEO+CFO got fired, people got jailed, Boeing recently settled with DoJ ($600Mill).


Now it seems the USAF doesn't dare to say anymore what it wants..
 
zanl188
Posts: 3864
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 108):
The reality is less helpfull.

Afew years back the USAF took a long hard look of what they needed as a future tanker for the next 40 years. They summarized it in 26 requirements, regardsless of tanker supplier & send out an RFP. That's how they got in trouble.

Turns out Boeing's KC767 meets 7 of the requirements. EADS KC30 meets 20 of the requirements. EADS makes a better deal (-$10B).....

The shit hits the fan & the old boys network jumps in the "fix" this. (DoD & Boeing rewrite the specs, give EADS 12 days to respond & disqualify it)

One thing goes wrong, McCain ask to see the paperwork..

The rest in history Boeing CEO+CFO got fired, people got jailed, Boeing recently settled with DoJ ($600Mill).


Now it seems the USAF doesn't dare to say anymore what it wants..

You left out the lease deal. Mid 90's Congress was big into COTS (Commercial, Off The Shelf) procurement, particularly leasing as it lowered the upfront acquisition costs. USAF tried it out with the C-32 lease deal, had a big success, then applied it to the tanker program. Congress had a change of heart and decided it didn't like the lease deal (outyear costs). C-32s already on the ramp were quietly purchased -- Tanker program exploded..... The rest you know
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5558
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:46 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 108):
EADS KC30 meets 20 of the requirements. EADS makes a better deal (-$10B).....

But can they deliver??
RAAF orders KC30.. OK they were called A330 MRTT at the time, planes have flown and even painted with RAAF titles but still years late for delivery(maybe not by EADS timelines!) boom has not connected with receiver yet, apparently EADS not even hired receiver to test... come on folks refueling booms may not be trivial things and do require some engineering but this is not exactly a new concept.
Whilst I accept Airbus do not have Boeing's level of boom experience they do have some... what is the hold up??
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:50 am

I for one still believe that the defense department needs to procure as much as possible in the US-much as we would like to believe that war is obsolete and outdated it is still a reality we have to face, and we do not know who our next enemies will be. Otherwise, why do we need a military at all? The Bible does say they will beat their swords into plowshares, but that is only after Christ returns. It also speaks of people crying "Peace, peace" when there is no peace.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 107):
One thing they may have to do is total airplane design and assembly in the US, with only parts and sections manufactured in Europe.

The KC-30 would be assembled in the US in AL, though I imagine the major sub-assemblies will be built overseas using current A330 suppliers (not that it should really matter since Boeing does the same with the KC-767 and their Japanese suppliers).
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting Beta (Reply 106):
The A 400 is too much plane for tactical lift in the USAF; it could not land in some small, tight airlfield, or forward/combat base that the C 130 currently operate into.

I was under the impression that it could do exactly that...
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:53 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 113):
I was under the impression that it could do exactly that...

No. That's incorrect. Here's the specs
Specifications - C-130J Hercules Tactical Transport Aircraft, USA

Crew three crew, 2 pilots and loadmaster
Dimensions
Wingspan 132.ft 7 inches
tail wing span 52 ft 8 inches
overall length 97ft 9 inches
Height 38.ft 10 inches
propeller diameter 13 ft 6 inches
Cabin
cabin length 40 ft
cabin length including ramp 50ft 8 inches
maximum cabin width 10 ft 3 inches
maximum cabin height 9 ft 0 inches
useable cabin volume 4,550 cubic ft
Propulsion
Engines four allison AE2100D3 engines
engine rating 4,591 shaft horsepower
Propellers dowty Aerospace, all composite six blade R391 propellers
engine control full authority digital engine control
Weight
operating empty weight 75,562 lbs
maximum payload 2.5g 41,790 lbs
design take-off weight 155,000 lbs
maximum take-off weight 175,000 lbs
design landing weight 130,000 lbs
maximum landing weight 155,000 lbs
max zero-fuel weight, 2.5g 117,350 lbs
Performance
cruising speed 350 kts
economical cruising speed 340 kts
stalling speed 100 kts
maximum rate of climb at sea level 2100 ft/minute
time to climb to 28,000ft 14 minutes
cruising altitude 28,000 ft
service ceiling 30,500 ft
service ceiling with one engine inoperable 22,800 ft
Range 2,835 nautical miles
Runway
Take-off run 3,050 ft
Take-off run using maximum effort 1800 ft
landing run 1,400 ft
combat delivery capability C-130J cargo cabin length 40 ft 5 inches
5 pallets
74 litters
16 cds bundles
92 combat troops
64 paratroops
combat delivery capability C-130J-130 cargo cabin length 55 ft 5 inches
8 pallets
97 litters
24 cds bundles
128 combat troops
92 paratroops

Airbus A400M
Technical Specifications
Dimensions
Overall Length 45.1 m
Wing Span 42.4 m
Overall Height 14.7 m

Cargo Box Dimensions
Length (excluding ramp) 17.71 m
Ramp Length 5.40 m
Width 4.00 m
Height 3.85 m
Height (aft of wing) 4.00 m

Weights (2.25g)
Max. Take-off Weight 136.5 t
Max. Landing Weight 120 t
Max. Payload 37 t
Total Internal Fuel 47.7 t

Performance
Cruise Speed Range Mach 0.68 - 0.72
Max. Operating Speed 300 kt CAS
Initial Cruise Altitude at MTOW 29 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Normal ops 37 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Special ops 40 000 ft
Range at Max. Payload * 1700 nm
Range at 30-tonne Payload * 2400 nm
Range at 20-tonne Payload * 3450 nm
Ferry Range * 4750 nm
Tactical Take-Off Distance ** 1150 m
Tactical Landing Distance ** 680 m

3050ft ~ 930m
1400ft ~ 427m
So clearly, the A400M needs a longer runway for take-off and landing, which entirely makes sense since it's a heavier aircraft with heavier payload. Simple physics! Unless Airbus can come up with some miraculous design to defy the law of physics? Since the C130J is operational now, there's no question re. the reliability of its specs. However, the A400M has not flown yet, its specs are still not validated operationally yet. But I digress off topic.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:05 pm

The A400 can land and take off from soft airfields just like the C130 but unlike the C17.

I wonder what the A400 airfield performance would be with just the C130 maximum load.

The idea of the A400M is getting load closer to the target area faster then before. Point to Point so to say..



So if a medium large airforce wants to buy a militairy airlifter for the next 25 yrs, what are the options. C130J? C17? a combi? or A400M?

We don't know, the market will tell..
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:02 pm


MONTGOMERY -- U.S. Sen. John McCain on Monday repeated his call for a fair and open competition to build the U.S. Air Force's next-generation fleet of aerial refueling tankers, saying the service must attract at least two bids for the contract or face congressional hearings.

The Arizona Republican, who was in Montgomery as a guest at Gov. Bob Riley's inauguration, said he was concerned that ongoing complaints about the Air Force's bidding criteria could prompt Northrop Grumman Corp. to drop its bid for the tanker contract against rival Boeing Co.


http://www.al.com/news/mobileregiste...e/news/1168942624185840.xml&coll=3
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:29 am

My opinion regarding the best choice of tankers,

KC-44, and KC-77

The 747-8 while based on an old design is brand new, and is very large, can carry massive amounts of fuel, which is valuable for a tanker. It can sit up there for longer and fueling up airplanes.

The KC-777 is a very large airplane as well with a lot of internal capacity for fuel, in terms of fuselage and wing areas. The 777 is bigger than a DC-10 even though powered by only two engines.

Sadly, I think the KC-30 will win (because it's the design I like least, and generally speaking, the government often picks the design I like least :p ), although the KC-767 might be an option since it has already been built, although is connected to a scandal.
 
trex8
Posts: 5697
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:41 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 107):
That is what EADS/Airbus always does. Look at the IA deal in 2005, and in the CF C-130J deal recently they threatened to sue.

and Bell and whoever are selling MD500s did the same when Eurocopter won the UH72 (Ec145) program. they all do it! in fact they delayed the UH72 program almost to the point that the first deliveries a month or two back were in jeopardy.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:53 am

And the USAF is dancing on ice.. Can´t say what they need, can´t say nothing.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2476768&C=airwar

EADS, Boeing, USAF, DoD and everyone involved exactly know what the requirements were until recently, what is offered and what will happen if those requirements become leading.

In the meantime everyone is closely monitoring if Boeing & USAF/Dod don´t start talking & dealing somehow (again).

Possible tactics of the KC767 camp soon:
- confuse, start making things look complicated then they are,
- introduce new criteria,
- launch decoys (subsidies? 777?)
- play the public with deceptive oneliners ("KC767 has lower trip costs")
- play on emotions (e.g. long Boeing tanker history)
- play the patriotic card (dependence on France?)
- organize "spontaneous" public support, petitions (must be organized via via.. )

Everything to prevent a clean comparison based on requirements & capabilities. Watch this circus take-off..
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:27 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 119):
In the meantime everyone is closely monitoring if Boeing & USAF/Dod don´t start talking & dealing somehow (again).

Possible tactics of the KC767 camp soon:
- confuse, start making things look complicated then they are,
- introduce new criteria,
- launch decoys (subsidies? 777?)
- play the public with deceptive oneliners ("KC767 has lower trip costs")
- play on emotions (e.g. long Boeing tanker history)
- play the patriotic card (dependence on France?)
- organize "spontaneous" public support, petitions (must be organized via via.. )

Everything to prevent a clean comparison based on requirements & capabilities. Watch this circus take-off..

Similar tactics were used during the not soon forgotten tanker scandal and the 767 supporters are trying it again. But just like before, it has begun to catch up with them. With Sen. McCain and others watching this program closely, it has begun to fail the smell test.

It has become painfully clear to those same 767 supporters in Washington DC, that their ploy to make sure the 767 is selected has backfired. The first bold move by those supporters to insert the WTO poison pill in the RFP failed and now the operational/performance issues are coming to the forefront.

If as expected, the USAF modifies the RFP to better reflect the needs of the warfighter, the 767 is mostly likely dead against the 330 and in order to better compete with the 330, Boeing will have to roll out their back-up plan, the 777.

I notice that Boeing just listed 4 anonymous 777's on their order-book which happens to be the same number of test platforms the USAF wants for the KC-X. Coincidence? Maybe.

The 777 will put Boeing behind the curve because they now have to develop that "large" airframe into an air tanker. And what will happen to all those short runway, soft ramp and small hanger excuses from those DC supporters for selecting the "medium" sized 767? I suspect they are no longer that important (were they ever?).

All this may sound a little harsh, but I am a firm believer in fairness in all competitions.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:49 am

TropicBird,

Yes, but if you took a 777-200LR and made it into a tanker, you would definetly be unrivaled when it comes to endurance!

Andrea K
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:36 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 120):
The 777 will put Boeing behind the curve because they now have to develop that "large" airframe into an air tanker. And what will happen to all those short runway, soft ramp and small hanger excuses from those DC supporters for selecting the "medium" sized 767? I suspect they are no longer that important (were they ever?).

Keep in mind that if the KC-777 is chosen, it will be in limited numbers. More like a KC-10 replacement. Not a KC-135 replacement. I think the KC-777 has a great chance of being picked for a large tanker/cargo transport selection. The KC-767 will be the main platform considered as it is a more likely one for one -135 replacement. I personally don't see a KC-747 having a snowballs chance as it it is just too big.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 120):
All this may sound a little harsh, but I am a firm believer in fairness in all competitions.

 checkmark 
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:20 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 115):
The A400 can land and take off from soft airfields just like the C130 but unlike the C17

I'd like to know the factual basis for this claim. Please share if you have them. The C17A is flying operationally now, and has been for 10+ years, while as I understand it the A400M is still essentially chunks of metals yet to be joined.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 115):
I wonder what the A400 airfield performance would be with just the C130 maximum load

Now, why would an airforce buy essentially a strategic airlifter to do tactical lift? That would be an inefficient use of assets. Besides chances are the A400 would still require a longer runway even with reduced payload due to being a heavier airframe with respect to the C130. Maybe somehow the engineers at Airbus manage to re-write the laws of physics? I could be wrong.
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:59 pm

was talking with some freinds, generally most feel that the deal will include 767s to replace the KC-135 while 777s may in time replace the KC-10s. no hard evidence, just some people who take sips from those airplanes for a living.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:41 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 108):
Boeing recently settled with DoJ ($600Mill).

IIRC, that settlement had nothing to do with the 2002 tanker scandle.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 112):
The KC-30 would be assembled in the US in AL

No, it will not be assembled in Alabama. The basic A-330-200F would be built in France, then flown to Mobil for CONVERSION to the KC-30A.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 115):
The A400 can land and take off from soft airfields just like the C130 but unlike the C17.

Not yet, the A-400M is PLANNED to be able to take off and land on unimproved fields. But, then again, so was the C-5A, and it cannot.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 115):
The idea of the A400M is getting load closer to the target area faster then before. Point to Point so to say..

The RAF may do that, but the Germans and French Air Forces will not.

But, what does this have to do with the KC-X program, Keesje? Are you trying to say theat Airbus builds a "better" airplane (what ever that means)?

Opps, the A-400M isn't built, yet. Today, it is just a pile of boxed parts, partially assembled.  duck 

Quoting Beta (Reply 123):
Now, why would an airforce buy essentially a strategic airlifter to do tactical lift? That would be an inefficient use of assets. Besides chances are the A400 would still require a longer runway even with reduced payload due to being a heavier airframe with respect to the C130. Maybe somehow the engineers at Airbus manage to re-write the laws of physics? I could be wrong.

So, is the A-400M the world's first STRATAC airplane? Good at both missions, master of none?
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
So, is the A-400M the world's first STRATAC airplane? Good at both missions, master of none?

That's essentially my point. The A400M is too much plane for tactical lift with respect to the C130J, and is a poor-man C17A when it comes to expeditionary, force projection. I think what it does well is to allow some flexibility, and regional projection capability suitable to airforces of Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. But we digress from topic  Smile
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:31 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
The RAF may do that, but the Germans and French Air Forces will not.

Says who ?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:33 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
No, (the KC-30) will not be assembled in Alabama. The basic A-330-200F would be built in France, then flown to Mobil for CONVERSION to the KC-30A.

Okay. Everything I have been able to find has used the word "assembled" when referring to the AL plant and none of them had said anything about complete A332Fs being flown from TLS to MOB.

So if EADS and NG's plan is to fly completed A332Fs to Mobile to undergo conversion, that might hurt their chances in Congress vis-a-vis the 767F, which while also drawing from foreign-supplied parts (mainly Japan), will be assembled in Everett before being flown to Wichita for conversion.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 128):
Okay. Everything I have been able to find has used the word "assembled" when referring to the AL plant and none of them had said anything about complete A332Fs being flown from TLS to MOB.

That is correct, NG/EADS/Airbus uses the word "assembled" when they talk about the Mobil, AL facility for the KC-30. But, they also say they will employ 1,000 people, not all will be assembly workers. Some 30% of these newly hired people will be support and office workers, another 15%, or so will be the engineers. That leaves just 55%, or 550 people, spread over 3 shifts, 5 days per week. Keep in mind, the Brookley plant is not an automated plant, set up for airframe assembly. So, these approximately 550 assembly workers (and how many will be management/supervision?), are going to receive airplanes in a box, and build them from scratch? There is no way that can happen.

To actaully build the airplane in an unautomated plant would take 1000 assemblers, per shift.

The only way these 1000 employees can begin kicking tankers out the door, is to receive the airplanes pre-assembled, then convert them to tankers.

Do you believe, that if NG did win the KC-X contract, the Airbus French Unions would simply roll over and ship "their work" to the US, for American workers to do and put together? That goes against all of the Union, French, and EU mindset. The workers at Brookley Downtown Airport, would get parts that don't fit, possibly some parts damaged.

Plus, the USAF will take a very dim veiw of their new airplane parts exposed to a salt water enviornment for two-three weeks in an ocean voyage. Like anyone who operates fleets of airplanes, they don't like salt water corrosion.

So, flying unpainted A-330-200Fs from TLS to MOB, is the only answer.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:47 pm

I posted this on the "other" tanker thread, but it looks like NG is getting ready to pull the plug. The USAF doesn't seem inclined to revise the RFP and the KC-30 is much more expensive.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...news+index_businessweek+exclusives
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:08 pm

Quoting Beta (Reply 126):
The A400M is too much plane for tactical lift with respect to the C130J, and is a poor-man C17A when it comes to expeditionary, force projection.

Thats precisely the market the A400M is aimed for - those airforces with C-130s that may in the future replace those C-130s and maybe require strategic lift but the C-17 is too much for them.

It is precisely a poor mans C-17, thats that its designed to be. Its not designed to compete on a 1:1 basis with either the C-17 or the C-130.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:17 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 131):
It is precisely a poor mans C-17

Then why will the RAF operate all of them, the C-130, A-400, and C-17? I don't see the A-400M as a poor man's C-17. Different Air Forces have different requirements, just as the USAF does not reall have a need for a KC-30 (or KC-33, A330MRTT, or A-330TT), the Luftwaffe does not have a need for the A-400. So, it fits their requirements better than a C-17 would.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
the Luftwaffe does not have a need for the A-400.

Nah, they don't have the need for them, but they still ordered 60, just to support Airbus I guess.  Yeah sure
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 132):
Then why will the RAF operate all of them, the C-130, A-400, and C-17? I don't see the A-400M as a poor man's C-17.

Originally the RAF wasnt going to operate the C-17 permanently, and then they discovered they had a role for a large strategic cargo aircraft longterm and went ahead and purchased the leased examples (and placed a follow on order).

The A400M order will replace the older C-130K fleet, while the RAF will retain their newer J series until their retirement.

So the RAF will be doing what I said before - replacing the C-130 with the A400M, just not completely.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:44 pm

The original KC-767A, the USAF tried to lease in 2002, is now a different airplane, from what I now understand. That KC-767A (with GE engines instead of P&Ws) is now built in 2 versions, the Italian KC-767A, and the JASDF KC-767J. If the KC-767 is selected by the USAF, it will be different from their original KC-767A version, as well as the Italian KC-767A and Japanese KC-767J. It appears the initial USAF version will be called the KC-767B, and may still be equipped with the PW-4000 series engines.

If a KC-30 is selected, it will, most likely have GE engines.

If a KC-777 is selected, it will have the GE-90-115B, as that is the only engine offered for the B-777-200LR or B-777-200F (well, a reduced thrust GE-90-110 is also offered).

I have worked out the numbers. If the USAF uses a base of buying 179 KC-767Bs, that works out to an equivilent 128 KC-30As, or 99 KC-777As.

While those numbers may look actractive to those proposing the KC-30 (unit flyaway costs estmated at 35%-40% higher than the KC-767B), it does not bring into account the USAF can cover more areas with the higher number of tankers. In other words, USAF can be in more places at the same time with 179 tankers compaired to 128 tankers (using a 25% out of commission rate for both airplanes, the USAF standard).
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 135):
If a KC-777 is selected, it will have the GE-90-115B, as that is the only engine offered for the B-777-200LR or B-777-200F (well, a reduced thrust GE-90-110 is also offered).

I thought any KC-777 would be based on the 777-200ER, which can carry engines from each of the "big three"?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:29 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 136):
I thought any KC-777 would be based on the 777-200ER, which can carry engines from each of the "big three"?

I would think it would make more sense to use the freighter model as a base, but then, the 767-200ER being used as the base for the KC-767 program was never offered as a freighter and the KC-30 is currently based on the A330-200 passenger plane, and not the upcoming A330-200F freighter. So using the 777-200ER passenger plane as the base wouldn't be unusual.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:30 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 135):
While those numbers may look actractive to those proposing the KC-30 (unit flyaway costs estmated at 35%-40% higher than the KC-767B), it does not bring into account the USAF can cover more areas with the higher number of tankers. In other words, USAF can be in more places at the same time with 179 tankers compaired to 128 tankers (using a 25% out of commission rate for both airplanes, the USAF standard).

I hope I can adequately articulate the question I am asking.

Is there any data available which tells us just how many tankers the USAF really has used at any one time?

Using USAF operational history, how many of these newer tankers would be needed in one mission? (don't forget there will be a few hundred KC-135R's still in service). The new larger tankers will supposedly be able to pump more fuel at a time so that means less time on the boom for each aircraft. Doesn't that mean they can refuel more aircraft in one mission and with less tankers?

My point is this, are more booms in the air that important or can larger aircraft with larger fuel payloads and offload flow rates be sufficient to reduce the number of tankers needed? The link below is for an Airbus commissioned study which covers this issue in part. There is alot of good information here.


http://www.leeham.net/filelib/KC330assessment_june_05_pdf%5B1%5D.pdf
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:12 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 138):
My point is this, are more booms in the air that important or can larger aircraft with larger fuel payloads and offload flow rates be sufficient to reduce the number of tankers needed? The link below is for an Airbus commissioned study which covers this issue in part. There is alot of good information here.

The problem with the above statement is that not all receivers can take fuel at the same rate. A B52, a C5 or any of the other large aircraft that the Air Force operates can take fuel at higher flow rates but an F16, F15, F22 or other small aircraft can't.

This means that with fewer booms on larger tankers it will take longer to refuel a squadron of fighters on their way to a fight than with two or three smaller tankers servicing more planes at the same time.

I think TopBoom could explain it better since he was a Boomer And I was but a crew chief.

J
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:27 pm

Quoting Arluna (Reply 139):
A B52, a C5 or any of the other large aircraft that the Air Force operates can take fuel at higher flow rates but an F16, F15, F22 or other small aircraft can't.

Thanks, Arluna. Critical point IMO, which argues for more not less.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:31 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 136):
I thought any KC-777 would be based on the 777-200ER, which can carry engines from each of the "big three"?

No, the KC-777 is based on the B-777-200F, which is a derivitive of the B-777-200LR.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 137):
I would think it would make more sense to use the freighter model as a base, but then, the 767-200ER being used as the base for the KC-767 program was never offered as a freighter and the KC-30 is currently based on the A330-200 passenger plane, and not the upcoming A330-200F freighter. So using the 777-200ER passenger plane as the base wouldn't be unusual.

There is a thing called "boom saturation". That is the point where the first receiver you refuel has less fuel than prior to his first refueling, after you cycle several other receivers across the boom. It assumes you give each receiver the same amount of fuel prior to their second refueling.

That number is generally around 6 receivers for fighters (the critical receiver based on fuel burned per hour at cruise). Any more than that you run into boom saturation.

So, a larger tanker isn't always the best option, if you cannot cycle receivers fast enough. Large tankers are more efficent with large receivers (B-2, B-52, C-5, C17, C-130, etc.), where most fuel is transferred on one contact.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 138):
My point is this, are more booms in the air that important or can larger aircraft with larger fuel payloads and offload flow rates be sufficient to reduce the number of tankers needed? The link below is for an Airbus commissioned study which covers this issue in part. There is alot of good information here.


http://www.leeham.net/filelib/KC330a...D.pdf

To answer your question, more booms are more important.

Interesting assessment. I just completed reading the entire report. It is heaverily slanted to the KC-30 and KC-30(E). It makes a lot of incorrect assumptions, and it is interested it was written by a retired USAF LtCol., who flew C-130s, not KC-135s or KC-10s. So, I question his qualifications. Then again, he did write this fro the group that paid him to do it.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:26 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 141):
There is a thing called "boom saturation"



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 141):
So, a larger tanker isn't always the best option, if you cannot cycle receivers fast enough.

Couldn't the supporters of the KC-30 offer a hose and drogue capability which, for tactical aircraft such as fighters, allow more receivers to tank simultaneously? Of course, I'm not allowing for turbulence, flow rate, tanker capacity, etc. Of course, I don't think USAF has been a big proponent of hose and drogue. I know the USMC and USN have done it for years. (as have the RAF)
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 142):
Couldn't the supporters of the KC-30 offer a hose and drogue capability which, for tactical aircraft such as fighters, allow more receivers to tank simultaneously?

USAF fighter aircraft air built for boom refueling. To answer your question yes, but it depends on the receptacle of the reciever.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 138):
The link below is for an Airbus commissioned study which covers this issue in part. There is alot of good information here.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/KC330a...D.pdf

Leeham itself concluded the Kc30 has superior capabilities to the KC767 at almost all fields. Now, they can´t be accused of being pro EADS/Airbus.. http://www.leeham.net/Default.asp?Page=37
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:53 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 144):
Leeham itself c

Keesje, there is no "Leeham itself". It's Scott Hamilton, who, IMVHO, has no love for Boeing or its products.

[Edited 2007-01-21 23:55:36]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:37 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 144):
Now, they can´t be accused of being pro EADS/Airbus.

Yes, Scott is "proAirbus"

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 145):
Keesje, there is no "Leeham itself". It's Scott Hamilton, who, IMVHO, has no love for Boeing or its products.

I agree.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:57 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 146):
Yes, Scott is "proAirbus"

I did a search and can seriously not find anything to confirm this qualification, can you? Unless "either with us or against us" is at work.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4201627.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...chnology/2003489824_boeing220.html
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:48 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 147):
I did a search and can seriously not find anything to confirm this qualification, can you?

"Eye of the beholder", Keesje. Many ardent Airbus supporters feel the same way about Mr. Aboulafia, although I see him as an "equal opportunity basher". For my part, I sense that Hamilton is always ready to jump all over Boeing, and U.S. Aerospace, while he does so to Airbus and European aerospace only with regret. That's my impression and I'm sticking with it! If you're going to cite Scott Hamilton as a "source", then you should be prepared for the inevitable a.net assault on the source. Haven't you in the past reacted with scorn to reports from the Seattle media?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Updated: USAF's Next Tanker

Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:00 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 83):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
Airbus has delayed the A-330F program, because they are still working on more urgent problems with the A-380 WhaleJet

No. They delayed it because there is still a big demand for the passenger versions, hence they don't need the freighter that soon.

And being Airbus, they are in such terrible strife that they have now put over the 330 line to loss making product - seems unlikely??

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 95):
Interestingly the RAAF now refer to their A330MRTT as KC-30B, I wonder if that change in designation was a plan by Airbus to foster the perception that KC-30 was an "off the shelf" product.

Rather than go to the sue strategy (proposed elsewhere), here is a "more creative strategy" for Airbus, should it lose.

Aus has been falling over itself to buy US equipment for commonality so we have Abrams tanks we probably will never ever use except to rearrange some sand dunes in Aus and a stack of twenty or more year old Kaman Sprites that seem to be a bit short in performance. We also have a sticky situation with our Wheat board, and the drought cannot last for ever - can it. And those pesky farmers......!

SOOO, Aus has a chat to the Eu and to show how the Eu is breaking down farm trade barriers, the Eu agrees to take say 2 million tonnes of Aus wheat for about 5 years (it is really appreciated in the ME for making specialist breads I think).

Meanwhile, Aus draws to the attention of the US that we have these shiny new A330MRTTs and wouldn't it be nice if the US went with the commonality bit and bought some of the same.

Ergo, at least three problems solved and not more than two generated - that is better than most recent political strategies!  duck 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos