Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:18 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 49):
If I have 215 frames at my disposal instead of 175, just how much of an advantage in cargo capability does the KC-30 really have?

Nobody knows the prices & conditions so theseumbers are nothing more then assumptions (admitedly they start to live there own live on a.net already) If KC767s are used to refill each other on long missions, are needed in greater numbers to fill range limited C-17s. above the oceans. It takes longer to refuel them and fighters in the war zone. Just counting booms might work for the big public & politicians, but might not be the mother of all capasity calculations.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
from todays Flight International :

There's nothing in this article that says the USAF want more than a tanker! They say they want a more capable tanker, which is quite different. The defensive electronics needed apply to either aircraft. This quote you chose to emphasize really says it all:
"We want to get iron on the ramp, and set minimum requirements to get the aircraft. We see big things in the future, but not yet, as we don't want to drive up the average unit cost."

The USAF wants iron on the ramp, and they don't want to drive up the unit cost. I read that as clearly favoring the less expensive aircraft.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 35):
Please do not assume the 767 will be the least expensive...

The Leeham report suggests that Airbus might be willing to discount down to meet B767 prices, and that Boeing is not willing to discount so deeply. These suggestions ignore recent history.

Boeing is not the same company it was the last time the tanker contract came up. Observation of their performance in the commercial market shows that Boeing is willing to deal now.

Airbus discounts on the A330 as cited in the article are driven by compensation for the A380 debacle. This should not be taken to be typical of Airbus pricing. There is no reason why EADS/Airbus should want this contract so badly that they would forgo profit on the venture, and every reason given the current financial strain on the company why they would not do that.

If Airbus doesn't get the contract, they will continue to sell A330's. That line is not in any immediate danger of closure. Boeing on the other hand stands to see the end of return on fixed assets associated with 767 production, and faces costs to close the line. Avoiding that closure is an incentive to Boeing to deal that is nowhere near so acute for Airbus.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6025
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
based on what prices, do you have them or choose them. Last time EADS offered 100 tankers $10 billion cheaper then Boeing, meeting the specs better and still lost.. thats why Boeing is running on ice now and many politicians to. They can't just say "it aint from here.." publicly..

Whatever. The prices have been mentioned in this thread and the other accompanying MilAv threads.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
As far as I have experienced most bases can handle C5, C-17s, KC10 etc..

You have named airframes of significantly different classes there. The C-17 is a class all unto its own. It can land on rough strips, and the proposed C-17B would land on beaches. The KC-10 and C-5 (just like the A330MRTT) are much larger than the C-135 and KC-767, and can't operate at nearly as many bases.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
It takes more fuel further and has a 3630kg/min boom or about 34% better nominal transfer rate than the new KC-767 Boeing boom, able to fill more fighters (endurance/range) faster (ofload advantage).

I'm skeptical of your figures, but they don't matter. Say you have 175 KC-30s or 200+ KC-767s. The extra KC-767s could be in that many more places. You still don't get it!

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 49):
If I have 215 frames at my disposal instead of 175, just how much of an advantage in cargo capability does the KC-30 really have?

It doesn't. Keesje has made the mistake of assuming that the military airlift world is the same as the civil passenger and air cargo world, where fewer frames carrying the overall load is usually an advantage, all else being equal.

[Edited 2007-02-20 17:26:06]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 52):
The extra KC-767s could be in that many more places. You still don't get it!

If they have the range to get there, in max tanker configuartion the KC30 needs less runway too..

I do have a view on the maintenance part and know 767 have shorter maintenance intervals then e.g. A330 or 777's. Way less components come of the aircraft & fault reporting is a generation ahead.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 52):
It doesn't. Keesje has made the mistake of assuming that the military airlift world is the same as the civil passenger and air cargo world, where fewer frames carrying the overall load is usually an advantage, all else being equal.

A fully loaded KC330 can bring 300 soldiers & all their gear from California to Kabull with one stop. I think that would be a new capability for the USAF. Just comparing the KC767 to 50 yr C-135 design and saying nothing more is needed doesn't cut it for me..
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:05 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 53):

A fully loaded KC330 can bring 300 soldiers & all their gear from California to Kabull with one stop. I think that would be a new capability for the USAF. Just comparing the KC767 to 50 yr C-135 design and saying nothing more is needed doesn't cut it for me..

All you did is prove N328KFs point!!!!!!!!!! Yes it may be able to do that but at the cost of sacrificing the tanking mission. The whole point of getting new tankers is to put booms in the air. By going California to Kabul with one stop you take a boom out of the air.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:16 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
I think in general a lot of words are required to make clear the less capable KC767 is the best choice afterall.

This week the Saudi & Emirates airforces decided to buy the KC30 and I expect a lot will follow.

Ummm, what is "less capable" in the KC-767 than the KC-30, as the USAF needs it?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
As I explained in another post i just think historically is not smart to buy a dedicated tanker platform.

Again, what do you know about the USAF needs? Any smaller Air Force needs multi-role aircraft more than the USAF does. The problem with multi-role airplanes is they are good at each mission, but not best at any. The USAF needs the best tanker for them.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
I think GE & Boeing are to tight at this moment to allow NG/EADS to offer a GEnx-2B on the KC30.

Neither NG/EADS or Boeing has talked about what engine they would propose on the new tanker. But, the GEnx on either one would increase the flight testing requirements over the engines currently offered on both.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
And does it really matter when, as one other poster noted, less then 1% of all sorties performed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift?

Maybe because it was a dedicated tanker and a lousy cargo / passenger transporter (wooden cargo floors, hand loading, limited capasity, high trip costs etc..)?

Yes, it matters.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
As far as I have experienced most bases can handle C5, C-17s, KC10 etc.. I have the feeling this old argument is drawn in to distract e.g. the fact the KC-30 is also a significant better tanker.. It takes more fuel further and has a 3630kg/min boom or about 34% better nominal transfer rate than the new KC-767 Boeing boom, able to fill more fighters (endurance/range) faster (ofload advantage).

Hold on there, again you have no idea of what you are talking about. A maximum transfer rate of 3630kg per minute is 7986lbs per minute. The current KC-10 boom transferrs over 8000lbs per minute, the current KC-135 boom does 7000lbs per minute, both at a maximum of 45psi of fuel pressure. That report is not talking about the new boom recently developed and undergoing flight testing on the KC-767. The maximum transfer rates only apply to heavy receivers (C-5, B-52, E-3, E-4, C-17, KC-10, KC/RC-135, etc.) taking fuel into all of the tanks at once and using all 4 air refueling pumps. Fighters take fuel at a much slower rate, usually less than 4000lbs per minute and use only one or two pumps. As the individual fuel tanks, in the receiver, fill up and close off, the transfer rate drops. The lone exception in the fighter catagory is the F-111, which starts around 6000lbs/min., then drops off rapidly to about 3000lbs/min.

The report was not comparing the A-330MRTT to the KC-767, it was highlighting the fact the RAAF did not buy enough tankers and may have to buy more. It also acknowledged that the KC-135R is the baseline against all medimum size tankers are judged against, and the A-330MRTT was only 35% more capable than the KC-135R in total offload capability (although it never stated the distance of the mission). What is interesting is this capability number is lower than the difference between the KC-135R and the KC-10A (which is 50% more efficent at less than 1000nm). What about long range missions? On missions longer than 4000nm, the KC-135R offloads more fuel than the KC-10A. So, it seems the old KC-135 beats the A-330MRTT in this catagory, too.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 48):
You can't land a C-5 on a concrete 15,000ft runway that is 3 inches thick.

Yes you can, but just ONCE.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 50):
Nobody knows the prices & conditions so theseumbers are nothing more then assumptions (admitedly they start to live there own live on a.net already)

Airbus is not going to give A0330s to the USAF at $70M each like they did for Thai (part of the A-380 conpensation).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 53):
A fully loaded KC330 can bring 300 soldiers & all their gear from California to Kabull with one stop. I think that would be a new capability for the USAF. Just comparing the KC767 to 50 yr C-135 design and saying nothing more is needed doesn't cut it for me..

The USAF is in the business of moving the equipment, the troops go by CRAF aircraft. BTW, do you really know just how much equipment 300 US troops have? I doubt you could fit it and the troops into any airplane smaller than a B-777.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:09 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):
Yes you can, but just ONCE.

 rotfl 
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 53):
A fully loaded KC330 can bring 300 soldiers & all their gear from California to Kabull with one stop. I think that would be a new capability for the USAF. Just comparing the KC767 to 50 yr C-135 design and saying nothing more is needed doesn't cut it for me..

This is absurd. The tankers are not going where you need troops. The tankers are going to a rear area air base along with the other support craft. About the only thing you regularly need to move in a tanker is the tanker support crew and possibly the ground crews for the other aircraft going to the same base.

The USAF has plenty of aircraft on short notice from the CRAF to move troops in much larger numbers than they could ever do with their tanker fleet. If you have a tanker running shuttle flights of troops its not providing gas which is its main job.

I don't know what you know about how an Air Force deploys into somewhere but it sure is not going to use its tankers to ferry troops more than the first time. Any capability to move troops would probably be used the first trip in on support crews for the most part. After that a tanker is not going anywhere. Certainly it is not going anywhere near a combat zone. In fact in the vast majority of cases for the USAF it will not deploy on the same landmass as the Army, (Diego in the ME, Japan in SE Asia, the UK in Europe, Hawaii or Guam in the Pacific) so there is little point in putting troops on one plane only to move them to another to get them where they are going.

So the moving of troops function is useful if you are doing the following.

1. Moving 300 light infantry troops (you still need heavy lift to move their Hummers, IIFV's, ect)
2. You are going to drop them off with your tanker at an airfield close to the battlefield (assuming there is a suitable airport, which there might or might not be) (also you are moving your tanker far closer to the front lines than you probably intended.)

The troop moving ability is just useless. I am sorry but it is.

Think about this, I don't want to risk my tanker at an airfield that could come under bombardment its too expensive and you really don't want a thing full of gas getting blown up at a deployment airfield full of troops. Because of this I am probably going to stay away from airfields that are within about 20 miles of any enemy force at minimum as if I have a battery of artillery or rockets a big plane landing makes a nice target.

So now I am placing a force without vehicles 20-30 miles from where the enemy might be. Now I either have to helicopter them in, which means I needed something to bring in helicopters, or they have to drive themselves in, which means I need to bring vehicles in on heavy lift.

So if I am planning the deployment it makes a lot more sense to get an airliner from the CRAF with the range and put the troops on it. Have my tanker fill up the C-135 or the C-17 bringing in the vehicles and then it can get on to where it needs to go rather than stopping somewhere it does not need to be.

If the KC-30 is the same price as the KC-767 and the infrastructure cost is minor then buy the KC-30. But it won't be that cheap and it won't be that easy to integrate, hence the problem.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 58):

This is absurd.

Jeremy I couldn't agree more.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:19 am

I think the point of having an aircraft that can act as a dedicated tanker one day and then on the next transport cargo or passengers has been missed by some. This is what the USAF wants in the KC-X no matter what platform is selected.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:38 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 60):
I think the point of having an aircraft that can act as a dedicated tanker one day and then on the next transport cargo or passengers has been missed by some. This is what the USAF wants in the KC-X no matter what platform is selected.

The impression I get is they would like this capability but have not really thought it through. There are very few instances where this ability is useful and it certainly is not in hauling troops as has been insinuated by some. About the only use I can see for it is hauling aircrew and ground support in and out of deployment zones. You won't use it in theater and it is not going to leave a theater till it goes home for good. For the most part it will take off and land at the same airbase.

If you said it wants something that can serve as a tanker for a 60-day deployment then haul some cargo in and out then I would agree with you. It won't be a 50-50 job, more like a 95-5 thing.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:50 am

Maybe 75 KC-X will tanker for 60 days while another 75 are used as a transport for 60 days. If they were all tankers then the other 75 might sit around with nothing to do and that would be a waste.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:45 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
has a 3630kg/min boom or about 34% better nominal transfer rate than the new KC-767 Boeing boom, able to fill more fighters (endurance/range) faster (ofload advantage).

You are ignoring the fact that the transfer rate doesn't depend on the tanker but on the receiver. As I stated before in another thread, smaller aircraft can't take fuel as fast as a large aircraft and even larger aircraft have their limits. An F15- F16-F18 will only take fuel from the KCX at the same rate that it takes fuel from a KC-135 regardless of the rate at which the tanker can offload it. The same goes with a larger aircraft. You are also ignoring TopBoom's explanation of "boom saturation." At some point when refueling a group of fighters the first one refueled will have used all the fuel you have given him and will need to be refueled again and then the second one and then the third one etc. etc. In this case, since the receiver can only take fuel at a fixed rate, one larger tanker just won't do the job as efficeintly as several smaller ones. In this case extra cargo or passenger room is useless. These are the reasons a dedicated tanker will be more useful to the USAF than one which is not optimised for the tanker mission. You should also remember that in a cargo mission the lower holds will not be available for cargo because they will be full of fuel tanks and no, the belly tanks will not be able to be made removable. To remove the belly tanks would take too much time and in a war, time is of the essence.

The bottom line is simply that more, smaller tankers is worth more in a bad situation than fewer larger ones.

If you are wondering whether or not I know what I'm talking about check my profile.

J
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:05 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 62):
Maybe 75 KC-X will tanker for 60 days while another 75 are used as a transport for 60 days. If they were all tankers then the other 75 might sit around with nothing to do and that would be a waste.

Tankers don't sit around, they aren't even deployed to a combat zone unless they are needed to provide refueling services to combat aircraft! That would be the waste!

No Commander is going to jeopardise an asset as valuable as a tanker unless it is absolutely necessary

J
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:58 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 62):
Maybe 75 KC-X will tanker for 60 days while another 75 are used as a transport for 60 days. If they were all tankers then the other 75 might sit around with nothing to do and that would be a waste.

It would be far more efficient to contract out the service to the CRAF for extended pallet cargo hauling. Off the top of my head I know Fed Ex and UPS are members as are several other cargo haulers. In a low intensity situation the USAF prefers to contract out to these people anyway to keep the flight hours off of their frames.

In a high intensity situation you need the tankers as tankers.

Again, there is no conceivable situation where the USAF would need or want to use tankers to shuttle cargo back and forth on anything other than a deployment flight. Since we all have no idea what the necessary cargo and passenger needs are to deploy a tanker force, and whatever else they wanted to send, then it makes little sense to try and pin down that capability. Off the top of my head I would think that you could get by with the 216 ground crew you could stuff on three KC-767 tankers for a deployment, since three is really the minimum you need to keep a tanker on site most hours of the day. Again I have no idea how many men you would need for the ground crew, others might, but I suspect it is a lot closer to 200 than it is to 900 for a few tankers and a squadron or two of aircraft.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 661
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:55 pm

Yeah, I see a KC-X doing a combat drop over baghdad, LOL. I think that the USAF wants something like the KC-10 for cargo handling, but be smaller in size. The KC-10 does do some cargo missions, but they refuel someone on the way. They don't dedicate tankers to cargo missions. Thats what the C-5, C-17 and C-130s are there for. Not to mention all the outside contracts utilizing 747s(ie Atlas, Evergreen, Polar)
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:26 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 60):
I think the point of having an aircraft that can act as a dedicated tanker one day and then on the next transport cargo or passengers has been missed by some. This is what the USAF wants in the KC-X no matter what platform is selected.

No, it will be a tanker everyday. The only troop/cargo missions will be on the initial deployment to the foreward base so that tanker can set up the "air bridge" the next day. Those troops and cargo will be for support of the tankers at that base.

Yes, the USAF wants the KC-X, it is their number 1 priority this year.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:17 pm

IMHO I think when the KC-X comes in line in numbers you will start to see some KC-135's withdrawn en masse. Being here a TIK alot of my friends work on the 135 line and keep running into unforeseen problems. The writing on the wall says that senior leadership are running scared of the doomsday scenario of a major class A mishap with a KC-135 that causes most of the fleet to be grounded without a viable replacement. The Global Reach lexicon taken out of the USAF mission statement. To all out there who are thinking this new bird as a trash hauler, don't , Tankers are force multipliers, it allows fighter packages the flexiability to stay ready for quick strike when the need arises instead of heading back to the barn after 2 hours they stay in orbit waiting for the bad guys to come out of their hole. On the ground you don't have to keep turning fighters you launch once and they only have to come back to reload or give the pilot rest after a 8 hour sortie. The new tankers will be air refuelable So with agumented crews in can stay airborne nearly 24 hours getting topoffs from Kc-135's plus they will have other mission suites installed to work with AWACS ,Rivet Joint, to be able to pass along info secure data through the boom to fighters without having to do transmissions in the open air.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 54):
All you did is prove N328KFs point!!!!!!!!!! Yes it may be able to do that but at the cost of sacrificing the tanking mission. The whole point of getting new tankers is to put booms in the air.



Quoting BigJKU (Reply 58):
This is absurd. The tankers are not going where you need troops.



Quoting Arluna (Reply 64):
Tankers don't sit around, they aren't even deployed to a combat zone unless they are needed to provide refueling services to combat aircraft! That would be the waste!

Most of its KC-135Rs have only amassed around 16,000 hours each in their forty-odd years of service, that is about 18 hours a week on average. Modern long haul aircraft average up to 100 hours a week.

The image painted of no rest capasity being available because all the booms are needed at the front line is far from reality. The RAF purchase is build around the fact it is not the case.

http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSSha...6-03/060313-F-5646C-023_screen.jpg
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6025
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:18 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 69):

The image painted of no rest capasity being available because all the booms are needed at the front line is far from reality. The RAF purchase is build around the fact it is not the case.

The RAF has significantly different requirements.

Why are you ignoring the constant refutations of your incorrect assertions?
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 69):
The RAF purchase is build around the fact it is not the case.

The RAF is NOT The United States Air Force.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:49 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 69):
Most of its KC-135Rs have only amassed around 16,000 hours each in their forty-odd years of service, that is about 18 hours a week on average. Modern long haul aircraft average up to 100 hours a week.

The image painted of no rest capasity being available because all the booms are needed at the front line is far from reality. The RAF purchase is build around the fact it is not the case.

Keesje, do you have a clue as to what you are talking about? True the KC-135 fleet has low hours and cycles, compared to the B-707. But the B-707 did not serve in SAC for the first 35 years of it's life. The KC-135s did, and 1/3 sat on ground alert from 1957 to 1991. Airplanes were on the alert pad for 6-12 weeks at a time. Then you had the Carter administration who only let SAC crews fly 40 hours per quarter, and bought almost no spare parts. It took 5 years to recover from that.

As others have said, the RAF is used differently that the USAF. The 11 remaining French AF C-135FRs have not got many more hours than the USAF KC-135Rs.

I have noticed that France has not put out an RFP for replacing their KC-135s. Why don't they jump onto your A-330MRTT bandwagon, too? Is France waiting for the US selection, them buy whatever we buy?

Now there is a whole new topic.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:05 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
I have noticed that France has not put out an RFP for replacing their KC-135s. Why don't they jump onto your A-330MRTT bandwagon, too? Is France waiting for the US selection, them buy whatever we buy?

Now there is a whole new topic.

TopBoom if you weren't already in my respected list you would be now.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:24 am

I think it is unlikely the KC-X will not do more then 20.000 hours in the next 20 yrs resulting in billions of expensive capasity sitting on the platform while palletized C-17 are refuelled everywhere to make it accros the oceans. Because that's the way we always did it. Who the hell wants that?

Maybe it time to bring in some independent non-airforce people.

I thought the fishy storyline of the KC-30 being "too capable" had died a few yrs back, but it is showing its ugly face again

 Wink

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
USAF wants more from tank
The US Air Force has made it clear that it expects more tactical and strategic capability from its KC-135 replacement than simply tanking.

USAF Air Mobility Command commander Gen Duncan McNabb says: "We will always think 'tanker' first, but if it is sitting on the ground then it can be used for other things. There will be an expandable net-ready backbone in the aircraft."
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):

I thought the fishy storyline of the KC-30 being "too capable" had died a few yrs back

Keesje please. My heart bleeds for you and Airbus. You have been presented with logical arguments as to why the KC-767 is the better choice for the Air Force yet you continue to act is if people are saying the KC-30 is not as good of an a/c as the KC-767.. Once again Keesje, capabilities aside the cost of the KC-30 does not allow the Air Force to put as many booms in the air as compared with the 767. That is why it is the logical choice.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6025
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:49 am

I think we should all give it up. Keesje just can't let it go.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):

Maybe it time to bring in some independent non-airforce people.

To do what? Tell them what they need? "You'll use what we deem politically acceptable or else!" That's superb.

So in essence, when people who have operational experience tell you that you're full of crap, you decide that said operators are biased and should not be able to voice their expert opinion on what the United States Air Force needs, since it is contrary to your chosen airframe.

One other thing — MilAv has, in the past, been renowned for being A vs. B. free. Ever since Keesje started posting here on the subject of USAF air tankers, that seems to have changed.  Wink

[Edited 2007-02-21 19:12:05]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
Maybe it time to bring in some independent non-airforce people.

To do or say what?
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:07 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
Maybe it time to bring in some independent non-airforce people.

Why don't we bring in a auto mechanic to do heart surgery?
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:41 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
Maybe it time to bring in some independent non-airforce people

Up until now your statements haven't been totally unreasonable but the above shows that you're not really very aware of the tanker needs of the USAF. It seems that you really only want there to be an Airbus product chosen for the KC-X rather than the aircraft best suited for the job.

J
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:01 am

On having outside people take a look, Xcuse me, they already did, the famous Rand report after the previous debacle)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1582219&C=airwar


Just one crazy scenario :
The price of a KC30 turns out to be about the same as the price of a KC767 & everybody knows it..

[Edited 2007-02-21 23:08:21]
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:26 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
On having outside people take a look, Xcuse me, they already did, the famous Rand report after the previous debacle)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...irwar

Then why did you post a call to get an outside source to weigh in on the subject if it had already been done?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
Just one crazy scenario :
The price of a KC30 turns out to be about the same as the price of a KC767 & everybody knows it.

Oh Really? I'm sure that's news to Airbus.

Even if and I stress IF they were the same price the KC-30 is too big to fit in US hangers. What about MX cost? What about fuel burn? There are other consideration here than just acquisitions cost.

Keesje give it a rest man. No one here is dogging the KC-30, it's a great a/c, but it doesn't fit the needs of the Air Force as well as the KC-767. End of story.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:38 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
I thought the fishy storyline of the KC-30 being "too capable" had died a few yrs back, but it is showing its ugly face again

You're such a strong proponent of "more capable" aircraft for the KC-X program, then why are you not singing the praises of the most capable (By your standards) aircraft offered, the KC-777?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:38 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 74):
Maybe it time to bring in some independent non-airforce people.

 rotfl  You have GOT to be kidding!

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 81):
Keesje give it a rest man. No one here is dogging the KC-30, it's a great a/c, but it doesn't fit the needs of the Air Force as well as the KC-767. End of story.

Keesje can't give it a rest. He's either a paid shill for Airbus or an employee.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:39 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
Just one crazy scenario :
The price of a KC30 turns out to be about the same as the price of a KC767 & everybody knows it.

Won't matter. And just to complicate matters, look who just came back in the news: Putin Wants Eads Help, Or Else.... (by Lumberton Feb 22 2007 in Civil Aviation)
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:39 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
The price of a KC30 turns out to be about the same as the price of a KC767 & everybody knows it..

The KC-767 still getts selected, because it is still smaller and able to use the KC-135 infaststructure, so it is still cheaper, too.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 80):
On having outside people take a look, Xcuse me, they already did, the famous Rand report after the previous debacle)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...irwar

That report came out about a year ago. It had nothing to do with the "debacle" you are talking about. The only thing Rand says was not cost effective was small tankers (those under 300,000lbs gross weight, ie. A-320, B-737). Other than that Rand said nothing by including every airplane between 300,000lbs and 1,000,000lbs. Please read it again.

Here in the US, Rand is called a "think tank". So, Keesje, why don't you send them your resume'?
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 661
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:58 am

One thing for sure, The USAF certainly doesn't need 510 KC-Xs to replace the 510 KC-135s. Half of the 135s sit around and do nothing, while the other half are flying missions along side the 10s. And I ain't even going to argue about the airframe hours anymore, cause I know they are more than what they say now after being re-skinned and whatnot. At anyrate, Its quiet amusing watching this arguement, that has been going on for three years now all about a stupid tanker. Let the Air Force decide what it wants and how many of what it gets, and be done with it. I'm sure we'll know by the end of the FY.
 
echster
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:33 am

Thought I'd kick in 2 stories I read today:

Four AFBs Vie To Be KC-X Home

Grand Forks, MacDill, McConnell, Fairchild

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/AFkcxbases070221/


USAF Chief Forsees Mixed Tanker Fleet

"I think down the road you'll see us go to a mixed fleet," Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, told a briefing hosted by the State Department's Foreign Press Center in New York and also videoconferenced to reporters in Washington.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...-USA-AIRFORCE.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:27 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
Good point, but right now I don't know enough of Boeings KC-767ADV version to know what engine powers it.

That was part of my displeasure in the KC-767, that Boeing announced an exclusive agreement with P&W soon after the dust settled on the last attempt by the USAF to acquire tankers; if the USAF wanted P&W for their tankers than they should have been the ones making the decision and not Boeing.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 32):
Which means for every 7 KC-30's we can buy, we can buy 10 KC-767's. Or, to put it on a larger scale, for the 28 billion the Air Force wants to spend, they can get roughly 175 KC-30's or 215 KC-767's.

Seems like the KC-767 is clearly in the best interest of the taxpayer AND the air force.

No one has even seen the EADS/NG proposal yet because it hasn't been submitted, so hold off on the number comparisons just yet. And still, the USAF could get like how many more KC-135's for how much less if they just invested in an fleet wide upgrade program, so it's not all about getting "more booms for less money."

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 36):
Finally the USAF does not need
the fringe benefits of the larger aircraft like smaller nations do.

That's a fallacy that only the cargo community, Boeing, and those in the USAF who want to go and work for Boeing when they retire would like everyone else to believe.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 36):
The main problem is that the initial KC-X requirement was written by
people who were just trying to figure out what the best tanker for the
USAF would be.

The latest KC-X proposal was custom tailored to make it appear that Boeing was the clear choice - I eagerly anticipate how EADS/NG respond with their KC-30 proposal.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6025
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:27 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 87):
"I think down the road you'll see us go to a mixed fleet," Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, told a briefing hosted by the State Department's Foreign Press Center in New York and also videoconferenced to reporters in Washington.

"Mixed" could mean anything. Multiple vendors, multiple sizes, multiple generations, etc.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:30 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 88):

That's a fallacy that only the cargo community

I disagree completely. However I will humor you and ask who is not a fallacy with?
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:44 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 88):
That's a fallacy that only the cargo community, Boeing, and those in the USAF who want to go and work for Boeing when they retire would like everyone else to believe.

I would really love to hear an the reasoning behind putting cargo hauling hours on USAF tanker airframes when it could for the most part just be contracted out for other airframes which has the added bonus of encouraging participation in the CRAF.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:25 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 88):
The latest KC-X proposal was custom tailored to make it appear that Boeing was the clear choice - I eagerly anticipate how EADS/NG respond with their KC-30 proposal.

From what I understand, the latest RFP was put together by people who actually know the tanker business within the USAF. But you are correct, it will be nice to see the NG/EADS proposal, if they submit one. They still have some 46 days to submit their proposal.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The KC-767 still getts selected, because it is still smaller and able to use the KC-135 infaststructure, so it is still cheaper, too.

I think the KC-767 is 10 ft higher and has a span 25ft bigger then the kc-135,
however nobody seems to take issue..

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

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:34 pm

Well, now Gen Mosley (USAF Chief of Staff) is really muddying the waters! "Leaving the door open to a mixed fleet"....
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070221/tankers_usa_airforce.html?.v=1

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force likely would seek to buy refueling planes from both Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) and a rival transatlantic team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC - News), the top Air Force general said Wednesday.
Boeing is vying with the team of Northrop and Airbus parent EADS (Paris:EAD.PA - News) to supply 179 tanker planes, valued at about $40 billion, in the first phase of a fleet-renewal program expected to be worth more than $100 billion over more than 30 years.
"I think down the road you'll see us go to a mixed fleet," Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, told a briefing hosted by the State Department's Foreign Press Center in New York and also videoconferenced to reporters in Washington.
This was because there was "some utility" to having larger and smaller tankers, just as the current fleet is made up of bigger KC-10 and smaller KC-135 models, he said.
The prospect of a mixed fleet is good news for Los Angeles-based Northrop, which had threatened to shun the competition until this month for fear it was skewed to favor Chicago-based Boeing.

Honestly, I have no idea how to read this. Can it be taken at face value? Is it intended to force the OEM's to rock bottom pricing?
One thing is for sure, if the name "Russia" or "Putin" appears within 1000 kilometers of EADS' corporate offices, EADS can kiss any participation in this deal good-bye. Puttin's public pronouncements of late have so poisoned the well, that the Congress would demagogue any connection to death. The Dubai Ports deal was merely a dress rehersal should this come to pass.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:01 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 94):
One thing is for sure, if the name "Russia" or "Putin" appears within 1000 kilometers of EADS' corporate offices, EADS can kiss any participation in this deal good-bye

What prevents Putin from buying some Boeing stock, it's a privat company and it's a free market.

[Edited 2007-02-22 13:14:43]
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6025
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:22 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 93):

I think the KC-767 is 10 ft higher and has a span 25ft bigger then the kc-135,
however nobody seems to take issue..

Boeing's overlay of the 767 over the KC-135 was quite illustrative in this respect. It showed that the 767 and KC-135 were very closely sized, and in the other image, the A330-200 was similar in size to the 777 (if USAF wanted it), both of which were much larger than the other two.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:14 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 93):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The KC-767 still getts selected, because it is still smaller and able to use the KC-135 infaststructure, so it is still cheaper, too.

I think the KC-767 is 10 ft higher and has a span 25ft bigger then the kc-135,
however nobody seems to take issue..

What TopBoom meant by "smaller" is the KC-767 is smaller than the KC-30. 767 may be a little bigger than the 135 but not so big as not to fit into the hangers of the KC-135. I'm surprised you didn't catch that since it has been discussed multiple times in the forums.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 95):
What prevents Putin from buying some Boeing stock, it's a privat company and it's a free market.

Little thing called the United States government.

Keesje your love affair with Airbus is restricting your vision.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:31 pm



The shape of things to come for the United States Air Force, much to the chagrin of a few here.

Here's a question, with Airbus supplying A330s to many current A380 customers as well as is own stellar sales, how can they possibly supply all the airframes the USAF needs in the timeframes specified? Yes they'll build a factory in Alabama, but the major sub assemblies must still be produced in Toulouse. Those Generals are also considering that little detail...

They are also paying very close attention to the KC-767 flight trails going on as we speak. Is the KC-30 or any of it's derivatives currently being flight tested?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14609
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:46 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 97):
Little thing called the United States government.

Oh no, is there some government control over a privat owned company? This all is getting confusing..

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 98):
They are also paying very close attention to the KC-767 flight trails going on as we speak. Is the KC-30 or any of it's derivatives currently being flight tested?

Yes, I'm afraid so. http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/..._center/data/boomflight_013107.pdf

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AngMoh, Spacepope and 15 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