Quoting Keesje (Reply 30):
What strikes me is that Boeing is avoiding every direct comparison between the KC30 and KC767. Probably for good reason. This seems to have become part of their sales strategy. |
There are a few basic problems with the Lockheed proposal that the US
AF is going to point out. I used to do contract work on procurement, mostly on the naval side, but the concepts are largely the same.
First we have to assume that the US
AF really wants 200 tankers. The point made earlier about boom saturation is an important one. Additionally one should not underestimate that there is inherent value in being able to have 50 more tankers available at any given time. Without any additional information we have to assume the US
AF needs the 200 tankers rather than 150 tankers of equal capability to 200 cheaper tankers.
Moving ahead from this assumption we come to the following problem. Given the ballpark figures for each aircraft (120 for a 767 and 160 for the A330 variant) we come up with a total program cost of 24 Billion for 767’s or 32 Billion for A330 assuming a buy of 200 tankers for the
KC-X run.
The above brings us to the first problem that many here have failed to identify. The US
AF and US Armed forces in general make decisions in a very different manner from European and other associated forces. While they have comparatively more money to spend the numbers of examples the US
AF needs means that relatively small variations, like 40 Million USD, plays out to a very large number when played out over an order of 200 airframes.
Where there seems to be disconnect is in assessing the relative cost and value of these to the various nations involved. When a limited production run, like 5 tankers for Australia, are being considered the value difference between getting 5 A330’s or 5
KC-767’s the choice is obvious. The production run is so small that the savings by going with the Boeing might be enough to get you one C-17. In addition the limited size and budget of your forces means that the additional cargo and fuel that an A330 can carry is far more valuable as it frees your airlift to do other things.
The equation for the US is far different. You are looking at a first run of effectively 200 tankers with a total potential for nearly 600 frames.
The first thing you need to look at is the savings you can achieve by going with the Boeing and just what force structure that would free you to purchase. In just the first run of 200 tankers you could save 8 Billion USD. That would allow you at current purchase prices to get your 200 tankers and still purchase 65 F-22’s, 40 C-17’s or some combination of the above.
The capability problem is also not as critical for the US. The US
AF has plenty of cargo haulers. This is not really a problem. The main issue is ability to deploy where needed with enough tankers. While the A330 carries more fuel, about 122 Tons to 72 Tons for the 767, this ability does not play out as well as one might suspect. Essentially a 767 has enough fuel to fully gas up about 11 or so large fighters. The A330 can get about 18 of the same. The problem, other than boom saturation, is there are not enough airframes to justify the A330 anyway.
The current US
AF force structure has about 2,000 total fighters, around 200 active bombers and a whole bunch of other planes in various innumerable categories. Considering that with 200 767’s you could tank every fighter in the US
AF inventory, which is far more than the active number currently in service, the idea that you need more fuel in the air is really not the reality. Consider that this would leave you with 400 other tankers to handle giving gas to your bombers, transports, electronic aircraft and what not and you see that the extra gas is not really the issue.
So if you buy 600 A330’s over the long term you spend about 96 Billion USD, constant to this year, over the next 10-30 years, depending on how long we drag this program out. If we go with the 767 we spend 72 Billion USD. That leaves us with 24 Billion USD to play with.
That is sufficient savings to get a lot of things done. First lets recapitalize the fighter force. The US
AF currently plans to purchase about 183 F-22’s. Lets go ahead and spend our first half of that 24 Billion USD on that. We get another 104 F-22 bringing the US
AF total much closer to the F-15’s it will be replacing with 287. If I want to spend the whole savings on fighters I can get my total 391 fighters which would replace the F-15 force and then some.
But say I go with just using half of that money on fighters. I can use the remaining 12 Billion USD on something else useful, like C-17’s. I can probably get around 50 or so with what remains. That would cover my lift requirements for a good while and more than make up for any lost cargo capacity I have in choosing the 787.
There are three things that are against the A330 in this contest. The first is cost, its just not the economical choice. The second is the fact that more fuel is just not really necessary with the dwindling number of airframes currently in the US
AF. Finally the US
AF does not need the fringe benefits of the larger aircraft like smaller nations do. It simply can make up for the loss with other specialized platforms.
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 US
AF would be. I think we can all agree the idea tanker is the biggest, fastest thing around that can carry the most cargo, fuel and people the furthest. The problem is that is expensive and it has to be balanced against other needs. If I can save tens of billions of dollars by buying just a tanker and in the process get 50 more C-17’s (which can move things the A-330 could not even consider moving)and 100 more F-22’s then the decision becomes easy.
This is why the initial concepts for a product rarely look like they do in final form. The Army Crusader is a great example of this. Fantastic gun, fantastic system, but just way too expensive and the capability was not worth the price. If you really weight the decision between getting more fighters and transports in the air, and still having plenty of flying gas for them with a slightly more capable tanker its really an easy decision.
I see the US
AF buying 767’s for the first two batches of tankers, then they might look for something more suited to replace the
KC-10 as a bigger tanker for long range ferry deployments.
).
You've hit the point exactly. This is not a head-to-head competition between the two aircraft. It's a total program buy, and being able to buy more aircraft and not have to spend to reconfigure ramps etc. weighs heavily in favor of the Boeing bid.
)
