KC-45A Assembly

nicholaschee · Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:03 am

Since the KC-45A will be assembled in Alabama by Northrop Grumman. How will the parts be sent from Europe since a large proportion of the manufacturing will be done there. The Belugas don't have the range (or do they?) By ship across the Atlantic or a converted aircraft like the 747LCF?

[Edited 2008-02-29 23:20:26]

kc135topboom · Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:17 am

IIRC, NG always has said they would use surface cargo ships across the Atlantic.

zeke · Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:49 am

I am hoping for the A340-600STE

r2rho · Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:47 am

Hehehe, I was waiting for you to post that one, Zeke Wink

I'd love to see it, but the assembly of 12 (?) tankers per year could be supported by ship. However, we have to add the freighters to that (also to be assembled in MOB). If they become a success, and production rates go up considerably, then EADS may have to think of a faster way to get their aircraft parts over there.

I'd love to see and A340-Beluga one day! crossfingers

moo · Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:52 am

Airbus has already said there will not be any more Beluga's - they will be purchasing a fleet of large ocean going freighters much like the ones they are using for the A380. This fleet will service both the China facilities and any other locations that may arise in the next decade.

tjwgrr · Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:07 pm

Assembly at BFM since it's adjacent to Mobile Bay I would assume?

Aerial of BFM:

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=30.62...&lon=-88.069275&z=14.7&r=0&src=msl

bhmbaglock · Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:38 pm

Quoting Nicholaschee (Thread starter):
Since the KC-45A will be assembled in Alabama by Northrop Grumman.

No, it will be modified to be a tanker by NG. The actual airframe will be assembled in a separate EADS plant also at BFM.

Quoting Nicholaschee (Thread starter):
How will the parts be sent from Europe since a large proportion of the manufacturing will be done there. The Belugas don't have the range (or do they?) By ship across the Atlantic or a converted aircraft like the 747LCF?

The BFM complex is well situated for ANY possible method of delivery. It's located in the very large Port of Mobile, has a very long sea level runway, is adjacent to two interstates, and also has lots of rail service.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
IIRC, NG always has said they would use surface cargo ships across the Atlantic.

When they used the Beluga to transport relief supplies after Katrina they also mentioned it being a test of how it would handle flights to BFM for tanker production. My guess is that surface shipping will be primary with Beluga sitting in reserve to get back on schedule in cases where the supply chain is disrupted for whatever reasons, i.e. weather, strike, etc.

nicholaschee · Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:56 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):

I guess it won't be a A340-300STE but more of a A340-500/600STE in the event they build one (fingers crossed)

Quoting Moo (Reply 4):

How will the airframes stand up to sea spray during transit? I have experienced 155mm guns being corroded even though they were sealed up totally.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 6):

Thanks for the info. How did the Belugas fare during that test?

trex8 · Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:59 pm

Quoting Nicholaschee (Reply 7):
How will the airframes stand up to sea spray during transit? I have experienced 155mm guns being corroded even though they were sealed up totally.

haven't 767 and 777 sections from Japan been sent by sea? is a special coating put on or the journey?

columba · Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:05 pm

Quoting R2rho (Reply 3):
d love to see and A340-Beluga one day! crossfingers

Based on the A340-600 - what an aircraft !!! I think even the A380 will look small in comparision Smile

bhmbaglock · Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:07 pm

Quoting Nicholaschee (Reply 7):
Thanks for the info. How did the Belugas fare during that test?

It was just one as I recall but it made it over just fine. The reality is, it was probably more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

btw, al.com has an excellent article on the win. The reporters at the Mobile Press Register are very good and I really didn't see any mistakes. Here's one intereting point:

Quote:
State and local governments offered Northrop and EADS $120 million in incentives in support of the planned $600 million assembly complex and an Airbus engineering center already in operation at Brookley. The state will pick up $77.5 million of the total. The lion's share of the money -- $95 million -- will go toward facility construction, with the rest split between site preparation, dock improvements and workforce training.

Dock improvements seems to confirm that at least some of the parts will be shipped in by ocean.

Here's the full article: http://www.al.com/news/press-registe...se/news/120436652776060.xml&coll=3

baroque · Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
I am hoping for the A340-600STE

Quoting R2rho (Reply 3):
Hehehe, I was waiting for you to post that one, Zeke

Not wrong R2rho - the side views get me in stitches every time - they just get better and better down the column. Now the 340-300STE really IS a whalejet.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 6):
BHMBAGLOCK

Probably true BHMBAGLOCK but much less interesting that Zeke's suggestion.

Revelation · Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:01 pm

Quoting R2rho (Reply 3):
If they become a success, and production rates go up considerably, then EADS may have to think of a faster way to get their aircraft parts over there.

Since Boeing won't be making any money on KC-767s, perhaps they should cut their losses and sell EADS some Dreamlifters?

Quoting Moo (Reply 4):
Airbus has already said there will not be any more Beluga's - they will be purchasing a fleet of large ocean going freighters much like the ones they are using for the A380. This fleet will service both the China facilities and any other locations that may arise in the next decade.

As an airplane fan, I'm sad to hear that.

One argument Boeing made in favor of Dreamlifter was the capital expense of so many airplane parts bobbing on the water for weeks if not months at a time. I guess that's not as relevent here?

I wonder how far EADS has come in the process of specifying these ships. It'll be interesting to see what they end up getting.

All I could find so far on KC-45A production was the following statement:

Quote:
Tom Enders, President and CEO of Airbus said: “Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force can count on the full resources of Airbus to support the KC-45A tanker’s production and delivery. All four System Design and Development aircraft are already in production. Preparatory work is now underway for our commitment to co-locate the final assembly of the tankers and A330 civilian freighter aircraft at Mobile, Alabama, creating the first new large commercial aircraft assembly facility in the U.S. in over 40 years.”

One wonders exactly what that commitment is.

I imagine some sort of "US workshare" is written into their proposal.

Also:

Quote:
The programme award calls for 179 aircraft with an estimated contract value of US$ 40 billion. The initial KC-45A contract for Northrop Grumman covers four System Design and Development aircraft and is valued at US$ 1.5 billion.

So it seems that us USA taxpayers have signed up to buy the first four EU-assembled tankers, but it seems we haven't signed on the dotted line for the rest.

Will it be mandatory that all the rest get built in the US?

Stitch · Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:13 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):
So it seems that us USA taxpayers have signed up to buy the first four EU-assembled tankers, but it seems we haven't signed on the dotted line for the rest.

Will it be mandatory that all the rest get built in the US?

It would have to be.

Tristarsteve · Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:27 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):
I wonder how far EADS has come in the process of specifying these ships. It'll be interesting to see what they end up getting.

EADS are already running a ship carrying A380 parts around Europe.

bhmbaglock · Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:29 pm

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 14):
EADS are already running a ship carrying A380 parts around Europe.

Crossing the Channel and crossing the Atlantic aren't really comparable problems; I doubt the solution will be the same unless they were really planning ahead. If so, good for them.

They''ll probably take an off the shelf design, preferably one they can buy second hand for a reasonable price and then modify them. If not, they can always have them made in Mobile.

Stitch · Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:07 pm

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 15):
Crossing the Channel and crossing the Atlantic aren't really comparable problems; I doubt the solution will be the same unless they were really planning ahead. If so, good for them.

Yes, but there is a great deal of expertise around the world for building ships of that type, so I think EADS will be able to find someone who can meet the requirements.

bhmbaglock · Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:29 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Yes, but there is a great deal of expertise around the world for building ships of that type, so I think EADS will be able to find someone who can meet the requirements.

I hope I didn't give any other impression; if so, my mistake. There is no doubt that any number of shipyards could handle such a project. The big question is how quick this needs to be done - I'm betting that we'll see a fair amount of the Belugas to start, possibly AN-124 for the wings.

MD11Engineer · Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:52 pm

I can well imagine Airbus to build e.g. fuselage sections in Mobile in the future.

Jan

Stitch · Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:53 pm

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 17):
I hope I didn't give any other impression; if so, my mistake.

The mistake was mine. Smile

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 17):
The big question is how quick this needs to be done - I'm betting that we'll see a fair amount of the Belugas to start, possibly AN-124 for the wings.

With modern pre-fabrication, I don't think it would take all that long to build a ship. They seem to knock out carriers and cruise ships pretty quick.

Some folks have pointed to statements by EADS officials that no additional A300-600STs will be purchased and they seem to also put the kabosh on an A340-x00ST and I believe the existing ST fleet is pretty busy supporting the A320, A330 and A340 programs around the EU.

I am not familiar with the An-124's internal bay, but could it take an A330-200 fuselage section?

Tristarsteve · Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:02 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
With modern pre-fabrication, I don't think it would take all that long to build a ship. They seem to knock out carriers and cruise ships pretty quick.

The ship they have now was specially built for EADS in China.
It crosses the Bay of Biscay on each trip. Sure the Atlantic is nothing.

AirRyan · Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:23 am

What work does/will NG do at MLB for the KC-30 project and will they eventually move all of that to BFM now that the contract is awarded?

norcal · Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:52 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):
Since Boeing won't be making any money on KC-767s, perhaps they should cut their losses and sell EADS some Dreamlifters?

No they will be losing billions.

bhmbaglock · Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:02 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 21):
What work does/will NG do at MLB for the KC-30 project and will they eventually move all of that to BFM now that the contract is awarded?

Quote:
Engineering, program management and support services for the contract will be based at Northrop Grumman’s plant at Melbourne International Airport.

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...ID=/20080229/BREAKINGNEWS/80229016

400 new jobs but according to many here, only AL will benefit. sarcastic

AirRyan · Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:07 am

At what point does the USAF order more or have the option to increase the purchase of the existing 179 KC-145A's?

Is that KC-Z?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that next up will be KC-Y which is to replace the 59 KC-10's but it isn't expected to be awarded until at least 2020 and while the USAF may not ever replace all of their existing 500+ KC-135's with KC-45's, there is a more than probably chance that the USAF may well buy more than just the initial 179 aircraft under KC-X.

So it begs the question, say the USAF ends up with a total of around at least 350 to 400 KC-45's at the minimum, at what point does the USAF not replace their remaining existing 33 E-3, 17 E-8C's, and even the USN and their E-6B's with a C-30 based aircraft for nonetheless fleet commonality and the associated economies of scale?

How many 707 derived examples does the US military operate and will the C-30 based off the Airbus A-330-200F not someday likely see that many examples in the US military as well?

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 23):
Quote:
Engineering, program management and support services for the contract will be based at Northrop Grumman’s plant at Melbourne International Airport.

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...ID=/20080229/BREAKINGNEWS/80229016

400 new jobs but according to many here, only AL will benefit.

Cool, thanks for the info. While I might fancy an op to reside in the Mobile area near Pensacola, Melbourne looks like a nice place to live, too I presume?!

par13del · Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:21 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
So it begs the question, say the USAF ends up with a total of around at least 350 to 400 KC-45's at the minimum, at what point does the USAF not replace their remaining existing 33 E-3, 17 E-8C's, and even the USN and their E-6B's with a C-30 based aircraft for nonetheless fleet commonality and the associated economies of scale?

Sort of late in the game to be asking this question I think, my opinion is that all B-707 frames will be replaced by KC-45 frames, its why this buy was not just about tankers, AWACS, Rivet Joints, E3's, VIP transports, there will be no KC-10 replacement, I stated in another thread, the gap between the KC-45 and KC-10 is smaller than the KC-135 so the Air Force will simply top up the order, only one tanker will exist in the near future.

bhmbaglock · Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:29 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
Cool, thanks for the info. While I might fancy an op to reside in the Mobile area near Pensacola, Melbourne looks like a nice place to live, too I presume?!

Work in Mobile, live in Baldwin County. It's very nice, affordable, lots to do, excellent fishing, and has great schools. Melbourne is nice too.

Scipio · Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:12 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
I am hoping for the A340-600STE

Would that allow getting rid of the ridiculous ship-barge-convoy system to transport A380 parts?

bhmbaglock · Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:41 am

Here's some good info from AW&ST:

Quote:
EADS CASA will install the first centerline refueling boom on the initial test aircraft in Spain. Fuel was passed through the new boom for the first time in flight from an A310 testbed on Feb. 29. Boom work will shift temporarily with the second test aircraft to Northrop Grumman’s Melbourne, Fla., facility. With the fourth and final test aircraft, Northrop’s new Mobile plant will take over that role.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...03038p1.xml&headline=Northrop/EADS Clinches U.S. Refueler Deal&channel=awst

Anybody know what was used for a receiver?

atmx2000 · Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:25 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that next up will be KC-Y which is to replace the 59 KC-10's but it isn't expected to be awarded until at least 2020 and while the USAF may not ever replace all of their existing 500+ KC-135's with KC-45's, there is a more than probably chance that the USAF may well buy more than just the initial 179 aircraft under KC-X.

Wouldn't principle demand that you object to the large scale purchases of what would be 30 yo aircraft in 2020?

The various C-135s were all bought in about 10 years after the introduction of the model. Something like 56 707s were bought later on.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
So it begs the question, say the USAF ends up with a total of around at least 350 to 400 KC-45's at the minimum, at what point does the USAF not replace their remaining existing 33 E-3, 17 E-8C's, and even the USN and their E-6B's with a C-30 based aircraft for nonetheless fleet commonality and the associated economies of scale?

The trend is towards smaller sensor and electronic warfare platforms. The A332 seems too large.

Oryx · Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:57 am

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 15):
They''ll probably take an off the shelf design, preferably one they can buy second hand for a reasonable price and then modify them. If not, they can always have them made in Mobile.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
With modern pre-fabrication, I don't think it would take all that long to build a ship. They seem to knock out carriers and cruise ships pretty quick.

The problem with new builds isn't about the time to build them but to get a slot. My company builds ships engines and we are booked out for the next three years. I do not think that the order book is smaller at our competitioners. What I have heard is that crank-shafts are the bottle neck as some years ago the entire industry closed down their forges as they were not yielding enough profit.

par13del · Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:32 pm

As it relates to EADS, whats in this financially for them, how do they make money on this deal, licence fees can't be that much. They are building a plant in the US, or is NG doing that, they will be employing Americans, or will NG be doing that?
What I can think of that will be a boon is if EADS builds the major components in Europe, which will continue to employ their work force, building ships and packaging the parts to ship to the US would be a transfer of jobs ( not personel), namely those who were previously involved in final assembly, so no losses there at least in the short term. The US workers would now do final assembly, providing a few jobs of basically manual labour, not the high tech jobs in the EU which have a higher cost, so price would be more affordable.

Would appreciate more information on the workings of these, what most always look at is the a/c being flown, we have heard about the jobs Boeing and EADS would create, now that the deal is done, it is time to look at and read the fine print, who reads an instruction manual before attempting to use the product?

bhmbaglock · Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:33 pm

Quoting Oryx (Reply 30):
The problem with new builds isn't about the time to build them but to get a slot. My company builds ships engines and we are booked out for the next three years.

That's why I've said before that I expect them to use Beluga at least when things are starting up. They might have to be creative with scheduling, maintenance, etc. but I'm sure there's a plan in place.

Stitch · Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:13 pm

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 32):
That's why I've said before that I expect them to use Beluga at least when things are starting up. They might have to be creative with scheduling, maintenance, etc. but I'm sure there's a plan in place.

As I understand it, with only six planes moving parts for three families (A320, A330 and A340) from multiple plants in multiple countries, the Beluga fleet is already pressed for time just moving the pieces on two-hour hops around the EU. Moving A330 parts from those plants to NA would take the plane out of service for effectively a 24-hour period.

Of course, it's likely a moot point since I don't think a Beluga has the legs. She was designed to haul 30t 4000km. I don't know what an A330 fuselage barrel or wingset weighs, but the still-air great circle distance is almost 8000km per Great Circle Mapper.

Revelation · Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:08 pm

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 20):
The ship they have now was specially built for EADS in China.
It crosses the Bay of Biscay on each trip. Sure the Atlantic is nothing.

Interesting, but China is assembling narrowbodies yet MOB will be assembling widebodies.

A320 is 38m long with 34m wingspan and 4m fuselage width.

A330-200 is 58m long with 60m wingspan and 6m fuselage width.

One has to wonder if the same ship would be suitable for both programs.

Also with production rate of 11-12 frames per year, it'd seem one ship alone would be plenty busy picking up parts from UK, France and Germany and bringing them across the Atlantic and returning back to Europe for more.

So it'll be interesting to see what ship(s) are acquired, and when they will be available.

Quoting Oryx (Reply 30):
The problem with new builds isn't about the time to build them but to get a slot. My company builds ships engines and we are booked out for the next three years. I do not think that the order book is smaller at our competitioners. What I have heard is that crank-shafts are the bottle neck as some years ago the entire industry closed down their forges as they were not yielding enough profit.

Interesting.

I've heard that the crankshafts on certain piston aircraft engines literally are irreplacable: the forges that made them no longer operate, and no amount of money can buy a replacement. I suppose that's an exaggeration: with enough money one could get it done, but I could imagine the cost would be such that it'd be cheaper to go for one of those turbo-diesel replacements. Smile

Tristarsteve · Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:16 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 20):
The ship they have now was specially built for EADS in China.
It crosses the Bay of Biscay on each trip. Sure the Atlantic is nothing.

Interesting, but China is assembling narrowbodies yet MOB will be assembling widebodies.

Sorry I will try again.The EADS ship was constructed in China.
The EADS ship transfers A380 assemblies (bigger than A330) from UK Germany and Spain to Toulouse. (Well a port on the way to Toulouse).
All A320 A330 assemblies are flown around Europe by Beluga.
No idea how they are going to get A320 bits to China.

Revelation · Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:51 pm

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 35):
Sorry I will try again.The EADS ship was constructed in China.
The EADS ship transfers A380 assemblies (bigger than A330) from UK Germany and Spain to Toulouse. (Well a port on the way to Toulouse).
All A320 A330 assemblies are flown around Europe by Beluga.
No idea how they are going to get A320 bits to China.

Thanks for the clarification, TristarSteve. Sorry I missed your original meaning.

Wikipedia describes the current A380 logistics as follows:

Quote:
The front and rear sections of the fuselage are loaded on an Airbus Roll-on/roll-off (RORO) ship, Ville de Bordeaux, in Hamburg in northern Germany, from whence they are shipped to the United Kingdom.[68] The wings, which are manufactured at Filton in Bristol and Broughton in North Wales, are transported by barge to Mostyn docks, where the ship adds them to its cargo. In Saint-Nazaire in western France, the ship trades the fuselage sections from Hamburg for larger, assembled sections, some of which include the nose. The ship unloads in Bordeaux. Afterwards, the ship picks up the belly and tail sections by Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA in Cádiz in southern Spain, and delivers them to Bordeaux. From there, the A380 parts are transported by barge to Langon, and by oversize road convoys to the assembly hall in Toulouse.

I wonder if they will be be aiming for one ship to carry one set of KC-45A fuse/wings/tail across the Atlantic at a time, or just to ship whatever parts can be shipped at any given point in time.

AirRyan · Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:40 pm

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 28):
Anybody know what was used for a receiver?

F-16...

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

bhmbaglock · Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:08 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 37):
F-16...

The article you referenced is several weeks old. It was only Friday that they first transferred fuel. Probably an F-16 as well though.

AirRyan · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:02 am

Anybody read the specifics on the KC-30B offered to the USAF pertaining to what kind of flight deck was going to be offered? We all know that Boeing was going to offer the latest pit from the 764 had their KC-767ADV won the bid, but I never heard anything about the KC-30's flight deck (not that it really needs much!)

I'm wondering if there may be any possible advents from the A380 or possibly the A350XWB and am specifically wondering if the USAF's KC-45's will have such convienences as an electronic flight bag or even a HUD for one or both of the pilots? Recently WN completed the upgrade of all of their aircraft with the drop-down HUD's on the left seat and it's one of the reasons why they felt they could go back into SFO - they are really impressive.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

L-188 · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:16 am

I have a question.

I assume that this contract was bid for in USD.

Airbus is going to be buying it's materials, paying it's employee's, in Euros,

How much money do they stand to loose if the dollar sinks farther? Or is the US taxpayers going to be paying for currency speculation? Or are we going to see airbus countries trying to prop up the USD so their government owned airbus contracts don't tank?

beefstew25 · Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:17 am

Mayor of Melbourne said every finished frame will be coming through here. I know EADS has an office here, and I asked him why, and he said it was for something else and couldn't really talk about it.

Anyway, it will be nice to see some 330's here. Maybe we can get another mainline airline in now.

zeke · Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:52 am

Quoting Scipio (Reply 27):

Could do, but I am unsure what they will use for the A350.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 29):

The KC-45 will be network ready, while not electronic warfare, it will stand as a mobile communications platform for troops on the ground to contact headquarters. Existing tankers have this ability as well via a pallet loaded communications system.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 39):

The KC-45 will be the same as the A330E, it is the A340-500/600 cockpit which is standard on all new build A330s. Features LCD screes, ISIS, some changes to the hydraulics, flight control etc.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 40):

2/3 of it will be US content, even the non US content will be using majority US sourced materials.

Quoting Beefstew25 (Reply 41):

I would guess that if for the military electronics.

I should add, according to http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...cles/newstex/AFX-0013-23471013.htm

EADS will be investing US$500 million to build the the new FAL in Mobile.

[Edited 2008-03-03 17:53:39]

norcal · Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:48 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
The KC-45 will be network ready, while not electronic warfare, it will stand as a mobile communications platform for troops on the ground to contact headquarters. Existing tankers have this ability as well via a pallet loaded communications system.

Has the A330MRTT been protected against EMP yet? I am sure NG/EADS thought of this, but I was wondering if they have already done the work.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 42):
The KC-45 will be the same as the A330E, it is the A340-500/600 cockpit which is standard on all new build A330s. Features LCD screes, ISIS, some changes to the hydraulics, flight control etc.

I hope they also upgrade to the A330-200F for the base airframe and consider using GEnx engines.

zeke · Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:01 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 43):
Has the A330MRTT been protected against EMP yet? I am sure NG/EADS thought of this, but I was wondering if they have already done the work.

AFAIK it is a requirement for civil aircraft design in the EU to have had this, I am not sure if it was a requirement under the FARs. The EU JARs had certification requirements for computer systems well before the US to cope with the Concord and A320 certification (Concorde was the first FBW civil airliner, A320 first digital FBW civil airliner).

Quoting NorCal (Reply 43):
I hope they also upgrade to the A330-200F for the base airframe and consider using GEnx engines.

Would be a smart investment IMHO. A freighter conversion generally for that size aircraft would be 5-10 million, would be cheaper for a new build. I think the difference between a CF6 and GEnx would only be a few million, (the CF6 and GEnx would sell for about 10-15 million per engine). Something I think you could get away with for a 5-10 million per frame with a greater capability again.

Revelation · Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:25 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 43):
I hope they also upgrade to the A330-200F for the base airframe and consider using GEnx engines.

Nah, if they did that, we might not have "re-engining" threads 20 years from now!

What does this have to do with KC-45A assembly?

baroque · Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:14 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 43):
I hope they also upgrade to the A330-200F for the base airframe and consider using GEnx engines.

Nah, if they did that, we might not have "re-engining" threads 20 years from now!

What does this have to do with KC-45A assembly?

A fair bit possibly. bouncy

A re-engined A330F would probably have a longer sales life, resulting in much greater utilization of the Mobile facility. Not you and quite a few others NorCal, but some of these discussions have not allowed for the potential of this way beyond tanker aircraft. That potential could be quite a bit more than the tanker contract.

norcal · Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:44 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
AFAIK it is a requirement for civil aircraft design in the EU to have had this, I am not sure if it was a requirement under the FARs. The EU JARs had certification requirements for computer systems well before the US to cope with the Concord and A320 certification (Concorde was the first FBW civil airliner, A320 first digital FBW civil airliner).

Didn't know that, makes sense though that during a period of possible global nuclear annihilation that they would EMP proof the aircraft.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
Would be a smart investment IMHO. A freighter conversion generally for that size aircraft would be 5-10 million, would be cheaper for a new build. I think the difference between a CF6 and GEnx would only be a few million, (the CF6 and GEnx would sell for about 10-15 million per engine). Something I think you could get away with for a 5-10 million per frame with a greater capability again.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
Nah, if they did that, we might not have "re-engining" threads 20 years from now!

No we'll just be talking about when will they put GEnx-nx engines on them or whatever comes next Wink

Revelation · Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:53 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 47):
No we'll just be talking about when will they put GEnx-nx engines on them or whatever comes next

If the past is prolog, the US government will re-engining the KC-45As with all the boatloads of GEnx engines they buy from all those retired 787 airliners! Smile

bhmbaglock · Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:22 am

There was a bit of new information in the Press-Register today regarding the build up to starting production at BFM. Summarizing:

1. Estimated investment by NG/EADS in Mobile plants is $600 million split evenly.
2. Construction scheduled to start in 4-6 months.
3. Not new, but re-stated that EADS/Airbus plant is sized for a production rate of 4/month - considerably more than required for USAF needs.
4. NG has already hired their engineering team for design/build, EADS hasn't yet but is narrowing the field down
5. NG plant to be operational by Summer next year! EADS by Fall 2010.
6. News conference on Friday to lay out more details on construction and startup plans

No official word on what a protest by Boeing would do the schedule.

As the first three prototypes are to be modified by NG in Melbourne and the NG plant is to be complete in less than a year and a half, they obviously plan to hit the ground running very hard! Number 6 will be the first assembled by EADS in Mobile.

http://www.al.com/news/press-registe...e/news/1204625779260490.xml&coll=3

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net