• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:00 am

I think a lot of a.netters should read Leonard E. Reed's classic essay I, Pencil before they get themselves too worked up over how the Airbus is a "foreign" plane while the 767 is "American."

If a simple pencil is that complex and requires supplies from all over the world, imagine how much more so a 767 OR A330 requires cooperation and individual action to be built and maintained.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18160
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:40 am



Quoting Chgoflyer (Reply 219):
If they dont object they should.

Why? They had no problem purchasing an "all American" solution last time. When they select their new tanker, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the KC-767 (other than it seems to be an inferior offering).

Quoting NorCal (Reply 221):
The USAF chose the "politically harder" one so clearly they must need the extra capabilities. In the end it is about giving the men and women on the front lines the best equipment.

Spot on. If those calling for this deal to be thrown out and the contract awarded to Boeing just took a few minutes to look at what the AF said about the selection, they'd realise that Boeing simply didn't do a good enough job and didn't offer the AF the plane they want.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 234):
Airbus has absolutely no experience at all in tankers.

You're correct, Airbus doesn't. But then, Airbus doesn't build tankers. All Airbus does is supply the basic airframe for tanker conversion. On the other hand, EADS (which is partnering NG) does have tanker experience.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 238):
This is consistent with the cost differential of $35M per plane that I've seen previously.

And the AF clearly decided the cost difference was justified by the significantly better performance they will get from a fleet of KC-30s over and above the same sized fleet of KC-767s.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 248):
By looking at the results of the RFP you can clearly draw that the USAF has changed or is planning on changing its operating doctrine. Based on the across the board win by the KC-30 it is clear that the extra capability is needed and that the Air Force chose what they wanted.

 checkmark 

This was the one thing that the KC-30 bashers just couldn't (or wouldn't) accept. The old "we've always done it this way" reared it's head on many occasions. The only reason it's always been done "that way" was because that was the only way it could be done with the tools available. Now a new tool is available that will allow you to work in different, more efficient ways. Looks like the AF gets it.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:49 am

Congrats to NG, Airbus and the USAF for that very brave decision! On Friday I expressed my understanding that the NG-offer is hardly bearable for US perception. Hats off that the USAF dared to choose the more capable tanker-toy (instead of the toy-tanker!). I think the additional capability of the A330 are very welcomed especially if offered for virtually free.
Amongst the additional capability I would count:
- More floor space (troop transport capability).
- More payload.
- Better "what would be CASM" for the civil-type (that translates to highly reduced costs for the pure cargo-tasks). I can see the KC-30 evolve more into the cargo-role just because it saves money. The efficiency should easily crunch the efficiency of dedicated military lifters.

I wondered about prices. We know that the NG-offer trumped in 4 of 5 criteria and matched the fifth.
I think the fifth is very easy to determine: it is the price (Can anyone list assumptions for the other four?)

So price is equal for Boeings and NGs-offer. Here I quote the Khobars post:

Quoting Khobar (Reply 159):
Something that was raised long ago and forgotten - I think - was the argument that because of the cost differential, the USAF would get either 179 KC767's OR only 100 KC-30's. All the news reports talk about "up to 179" frames, and "up to" is rather vague especially in current context.

Since the USAF takes 179 units and the price of both matched can we assume that the unit-price of both matches too?

If the criteria would have been not "units" but e.g. "offloading-capability + a bit floor space + a bit payload (though the passengers don't pay!)" on a whole-fleet-scale the KC-30 would have offered more for the money. Could this have compensated even a slightly higher unit-price?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:15 am



Quoting Khobar (Reply 238):
"The deal, worth about $40 billion over two decades, is for the supply and maintenance of 179 tankers replacing old Boeing-built KC-135 airplanes."

That figure is the same one used whether talking about Boeing or NG/EADS.

However, I have since found reference to the difference between them - $30B if it went to Boeing, and $40B if it went to EADS (hence the now oft thrown around $35B figure).

This is consistent with the cost differential of $35M per plane that I've seen previously.

I've always taken $40Billion to be the upper end of the budget they were aiming for.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 247):

Who's to say what's fair?

The Congressional Budgetary Office  Wink I'm certain (but don't the time atm to check my source library, I'm about to hit a meeting) that what they discovered was that the lease would have cost them a significant amount more than an outright purchase.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 247):
That's why we tried to convince France not to build a nuclear reactor for Iraq in 1980 and, when they didn't listen to us, we helped another friend (Israel) show them the true path.

No, instead you built one in Iran with your own puppet dictator.
 
romeokc10fe
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 3:45 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:32 am



Quoting NorCal (Reply 248):
Even though everyone knew the KC-30 trumped the KC-767 in the payload categories we felt that the Air Force didn't need the extra capabilities of the KC-30 (That's what my buddies stationed at Travis AFB kept telling me). Even if the Airbus bid came in lower than the Boeing one we felt it might be better to still buy the Boeing because we might not use all the extra capability the Airbus offers.

I'm stationed at Travis and fly on the KC-10 and can vouch for you on that point, we fly around empty all the time and burn way more gas than we offload. I to thought Boeing would win because we don't use the capacity we have now, so all of you touting that bigger is better don't know what you're talking about. If so Boeing would have offered a Triple 7 tanker and it would have been no contest.
 
Danny
Posts: 3742
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:38 am

I have to admit the verdict surprised me but kudos to the decision makers at USAF who sustained the pressure and chose aircraft that will make USAF more capable.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18160
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:58 am



Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 254):
so all of you touting that bigger is better don't know what you're talking about.

Then why did the USAF select the larger, more capable tanker? I guess they don't know what they're talking about either.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
art
Posts: 3056
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:33 am

Someone, somewhere in this or part 1 of this thread mentioned that the 767 would require a longer runway than the A330. If that is correct and was seen as an important factor in the evaluation, that would be a reason to choose the A330.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:48 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 253):
The Congressional Budgetary Office I'm certain (but don't the time atm to check my source library, I'm about to hit a meeting) that what they discovered was that the lease would have cost them a significant amount more than an outright purchase.

Gov doesn't pay taxes and leases just don't work financially without tax savings.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:54 pm



Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 254):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 248):
Even though everyone knew the KC-30 trumped the KC-767 in the payload categories we felt that the Air Force didn't need the extra capabilities of the KC-30 (That's what my buddies stationed at Travis AFB kept telling me). Even if the Airbus bid came in lower than the Boeing one we felt it might be better to still buy the Boeing because we might not use all the extra capability the Airbus offers.

I'm stationed at Travis and fly on the KC-10 and can vouch for you on that point, we fly around empty all the time and burn way more gas than we offload.

Now don't go and start trying to inject common sense into this discussion.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 256):
Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 254):
so all of you touting that bigger is better don't know what you're talking about.

Then why did the USAF select the larger, more capable tanker? I guess they don't know what they're talking about either.

The top brass sometimes doesn't, to be honest. My nephew is a KC-135 boom operator, and he tells me 1) they never return to base empty and 2) they hardle ever haul a significant amount of cargo.

During my 20 years active duty, I witnessed a long line of idiotic procurement decisions.

Now I'm not saying the people who selected the 330 were idiots, mind you. But your apparent faith in the infallibility of 'top brass' isn't shared by those of us who've seen the multitude of stupid procurement decisions.

Does the term "Osprey" ring a bell?

So perhaps the top brass have a new plan for using the added capability of the KC-45 they apparently haven't lacked before. Thing is, they sure haven't done a very good job making this new vision known to the guys on the line.

Quoting Art (Reply 257):
Someone, somewhere in this or part 1 of this thread mentioned that the 767 would require a longer runway than the A330. If that is correct and was seen as an important factor in the evaluation, that would be a reason to choose the A330.

That advantage seems to me to be far more important that the extra fuel and cargo capability of the A330.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18160
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:58 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 259):
Thing is, they sure haven't done a very good job making this new vision known to the guys on the line.

Have they ever? The grunts don't need to understand the tactics or strategy, they just do as they're told to execute it.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
kaitak
Posts: 9764
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:10 pm

OK, so Boeing is understandablly a little put out by this decision; hardly surprising, but maybe if it takes a pragmatic and long term approach, it could turn it to its advantage. The fact of the matter is that the 767, as well as being smaller, is at the end of its production life; it is a 30 year old design and Boeing wants these new tankers to last for a good 30-40 years. Also, this is only part 1; aren't there further phases to come, let alone many other countries like India, Egypt, Brazil, SA, Israel, S Korea etc who will want tankers in the future.

Isn't the best approach for Boeing to look at how the 787 can be made a winning tanker and do what the A330/KC45A does, only better. So, come round 2, it is a more competent and plausible design?
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:20 pm



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 261):
Isn't the best approach for Boeing to look at how the 787 can be made a winning tanker and do what the A330/KC45A does, only better. So, come round 2, it is a more competent and plausible design?

I think the 787 (and A350) line will be too busy to accommodate the Airforce, the next round will probably go to the KC-30 again. I would guess we will see 500 KC-30 tankers to replace the KC-135 fleet and maybe close to 100 more A330-200F derivatives in the USAF inventory when all is said and done (AWACS, cargo planes etc.) Boeing might have a shot at replacing the KC-10 fleet with a KC-777, but given how few we have I wouldn't be surprised to see the Airforce just retire them without a replacement. We've seen the Air Force and the other services downsize fleet types for more commonality since the end of the Cold War.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:02 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 251):
And the AF clearly decided the cost difference was justified by the significantly better performance they will get from a fleet of KC-30s over and above the same sized fleet of KC-767s.

It appears cost was not considered a critical factor.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 252):
Since the USAF takes 179 units and the price of both matched can we assume that the unit-price of both matches too?

Unit price didn't match. I had assumed incorrectly that it did.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:35 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 260):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 259):
Thing is, they sure haven't done a very good job making this new vision known to the guys on the line.

Have they ever? The grunts don't need to understand the tactics or strategy, they just do as they're told to execute it.

True. But one would hope that flag officers took the time to listen to the grunts as to what tools they need to do their job. In this case, I'm not sure that communication occured.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:55 pm

Does anyone know how much more fuel per hour an A332 burns compared to a 762? I doubt the delta is very significant, especially when you take in consideration the fact that the Pentagon is the world's largest user of oil, period.

Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 254):

I'm stationed at Travis and fly on the KC-10 and can vouch for you on that point, we fly around empty all the time and burn way more gas than we offload. I to thought Boeing would win because we don't use the capacity we have now, so all of you touting that bigger is better don't know what you're talking about.

Then why didn't the military seek proposals for something smaller? Boeing could've submitted a bid for a 757 tanker or 737 tanker if the USAF had indicated that that's what they were looking for. EADS could've done the same with the a member of the A320 family.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 264):
True. But one would hope that flag officers took the time to listen to the grunts as to what tools they need to do their job. In this case, I'm not sure that communication occured.

And how would it possibly matter that tanker crews would be flying a twin jet first flown in the 80s versus a twin jet first flown in the early 90s?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:50 pm



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 265):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 264):
True. But one would hope that flag officers took the time to listen to the grunts as to what tools they need to do their job. In this case, I'm not sure that communication occured.

And how would it possibly matter that tanker crews would be flying a twin jet first flown in the 80s versus a twin jet first flown in the early 90s?

I don't know, but it apparently does. Several posts over the past few days - in addition to the reports I got from my nephew - spoke to the line preference for the 767.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:13 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 253):
The Congressional Budgetary Office I'm certain (but don't the time atm to check my source library, I'm about to hit a meeting) that what they discovered was that the lease would have cost them a significant amount more than an outright purchase.

Leases, by their nature, cost more than outright purchases. Period. The issue was never that Boeing was charging an exhorbitant price for the leased tankers. The issue was always why should the DoD lease something that they've always otherwise purchased and especially since leases always cost more than a purchase. Leases are intended to give you what you need quickly and for as little up-front cost as possible. Of course, you're going to end up paying a lot more for something over the long term if you lease as opposed to buy.

Quoting Moo (Reply 253):
No, instead you built one in Iran with your own puppet dictator.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the one nuclear reactor that was built under the Shah was built with (again) Western European assistance and it was strictly for peaceful purposes as it was built under a very open program (unlike your buddy Saddam who never needed a powerplant; built it under many covers; and the French who just turned a blind eye towards it). And as for a puppet dictator goes, be glad we kept him in power as long as we did as he was the only thing that kept the Soviets from the oil fields - the same oil fields that Western Europe was dependent on. Had he not returned from exile in 1951 the Cold War would in all likelihood still be going on and I can guarantee Airbus would not be the success it is today, if it even would have existed. And as for him being a U.S. puppet, he was supported by Western Europe as well.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 265):
Then why didn't the military seek proposals for something smaller?

Look back over the history of this RFP. Northrop's brilliance was in getting the RFP modified on several occasions to level the playing field for EADS' much larger airplane. They had balked several times and threatened to walk away from participation if the RFP did not incorporate specifications that would allow the A330 airframe to be judged on its merits as a much larger aircraft. And given the fiasco of the last RFP, the USAF had to keep the competition very open and honest. Which means in the end that level playing field ultimately worked to their advantage. (I'm not saying EADS didn't deserve to win, just pointing out how an original requirement for a smaller aircraft ultimately grew into an award going to a much larger plane.)

Finally, I think in the end Boeing really shot themselves in the foot on this. A classic example of how honesty in corporate decisions is paramount to all other considerations. I'll bet it will even become a classic case study in B schools. Boeing's inept handling of the prior deal is something that is going to haunt them for many, many years. I just hope they have learned from it. I'll even go so far as to say they didn't learn from it because had they then they would have offered up the 777. I think their defense head in St. Louis was still thinking in the old manner and relied on inside information that was gleaned from that competition to go ahead and pitch the 767 airframe again. They should've just started from a clean slate when the new RFP was issued.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
Scipio
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:13 pm



Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 258):
Gov doesn't pay taxes and leases just don't work financially without tax savings.

More generally, the government can get financing cheaper than pretty much anyone else by issuing treasuries and government bonds. This means that, a priori, it should be rather pointless to rely on more expensive private sector financing.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:31 pm



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 265):
Then why didn't the military seek proposals for something smaller? Boeing could've submitted a bid for a 757 tanker or 737 tanker if the USAF had indicated that that's what they were looking for. EADS could've done the same with the a member of the A320 family.

He was talking about a KC10 which is larger than the KC135. Still I expect the same applies to a lesser degree. The problem with going smaller is that those aircraft have significantly lower capacities for fuel and payload. The 767 was in many ways the aircraft most similar to C-135/707, and was introduced as the successor of the 707 for commercial operators.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 262):
I think the 787 (and A350) line will be too busy to accommodate the Airforce, the next round will probably go to the KC-30 again. I would guess we will see 500 KC-30 tankers to replace the KC-135 fleet and maybe close to 100 more A330-200F derivatives in the USAF inventory when all is said and done (AWACS, cargo planes etc.)

In that case, the problem down the road is that the Pentagon will be facing another no competing bid situation.

Personally, I don't see what you suggest happening. Operating such a large fleet of large aircraft is a waste of fuel. It's unjustifiable to replace all the existing KC-135s with such a large aircraft.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
metalinyoni
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:52 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:33 pm

Being neither an American or European tax payer, perhaps i can offer some impartial inputs.

If the criteria for the purchase of planes was that they had to be American made then there would have been only one choice - Boeing. Boeing would know this and they would milk the American tax payer for all they were worth.

I think that this will be a timely reminder to most American companies tendering for government business - that they will look overseas if they feel they are not getting good value locally - this will force American companies to tender realistically and compeditively. This ultimately will be more benifical to the tax payer and reduce the need for tax increases to cover ballooning military budgets. this will fuel economic growth within the USA.

It is a bitter pill for boeing employees and other local stakeholders to swallow but it is definately better in the long term for national interests.
300, 310, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 342, 343, 345, 346, 380, 707, 727, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 742, 74L, 743, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 772, 77L 773, 77W, D10, AT46, AT76, AT75, 142, DH3, ER4, AR1, AR8
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:46 pm



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 265):
Does anyone know how much more fuel per hour an A332 burns compared to a 762? I doubt the delta is very significant, especially when you take in consideration the fact that the Pentagon is the world's largest user of oil, period.

Both NG/EADS and Boeing claim their solution saves on fuel while the competitor costs more to operate, but you have to look at how they did the calculations to arrive at both (true) conclusions. Boeing uses the KC-135 mission profile, while EADS uses the 20% profile.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:58 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
You can almost bet on a new C-17 order from the Air Force. Sort of a peace offering.

Congress has already killed the C-17 I thought? They said there wasn;t any more money for new builds in the last budget.


As far as the actual selection goes, I thought it was against the law for a foriegn majority owned company to build military use aircraft for the USA anyway. Am I mistaken on that?

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12):
Just so you know, the media in the US is really playing this up. The word "outsourcing" keeps coming up and people are getting in an uproar over this. This ain't over yet.

Knowing the way Congress and the USAF listen to the general public, it was over before it began. They may as well be yelling at a brick wall.
One Nation Under God
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:04 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 260):
My nephew is a KC-135 boom operator, and he tells me 1) they never return to base empty and 2) they hardle ever haul a significant amount of cargo.

The -135 has never played a significant cargo role for the USAF. With hundreds of C-130s, C-141s, and C-5s to handle the cargo of the 20th century, the -135 community could worry solely about passing gas. Several current -135 booms have told me their cargo currency & proficiency requirements are a joke.

Now let's fast-forward to the 21st century. The -141 is soda cans and static displays, the -130 fleet is getting more & more flight restrictions, and will likely be shrinking, and the C-5 is in danger of going the way of the -141. The C-17, while a good airplane, can't handle the whole mobility load by itself. So the KC-10 flies a significant amount of cargo missions (and speaking as a KC-10 boom operator, cargo is a HUGE currency & proficiency item for us), and the KC-45 will as well. Count on it. It's not gonna be "just a tanker".

Although I will say that after reading some of the capabilities NG is hype-ing on their KC-45 webpages, I'm left wondering how they're going to pull some of them off... like 120 litter patients, or 70 litters and 6 intensive-care units. How are you going to get 70-120 litter patients off the airplane during a ground evac???
-Boom stowed, leaving position.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18160
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:09 pm



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 269):
In that case, the problem down the road is that the Pentagon will be facing another no competing bid situation.

Personally, I don't see what you suggest happening. Operating such a large fleet of large aircraft is a waste of fuel. It's unjustifiable to replace all the existing KC-135s with such a large aircraft.

Assuming the decision is not overturned, Boeing will likely have closed the 767 line by 2012 at the latest. When it comes to the next round of tanker replacements, if the AF wants something smaller than a KC-30, they're looking at an A320/737 sized plane (which some have argued would be a good match with a larger tanker).
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:22 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 274):
Assuming the decision is not overturned, Boeing will likely have closed the 767 line by 2012 at the latest. When it comes to the next round of tanker replacements, if the AF wants something smaller than a KC-30, they're looking at an A320/737 sized plane (which some have argued would be a good match with a larger tanker).

The next round of replacements is supposed to be for the KC10, which is far closer to the A332. With belly tanks, the A332 would be an ideal replacement, unless the USAF decides they want some other size or realizes they already bought a KC10 replacement and need something that makes more sense sizewise. I don't think the 737 or A320 will be it, they are too limited in fuel volume.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:32 pm



Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 272):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
You can almost bet on a new C-17 order from the Air Force. Sort of a peace offering.

Congress has already killed the C-17 I thought? They said there wasn;t any more money for new builds in the last budget.

Congress has forced aircraft on the military before that they didn't order. They can easily do it again.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 272):
As far as the actual selection goes, I thought it was against the law for a foriegn majority owned company to build military use aircraft for the USA anyway. Am I mistaken on that?

Evidently not. I can't fathom how the USAF General Counsel would have missed that legal restriction, had it been in place.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
columba
Posts: 5232
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:36 pm



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 273):
The -135 has never played a significant cargo role for the USAF. With hundreds of C-130s, C-141s, and C-5s to handle the cargo of the 20th century, the -135 community could worry solely about passing gas. Several current -135 booms have told me their cargo currency & proficiency requirements are a joke.

Now let's fast-forward to the 21st century. The -141 is soda cans and static displays, the -130 fleet is getting more & more flight restrictions, and will likely be shrinking, and the C-5 is in danger of going the way of the -141. The C-17, while a good airplane, can't handle the whole mobility load by itself. So the KC-10 flies a significant amount of cargo missions (and speaking as a KC-10 boom operator, cargo is a HUGE currency & proficiency item for us), and the KC-45 will as well. Count on it. It's not gonna be "just a tanker".

Although I will say that after reading some of the capabilities NG is hype-ing on their KC-45 webpages, I'm left wondering how they're going to pull some of them off... like 120 litter patients, or 70 litters and 6 intensive-care units. How are you going to get 70-120 litter patients off the airplane during a ground evac??

Maybe the future plans of using the KC 45 is different from what ths USAF is doing now with the KC 135 and KC 10 ?


Quote:

"From my perspective, I can sum it up in one word, 'more'. More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to off-load, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said, comparing the new tankers to the current fleet

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/29/air.force.tankers/index.html

Germany e.g. uses its A310MRTT as a mult-role aircraft and as I read the above statement from Gen. Arthur Lichte, commander of Air Mobility Command the USAF plans to do that as well.
The C-9A Nightingales flying hospitals can be replaced by the KC 45 as well. The KC 45 can carry cargo and troops that otherwise would need a C130/C17/C5 which are free to transport vehicles and other outsized cargo.
Many militaries will use aircraft like the A330MRTT/A310MRTT as a multi-role aircraft so why should the USAF -the biggest airforce in the world - not follow that idea and use just one aircraft for multiple missions.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Observer
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:18 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:43 pm

Lexington Institute has a devastating analysis about why Boeing lost; and a new podcast was posted today talking about the future of Airbus, Boeing and the KC-Y program. Links to both can be found here:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/
 
trex8
Posts: 5365
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:22 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 276):
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 272):
As far as the actual selection goes, I thought it was against the law for a foriegn majority owned company to build military use aircraft for the USA anyway. Am I mistaken on that?

Evidently not. I can't fathom how the USAF General Counsel would have missed that legal restriction, had it been in place.

G222 and now C27J also, UH72, IIRC some of the earlier Harriers were directly from the UK also. what about all those Israeli UAVs?
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:05 pm



Quoting Observer (Reply 278):
Maybe the future plans of using the KC 45 is different from what ths USAF is doing now with the KC 135 and KC 10 ?

That was the point of my post - USAF isn't going to use the KC-45 in the same manner as the KC-135.

Quoting Observer (Reply 278):
Germany e.g. uses its A310MRTT as a mult-role aircraft and as I read the above statement from Gen. Arthur Lichte, commander of Air Mobility Command the USAF plans to do that as well.
The C-9A Nightingales flying hospitals can be replaced by the KC 45 as well. The KC 45 can carry cargo and troops that otherwise would need a C130/C17/C5 which are free to transport vehicles and other outsized cargo.
Many militaries will use aircraft like the A330MRTT/A310MRTT as a multi-role aircraft so why should the USAF -the biggest airforce in the world - not follow that idea and use just one aircraft for multiple missions.

- The C-9A is gone. The KC-45 and the KC-10 are/will be poor choices for non-ambulatory airevac. Again I ask - how are you going to get 70-120 litter patients off the aircraft in a ground evacuation? The C-17 just drops the ramp and the aeromed crew carries the litters off; it's a little more difficult to send a litter (with a patient strapped to it) down a slide/raft...
- As I said, we KC-10 folks have been carrying cargo & troops, while doing AR on the same mission, for a long time now; it's high-time the other tanker got into the act as well.
- The KC-45 will be used for cargo & troops, as well as AR.
-Boom stowed, leaving position.
 
columba
Posts: 5232
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:39 pm



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 280):
Again I ask - how are you going to get 70-120 litter patients off the aircraft in a ground evacuation?

When do you ever fly 70-100 wounded patients from a combat zone directly to the hospital. The KC 45 would be used to fly patients to Landstuhl and from Landstuhl to the US. You don´t need a C17 for that.
Germany´s MEDEVAC A310s are in high demand and have proofed themselves many time.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:45 pm

Bingo, picking up from last thread, sorry, internet issues at home as well as being locked out on the work computers at the same time! Oye, what a week...

Quoting Bingo (Reply 143):
Youre a smart man JakeOrion, Welcome to my RU List. I agree, pick yourself up and try again...

I'm not very bright, far from it, as some of my earlier threads have pointed out, but I do like to use common sense (for the most part.) And appreciate it mate.

Quoting Bingo (Reply 143):
Ahh yes the theory. A great one at that. But if theory were that easy I would have married Daisy Fuentes and retired during the Dot Com Boom. That coupled with your 787 Tanker Theory would have been a theory match made in heaven.

Just saying they should have at least offered it at as a strong potential. We all know the A330 > 767 so why Boeing offered the 767 over the 787 is beyond me. Those KC-153s still have some life in them, and they would have lasted long enough until the KC-787 was available.

But, as the 787 can be a double edged sword, and this is key; the 787 is unproven technology as of yet, and military applications are far different over the civilian airliner role. However, I still believe Boeing should have offered it. Oh well, maybe when they get the BWB going they'll win that order, but I don't see that happening for another 30+ years right now.

Quoting Bingo (Reply 143):
Million Dollar Question...I hope its soon. I've lost so much face standing up for this bird that I'll soon be playing the lead in Fantom of the Opera...

LOL! That gets a RU from me, welcome to my list!
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm

There is no question that the USAF (if the decision stands) is GREATLY aiding EADS to break into large frame (tankers, transport, AWACS, etc) military contracts in the US, the Americas and elsewhere.

There is no question that the USAF is aiding EADS/Airbus to increase capacity and lower costs of future A330 based products including A330F by justifying the investment in a plant in the dollar-zone in non-usion or union averse Alabama vs a heavily unionized plant in France/Germany.

There is no question that the USAF is aiding EADS/Airbus in becoming more competitive with Boeing.

Now, this may be good for the USAF in the near and mid term.

But there is no question this is bad for Boeing, will cause loss of potential market share, an earlier close of the 767 line, loss of union jobs in Washington state, etc. This may result in a net loss for US industrial competitiveness in the airspace business and may ultimately be bad for all including the USAF.

On a positive note, anytime production shifts from the union heavy north to the union light south it is a good thing. I'm waiting for the deal that will have Boeing move production to Charleston. Come to think of it, they already started down that path haven't they?
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9600
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm

In case anyone is curious, a state by state listing for the KC-45A by NG:

Alabama
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Generate 5,000 New Jobs in Alabama and Increase Economic Impact to $1 Billion Annually
Aug 14, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker program will create 5,000 new jobs throughout Alabama if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. The KC-45 program will generate an additional $280 million annually in economic growth in Alabama, bringing the team's total economic impact to more than $1 billion annually.

Arizona
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Create 1,000 Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $80 Million Annually in Arizona
Nov 26, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity nearing $80 million annually and create 1,000 new jobs in Arizona if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman, EADS, and the KC-45 Tanker supply chain currently support 15,000 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity exceeding $4 billion annually.

Arkansas
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity in Arkansas
Aug 23, 2007---Northrop Grumman and its KC-45 Tanker supply base will generate significant economic activity and support 150 direct aerospace jobs in Arkansas. With a KC-45 win, Northrop Grumman and its KC-45 industry team will support hundreds of indirect jobs throughout the state and generate a combined economic impact of $31 million annually.

California
Northrop Grumman’s KC-45 Tanker Team Will Support 7,500 California Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Exceeding $360 Million Annually
Dec 17, 2007---Northrop Grumman Corporation's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity exceeding $360 million annually and support more than 7,500 direct and indirect jobs in California if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. "As you know, California has a long history of supporting our armed forces and fostering the defense and aerospace industries that sustain our nation’s military,” said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “If selected for production of the KC-45 Tankers, Northrop Grumman will add the next generation of military technology and aircraft to its already impressive list.” More

Florida
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Generate 2,000 New Jobs and Bolster Economic Growth in Florida
Aug 8, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker program will create more than 2,000 new jobs throughout Florida if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Additionally, the KC-45 Tanker program will generate economic activity in Florida nearing $100 million annually.

Georgia
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Support 4,200 Jobs in Georgia and Generate Economic Activity Statewide
Aug 22, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will support more than 4,200 direct and indirect jobs throughout Georgia if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. The KC-45 program will generate an additional $11 million annually in economic growth in Georgia, bringing the team's total direct and indirect economic impact to $440 million annually.

Illinois
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Support 4,300 Additional Jobs Throughout Illinois and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $2 Billion
Aug 30, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will create and sustain more than 4,300 jobs throughout Illinois if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Additionally, Northrop Grumman and the KC-45 Tanker supply base will generate economic activity in Illinois approaching $2 billion annually.

Indiana
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Create Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $40 Million Annually in Indiana
Dec 4, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity approaching $40 million annually and create more than 570 direct and indirect jobs in Indiana if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman and the KC-45 supply chain in Indiana currently support more than 4,600 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity exceeding $370 million annually.

Louisiana
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity in Louisiana
Aug 23, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity and support aerospace jobs in Louisiana if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman and KC-45 teammate EADS generate a combined direct and indirect economic activity of $600 million annually. Northrop Grumman and the KC-45 industry team support more than 5,500 jobs throughout the state and inject $265 million in employee salaries into the economy each year.

Maryland
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Support 2,800 Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $225 Million Annually in Maryland
Dec 6, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity exceeding $225 million annually and support more than 2,800 direct and indirect jobs in Maryland if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman and the KC-45 supply chain in Maryland currently support more than 18,500 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity exceeding $1.3 billion annually.

Michigan
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $200 Million Annually in Michigan
Nov 28, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity approaching $200 million annually and create or support more than 2,700 direct and indirect jobs in Michigan if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman and the KC-45 supply chain in Michigan currently support nearly 14,000 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity exceeding $1.1 billion annually.

Mississippi
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Bolster Economic Growth and Create Aerospace Jobs in Mississippi
Aug 15, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker program will contribute nearly $12 million annually to Mississippi's economy if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman and principal KC-45 teammate EADS currently employ 11,000 Mississippians, support more than 34,000 jobs statewide and bring a combined economic impact of $2 billion annually to Mississippi. Northrop Grumman injects an employee payroll of $574 million into the state's economy each year.

New Mexico
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $40 Million Annually in New Mexico
Oct. 4, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity nearing $40 million annually and create 1,800 direct and indirect jobs in New Mexico if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman, EADS, and the KC-45 Tanker supply chain currently support nearly 2,200 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity approaching $600 million annually.

North Carolina
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity of $100 Million Annually in North Carolina
Sept 6, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity and create 1,500 jobs in North Carolina if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman, EADS and the KC-45 supply chain in North Carolina currently support 3,400 jobs statewide and generate combined economic activity of $350 million annually.

Ohio
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity of $135 Million Annually in Ohio
Oct 11, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity and create more than 2,300 direct and indirect jobs in Ohio if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman, EADS, GE Aviation and the KC-45 supply chain in Ohio currently support 14,500 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity exceeding $13 billion annually.

Pennsylvania
Northrop Grumman’s KC-45 Tanker Team Will Create 800 Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $45 Million Annually in Pennsylvania
Nov 30, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity approaching $45 million annually and create or support more than 800 direct and indirect jobs in Pennsylvania if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman and the KC-45 supply chain in Pennsylvania currently support more than 7,500 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity exceeding $935 million annually.

Tennessee
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Will Generate $245 Million in Economic Activity Annually and Support 3,800 Jobs in Tennessee
Aug 24, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will support 3,800 direct and indirect jobs throughout Tennessee if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. The KC-45 program will generate an additional $245 million annually in economic activity in Tennessee, bringing the team's total economic impact to $445 million annually. Northrop Grumman and teammate EADS spend more than $200 million annually in Tennessee, and, with their KC-45 supplier network, support 1,300 workers.

Texas
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Support 4,900 Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Exceeding $600 Million in Texas
Aug 23, 2007---Northrop Grumman and its KC-45 Tanker industry team will generate economic activity and support thousands of aerospace jobs throughout Texas if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman and teammate EADS generate direct economic activity in Texas that exceeds $400 million annually. Northrop Grumman's KC-45 supply base in Texas currently generates $230 million in direct economic activity annually and employs nearly 2,900 Texans across the state.

Virginia
Northrop Grumman’s KC-45 Tanker Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity in Virginia
Aug 22, 2007---Northrop Grumman’s KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity and create aerospace jobs in Virginia if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman - Virginia’s largest non-retail employer - and KC-45 teammate EADS generate direct and indirect economic activity exceeding $7 billion annually in Virginia. Northrop Grumman and the KC-45 industry team support more than 33,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout the state and inject more than $2 billion in employee salaries into the economy each year.

West Virginia
Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Team Will Create Aerospace Jobs and Generate Economic Activity Approaching $30 Million Annually in West Virginia
Oct 31, 2007---Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker team will generate economic activity approaching $30 million annually and create nearly 400 direct and indirect jobs in West Virginia if the KC-45 Tanker aircraft is selected by the U.S. Air Force. Northrop Grumman, EADS, and the KC-45 supply chain in West Virginia currently support 1,000 jobs statewide and generate a combined economic activity approaching $100 million annually. Northrop Grumman alone employs nearly 100 West Virginians, representing $6 million in annual salaries.

Hmmmm.... nothing in the state of Washington.... Strange.....

The info can be found here:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html

Regards,

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9615
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:43 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 283):
There is no question that the USAF is aiding EADS/Airbus in becoming more competitive with Boeing.

Now, this may be good for the USAF in the near and mid term.

But there is no question this is bad for Boeing, will cause loss of potential market share, an earlier close of the 767 line, loss of union jobs in Washington state, etc. This may result in a net loss for US industrial competitiveness in the airspace business and may ultimately be bad for all including the USAF.

On a positive note, anytime production shifts from the union heavy north to the union light south it is a good thing. I'm waiting for the deal that will have Boeing move production to Charleston. Come to think of it, they already started down that path haven't they?

In this day and age there are more economist wearing uniforms than who work on Wall Street, so the US Air Force looking out for numero uno is no surprize. All the points you raise are the duty of the US Congress and the Executive Branch who are supposed to direct and shape the future of the country, the Americans could learn a lot from the Europeans when it comes to preservation. When they created Airbus, Boeing Lockheed, Douglas all had a good laugh, now America will be relying on that laughing stock to provide jobs of her citizens, ironic ain't it?
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:32 am

Quoting Par13del (Reply 285):
..the Americans could learn a lot from the Europeans when it comes to preservation

Be careful with that comment because that could go either way. Yes, we (Americans) could learn a few ideologies from the EU, but at the same time, the EU could also learn from a few US ideologies as well. Neither is 100% fault-free. But this is a different topic altogether.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 285):
When they created Airbus, Boeing Lockheed, Douglas all had a good laugh, now America will be relying on that laughing stock to provide jobs of her citizens, ironic ain't it?

This is a very unfair comment because:

1) Boeing (Est. 1916), Lockheed (Est. 1912), and Douglas (Est. 1921) began during the early stages of flight development, with the minor exception of Douglas, but 1921 was still earlier aircraft development. Airbus established in 1970.

2) All three US companies started as privately own companies, while Airbus was a consortium of European aviation firms, hence, much more money to begin with on a level to compete with the other "Big 3."

3) Technology: deny it all you want, but Boeing and Douglas established the passenger jet age with the 707 and DC-8. No, they were not the first (that title belongs to the de Havilland Comet), but they proved the technology worked and both became very successful. Airbus took this established technology and began creating their own birds, hence owing a bit of its success to Boeing and Douglas in the first place.

OK, thread is starting to go off-topic, so I shall reestablish.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 283):
There is no question that the USAF is aiding EADS/Airbus in becoming more competitive with Boeing.

Nothing wrong with this, as it leads to price wars and better products.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 283):
Now, this may be good for the USAF in the near and mid term.

Basically, you may be our allies today, but tomorrow is a whole new day. Very unlikely something could happen, but it has happened and could happen again.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 283):
But there is no question this is bad for Boeing, will cause loss of potential market share, an earlier close of the 767 line, loss of union jobs in Washington state, etc. This may result in a net loss for US industrial competitiveness in the airspace business and may ultimately be bad for all including the USAF.

I can see the 767 line being converted over to the 787, so possibly little to no job loss there. Bingo said before, there were no jobs to begin with, only if Boeing won that contract. Right now, there are no jobs for the KC-45, but there will be once the factories are established. The job loss is only on paper, and do not apply in reality as nobody has lost their jobs since they didn't have the job in the first place.*

I also disagree with your last comment to an extent, and can see your point. However, little too early to spell the end of days on this yet. As tanker or cargo support, nothing wrong seeing a foreign built aircraft fly these daily duties. However, I will start to worry is when our F-22s or our primary attack/defense aircraft are replaced by foreign built ones, then thats when our military aerospace industry is literally down the toilet.

*EDIT: I realized my contradiction of jobs loss on the 767 line, and because of the already established line, job losses are a definite probability, however, as said in my counter-argument, should Boeing convert the 767 line to the 787, the job loss should be minimal.

EDIT2: Grammar, bah!
[Edited 2008-03-03 16:38:55]

[Edited 2008-03-03 16:40:40]
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:53 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 209):
I think he was concerned that we were about to commit war crimes and a completely illegal invasion. I thank him for his concerns. He meant well.

Being an ally does not mean you indulge your friend's mistakes. It means you try to help them see the true path.

France knows way more about the Muslim world than we do. And they continue to be our eternal friends. I will leave it at that.

Boy are you from the wrong dimension. France was only interested in their oil contracts with Saddam which were basically voided by a war. There is a lot of bad taste in US citizens mouth over France previous administration. They did not just not support but went out of their way to impede our vested interest.

HOBO
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9615
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:09 am



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 286):
I can see the 767 line being converted over to the 787, so possibly little to no job loss there. Bingo said before, there were no jobs to begin with, only if Boeing won that contract. Right now, there are no jobs for the KC-45, but there will be once the factories are established. The job loss is only on paper, and do not apply in reality as nobody has lost their jobs since they didn't have the job in the first place.*

For all our sakes I hope those who work at Boeing realize how important the B-787 is to the universe, tongue in cheek to be sure but everything seems to be 787 this, 787 that and its not yet flying, delayed and costing more money than it should.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 286):
This is a very unfair comment because:

Your points though true do not change the fact that when established, the then powers that be never saw them as a threat and possible ignored them to their detriment, which in reality happened. Imagine if the WTO were a influential then as it is today?
NG used to design and build a/c, if money is all that we look at then they are sitting pretty with this deal

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 286):
I also disagree with your last comment to an extent, and can see your point. However, little too early to spell the end of days on this yet. As tanker or cargo support, nothing wrong seeing a foreign built aircraft fly these daily duties. However, I will start to worry is when our F-22s or our primary attack/defense aircraft are replaced by foreign built ones, then thats when our military aerospace industry is literally down the toilet.

Is there really a difference, how many parts in the current F-22 are foreign sourced, where exactly do you draw the line and say enough is enough, once started down the slippery slope its never easy to get off. EADS as you say has govt. funding and will always have the ability to undercut the private companies, fact of life, so what can they offer the US Airforce if the congress says no to more F-22's because of price, Typhoons?
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:15 am



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 269):
It's unjustifiable to replace all the existing KC-135s with such a large aircraft.

I wouldn't be a.surprised to eventually see a KC-737 tanker. Perhaps -700 fuselage with -800 wings and landing gear, a la the BBJ? I wonder if it would haul enough gas to be worth it.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:24 am



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 289):
I wouldn't be a.surprised to eventually see a KC-737 tanker. Perhaps -700 fuselage with -800 wings and landing gear, a la the BBJ? I wonder if it would haul enough gas to be worth it.

Sure it would be worth it. Think: UCAV.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15032
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:33 am

Congress has already said they will examine this deal. It ain't over yet...

Quoting Observer (Reply 278):
Lexington Institute has a devastating analysis about why Boeing lost; and a new podcast was posted today talking about the future of Airbus, Boeing and the KC-Y program

Some criteria seem skewed.

Past performance: NG may have a history of being on time, but Airbus does NOT. Military or civilian. Seems that somehow this got ignored.

Timeframe: USAF required Boeing not to deliver the plane as quickly as they wanted because they didn't think they could do it, then penalized them for not delivering enough planes in time according the schedule the USAF created for them. At the same time, they believe NG can get the factory and supply chain built and 49 planes out the door in 4 years. Airbus has never done this...

A savvy congressman from Washington would point this out.

Performance-wise, it sounds like the Airbus offering wins because it's bigger than the 767 or -135, similar in size to the KC-10. If that's what the USAF wanted, Boeing should have offered the 777T, but Boeing (stupidly?) thought: "gee, if they ordered 100 of the tankers before until the deal was thrown out, it MUST be what they are looking for, right?" One would think so, but no...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14457
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:42 am

Some more background on the decision :

Seems that NG won out on a number of issues :
RFP requirements
Risk level of proposal
Price
Production rate
Refueling capability

The production rate was of some surprise to me, the NG/EADS production rate works out to be 2.5 times higher than the Boeing one. I think is just another example of how they have been able to leverage off an already high production rate, not only to produce high volume, also for lower cost.

from http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...er=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true


"This was not a close outcome in any sense of the term," defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute told Reuters, describing how Boeing failed to beat Northrop in any of the key criteria for the aerial refueling contract.

The Boeing proposal was initially rated "high-risk" because reviewers worried that Boeing's plan to build a new version of the 767 using parts from other versions would add to the cost.

Northrop proposed a tanker based on the Airbus A330 aircraft built by Europe's EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research). Northrop-EADS won in four of the five criteria set by the Air Force: mission capability, past performance, price, and an integrated fleet assessment, according to Thompson.

"Although some observers expected that the Northrop team would offer a better price, nobody expected that they would be better in every significant regard," Thompson told Reuters.

Thompson's report said Air Force reviewers concluded that buying the Boeing tanker would have resulted in a slower replacement rate. They predicted that Northrop would have "49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they went with the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year," he wrote.

Northrop's refueling capacity was seen as superior at a range of 1,000 nautical miles and "substantially superior" at 2,000 miles, Thompson said.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:04 am



Quoting Acheron (Reply 154):
Interesting chart.

Indeed. Interesting political distribution, that there is something for every state, except maybe Hawaii, which isn't shown. What do they do in Coeur d'Alene -- mine the ore?

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 155):
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 71):
The US has spent far more to defend Europe via NATO than Europe has spend on US military goods.

A very commonly spouted comment on here.......but yet it's always conveniently neglected to mention that it has been soley in the self-interest of the US for it's own longer range defence to do so and, indeed, the only reason for doing so.

Perceptions certainly vary. Americans never feared the Soviet Union would invade our homeland. The defense of Europe against the expansion of Soviet tyranny, at great expense and nuclear danger to ourselves, was seen by us to be altruistic. Well, about 35 years ago, I spent 2 years living in Germany, so I certainly am aware of the line of thinking that the Germans were just pawns in a private snit between the US and SU. It's kind of like the AvB arguments on A.net, in that some only see the virtue of their group and the perfidy of the other. (After the Warsaw Pact broke up, I expected Nato to do likewise. Why do we have to garrison Germany?)

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 205):
As long as the public view of Airbus is primarily French, it will be regarded as French.

Therefore, I hereby petition Airbus to assemble the A350 in Finkenwerder.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:56 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 291):
Past performance: NG may have a history of being on time, but Airbus does NOT. Military or civilian. Seems that somehow this got ignored.

EADS is well ahead of scedule with the Lakota, I believe they're also performing well with the new CASAs for the USCG. Boeing's performance on the Japanese and Italian freighters is definitely something the USAF didn't miss. Same for the Wedgetail. There's really no good way for Boeing to spin this one at the moment. A-400 definitely hurts EADS but since it's not based on existing products like Wedgetail and the 767 tankers, it's probably less relevant.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 291):
Timeframe: USAF required Boeing not to deliver the plane as quickly as they wanted because they didn't think they could do it, then penalized them for not delivering enough planes in time according the schedule the USAF created for them.

Here's what Loren Thompson had to say on this:

Quote:
2. Proposal risk. This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did so only after being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker. The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost. The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive schedule, adding cost.

So, it looks like they had the choice of taking their lumps on this in one category or another. As it turns out, stretching the schedule lowered their risk to the point where they at least tied in one category. I can't say I blame the AF on this as the recent history of "minor" changes to the 767 haven't gone well.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 283):
There is no question that the USAF is aiding Northrop Grumman in becoming more competitive with Boeing.

The way I see it.

saludos

Asturias
Tonight we fly
 
columba
Posts: 5232
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:08 am



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 286):
Boeing (Est. 1916), Lockheed (Est. 1912), and Douglas (Est. 1921) began during the early stages of flight development, with the minor exception of Douglas, but 1921 was still earlier aircraft development. Airbus established in 1970.

Most of the companies involved in Airbus (Messerschmidt Bölkow Blohm, Dornier, Aerospatiale, British Aerospace (Hawker Siddley)) also began during the early stages of flight development.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:14 am



Quoting Columba (Reply 296):
Most of the companies involved in Airbus (Messerschmidt Bölkow Blohm, Dornier, Aerospatiale, British Aerospace (Hawker Siddley)) also began during the early stages of flight development.

Ey! CASA, Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA, was founded in 1923 in Seville, Spain by José Ortiz de Echagüe. Also very early and part of Airbus from 1972, only two years after Airbus was founded.

 Wink

saludos

Asturias
Tonight we fly
 
Scipio
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:45 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 291):
Past performance: NG may have a history of being on time, but Airbus does NOT. Military or civilian. Seems that somehow this got ignored.



Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 294):
Boeing's performance on the Japanese and Italian freighters is definitely something the USAF didn't miss.

This is the most relevant area of "past performance". The Italians and Japanese are still waiting for their KC-767s, whereas the A330MRTT program seems pretty much on track. If you add to that the fact that the first KC-30 has already flown while the KC-767ADV is still a paper concept, then the USAF's assessment is not that unreasonable.
 
CYQL
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:59 am



Quoting F9Animal (Reply 234):
Airbus has absolutely no experience at all in tankers.

Canada has been flying the CC-150 Polaris MRTT tankers since 2004. The Luftwaffe is also flying them.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/flexibility.html

The KC-45 can carry up to 226 passengers/troops on the main deck, with additional volume for accompanying gear and material in lower deck cargo bays.

That seems a little low, looking at the enclosed seat map shows 315 seats plus crew. I would think the Airforce would carry more than 226 troops, considering Air Transat and some of the other charters fit over 360 in a A332.

I remember reading somewhere that Airbus has the first four aircraft under construction, any idea when the first one will be ready to fly.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TangoandCash and 79 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