Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 299):
I am fully aware that in wartime the whole tanker fleet must be ready to fulfill their duty as tankers 100%. But you do never enter such a time period without warning.

This is when a lot of the charters flights are used, during surge periods. We either have to rely on charters or buy more $150 million KC-45s to cover the charter missions. Do you see how expensive that beceomes? When we aren't in surge period we have $150 million tankers sitting around or flying missions that a $40-60 million converted cargo aircraft could fly.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 296):
You meant regarding conversion the KC-45 is not better than the KC-767 or all the older charter jets.

This argument isn't KC-45 vs. KC-767. This argument is about not using a $150 million tanker to fly a mission that a $40-60 million converted widebody cargo aircraft or that a couple of $10 million converted KC-135 cargo aircraft could accomplish and not tie up tankers.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 296):
If the idle time of an asset is more than say 50% it is not so complicated to deploy one half permanently for other tasks without touching the tanker operations at all.

I'm not trying to put down the USAF, I'm just trying to let others know that the USAF doesn't operate like FedEx and needs to have aircraft sitting at idle for a variety of reasons.

Cargo organizations also operate on fixed schedules and don't have serious things like time critical bombing missions come up. What happens if we someday do get a fix on Osama and need to bomb him in a 2 hour window? The fighters are sitting ready to go, but now the mission has to get scrubbed because our tankers are out hauling bullets. What if we need one of those idling tankers to replace another tanker that is shot down or goes mx during the middle of a flight? We can't tell the fighter pilots they are SOL because the tankers are hauling bullets. What if a fighter is injured and needs to be dragged home. Suddenly you need another tanker immediately available to fuel the other aircraft in the squadron on their way back to base. The USAF keeps the tankers in reserve just for reasons like this. These tankers are scattered all over the country and all over the world in squadrons doing training missions or actual missions. You start plucking a tanker here or there that looks like it is sitting idle all the time and then you cut down on a particular squadrons mission readiness and ability to do the primary mission of off-loading fuel. Also keep in mind any particular mission will require more than one tanker because the USAF wants to gas them up as quickly as possible and send them on their way, more booms in the air allows this. They also want to have reserve aircraft available on station for unforseen problems.

I just don't see the point of buying more $150 million aircraft to cover the cargo missions and have the necessary reserves for the fueling missions. Why do that when the tankers aren't optimized for the job (thousands of lbs of dead tanker equipment weight) and when there are much cheaper assets out there for the USAF to use. Sending a $240 million C-17 trans-Atlantic is dumb, but sending a $150 million KC-45 is also dumb. Why not send a $40-60 million cargo jet that can carry a full load and not tie up the tankers?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 291):
A KC45 can carry 32 standard pallets, a KC135 6.

I did a little more thinking and the KC-45 couldn't haul the gas for a tanker mission and all the cargo you are talking about. However a KC-777 or KC-340 would have enough payload to haul a full fuel load for tankers and meaningful amount of cargo. A KC-777 (based off the 200F) for example could easily fly with 250,000 lbs of gas (the average offload of 100,000 for the fighters) and 200,000 lbs of cargo. The KC-45 would only be able to carry the gas. A KC-340 could probably do something similar to the KC-777. The large tankers are the only ones that could do both a cargo and tanker mission simultaneously with meaningful payload if that is what you are advocating.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26717
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:08 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 288):
Most of all the USAF that would have take a future proof platform (I'm not sure the CRFP KC787/A350 would be better suited)

Let's see: you keep saying the A330 has superior maintenance aspects than the KC-135, but now you are saying a next generation CFRP plane is not well suited to the task? Baloney. There's lots of reasons why we won't get a CFRP plane this time around, but that's mostly due to availability and risk, not due to suitability. The next gen CFRP planes have very low corrosion exposure and about 50% more range than the previous gen planes, both of which are highly desired properties.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 299):
I am fully aware that in wartime the whole tanker fleet must be ready to fulfill their duty as tankers 100%. But you do never enter such a time period without warning.

Yes, but in wartime that 50% or so of cargo lifting goes to 0% and you have to find a way to get back that cargo lifting and even more of it, since you'll need every bit of cargo lifting when the spam hits the fan.

Multitasking may drive your fleet utilization numbers up during peacetime, but it's not about looking good on paper during peacetime, it's about being prepared to be successful during wartime.

There is a limit to how much we can look at utilization rates during peacetime. What is the utilization of a rifle or an artillery piece during peacetime? The idea is to have enough of them when you go to war. Granted the airplane is more expensive than these items, so it use needs to be more carefully analyzed, but one needs to be thinking about the wartime mission
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:58 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 300):
What happens if we someday do get a fix on Osama and need to bomb him in a 2 hour window? The fighters are sitting ready to go, but now the mission has to get scrubbed because our tankers are out hauling bullets.

Of course you would never leave areas in dense times without dedicated tankers. The Afghanistan area should of course be covered with sufficient equipment to offer tanker services 24/7. That still leaves all the other regions on the earth where demand surely not will arise so fast. Far more than 50% of the tanker fleet is not involved with Afghanistan operations at all. It is not before there emerges a longer campaign that reserves from the US or other bases would be drawn to this region. After the forces arrive at the hot-spot it does not depend whether the tanker was a cargo-plane until yesterday or just standing idle on an apron somewhere. Summary: You never have the full tanker fleet available at one spot immediately - with or without dual-role tankers.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 300):
What if we need one of those idling tankers to replace another tanker that is shot down or goes mx during the middle of a flight? We can't tell the fighter pilots they are SOL because the tankers are hauling bullets. What if a fighter is injured and needs to be dragged home. Suddenly you need another tanker immediately available to fuel the other aircraft in the squadron on their way back to base. The USAF keeps the tankers in reserve just for reasons like this. These tankers are scattered all over the country and all over the world in squadrons doing training missions or actual missions. You start plucking a tanker here or there that looks like it is sitting idle all the time and then you cut down on a particular squadrons mission readiness and ability to do the primary mission of off-loading fuel. Also keep in mind any particular mission will require more than one tanker because the USAF wants to gas them up as quickly as possible and send them on their way, more booms in the air allows this. They also want to have reserve aircraft available on station for unforseen problems.

Those needs don't pop up by accident. Long before they arise on a large scale you could be warned and go in a war-mode regarding the tanker-fleet. That means everyone to their position!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 301):
Yes, but in wartime that 50% or so of cargo lifting goes to 0% and you have to find a way to get back that cargo lifting and even more of it, since you'll need every bit of cargo lifting when the spam hits the fan.

I understand this fully. I admit that here is an area where new strategies must be developed before the dual-role can work. Is it unsolvable? No, but projecting the past to the future will not provide an answer to your valid objection. But how about this:
In such times the civil airliner fleets will always experience a decline in usage. That creates a large amount of equipment just doing nothing. How welcome would it be for AA, UA and the sort to fill the gap and offer just the kind of transportation that was done by KC-45 in peacetime? Could be wet-lease or charter for both people and/or cargo. Those airlines have large fleets of modern widebodies that match a KC-45 regarding efficiency. Win-win I would say. That doesn't involve frontline operations just airlift beans-and-bullets close to the hot zone.

BTW you don't have to convince me that the tanker and cargo-role are mutual exclusive. I derive my thoughts from the USAF. They obviously don't have the concerns raised by many of you. I just try to grasp what the USAF intends to do and I see some reasonable methods that could bring great relieve especially on the cost side. Saved money possibly allows spending for other defence assets.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:46 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 298):
Yes, but that day when you REALLY REALLY need all your tankers shouldn't come as a big surprise. Let's face it, you start preparing for that day some time in advance - it's not like the US and it's allies invaded Iraq with just one day's notice is it?

But you also need a lot of dedicated cargo aircraft on that same "bad day." On many days, heck you can use FedEx and it will probably get there. But on really bad days you need a big fleet of cargo jets while your tankers are off doing something else. And forget about FedEx, they don't do hot war zones.

Hence the cargo value of the KC-45 is nice for off-days and potentially a cost saver over the years. But on "strategic" days it's of no value at all, because these planes need to be on the roster as tankers or spares -- that's the *only* reason to buy KC-45s.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:34 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 287):
This is true! But the Airbus cockpit commonality concept enables pilots to make conversions between different types of Airbus planes within days.

The USAF currently does not fly an Airbus aircraft. Even those ANG/USAFR pilots who fly Airbuses for airlines will go through 6 months of training to learn to fly/operate the KC-30.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 288):
I think projecting Kc135 usage during the last 50 yrs on the KC45 the next 50 years is like taking WW1 logistics as a reference for Iraq. The KC135 have a life expextancy of about 39.000 hours to be reached in another 30 yrs. A 330 can do 90.000 hours easily and needs base maintenance checks every 30.000 hr / 8 yrs. Aircraft like the 777 and A330 are in a different league compared to fifties/ sixties generation aircraft. A300/767s are somewhere inbetween.

The USAF currently projects the KC-135 to be flying in 2040, based on current utilization rates. The KC-30 will have the same USAF maintenance schedule as all other USAF airplane types, every 48 months it will go through depot level maintenance. You are only basing your facts on the basic A-330, not the military KC-30, which will have different equipment, all on different maintenance schedules.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 288):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 286):
don't, UPS is buying all the used B-747-400s they can, and they are currently taking delivery of new build B-747-400Fs, and have another 27 B-767-300ERFs on order. FedEx also has the B-777-200LRF on order. The A-330-200F cannot compete with any of these airplanes.

UPS and FEDEX are top Airbus freighter customers. Surfing the web you'll find many people are surprised they didn't order A330F's allready.

Surfing the web, I can find people saying anything I want to hear. The fact of life is UPS and FedEx are not current A-330F customers, nor is any other US based cargo hauler. The A-330F fits in between the B-767-300ERF and the B-777-200LRF, so it is a niech market airplane.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 288):
The KC45 based on the A330F will have probably have winners only. Standardisation of the Mobile production lines, a more capable tanker (higher MTOW) freighter and probably GENX engines giving the platform another performance boost / 20% fuel saving. Irresistable to all involved I guess. Most of all the USAF that would have take a future proof platform (I'm not sure the CRFP KC787/A350 would be better suited)

First, the A-330-200F has the same MTOW as the A-330-200 with the optional weight, 513,000lbs. Airbus does not offer the GEnx engines on any A-330, and won't do it for the KC-30, either. That increases the development risk. If they did offer the GEnx engine, it would be the GEnx 2B67, which offers 66,500lbs of thrust (growth to about 70,000lbs), about 6,000lbs less than the current CF-6-80E1A4E.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 291):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 290):
The KC-45 won't last as long as the KC-135s did if we fly them like that.

The KC135 which needs a lot of maintenance, radical upgrades can live 39.000 hours. A330's will live 100.000 (maybe more?) with regular maintence checks. Do the math.

The KC-30 will not last 100,000 hours as a tanker. The USAF projects the KC-X to only last for 40 years, not the 80 years they project the KC-135 to last. You do those numbers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 291):
A tanker/cargo aircraft is cheaper then a C-17 + a tanker.

Aaaah, no it is not cheaper when it comes to military operations. As I ahve said, each trash hauling mission you sent a tanker on takes two tankers. One to haul the cargo, and one to refuel it.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 296):
On the large scale the plane's age has much more impact.

What impact? Both the KC-30 and KC-767 will be new builds, they will be the same age.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 298):
If that day when you do REALLY REALLY need all your tankers does come as a surprise, then you've got much bigger problems than a busted KC-45 loaded with cargo at BFE!



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 299):
I am fully aware that in wartime the whole tanker fleet must be ready to fulfill their duty as tankers 100%. But you do never enter such a time period without warning.

Let me see?????? I believe it has happened twice now to the US, on 7 December 1941 and 11 September 2001.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:44 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 291):
About my example do you prefer the tankers to stay with the fighters for the total deployment?!

Some of the fighter pilots will.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 293):
I think the Air Force should take a page for the likes of FedEx and UPS and convert ex passenger aircraft instead of using a highly specialized and expensive tanker to haul bullets and trash around.

Can you really see AF Generals considering "old, used" planes that the airlines are retiring? Their noses are too high in the clouds for that.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 302):
No, but projecting the past to the future will not provide an answer

And looking at all of the lessons learned in the past is critical for intelligently projecting the future.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:59 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 304):
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 296):
On the large scale the plane's age has much more impact.

What impact? Both the KC-30 and KC-767 will be new builds, they will be the same age.

We discussed about cost of chartered/wet-leased cargo operations with old planes vs. misuse of efficient tankers as cargo planes. Is that so hard to see? You commented as if you could not follow the discussion.
The impact I described is the impact on the efficiency regarding the context of the question I wrote four lines above. Here the age has high impact on the outcome of an answer.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:15 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 296):
The older jets usually used for USAF charter operations are fuel guzzlers compared with a KC-45. Regarding economics they are no match. Thus there is very probable a benefit for the USAF on the cost side to own efficient cargo-planes for beans-and-bullets.

Of course I understand what you said: You meant regarding conversion the KC-45 is not better than the KC-767 or all the older charter jets. You are right. So what? What's the impact on the efficiency? On the large scale the plane's age has much more impact.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 306):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 304):
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 296):
On the large scale the plane's age has much more impact.

What impact? Both the KC-30 and KC-767 will be new builds, they will be the same age.

We discussed about cost of chartered/wet-leased cargo operations with old planes vs. misuse of efficient tankers as cargo planes. Is that so hard to see? You commented as if you could not follow the discussion.
The impact I described is the impact on the efficiency regarding the context of the question I wrote four lines above. Here the age has high impact on the outcome of an answer.

I'm not so sure. If the USAF wet leases, say a UPS DC-8-73F, to haul cargo for XX months, requiring XXX hours of flying time, carrying XXX tonnage, it is still cheaper for the USAF to do this, compared to using a tanker, or C-17, etc. The USAF doesn't care about the airplane's age, as long as it meets FAA maintenance specs. BTW, the USAF will also inspect these airplanes. In this case, UPS is still responsible to maintane the aircraft, or substatute it when it is broke. The USAF will pay for the fuel, hourly crew costs, landing fees, airplane useage fees, etc.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:17 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 304):
Let me see?????? I believe it has happened twice now to the US, on 7 December 1941 and 11 September 2001.

Japan declared war on the US in Dec. 1941. Totally accepted.

So which country declared war on the US in September 2001?

So I hope Iraq had enough tankers in reserve NOT doing beans&bullet hauling when the US invaded the sovereign country on 20th of march five years ago.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:21 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307):
I'm not so sure. If the USAF wet leases, say a UPS DC-8-73F, to haul cargo for XX months, requiring XXX hours of flying time, carrying XXX tonnage, it is still cheaper for the USAF to do this, compared to using a tanker, or C-17, etc.

Sure UPS is cheaper in peacetime. But in wartime UPS says no thanks. Still, maybe you are right that the KC-45's peacetime cargo / pax lifting is largely irrelevant, in light of the fact that charters do the same job cheaper. During WWIII the KC-45 is needed as a tanker, and costs don't matter, and C-17s haul the cargo.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:19 pm

Don't forget all of the DoD/State Department weekly lifts that are currently going by C-5's and C-17's. Perhaps the plan is to shift the majority of this work off to airplanes that are better suited to this type of flying. The aircraft are needed as Flighty rightly says - once the shooting starts, the civilians stop.

The Air Force/DoD may have different plans for the KC-45 than they have used for the KC-135's. Unless General Schwartz is online and wants to let us know how they intend to transform lift and tankage, I guess all we can do is speculate.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:44 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 310):
The Air Force/DoD may have different plans for the KC-45 than they have used for the KC-135's. Unless General Schwartz is online and wants to let us know how they intend to transform lift and tankage, I guess all we can do is speculate.



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 258):
3) From the new USAF Chief of Staff and former head of USTRANSCOM General Norton Schwartz on the KC-X

DOD's new transportation chief seeks multi-mission tanker. Aviation Week Dec. 1, 2005 by Marc Selinger

[i]"The exact dimensions are not the thing that I worry about, I establish requirements and that is that it needs to be a multi-mission, it cannot be a single-mission airplane."

 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:54 pm

Correct; and I can read. His quote says nothing on how they will use the airplane.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20120
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:43 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 304):
The USAF projects the KC-X to only last for 40 years

Where have they projected this?
 
trex8
Posts: 5698
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:39 am



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 308):
Japan declared war on the US in Dec. 1941. Totally accepted.

strictly they never declared war, they just attacked us! and they did so as in their view it was a preventive war. ..... oh, so thats where the neocons got the idea from!
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:23 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 314):
strictly they never declared war, they just attacked us!

As that may be as it is, my point was not about the diplomatic act of declaring war.
An official declaration just minutes prior to the attacks on dec. 7th wouldn't have made any difference.

You mean the same neocons invading Iraq without declaration of war?
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:47 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 309):
Sure UPS is cheaper in peacetime

Why is this sure? I argue for hours now that this is not true.
Summary of my counterargument:

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 280):
I am pretty covinced that the additional cost of running cargo legs with a tanker vs. having the tanker standing idle on an apron all day long is much smaller than buying the cargo-ability on the charter-market.

After you own the tanker anyway and have staff anyway (who need training) the added cost to let them make cargo flights surely is smaller than the cost of buying equipment and staff on the charter market! Especially if your equipment has better efficiency than the one mostly used by charter operators.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 309):
in light of the fact that charters do the same job cheaper

Who says that's fact? My comment is the same as above.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:17 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 316):
After you own the tanker anyway and have staff anyway (who need training) the added cost to let them make cargo flights surely is smaller than the cost of buying equipment and staff on the charter market! Especially if your equipment has better efficiency than the one mostly used by charter operators.

Yes, I support that argument. The argument to use capital intensive assets as much as you can to gain the best efficiency (NOT effectiveness) is correct for civil and military applications.

You simply get the most return out of the aquisition cost.

If you buy 180 330 tankers for 150 mio each, summing up to 27 billion sitting idle for 90% of the time, damn, then you doing something wrong. The real value depreciation (not the one in the books) would come through rusting in the desert rather then flying the time out of it.

instead of using this asset, the USAF is outsourcing the hauling costly to 3rd party

hardly efficient...
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:04 am

What should further be mentioned:

I understand the inherent characteristics of military equipment. I know it will be purchased in numbers for war time, having a lot of spare capability in peace time.

Its just about how efficient you then use your assets. It is not about buying 330 or 767 in general. I really don't care. Its just the calculation that if you spend a little bit more in acquisition you get a lot more capability which allows you to generate side effects, like hauling your own bullents'n'beans around the world rather than outsource it.
it MUST be more costly to outsource, as fedex and ups pay the ops cost PLUS their margin. the USAF is paying only ops and is further saving money in using their equipment rather than letting it rust and get sandsprayed while standing aroung.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:00 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 317):



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 318):

Very nice underlining of what I tried to say!
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 302):
Those needs don't pop up by accident. Long before they arise on a large scale you could be warned and go in a war-mode regarding the tanker-fleet. That means everyone to their position!

When we go into surge mode we need all the tankers we can get. This is also when the demands on the cargo fleet go up significantly. During a surge there simply won't be any idle tankers sitting around to do the work of cargo aircraft. We will still need chartered flights to accomplish this.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 302):
That still leaves all the other regions on the earth where demand surely not will arise so fast.

We keep forces located in certain areas in the world as a deterrent. South Korea is a good example of this. If we start pulling tankers out of South Korea it diminishes our ability to react to a potential conflict that arises there. This isn't a

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 302):
BTW you don't have to convince me that the tanker and cargo-role are mutual exclusive. I derive my thoughts from the USAF. They obviously don't have the concerns raised by many of you. I just try to grasp what the USAF intends to do and I see some reasonable methods that could bring great relieve especially on the cost side. Saved money possibly allows spending for other defence assets.

What the USAF says it intends to do and what will actually be done are two things and that is what I am trying to explain to you. There is a political side to this that you aren't seeing. The KC-135Es still have a lot of time left on the frames, both Congress and the USAF knows this. The USAF really wants to get new aircraft so they need to sell the KC-45 option, which is going to be billions of dollars more expensive. The USAF along with Boeing and Airbus did a PR campaign to explain why these new tankers can do everything for the Air Force and thus save money. It looks great on paper but when you examine the reality of it then it isn't such a good deal.

1. The KC-45 won't replace a majority of the charter flights because we use a lot of charter aircraft during surges when the tankers need to be flown as tankers only.

2. The KC-45 can't fly full cargo missions and do tanker missions at the same time. In fact it would be a pretty insignificant amount of cargo. To replace one C-17 mission the KC-45 would need to haul nearly 171,000 lbs of cargo, which it is capable of doing. However several problems arise with this. The aircraft is no longer capable of doing a tanker mission along with this cargo mission. In fact it now needs its own tanker to make it all the way to the middle east or it will have to stop and land at least once to refuel. You now either increase the cycles on your $150 million tanker with intermediate stops, or you tie up at least one more tanker to drag it all the way.

3. The KC-45 fleet isn't large enough to significantly replace a the 280 strong C-17 and C-5 fleet. How many of the 179 KC-45s will not be in reserve, training, on mission, or in mx to relieve those missions? Why abuse those $150 million tankers as cargo aircraft? As I illustrated above replacing a C-17 mission across flying from state side to the middle east would require you to tie up another tanker or add cycles by making intermediate stops. Why not have the few that aren't doing anything sit idle and have them last 40 years?

4. The KC-45s won't last for 40 years if you start flying them all the time and put a ton of cycles and hours on them flying missions an aircraft a fraction of the cost to complete. It is a $150 million aircraft and shouldn't be abused.

5. KC-45s fly around thousands of lbs in dead weight in the form of tanker equipment, that eats into the available payload for cargo.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 306):
We discussed about cost of chartered/wet-leased cargo operations with old planes vs. misuse of efficient tankers as cargo planes. Is that so hard to see? You commented as if you could not follow the discussion.
The impact I described is the impact on the efficiency regarding the context of the question I wrote four lines above. Here the age has high impact on the outcome of an answer.

Ok fine if you really think there needs to be dedicated aircraft for surge situations (which is when we use most of the chartered flights) then we should convert the KC-135Es to cargo aircraft. We own them, we have the crews, we have the programs to service them, and they are good till 2040. We could convert them to cargo aircraft for a 1/15 of the cost of buying a new KC-45 to run cargo missions during surges. They can haul 200,000 lbs of gas, so they definitely have significant uplift capability. Military equipment also tends to be very heavy so the volume issue isn't as big as it is for FedEx or UPS. However this is just one option, a better option in my opinion is converting old widebodies.

Converted widebody aircraft could be purchased for 25-35% of the cost. The KC-45 might be a little more fuel efficient and a little more mx friendly than 767s and A300s, but it isn't enough to make up a $100 million in fuel and mx costs per frame.

Do you notice how a majority of the world's cargo fleet are old converted cargo aircraft? FedEx and UPS purchase old aircraft for a majority of their fleet because the overall cost over the life time of the aircraft is cheaper than buying new. Even though the day to day costs of the KC-45 might be cheaper it isn't enough to make up the initial purchase cost over the lifetime of the frame.

Converting old passenger aircraft to cargo aircraft would be the cheapest solution to relieve the C-17 and C-5 fleet. They are less expensive assets to abuse and they would be available 100% of the time to relieve the fleet instead of occasionally.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 305):
Can you really see AF Generals considering "old, used" planes that the airlines are retiring? Their noses are too high in the clouds for that.

Tight budgets might get them come around.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:17 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 317):
If you buy 180 330 tankers for 150 mio each, summing up to 27 billion sitting idle for 90% of the time, damn, then you doing something wrong. The real value depreciation (not the one in the books) would come through rusting in the desert rather then flying the time out of it.

I believe the contract is for $35 billion, but that's besides the point. Let's do a little math:

So you fly your $27 billion assets 100% of the time and now they only last 20 years instead of the 40-50 years you told congress that they would. You now have to go through another 5-10 year bid process to buy another set of $27 billion assets to get you through the next 20 years.

Total cost= $54 billion

You could have purchased 180 converted cargo aircraft (if this many is even needed to relieve the C-5 and C-17 fleet) for $7.2 billion and fly those on cargo missions. Even if they only last 20 years you can still purchase 180 more for $7.2 billion. Your tankers now last for 40-50 years. The reason the KC-135s lasted so long is that they did sit idle most of the time and were built like tanks.

Total cost= $41.4 billion. You save $12.6 billion over 40 years. That is a lot of money to make up with the fuel efficiency and lower mx costs of your tankers. Also take into consideration that we probably wouldn't need to buy 180 converted cargo aircraft to cover the long flights hauling bullets that the C-17s don't need to be doing. You could probably do it with 100 converted passenger aircraft.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:25 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):

I appreciate your answer which contains many reasonable thoughts!

Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):
We will still need chartered flights to accomplish this.

 checkmark That is clear. The dual role would only be for peace times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):
Even though the day to day costs of the KC-45 might be cheaper it isn't enough to make up the initial purchase cost over the lifetime of the frame.

Yes but this case is different. Here the purchase cost is zero. The purchase cost is projected for tankers. Of all mentioned candidates (KC45, KC767, KC777 or even KC787) there is none that would not bring formidable and efficient cargo capabilities with it. You can't buy a tanker today that would not be a splendid freight hauler! Having this in mind, I can see why things have changed.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:37 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):
5. KC-45s fly around thousands of lbs in dead weight in the form of tanker equipment, that eats into the available payload for cargo.

The payload range / fuel efficiency gain of KC45 compared to old gen freighters will be far superior. A percent for a few thousand point won't make a significant difference.

NG affirmed that if a 4 month period is granted to Boeing they will compete with a A330F based platform possibley wit GENX engines. Widening the performance / value gab.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:51 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 323):
The payload range / fuel efficiency gain of KC45 compared to old gen freighters will be far superior. A percent for a few thousand point won't make a significant difference.

Once again is the KC-45 going to make up $100 million in fuel costs over the life of the frame? What about the cost of replacing the KC-45s when they wear out prematurely because they are constantly being flown. The KC-45 wouldn't fare so well against converted A330s and 777s when those start becoming available in 5-10 years.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 323):
NG affirmed that if a 4 month period is granted to Boeing they will compete with a A330F based platform possibley wit GENX engines. Widening the performance / value gab.

This isn't about Boeing vs. Airbus, this is about using a $150 million asset to do the job of a $40 million one. The $40 million one could be an Airbus or Boeing product, it really doesn't matter.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26717
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:06 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):
1. The KC-45 won't replace a majority of the charter flights because we use a lot of charter aircraft during surges when the tankers need to be flown as tankers only.

2. The KC-45 can't fly full cargo missions and do tanker missions at the same time. In fact it would be a pretty insignificant amount of cargo. To replace one C-17 mission the KC-45 would need to haul nearly 171,000 lbs of cargo, which it is capable of doing. However several problems arise with this. The aircraft is no longer capable of doing a tanker mission along with this cargo mission. In fact it now needs its own tanker to make it all the way to the middle east or it will have to stop and land at least once to refuel. You now either increase the cycles on your $150 million tanker with intermediate stops, or you tie up at least one more tanker to drag it all the way.

3. The KC-45 fleet isn't large enough to significantly replace a the 280 strong C-17 and C-5 fleet. How many of the 179 KC-45s will not be in reserve, training, on mission, or in mx to relieve those missions? Why abuse those $150 million tankers as cargo aircraft? As I illustrated above replacing a C-17 mission across flying from state side to the middle east would require you to tie up another tanker or add cycles by making intermediate stops. Why not have the few that aren't doing anything sit idle and have them last 40 years?

4. The KC-45s won't last for 40 years if you start flying them all the time and put a ton of cycles and hours on them flying missions an aircraft a fraction of the cost to complete. It is a $150 million aircraft and shouldn't be abused.

5. KC-45s fly around thousands of lbs in dead weight in the form of tanker equipment, that eats into the available payload for cargo.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

Thanks for saving me the time of typing in all the same stuff again!  Smile

Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):
Ok fine if you really think there needs to be dedicated aircraft for surge situations (which is when we use most of the chartered flights) then we should convert the KC-135Es to cargo aircraft. We own them, we have the crews, we have the programs to service them, and they are good till 2040. We could convert them to cargo aircraft for a 1/15 of the cost of buying a new KC-45 to run cargo missions during surges. They can haul 200,000 lbs of gas, so they definitely have significant uplift capability. Military equipment also tends to be very heavy so the volume issue isn't as big as it is for FedEx or UPS.

The KC-135Es are contemporaries of the DC-8s that cargo carriers are still flying around, but with the advantage of not having served as airliners first. They also have an cheap upgrade path to KC-135R if more efficiency is needed. In the process you could get rid of the booms, the plumbing, and the boom operator station and have a cargo plane with another 15-20 years of life in it.

I think the USAF is very anxious to get the deal on the books before the next election so it will be more difficult for the next administration to re-examine the entire situation. I can't blame them for that, but the USAF can't control the fact that the funding for the full production run of any new tanker will need to be approved by the next Congress's budget committee, and that committee will probably have a different set of priorites than the current one has.

The KC-45A is a fine plane, as was the KC-767, but I am still having a hard time understanding why we aren't using the full lifespan of the KC-135s.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:13 pm

I have been trying to stay away from this thread but....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 325):
The KC-45A is a fine plane, as was the KC-767, but I am still having a hard time understanding why we aren't using the full lifespan of the KC-135s.

Norcal and your summation is perfect and I could not agree more with the conclusion above.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:45 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 316):
Why is this sure? I argue for hours now that this is not true.
Summary of my counterargument:

You may be right or maybe not. Air cargo companies exist in a competitive world market. They are all pretty efficient. The US military does things very expensively. On paper it appears the US military can be more efficient than FedEx. In practice I am inclined to doubt the thrift and efficiency of even the simplest US military activities.

It's still nice flexibility to have.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:42 am

When considering maximizing the potential of a new tanker by using their pax and freight abilities ignores one important factor - there is a need to keep those freight companies that will be needed in times of conflict fully operational. Than means funding (revenues) during peace time so they will still be in business, have planes that area up to date on mx, etc. This need is even more important with the current surge in the costs of doing business today - especially the fuel costs.

If these "conflict resources" are not maintained then the KC-135 will be called on for tanker ops while the KC-X carries freight and troops.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:54 am

With this re-bid, they should have simply revised the specifications such so that only Boeing could pass -- I mean, technically, you could set the specification that the plane has to have a window made out of a certain substance that only Boeing has patented... (Companies involved in government contracting when they are required to do competitions often use tricks like this to enable themselves to be able to pick the contractor that they want while maintaining the appearance of allowing competition -- hope I don't get a heart-attack for saying that :p )

I mean it was obvious that Congress wanted the KC-767 to win...


Blackbird
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20120
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:59 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 329):
I mean it was obvious that Congress wanted the KC-767 to win...

Some in congress will only accept a Boeing win. Just as some will only accept a NG win.

The trick is to ignore all those guys. wink 
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:11 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 329):
With this re-bid, they should have simply revised the specifications such so that only Boeing could pass -- I mean, technically, you could set the specification that the plane has to have a window made out of a certain substance that only Boeing has patented... (Companies involved in government contracting when they are required to do competitions often use tricks like this to enable themselves to be able to pick the contractor that they want while maintaining the appearance of allowing competition -- hope I don't get a heart-attack for saying that :p )

I mean it was obvious that Congress wanted the KC-767 to win...


Blackbird

They've been there, done that.. problem is they can't do it again, would be jailed again..

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26717
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:51 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 329):
I mean it was obvious that Congress wanted the KC-767 to win...

It's hard to make sense of all this.

Before the 767 lease deal, USAF was saying they were good on tankers till 2035-2040 or so. They were mostly concerned about funding for F-22s and F-35s instead.

Then came 9/11 and lots of cancelled airplane orders and Congress wanted to throw Boeing a bone. Clearly certain Boeing employees wanted the bone badly enough to break the law, and it cost some of them jail time and/or their careers.

It seems we could have (and should have, IMHO) gone back to the posture that we'd make due with the KC-135s after the scandal broke, but that isn't what happened.

It does seem to me that the Boeing backers presumed they would just re-do a bidding cycle and walk away with the order.

Now they are in the uncomfortable position of trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

I don't think it's over till Congress passes a budget with funding for a production run, but the fat lady is singing pretty loudly.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:53 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 332):
It does seem to me that the Boeing backers presumed they would just re-do a bidding cycle and walk away with the order.

Now they are in the uncomfortable position of trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat

Very good analysis Revelation.

To me the issue is Boeing not bringing their best to the competition. They seemingly decided years ago that the 767 swan song would be as a tanker, and that the USAF would take anything they rolled out. What they did not count on was NG offering an airplane that the -200AT could not compete with. They still are in denial as evidenced by the request to delay the award by 6 months. They need to take what the DoD is offering and produce a 767-400 or 74 derivative in the time frame allowed. The crap about needing the extra time to check with subs and complete the paperwork needs to stop. This is as much about who is controlling the process (the DoD and not Boeing) as it is about the substance.
 
trex8
Posts: 5698
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:27 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 329):
I mean it was obvious that Congress wanted the KC-767 to win...

it is??

the WA and KS state delegations may, but not the AL! For that matter my local congresswoman is cheering for NG as there is an NG plant in the area which is supposed to get new jobs, forget the fact that Boeings HQ is in Chicago, she wants them high paying manufacturing jobs in the Chicago 'burbs! Ain't no new hires going on in the Loop from this contract!
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:49 am

I think what would really be interesting is for the DoD to decline to give Boeing additional time and to have Boeing walk away from the tanker competition, based on the DoD's refusal to allow Boeing to do the engineering and costing.

First, that puts McCain on the spot as he demanded competition in the tanker procurement. And he loves Boeing so much.  Smile

Then there will be the problems with Congress refusing to fund a non-competitive purchase of the tankers. With the election in November we would have 60 days that would really be interesting. If McCain wins then NG/Airbus will give him all of the orders they want.

If Obama wins I think that he will force the AF and DoD to present a 4 year budget and the tanker will be in competition with other AF programs as well as other DoD programs. That competition within both the DoD and also the AF might actually present some interesting options - especially if the AF wants to spend money on fighters, new weapons, etc.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:17 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 308):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 304):
Let me see?????? I believe it has happened twice now to the US, on 7 December 1941 and 11 September 2001.


Japan declared war on the US in Dec. 1941. Totally accepted.

So which country declared war on the US in September 2001?

The Japanese declaration of war on the US was delivered after the attack on Pearl harbour was completed.

The countries that informally declaired war on the US on 9/11 are all those that formerly support terrorism.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 309):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307):
I'm not so sure. If the USAF wet leases, say a UPS DC-8-73F, to haul cargo for XX months, requiring XXX hours of flying time, carrying XXX tonnage, it is still cheaper for the USAF to do this, compared to using a tanker, or C-17, etc.

Sure UPS is cheaper in peacetime. But in wartime UPS says no thanks.

Since UPS is part of the CRAF fleet, and the USAF pays for some mods on each and every airplane they have, UPS, or any other CRAF airline cannot deny those airplanes in a time of war.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 315):
You mean the same neocons invading Iraq without declaration of war?

Hmmmm.....did you forget the UN Security Council authorized it?

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 322):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):
We will still need chartered flights to accomplish this.

That is clear. The dual role would only be for peace times.

No, it applies to wartime, too.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 323):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 320):
5. KC-45s fly around thousands of lbs in dead weight in the form of tanker equipment, that eats into the available payload for cargo.

The payload range / fuel efficiency gain of KC45 compared to old gen freighters will be far superior. A percent for a few thousand point won't make a significant difference.

NG affirmed that if a 4 month period is granted to Boeing they will compete with a A330F based platform possibley wit GENX engines. Widening the performance / value gab.

No, GEnx engines are not offered on the EADS/NG proposal. GEnx engines are not offered on the A-330F, nor is the GE CF-6. EADS only offers the RR Trent 700 and P&W PW-4000 series engines. Additionally, the A-330-200F has a max unrefueled range of only 4,000nm, or a max cargo load of 152,100lbs (not both).

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...a340/a330-200f/specifications.html

But, go ahead and offer the A-330F with the GEnx engines (for the KC-X) and watch the SDD/production risk factors go through the roof.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:37 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 336):
But, go ahead and offer the A-330F with the GEnx engines (for the KC-X) and watch the SDD/production risk factors go through the roof.

It will not be any higher than that of Boeing offering any airplane that can match the current NG offering (i.e. 767=-400 or 74 derivitive).
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:12 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 245):
You do realise that the USAF has found it FAR cheaper to ship things by commercial carriers unless dropping them into bases/areas unsuited for... comercial airframes?

But that is illogical reasoning - the USAF never had aircraft such as the KC-30B before, either.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 335):
First, that puts McCain on the spot as he demanded competition in the tanker procurement. And he loves Boeing so much.

That's nothing more than grasping for straws in a politcal season - all McCain said is no more "bones" to be thrown Boeing's way. Boeing has some serious issues and their lack of innovation with new products since the McDD merger is disturbing.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 335):
Then there will be the problems with Congress refusing to fund a non-competitive purchase of the tankers.

It's already been funded and even if they were to re-award the bid to NG at the same price, the USAF still accomplished it's goals of maximizing performance and product for the best price - Boeing backing out won't suddenly let NG re-bid with the same or less product at higher prices.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:35 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 338):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 245):
You do realise that the USAF has found it FAR cheaper to ship things by commercial carriers unless dropping them into bases/areas unsuited for... comercial airframes?

But that is illogical reasoning - the USAF never had aircraft such as the KC-30B before, either.

No, it is still cheaper for the USAF to ship this freight by commerical carriers. First the USAF does not have to own, or maintane the aircraft, or training and maintane the crews. All they have to pay for is the wet lease and fuel.

Second, yes, the USAF does not have an aircraft like the KC-30B (except a few VIP airplanes), that uses below deck cargo operations. The USAF does not have the ground support equipment, which it will have to buy, and transport to foreward bases. The USAF aircraft SPR is usually in the wheel wells, easily used from ground level, without a high reach to refuel it under the wings.

While this equipment can be bought, it is an additional expense the USAF does not need with the KC-767AT (which has the SPR in the wheel well).
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 339):
USAF does not need with the KC-767AT (which has the SPR in the wheel well).

Unfortunately the probability is very low that the 767-AT will ever be in the USAF inventory. That airplane does not measure up to the NG offering for the job the Air Force wants performed. Let's hope that Boeing wakes up and provides the Air Force will a viable alternative.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:25 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 338):
That's nothing more than grasping for straws in a politcal season - all McCain said is no more "bones" to be thrown Boeing's way. Boeing has some serious issues and their lack of innovation with new products since the McDD merger is disturbing.

Huh? you mean the 787? or the 773ER, 772LR, 77F, 748, 739ER, P8A... those lack of innovations?

How many new models did Airbus put out since the Boeing/MCD merger? The A380... thats going well... I heard Emirates next A380 is delayed 6 weeks.
 
knoxibus
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:59 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:55 am



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 341):
How many new models did Airbus put out since the Boeing/MCD merger

Since 1997 (date of the merger) and based on what you list for Boeing...

A340-600 / A340-500 / A318 / A400M / A380 / A350XWB / A330F / A330-200

Sounds a bit equivalent don't you think? And the 787 has also delays (as did the Japanese / italian tankers).

Anyway, it's not the point.

Making aircraft is difficult even for both main players, as well as winning contracts, being civil or military.

Based on the data and info provided by some knowledgeable people here, it seems that this RFP is a joke since its start.

Why not keep the KC-135??? I can't decide on which aircraft is best, but I still feel Boeing is playing dirty if (and this is a big IF) they just want to push for more time for political reasons.

Since February, they had plenty of time to work on a modified proposal. But to me, although unfair (and it happens in Europe too), it seems normal that politics must intervene one way or the other.

It's just a shame that this bid has been plagued that much unfortunately.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20120
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:54 am

*** MODERATOR NOTICE ***

This thread is approaching the length where it needs to be locked. However, given the likelihood that a major development will happen soon, we'll leave it open for now.

When a new development does happen (like the final RFP being issued, or the DoD deciding to allow more time for Boeing to respond), please start a new thread to discuss that topic. Once a new thread has been started, we will lock this one.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Regards,
Steve.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:22 pm



Quoting Knoxibus (Reply 342):
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 341):
How many new models did Airbus put out since the Boeing/MCD merger

Since 1997 (date of the merger) and based on what you list for Boeing...

A340-600 / A340-500 / A318 / A400M / A380 / A350XWB / A330F / A330-200

Sounds a bit equivalent don't you think? And the 787 has also delays (as did the Japanese / italian tankers).

Out of that list, the only model Airbus can say is a success is the A-330-200/-300. Both the A-340-500/-600 are dismal failures as projects, and will never recoup the development investments into them. The A-318 is doing well, but this size airplane has several better competitors, like the E-170/-190. The jury is still out on the A-380, and it still is getting delays in the program. The A-330-200F does look promising for Airbus. They also finally got their act together on the A-350, having gone thorough no less than 6 failures before they finally got it right with the Mk. VI (the XWB). No one is saying the A-400M is a success, or failure, yet.

You didn't mention the KC-30 project. It is still in flight testing, but there are huge questions about the EADS Flying Boom that still have to be answered, even the GAO report questioned that Boom.

On the Boeing side, The B-747-8I/F has out sold the A-380 in the past three years, but still lags behind in total sales. The B-777 program, all models (excapt the -200and -300) are selling very well, but the B-787 still has growing pains. But, the B-787 is still the best airplane seller, prior to service entry, of all time. The JASDF has accepted the first two KC-767Js. Italy is still making minor changes to their KC-767A prior to initial delivery of airplanes #1, 3, and 4 (airplane #2 will be delayed).

Quoting Knoxibus (Reply 342):
Why not keep the KC-135???

Good question. This is still the best overall value to the USAF and the taxpayer. The USAF can upgrade the KC-135Es to another version of the KC-135R/T by keeping thrust reversers (which the KC-135Rs/Ts don't have), and call it the KC-135U or W model, add a refueling receptical, replace the cargo floor, and add Pacer Craig all at the same time, and still be delivered earlier than any KC-30 or KC-767 can be.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:35 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 344):
They also finally got their act together on the A-350, having gone thorough no less than 6 failures before they finally got it right with the Mk. VI (the XWB).

While we will never know the outcome of the original A350, it could hardly be written off as a failure - it had picked up 182 orders against all odds.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 344):
The B-747-8I/F has out sold the A-380 in the past three years, but still lags behind in total sales.

Actually, the A380 outsold the 747-8 in 2007 - 33 gross, 23 net to 25 gross, 21 net.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:57 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 344):
Both the A-340-500/-600 are dismal failures as projects, and will never recoup the development investments into them. The A-318 is doing well, but this size airplane has several better competitors, like the E-170/-190. The jury is still out on the A-380, and it still is getting delays in the program.

The 380 in all likelyhood will be a financial failure as the market for the airplane isn't large enough to cover all of the development and delay costs.

The Air Force, for better or worse, seemingly has a new agenda for lift and tankage and want a new airplane. One could argue to keep re-upping the 135's, but that does nothing about curing the lift side of the equation. Current frames (-5's, 17's and 130's) are very inefficient normalized (non-combat ops) cargo carriers. This is looking more and more as a cargo competition than a tanker competition.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:55 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 314):
Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 308):
Japan declared war on the US in Dec. 1941. Totally accepted.

strictly they never declared war, they just attacked us! and they did so as in their view it was a preventive war. ..... oh, so thats where the neocons got the idea from!

They did intend to deliver the declaration before the attack, but the codes were too difficult for them.  eek 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 336):
The countries that informally declaired war on the US on 9/11 are all those that formerly support terrorism.

I suppose I might need to know if you mean:

A. FORMERLY - that is any country that has previously supported terrorism.
OR
B. FORMALLY - are there any that have come out with a formal declaration?

If A, wow, what a list. Most of the Security Council for a start.

If B, please give the list. Not even the Talibs made that foolish move. They were negotiating if you remember.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:05 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 336):
The countries that informally declaired war on the US on 9/11 are all those that formerly support terrorism.

So, basically anyone the US wishes to have an issue with, then? You seem to be using one event as an excuse to dump on pretty much anyone you want to.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Rebid Starts Wednesday 8-6-2008

Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:48 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 346):
The Air Force, for better or worse, seemingly has a new agenda for lift and tankage and want a new airplane. One could argue to keep re-upping the 135's, but that does nothing about curing the lift side of the equation. Current frames (-5's, 17's and 130's) are very inefficient normalized (non-combat ops) cargo carriers. This is looking more and more as a cargo competition than a tanker competition.

If that is true, the the USAF has a number of options here from increasing the number of peacetime airlift charter ops that are cheaper than a new cargo/tanker airplane, from increasing the number and types of wet lease charter freighter ops, to recommissioning cargo aircraft from AMARC, to buying and converting used aircraft to frighters, to simply buying new build commerical model freighters.

Quoting Moo (Reply 348):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 336):
The countries that informally declaired war on the US on 9/11 are all those that formerly support terrorism.

So, basically anyone the US wishes to have an issue with, then? You seem to be using one event as an excuse to dump on pretty much anyone you want to.

That one event killed over 3,000 Americans. I would say that is more than an excuse.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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