Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:21 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 148):
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 146):
It was reported when the KC-30 won, that the AF had been convinced by NG's presentations that the larger, more capable tanker was better for them. Who knows?

I believe this is what Boeing hated. The RFP alone did not make Airbus the winner. Airbus convinced the USAF that the KC-30 was better, and the USAF agreed. Potentially, Airbus showed that the heavier KC-30 achieves military objectives the USAF had never thought about before.

So in this sense, the USAF was open to new ideas. This is what Boeing hated most of all.

You are writing it incorrect here. Scbriml wrote correctly that NG did the tactical operations part of the bid. They are also the formal bidder with EADS-North America as main sub-contracter.

But you write it down as Airbus convinced the USAF. What Airbus did was, as being a full EADS daughter company, developed and produced a very good airliner. The current sales successes show this. EADS's military division saw and took the opportunity to develop a tanker aircraft for military purposes based on that great platform! And the winning of 5 out of the 5 last tanker bids worldwide, all pitched against the B767-T, shows that they were right!

But do not downplay the role of NG in all of this. Maybe here on A-net we are very much tempted to make an A versus B war out of this. But I am pretty sure that most of the strategic concept of the NG-EADS bid is coming from NG!

So what Boeing also "hates" is the smartness of the strategy NG followed to get to the top favourite to win the bid. Boeing knows that NG had no plane to offer by themselves. Maybe they thought that NG would never make a move like this to create a joint bid with a foreign based company, even though that company is based in countries known as US allies!

I think NG therefore deserves some credit too for their efforts. And for their courage to enter the competition with a plane which has a higher percentage of foreign designed and built components in it. And knowing that Boeing has a lot of fan boys, also in congress! I salute them for that move!

Kind regards!

[Edited 2008-08-14 08:25:23]

[Edited 2008-08-14 08:27:45]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:15 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
You'd be looking at a doubling of current 777 production rates

The AF was not looking at a very high acquisition rate.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn030408_1.pdf

Quote:
Production Rate: 12 or 18 a year (a figure of 15 has also been reported). This data point
allows us to calculate the annual revenue to the winner.

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.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:55 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 145):
Must a (former) strategic nuclear bomber be by definition (or pride) be the biggest aircraft (=dick?) in the fleet?

LOL!

Someone told me the shape of the rocket proved NASA didn't have many female engineers!  Smile

I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I really don't think USAF wants to start a precedent of having their new airplanes fit into the old hangars.

I don't think they'd reject the B2 back in the 80's if it didn't fit into the B52's parking spaces, and so on.

I know a tanker is more utilitarian than a B2 stealth bomber, but again, maybe they don't want to set a precedent.

On the good news side, those UAVs take up less space than does a F117/B1/B2/F16/F22/F35/etc.....
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

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

Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:23 pm

The plane the AF really wants in the 787-8. Boeing should wake up and move this way. They need a second production line for the 787 anyway. They could use the money to initiate a second line and reserve slots for the AF. It is a win / win for Boeing. They could use the vacated space of the 767 line for the second line. A second line would save Boeing millions on penalty payments as it would help get back the lost schedule. Preliminary numbers suggest they would be fools not to build one. The only wild card is the supply base. If the supply base can ramp up, Boeing has a winner. Boeing could put preliminary numbers together for the quote. Numbers good enough that the GAO would require the AF to allow time for further development.

In addition they should quote the 777 and 747-8 in the same manor. Boeing is in a delicate position due to their previous arrogance. They need to ensure the AF has no choice but to look their way. With all the new data the AF would be required to properly review and do analysis. Time which would allow the 787 to get off her wheels. The AF will use the next tanker for more than 40 years with DOD budget trends. Boeing's ace is the 787 and it's full one piece hull design.

A 3 platform bid from Boeing would cut thru the fog of this bid and force into the open the backroom deals which plague them currently. Only those whom have not been part of such negotiations would assume that Boeings arrogance and pride did not create an environment in which those involved at the AF made backdoor deals with the winning team. The move toward the KC-45 and its offload valve is clear evidence the AF is protecting their investment in NG/EADS. (A win by Boeing now would cost the AF $$$$ in penalty payments to NG / EADS for work already done.) It would hurt the AF to have to fund work at both companies.

The guidelines changed period. If you are not given credit for extra capacity the best platform is the one in which carries the desired capacity most efficiently. The KC-767 carries the previous RFP capacity with no extra credit allowed more efficiently than the KC-45. For those whom are politically challenged; if you are in the market for buying a commerical airplane which performs best transporting 180 passengers and had 2 choices the 767 of the A330 which would you choose? Remember you will only carry 180 passengers.

Any talk that Boeing's cheese did not move and that the tanker guidelines did not change shows whom is politically challenged.
BK
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

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

Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:19 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
One does not just snap one's fingers to produce more planes. You'd be looking at a doubling of current 777 production rates and that would require a massive investment not only in the suppliers, but Boeing having to immediately stop production of the 767 so they can refurbish that line into a new 777 moving FAL (since there is no way Boeing could double the speed of the current 777 FAL).

I don't really see much problem if Boeing really wants to up the 777 line for the tanker production. For one Airbus does not have a problem increasing A330 production rate, and it's not as if A330 line is really slow now.

I think the reason for current level of 777 production is that Boeing does not really see a sustained demand of 777 in the far future, and thus does not want to make the investment. If Boeing see a definite demand such as the AF contract, I don't see any problem of increasing the 777 rate

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:02 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 151):
The AF was not looking at a very high acquisition rate.

Fair enough.

Personally, since both the KC-767ADV and the KC-30A are better then the KC-135, I want the one that is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate as I'm tired of spending a half a trillion a year on defense. Heck. I'd be tired if they spent a quarter-billion a year on defense.

I know the 777F won't be the cheapest, so I do not support Boeing pitching it. I believe the KC-767ADV is the cheapest on both counts, so if Congress wants to just pass a resolution stating that the KC-767ADV wins, I'm all for it since it saves the cost of doing another RFP and possibly another round of appeals.

Mind you, if the EADS proposal is the cheaper, I'd support Congress doing the same for that one and will inform my entire delegation (who is from WA) that I believe they should vote for it.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:24 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 151):
The AF was not looking at a very high acquisition rate.

Which is a very good thing as I do not believe they will be able to get the funds for anything over a minimal level of deliveries. With our economy and demands on Federal budget dollars the AF will be lucky to hit the 3 digit level - regardless of who gets elected president.

With budget cuts you get more planes with the cheapest to buy and with the cost of fuel get more training hours in with the cheapest to fly.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14980
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:24 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 129):
I imagine this is due to the gear clearance, which cannot be changed.

From what I understand it is a tail scape issue in both takeoff and landing attitudes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 129):
I suppose Boeing could allow the boom to retract into the tailcone of the 767-400 to provide clearance? Or use anti-tail-strike software to prevent too much rotation (with a new wing profile and/or more engine power to counteract the lower lift from lower angles of attack)?

The tail of the aircraft has a lot of structure inside to hold the tail onto the aircraft, as well as the aft pressure bulkhead, and the APU. Retracting the boom into the aircraft would eat into cabin space, require a lot of modification, relocation of the APU, and more than likely a redesign of the boom.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 141):
It isn't with the existing planes, but even Boeing have said that the boom on the back of a 767-400 causes too many issues. While a shallower, two-part rotation is perfectly feasible, it has a significant impact on field performance.

I think that two part rotation is already a feature of the KC-135 and KC-10 operations.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 155):
I want the one that is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate as I'm tired of spending a half a trillion a year on defense.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 155):
I believe the KC-767ADV is the cheapest on both counts, so if Congress wants to just pass a resolution stating that the KC-767ADV wins, I'm all for it since it saves the cost of doing another RFP and possibly another round of appeals.

From what I understand, the KC-30A airframe price was cheaper per frame than the KC-767AT.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:04 am



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 154):
For one Airbus does not have a problem increasing A330 production rate, and it's not as if A330 line is really slow now.

You might want to have a look at the production rates for the last 3 years - they've barely changed

Rgds
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:48 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 153):
The plane the AF really wants in the 787-8. Boeing should wake up and move this way.

Yours is a very worthwhile post and it definitely outlines a (not terribly likely) scenario that Boeing can take if they are feeling extremely aggressive. I doubt it will happen though.




Question about the KC-30.... how does it compare to the KC-10? What if Airbus puts GENx engines or something onto the KC-30?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:34 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 153):
The plane the AF really wants in the 787-8.

What are you basing this claim on?

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 153):
Boeing should wake up and move this way.

It's not going to happen.  no 

Maybe, if the RFP was in 2012 or beyond, Boeing might be interested in pitching the 787. If they offered it now, the risk metric would be off the scale.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 159):
I doubt it will happen though.

I really can't see it. At this point in time, I don't believe Boeing wants to offer anything other than the KC-767AT. Any other platform creates huge risk and will take too long (Boeing was talking about 3 years to develop a KC-777, so I assume a KC-787 would be even longer given the current status of the program).
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.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:58 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 153):
The plane the AF really wants in the 787-8. Boeing should wake up and move this way.

That raises the other issue of why there does not seem to be any sort of focus on the fuel consumption of the engines. If the commercial fleets are moving to more fuel (and mx) efficient planes you would think that this would be a reasonable target for the AF. If the GEnx is such an improvement on the CF-6s why is it not being specified for both of the bids?
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:06 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 161):
That raises the other issue of why there does not seem to be any sort of focus on the fuel consumption of the engines. If the commercial fleets are moving to more fuel (and mx) efficient planes you would think that this would be a reasonable target for the AF. If the GEnx is such an improvement on the CF-6s why is it not being specified for both of the bids?

This is also what I wonder about.
The NG KC45 could be offered either from the start or at least after the 3rd year with theb Genx 1B/2B or a dedicate variant.
If it is to risky at the beginning, I understand, but with the slow production rate planned the next generation engine is way feasible. Also an offer for Upgrade exchange could be made given the 40 Years service time expected. As an armchair CEO of NG I would urge Airbus for such an option.

The same applies for the B767 offer. Re engined would also be helpful, probably with a 767/400 and a real powerful engine for better take off performance.

Ok the Boeing changes would be much more risky, but a chance is there.
On the other hand a KC45 re engined with the newest engine technology wouldn't give a potential 787 based Tanker that much advantage.

Or 3 steps are offered:
1)st current engines from the start
2) Genx from production years 2012/ 2013
3) GTF Based from Production 2017/20018

This could apply for both tankers.

regards

Flyglobal
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:25 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 159):
Question about the KC-30.... how does it compare to the KC-10? What if Airbus puts GENx engines or something onto the KC-30?

The KC-10 lifts more fuel with a far smaller footprint. The downsides compared to the KC30 is its got less cargo volume , any frames you get will need a rebuild in addition to modifications, and its "old" thus mx costs will be higher. Really though if the USAF had really been looking to up-size the fleet they have had decades to aquire more KC-10/KC-11 frames.

Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 162):
The same applies for the B767 offer. Re engined would also be helpful, probably with a 767/400 and a real powerful engine for better take off performance.

I'm 95% convinced Boeing lost more on thier engine choice than anything else. GE tosses around ALOT of weight in this relm, and while pratt isn't exactly a light wieght.... Its hard to argue with the money GE can throw around promoting its agenda.

*IF* they offered a GE engined version, better than the pratt or not, I suspect they would have had a better chance.

Course if McSame didn't get paid to send letters to the USAF they might have had a better chance too.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:39 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 153):
The plane the AF really wants in the 787-8

wants? I agree that a 787 based is tanker is extremely appealing and IF possible surely the USAF would want it! It would probably beat everything else by a huge margin on every metrics.

get it? No way. Beside very late EIS there is not much to incentive for Boeing too to make such an offering. Their hands are so full presently that a 787 tanker is not what they would want to do next. Also the market success of he 787 is so extreme that more weight on the backlog-side is not good at all. The production slots occupied by the USAF for the next 15 years would almost guaranteed translate on a one-to-one basis into Airbus A330&A350 sales. Maybe the A330 could recoup almost every sold 787 tanker by sales to airlines (that don't want to wait 15 years until they can get a 787!!!!!).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
The USAF is unlikely to operate another tanker model then the KC-45 before the end of this century. The KC-135 fleet lasted for almost a half-century even with better options (A300, A310, 767) available. The KC-45 will "soldier forth" at least that long and likely much longer.

Fair enough.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:55 am



Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 162):
Or 3 steps are offered:
1)st current engines from the start
2) Genx from production years 2012/ 2013
3) GTF Based from Production 2017/20018

This could apply for both tankers.

And possibly Allison might have a useful engine that they could offer.  duck 
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:33 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 160):
Maybe, if the RFP was in 2012 or beyond, Boeing might be interested in pitching the 787. If they offered it now, the risk metric would be off the scale.

Sad but true. There's so many unknowns about the 787 at this point in time.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 160):

I really can't see it. At this point in time, I don't believe Boeing wants to offer anything other than the KC-767AT. Any other platform creates huge risk and will take too long (Boeing was talking about 3 years to develop a KC-777, so I assume a KC-787 would be even longer given the current status of the program).

 checkmark 

Quoting Baroque (Reply 161):
That raises the other issue of why there does not seem to be any sort of focus on the fuel consumption of the engines. If the commercial fleets are moving to more fuel (and mx) efficient planes you would think that this would be a reasonable target for the AF. If the GEnx is such an improvement on the CF-6s why is it not being specified for both of the bids?

Cost to integreate it on to the older frames? Risk, since its longer term reliability is not known?

Fuel use is part of one of the five major criteria used in the RFP. One part of Boeing's appeal that was upheld was that the lifcycle cost of the tanker is to now be evaluated over 40 years instead of 25, which should favor Boeing because the 767 uses less fuel than the A330. However, it's only one part of one of the criteria, so it's not going to swing the deal much if any.

In any case, they're replacing KC-135Es with four TF-33s with KC-30s with two CF6-80s, so that'll be a big win anyhow.

As we're kind of learning through this process, USAF doesn't really weight the cost of building facilities for the new equipment or the cost of running the equipment very heavily, much to Boeing's chagrin.

I thought I read somewhere that the single largest user of petroleum in the world is the US Department of Defense, so I guess they are used to paying large fuel bills! Sad

Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 162):
The NG KC45 could be offered either from the start or at least after the 3rd year with theb Genx 1B/2B or a dedicate variant.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if US DoD money funded a next-gen engine on the A330? I wonder if Airbus would stand by principle and reject a military subsidy of a commercial product!  Smile

I asked in one of the civ-av A330NG threads about the weight and size difference between CF6 and GEnx, and was not able to get a clear answer. Clearly some engineering work would be needed to do the re-engining. It's not clear to me how easy or difficult it would be.

Seems the CF6-80E1 has a fan diameter of 96 inches, whereas the GEnx for the 747-8 has a fan diameter of 105 inches.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:44 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 166):
I thought I read somewhere that the single largest user of petroleum in the world is the US Department of Defense, so I guess they are used to paying large fuel bills! Sad

They certainly must be up there if not the "winner". Which merely implies, of course, that their savings would be greater than for any other users.

It does seems strange that at a time when there is such a stress on lower fuel consumption, the full potential of CURRENT technology is not to be used.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 166):
Wouldn't it be a hoot if US DoD money funded a next-gen engine on the A330? I wonder if Airbus would stand by principle and reject a military subsidy of a commercial product! Smile

A nice point, you could get awfully badly cut up on that little version of the horns of a dilemma.  ouch 

As for engine diameters, it appears that the newer engines are managing higher BPRs from smaller diameter engines by thinning down the central part of the flow that does not get bypassed. Maybe the pause is to await those slimmer engines becoming available.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:07 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 161):
If the GEnx is such an improvement on the CF-6s why is it not being specified for both of the bids?

The GEnx-1BA72 had a 111" fan, which is 15" wider in diameter then the CF6-80E1-Ax tasked for the KC-30A. I don't know if Airbus intended for the original A350 to have higher landing gear to allow for clearance or if the A330 has enough clearance to safely mount such a wider engine.

It is also 17" wider then the PW4062 tasked to the KC-767 Advanced, and I am pretty sure the KC-767ADV could nor take a 111" fanned engine.

And even if the KC-30A could take the GEnx-1BA72, is 178 planes over more then a decade worth the investment GE would need to make to offer it? With the A350, they had two years of exclusivity and likely expected many hundreds of sales with deliveries spaced over a handful of years.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:13 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 164):
I agree that a 787 based is tanker is extremely appealing and IF possible surely the USAF would want it! It would probably beat everything else by a huge margin on every metrics.

Funnily enough, it may well fall short on payload, compared to the KC30.........

Rgds
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23945
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:36 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 168):
The GEnx-1BA72 had a 111" fan, which is 15" wider in diameter then the CF6-80E1-Ax tasked for the KC-30A.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 166):
Seems the CF6-80E1 has a fan diameter of 96 inches, whereas the GEnx for the 747-8 has a fan diameter of 105 inches.

Seems they'd start with the GEnx-2B which has bleed air and a 105 inch diameter fan, so we're down to a nine inch difference instead of a fifteen inch difference.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 168):
And even if the KC-30A could take the GEnx-1BA72, is 178 planes over more then a decade worth the investment GE would need to make to offer it?

The devil's in the details, but we can't be sure if there won't be follow-on tanker orders from the US or other nations, or orders from those who have already signed up for A330F or A330, or those who will do so in the future.

So it goes back to doing some estimates for both Airbus and GE in terms of cost/benefit versus just staying with CF6.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:05 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 170):
Seems they'd start with the GEnx-2B which has bleed air and a 105 inch diameter fan, so we're down to a nine inch difference instead of a fifteen inch difference.

The A330 based A350 was intended to have the full 111" fan Bleed-air GEnx and/or Trent 1000. At 245 tonnes MTOW (as per 787-9) it would have had to...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 168):
I don't know if Airbus intended for the original A350 to have higher landing gear to allow for clearance or if the A330 has enough clearance to safely mount such a wider engine.

Yes. The old A350 was destined to have the same nose gear as the A330, but placed several inches lower in the fuselage in order to accommodate the 111" fan.
Funnily enough, Airbus reverted to a nose fairing for the A330F to achieve almost exactly the same ground clearance, but for a different reason (to have a level floor for cargo loading).
Never understood the philosophy change myself, but, no matter.

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:51 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 170):
Seems they'd start with the GEnx-2B which has bleed air and a 105 inch diameter fan, so we're down to a nine inch difference instead of a fifteen inch difference.

An option would be to include the lenghtened landing gear of the A330-200F.



A limitted redesign of the wig engine structure could take care of the a few additional inches.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/a330fbasedkc45.jpg?t=1218831964
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Tugger
Topic Author
Posts: 10411
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:38 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
I have never hid the fact I support the Boeing proposal.

I know, its just when you "accuse" others of being cheerleaders, it is a bit mocking when you are in many ways the same.

For me, I really just want the best program to win, I want true competition to determine that, and I want real competition to enter into a military contract bid. I don't want political posturing to determine the winner. I believe fervently in competition and that competition produces the best products.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 131):
Looking at photos of both the KC-30 and KC-767, having the boom retract doesn't look to be a realistic option (they are pretty big!)

I am amazed that the Boeing boom is (at least appears) to be so much smaller or more compact than the EADS boom (does NG have any involvement in its development?). Is the Boeing Adv Boom the same size?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 155):
I want the one that is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate as I'm tired of spending a half a trillion a year on defense. Heck. I'd be tired if they spent a quarter-billion a year on defense.

Yes but even at $500,000,000,000.00 a year that is only 3.5% of the USA's GNP. The big problem we have is the deficit and debt. With a deficit of $400,000,000,000.00 and debt payments of $300,000,000,000.00 per year. Our budget is "just" $2,300,000,000,000.00 a year (for now, and that is of course including the current debt interest payments). Crazy.


Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13835
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:19 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 173):
I am amazed that the Boeing boom is (at least appears) to be so much smaller or more compact than the EADS boom (does NG have any involvement in its development?). Is the Boeing Adv Boom the same size?

The boom proposed by Boeing is not the one pictured. That one has yet to be build.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:48 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 169):
Funnily enough, it may well fall short on payload, compared to the KC30.........

... if they delivered a tanker version of the 787-8 with the same MTOW as the pax variant  wave 
Considering that the 787-8 is nowhere near the limit of what the landing gear and wings can handle in terms of weight, why would they deliver a tanker(/freighter) with a MTOW that low?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:17 pm



Quoting Brendows (Reply 175):
Considering that the 787-8 is nowhere near the limit of what the landing gear and wings can handle in terms of weight, why would they deliver a tanker(/freighter) with a MTOW that low?

That said, the 788's wing isn't the same as the heavier 789's.
You make a fair point though.  checkmark 
Mind you, that would make the "KC788" a derivative of an aircraft that doesn't exist yet (788HGW), and isn't likely to this side of 2014-2015.  scratchchin 

Rgds
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:02 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 173):
Yes but even at $500,000,000,000.00 a year that is only 3.5% of the USA's GNP.

I still think we could spend a good deal of that money on other things, but that's a discussion for another thread, if not another forum.  Smile



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 176):
That said, the 788's wing isn't the same as the heavier 789's.

Well it appears to be the same general root, with different wingtip extensions. Then again, nothing stopping Boeing from putting a 787-9 wing on the plane if it is indeed stronger all the way through. Boeing has also noted in airline presentations that the wing is a good bit better then they expected based on wind-tunnel and CFD testing.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:40 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 177):
Well it appears to be the same general root, with different wingtip extensions. Then again, nothing stopping Boeing from putting a 787-9 wing on the plane if it is indeed stronger all the way through

I'll keep my eye open for a 245 tonne 787-8 in the next 12 months or so then..  Wink

Rgds
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:55 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 176):
Mind you, that would make the "KC788" a derivative of an aircraft that doesn't exist yet (788HGW), and isn't likely to this side of 2014-2015.

This brings up the issue of signing a long term contract for either tanker when a superior tanker may be available 3 to 4 years after the 2011 date the AF set. By 2015 there will be a lot of experience with the 787 and that is when the AF should have the freedom to determine if it outperforms both 330 and 767 tankers.

Maybe the AF is having a case of "premature specification" on the tankers.  Smile

I would hope at least one person in the AF procurement department thought about this and ensured that there was an "out" if the 787/350 era demonstrates a need to change direction.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:40 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 178):
I'll keep my eye open for a 245 tonne 787-8 in the next 12 months or so then.  Wink

It may yet happen, but I am not sure there is a need for it anytime soon. I don't think a ~250t MTOW 787-8 is going to get you between LHR and SYD with maximum structural payload and since the current plane likely won't be hurting for range at MSP for most city-pairs it is likely to fly, beefing up the structure just adds OEW for no real gain.



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
Maybe the AF is having a case of "premature specification" on the tankers.  Smile

I would not be surprised if it is more a case of "well, the checkbook is open, so let's get what we can while nobody cares what it costs".  Sad
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:11 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 180):
It may yet happen, but I am not sure there is a need for it anytime soon. I don't think a ~250t MTOW 787-8 is going to get you between LHR and SYD with maximum structural payload and since the current plane likely won't be hurting for range at MSP for most city-pairs it is likely to fly, beefing up the structure just adds OEW for no real gain.

Agree with every part of that statement..  thumbsup 

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
This brings up the issue of signing a long term contract for either tanker when a superior tanker may be available 3 to 4 years after the 2011 date the AF set.

Trouble is, there will ALWAYS be something better in a few years time.....

Rgds
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

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

Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:51 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 164):
get it? No way. Beside very late EIS there is not much to incentive for Boeing too to make such an offering. Their hands are so full presently that a 787 tanker is not what they would want to do next. Also the market success of he 787 is so extreme that more weight on the backlog-side is not good at all. The production slots occupied by the USAF for the next 15 years would almost guaranteed translate on a one-to-one basis into Airbus A330&A350 sales. Maybe the A330 could recoup almost every sold 787 tanker by sales to airlines (that don't want to wait 15 years until they can get a 787!!!!!).

Remember I said Boeing would need a second line to pull this off. They would be able to increase production slots for commerical customers and take care of the AF. When they caught up on the back log they could slow the second line down to just AF tankers if needed. A second line would decrease A350 and A330 sales due to customers being able to book eariler dates. If this happens, NG will be responsible for helping reduce A330 and A350 sales.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 160):
What are you basing this claim on?

1- Utah ANG may have only a few tankers but we have those in question of being replaced and have been providing feed back up the chain of command.

2- The AF wanted the KC-767, 10 years ago before 9/11. Before 9/11, mission profiles were different. Smaller forces in more places were the norm. After 9/11 and with the move of the AF to handle Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. things have changed. As units rotate in and out of action they can transport cargo (mainly their own) if they have the capability. Also the current mission profiles are to park in set locations like a gas station in the sky. This new profile is better handled by a bigger tanker with cargo capability. Even a KC-747 wouldn't be overkill in some mission profiles where a tanker is parked in a set location as the Navy, AF , etc. (other forces also) touch and go as needed.

3- The AF has a problem of a short memory. Boeing has been bidding on this RFP far longer than NG / EADS. They have been through many cycles of needs as the mission profiles change. NG/EADS has only been in for the current format. They have not seen the cold war mission profiles, nor the 80's etc. The AF and its Generals seem to remember only the issues of today and what they need now. The KC-45 is a better tanker in todays mission profiles than the KC-767. But only today's, the KC-767 would run circles around the KC-45 in a cold war type setup for missions. Those involved in this RFP are not looking a past missions nor future possible missions as much as current missions and what the AF needs today. There are tons of cargo needing transport to the middle east etc. Missions are basic and repetitive.

4- Most tankers spend a good portion of their lives in the open and parked when not at war. Composites are a must to reduce MX costs.

5- Boeing has to get over the KC-767. It may be the best solution for all missions but the AF has Iraq on their minds. This is why NG/EADS say that the requirements have not changed. This is true for them for they have only a small window to view from. Boeing needs to move on and give the AF what they are asking for and not what they need. The KC-787 fits better in both view points.

Also: Boeing should have done more work up front to clarify specific mission profiles the AF wanted. The RFP is still to vague for a 40 year life cycle unless we will be in Iraq that long.

The worst thing for NG/EADS would be to have Obama win and pull us out of Iraq in addition to having to give Boeing more time to provide a detailed KC-787 quote. By the time Boeing was ready the AF tanker missions will be changing back to a peace time format. NG/EADS cheese will move overnight and they will be left with a Boeing type headache wondering where their contract went.


The wild card is how long the war will last. If the end of it (the war) becomes within the zone of budget planning for the AF. A larger plane will loose,even though they are asking for it now.
BK
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:27 pm

Unfortunately between the issues in Southwest Asia; China/Taiwan; NK; and a resurgent Russia, no matter who is the President of the US, "peace" will be a relative term for a long time.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10047
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:54 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 182):
The worst thing for NG/EADS would be to have Obama win and pull us out of Iraq in addition to having to give Boeing more time to provide a detailed KC-787 quote. By the time Boeing was ready the AF tanker missions will be changing back to a peace time format.

And Obama might win - it's a toss of the coin right now.

The current situation makes it fairly clear that we'll be out of Iraq before the first KC-X is delivered - Iraq wants us out as much as the average American. McCain would have a hard time continuing military activities there so your post is spot on. Just added you to my RR list for your entire post.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 183):
Unfortunately between the issues in Southwest Asia; China/Taiwan; NK; and a resurgent Russia, no matter who is the President of the US, "peace" will be a relative term for a long time.

Again, this depends on who is President in 159 days. I think Obama would be less inclined to jump into another conflict and also that he would work closer with the UN. I believe McCain is more of a shoot from the hip type of guy and would be more likely to "send in the troops". Which one is best depends on your political point of view.

As for the KC-X, I've moved to a position of acquiring a few (less than 100) of either brand or simply sending some present tankers for a re-engine job. Then look at other options, like the 787/350 or larger tankers, like the 777f or 748F. I don't see a need for 500+ tankers that are all the same when a range of tanker sizes can give more flexibility.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

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

Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:42 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 179):
This brings up the issue of signing a long term contract for either tanker when a superior tanker may be available 3 to 4 years after the 2011 date the AF set. By 2015 there will be a lot of experience with the 787 and that is when the AF should have the freedom to determine if it outperforms both 330 and 767 tankers.

Don't forget that a short term contract for either option for fewer tankers won't save a proportionate amount of money. Development, test, etc. will still cost the same and production of tanker specific items will be spread over a smaller number of aircraft. This could easily add 50% or more to the price of each tanker.

In Boeing's case, this could also reduce the number of 767s required below an economical number to keep the line open. For NG/EADS it would make the case for the Mobile assembly line much weaker.

I agree that the 787 could make a better tanker than either the 767 or A330 but it won't happen now. Even without the current 1+ year delay on the 787 Boeing would have had a difficult time squeezing out enough extra airframes to make this work. Now they're so far behind I don't think it's realistc at all.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

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

Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:04 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 184):
Again, this depends on who is President in 159 days. I think Obama would be less inclined to jump into another conflict and also that he would work closer with the UN. I believe McCain is more of a shoot from the hip type of guy and would be more likely to "send in the troops". Which one is best depends on your political point of view.

Whoever is President is going to have a hard time staying out of world affairs. If Obama is counting on the UN do do anything constructive he is more naive than anyone will admit. The UN will let Russia take back everything belonging to the USSR.
 
art
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

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

Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:12 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 182):

Very interesting post. Thank you.

I found the point you made regarding the conflict in committing to long term acquisition based on transient perception of need most informative.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

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

Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:29 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 182):
- Boeing has to get over the KC-767. It may be the best solution for all missions but the AF has Iraq on their minds. This is why NG/EADS say that the requirements have not changed. This is true for them for they have only a small window to view from. Boeing needs to move on and give the AF what they are asking for and not what they need. The KC-787 fits better in both view points.

Also: Boeing should have done more work up front to clarify specific mission profiles the AF wanted. The RFP is still to vague for a 40 year life cycle unless we will be in Iraq that long.

The worst thing for NG/EADS would be to have Obama win and pull us out of Iraq in addition to having to give Boeing more time to provide a detailed KC-787 quote. By the time Boeing was ready the AF tanker missions will be changing back to a peace time format. NG/EADS cheese will move overnight and they will be left with a Boeing type headache wondering where their contract went.

Definitely a great analysis and a great post.

However in the last one I do not fully agree. In whatever future mission, I think the situation will be similar then with Iraq. So I do not believe that after Iraq the typical mission will be the small and much and only tanker function needs.

So I believe the time for a A330/ B787/A350 sized type of multi purpose 'tanker' has come in this mid sized category.

I believe a B787 based tanker wouldn't be readily accepted before 2014/ 2015 and the A350 not before 2017 knowing the conservative approach of the AF when it comes to proven technology.

That all speaks for the K30 as the best option for now, probably finally in less numbers and more balanced to a later Boeing based 777 or 748 based extension.

As a NG armchair president I repeat that I would urge Airbus for a reingined A330 offered the army from lets say around 2014/2015 which would probably come very close to a B787 based offer.

regards
Flyglobal
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14980
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:23 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 182):
Smaller forces in more places were the norm. After 9/11 and with the move of the AF to handle Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. things have changed. As units rotate in and out of action they can transport cargo (mainly their own) if they have the capability.

You missed the area where you really need the range, the Pacific, (read China, Korea etc).

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 182):
The AF has a problem of a short memory. Boeing has been bidding on this RFP far longer than NG / EADS. They have been through many cycles of needs as the mission profiles change. NG/EADS has only been in for the current format.

This is not correct, EADS was involved with the 2002 RFP, and actually met more of the initial USAF requirements in that round as well with the A330 based tanker.

Quote:
In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.

The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.



Quote:
In one document, Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for tankers, noted that one objective in rewriting the specifications was to "prevent an AoA from being conducted." "AoA" stands for "analysis of alternatives" or, in essence, a look at serious competitors.



Quote:
The rewritten document was so thoroughly tailored to Boeing's wish list that when it was briefed to the Pentagon's Joint Requirements Board in July 2002 it was actually titled the "KC-767 ORD."

from https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/18742/


For those looking at a longer 767 that the current 767-200LFR base airframes, below is the tail strike attitudes for all the 767 models. In comparison the KC-10 tail strike attitude is approximately 12 degrees.

Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:43 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 182):
Remember I said Boeing would need a second line to pull this off. They would be able to increase production slots for commerical customers and take care of the AF.

If that would be realistic Boeing would have started the second line already just for civil production. Boeing has a product at hand that could take close to 100% market share (sub A350 sizes) but because of too slow production ramp up they are now loosing many sales. Easily possible that for 2008 and some more years A330 sales will trump over 787.
Reason: late availability of 787
Only possible counteraction: a second 787 line!

Form the fact that there are no immediate (or only weak) signs of another production line I understand that huge demand from airlines AND the USAF would kill the attraction for new customers. The Dreamliner has its name because for many customers it will not materialize for decades!!! The 787, a long long dream that will teach you patience!!  cloudnine 
A new customer will see thousand fly before the first will carry his titles!

And not to forget: the 787 delay can be attributed to an immature setup of the first production line.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:20 am

Any news after the meetings on Saturday? I haven't seen anything in the press.
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.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:10 pm

Isn't the 787 ruled out due to acquisition cost anyway?

If people argument, that with a more booms in the air strategy the 767 tanker is a must, due to the lower cost of acquisition compared to the 330 tanker, than the 787 must surely be way off, no? It is not exactly cheap in the first place, not even considered any delay in introducion a second production line and doing the research for the tanker conversion.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14980
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:12 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 192):
767 tanker is a must, due to the lower cost of acquisition compared to the 330 tanker

From what I understand the KC-767AT had a higher development and acquisition cost than the KC-30, only the operational costs (fuel) was lower.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:48 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 193):
From what I understand the KC-767AT had a higher development and acquisition cost than the KC-30, only the operational costs (fuel) was lower.

Thanks for Info, Zeke.

Still the rest of the argument remains valid. Looking for as many aircraft in the fleet for a certain funding (haven't a lot people stressed the 110x767AT vs. 70x330) the 787 is countering exactly that fact. There can be no doubt about it.
So hopefully no 787 chearleading is done by people also praising the "as many booms in the air as possible strategy"
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11181
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:27 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 145):
Any moment the price for hangars or concrete would drop, due to the high demand following huge construction work on tanker bases. Compelling, no?

No, the price of concrete, airfield construction, and hangers will continue to increase. Labor and material costs will always go up and a higher demand (by other projects in commerical and military airports) will also push construction costs up.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 146):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 144):
It's interesting to opine if (A) Boeing really was being told all along that the 767 was the right sized plane to offer, or (B) Boeing knew the all along that the 767 could not compete with the A330 and so they let themselves believe that the 767 could/would win on the basis of it being the right sized tanker, or (C) USAF knew all along they wanted the A330 and ran a disinformation campaign on Boeing or (D) USAF didn't really know what they wanted till the RFPs came back and they then decided they wanted the A330.

(A) - I don't swallow this for one second. Boeing has produced no evidence to substantiate the claim. Why not?

(B) - It is entirely possible that Boeing considered the KC-30 would beat the KC-767 and launched a massive "propaganda campaign" to try to convince everyone that the KC-767 was "the right size".

(C) - While the GAO said the AF treated the bidders differently, I haven't seen any evidence to support the "disinformation" theory. If the AF had already decided they wanted the KC-30, they didn't do a very good job on the original RFP.

(D) - It's a wild suggestion, but could be true. It was reported when the KC-30 won, that the AF had been convinced by NG's presentations that the larger, more capable tanker was better for them. Who knows?

These are all points addressed by the GAO, and they sustained these points, which is why the KC-X program is being re-bid.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 148):
Potentially, Airbus showed that the heavier KC-30 achieves military objectives the USAF had never thought about before.

Which objectives, that the KC-X is intended to fly, have not been thought of by the USAF that Airbus had to "educate" them on?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 157):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 129):
I imagine this is due to the gear clearance, which cannot be changed.

From what I understand it is a tail scape issue in both takeoff and landing attitudes.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 157):
I think that two part rotation is already a feature of the KC-135 and KC-10 operations.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 189):
the KC-10 tail strike attitude is approximately 12 degrees.

The initial take-off flair (rotation) on the KC-135 is 6 degrees, slightly later to to 10-15 degrees for the KC-135R/T. The KC-135 is really the limiting airplane, not because of the Boom's location, but because the Boom Pod extends below the empennage, it's (relitively) short fuselage and wheel base. The KC-10, IIRC, initially rotates to 10 degrees, later to as much as 15 degrees.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 159):
Question about the KC-30.... how does it compare to the KC-10? What if Airbus puts GENx engines or something onto the KC-30?

The KC-30 proposed by EADS/NG carried about 100,000lbs less fuel than the KC-10 does. Putting new GEnx engines on the KC-30, or proposing the use of the A-330-200F as the base airplane increase the risk for the KC-X proposal. Neither versions (of the A-330) are built, and the GEnx proposal is not seriously being looked at by Airbus, as that could effect potential A-350 sales.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 189):
You missed the area where you really need the range, the Pacific, (read China, Korea etc).

No, Zeke. The USAF does not need to span the Pacific, with this or any other tanker. Tankers, Bombers, Fighters, Recce, and Cargo airplanes are pre-positioned across the Pacific. We have Bombers in Guam, Tankers in Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Australia, and sometimes Korea. Fighters are all over the place. Additionally, the USN has many airborne assets available, including the CVN air wing assigned to the Western Pacific, and based in Japan. There simply is no Tanker mission required to span the Pacific, and if there was, we could do that now. The KC-30 has a non-cargo, unrefueled range of 9,500nm, you have said that yourself, many times. The current KC-135R/T has a non-cargo unrefueled range of a minimum of 10,000nm, and the KC-10 has a minimum of 9,800nm (both computed at 90% worst winds, the USAF standard mission planning factor). There are conditions where the KC-135 can reach 12,500nm, which will get you to any point in the world, from any other point. But, this capablilty is almost never used because of crew duty day requirements (16 hours peacetime, 20 hours for critical higher headquarters orders, and 24 hours wartime). Don't forget, the USAF crew duty day starts when the first crewmwmber (no matter which position) shows up to work, that could be up to 6 hours before scheduled take-off.

My point is the USAF has enough assets in the western Pacific to already provide the initial response to any country level advorsary. These forces can sustain operations for up to 5 days, which is more than enough time to get reinforcements in place and ready for battle, from the CONUS.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14980
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:17 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 195):
No, Zeke. The USAF does not need to span the Pacific, with this or any other tanker.

They do, it was one area of the integrated fleet planning analysis where the KC-30 clearly was better than the KC-767AT. The US needs to be able to get aircraft from CONUS to the pacific bases in the times of need, just like they have similar planning for the atlantic crossings. This does not need to be time of war, even for humanitarian relief, the KC-30 provides better support for C-5s/C-17s from CONUS to Asia.

The US has LIMITED assets in the pacific, europe, middle east, and asia, e.g. they recently moved some F-22s from Alaska to Guam. I think they are looking at only putting something like 12-15 F-22s total in Hawaii.

The US has no aircraft based in Australia, they have a few transport aircraft stationed in New Zealand to support the antarctic mission. They do have regular flights to Australia to some of the joint US/Australia intelligence bases, but no aircraft based there (other than for sort term exercises).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 195):
The KC-30 has a non-cargo, unrefueled range of 9,500nm, you have said that yourself, many times.

No, I said the USAF found the KC-30 met the USAF requirement of an unrefueled range of 9,500 nm, not that its maximum range was 9,500 nm. The KC-767At did not meet that requirement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 195):
These forces can sustain operations for up to 5 days, which is more than enough time to get reinforcements in place and ready for battle, from the CONUS.

Which is exactly what the IFARA analysis looked at, and the KC-30 covered the span from CONUS to Hawaii/Guam much better than the KC-767AT with fewer aircraft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19038
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:59 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 195):
These are all points addressed by the GAO, and they sustained these points, which is why the KC-X program is being re-bid.

I think you're making your own interpretations of the GAO's ruling again.

If Boeing had any proof of the claim they were told not to bid the KC-777 and only to bid the KC-767, they would have produced it. They haven't. Where does the GAO say that Boeing were told to bid the KC-767/not bid the KC-777?

Where did the GAO agree that the KC-767 was "the right size"?
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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11181
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:59 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 193):
From what I understand the KC-767AT had a higher development and acquisition cost than the KC-30, only the operational costs (fuel) was lower.



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 194):
Thanks for Info, Zeke.

I have not been able to find a reliable sourse for the development costs of either the KC-30A or KC-767AT. Zeke, do you have a sourse I can look at?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 196):
Which is exactly what the IFARA analysis looked at, and the KC-30 covered the span from CONUS to Hawaii/Guam much better than the KC-767AT with fewer aircraft.

That may work for 3 or more engine airplanes (tankers, bombers, cargo, reccee, AWACS, etc), but it doesn't work for one and two engine fighters, which is the bulk on the total number of airplanes moved. For fighters, on any long over water movement, they must be kept at or above BINGO fuel at all times. For those that don't know what BINGO is, it is the unrefueled range to a suitable divert base, taking planned or known winds (which ever is worse) into consideration. I do know that Zeke understands this. For many fighter types, this is always very close to full tanks. So, refueling is every 15-20 minutes. For a fighter drag, each tanker will have anywhere from 4-6 receivers, it must keep at or above BINGO. It will not be unusual to have 3-6 tankers each dragging up to 6 receivers. So you could have as many as 36 airplanes in one ALTRAV, each ALTRAV spaced about 1 hour apart.

The fighters will fly no longer than 8 hours, due to crew duty day (because there is only one crewmwmber doing all the work aboard, the pilot), so the flight may go something like this;

Leg #1, day #1 SUU-HIK (6 hours flying time)
12-14 hours rest
Leg # 2, day #2 HIK-UAM (8 hours flying time)
12-14 hours rest
Leg # 3 UAM-OSN (3.5 hours flying time)

In this case, the number of tankers is determined by the reciever capability, not the tankers capability. This is the most common type of aircraft deployment for the USAF. Because there are so many airplanes involved in a deployment, there will be airborne spares, at least at the beginning of each leg.

Should a fighter have to divert enroute, at least one other fighter will divert with him. Or, that entire tanker/fighter element will divert, but not the entire squadron (the flight).
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

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

Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:29 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 198):
Where did the GAO agree that the KC-767 was "the right size"?

where did they say the KC-30 was?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy and 20 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