Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:10 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 99):
Are we now saying that EADS is French or French controlled?

Don't put words in my mouth. Airbus didn't care who built the engine, hence PW being invited to bid. The French Government wanted a European engine.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:55 pm



Quoting A342 (Reply 100):
Quoting Par13del (Reply 99):
Are we now saying that EADS is French or French controlled?


Don't put words in my mouth. Airbus didn't care who built the engine, hence PW being invited to bid. The French Government wanted a European engine.

Its a question, not a statement, my understanding was that EADS rejected the PW Canada engine, hence my statement:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 79):
This is a general statement for any country, EADS ensured that PW Canada did not get the engine for the A400, EADS ensuring that Spirit did not get any factories from the Power 8,

The response was that it was the French not EADS, I did not know if the answer was theoretical or technical, there are numerous disclaimers on this site that EADS is not French or French controlled as there are multiple countries on the "board", hence the question rather than a out-right assumption on my part.

As for EADS not caring, correct me if I'm wrong but the PW Canada engine was already at prototype stage, a company had to be created to build the engine chosen, so was there really a bid or competition process? Delays have now been announced for the A400M due to engines, which the engine company is now denying.

Cheers
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:28 am



Quoting Par13del (Reply 99):
KC135TopBoom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the US Air Force is the only one using the BOOM method, if so, claiming that the KC-30 can refuel and use it firgures to justify requirements for the US Air Force makes ones job difficult, unless of course, the US Airforce intends to go all hose and drogue.

The Boom refueling method is currently used by the USAF(KC-135E/R/T, KC-10A), Turkey (KC-135R), Singapore (KC-135R), The Netherlands (KDC-10A), Sudia Arabia (KE-3A), Israel (KC-707-320B), Iran (KC-747, but I doubt these refuel anymore), Japan (KC-767J), Italy (KC-707-320B, KC-767A), and Brezil (KC-137B). Additionally France currently flies 11 (K)C-135FR tankers (originally there were 12, one lost in the Pacific in 1972) with the USAF Boom, but it is used mostly for probe and drogue refueling. France does refuel their E-3F AWACS with Boom Refueling as well as probe and drogue. The USAF provides exclusive Boom type refueling for those countries currently flying C-17s (including currently the RAAF C-17s and F-111s) and E-3s, and USN E-6Bs.

No, I do not know what the current cost of USAF refueling services are to the different countries, but I do know different countries are charged different flying hour and fuel offload rates. The only one I know for sure is the USAF only charges the RAF for fuel, not flying hours. There may be others in this catagory.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:23 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 102):
The USAF provides exclusive Boom type refueling for those countries currently flying C-17s (including currently the RAAF C-17s and F-111s) and E-3s, and USN E-6Bs.

Thanks for the info, I did not know that, it raises some interesting questions, the UK are getting tankers based on the A330, will they have booms? It does put a country in a dependent postiton when deploying their C-17's for exapmle, they have to decide between payload, access as in refuelling in third countries, or the US Air Force having tankers available.

Thanks
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:58 pm

No, the RAF A330's will not have booms.
I doubt if the C-17's receptacle would be used much anyway in RAF service.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:13 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 101):
Its a question, not a statement

I'm sorry then.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 101):
correct me if I'm wrong but the PW Canada engine was already at prototype stage

That would be news to me.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 101):
so was there really a bid or competition process?

Yes, there was one. I don't know how the technological parameters of the engines compared, but I do know that the P&WC offer was cheaper.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16431
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:04 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 96):
I did, but here read it again. The KC-30 cannot refuel all USAF fixed wing receiver aircraft.

Provide the page reference and direct quote that says that. You will be looking hard as it does not exist.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 96):
I might add, the KC-30 has not refuel any aircraft with its Boom. I know it is down right now, between test phases, but the KC-30 did not refuel any Boom/Receptical receiver aircraft in phase 1.

Phase 1 was the civil certification phase which the KC-30 passed without any problems, it had nothing to do with the military AAR clearance. The first KC-30 is due to only go to Australia next year.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 96):
Don't give me the KC-310 test bed tanker has refueled with the Boom. Yes, it has, once. since that one flight, the KC-310 has not flown due to problems with the Air Refueling Boom.

More than once, and has flown since. People actually lodged complaints to the UK CAA when it flew at Farnborough as they thought something was falling off the aircraft.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
OTOH, 7 of the 8 ordered KC-767s, in two different configuerations are flying, or have flown, as tankers. Two KC-767Js are operational.

How late are they ?

The KC-767J has been delivered to Japan, it has not been cleared for service.

AFAIK the KC-767A for Italy has been rejected by Italy at this stage as it is not meeting specs (eg excessive cockpit noise), I am not aware of your claims that so many of them have flown as a tanker. Have you got source to base that on, I tried to search, came up with nothing, or even a photo of them passing fuel with a hose ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
NATO AAR procedures are narrower than those of the USAF, not broader.

Incorrect, there are type on the NATO list which are not on any US list, e.g. The A-1, Aermacchi MB-339CD, C-160 Transall, C-295,EF-2000 Typhoon, Mirage 50, Nimrod, SU-30, and VC10 just to name a few.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Fewer NATO airplane types are capable of AAR than the number of types within the USAF/USN/USMC.

Incorrect, and US tankers cannot refuel all NATO types, e.g. US tankers cannot refuel the Israeli EC-130, the NATO E-3s. Spanish F-1s, F-16s from Chile/Oman/South Korea/UAE, F/A-18s from Finland & Kuwait, Singapores F-5s, and the Saudi Tornadoes. But they are covered by other NATO tankers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
NATO only has a hand full of fighter types, AWACS, and C-17s that can refuel, and most of them are probe and drogue refueling, not Boom refueling.

Nope, the NATO AAR clearances include all the major US fixed wing types. It also includes the types made in Europe (like Mirage and Typhoon), Brazil, Israel, and even the Indian SU-30s.

The only US types that are not on the NATO list are the VC-25, WC-135, V-22, MH/H-47, H-53, and H-60

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
The US has all fighter types, attack types, command and control, recce (except the U-2 and EP-3), AWACS, bomber, cargo, some tankers, and the VC-25A that are capable of air refueling.

So does NATO.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 101):
correct me if I'm wrong but the PW Canada engine was already at prototype stage

Nope, they have a turbofan that they were going to modify into a turboprop, the TP400 had a similar start using a RR design as the basis.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:26 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 106):
Nope, they have a turbofan that they were going to modify into a turboprop, the TP400 had a similar start using a RR design as the basis.

Thanks for the info.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:57 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 106):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 96):
I did, but here read it again. The KC-30 cannot refuel all USAF fixed wing receiver aircraft.

Provide the page reference and direct quote that says that. You will be looking hard as it does not exist.

IIRC the GAO's position on this was that the Air Force accepted NG's verbal assurance rather than insisting on confirmation in writing (like several other AF positions). The issue was AF helicopters and CV-22's. (In fact there was a question on the CV-22 for Boeing as well since all of the regs for that airplane have not been published.)

The fact that both Gates and Young have come out and said either airplane could do the job leads some credence that this was not an issue in the end.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:03 pm

What about a KC767 based on

- B767-300ER fuselage(or a little shorter if neccessary)
- B747-400ER wings, but including a usefull wing extension (fuel)
- B777 style cockpit, including EFB, HUD etc.
- Genx engines to boost performance
- New modular cargo / passenger quick convertible interior
- Beefed op landing gear for future MTOW growth
- High capasity refuelling boom
- Assembly in CA / Long Beach


P.S. I suggested the same 4 yrs ago, but at that time most (Boeing) were already convincing themselves the KC767 was just right & the KC30 much to large/capable & it was clear the USAF shouldn't want that.. https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/25179
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:46 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 109):
What about a KC767 based on

- B767-300ER fuselage(or a little shorter if neccessary)
- B747-400ER wings, but including a usefull wing extension (fuel)
- B777 style cockpit, including EFB, HUD etc.
- Genx engines to boost performance
- New modular cargo / passenger quick convertible interior
- Beefed op landing gear for future MTOW growth
- High capasity refuelling boom
- Assembly in CA / Long Beach

If any or all of those frames can be used to replace the need for KC-135, KC-10, AWACS a/c, Elint, VIP transports, in effect everything that the existing B-707 frame is being used for then they should go fot it. Based on the Air Force determination that the A330 based tanker is what they want, that a/c will become the only a/c in the tanker fleet if selected. It is closer in size to the KC-10 than the KC-135, its is easier to downsize user requirements from the KC-10 to the A330 size frame, so when the replacement for the KC-10 comes around, there will be no need for a new a/c, simply increase the number of A330 based tankers in the fleet.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3253
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:07 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 109):
What about a KC767 based on

Keesje, I think someone has hacked into your A.net account! First you post that an B777 would be a better AF1 replacement than an A380, and now this. It must be someone else posting from your account.  Big grin Big grin Big grin
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:18 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 104):
I doubt if the C-17's receptacle would be used much anyway in RAF service.

No, USAF tankers routinely refuel RAF C-17s and E-3s.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 106):
The KC-767J has been delivered to Japan, it has not been cleared for service.

One is operational, the other is being repaired (or has completed repairs) after it was hit and severly damaged by a folklift. The first KC-767J has aready refueled JASDF F-15s, and E-767s.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 106):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
NATO AAR procedures are narrower than those of the USAF, not broader.

Incorrect, there are type on the NATO list which are not on any US list, e.g. The A-1, Aermacchi MB-339CD, C-160 Transall, C-295,EF-2000 Typhoon, Mirage 50, Nimrod, SU-30, and VC10 just to name a few.

Wrong, the USAF tankers refuel the Typhoon, Mirage, VC-10 tankers, and Nimrods. They do not refuel the A-1, MB-339, C-160, or SU-30. There are plans to qualify the C-295 on USAF tankers.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 106):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Fewer NATO airplane types are capable of AAR than the number of types within the USAF/USN/USMC.

Incorrect, and US tankers cannot refuel all NATO types, e.g. US tankers cannot refuel the Israeli EC-130, the NATO E-3s. Spanish F-1s, F-16s from Chile/Oman/South Korea/UAE, F/A-18s from Finland & Kuwait, Singapores F-5s, and the Saudi Tornadoes. But they are covered by other NATO tankers.

Partially correct, as usual. The USAF does not refuel the IAF EC-130s. The USAF refuels all of the E-3 AWACS in the world. The French and British also have the capability to probe and drogue refuel, in addition to Boom refueling. USAF tankers, using probe and drogue refueling can refuel the French and British AWACS. All of the worlds F-16s and F/A-18s (except Swiss) can refuel from USAF tankers. USAF also refuels RSAF Tornadoes, as well as those of the RAF. Singpore F-5A/Bs do not refuel from anyone, but the F-5E/Fs probe and drogue from Singapore and USAF KC-135Rs.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 109):
What about a KC767 based on

- B767-300ER fuselage(or a little shorter if neccessary)
- B747-400ER wings, but including a usefull wing extension (fuel)
- B777 style cockpit, including EFB, HUD etc.
- Genx engines to boost performance
- New modular cargo / passenger quick convertible interior
- Beefed op landing gear for future MTOW growth
- High capasity refuelling boom
- Assembly in CA / Long Beach

Actually, the KC-767AT could be pushed up another 30,000lbs-35,000lbs MTOW easily. This would provide the same max fuel offload as the KC-30 at 1000nm.

All that is needed is the B-767-400ER wing, as is, the B-767-400ER landing gear, and adding three more bladders to the foreward and aft body fuel tanks (two foreward, and one aft). This gives a max fuel load of 230,000lbs, and a MTOW close to 450,000lbs. It adds the -400ER raked wing tips to the airplane.

The KC-767AT already has the B-777 cockpit avionics.

It would need different engines to match the MTOW increase, so maybe the GEnx-2B67 (already testsed to 70,950lbs of thrust at sea level) would be a possible answer.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20080312.html

There is no current need to boost the boom capacity beyond what is already in place. No current of future planned US military aircraft exceeds the capacity (off load rate) the exsists now.

Why assemble in California, when the current plan is to build the commerical airplane in Washington, the fly it to Kansas for conversion?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:25 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
Why assemble in California, when the current plan is to build the commerical airplane in Washington, the fly it to Kansas for conversion?

Closure of the C-17 line on the horizon.. could add some political cloud in congress..
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:59 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 113):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
Why assemble in California, when the current plan is to build the commerical airplane in Washington, the fly it to Kansas for conversion?

Closure of the C-17 line on the horizon.. could add some political cloud in congress..

Good point. Perhaps Boeing will work some deal to move all B-767 production, then continue with the KC-767 conversions in Kansas? That would free up the current Washington state B-767 line for B-787 production.
 
trex8
Posts: 5714
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:13 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
Singpore F-5A/Bs do not refuel from anyone, but the F-5E/Fs probe and drogue from Singapore and USAF KC-135Rs.

Singapore has F5As???
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:29 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 115):
Singapore has F5As???

Does the RSAF not have the F-5A/B any more? I know they had them in the 1970s and 1980s. When the RSAF upgraded to the F-5E/F, the F-5A/Bs reverted first to a ground strike role, then later to a training role.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16431
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:52 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
One is operational, the other is being repaired (or has completed repairs) after it was hit and severly damaged by a folklift. The first KC-767J has aready refueled JASDF F-15s, and E-767s.

As far as I am aware it still has not received its AAR clearance yet, that refueling you mentioned could have been for the AAR refueling clearance tests.

Having one on the ramp does make it operational. When a new aircraft is delivered, it needs to go through the acceptance testing, and then for the tankers the AAR clearance tests.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
Wrong, the USAF tankers refuel the Typhoon, Mirage, VC-10 tankers, and Nimrods

I have the current NATO AAR refueling matrix (August 2008 version), what I posted was correct.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
The USAF refuels all of the E-3 AWACS in the world.

Not the RSAF or the NATO E3As.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
All of the worlds F-16s and F/A-18s (except Swiss) can refuel from USAF tankers.

Nope, not the F-16s form Chile, South Korea, or UAE, and not the F/A-18s from Kuwait or Malaysia. The Swiss F/A-18s have AAR clearance from the US for the KC-135 and KC-10.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 112):
USAF also refuels RSAF Tornadoes, as well as those of the RAF. Singpore F-5A/Bs do not refuel from anyone, but the F-5E/Fs probe and drogue from Singapore and USAF KC-135Rs.

I made a mistake with the RSAF Tornadoes, they don't have clearance form the KC-135 or KC-10, but do from KC-130 and S-3B.

The Singapore F-5s have clearance from the UK Tristar and VC-10, I don't know if they can from their tankers as the Singapore tankers are not included on the NATO matrix.
 
trex8
Posts: 5714
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:07 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 116):
Does the RSAF not have the F-5A/B any more? I know they had them in the 1970s and 1980s. When the RSAF upgraded to the F-5E/F, the F-5A/Bs reverted first to a ground strike role, then later to a training role.

you must be confusing them with someone else, they never had F5As
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:53 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 118):
you must be confusing them with someone else, they never had F5As

Oops.........  banghead 
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:11 pm

The USAF said they are desperate to replace the KC-135E's with the KC-X and are flying the -135R's more than desired to cover for the -135E's that are being parked. So what do they do, sell three -135R's to the United Kingdom. To make up for the short-fall, they will utilize the remaining 135R's even more.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/UK_08-89.pdf
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:00 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 120):
The USAF said they are desperate to replace the KC-135E's with the KC-X and are flying the -135R's more than desired to cover for the -135E's that are being parked.

Here's the dirty little secret. The Air Force has far fewer fighters and bombers than they used to have yet they still haver just about the same number of tankers. In fact (TopBoom you can correct me here) the -135Es that are parked could easily and inexpensively be upgraded to KC-135R standard should the Air Force so chose. Three KC-135Rs being sold to the UK won't make much of a difference.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:53 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 81):
I think it is about perception and emotions

It is all about perception and emotions. Given the current economic environment as well as the fact that it appears Obama, barring some unusual event, has the White House wrapped up, there is no way anyone will allow another country to supply the lion's share of a major military procurement contract. Certainly not when there is a viable alternative based here in North America.

The above comment is not wishful thinking, it is reality. And despite statistics that may show jobs will not be exported, the perception that another country's industry will be the beneficiary of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer monies will simply not fly when the U.S. taxpayer is already forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to save the economy. It would be political suicide for anyone to support an EADS option (notwithstanding some politicians in Gulf states who will do otherwise in order to protect the jobs of their constituents).

Come January 20 the title to the sequel of this thread will read, "2009 Boeing USAF Sole-Source Tanker Proposal".
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:29 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 122):
Come January 20 the title to the sequel of this thread will read, "2009 Boeing USAF Sole-Source Tanker Proposal".

Given the current unprecedented market developments your prediction might very well turn into a reality! Maybe this will not happen on January 20th, but for sure it might be some months after the new administration has taken over in Washington.

I probably would not like this outcome, but then again, I do not make the big decisions! Big grin (When it comes to US gevornement, I do not make any decision at all! Big grin Big grin Big grin).

Kind regards!

[Edited 2008-10-08 09:32:19]
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:40 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 122):
It is all about perception and emotions. Given the current economic environment as well as the fact that it appears Obama, barring some unusual event, has the White House wrapped up, there is no way anyone will allow another country to supply the lion's share of a major military procurement contract. Certainly not when there is a viable alternative based here in North America.

The above comment is not wishful thinking, it is reality. And despite statistics that may show jobs will not be exported, the perception that another country's industry will be the beneficiary of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer monies will simply not fly when the U.S. taxpayer is already forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to save the economy. It would be political suicide for anyone to support an EADS option (notwithstanding some politicians in Gulf states who will do otherwise in order to protect the jobs of their constituents).

Come January 20 the title to the sequel of this thread will read, "2009 Boeing USAF Sole-Source Tanker Proposal".

You may be right. In europe the perception is that the origin of the current crises is the wreckless spending in the USA.

About "allow another country to supply the lion's share of a major military procurement contract" , I think European countries for now continue to buy raw amounts of US made weapons. As a result of the "competition the european allies were not alllowed to win" , maybe new insights on level playing fields between European and US weapon procurements will change policies. Companies like Saab may become lucky winners, their self confidence is visibly growing..
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:55 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 121):
Here's the dirty little secret. The Air Force has far fewer fighters and bombers than they used to have yet they still haver just about the same number of tankers. In fact (TopBoom you can correct me here) the -135Es that are parked could easily and inexpensively be upgraded to KC-135R standard should the Air Force so chose. Three KC-135Rs being sold to the UK won't make much of a difference.

Yes, the KC-135E can be modified into the KC-135R configueration (actually will probibly become the KC-135U as the "E" has thrust reverser cables the "R" doesn't have). It will cost about $35M per airplane, or about 20%-25% the costs of new KC-767ATs or KC-30As.

With the current world wide economic crisis, and the US government has already thrown well over $1T at it, I feel the KC-X program will be formerly canceled as a cost saving measure. This leaves only the KC-135E mod program available, unless the USAF is willing to buy used commerical aircraft and modify them to tankers.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:22 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
Quoting Alien (Reply 121):
Here's the dirty little secret. The Air Force has far fewer fighters and bombers than they used to have yet they still haver just about the same number of tankers. In fact (TopBoom you can correct me here) the -135Es that are parked could easily and inexpensively be upgraded to KC-135R standard should the Air Force so chose. Three KC-135Rs being sold to the UK won't make much of a difference.

Yes, the KC-135E can be modified into the KC-135R configueration (actually will probibly become the KC-135U as the "E" has thrust reverser cables the "R" doesn't have). It will cost about $35M per airplane, or about 20%-25% the costs of new KC-767ATs or KC-30As.

With the current world wide economic crisis, and the US government has already thrown well over $1T at it, I feel the KC-X program will be formerly canceled as a cost saving measure. This leaves only the KC-135E mod program available, unless the USAF is willing to buy used commerical aircraft and modify them to tankers.

If KC135E will be modified maybe better CFM engines then the oldish CFM56-2 are possible. The -5 and dash 7 are a generation better.

When the 787 is introduced serious numbers of 767's will become available because they are less cargo compatible than old A300/A310 and new 330F's. With a focussed well financed operation maybe 100 same version / engine variants can be reserved for the next 7 yrs.. (Pratt powered 300ER's?) A decicated production line to standarrdize / convert them would have to be set up. Maybe Alabama?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:30 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 126):
Maybe Alabama?

It is not beyond the realm of possibility. Boeing already has a presence there.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:00 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 124):
About "allow another country to supply the lion's share of a major military procurement contract" , I think European countries for now continue to buy raw amounts of US made weapons. As a result of the "competition the european allies were not alllowed to win" , maybe new insights on level playing fields between European and US weapon procurements will change policies. Companies like Saab may become lucky winners, their self confidence is visibly growing..

One thing I would note is that once the capability is built in Europe, there is a "ready and willing" market, there may be one or two countries who buck the trend, but for the most part, Europe supports their own, which is true for all countries.
Funny thing, during the cold war standardization even within NATO was a painfull process, now the war is over, look where we are heading, if we had this type of spirit when a non-financial threat was evident imagine how the landscape would be now.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:13 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 126):
If KC135E will be modified maybe better CFM engines then the oldish CFM56-2 are possible. The -5 and dash 7 are a generation better.

Correct, and the -7 engines would be common to the USN/USAF C-40A/B/C.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
With the current world wide economic crisis, and the US government has already thrown well over $1T at it, I feel the KC-X program will be formerly canceled as a cost saving measure.

That is what is really going to happen now.
 
trex8
Posts: 5714
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:23 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 129):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
With the current world wide economic crisis, and the US government has already thrown well over $1T at it, I feel the KC-X program will be formerly canceled as a cost saving measure.

That is what is really going to happen now.

hopefully not
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...New_Tanker_Needed_Now100016574.php
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:13 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 130):
hopefully not
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...New_Tanker_Needed_Now100016574.php

Did you happen to notice who wrote the piece? Hint initials, NG. It's purely spin and speculation by Northrup Grumman and defencetalk picked up the press release.

Modernizing the tanker fleet is the way to go given the current economic/geopolitical situation but if for some reason Congress decides it has a few buck to spend on a tanker there will be hell to pay if they are stupid enough to send such a large portion of the contract overseas when Boeing has a viable alternative with a much higher domestic content.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:41 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 131):
with a much higher domestic content.

I am sure you meant slightly higher domestic content here Big grin. You know the numbers, so to classify the difference as "much higher" is of course an overstatement!  Smile
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:54 pm

The french AF also has a requirement to replace KC135s.

Maybe they'll order a tanker based on the A330F and GENX.

That would enable the USAF to buy a better tanker/freighter "off the shelve" later on.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:41 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 122):
It is all about perception and emotions. Given the current economic environment as well as the fact that it appears Obama, barring some unusual event, has the White House wrapped up, there is no way anyone will allow another country to supply the lion's share of a major military procurement contract. Certainly not when there is a viable alternative based here in North America.

The above comment is not wishful thinking, it is reality. And despite statistics that may show jobs will not be exported, the perception that another country's industry will be the beneficiary of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer monies will simply not fly when the U.S. taxpayer is already forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to save the economy. It would be political suicide for anyone to support an EADS option (notwithstanding some politicians in Gulf states who will do otherwise in order to protect the jobs of their constituents).

Come January 20 the title to the sequel of this thread will read, "2009 Boeing USAF Sole-Source Tanker Proposal".



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
With the current world wide economic crisis, and the US government has already thrown well over $1T at it, I feel the KC-X program will be formerly canceled as a cost saving measure. This leaves only the KC-135E mod program available, unless the USAF is willing to buy used commerical aircraft and modify them to tankers.

I tend to agree that the KC-X is not going forward for quite a while.

The financial FUBAR in this country is going to change a lot of things in all government departments and Defense is going to face some of the most demanding reviews.

Outside of the costs of the Iraq War, there is going to be the cost of rebuilding the military after the war. There will be a need to fund on-going R&D programs at some level. There will be 50-60 years of VA payments to vets.

Then there are other major cost factors, like Health and Social Security. And ongoing efforts to rebuild the middle class.

Throw all these factors in and the AF would be wise to quickly trade the KC-X program for upgrading KC-135s. A fast trade might get by a new Administration (and Congress) while continuing the fight in future budget discussions for the KC-X might take both the KC-X and KC-135 upgrades off the table.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:52 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 134):
There will be a need to fund on-going R&D programs at some level.

I agree. Unfortunately one of the presidential candidates doesn't. He has made so many careless economic boasts and promises that for the next two years there will actually be no R&D or military purchases.

The House will turn in two years time and perhaps then some sanity in the military funding area will return.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:40 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 135):
I agree. Unfortunately one of the presidential candidates doesn't.

Both presidential candidates are going to face major financial limitations. Both are going to have to shrink the goals they set a year ago.

But I believe that both would present a nominee for SecDef who would be well respected by the Congress in order to get the nomination approved and by the military leadership in order to be effective. I also believe that who ever is President will actually listen to their SecDef.

I believe that means that SecDef and the military are going to need to take a long look at how limited funds will be spent within the Department. A post Iraq War DoD is going to be a lot different and the ability of the military to intelligently address that new environment. There isn't going to be any green light for business as usual regardless of who is elected.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:14 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 136):

It is not a personnel question. Just like Clinton, an obama presidency and a Dem Congress with a super majority in both houses will strip all that is possible (including drastic force cuts) from the Defense budget without regard to anything. Even the defense pork will take a hit (which isn't a bad thing).

We have seen it all before - i.e Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. The good news is this will backfire in the form of a major military catastrophe and a more reasonable approach will eventually evolve once the Republicans take over one of the Houses or the Presidency.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:30 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 137):

Maybe taking away the reasons for war might reduce the need for weapons.

We have to get rid of the hawks, they turn the world into a mess all the time.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:46 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 138):
Maybe taking away the reasons for war might reduce the need for weapons.

We have to get rid of the hawks, they turn the world into a mess all the time.

Who, exactly, are the hawks?

Would it be the USA or someone else?

What about people like the president of Iran and others like him who has said that he would like to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

This statement and my questions should probably be located in the non-av forum but you made the statement here so I questioned it here.

(Mods, please move this to non-av if you think it needs to be there.)

J
 
texl1649
Posts: 1957
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:35 am

There have been have-nots fighting to take away from the haves for at least 8 milennia (those for which we have any archeological record). I suppose you could blame the Aryans who started it, but I don't think even the most fanatical BO supporter will claim he will eliminate the need for a large standing US military. If either can de-stress it from it's current breaking-point op tempo, I'll be impressed.

The Army in particular is damn near completely un-sustainable at present deployment/force levels. I'm ready for Europe to deal with it's (nearby/within) demons, and we can be the liberal "neutral" non-fighters for a while, again.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:10 am



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 140):

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 
J
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:10 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 138):
We have to get rid of the hawks, they turn the world into a mess all the time.

We are trying Keesje but some people seem to think that it is more important to make a buck off of them or endlessly negotiate with them.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 140):
I'm ready for Europe to deal with it's (nearby/within) demons,

It's not going to happen. They just don't have the stomach for it. Just look at Kosovo. The smart thing to do is to just leave Europe to it's own devices and more completely engage Asia but unfortunately that is not going to happen either.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:22 am

Hard to know the impact of this development with a (looking likely) Democratically controlled Congress and White House.


http://thehill.com/business--lobby/l...eads-north-america-2008-10-15.html
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:06 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 133):
The french AF also has a requirement to replace KC135s.

Maybe they'll order a tanker based on the A330F and GENX.

That would enable the USAF to buy a better tanker/freighter "off the shelve" later on.

I don't know when the French will begin looking to replace their C-135FR Tankers, my guess is around 2010-2012. All 11 surviving French C-135FRs are 1962 and 1963 models, and all were reengined in the 1980s and had the life extension ( a type of SLEP) completed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. So, even though the French may begin searching for a new tanker within the next 2-4 years, they may not want the first production airplane until 2015, or so. Even that may not happen as the economic crisis is worse in Europe than it is in the US.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 138):
Maybe taking away the reasons for war might reduce the need for weapons.

We have to get rid of the hawks, they turn the world into a mess all the time.

Hmmm, who was it who said "the best defense is a good offense"? It seems to me the Hawks are the only ones with foresite enough to see problems down the road with rough countries.

Quoting Alien (Reply 142):
We are trying Keesje but some people seem to think that it is more important to make a buck off of them or endlessly negotiate with them.

Even that is better than simply rolling over for China, Russia, Iran, and a few others.

Quoting Alien (Reply 142):
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 140):
I'm ready for Europe to deal with it's (nearby/within) demons,

It's not going to happen. They just don't have the stomach for it. Just look at Kosovo. The smart thing to do is to just leave Europe to it's own devices and more completely engage Asia but unfortunately that is not going to happen either.

 bigthumbsup 

Everyday I believe more and more the new tanker is going to be an upgraded KC-135E due to costs..
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:48 am

I think every society has their hawks, in general

- they think they own universal truths / moral values
- as a result they don't listen / only hear/see what suits them
- they thing others can only succeed if they adjust to their own values
- others / don't understand / are against them
- they think they have the right / obligation to export their ideas with violence if needed

Irans president seems to fit at least some of these specifications.

A general cure seems for them to pull them out of their supportive close environment & travel all over the world & communicate a lot with local people. It tends to have a moderating effect.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
Even that may not happen as the economic crisis is worse in Europe than it is in the US.

Follow the news. Some think Europe is pulling the world out of a crises caused by the USA.. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59256

Quoting Alien (Reply 142):
The smart thing to do is to just leave Europe to it's own devices and more completely engage Asia but unfortunately that is not going to happen either.

Militairy / defense / weapons is less a part of our culture I guess. Europe spends much less per inhabitant tradionaly. We don't build authority on the amount of weapons we own I guess. Maybe its history. Having war in your city / family puts on a different perspective.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
Everyday I believe more and more the new tanker is going to be an upgraded KC-135E due to costs..

Maybe Boeing should come up with a proposal, the Kc767 seems further away then ever.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:25 pm

IMO, a large part of the differences go back to the "Right to bear arms" issue.

Most Americans feel that Joe Public should be able to carry Guns.

Most Europeans think that guns should be carried by the Army and Police.

I think that this has bearing on public attitudes in general.

I know that the Swiss have/had guns at home, but this in linked to their military obligations.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:22 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 145):
A general cure seems for them to pull them out of their supportive close environment & travel all over the world & communicate a lot with local people. It tends to have a moderating effect.

Not a clue Keesje. The bad guys are going after you and your way of life whether you extend them an olive branch or not. If you want to keep them in their box and away from yours, you have to take the initiative.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:36 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 147):
Not a clue Keesje. The bad guys are going after you and your way of life whether you extend them an olive branch or not. If you want to keep them in their box and away from yours, you have to take the initiative.

Then we respectfully disagree. We should be brave enough to change our minds & go on.





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

RE: 2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals

Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:17 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 148):

Your pictures prove our point. None of those handshakes have held up and in fact were delaying tactics.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bikerthai and 13 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