Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:10 pm



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 19):
When can the 777 tanker be delivered and what would be a credible ramp-up?

I imagine they could have it ready within a few years. Boeing has plenty of experience with creating tankers and they could probably apply some knowledge from the KC-10A program.

Boeing is currently planning to reduce 777 production over the next year or two, but they could adjust that as necessary for KC-777 production.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:12 pm



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 46):
Sorry for quoting myself but amid alot of flag-waving and speculating, I would be grateful if someone could provide at least an opinion on the following:

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 19):
When can the 777 tanker be delivered and what would be a credible ramp-up?

Lets assume, for a moment the KC-777F version get selected in this next KC-X program round. The contract will specify when the 4 SDD tankers are to be delivered, abd then the production tanker deliveries. Boeing must meet those contracted dates, or pay penalties.

I am assuming that if Boeing offers a tanker version of, say the B-777-200LRF (yes, I know Boeing is looking at all current versions of the B-777 as thier proposal), they must have done their homework on the tanker specific equipment. Perhaps (as I am guessing here) they decided the KC-767AT tanker equipment can be reworked to fit on a KC-777F.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:20 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
No, the A-330-200F has the same MTOW as the A-330-200 passenger version, 518K lbs. If the payload weight was different in the two versions, something else must also change, like a 22,000 lbs lighter fuel load.

The A330-200F features 2 modes:
-Range mode: MTOW=514 klb (233 t) / MZFW=381 klb (173 t)
-Payload mode: MTOW=500 klb (227 t) / MZFW=392 klb (178 t)

The pax variant (excluding the recent 238 t weight variant with reduced MZFW):
-MTOW=514 klb (233 t) / MZFW=375 klb (170 t)

The delta in empty weight between the pax and the freighter is ~1 klb
Thus there is ~ 16-17 klb (8 t) delta in gross payload between the 2 aircraft.

This is where the 8-10 tonne comment comes from. It is not a question of overweight. It is more that the USAF is more interested in fuel than payload, thus the lower the MZFW, the better it is for them.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:23 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
I think it will take strong metal flexibility to start aguing the KC-30 is just too small, after 7 years of arguing it's to big. No doubt it can be done here.

Yes we can just copy paste all the threads of the past. The Boeing promoters simply have to reverse each argument.
There has never been a event where the fans of one manufacturer switched their minds so thoroughly. Reverse each and every argument that was brought up against the KC-30 and amplify it by a factor of two and you get the perfect reasoning for the KC-777 campaign!

When I say this I am aware that it is ok to have a nationalistic agenda for military products (it is the essence of the military to defend the own country) and it is also ok to be a fan of certain aicrafts.

What you don't get this way necessarily is the best product. Beta is honest:

Quoting Beta (Reply 45):
For the record I have no problem with the USAF comes out and says "We are going to buy Boeing because it's Boeing and our puppet masters love Boeing. Airbus can go ingratiate themselves for all we care." I'd prefer such honesty over the current charade of bidding contest.

But as I said what you say does contradict (and prevent) this:

Quoting Beta (Reply 45):
selecting the best equipment for the men and women

(I didn't say that the KC-767 or the KC-777 would not be the best product, I only say that without competition you can't be sure that you selected the best. And you pay too much. I would suggest to buy the KC-30 and transfer the saved money (because the KC-767 and/or the KC-777 cost more per capability) as charity to Boeing).
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:27 pm



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 52):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
No, the A-330-200F has the same MTOW as the A-330-200 passenger version, 518K lbs. If the payload weight was different in the two versions, something else must also change, like a 22,000 lbs lighter fuel load.

The A330-200F features 2 modes:
-Range mode: MTOW=514 klb (233 t) / MZFW=381 klb (173 t)
-Payload mode: MTOW=500 klb (227 t) / MZFW=392 klb (178 t)

The pax variant (excluding the recent 238 t weight variant with reduced MZFW):
-MTOW=514 klb (233 t) / MZFW=375 klb (170 t)

The delta in empty weight between the pax and the freighter is ~1 klb
Thus there is ~ 16-17 klb (8 t) delta in gross payload between the 2 aircraft.

This is where the 8-10 tonne comment comes from. It is not a question of overweight. It is more that the USAF is more interested in fuel than payload, thus the lower the MZFW, the better it is for them.

Thanks for the correct numbers. Mine were slightly off. I didn't mean to imply the A-330-200F was over weight. You said it much better than I did.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:59 pm



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 52):
The A330-200F features 2 modes:
-Range mode: MTOW=514 klb (233 t) / MZFW=381 klb (173 t)
-Payload mode: MTOW=500 klb (227 t) / MZFW=392 klb (178 t)

The pax variant (excluding the recent 238 t weight variant with reduced MZFW):
-MTOW=514 klb (233 t) / MZFW=375 klb (170 t)

The delta in empty weight between the pax and the freighter is ~1 klb
Thus there is ~ 16-17 klb (8 t) delta in gross payload between the 2 aircraft.

It doesn't matter. You trade payload with fuel. Just because you can haul 8 tonnes more cargo, doesn't mean you have to. You can use the extra 8 tonnes to carry fuel. The MZFW and maximum payload are just the maximum capabilities. It does not measure the weight of the aircraft at all. in fact. it's better to have the freighter, since it gives you more flexibility in hauling heavy ammo.

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 19):
what would be a credible ramp-up?

Well just as credible as A330 ramp up.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
It won't work. Like the B-747, the A-380 is considered a "large tanker" by the Rand report. But Airbus could offer an A-330-200F and A-340-600 combination.

A lot of noise is made on the rand report. I know USAF wrote the RFP based on the rand report, but if the RFP does not specify anything about the MTOW and other weight characteristic except it should be more capable than the KC135, I guess u can put B747 or A380 in the proposal. It all comes down to the price though.

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 46):
I believe it's a relevant question because the USAF has been requesting a replacement solution for the past 10 years

Actually the USAF did not really request for a replacement solution. USAF's plan was to refurbish the KC135, but the congress gave Boeing the contract as a "stimulus".

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:19 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):

Thanks for your input.
I agree the ramp-up won't be an issue as Boeing scales down the 777 civilian deliveries. But in terms of engineering, it's almost a clean sheet, isn't it? How much work are we talking about to develop a 777 tanker based on a 777 platform? As much as developing the 777F based on the 777?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 54):
Thanks for the correct numbers

I am glad to have cleared this one up.

Best regards.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:41 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44):
No subsidy argument there then.......

Let's be honest; if they are going to do it and get the government to buy enough 777 tankers to protect the investment why the hell wouldn't they? I'm not suggesting the government pay for the work to be done, but if they know they are going to be able to sell 50 frames to the USAF that goes a LONG way to making the business case a no-brainer. There's a difference between selling a product and picking up a straight subsidy. It's no different than securing a launch customer, except this launch customer doesn't deal with money like a normal one would. This one just prints mroe if they need it :P

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
Yes we can just copy paste all the threads of the past. The Boeing promoters simply have to reverse each argument.
There has never been a event where the fans of one manufacturer switched their minds so thoroughly. Reverse each and every argument that was brought up against the KC-30 and amplify it by a factor of two and you get the perfect reasoning for the KC-777 campaign!

And oddly the same arguements against the 330 being too big are now being waived around by Airbus supporters. I find the whole thing amusing. I say let the AF buy whatever the hell they want, so long as the competition is conducted fairly and openly (if they insist on a competition at all... it's not like *many* other nations on the planet don't just buy whatever they want, no competition at all).

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 55):
Well just as credible as A330 ramp up.

Probably more so, seeing as they wouldn't have to build a whole new facility to build the damned thing. But hey, why let something like existing infrastructure get in the way.  Wink

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 56):
As much as developing the 777F based on the 777?

Probably *far* less if it's basedon the 777F platform. That platform has alot of the engineer work for a tanker already in it, as far as frame, wing, MLG, etc. work goes.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:12 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44):
No subsidy argument there then.......

The term 'subsidy' implies a direct handout just for the asking. For Boeing, even if they used a KC-X tanker to improve upon their civilian line, they would have to still compete for that tanker contract and the associated funds. And that is no assured thing. Unlike some other manufacturers who merely have to ask their sponsor governments for some quick cash to fund their next project without any competition to get in their way.

Or, to put it in another perspective, we could certainly say that Airbus would benefit from that same largess from the US government if it were to win the next KC-X round. Who's to say they won't use the money to improve their civilian product line? Do I suddenly smell a dual-subsidy?
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:17 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44):
No subsidy argument there then.......

I thought the RFP is for off the shelf Airliner. Boeing can't really put the wing development cost on the contract can it?

If boeing decides to develop a new wing for B777 with the contract money, then it would need to use its profit for that purpose, means lower margin or higher contract price.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:14 pm

I just had a thought. Why not make the bids public? It is the people's money, after all. Then Airbus will get a fairer hearing, since everybody will be able to notice if their prices are substantially lower.

The word was that Boeing wanted more money for the KC-45 than Airbus for the KC-30, even though the 767 was admittedly a lesser airplane. Maybe I am wrong about this? What of it?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:34 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
I would suggest to buy the KC-30 and transfer the saved money (because the KC-767...cost more per capability) as charity to Boeing.

Actually, as per the latest GAO figures, the KC-30A would cost $10 million more per frame to acquire than the KC-767, so perhaps NG and EADS should offer a mail-in rebate plan to bring the final costs into line with what Boeing is charging?  Silly
 
trex8
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:14 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 37):
As an addendum to my recent remarks about the politics, consider who makes the GENx. Who is one of the White House's fiercest advocates in the business world? Who stood foresquare behind the current president during the campaign? Who owns NBC, where nary a critical word is spoken of about the Obama administration? If you answered General Electric & Jeff Immhelt, take a bow.

by that reasoning any NG offer with CF6s is a shoo in

Quoting Beta (Reply 45):
And Boeing is headquartered in Chicago. Coincident? Hmm..

so?? you could argue Obama needs to shore up support in red states like AL, not increase support in blue states like WA which will remain blue whether they are assembling KC767s or not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
BTW, why is it the EADS Boom seemed to work on the KC-310 test airplane, but not on the RAAF KC-30B?

and you know for a fact they have tried and failed or won't try because of a problem??

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
Yes we can just copy paste all the threads of the past. The Boeing promoters simply have to reverse each argument.
There has never been a event where the fans of one manufacturer switched their minds so thoroughly. Reverse each and every argument that was brought up against the KC-30 and amplify it by a factor of two and you get the perfect reasoning for the KC-777 campaign!

 checkmark 
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:39 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 62):
y that reasoning any NG offer with CF6s is a shoo in

No, not really.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 62):
you could argue Obama needs to shore up support in red states like AL,

Alabama for the democrats? Not in my lifetime; probably not yours.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:44 pm

OK... going to throw some humour into this...

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10):
I agree with this! Let the games begin! Boeing is offering TWO options compared to Airbus' one option.

Well, we have the A332/A380 idea, or the A332/A346 idea. Both are crazy but I wonder about the feasibility of: 2 Booms...

The A380 might be crazy enough to have 3 booms... (crazy I know, just my imagination playing)... 1 on each wingtip, and another on the body... God knows how much fuel it can carry... It would be fun to see a Very Large Tanker competition  Smile

(but then Antonov might offer it's AN225... not only can it refuel planes... you can fly in your small fighters for a little bit of maintenance through the rear ramp! *if you think I'm serious that you're the one that's drunk*)

A346 tanker idea, if it's still a single boom idea, scrap it. The body's so long you can have 1 boom just behind the nosewheel housing and another at the back... Naaah, am kidding.
---
Back to reality a bit...

If the A332 is deemed to big against the KC767, then the 777 would be?????

I don't know why the KC30 boom works on the 310 but not on the 330... Just odd.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10132
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:19 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 60):
I just had a thought. Why not make the bids public? It is the people's money, after all. Then Airbus will get a fairer hearing, since everybody will be able to notice if their prices are substantially lower.

The US govt. is going to spend its citizens money to buy a tanker for its all volunteer force, why exactly do they have to bid and why do they have to give Airbus a fair hearing?
Easy thing to do is to single source the contract and be done with, as for using competition to get the better price, if the mighty govt. needs that then they have much bigger problems.
 
trex8
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:44 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 63):
Alabama for the democrats? Not in my lifetime; probably not yours.

well if you really are as old as your profile says you are it has happened before in our lifetime, will it happen again in our lifetime, maybe not!
he doesn't have to win the state in the next election, just get one of their senators or a few congressman more willing to vote his way on other issues by giving some folks in Mobile nice jobs!

Quoting Par13del (Reply 65):
Easy thing to do is to single source the contract and be done with, as for using competition to get the better price, if the mighty govt. needs that then they have much bigger problems.


given B tried to rape the US taxpayer with the leasing deal why would a sole source contract in the future give them any incentive to give a good price??
I guess you think the DoD should get Congress to pass a law like with Medicare Part D drugs where the government cannot negotiate prices with the suppliers. I'd start buying stocks in every major defense contractor now if that happens!

but back to topic, wasn't the 777 considered the only "large" platform in the Rand study - the A330 being still lumped in the same category as the 767??
in which case the AF would need to either have a program to replace ALL tankers, not just the KC135E, or drastically change the requirements. Also how does the 777LRs wheel loading affect number of airfields it could go to.
 
WESTERN737800
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:06 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:22 am

Good move by Boeing. I think a split 767/777 order would be the way to go. They could use the 767s for the KC-135 - type missions and the 777s for an eventual KC-10 replacement.
Bring back Western Airlines!
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3124
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:35 am

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 64):
If the A332 is deemed to big against the KC767, then the 777 would be?????

We have no idea. For the last RFP, the argument was the B767 was an appropriate size to meet the specifications, and the A330 was overkill. Until the new RFP is issued, there is no way of knowing what the USAF will ask for, so there is no way of knowing if the B767, A330, or B777 are an appropriate size. They may decide upfront that they want a bigger airplane, and will give extra credit for exceeding the minimum standards, in which case the B777 may be the right size for what the USAF is requesting.

[Edited 2009-06-17 19:35:59]
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10163
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:13 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 47):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
The KC30 clearly won & the stuff hit the fan. Boeing hired an army of lawyers to go through mountains of paper and suggested hundreds of procedural irregularities and a few were upheld by GAO.

Yes, and out of millions of sperm only a few get through to the egg, but the end result is still a pregnancy.

Good point but still the KC-30 won over the military brass (yes, we know, not all of them) and the bean counters looking at it. There were absolutely errors in the process and I suspect a lot of that was due to the revising of the RFP to allow for another offer. I don't think the AF expected the other entrant to have a chance or even win. It certainly wasn't done for political reasons as everyone involved knew the sh!tstorm that would erupt once the award was announced.

As many have stated here, everything depends on something we don't know: How the RFP is structured and what the requirements are. One thing for sure, there will be no complacency on either side and they will turn in very competitive, heavily scrutinized bids.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 65):
The US govt. is going to spend its citizens money to buy a tanker for its all volunteer force, why exactly do they have to bid and why do they have to give Airbus a fair hearing?
Easy thing to do is to single source the contract and be done with, as for using competition to get the better price, if the mighty govt. needs that then they have much bigger problems.

Without competition you have no chance of getting a "best deal". Even in the "real world" the best negotiator can not get "the best deal" if there is no one else to go to. Sole source is a death knell for "best deal".

All I want for our AF is the best available product at the best price possible. What NG, with the assistance of EADS, presented would have created a second (third) aviation/aircraft hub in the USA and could have a real affect on how future competitions are done. I see a real value to the USA to having that. It certainly wasn't a bad choice. The only thing people can say is "it wasn't American" and "they didn't follow the RFP", people certainly can't say that it was a bad platform or would not have performed well for our troops. As far as being a quality platform, the same could be said for the 767.

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 68):
They may decide upfront that they want a bigger airplane, and will give extra credit for exceeding the minimum standards, in which case the B777 may be the right size for what the USAF is requesting.

Then they would be looking at replacing the KC-10 fleet and from what I can tell that is not something the AF is looking to do right now. My guess is they will write the spec to allow for extra credit for "exceeding minimum standards" but not go over certain capacity limits. The whole thing will come down to what is written into the RFP.

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
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3390
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:33 am



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 68):
They may decide upfront that they want a bigger airplane, and will give extra credit for exceeding the minimum standards, in which case the B777 may be the right size for what the USAF is requesting.

Depends on what way of bid evaluation is used. Three main types are out there:
1. points-price ratio. All bidders must meet all mandatory specifications in RFP first. Secondly, they will be given a number of points depending on the degree to which they provide a rated requirement.
2. Compliance Lowest Price. Contract goes to whoever meets all mandatory requirements at lowest price.
3. Weighting. Used primarily when one was to place high emphasis on the technical part of bid. Higher emphasis is placed on the technical component of the bid than price.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:12 am



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 55):
Well just as credible as A330 ramp up

I was referring to the below:

Proposal risk. This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did so only after being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker. The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost. The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive schedule, adding cost.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml

Would the 777 tanker delivery schedule be able to match the A330 tanker one? 777 is new design while A330 would require new hangar in the US, but the above seems to infer that the 767 tanker schedule did not match that of the A330.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 57):
Probably *far* less if it's basedon the 777F platform. That platform has alot of the engineer work for a tanker already in it, as far as frame, wing, MLG, etc. work goes

I would think a pax model as the basis would be more interesting as it's lighter, and it seems fuel is favored over payload.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:54 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 66):
he doesn't have to win the state in the next election, just get one of their senators or a few congressman more willing to vote his way on other issues

Umm...that's the idea in dealing with representatives from all 50 states isn't it?  

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 66):
I guess you think the DoD should get Congress to pass a law like with Medicare Part D drugs where the government cannot negotiate prices with the suppliers

No, I don't.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 66):
Also how does the 777LRs wheel loading affect number of airfields it could go to.

It is a safe bet the USAF probably won't take it somewhere where its weight can't be safely supported.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 69):
Sole source is a death knell for "best deal".

But the USAF would get a tanker by sometime in the next decade. Otherwise, as someone characterized it on another site, we are in for "war without end". We will be discussing this subject in 2020, if we're still here....

[Edited 2009-06-18 03:07:55]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:23 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 62):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 49):
BTW, why is it the EADS Boom seemed to work on the KC-310 test airplane, but not on the RAAF KC-30B?

and you know for a fact they have tried and failed or won't try because of a problem??



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 64):
I don't know why the KC30 boom works on the 310 but not on the 330... Just odd.

Even the GAO sited in their agreement with Boeing that the EADS Boom has some problems, and did not work, at the time the report was written. The RAAF will not take delivery of their first KC-30B until 2010Q1, at least. That is one year behind schedule.

I don't know what problems EADS is having with their Boom, they are very tight lipped about it for fear of lossing the KC-X compitition, and possibly other A-330MRTT contracts. Boeing, OTOH, has been pretty open about problems they have had developing the KC-767, with the WARPS buffeting, etc. If you listen to Airbus, the A-330MRTT developement is running like a smooth running machine................yeah, right.  Yeah sure
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:57 pm



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 71):
I was referring to the below:

That is a completely different case. The KC-767 ADV was designed around an aircraft that hasn't been built yet. It uses -200 fuselage, -400 wing and 777 flight deck (IIRC). The KC-777, which will be built from B777F, does not suffer from the same risk. The risk that exist now is the conversion. Nothing to do with ramp up

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 71):
I would think a pax model as the basis would be more interesting as it's lighter, and it seems fuel is favored over payload.

This is FALSE. Higher maximum payload DOES NOT take anything from fuel capacity or capability to haul fuel. Sure there might be 1-2 tons extra weight for floor strengthening, but it will be trivial compared to the increased freight capacity.

Especially at full fuel, the 777F still has 125klbs payload available at MTOW, a luxury that the A330-200 does not have.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:28 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 74):
The KC-767 ADV was designed around an aircraft that hasn't been built yet. It uses -200 fuselage, -400 wing and 777 flight deck (IIRC).

Fair enough. Kind of a Frankentanker!!

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 74):
Higher maximum payload DOES NOT take anything from fuel capacity or capability to haul fuel

Indeed. I was thinking at max payload.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:51 pm



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 75):
Kind of a Frankentanker!!

I have never liked that term.

No matter how you look at it, all of the choices will be a "Frankentanker" as all are conversions. BTW, Boeing is still offering the B-767-200LRF for sale, so is it a "Frankenfreighter"? Although there have been no orders. That could be because of the current slump in the air freight business. Does sticking a cargo door on the passenger A-330-200 make it a "Frankenliner"? Airbus hasn't sold any of these to airlines, either. It is offered, but has only sold on the A-330MRTT.

The only airplane ever designed and built from the ground up, as a tanker, was the KC-135. All other tankers have been conversions from something else.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10132
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:51 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 66):
given B tried to rape the US taxpayer with the leasing deal why would a sole source contract in the future give them any incentive to give a good price??

Exactly the point, Boeing tried, why do people continue to state this as if they actually did, they tried and some how the fumbling bumbling govt. was able to stop them, is that not the way the process should work? No one is still throwing out the fact that the US Air Force and NG/ EADS tried to do the same thing so their product should not be considered, so at least give your govt credit for stopping both OEM's and their own Air Force from screwing over the taxpayors.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 69):
Without competition you have no chance of getting a "best deal". Even in the "real world" the best negotiator can not get "the best deal" if there is no one else to go to. Sole source is a death knell for "best deal".

This is a military project, its not as if the Air Force is going to use the a/c to make money, the commercial profit considerations are on the OEM side. A fixed price single source contract is the cheapest way this issue can be resolved, especially since the main consideration is an off the shelf product, both OEM's already produce their a/c, they are in service, the least modifications that they do the better for them and all concerned, see the horrible VH-71 project for comparison which was also an off the shelf purchase.

Disregard the bid process, state your requirements, let both know its a fixed price for 100 tankers and choose what you consider the best one. It is the only fair was since neither OEM has same type a/c, the KC-135 is one size, the KC-767 in whichever variant is larger, the KC-30 in whichever variant is even larger, what you end up with is bean counters playing with numbers of size, weight, off load, cost of ownership over x years, etc. etc etc. nothing to do with the best purchase price.

If best price is such an important factor and everyone is looking out for the peoples money, exactly how much govt. money has already been spent on this twice cancelled project?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23525
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:32 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
If you listen to Airbus, the A-330MRTT developement is running like a smooth running machine

As was A400M, till they could no longer hide the budget and schedule overruns.
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
 
trex8
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:43 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
Even the GAO sited in their agreement with Boeing that the EADS Boom has some problems, and did not work, at the time the report was written.

I will admit I have not read the whole report but AFAIK when the GAO report came out last year the EADS boom was still undergoing test and validation last summer.
http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/index.htm
there is certainly a delay with the RAAF planes and we will have to wait and see when they do actually get delivered but so far its still a better record than the Italian or Japanese 767s in terms of delay.
 
usair1489
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 5:22 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:20 pm

I've been thinking about this KC-X contest and Boeing's offerings in the mix. I know the A330 is the larger of two aircraft, but here's what's been going through my mind...

- Why did Boeing offer the KC-767 as only being based off the 767-200ERF? There's also a freighter version of the -300 that's available and I was curious why if Boeing wanted to keep the 767 line open that they could also put a "KC-767B" on the table. The B-model would be based off the -300F and although it is smaller than the KC-30 (A330-200) it's still a viable option if the Air Force wants a larger airplane but still smaller than the KC-30. Heck, you could throw a "KC-767C" into the mix - being based off the 767-400ER. The E-10 MC2 would have been based off the -400ER.

- I'm glad Boeing decided to throw in the KC-777 as another option. Yes, it's larger than the KC-767 and KC-30, but it's also another proven design. How about a KC-777A (based off the -200LRF) and a KC-777B (based off the -300ER)?

Okay, I'm going back into my cave...
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3124
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:46 pm

Quoting USAir1489 (Reply 80):
Why did Boeing offer the KC-767 as only being based off the 767-200ERF? There's also a freighter version of the -300 that's available

Looking at the aircraft data here on A.net (and assuming the tanker versions would be the same), the basic -200 is 155' long (nose to end of fuselage), the -300 is 176'. The -400 is 201' long.

As someone noted (in one of the many tanker threads), they didn't propose the -400, as with the longer fuselage length, once you added the refueling boom, you were limited on takeoff rotation angle, increasing runway requirements. This may also be the case with the -300, but I'm only making a supposition here.

[Edited 2009-06-18 09:48:15]
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:53 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Boeing announced that it will offer up a version of the 777 for the USAF tanker

It is not the first time, this is the 2006 glossy Boeing gave the USAF prior to the last RFP. The last RFP was written in such a way Boeing could have submitted the KC-777.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
The RAAF will not take delivery of their first KC-30B until 2010Q1, at least. That is one year behind schedule.

I think you will find that is on the agreed schedule, the RAAF went to Qantas/EADS and wanted changes, the RAAF is getting those additional capabilities, but they both agreed to change the schedule.

From what I understand, the KC-30 when it initially goes to the RAAF later this year will only have pod capability (to fill a the hole from the 707 tankers), and boom capability will be in place about a year later. The RAAF have changed their plans, at the time of the initial contract signing the F-111s were to be in service for some time, they have since purchased super hornets and the F-111s are leaving next year. Wedgetails very late, JSF not due to 2012 so the initial boom requirement does not exist at the moment.

The first two RAAF aircraft (A330s MSN 951 and 969) from what I understand is well down the modification path at the Qantas Defence Services facility in Brisbane (I think the second has arrived as well), and the A330 simulator facility is getting close to being complete at RAAF Amberly. EADS is still flight testing MSN 747 in Spain.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10132
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:07 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
The last RFP was written in such a way Boeing could have submitted the KC-777.

Was there not some back door communication where Boeing was told that the 777 was too large, I remember somthing about that whether it was a a.net rumour is the key.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:21 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 83):

Was there not some back door communication where Boeing was told that the 777 was too large, I remember somthing about that whether it was a a.net rumour is the key.

That was the mantra on a.net and from Boeing, the 767 was "right size", no one from the USAF came forward to say that that the A330 or 777 was too big in public, not even in the GAO report from memory.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10132
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:38 pm

Thanks Zeke, another rumour down in flames.

Cheers
 
trex8
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:36 pm

only thing I could find on anticipated delivery date

"The planned in-service date - comprising delivery of
two aircraft, completion of qualification testing and issue of the military airworthiness
certificate - is late-2009."

www.rumourcontrol.com.au/.../Project...Refuelling_Tanker_backgrounder.pdf -


original contracted date seems to be late 08
"The Royal Australian Air Force was the launch customer for the A330MRTT signing for five aircraft to re-equip No. 33 Sqn at RAAF Amberley. Deliveries are due to begin before the end of 2008 with the first two aircraft entering operational service in the second half of 2009."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...e%20World%27s%20Preferred%20Tanker

but delayed due to
"EADS has blamed the potentially six- to nine-month delay on three factors. "The RAAF directed changes to the MRTT configuration following contract award that has served to extend the development and testing programme [including modifications to the refuelling and avionics systems]," the company says.

The RAAF also asked EADS to add more time for flight testing "to ensure a more robust mission system" upon delivery. Finally, EADS also blames the delay on a mutual decision with the RAAF to send the first flight-test aircraft to appear at the Paris air show in June 2007."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...30-tanker-flight-test-delayed.html
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:02 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
That was the mantra on a.net and from Boeing

The A.Net armchair experts' opinion (yourself and the rest of us included) can be discarded out of hand. But if Boeing were saying that then there has to be some credibility to their belief. They are, after all, the world's second largest defense contractor with billions in business contracts from the world's largest defense organization. I would take their opinion over anyone's on this forum without question.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
no one from the USAF came forward to say that that the A330 or 777 was too big in public

There was a study in the early part of this decade published by the USAF that stated the A330 was too big of an aircraft for their needs. Of course, their "needs" changed when NG/EADS threatened to walk away from the bidding process and the RFP was modified to accommodate the "qualities" that the A330 brought to the table. And in that regard, that was probably Boeing's mistake. They should have played NG/EADS at their own game and pitched the 777 instead of hanging on to the conclusion of prior studies.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:10 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 86):
"The planned in-service date - comprising delivery of two aircraft, completion of qualification testing and issue of the military airworthiness certificate - is late-2009."

Which is what the Australian DoD is saying

"The new KC-30A is scheduled to enter service end 2009, following completion of testing in Australia and military type certification."

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/asd/air5402/air5402.cfm

Qantas Defence Services says similar

"The MRTT will be delivered between 2009 and 2011, with heavy maintenance to be undertaken at the new Qantas maintenance facility at Brisbane Airport and operational and logistics support to be provided at RAAF Base Amberley. "

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 86):
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...30-tanker-flight-test-delayed.html

That article is old news, "return-to-flight date for Aircraft One's extended flight-test programme is unclear", is no longer unclear, it has been back flight testing for some time now.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:39 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
Boeing is still offering the B-767-200LRF for sale, so is it a "Frankenfreighter"? Although there have been no orders. That could be because of the current slump in the air freight business.

I dunno KC, I kind of doubt Boeing is be willing to build an LRF for anybody today. It is a phantom product that designed to make it look like Boeing was splitting the KC-45 development costs with a freighter model. Sure, it may be in the product lineup but maybe that is just showmanship.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:10 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
The RAAF will not take delivery of their first KC-30B until 2010Q1, at least. That is one year behind schedule.

I think you will find that is on the agreed schedule, the RAAF went to Qantas/EADS and wanted changes, the RAAF is getting those additional capabilities, but they both agreed to change the schedule.

From what I understand, the KC-30 when it initially goes to the RAAF later this year will only have pod capability (to fill a the hole from the 707 tankers), and boom capability will be in place about a year later

Part of that is correct, but please see below as Trex8 wrote it better than I have.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
That was the mantra on a.net and from Boeing



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 86):
The RAAF also asked EADS to add more time for flight testing "to ensure a more robust mission system" upon delivery. Finally, EADS also blames the delay on a mutual decision with the RAAF to send the first flight-test aircraft to appear at the Paris air show in June 2007."



Quoting Par13del (Reply 83):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 82):
The last RFP was written in such a way Boeing could have submitted the KC-777.

Was there not some back door communication where Boeing was told that the 777 was too large, I remember somthing about that whether it was a a.net rumour is the key.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
That was the mantra on a.net and from Boeing

The A.Net armchair experts' opinion (yourself and the rest of us included) can be discarded out of hand. But if Boeing were saying that then there has to be some credibility to their belief. They are, after all, the world's second largest defense contractor with billions in business contracts from the world's largest defense organization. I would take their opinion over anyone's on this forum without question.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
no one from the USAF came forward to say that that the A330 or 777 was too big in public

There was a study in the early part of this decade published by the USAF that stated the A330 was too big of an aircraft for their needs. Of course, their "needs" changed when NG/EADS threatened to walk away from the bidding process and the RFP was modified to accommodate the "qualities" that the A330 brought to the table. And in that regard, that was probably Boeing's mistake. They should have played NG/EADS at their own game and pitched the 777 instead of hanging on to the conclusion of prior studies.

Agreed

Quoting Flighty (Reply 89):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
Boeing is still offering the B-767-200LRF for sale, so is it a "Frankenfreighter"? Although there have been no orders. That could be because of the current slump in the air freight business.

I dunno KC, I kind of doubt Boeing is be willing to build an LRF for anybody today. It is a phantom product that designed to make it look like Boeing was splitting the KC-45 development costs with a freighter model. Sure, it may be in the product lineup but maybe that is just showmanship.

At this point in time, I doubt EADS or Boeing would refuse selling an airplane to anyone, if it was ordered. I would guess the sales price would include developement costs.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:55 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 84):
That was the mantra on a.net and from Boeing, the 767 was "right size", no one from the USAF came forward to say that that the A330 or 777 was too big in public, not even in the GAO report from memory.

You are technically correct. The RAND AoA for the KC-135 replacement discusses the approved aircraft sizes. They range from 300,000 - 1,000,000 lbs MTOW and the 767,787,A330,A340, 777 and 747 are included and discussed in the report.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf

However, former USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Moseley is on record in supporting the 767. He was even taken to the woodshed by Sen. McCain over this as the links below will show. I suspect that Boeing and others took their cues from him.

Quote:
On the question of looking at some airframe other than a 767-class airplane, he said that a larger aircraft would sink “through the asphalt in the desert,” while one with a longer wingspan would be “too big because we can’t park enough to do Navy, Marine, coalition, and Air Force assets.” A smaller aircraft, he said, would not “carry the load for us.”

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...s/2004/April%202004/0404watch.aspx

Quote:
Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley drew fire Tuesday from Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain for public remarks the general made last week favoring the Air Force's current plan to lease and buy Boeing 767 aerial refueling tankers. McCain asserted Moseley's comments had precluded any option other than the 767.


http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/031004cdam1.htm

Boeing elected to offer the 767 and that was their decision. If they elected to listen to people who were not supposed to be telling them certain things (i.e. desired aircraft size), that was their fault. Now its possible they will offer the 'large' category 777 because those whisperers are gone (or are they?).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:43 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 86):
The RAAF also asked EADS to add more time for flight testing "to ensure a more robust mission system" upon delivery. Finally, EADS also blames the delay on a mutual decision with the RAAF to send the first flight-test aircraft to appear at the Paris air show in June 2007."

That article conflicts with the Australian DoD annual report page 28, under "AIR 5402 %u2013 ADF Air Refuelling Capability"

Quote:
The acquisition contract was signed in December
2004; the through-life support contract was signed
with Qantas in February 2007, with commencement
aligned with acceptance of the first modified A330
aircraft. A change to the acquisition contract was
approved in December 2006, for design changes to
the cockpit layout and the consequential change to a
two-phased conversion and test approach.


Phase 1 conversion activities began in June 2006,
with the aircraft taken out of stress-free condition by
removing the aircraft from jacks in February 2007.
Ground testing commenced in March 2007 as
planned. First flight was achieved on 15 June
2007, but Phase 1 flight testing is not expected
to commence until October 2007.

The lower than expected expenditure in 2006%u201307
was due primarily to reprogramming of milestones
and earned value payments as a result of the change
to a two-phase conversion and test approach. The
test readiness review is expected to occur by the end
of October 2007 in support of commencement of
Phase 2 test activities in early 2008.

The in-service date%u2014for two aircraft, qualification
tested and issued with military airworthiness
certificates%u2014remains as planned for late 2009.


from http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-...2006-2007_defence_DAR_09_v2_s2.pdf


Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
But if Boeing were saying that then there has to be some credibility to their belief.

Hmmmm, so every public press release Boeing has made in the last few years turned out to be factually correct, no reason to suspect they have never presented information in public which was not factual ?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
I would take their opinion over anyone's on this forum without question.

I seem to remember Boeing claiming the KC-30 could not do a break away maneuvers either (and I remember many one here, I think including yourself stressing that point)...and guess what, EADS flight tested the KC-30 at M0.92 with the boom down this year.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
There was a study in the early part of this decade published by the USAF that stated the A330 was too big of an aircraft for their needs

Please provide a link .... find it hard to believe, they have the KC-10.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
Of course, their "needs" changed when NG/EADS threatened to walk away from the bidding process and the RFP was modified to accommodate the "qualities" that the A330 brought to the table.

Again, provide a link...all I have seen on this is hearsay...

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 91):
However, former USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Moseley is on record in supporting the 767

Well the current USAF people actually supported, and selected the KC-30 for the KC-X. As for the 767, it was given in evidence that that was his personal opinion only, not the opinion of the USAF.

"As I originally indicated in my letter of March 12, 2004,
Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley
similarly touted the Air Force's proposal to lease and buy
Boeing 767s during recent budget hearings. In particular,
General Moseley provided ''opinion'' testimony suggesting
that the KC-767 tanker is the Air Force's only viable option.
For example, in testimony before the Projection Force
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, General
Moseley specifically rejected re-engining remaining KC-135Es
(as the DSB task force recommended); modifying used aircraft
(for example, DC-10s, also as the DSB task force suggested);
using contractor support services (as the GAO recently
opined), and other options that your office's AoA guidance
specifically required the Air Force to examine. While General
Moseley attempted to explain away his testimony as ''personal
opinion,'' at no time was he asked to provide his personal
opinion and at no time during his testimony did General
Moseley indicate that he was conveying a personal opinion.
Considering General Moseley's role as the chairman of the Air
Force Steering Group for Project Air Force and, respectfully,
despite your assurances in your March 17, 2004, letter, I
remain concerned that the Air Force and RAND have effectively
prejudged the outcome of the AoA regarding the Tanker Lease
Proposal."

from http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2004/s111904.html

[Edited 2009-06-20 04:48:04]
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:37 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 91):
Now its possible they will offer the 'large' category 777 because those whisperers are gone (or are they?).

No, according to the Rand study, the "medium sized" tanker was all airplanes between 300,000 lbs and 850,000 lbs (B-767, B-777, B-787, A-330, A-340, and A-350) MTOW. The "large sized" tanker were from 850,001 lbs to 1,300,000 lbs (B-747 and A-380) MTOW.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 92):
I seem to remember Boeing claiming the KC-30 could not do a break away maneuvers either (and I remember many one here, I think including yourself stressing that point)...and guess what, EADS flight tested the KC-30 at M0.92 with the boom down this year.

The GAO said the same thing, as well as the USAF questioning the capability of the KC-30 being capable to effectively and safely do the breakaway and other air refueling manuvers (refueling certain receiver types). This is not just a Boeing claim. The EADS flight tests at .92 M with the Boom down did not meet the USAF air refueling breakaway requirements, because the acceleration of the A-330MRTT was gradual from about .85 M to .92 M, taking about 8 minutes.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 92):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 87):
There was a study in the early part of this decade published by the USAF that stated the A330 was too big of an aircraft for their needs

Please provide a link .... find it hard to believe, they have the KC-10.

This was said during the 2002 KC-767 Lease deal. The USAF rejected the (then) proposed A-330TT offer as then they really only wanted to the KC-767, due to illegal activities.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 92):
Well the current USAF people actually supported, and selected the KC-30 for the KC-X. As for the 767, it was given in evidence that that was his personal opinion only, not the opinion of the USAF.

"As I originally indicated in my letter of March 12, 2004,
Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley
similarly touted the Air Force's proposal to lease and buy
Boeing 767s during recent budget hearings. In particular,
General Moseley provided ''opinion'' testimony suggesting
that the KC-767 tanker is the Air Force's only viable option.
For example, in testimony before the Projection Force
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, General
Moseley specifically rejected re-engining remaining KC-135Es
(as the DSB task force recommended); modifying used aircraft
(for example, DC-10s, also as the DSB task force suggested);
using contractor support services (as the GAO recently
opined), and other options that your office's AoA guidance
specifically required the Air Force to examine. While General
Moseley attempted to explain away his testimony as ''personal
opinion,'' at no time was he asked to provide his personal
opinion and at no time during his testimony did General
Moseley indicate that he was conveying a personal opinion.
Considering General Moseley's role as the chairman of the Air
Force Steering Group for Project Air Force and, respectfully,
despite your assurances in your March 17, 2004, letter, I
remain concerned that the Air Force and RAND have effectively
prejudged the outcome of the AoA regarding the Tanker Lease
Proposal."

Gen. Moseley was an idiot. When you are called before Congress for testomony, in an official capacity for the USAF Steering Group, you do not exress your own personal opinion. Everything you say to that committee is the official position of the USAF.

Gen. Moseley was never interested in the best deal for the tax payers, that is why he rejected the proposed reengining of the KC-135Es, and the looking at used commerical wide bodied airplanes for conversion. He only wanted new toys, specifically the KC-767, but, if forced to would also gladly accept the KC-30, as it is still a new build.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:25 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
The EADS flight tests at .92 M with the Boom down did not meet the USAF air refueling breakaway requirements, because the acceleration of the A-330MRTT was gradual from about .85 M to .92 M, taking about 8 minutes.

No, Boeing told the GAO that the KC-30 could not fly faster than M0.83, and submitted the FAA TCDS as evidence.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
This was said during the 2002 KC-767 Lease deal

Should be easy for someone to dig up the exact words in context then.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
Gen. Moseley was an idiot.

Wouldn't go that far, his career has been very impressive. I think he would prefer to take congress on in his F-15 on his turf, than behind a desk on their turf. He is certainty is no politician.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:08 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
No, according to the Rand study, the "medium sized" tanker was all airplanes between 300,000 lbs and 850,000 lbs (B-767, B-777, B-787, A-330, A-340, and A-350) MTOW. The "large sized" tanker were from 850,001 lbs to 1,300,000 lbs (B-747 and A-380) MTOW.

If you look at page 8 of the RAND study it says this:

Medium 300,000 - 550,000 MTOW

Large 550,000 - 1,000,000 MTOW

Also take a look at page 12 under the heading "Cost -Effectiveness of Alternatives. BTW...the KC-777 is based on the 777LR (777F) which has a MTOW of 766,000. Even Boeing called it a "Large Strategic Tanker". Hope this helps to clear things up.


http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-777.htm
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23525
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:37 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
No, according to the Rand study, the "medium sized" tanker was all airplanes between 300,000 lbs and 850,000 lbs (B-767, B-777, B-787, A-330, A-340, and A-350) MTOW. The "large sized" tanker were from 850,001 lbs to 1,300,000 lbs (B-747 and A-380) MTOW.

Yes, and that "category" from smallest to largest increases by a factor of 2.5. I've always wondered why anyone would lump a 300,000 lb aircraft in the same category as a 850,000 lb aircraft.
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
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:46 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 94):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 93):
Gen. Moseley was an idiot.

Wouldn't go that far, his career has been very impressive.

He was part of the Gen. McPeak (Former USAF COS) fighter mafia. Tankers, bombers, recces, and trash haulers are not his strong suit, even though he does have some KC-135 time and once headed AMC.

TropicBird, thanks. But, the Rand study also said on pages 15-16 the US doesn't really know how long the KC-135 will last;

Technical Condition of the KC-135 Fleet
There are substantial technical uncertainties associated with operating the KC-135 fleet into
the 2040s. The current (December 2005) assessment of the flight-hour life of the KC-135 fleet and
the expected future flying-hour programs together imply that these aircraft can operate into the 2040s. It cannot be said with high confidence that this is not the case, although there are risks
associated with a fleet whose age is in the 80- to 90-year range. It can also not be said with high
confidence that the current fleet can indeed operate into the 2040s without major cost increases or
operational shortfalls, up to and including grounding of large parts of the fleet for substantial
lengths of time, due to currently unknown technical problems that may arise. The nation does not
currently have sufficient knowledge about the state of the KC-135 fleet to project its technical
condition over the next several decades with high confidence.
A major scientific and engineering effort to increase the state of knowledge about the technical
condition of the KC-135 fleet would improve the nation’s understanding of the future costs and
risks associated with operating the KC-135 fleet for the next 40 years. This effort might include
full-scale fatigue testing and teardown inspections of some aircraft. Such an effort would improve
the scientific basis for assessing the technical condition of the fleet.

It also concluded the most cost effective replacement for the KC-135 fleet was a mix of medium and large tankers.
Conclusion
The primary findings of the AoA are as follows:
• A fleet of medium to large (300,000 to 1,000,000 pounds maximum gross takeoff weight)
commercial derivatives is the most cost-effective alternative for KC-135 recapitalization.
That is, such a fleet would provide the required refueling capability at the lowest overall cost,
defined as the present value of all future production and operating costs. Fleets consisting of
just one kind of such aircraft or consisting of two kinds of them have comparable costeffectiveness.
• If the AoA-guidance KC-135 fleet meets or exceeds the future aerial refueling requirement,
the present value of all life-cycle costs, both of operating the KC-135s until they are retired
and of acquiring and operating the replacement aircraft, is relatively insensitive to the
timing of recapitalization. In this case, the decision of when to recapitalize should be based on
considerations other than the present value of life-cycle costs. Arguments favoring earlier (sooner
or more rapid) recapitalization include hedging against the technical risk associated with the
KC-135 fleet, the existence of future constraints on annual procurement budgets, and the
additional capabilities of the new tankers. Arguments favoring delayed (later or less rapid)
recapitalization include hedging against uncertainties that could reduce the desirability of
new tankers and the existence of very near-term budget constraints.
• If additional tankers must be acquired to meet the future requirement, a higher cost will
be associated with closing the resulting gap between capabilities and requirements more
rapidly. How rapidly to close the gap, i.e., how quickly to raise the capability level to the
requirement, and thus how much higher a cost to bear, is a matter for senior decisionmaker
judgment.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf

Rand did not make any recommendations as to the purchase of new tankers, or even keeping the current KC-135s operational until the 2040s. It only pointed out SOME of the advantages and disadvantages of the AoA for the KC-135.

I do have a problem with their conclusion on converting the KC-135Es to the KC-135R as not being cost effective.

"A further question when considering the timing of recapitalization is whether it is cost-effective
to convert KC-135Es to KC-135Rs. This conversion would result in a small (about 2 percent)
increase in overall KC-135 fleet effectiveness. KC-135E to KC-135R conversion only has present-value
cost savings if the converted aircraft will be operated beyond the late 2030s. If the aircraft will be retired
before then, there is a net present-value loss due to conversion because the sustainment cost
savings would not amortize the capital cost." Page 15.

I don't see how they arrive at the KC-135 fleet effectiveness would only increase by 2%, if you reengine 73 KC-135Es (the number used in the report). If that is true, what would reengining all 153 KC-135Es would be?
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:12 pm

I have no problem converting the KC-135E's. In its study RAND even considered buying used aircraft and converting them but the Congress and USAF wanted only 'new' aircraft.

A retired military officer who worked for a Senator on defense appropriations told us that Congress did want to once again go through the problems they had with the used 707's they bought. I tend to disagree but that is why you are not seeing any used 767's, DC-10's for the KC-X program etc.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:30 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 98):
A retired military officer who worked for a Senator on defense appropriations told us that Congress did want to once again go through the problems they had with the used 707's they bought

Corrected statement by me:

A retired military officer who worked for a Senator on defense appropriations told us Congress did NOT want to once again go through the problems they had with the used 707's they bought".

Sorry for any possible confusion....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 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