Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
astuteman
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 5:37 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
astuteman, it is much easier to "nit-pick" the EADS product because just about everytime the engines are started on the RAAF KC-30, EADS throws out a press release. You don't see the "nit-picking" of Boeing's offer because they have released few details about the KC-767NG publicly.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time....  
Quoting Beta (Reply 48):
Sure, it's posturing. But why need to? If the contract is in Boeing's pocket as many believe, why does it need to resort to such posturing?

Boeing would be almost remiss in not trying every "trick in the book", whatever the circumstances. As you say, the outcome is not guaranteed until the fat lady sings (probably not even then in this case..)

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Hmm...I read most of these threads, first time I have seen you ever ask such questions of the "always perfect" KC-767

Such was my perception. As I say I could be wrong.

Rgds
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 11:22 am

I still don't get all the theatre (unless everybody in that is bribed by both sides, and reveives new bribes every day the theatre continues ).

The A330 has the advantage to create an A330 line in Mobile ( which can take over all the A330 productions including freighters once Toulouse is busy to build the A350 ). But there is the problem with dependency on a foreigner.

The B767 ensures jobs in Seattle, keeps that line alive, with also a limited potential to civil sales. But there is the problem with dependency on Boeing.

Both solutions are very different. The 767-200 is the far smaller aircraft, can deliver enough fuel for most missions, and has little capacity in the secondary transport role. The A332 is far bigger, can deliver enough fuel, has the far bigger transport capacity, but is more ambitious on airfield requirements.

Everybody who thinks about this will come to the conclusion that the only rational decision in this case is "How many of each of them?".

How many tankers do you need on airfields that would require big structural changes? Defines the minimal number of KC767. How many extra transport capacity do you need? The total fleet size is big enough anyways to justify two types, if in the end you replace all the KC135 and the KC10 with an optimal mix.
 
cmb56
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 12:35 pm

Couple of quick points or observations.

1. Even the creaking old A300 design has center of gravity control using fuel moved aft and forward using a tank in the horizonal tail. No fuel is stored there it is used strictly for CG control to optimize the center of lift vs center of gravity. The 767 has no such system.

2. For either bidder if the profit margin is so slim that the aircraft would be built as a government sponsored jobs program then why participate? Profits going to the share holder is what both of these companies are about. EADS has the edge if it comes down to building them at near zero margin. The EU tends to view keeping jobs as important as profit. Not so much in the US.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 1:44 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 52):
For either bidder if the profit margin is so slim that the aircraft would be built as a government sponsored jobs program then why participate?

You answered your own question with the following.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 52):
EADS has the edge if it comes down to building them at near zero margin. The EU tends to view keeping jobs as important as profit. Not so much in the US.

There is the additional benefit of the other country paying for the product whatever the price versus your own population who may have an issue, no different than a trade surplus, if folks buy more from you than you from them how is that your problem?

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 51):
How many tankers do you need on airfields that would require big structural changes? Defines the minimal number of KC767.

Except the RFP list a specific amount 179 which makes this sort of financial reasoning a non-starter. If the price to be paid was fixed, then the smaller cheaper a/c would produce more absolute numbers which is more important to the US Air Force since each a/c only has one boom and the bulk of their a/c use the boom method.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 51):
How many extra transport capacity do you need?

According to the latest signs, none, they are claiming that they have enough custom built cargo a/c which are more valuable in operation over a multi-purpose frame.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 51):
The total fleet size is big enough anyways to justify two types, if in the end you replace all the KC135 and the KC10 with an optimal mix.

Except they are also claiming that they will have another RFP to replace the KC-10 and this RFP is specific to the KC-135 replacement.

Reality is that they are allowing a bidder to bid an a/c which is as large as the next tanker a/c to be replaced - KC-10 - so how do you eliminate the issue of size? Maybe if someone parked a KC-135, 767, A330 and KC-10 side by side a light bulb would go off somewhere so that this whole mess could be sorted out.
If that means EADS is told their a/c is too large mandating increased infrastructure cost so be it.
If that means that both RFP's should be combined into one so be it, at least both OEM's would be able to bid a/c which are closer in size versus the current offering.

Size is the biggest issue in this RFP in my opinion, the rest of the stuff banded around is pure PR, both a/c are flying around today, even in the tanker configuratuon, so we know that they both fly, can deliver fuel and can carry cargo.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Weren't most, if not all the US weapons in European Military Forces decided upon with a compitition?

So, the F-104 competed against who, exactly?. The politician with the biggest wallet?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
EADS throws out a press release. You don't see the "nit-picking" of Boeing's offer because they have released few details about the KC-767NG publicly.

Because is still a paper airplane. It would be silly for Boeing to issue a press release every time an engineer draws a line :-P
 
astuteman
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 3:04 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 52):
The EU tends to view keeping jobs as important as profit. Not so much in the US.

Or at least that's the myth promulgated on a-net to put Airbus down.
Rhetoric and nothing else.

Quoting par13del (Reply 53):
You answered your own question

No he didn't. He just spouted a tired (and tiresome) old A-net mantra   

Rgds
 
dl1011
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:42 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 3:30 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 52):
1. Even the creaking old A300 design has center of gravity control using fuel moved aft and forward using a tank in the horizonal tail. No fuel is stored there it is used strictly for CG control to optimize the center of lift vs center of gravity. The 767 has no such system.

The A310's that I worked on had so many faults with the stab fuel system that it was basically useless. I don't have a lot of 330 experience but I have seen the same types of faults.

Has AB improved this system?
 
dl1011
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:42 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 3:41 pm

Both A/C can perform the mission. IMHO, Boeing should get the contract unless the 330 is FAR superior than the 767. Not 1% or 5% better but more like 25% or more.

As a Boeing employee, I obviously have a somewhat biased view. As a U.S. taxpayer, I want my tax dollars to go to a U.S. company and not a foreign company if at all possible. Having worked on Boeing and Airbus aircraft, I also believe that the Boeing a/c would be much more reliable and durable.

As a KC135 replacement, the 767 is probably a better choice. Now when it comes time to replace the KC-10's, a 330 size airplane would probably be a better match.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 4:07 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Boeing aircraft however generally do not do that, with the exception of the 747 which moved fuel forward from the tail, however fuel was not moved aft during flight.

source please...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 4:54 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 58):
source please...

For which bit ? the 744 fuel transfer, I am type rated on the 744. The 744 FCOM says

"Passenger
The horizontal stabilizer tank contains two AC-powered transfer/jettison pumps.
Each pump can transfer all fuel in the horizontal stabilizer tank to the CWT."

Not all 744s have the Horizontal Stabiliser Tank, e.g. the 744F/744BCF and some operators like BA elected not to get them in some of their aircraft. As for the rest of the Boeing types, it is all in the FCOMS, you can see the fuel systems for most of them at www.smartcockpit.com "My Aircraft" "Boeing" then select the type you want to look up.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 5:53 pm

nice site, my anti-virus/unsafe site alarms went beserk!!!!

I was questioning the other Boeing models as fuel transfer pumps for a/c with fuel in the wing stub were a problem with supplier delinquencies.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 7:58 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):

I would say your percentages are a little off. The USAF and RAAF military planners care, as well as the tanker crews. I also noticed the extra reenforcing that the KC-30 needed around the USARRSI. The C-141B, KC-10, C-130, and other aircraft that use the USARRI don't need that muc

All aircraft with a slipway installed need reinforcing around it. It is no different to a window or door in the fuselage, they all need reinforcing around them.

Correct, I did not say theu did not have reinforcing, I only questioned the amount of reinforcing that was on that KC-30. I looks like twice the amount that is on the KC-10 and C-130. The old C-141 had a built up housing for the USARRSI, and fuel line going into the center wing section, connecting with the fuel manifold.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
Correct, but neither is the RAAF and RAF KC-30/A-330MRTT. They are not to the USAF specs., either.

One of the specs that the RFP asks for is for a boom that is capable of 1200 gal/min refuelling another KC-X, that photo demonstrates both.

Yes, the specs. do call for a 1200 gpm max flow rate. Yes, the RFP does call for the KC-X to be air refuelable, and now we have seen pictures of the KC-30 doing that (the ITAF KC-767A did that back in 2007, IIRC). But the picture or PR that goes with it does not show/say anything about the Boom transferring at the 1200 gpm rate. I have not seen an EADS PR saying the KC-30 Boom has demonstrated that capability, have you?

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
What kind of PR mumbo-jumbo is that?

The photo says it all, the UARRSI is not flying by itself, it is built into a KC-30.

Then why the strange wording about refueling the USARRSI and not simply saying KC-30 #1 has successfully refueled KC-30 #2 at the maximum transfer rate of 1200 gpm? Don't tell me they were concerned about the landing weight, as to demonstrat that capability could be done with only transferring 1200-2400 lbs of fuel, or about 1-2 minutes.

In the KC-135, with all four air refueling pumps turned on (they don't start until a "pumping condition" like a contact is established, it takes about 5-8 seconds to go from a zero fuel transfer rate to the full rate. Does anyone know if this is the same on the KC-30, or KC-767?

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
Did they refuel only the UARRSI or did they refuel the A-330MRTT? Did any of this fuel actually make it into the fuel tankes of the receiver? If it did, how did those fuel tanks react to the increase in fuel? How well did the fuel quantity indacators, floats and electrical connections work? What about the fuel vent system, did that work inflight? Were the in tank pressures increased, reduced, or stayed about the same? What about the fuel system valves and transfer fuel system? Was there a weight imbalance that could have effected the CG? There are many other engineering questions that need to be asked by the RAAF (and USAF) of EADS.

The KC-30 fuel tanks are basically on the CG, it does not have a large CG shift during any stage of flight. The fuel indicators on the KC-30 work the same way as they normally do during any other internal transfer, centre tank to wing, outers to inners, or tail to inners, or even during ground refuelling. I am not sure exactly without opening up the manual, but the number of fuel level sensors for an A330 would be up around 50, and they are not floats, they are capacitance type.

Thanks, I did not know the A-330 uses capacitence type to measure fuel quanity. The A-330/KC-30 fuel tanks are not 'on the cg', but more like being around or near the CG. If you burn fuel from the outers only, and drain the fuel from the stab, doesn't the CG move foreward? If you only burn from the centerwing and inners, again draining the stab, doesn't the CG move aft?

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
The fuel vent system obviously worked, if it did not work, the wing would have exploded, the USAF have had happen a few times in the past. All A320/330/340/380 aircraft can transfer fuel between tanks during flight, adding fuel to a tank in flight is not something new for these airframes. Boeing aircraft however generally do not do that, with the exception of the 747 which moved fuel forward from the tail, however fuel was not moved aft during flight.

I asked because the surge tank/vent system of the KC-135 is twice the size of the same systems on the B-707.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):

I ask these same questions of the KC-767.

Hmm...I read most of these threads, first time I have seen you ever ask such questions of the "always perfect" KC-767.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 50):
Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
Hmm...I read most of these threads, first time I have seen you ever ask such questions of the "always perfect" KC-767

Such was my perception. As I say I could be wrong.

Then both of you should remember the KC-767 is, and always has been my second choice for the USAF tanker. My first choice has always been to reengine the KC-135E, either the KC-135R or added to the E-8C reengine program. I have said that countless times.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 51):
Everybody who thinks about this will come to the conclusion that the only rational decision in this case is "How many of each of them?".

How many tankers do you need on airfields that would require big structural changes? Defines the minimal number of KC767. How many extra transport capacity do you need? The total fleet size is big enough anyways to justify two types, if in the end you replace all the KC135 and the KC10 with an optimal mix.

Currently, in the USAF fleet there are 415 KC-135s and 59 KC-10s, for a KC-135 to KC-10 ratio of about 7:1. To achieve the same KC-767 to KC30 ratio of 7:1, we would buy some 25 KC-30s (about 2 12 UE squadrons) and some 154 KC-767s (about 13 UE squadrons). However that would not make military sense because the KC-30 carries about 110,000 less fuel than the KC-10, and cannot carry the same cargo load (but can carry more pax).

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 52):
Couple of quick points or observations.

1. Even the creaking old A300 design has center of gravity control using fuel moved aft and forward using a tank in the horizonal tail. No fuel is stored there it is used strictly for CG control to optimize the center of lift vs center of gravity. The 767 has no such system.

2. For either bidder if the profit margin is so slim that the aircraft would be built as a government sponsored jobs program then why participate? Profits going to the share holder is what both of these companies are about. EADS has the edge if it comes down to building them at near zero margin. The EU tends to view keeping jobs as important as profit. Not so much in the US.

You are right about the A-300, but the USAF tanker version for the KC-767 will have body fuel tanks, which can be used to move the CG throughout the full approved CG range (just like the KC-135 and KC-10 does now). The USAF has addressed the fixed price compalints of bith offerers, by looking at the price again at Block 5 and a few other blocks. The RFP also allows the bidders to submit a unit price with up to a 12% profit margin (although I doubt Boeing or EADS will put that much profit into either proposal).

Quoting Acheron (Reply 54):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Weren't most, if not all the US weapons in European Military Forces decided upon with a compitition?

So, the F-104 competed against who, exactly?.

Going back to the 1950s and 1960s to find that? Other than England and France back then, there were no other European fighter builders.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 50):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
astuteman, it is much easier to "nit-pick" the EADS product because just about everytime the engines are started on the RAAF KC-30, EADS throws out a press release. You don't see the "nit-picking" of Boeing's offer because they have released few details about the KC-767NG publicly.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time....

Oh course  
Quoting Beta (Reply 48):
Lately some rumblings in press reports have reported that DoD has quietly changed some of the key evaluation parameters to favor the "bigger-is-better" EADS tanker despite steadfast denials. That would certainly jive with Lumberton's journalist source in earlier post.

I have also heard those unconfirmed rumors. This will only bring on another GAO investigation as well as the wrath of Congress, the taxpayers, and the unions. It would be a foolish thing for the DOD/USAF to do that again.
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 8:38 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
However that would not make military sense because the KC-30 carries about 110,000 less fuel than the KC-10, and cannot carry the same cargo load (but can carry more pax)

Perhaps USAF can consider KC748 for KC10 replacement. We know they will need to design in the aerial refueling capabilities for Air Force One anyway and a lot of the communications and defense systems, so there is already a lot of R&D saving. Besides it is bigger, can carry more of everything .... . Then we will also have the airborne laser fleet so commonality is also another big plus.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 19, 2010 11:56 pm

A KC-747-8F tanker or a KC-777F tanker would be a good replacement for the KC-10s, but that compitition will not begin for 15-20 years.

Outside of the YAL-1A, I don't know if the DOD/USAF will buy any airborne laser airplanes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 12:45 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 60):
I was questioning the other Boeing models as fuel transfer pumps for a/c with fuel in the wing stub were a problem with supplier delinquencies.

It is not fuel transfer from tank to tank in other Boeing models, just tank to engine, even when using cross feed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):

Correct, I did not say theu did not have reinforcing, I only questioned the amount of reinforcing that was on that KC-30. I looks like twice the amount that is on the KC-10 and C-130.


All the structure is below the skin, you cannot see anything on the KC-30 or the other types you mention from the outside, you originally said "The C-141B, KC-10, C-130, and other aircraft that use the USARRI don't need that muc", muc is used as slag for "stuff" in different parts of the world.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
Yes, the specs. do call for a 1200 gpm max flow rate. Yes, the RFP does call for the KC-X to be air refuelable, and now we have seen pictures of the KC-30 doing that (the ITAF KC-767A did that back in 2007, IIRC). But the picture or PR that goes with it does not show/say anything about the Boom transferring at the 1200 gpm rate. I have not seen an EADS PR saying the KC-30 Boom has demonstrated that capability, have you?

The KC-30 receiving fuel from the KC-30 was the third type of aircraft to refuel the type via the UARRSI, the KC-30 has previously been boom refuelled by the KC-135 and A310 ARBS testbed.

As for PR showing the boom at it higher capability, they this on a video posted on http://a330mrtt.com/MRTTSolution/Tanker.aspx under the ARBS page


Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 10:51 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 64):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):

Correct, I did not say theu did not have reinforcing, I only questioned the amount of reinforcing that was on that KC-30. I looks like twice the amount that is on the KC-10 and C-130.


All the structure is below the skin, you cannot see anything on the KC-30 or the other types you mention from the outside, you originally said "The C-141B, KC-10, C-130, and other aircraft that use the USARRI don't need that muc", muc is used as slag for "stuff" in different parts of the world.

That's what I get for not typing it fully, 'muc' should have been the word 'much'.

Quoting zeke (Reply 64):
Quoting kanban (Reply 60):
I was questioning the other Boeing models as fuel transfer pumps for a/c with fuel in the wing stub were a problem with supplier delinquencies.

It is not fuel transfer from tank to tank in other Boeing models, just tank to engine, even when using cross feed.

But we are talking about Boeing military aircraft, or more likely Boeing commerical aircraft converted for military use. The KC-135, B-52, C-137, E-3, E-4, E-8, VC-25, C-32, etc. all have tank to tank inflight transfer capability. For some, it is only gravity transfer, others can use boost or stronger pumps for inflight tank to tank transfer.

You are probibly right about the commerical versions that are not converted to US Military use. But remember the A-330 that was crossing the Atlantic years ago that ran out of gas and had to glide into Lages AB, Azores (sorry, I forgot the airline)? IIRC there was a fuel leak around the #2 engine plumbing the crew never noticed (I don't know if the systems at that time would have made them awear of the leak), and transferred fuel from left to right wing tanks and also used crossfeed from the left to supply fuel to both engines.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 11:24 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
That's what I get for not typing it fully, 'muc' should have been the word 'much'.

Nevertheless its questionable how you think you can evaluate the amount of reinforcing by having a short look an a "PR" photo!

Honestly, KC, I know you are knowledgeable about airborne tankers, much more than I am. But your deep interpretation of a PR message and your related questions are somehow...cheap.

You know fairly well, that NOBODY reading a PR message is interested in the fuel flow rate, the technical and engineering consequences of fuel tank pressure or the vent system. Its just that, a "PR" message.
RAAF and RAF surely DON'T rely on PR messages to get info on the real details.
You're contribition would be much more valued, if you would refrain from "provoking" with cheap shots on a PR article.

In any case, and back to topic: I still cannot understand how an airforce can determine a fixed amount of aircraft for a job while knowing fairly wel that the competing products are nowhere near equal in capability.
Of course not being in loop for the REAL needs of USAF for a nextgen tanker, as a sensible tax payer my first reaction would be an upgrade of the existing frames with new engines, when the frames have life left in them. And it seems, that is the case.

Quoting DL1011 (Reply 57):
As a Boeing employee, I obviously have a somewhat biased view. As a U.S. taxpayer, I want my tax dollars to go to a U.S. company and not a foreign company if at all possible.

Quite understandable. I still have the view, and expressed it in the helo for Germany thread, that on a competing market place, countries should buy what is the best product for the least money. That SHOULD be true for Germany as well as the US.

Quoting DL1011 (Reply 57):
Having worked on Boeing and Airbus aircraft, I also believe that the Boeing a/c would be much more reliable and durable.

Statistics of course don't agree with you here.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 12:02 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):

But we are talking about Boeing military aircraft, or more likely Boeing commerical aircraft converted for military use. The KC-135, B-52, C-137, E-3, E-4, E-8, VC-25, C-32, etc. all have tank to tank inflight transfer capability. For some, it is only gravity transfer, others can use boost or stronger pumps for inflight tank to tank transfer.

The comment I originally made referred to the A320/330/340/380/747 and KC-30, I did not refer to the models you mentioned, neither did you in the text I quoted. The 767 does not transfer fuel between tanks, the KC-767 may, but that is an additional system and weight that is not found in the base airframe.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
But remember the A-330 that was crossing the Atlantic years ago that ran out of gas and had to glide into Lages AB, Azores (sorry, I forgot the airline)? IIRC there was a fuel leak around the #2 engine plumbing the crew never noticed (I don't know if the systems at that time would have made them awear of the leak), and transferred fuel from left to right wing tanks and also used crossfeed from the left to supply fuel to both engines.

That was Air Transat Flight 236, fuel did not leak from the tanks, it leaked from a fuel line within the engine. It was caused by improper maintenance procedure and parts, and Air Transat received one of the largest, if not the largest fine in the history of Transport Canada.

The only way that the crew could have stopped this would have been to shut the engine down, which would have closed the low pressure fuel valve (the "pylon" valve), no aircraft that I am aware of measures the amount of fuel passing through the low pressure fuel valve and then how much is actually used by the engine. All the crew were aware of was a fuel imbalance between tanks, and they tried to correct that imbalance, unknown to them that the fuel line within the engine was broken and fuel was effectively being vented overboard.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 2:03 pm

I don't belieave that a E-3 can take 1200GPM fuel during a AR unless maybe they are just filling the center wing.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 2:43 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 68):
I don't belieave that a E-3 can take 1200GPM fuel during a AR unless maybe they are just filling the center wing.

The E-3 is 6600 lb/min off the KC-135 and 6000 lb/min off the KC-10. The C-17 is 6800 lb/min off the KC-135 and 8400 lb/min off the KC-10.

What the KC-30 can deliver to them is not widely known, nor is what the KC-30 can receive.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 3:00 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 69):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 68):
I don't belieave that a E-3 can take 1200GPM fuel during a AR unless maybe they are just filling the center wing.

The E-3 is 6600 lb/min off the KC-135 and 6000 lb/min off the KC-10. The C-17 is 6800 lb/min off the KC-135 and 8400 lb/min off the KC-10.

What the KC-30 can deliver to them is not widely known, nor is what the KC-30 can receive.

So for some simple math
1200 gal multiplied by 6.7 ( the average specific gravity of JP-8) = 8040lb/min
6600 lb's divided by 6.7= 985 U.S. Gallons PM
Hmmh.
it seems that that 50 year old -135 drum and cable controlled hydrualically actuated high speed boom has not been improved upon so much.
Having intimate knowledge of a E-3 AR manifolds I would be leary of putting the pressure of 1200gpm on them. The most I ever ground refuel a 747 was a little over 800 gpm and it was taking it as fast as the ground hydrant system could pump.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 3:59 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
But we are talking about Boeing military aircraft, or more likely Boeing commerical aircraft converted for military use. The KC-135, B-52, C-137, E-3, E-4, E-8, VC-25, C-32, etc. all have tank to tank inflight transfer capability. For some, it is only gravity transfer, others can use boost or stronger pumps for inflight tank to tank transfer.

I think the E-6 should be included as well...
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 4:21 pm

first we argue about transfer rate from a tanker now we debate the rate of the receiver can take, surely the off flow rate is controllable to match the intake rate... since most of the acceptance rates noted are below the RPF offload rate, what a/c need the higher rate?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 5:09 pm

Quoting Nicoeddf (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
That's what I get for not typing it fully, 'muc' should have been the word 'much'.


Nevertheless its questionable how you think you can evaluate the amount of reinforcing by having a short look an a "PR" photo!

Actually, I studied the picture very closely.

Quoting Nicoeddf (Reply 66):
Honestly, KC, I know you are knowledgeable about airborne tankers, much more than I am. But your deep interpretation of a PR message and your related questions are somehow...cheap.

I know the KC-30 can do the tanker mission, it has demonstrated that. Some here like to take the PR and interpet it as complying with the USAF RFP. It odes not, at least as far as the information released.

Here is one example (and I am not picking on Zeke or anyone else.

Quoting zeke (Reply 49):
One of the specs that the RFP asks for is for a boom that is capable of 1200 gal/min refuelling another KC-X, that photo demonstrates both.

I agree with Zeke here the picture does show the KC-30 in contact with another KC-30. But that picture, or the accompaning story does not say anything about the fuel was transferred at 1200 gpm. The KC-30 is designed to accept this rate as a receiver and pump up to that rate as a tanker. I have not seen anything where the 1200 gpm rate has been achieved. The highest rate I have seen is the 6000 ppm (about 895.5 USG) to the French E-3F, which is near the max rate the E-3 can on-load fuel at..

Quoting Nicoeddf (Reply 66):
Of course not being in loop for the REAL needs of USAF for a nextgen tanker, as a sensible tax payer my first reaction would be an upgrade of the existing frames with new engines, when the frames have life left in them. And it seems, that is the case.

That is also my first choice, reengine the KC-135Es.

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):

But we are talking about Boeing military aircraft, or more likely Boeing commerical aircraft converted for military use. The KC-135, B-52, C-137, E-3, E-4, E-8, VC-25, C-32, etc. all have tank to tank inflight transfer capability. For some, it is only gravity transfer, others can use boost or stronger pumps for inflight tank to tank transfer.

The comment I originally made referred to the A320/330/340/380/747 and KC-30, I did not refer to the models you mentioned, neither did you in the text I quoted. The 767 does not transfer fuel between tanks, the KC-767 may, but that is an additional system and weight that is not found in the base airframe.

This is not about what the commerical airplanes can do, or not do. It is about the military versions of the commerical airliners. Yes, the KC-767 has more of a fuel system, and plumbing that the B-767 airliners. But the KC-30 also has more plumbing than the A-330 airliner does, too. It would have a manifold running almost the lenght of the fuselage to connect the receptical and the Boom to the fuel tanks. It would have another manifold connecting the Boom to the stab trim tanks so when you retract the Boom the fuel in it has someplace to go.

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
But remember the A-330 that was crossing the Atlantic years ago that ran out of gas and had to glide into Lages AB, Azores (sorry, I forgot the airline)? IIRC there was a fuel leak around the #2 engine plumbing the crew never noticed (I don't know if the systems at that time would have made them awear of the leak), and transferred fuel from left to right wing tanks and also used crossfeed from the left to supply fuel to both engines.

That was Air Transat Flight 236, fuel did not leak from the tanks, it leaked from a fuel line within the engine. It was caused by improper maintenance procedure and parts, and Air Transat received one of the largest, if not the largest fine in the history of Transport Canada.

Thanks, I forgot which airlie it was. While it may be difficult to detect this kind of leak, it may not show on the engine fuel flow gauges on the flat screen, the crew did know the enbalance between the left and right main wing tanks was increasing. They did try to trouble shoot the problem, but did not come up with the answer. I did say the #2 engine plumbing was the siurse of the leak, I did not say the leak was in a fuel tank.

Quoting zeke (Reply 67):
The only way that the crew could have stopped this would have been to shut the engine down, which would have closed the low pressure fuel valve (the "pylon" valve), no aircraft that I am aware of measures the amount of fuel passing through the low pressure fuel valve and then how much is actually used by the engine. All the crew were aware of was a fuel imbalance between tanks, and they tried to correct that imbalance, unknown to them that the fuel line within the engine was broken and fuel was effectively being vented overboard.

I know hind site is 20/20 but had this crew figuered it out, they would have shut down #2 and diverted to Lages anyway but would have had power from the #1 engine to make the approach and landing, which is much better than two engines out.

Quoting zeke (Reply 69):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 68):
I don't belieave that a E-3 can take 1200GPM fuel during a AR unless maybe they are just filling the center wing.

The E-3 is 6600 lb/min off the KC-135 and 6000 lb/min off the KC-10. The C-17 is 6800 lb/min off the KC-135 and 8400 lb/min off the KC-10.

What the KC-30 can deliver to them is not widely known, nor is what the KC-30 can receive.

I believe the KC-30 is designed to receive fuel at up to 1200 gpm (8040 ppm)

Quoting kanban (Reply 71):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):
But we are talking about Boeing military aircraft, or more likely Boeing commerical aircraft converted for military use. The KC-135, B-52, C-137, E-3, E-4, E-8, VC-25, C-32, etc. all have tank to tank inflight transfer capability. For some, it is only gravity transfer, others can use boost or stronger pumps for inflight tank to tank transfer.

I think the E-6 should be included as well...

Ooops.

Quoting kanban (Reply 72):
first we argue about transfer rate from a tanker now we debate the rate of the receiver can take, surely the off flow rate is controllable to match the intake rate... since most of the acceptance rates noted are below the RPF offload rate, what a/c need the higher rate?

The transfer rate is always dictated by the receiver, not the tanker. The tanker has a maximum off-load rate, that will decrease as the receivers individual tanks fill and the valves close to that tank. Right now the USAF has 4 types of airplanes that can accept fuel at up to 8400 ppm (1253 gpm), the C-5, C-17, and E-4/VC-25 and KC-10. The new tanker will become the 5th type. Most other USAF "heavies" can take up to 6600 ppm.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 5:50 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
The transfer rate is always dictated by the receiver, not the tanker. The tanker has a maximum off-load rate, that will decrease as the receivers individual tanks fill and the valves close to that tank. Right now the USAF has 4 types of airplanes that can accept fuel at up to 8400 ppm (1253 gpm), the C-5, C-17, and E-4/VC-25 and KC-10. The new tanker will become the 5th type. Most other USAF "heavies" can take up to 6600 ppm.

Thanks that helps put things in perspective... Have there been any instances where the lower transfer rate of the old fleet has seriously hampered or endangered an operation? And what scenarios would be impaired with a lesser rate.. What I'm leading to is: a fast transfer is nice but is it essential... is the RFP asking for a Ferrari when a Ford would do?

(an aside what rate can the SR-71 take?)
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 8:10 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
Actually, I studied the picture very closely.

So did I   And I can't see any definitive to determine what amount of reinforcing the structure received. And I think that is not the point anyway.
My main point is you mentioning that other aircraft (namely US-built ones) haven'T received as much reinforcement around the receptacle assy. I say, that is not determinable from a PR picture and consider it somehow a cheap shot as it implies a certain inferiority where there is no need to.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
Some here like to take the PR and interpet it as complying with the USAF RFP. It odes not, at least as far as the information released.

No, my friend, you take the PR message MUCH to serious!  
You expect a PR message to talk about technical details. I personally think you are far off with that expectation. Honestly, you read kind of exaggerated statements from Boeing and Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier for every airplane, be it civil or military. Those messages are not "designed" to give factual information. They are designed as quick and easy praising of the own product. And I think we are all better off keeping it that way, rather than trying to interpret it, be it towards RFP passages or requirements, or be it towards technical details.

Anyway, didn't mean to offend you or anything!  
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 20, 2010 11:16 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 74):
Have there been any instances where the lower transfer rate of the old fleet has seriously hampered or endangered an operation? And what scenarios would be impaired with a lesser rate.. What I'm leading to is: a fast transfer is nice but is it essential... is the RFP asking for a Ferrari when a Ford would do?

(an aside what rate can the SR-71 take?)

The initial on-load rate for the SR-71 was 6600 lbs, IIRC.
But to answer your other question, no the lower max transfer rate of the KC-135 never did hamper operational air refueling. A very large off-load, say to a B-52 giving 120,000 lbs of fuel would take 20-25 minutes one one contact, and would be close to the KC-135 departure base. The longer the distance from base, the smaller the off-load unless the tanker could land at a base very near the End A/R point (EAR). Each mission had a planned amount of A/R time and air refueling control times (and location) for the receivers, as well as having the receivers at the proper EAR point for their missions.

The higher off-load rate will reduce the time needed for a given off-load. Let's say a KC-10 is refueling an E-4B with a scheduled off-load of that same 120,000 lbs. Since the E-4 can accept fuel at 8400 ppm, the refueling time would be 15-20 minutes, or about 5-10 minutes faster than the KC-135 refueling the B-52.

For fighter sized aircraft the increased off-load is no advantage over the KC-135, as both would begin the refueling at the maximum rate the fighter can take on fuel at, which is well below the maximum off-load rate of any Boom equipped tanker. For an F-16, it is about 3000 ppm, the bigger F-15 can on-load at about 4000 ppm, while the F-111 begins its refueling accepting fuel at 6600 ppm.

Quoting Nicoeddf (Reply 75):
My main point is you mentioning that other aircraft (namely US-built ones) haven'T received as much reinforcement around the receptacle assy. I say, that is not determinable from a PR picture and consider it somehow a cheap shot as it implies a certain inferiority where there is no need to.

It was no cheap shopt at the KC-30, it was only a question. I say it can be determined from the picture as the reenforcing is a different color. Contrary to what Zeke said, most the reenforcing is external, but there may be some structual reenforcing in the cockpit. When refueling, you can see these external plates, the rivets used to attach it and the seams dispite the paint.

Quoting Nicoeddf (Reply 75):
No, my friend, you take the PR message MUCH to serious!
You expect a PR message to talk about technical details. I personally think you are far off with that expectation. Honestly, you read kind of exaggerated statements from Boeing and Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier for every airplane, be it civil or military. Those messages are not "designed" to give factual information. They are designed as quick and easy praising of the own product. And I think we are all better off keeping it that way, rather than trying to interpret it, be it towards RFP passages or requirements, or be it towards technical details.

Anyway, didn't mean to offend you or anything!

No offense taken, my friend. But I just cringe when some news media guy writes about the South Korean BB that was sunk by the North Korean torpedo, even though in reality the South Korean warship was actually a FF, or some other story with 'factual' information. You are right, the PR is only entended as general information consumption, but it can be very far from what the engineers and crews say.

EADS's PR folks are not alone on that, Boeing's PR folks do the same thing. We just need to weed through the BS from both of tham.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 21, 2010 12:03 am

KC135TopBoom
Thanks again for the perspective on offload processes.... it seems a lot of the discussion has wandered off into capabilities that while needed are not deal breakers. I agree that the PR wienies make separating fact from wish very difficult.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 21, 2010 2:33 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 77):
it seems a lot of the discussion has wandered off into capabilities that while needed are not deal breakers. I agree that the PR wienies make separating fact from wish very difficult.

Correct, all the USAF needs to be asking for capabilities is "What is the lowest cost option that at least equils, or exceeds, the current capabilities of the KC-135R"? Yes, both the KC-767NG and KC-30A exceed the capabilities of the KC-135R, but at what costs? The $35B-$40B costs of the KC-X (plus the LCC and MilCon costs) can be better spent elsewhere.
 
Beta
Topic Author
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 21, 2010 11:48 pm

Boeing continues making noise regarding no-bid for the KC-X Tanker contract

Quote:
Boeing officials this week declined to rule out abstaining from the U.S. Air Force's KC-X tanker competition...Barksdale wrote in response to questions about a Bloomberg report that Boeing's top defense executive, Dennis Muilenburg, said at a May 20 investors' conference, that any bid must be "financially viable."...EADS officials are confident that they can put together a bid that comes within 1 percent of Boeing's price; a move that would require the Pentagon to evaluate the planes based on bonus performance criteria that could give an edge to the larger, newer EADS jet....

-John Reed, DefenseNews 21 May 01
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4637587&c=AME&s=AIR

I find it very interesting that EADS's possible bidding price comes close to within 1% of Boeing's price. If that is the case, then Boeing might as well fold its tent, pack the bags and go home. No contest! The US military then would get a fantastic aerial refueling tanker at subsidized low price, provided DoD holding firm on the fixed-price contract provision. No wonder Boeing is getting antsy! A 1% difference is a non-starter for Boeing!
 
cmb56
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 21, 2010 11:48 pm

Who out there could potentially put forward the proposal to take the 135Es sitting in storage, put new engines on them, upgrade the avionics, clean up the structure and put them back on the line for another 15 years. By that time we either won't need a tanker anymore or a much better airframe for the job will be available. There are 757/767 aircraft out there with over 100K hours on them! Why can't these great Boeing products (the 135s) keep on going if they get a fresh set of legs? Would the AF even consider such a bid or is KC135 TopBoom just indulging in wishfull thinking? I think it is a great idea that may never see the light of day.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 22, 2010 12:49 am

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 80):
Why can't these great Boeing products (the 135s) keep on going if they get a fresh set of legs? Would the AF even consider such a bid or is KC135 TopBoom just indulging in wishfull thinking?

it's part of our consumer oriented culture... buy the latest technology even it it's obsolete next year and scrap old reliables only because they are no longer shiny new of course congress wants new so they can brag about all the new jobs created that only partially show up..... updating the KC135 will fall on the same deaf ears that won't re-engine the B-52 but will spend billions more a stealth composite technologically futuristic airframe because it's new.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 22, 2010 3:38 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
I know the KC-30 can do the tanker mission, it has demonstrated that. Some here like to take the PR and interpet it as complying with the USAF RFP. It odes not, at least as far as the information released.

It does, and I have provided another link to look at as well...

One does not need to cast their mind that fare back to when photos of the KC-30 boom refuelling was first released. Despite EADS saying that that was the KC-30 boom, people on here insisted that it was not that KC-30 boom, they were saying it was taken from the A310 test bed. They made statements to the effect until a profile photo was available they would not believe it.

We see yet again more photos being release, despite the fact that the photos and press release was made, people still question the credibility of the source despite being proven wrong previously.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
I agree with Zeke here the picture does show the KC-30 in contact with another KC-30. But that picture, or the accompaning story does not say anything about the fuel was transferred at 1200 gpm. The KC-30 is designed to accept this rate as a receiver and pump up to that rate as a tanker. I have not seen anything where the 1200 gpm rate has been achieved. The highest rate I have seen is the 6000 ppm (about 895.5 USG) to the French E-3F, which is near the max rate the E-3 can on-load fuel at..

Apart from the link to the other site that says it can. Please show me where you "have seen is the 6000 ppm (about 895.5 USG) to the French E-3F", I think you made that part up, and I am going to ask you to provide a source to backup the statement.

As I mentioned before, this is the third aircraft type to have refuelled the KC-30, the KC-30 has received fuel from the KC-135, A310 test bed with the ARBS boom, and the KC-30 with the ARBS boom. Prior to the KC-30 to KC-30 contacts, they had already made over 190 with the KC-135 and A310 test bed.
http://a330mrtt.com/Portals/2/Imgs/English/MRTTSolution/Tanker/UARRSI/Big01.jpg
http://a330mrtt.com/Portals/2/Imgs/English/MRTTSolution/Tanker/UARRSI/Big02.jpg

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
While it may be difficult to detect this kind of leak, it may not show on the engine fuel flow gauges on the flat screen, the crew did know the enbalance between the left and right main wing tanks was increasing.

The crew did pick up the fuel imbalance, that is why they turned the cross feed on.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
I know hind site is 20/20 but had this crew figuered it out, they would have shut down #2 and diverted to Lages anyway but would have had power from the #1 engine to make the approach and landing, which is much better than two engines out.

Who knows what they may or may not have done, what was done is history.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
I believe the KC-30 is designed to receive fuel at up to 1200 gpm (8040 ppm)

1200 gal/min is the nominal rate, the 330 tanks can receive over 100t of fuel in under 30 min.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
It was no cheap shopt at the KC-30, it was only a question. I say it can be determined from the picture as the reenforcing is a different color. Contrary to what Zeke said, most the reenforcing is external, but there may be some structual reenforcing in the cockpit. When refueling, you can see these external plates, the rivets used to attach it and the seams dispite the paint.

It was a cheap shot at the KC-30, no substance was produced to support you claims.

The USARRI on the KC-30 is a commercial off the shelf component, it is presently in service on other aircraft with the USAF.



Look at any door, windows or any other opening on a fuselage on any aircraft type, the reinforcing is around the opening, structural engineers do not put additional layers of skin on to re-reinforce an area, but doing so can actually have the opposite effect. Next time you get a chance, have a look at a cargo conversion of a passenger airframe, and see how they actually reinforce the structure around the cargo door. The door itself is actually not that heavy at all. E.g. you can see the frame they are installing onto this 737 freighter conversion at the bottom of this page http://www.iai.co.il/28973-24916-en/...m_NewsArchives_2003.aspx?PageNum=5

767 after the installation of a cargo door http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6003887&nseq=8

Looking at the KC-30 photo above, it does not look that different to other USARRI style receptacles in service.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 80):
Who out there could potentially put forward the proposal to take the 135Es sitting in storage, put new engines on them, upgrade the avionics, clean up the structure and put them back on the line for another 15 years.

I do not think anyone could. Besides, if anyone was to realistically look at the current RFP, the KC-135 does not meet the specification, the RFP calls for a lot of capabilities which simply does not exist on existing KC-135s, they can be added, but it is like giving plastic surgery to a 50 year old, it will only work for a few years.

To convert a KC-135E into a KC-135R takes a lot more than just new engines, a number of other systems and structure needs to be added, and the KC-135E are needed as parts for the KC-135Rs as well. The USAF intends to start retiring KC-135Rs within this decade, and they will also add to the parts pool to keep the remaining aircraft flying.

At no stage has the USAF ever intend for the whole KC-135 fleet to fly beyond 2030, they may have a number of frames, my guess it will be less than 150, the remaining aircraft will be parted out.

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
it's part of our consumer oriented culture... buy the latest technology even it it's obsolete next year and scrap old reliables only because they are no longer shiny new of course congress wants new so they can brag about all the new jobs created that only partially show up..... updating the KC135 will fall on the same deaf ears that won't re-engine the B-52 but will spend billions more a stealth composite technologically futuristic airframe because it's new.

No it is not consumer culture at all, it comes down to the original aircraft design life cycle, the KC-135 was only designed with a low fatigue life in mind, in fact the USAF never really knew flor a long time how long they would last, it was only in relatively recent history that they tested some donor airframes to destruction that they had an idea of the maximum fatigue life.

The KC-135 was never intended by Boeing to be in service as long as it did, and one of the main reasons it is still in service today is for a large part of this life they were effectively in a stored like state. During the cold war KC-135s did not fly that much at all, they were sitting on the ground most of the time in a high readiness state, effectively stored. I think they are flying more today than they did 30 years ago.

It is the years of doing very little during the cold war why today’s KC-135s have relatively few flight hours and cycles on them.

However airframe cycles and hours are not the only limiting factor, what has caught up with numerous KC-135s airframes is corrosion. When Boeing built the KC-135 they did not apply the anti corrosive primer that you see in the photo of the KC-30 (that was not that uncommon back in those days) above and the alloys used back then are not as good at resting corrosion as today’s materials.

The big challenge for the KC-135 fleet is corrosion, which can be seen in the USAF KC-135 maintenance plan below, you will see a lot of work that will need to start later this decade to re-skin the KC-135, and also the need to rewire them. The wiring used 50 years ago also was not designed to last until today, with time and vibration, the insulation on the wiring looms degrades to a point where wires in a loom can actually short causing a fire.



That means over time everywhere you have metal on metal contact, where you have a rivet you have a potential site for corrosion to start. During the years that the KC-135s sat around during the cold war, the airframes were still exposed to moisture which started the seed of corrosion. Today the USAF has an advanced corrosion prevention program for the KC-135, however in many ways the horse has already bolted. Corrosion is best tackled at the design and manufacturing phase, trying to remove corrosion from a KC-135 after doing relatively little for 40 years, is like saying the ill effects of 40 years of smoking on a human body can be remedied by simply stopping smoking.

The 767 and A330 have been designed to fly on average 10+ hours a day every day, they have been designed and build to anti-corrosive alloys and primers. They are designed around much higher life cycles and fatigue lives than what one would normally see in a airframe that was designed as a pure military airframe, e.g., they both have about double the fatigue life of the C-17.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 22, 2010 12:56 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 80):
Who out there could potentially put forward the proposal to take the 135Es sitting in storage, put new engines on them, upgrade the avionics, clean up the structure and put them back on the line for another 15 years. By that time we either won't need a tanker anymore or a much better airframe for the job will be available. There are 757/767 aircraft out there with over 100K hours on them! Why can't these great Boeing products (the 135s) keep on going if they get a fresh set of legs? Would the AF even consider such a bid or is KC135 TopBoom just indulging in wishfull thinking? I think it is a great idea that may never see the light of day.
Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
it's part of our consumer oriented culture... buy the latest technology even it it's obsolete next year and scrap old reliables only because they are no longer shiny new of course congress wants new so they can brag about all the new jobs created that only partially show up.....

Well, I am indulging, but so are many other taxpayers. The fact is a reengined KC-135E, or even a total rebuild, is still a much cheaper option than either new build KC-767 or KC-30 option.

Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
I agree with Zeke here the picture does show the KC-30 in contact with another KC-30. But that picture, or the accompaning story does not say anything about the fuel was transferred at 1200 gpm. The KC-30 is designed to accept this rate as a receiver and pump up to that rate as a tanker. I have not seen anything where the 1200 gpm rate has been achieved. The highest rate I have seen is the 6000 ppm (about 895.5 USG) to the French E-3F, which is near the max rate the E-3 can on-load fuel at..

Apart from the link to the other site that says it can. Please show me where you "have seen is the 6000 ppm (about 895.5 USG) to the French E-3F", I think you made that part up, and I am going to ask you to provide a source to backup the statement.
NG had it on the tanker web site when they were still a potential bidder. I looked around this morning, couldn't find it, but will post it as soon as I find it again.

Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 73):
I know hind site is 20/20 but had this crew figuered it out, they would have shut down #2 and diverted to Lages anyway but would have had power from the #1 engine to make the approach and landing, which is much better than two engines out.

Who knows what they may or may not have done, what was done is history.

Correct

Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
I do not think anyone could. Besides, if anyone was to realistically look at the current RFP, the KC-135 does not meet the specification, the RFP calls for a lot of capabilities which simply does not exist on existing KC-135s, they can be added, but it is like giving plastic surgery to a 50 year old, it will only work for a few years.

To convert a KC-135E into a KC-135R takes a lot more than just new engines, a number of other systems and structure needs to be added, and the KC-135E are needed as parts for the KC-135Rs as well. The USAF intends to start retiring KC-135Rs within this decade, and they will also add to the parts pool to keep the remaining aircraft flying.

At no stage has the USAF ever intend for the whole KC-135 fleet to fly beyond 2030, they may have a number of frames, my guess it will be less than 150, the remaining aircraft will be parted out.

Well, I agree a reengined KC-135E will not meet the RFP, but we don't know about a totally rebuilt KC-135E, do we? I have not seen any one proposing that, but it can be done. To convert the KC-135E just to the KC-135R standard requires modifying about 15 different systems, from the APU to the pneudraulics systems. I have said that before. But this is about half the work the KC-135A needed to become a KC-135R, which involved modifying about 29 systems. The USAF current planned retirement of the KC-135R would retire somewhere between 150-200 (including tankers projected to be sold under FMS, like the 3 going to the RAF) of the current KC-135R/T fleet by the current scheduled end of the KC-X production, somewhere near 2030 or so (assuming LRIP started in 2013-2014, SDD tankers will start production in FY-2011 at the current schedule). That would still leave some 210-265 KC-135R/Ts in the fleet until 2040 and beyond. This plan is subject to change many times, or not change at all. No one knows what will happen between now and the end of the KC-X production around 2030, or even if all 179 schuled KC-Xs are actually bought.

Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
Looking at the KC-30 photo above, it does not look that different to other USARRI style receptacles in service.

It does, BTW, the RAF E-3D refueling has the BSRI (Boeing Slipway/Receptical Installation), the same one as on all E-3s, the refuelable RC/KC-135s, and the B-52, it is not a USARRI.

Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
No it is not consumer culture at all, it comes down to the original aircraft design life cycle, the KC-135 was only designed with a low fatigue life in mind, in fact the USAF never really knew flor a long time how long they would last, it was only in relatively recent history that they tested some donor airframes to destruction that they had an idea of the maximum fatigue life.
Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
That means over time everywhere you have metal on metal contact, where you have a rivet you have a potential site for corrosion to start. During the years that the KC-135s sat around during the cold war, the airframes were still exposed to moisture which started the seed of corrosion. Today the USAF has an advanced corrosion prevention program for the KC-135, however in many ways the horse has already bolted. Corrosion is best tackled at the design and manufacturing phase, trying to remove corrosion from a KC-135 after doing relatively little for 40 years, is like saying the ill effects of 40 years of smoking on a human body can be remedied by simply stopping smoking.

You might find this schocking, but back in the 1950s when the KC-135 production EIS began, SAC had originally planned the KC-135 to have the same life as other SAC airplanes, 10-15 years or up to 15,000 hours. This was true for the B-36, B-47, B-50, B-52, B-58, and KC-97, and the KC-135 was to be no different. Well, budget realities changed all that thinking in the 1960s and the B-47, B-52, KC-97 and KC-135 all lived beyond that plan.

In 1963, the USAF and Boeing did a life cycle assessment on a relitively new KC-135A (IIRC, it might have been 62-3549), and tested that airframe to distruction. It had less than 450 hours on the airframe. The tear down was done at Boeing-Wichita, and what was found was the under wing skin had to be replaced, which lead to that work beginning in 1974, replacing that skin with a newer more durable alloy. About 650 of the entire C-135 series had this work completed by 1985. Another problem that was more urgent was the strenghting of the aft body fuslage which began in 1965 and was completed on all C-135 series airplanes by 1971, this work included Pacer Fin which made the fin about 18" taller and included a new powered rudder PCU. Conversion of the KC-135A to the KC-135E or KC-135R standards began about 1982. Corrosion began to be scene in the late 1970s and the problems was mostly addressed at the depot level, although 'minor' corrosion issues could be addressed at the wing level. Today we understand more about corrosion and its effects on alloys on airplanes, but the USAF has been working on this issue for decades, and not just on the KC-135. Yes, sitting on alert for the SAC Alert Force from 1959 to 1991 did take its toll on the KC-135, B-52, and FB-111, but that was the primary SAC mission then. It is not like the airplanes were 'just sitting around', they were being used on their primary mission, they just were not accumulating and flying hours or cycles. They were sitting at their MTOW for that base's runway lenght, and had to be moved/towed every 3 days to rotate the tires (which could develope 'flat spots' in the nylon cords and this could increase the TO roll lenght by a few hundred feet, reducing the margin for TO on that runway). At each base, two different TO performance criteria was computed each day, for the worst weather conditions that day, minimum performance (max allowable EPR loss or max water injection loss) and a maximum tail wind component. Both the TF-33-P-100 and F-108-100 engines improved TO performance dramaticly over the original J-57-P59W/-P43WB engines.

Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
The big challenge for the KC-135 fleet is corrosion, which can be seen in the USAF KC-135 maintenance plan below, you will see a lot of work that will need to start later this decade to re-skin the KC-135, and also the need to rewire them. The wiring used 50 years ago also was not designed to last until today, with time and vibration, the insulation on the wiring looms degrades to a point where wires in a loom can actually short causing a fire.

Correct. The USAF, nor anyone else has ever flown a jet airplane at the 50 year point and beyond. That chart shows the expected mods the KC-135 will need to fly to 2040 or beyond. Some factors are known and others are unknown, hence the large black area of the chart. In the 1980s there was a proposal to rewing the KC-135, in a proposal called the "KC-135Y", putting B-707-320B style, or like wings on the KC-135, along with reengining. At that time, IIRC, the costs estimates would have added some $40M to $50M to the then $29M reengining costs for a KC-135A to KC-135R. The mod would have included rewiring, new hydraulic systems, totally new electrical systems, thrust reversers, a second air cycle machine, new APU, cargo handling improvements, receiver air refueling system (most airpanes), fuel system, and a host of other improvements. Today, that some $80M mod per airplane is still a bargan, but if new wings were included, they would not be B-707 wings, as there are many newer, more efficent wing designs.

What would a total rebuild proposal today cost? I have no idea, but would guess in the neighborhood of $80M to $120M per airplane, still at least 1/3 less, or more, than a new build tanker which would cost between $150M to $200M each if you include MilCon costs (which would not be needed for a rebuilt KC-135).

Even the USAF acknowledges the current corrosion problems on the KC-135 fleet are maintanable.

[Edited 2010-05-23 10:40:44 by srbmod]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 22, 2010 3:46 pm

KC135TopBoom
when this series started I thought you were nuts hanging on to the past... I've come to agree with you on KC135 a refurb/rebuild.. heck we do it on helicopters.. even if they only did a portion of the fleet that serviced a/c that were entirely within their capabilities.. I believe you alluded to some some of the RFP requirements only apply refueling some of the larger aircraft.

unfortunately, I believe you said it months ago, the brass have this"shiny metal thinking" and this will preclude the rebuild possibility.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 22, 2010 4:29 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 83):
Well, I agree a reengined KC-135E will not meet the RFP, but we don't know about a totally rebuilt KC-135E, do we?

I believe the logic of comparing the KC-135 in any variant to the current RFP is flawed. The KC-135 is in service the RFP was designed by looking at what the a/c did and improve on it where they could, since the decision was to get an off the shelf a/c, the RFP was adjusted to look at current commercial a/c specs.

To me the cost comparison of the KC-135 has to be on the overall program.
What is the KC-135 presently preventing the Air Force from doing due to a lack of capabilities?
Is the maintenance cost greater than buying new build a/c and modifying bases?
Is the cost of maintenance and modificiation greater than buying new build a/c and modifying bases?

The only true cost comparison in this entire debacle has always been between keeping / improving the KC-135 versus buying new build a/c whether 767 or A330, imagine if the KC-135 had to meet the 1% threshold.
One other thing, the list price of these a/c are not within 1% of each other, the tanker modifications by whomever gets the contract will be between 1% of each other since they will be the same for either frame selected, so the biggest difference is in the actual build of the a/c, so where did that magic 1% figure come from?
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 23, 2010 8:55 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 85):
One other thing, the list price of these a/c are not within 1% of each other, the tanker modifications by whomever gets the contract will be between 1% of each other since they will be the same for either frame selected, so the biggest difference is in the actual build of the a/c, so where did that magic 1% figure come from?

The magic 1% Figure obviously comes from as 1 of several bricks to tailor the RFQ towards a sure home run for 767.
That is clear and I believe was debated across 100's of posts in threads like this.

The whole RFQ is a fake show for me anyhow, and this since the beginning. What has started as a Boeing tailored deal with some side benefits for some people continued to be an official RFQ to install a competition factor for the public, resulted in an unexpected surprise (for some) and was again tailored to avoid another surprise next next time.

Now with the learning in the USAF and the knowledge about the price offerings I would simply do as follows.

Hi manufacturers:
I am willing to buy 50 Tankers (or 179) for a price of 175 m$/ Frame and you manufacturers will compete what I will get for this. Only conditions should include some core conditions (e.g Ramp space/ Airport runway length/ Fuel offload capability etc.), however dimensions set that they can be met by the following civilian based airplanes: Boeing 767 and 787, A300-A330 and planes similar sizes.

Decisions could be made using the value for money as well as US Job factor impact.

Regards

Flyglobal
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 23, 2010 12:01 pm

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 86):
Hi manufacturers:
I am willing to buy 50 Tankers (or 179) for a price of 175 m$/ Frame and you manufacturers will compete what I will get for this. Only conditions should include some core conditions (e.g Ramp space/ Airport runway length/ Fuel offload capability etc.), however dimensions set that they can be met by the following civilian based airplanes: Boeing 767 and 787, A300-A330 and planes similar sizes.

In a way, the USAF has done that by estimating the total procurment costs at $35B-$40B, not including LCC, MilCon, fuel comsumption, and depot costs (beyond the intial depot contract). In addition, the USAF defined what they want/need in a tanker, via the RFP. So, the OEMs do have a starting point for the capabilities the USAF considers as the minimum requirements. But, I think everyone (USAF, Boeing, and EADS) is ignoring the budget total of $35B-$40B. If you divide the $35B by the 179 tankers it comes to an average unit cost of $195.5M (which includes design, production, SDD flight testing, initial depot costs, etc.). The $40B comes out to an average of $223.5M for each unit. Boeing and EADS would be served very well by using these average unit costs.

The progam costs of $35B-$40B do not include other USAF costs to introduce a new airplane like MilCon, LCC, etc. which the USAF will add to each offered unit average unit costs. Why? Because the USAF does not formerly know each official offer yet until they have been made. That is why in the 2008 compitition each offer ended up with a total program cost over $108B (and that was based on an unrealistic 25 year life of the 2008 KC-X program proposed airplanes).

According to NG when they pulled out of the KC-X program a few months ago, their 2008 offer was some $184M average unit price (which included their refusal for depot support of the initial tankers) for the KC-30. If we go back to the GAO investigation in 2008, they said they computed the Boeing unit average cost at some $10M less than the NG offer, which put the, then, KC-767AT around $174M, a price difference of some 5.7%. It is not known if Boeing's offer included initial depot support, or not, the GAO did not mention that.

Based on those two known factors EADS-NA, without NG's partisipation, can easily get to within the 1% price margin and Boeing knows this, as does EADS-NA.

My guess at the price of a rebuilt/reengined KC-135E would be around some $80B over 30-35 years, including depot costs. The difference is we get some 100-125 total tankers, instead of 179 new build tankers (now programmed for 40 years). So the question of KC-135R retirements is how many will be retired and do they need to be retired if a KC-135 rebuild program were implemented?

These are not only questions of the military capability/need of the KC-135 vs. KC-30 vs. KC-767, but also of the economic realities. It is here the national debts of the US and the EU as well as the surviveability of each economy based on the selection of a KC-767 or a KC-30 now comes into play. Does the KC-135 fulfil the minimum military need for some 35 years? If it does, how does that compare to the future of the economic strenght of the US and/or EU over that same 35 years.

Right now the economic realities in Europe are coming into play, but these same realities are not to far away for the US not to also be concerned over the future of its economy. The US has a national debt of some $13T, or about 50% of the total size of our economy. The national debts of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland are all running at 90% to 108% the size of those countries individual economies. The EU will bail them out with at least one trillion Euros (dragging to US into helping too) to Greece alone. Since the combined EU economy is (currently) slightly bigger the US economy, this will bring the total debt of the EU to around 65%-70% (when Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland are added in), which is large enough to force the total collapse of the Euro as a world currency. Germany and France, the two strongest economies in Europe already see this and have threatened to pull out of the Euro. That will have a major influence not only on the future price of the KC-30, but EADS-NA's promise of building the KC-30 in the US. The labor unions of Airbus/EADS will not stand for EADS to ship 'their jobs' to the US.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 23, 2010 2:00 pm

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 86):
The magic 1% Figure obviously comes from as 1 of several bricks to tailor the RFQ towards a sure home run for 767.
That is clear and I believe was debated across 100's of posts in threads like this.

In reality that makes no sense due to what has happened:

1. Initial lease deal given to Boeing for 100 tankers, get's cancelled.
2. Boeing did not decide to have a competition, someone else did, and since the US has only one maker of commercial a/c and the requirement was for an off the shelf product, whoever came up with the competition wanted to give the contract to anyone but Boeing.
3. Boeing looses the competition.
4. New competiton is started, the 1% is included. Boeings competitior drops out and rather than let the RFP go, the powers that be extend the time frame to allow another competitor.

In the face of the above how can I discern that anything included in the RFP favours Boeing when everything is being done to aid whoever is bidding against Boeing?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 23, 2010 6:13 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 88):
when everything is being done to aid whoever is bidding against Boeing?

The way I see it most is done and has been in favor of Boeing, especially the latest 1% rule. And competitors are politically even called upon not to bid.    Now who is favoring who?  
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 23, 2010 9:13 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 89):
Quoting par13del (Reply 88):
when everything is being done to aid whoever is bidding against Boeing?

The way I see it most is done and has been in favor of Boeing, especially the latest 1% rule. And competitors are politically even called upon not to bid. Now who is favoring who?

Well, the "1% rule" has been in the RFP/DRFP since last September, and was fully acceptable as neither OEM has questioned it or commented on it.

The rule essentially says this is what we want in the tanker and we will buy the lowest cost option.

What is wrong with that?

A Congressman, even one who leads the sub-committee did not tell L-3 not to bid. L-3 made a business decision. If EADS even thought political pressure was applied to L-3, and others, then French President Sarkosi would be screaming. Who called upon NG not to bid? It was a business decision.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 23, 2010 9:30 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 89):
The way I see it most is done and has been in favor of Boeing, especially the latest 1% rule. And competitors are politically even called upon not to bid.

I do not recall the US Air Force, Pentagon, DOD or congress advising folks not to bid, they are the only ones who can mandate or enforce such a directive.
Now if you are talking about political cornies, then yes, the supposed new head of one congressional body did make such a statement but it was not official so I discounted that in my remarks, EADS-NA never listened to him anyway, go figure  
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3660
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon May 24, 2010 11:54 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
The A-330/KC-30 fuel tanks are not 'on the cg', but more like being around or near the CG. If you burn fuel from the outers only, and drain the fuel from the stab, doesn't the CG move foreward? If you only burn from the centerwing and inners, again draining the stab, doesn't the CG move aft?

The A330 fuel tanks are filled inners only, then outers, then at about 35T stab tank, and when the inners are full centre tank. All supply to the engines is from the inner tanks. The centre tank transfers to the inners when there is space. The outers (which only take 3000kg each) drain into the inners when the inners are nearly empty.
At 25500ft in the climb, the FCMS computes the aircraft CG, and makes an aft transfer into the stab tank to move the CG to the datum point. Then as fuel is used, the CG moves aft, and the FCMS makes many small fwd transfers to keep the CofG near the datum. It usually makes only one aft transfer per flight, but can do it again if necessary.
At 35mins flight time remaining (from the FMS), or at 24500ft on the descent, all the stab fuel is transferred fwd. Fwd transfer will go to the inners, or the centre tank.
It is more complicated than this, but this is the basic system. The stab tank is used on all flights, but is only loaded for departure if the fuel load is over 35T. It works automatically, and well.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon May 24, 2010 12:30 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
updating the KC135 will fall on the same deaf ears

Maybe because it is/was

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
obsolete

long before

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
next year

I don't get it how somebody can ask to stretch the KC135's lives for many years and at the same time call KC767 or KC30 as obsolete from next year!

The KC135 will be operated anyway until the KC-X design will be 70 years old (if the KC-767 would be selected). That sounds very smart: using KC-135's past 2050....
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon May 24, 2010 1:32 pm

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 92):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
The A-330/KC-30 fuel tanks are not 'on the cg', but more like being around or near the CG. If you burn fuel from the outers only, and drain the fuel from the stab, doesn't the CG move foreward? If you only burn from the centerwing and inners, again draining the stab, doesn't the CG move aft?

The A330 fuel tanks are filled inners only, then outers, then at about 35T stab tank, and when the inners are full centre tank. All supply to the engines is from the inner tanks. The centre tank transfers to the inners when there is space. The outers (which only take 3000kg each) drain into the inners when the inners are nearly empty.
At 25500ft in the climb, the FCMS computes the aircraft CG, and makes an aft transfer into the stab tank to move the CG to the datum point. Then as fuel is used, the CG moves aft, and the FCMS makes many small fwd transfers to keep the CofG near the datum. It usually makes only one aft transfer per flight, but can do it again if necessary.
At 35mins flight time remaining (from the FMS), or at 24500ft on the descent, all the stab fuel is transferred fwd. Fwd transfer will go to the inners, or the centre tank.

Thanks, that is very similar to our manually controlling the CG on the KC-135 by selecting a sequence of fuel burn from different tanks, draining when required. We found in the 1960s the KC-135 got its best fuel milage if the CG was kept around 32%-34% MAC. So the normal fuel burn sequence (which can be adusted depending on mission requirements) would be using all four main wing tanks to feed the engines during engine start, taxi and take-off, then switch to burn the centerwing tank fuel for the climb. Fuel could be drained foreward and aft (into the body tanks) to set up for the refueling. Fuel drained into the Fwd Body Tank from the centerwing tank, and to the Aft Body Tank from the 4 main wing tanks and the upperdeck tank. The reserve wing tanks were kept full until near the final landing (if that fuel was needed) only into the outboard main wing tanks.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 93):
I don't get it how somebody can ask to stretch the KC135's lives for many years and at the same time call KC767 or KC30 as obsolete from next year!

The KC135 will be operated anyway until the KC-X design will be 70 years old (if the KC-767 would be selected). That sounds very smart: using KC-135's past 2050....

If the KC-135 flys until 2050, it will be a 95 year old design. But it is not so much of a case of any of the tankers being obsolete, but more of a case that it can still fulfil the military mission then as well as economics.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 12:17 pm

Boeing disputes all of EADS claims of a superior tanker when comparing the KC-30 to the KC-767.

http://realamericantankers.com/index...on_boeing_sets_the_record_straight

Here are some of the cliams Boeing is making when comparing their KC-767NG offer to the EADS-NA KC-30A offer;

1) EADS North America (a subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company and parent company of Airbus) claims that the KC-45 aircraft it is offering the U.S. Air Force is “flying and ready now.” That’s simply not true.

• All EADS international tankers, including the Australian Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), fall far short of meeting all 372 critical requirements in the USAF RFP. To cite just a few of the critically important USAF requirements not met by the MRTT under development for the Royal Australian Air Force:
 The Airbus MRTT has no centerline drogue refueling system.
 The Airbus MRTT has no cargo door.
 The Airbus MRTT cannot use standard USAF aeromedical equipment.
 The Airbus MRTT cannot refuel all USAF aircraft.
 The Airbus MRTT has no cockpit armor or KC-X defensive systems.

• Boeing did not presume to know the Air Force’s requirements before they issued their final Request for Proposals. Boeing has always said that it is up to the Air Force to determine those requirements. Now that we know and understand exactly what they need in a tanker to replace the KC-135 fleet, Boeing will propose an offering that meets all of those requirements by building on the experience of developing and delivering operational 767-based tankers to international customers and drawing on the company’s 60 years of tanker experience.


3) EADS NA claims that its offering will have a lower price than its Boeing competitor.

 The published sticker price for the commercial Airbus A330 is $50 million higher (36% higher) than the Boeing 767. When you also include service life costs, fuel burn differences, and infrastructure improvements, independent analysis concludes that the price difference between the Airbus A330 and Boeing 767 should well exceed $10 billion. This same independent analysis postulates that the only way the Airbus A330 can achieve pricing parity with the Boeing 767 is through massive European government subsidies, like the $5 billion Airbus received in the initial development of the A330/A340 family of airplanes.

 By every measure the Boeing tanker will cost less to own and operate than the EADS/Airbus tanker over the anticipated 40 years of operation.

 The commercial A330, from which the Airbus tanker is derived, weighs 80,000 pounds more than a Boeing 767 – that is 40 tons of unnecessary extra weight it drags through the sky every time it takes off.

 The heavier A330 burns up to 24% more fuel, day in and day out, than a standard commercial Boeing 767. That equates to tens of billions in additional fuel costs.

 Maintenance costs for a commercial A330 are up to 20% higher than a commercial Boeing 767, resulting in hundreds of millions in additional maintenance costs.

5) EADS NA claims that their tanker is, “… built here in the U.S. by tens of thousands of Americans.”

 The EADS/Airbus tanker will be designed and manufactured predominantly in Europe, which is why European political leaders have announced how important the KC-X program is to their national economies.

 Only about 5% of the total labor hours that go into the production of an A330 represent final assembly – and final assembly is all that is planned for the Mobile, AL facility. The other 95% of production labor hours will be spread across four European countries. The engineering design work will be done in Europe, as well.

 The Boeing tanker will be designed and built in the U.S.A.

 The Boeing production facility is in-place and is producing 767 aircraft now with a skilled American workforce. The proposed EADS/Airbus facility in Mobile, AL is a green field with no people, no processes, and no tools in place today.

 The Boeing tanker will support 50,000 American jobs with over 800 suppliers in over 40 states.

 At least 85% of the value content of the 767 Tanker is domestically produced, as opposed to what EADS/Airbus have identified as between 50%-60%. Furthermore, since the withdrawal of their major U.S. partner Northrop Grumman it is unclear how much U.S.-produced content remains.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 4:18 pm

• Boeing has delivered over 2,000 tankers worldwide. While EADS/Airbus has delivered just six A310 tankers they have yet to deliver an A330 tanker to any customer, anywhere. And none of the A310 tankers was equipped with a refueling boom, which is a major requirement of the U.S. Air Force.


If you want to be technical has Israeli Aircraft Industries also delivered more boom equipped tankers than Airbus/EADS, also could could IAI make a bid using off the shelf airframes.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 5:03 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
Boeing disputes all of EADS claims of a superior tanker when comparing the KC-30 to the KC-767.

Yep, a load of bullocks as usual

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT has no centerline drogue refueling system.

Bullocks, the Cobham 805E FRU is the centerline unit as installed on the RAF A330 MRTT. Boeing fails to mention that the KC-767 with Japan does not have any hose refuelling at all.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT has no cargo door.

Bullocks, all the a330MRTT have all the underfloor space available for cargo, it has three cargo doors for that space. The A330-200F can also be the base airframe for the tanker with the additional main deck cargo door, it is a certified airframe. The cargo door on the A330F is currently installed on over 200 freighters. Nothing stopping the RAAF getting a main deck cargo doors installed at a later stage, if they so desired.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT cannot use standard USAF aeromedical equipment.

Bullocks, 130 NATO stretchers can be installed.

http://a330mrtt.com/Portals/2/Imgs/English/MRTTSolution/Transport/Medevac/Big01.jpg

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT cannot refuel all USAF aircraft.

Like which ones ? sounds like more bullocks

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT has no cockpit armor or KC-X defensive systems.

More bullocks, the A330 MRTT has a comprehensive survivability package available including :

• Self-Protection systems such as LAIRCM (Large Aircraft Infra Red Counter Measures), a fully autonomous system that provides protection against infrared-guided missiles using MWS (Missile Warning System) cues; or RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) and CMDS (Counter-Measures Dispenser System).

• Armouring including cockpit and critical systems protection against fire arm threats.

• Fuel Tank Inerting system protecting against fire and explosion in the event of fire arm impacts.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The published sticker price for the commercial Airbus A330 is $50 million higher (36% higher) than the Boeing 767.

And yet the A330 is outselling the 767, 787 and 777.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
When you also include service life costs, fuel burn differences, and infrastructure improvements, independent analysis concludes that the price difference between the Airbus A330 and Boeing 767 should well exceed $10 billion.

When you pay a company to produce a report you want, you get it, nothing “independent” about the report at all, it is done at Boeings request, paid by Boeing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
This same independent analysis postulates that the only way the Airbus A330 can achieve pricing parity with the Boeing 767 is through massive European government subsidies, like the $5 billion Airbus received in the initial development of the A330/A340 family of airplanes.

And yet the repayable loan, which has been fully repaid is still paying royalties to the governments that invested into the project.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
By every measure the Boeing tanker will cost less to own and operate than the EADS/Airbus tanker over the anticipated 40 years of operation.

Not by every measure, only by what Boeing wants to publish.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The commercial A330, from which the Airbus tanker is derived, weighs 80,000 pounds more than a Boeing 767 – that is 40 tons of unnecessary extra weight it drags through the sky every time it takes off.

Sorry, the KC-767 empty weight is a lot higher than the 767 base airframe, a lot of additional systems and tanks had to be installed into the base 767 airframe to get to the KC-767.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The heavier A330 burns up to 24% more fuel, day in and day out, than a standard commercial Boeing 767. That equates to tens of billions in additional fuel costs.

Sorry, more false information.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
Maintenance costs for a commercial A330 are up to 20% higher than a commercial Boeing 767, resulting in hundreds of millions in additional maintenance costs.

Sorry, more false information.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
EADS NA claims that their tanker is, “… built here in the U.S. by tens of thousands of Americans.”

Which is true, EADS is the biggest export customer of the US aerospace industry.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The EADS/Airbus tanker will be designed and manufactured predominantly in Europe, which is why European political leaders have announced how important the KC-X program is to their national economies.

Actually with the depending on the choice of engine, over 50% of an A330 is US content, and that is without the tanker mods.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
Only about 5% of the total labor hours that go into the production of an A330 represent final assembly – and final assembly is all that is planned for the Mobile, AL facility. The other 95% of production labor hours will be spread across four European countries. The engineering design work will be done in Europe, as well.

No, final assembly is not the only process that will happen at Mobile, the tanker conversions will happen there as well.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Boeing tanker will be designed and built in the U.S.A.

Apart from the 30-45% of every 767 airframe that is made overseas.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Boeing production facility is in-place and is producing 767 aircraft now with a skilled American workforce. The proposed EADS/Airbus facility in Mobile, AL is a green field with no people, no processes, and no tools in place today.

They are lucky to push one 767 out the door a month. The site in Mobile will make civil A330Fs, those aircraft are to be converted into tankers in another facility next door. EADS are setup additional production lines, they have done so recently with the A320 in China that is making more aircraft a year than what Boeing currently makes on its 767 production line.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Boeing tanker will support 50,000 American jobs with over 800 suppliers in over 40 states.

One has to think about those numbers, a C-17 takes a lot less people to build, with a higher US content, for a larger production run.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 6:28 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
Boeing disputes all of EADS claims of a superior tanker when comparing the KC-30 to the KC-767.

Yep, a load of bullocks as usual

Of of course. According to you, everything Boeing says is a lie, and everything EADS says is true.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT cannot use standard USAF aeromedical equipment.

Bullocks, 130 NATO stretchers can be installed.

There is no "NATO" standard aeromedical equipment. Each country uses their own, or buys someone elses. The USAF has there own aeromedical equipment, and has for years.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT cannot refuel all USAF aircraft.

Like which ones ? sounds like more bullocks

Read the 2008 GAO report.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT has no cockpit armor or KC-X defensive systems.

More bullocks, the A330 MRTT has a comprehensive survivability package available including :

• Self-Protection systems such as LAIRCM (Large Aircraft Infra Red Counter Measures), a fully autonomous system that provides protection against infrared-guided missiles using MWS (Missile Warning System) cues; or RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) and CMDS (Counter-Measures Dispenser System).

• Armouring including cockpit and critical systems protection against fire arm threats.

• Fuel Tank Inerting system protecting against fire and explosion in the event of fire arm impacts.

It has fuel tank inerting, not the other systems. The KC-767 also has fuel tank inerting, and self sealing fuel tanks.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The published sticker price for the commercial Airbus A330 is $50 million higher (36% higher) than the Boeing 767.

And yet the A330 is outselling the 767, 787 and 777.

Your sure about that?

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
When you also include service life costs, fuel burn differences, and infrastructure improvements, independent analysis concludes that the price difference between the Airbus A330 and Boeing 767 should well exceed $10 billion.

When you pay a company to produce a report you want, you get it, nothing “independent” about the report at all, it is done at Boeings request, paid by Boeing.

The GAO believed it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
By every measure the Boeing tanker will cost less to own and operate than the EADS/Airbus tanker over the anticipated 40 years of operation.

Not by every measure, only by what Boeing wants to publish.

Okay, name some.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The commercial A330, from which the Airbus tanker is derived, weighs 80,000 pounds more than a Boeing 767 – that is 40 tons of unnecessary extra weight it drags through the sky every time it takes off.

Sorry, the KC-767 empty weight is a lot higher than the 767 base airframe, a lot of additional systems and tanks had to be installed into the base 767 airframe to get to the KC-767.

The empty weight of the KC-30 is also higher the A-330, so what is your point?

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The heavier A330 burns up to 24% more fuel, day in and day out, than a standard commercial Boeing 767. That equates to tens of billions in additional fuel costs.

Sorry, more false information.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
Maintenance costs for a commercial A330 are up to 20% higher than a commercial Boeing 767, resulting in hundreds of millions in additional maintenance costs.

Sorry, more false information

Then prove it. The KC-767 has lower costs engines, and does not have a finiky FBW system to maintane.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
EADS NA claims that their tanker is, “… built here in the U.S. by tens of thousands of Americans.”

Which is true, EADS is the biggest export customer of the US aerospace industry.

EADS-NA is an $11B USD company, Boeing is a $750 USD company. EADS stick is selling today at 15.26 Euros, Boeing is at $61.97. Boeing had some $400B in exports in 2009, how much did EADS-NA have? Keep in mind the Boeing exported nearly 40 times the total value of EADS-NA.

http://classic.eads.net/1024/en/inve...Share_price/Share_price_chart.html

http://investor.shareholder.com/ba/stock.cfm

EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company. EADS, supports the jobs about 190,000 people in NORTH AMERICA, which includes Canada, and Mexico, as well as the local McDonalds. Boeing supports some 500,000 US jobs.

Then you had this little mistake, recently, too

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 83):
Quoting zeke (Reply 82):
Looking at the KC-30 photo above, it does not look that different to other USARRI style receptacles in service.

It does, BTW, the RAF E-3D refueling has the BSRI (Boeing Slipway/Receptical Installation), the same one as on all E-3s, the refuelable RC/KC-135s, and the B-52, it is not a USARRI.
Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The EADS/Airbus tanker will be designed and manufactured predominantly in Europe, which is why European political leaders have announced how important the KC-X program is to their national economies.

Actually with the depending on the choice of engine, over 50% of an A330 is US content, and that is without the tanker mods.

We don't know the final designs of either the EADS offer or Boeings offer. But, back in 2008, the NG/EADS KC-30A had 55% US content, and Boeing's KC-767AT had 78%.

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Boeing tanker will be designed and built in the U.S.A.

Apart from the 30-45% of every 767 airframe that is made overseas.

How much of each and every A-330 is built in France, Germany, Spain, and the UK?

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Boeing tanker will support 50,000 American jobs with over 800 suppliers in over 40 states.

One has to think about those numbers, a C-17 takes a lot less people to build, with a higher US content, for a larger production run.

How many dirct jobs will the KC-30 support? BTW, the C-17 has fewer systems than the proposed KC-767NG does.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18970
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 9:02 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
According to you, everything Boeing says is a lie, and everything EADS says is true.

If true, wouldn't that make him your exact mirror?   

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
There is no "NATO" standard aeromedical equipment.

You'd better tell the companies making it then!  Wow!http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/field_hospitals/frestems/

Quote:
The ProMIL 217-10 is a NATO stretcher and complies with the NATO stretcher standard Stanag 2040.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Read the 2008 GAO report.

Which, if I remember correctly, didn't say "The A330 cannot refuel...." but "It hasn't been satisfactorly demonstrated that...." Very different.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
It has fuel tank inerting, not the other systems.

What are these then?
What are these?


Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Your sure about that?

Comfortably in the last couple of years.


Anyway, in addition to your quoted Boeing PR, they're also now saying that EADS would "hurt" US security.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2513729720100525?type=marketsNews

Quote:
He cited an EADS effort to market one of its helicopters at an Iranian air show. The event in question took place in 2005, Boeing officials later said
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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