Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Buckeyetech
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:54 pm

The only reason the USAF want to divest the KC-10s as soon as possible, is because of the supply chain and unique tools required to operate it. Hence why they want nothing to do with another MDS. They probably are counting the days until they don’t have to operate them anymore.
 
johns624
Posts: 4055
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:13 am

keesje wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
I like the capability differences in KC-46 and MRTT. I'm ok with the USAF having both.


The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.

https://justmytruth.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=584

After this trick, NG withdrew from competition Airbus stayed as a gesture & didn't protest afraid of being blamed for further delays.
Just like the C17 was too capable so many bought the A400. See, this can work both ways.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:20 am

keesje wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
I like the capability differences in KC-46 and MRTT. I'm ok with the USAF having both.


The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.

https://justmytruth.files.wordpress.com ... .jpg?w=584

After this trick, NG withdrew from competition Airbus stayed as a gesture & didn't protest afraid of being blamed for further delays.



Same old, same old. After this latest election campaign, many of us have gone tired of old greavances and propaganda disguised as news and analysis.

bt
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:45 am

bikerthai wrote:

Same old, same old. After this latest election campaign, many of us have gone tired of old greavances and propaganda disguised as news and analysis.

bt


You may call it “propaganda”, fact is the KC-46 is still years away from being able to do the role it was purchased, it still has not met the contractural requirements.

“The KC-46 has four remaining category 1 deficiencies: two involving the Remote Vision System that are expected to be resolved when a new version of the system is rolled out in 2023; a problem with the stiffness of the air refueling boom that keeps it from being able to refuel some of the planes in the service’s inventory; and an issue with fuel leaks.”

From https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02 ... -problems/
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:24 pm

zeke wrote:
You may call it “propaganda”, fact is the KC-46 is still years away from being able to do the role it was purchased, it still has not met the contractural requirements.


The best proproganda gave some truths. :bigthumbsup:

True, the tech issues are not disputable and are fair game. But the politics of the RFP and manipulate requirements are still conjectures and will not change anyone's mind.

bt
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:00 pm

bikerthai wrote:

True, the tech issues are not disputable and are fair game. But the politics of the RFP and manipulate requirements are still conjectures and will not change anyone's mind.


I was looking at post award performance, have they done what they have been contracted to do.

There were of 372 mandatory requirements under the KC-X RFP that needed to be met for a platform to qualify, still years after the contractual EIS all of these 372 mandatory requirements have not been achieved by the KC-46.

It would be a fair conclusion to state the KC-46 was not a platform that qualified, the selection of the KC-46 on lower cost was then was invalid under the RFP rules.
 
Naincompetent
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:20 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:47 am

zeke wrote:
It would be a fair conclusion to state the KC-46 was not a platform that qualified, the selection of the KC-46 on lower cost was then was invalid under the RFP rules.


A question remains, whether the competing platform met all 372 requirements (I honestly don't know). If not, the question becomes how far is each platform from the requirements and how costly will it be to make them meet said requirements.
If this is the question, the lower cost proposal stands a fair chance, even if it is farther from the spec, especially if the proposed price includes the development work still needed.

Unless an RFP is specifically tailored for one candidate, it is not uncommon that none of the proposals fit perfectly with the RFP
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:33 pm

zeke wrote:
It would be a fair conclusion to state the KC-46 was not a platform that qualified, the selection of the KC-46 on lower cost was then was invalid under the RFP rules.


The conclusion would also be one sided as we would not know if the KC-45 would do better under USAF operation until they operate it. (Maybe we will get a chance under the KC-Y.) As with any RFP, there is an amount of risk.

Arguing that the KC-30 is operating fine with other Airforce is only one data point. It would be the similar to arguing the KC-767 is operating fine for the Italian Airforce, or the F-32 would have faired better than the F-35. Speculative.

Again, I am not saying the KC-46 program was executed well. All I'm saying is let's wait until the details of the KC'Y comes out before we speculate again.

bt
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:01 pm

bikerthai wrote:

Arguing that the KC-30 is operating fine with other Airforce is only one data point. It would be the similar to arguing the KC-767 is operating fine for the Italian Airforce, or the F-32 would have faired better than the F-35. Speculative.

bt


Selected by 7 airforces, qualified for dozens of types, proven in combat, certifying sutomated refuelling and the favourite in running competitions is only one date point. Speculative.
.....
Airbus / LM don't propose, get out of there!

Congress will accept crap like this, as long as Boeing wins.
 
LordTarkin
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:45 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:59 pm

I'm hoping somebody will please show up with a BWB tanker (that actually works... what?) so I'll have something new and exciting to read about other than A vs B.

Maybe an LM/NG team up.

Lets go KC-Y!
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:42 pm

keesje wrote:
USAF not pleased about a boom they don't operate? It seems most types were qualified on MRTT yrs ago. Unlike on the KC46.


Not pleased about a boom they operate from. There's a difference. And apart from being in the wrong position on the A330, there are airflow problems with the Airbus boom you're not aware of. My take is the Airbus visual system is outstanding, but their boom sucks. The Boeing (McD) boom is outstanding, except for the stiff coupling redesign, which the AF overlooked and will pay to fix, but their visual system sucks.

The C-5 is more capable than the C-130 or A400 in almost all areas, too, except for airfield considerations like runway/taxiway length/width or MOG, but no right-minded person would say those programs are inferior because of that. And with an almost 65 foot greater wing span and 60 feet longer length than the KC-135, the Airbus was too much jet to properly replace it in USAF service. I hope its selected to replace the KC-10, though.

Neither tanker is perfect, but Airbus' problems aren't as obvious (or boneheaded) as Boeing's. And your Airbus cheerleading is detracting from the topic as much as the Boeing excuse-makers.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:22 pm

Honestly, as much as I'm a fan of the -10, I think that more -46s is the better answer than re-creating an effective if nearly immediately orphaned fleet.

Yeah, we all wish that AMC and AFMC hadn't pooched the development of the -46, but here we are.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:51 am

FlapOperator wrote:
Honestly, as much as I'm a fan of the -10, I think that more -46s is the better answer than re-creating an effective if nearly immediately orphaned fleet.

Yeah, we all wish that AMC and AFMC hadn't pooched the development of the -46, but here we are.


You’re probably right, but we’ll see what mother blue says at the end of the day. As a coronet-machine, the KC-10 is pretty incredible, and the fewer moving parts in a coronet the better. The KC-46 can certainly replace the 10 in that role, just with fewer receivers per tanker, a la the KC-135. Without the dual role emphasis, and with the KC-46’s SA and boom/drogue/UARSSI on every flight, it’s much harder to justify the KC-10, especially as she gets older in the tooth and rocking ancient engines and a cockpit straight outta the late 70s.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:20 am

Quite a bit of misinformation here.

Some members think the A330 MRTT is superior to the KC-46 because the RAAF and RAF selected the A330. This is incorrect. The A330 MRTT was competing against the KC-767 back then.

The KC-46 is a whole new beast with 32% extra fuel compared to the KC-767. Yes that is not a typo. The KC-46 can easily match the fuel offload of the A330 MRTT at longer range while being a lighter aircraft with a smaller ground footprint.

Let's look at the numbers.

KC-767
OEW: 82.4t
Fuel load: 72.9t
MTOW: 186.9t

KC-46
OEW: 82.4t
Fuel load: 96.3t
MTOW: 188.2t

A330 MRTT
OEW: 125t
Fuel load: 111t
MTOW: 233t

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

Now math shows the A330 can only use 108t of fuel before hitting the 233t MTOW. The KC-46 is at 178t takeoff weight when carrying 96t of fuel so it has room for additional cargo. Now calculating mission performance between the two aircraft. If an inflight refueling mission required 30t of fuel to be offloaded over the Pacific then that leaves 66t of fuel in the KC-46 and 78t of fuel in the A330 MRTT for transit. The A330 has 18% more fuel for transit but it burns much more fuel due to being heavier. The A330 MRTT fully fueled is taking off 31% heavier than the KC-46 at 233t vs 178t. Flying 31% heavier with only 18% more fuel will mean the A330 MRTT most likely won't be able to fly as far. Both aircraft have similar engine tech.

Now people are probably scratching their head wondering how the light KC-46 can carry so much fuel. If we look at the KC-135 the KC-46 is actually incredibly heavy.

KC-135
OEW: 56.2t
Fuel load: 90.7t
MTOW: 146.3t

The KC-135 is 70% of the weight of the KC-46 yet carries 95% of the fuel. The KC-135 fuselage is actually skinnier and shorter than the A321NEO. It is highly obvious why the smaller KC-46 is the best replacement option compared to the larger A330MRTT.

Now to address the USAF performance deficiencies with the KC-46. The USAF performance targets are higher than any other tanker operator. It is not just fuel offload. The quality of vision required in adverse conditions is set incredibly high and even the excellent Airbus system would not meet the requirement. Having wiring separated to improve survivability no Airbus tanker has this. The RAF uses probe and drogue only on their A330 tankers. The RAAF only started to use the boom once the F-35 arrived. The requirements for their tankers were much lower than the USAF.

The Airbus boom has had many problems. It has broken off many times. Here is a mention of the second broken boom back in 2012.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... er-program

The KC-46 as it sits now is more combat capable than any A330MRTT. The biggest drawcard to the A330 MRTT moving forward is the ability to convert dirt cheap used A330-200 frames to give a decent tanker. All of the 767-200ER aircraft have been converted to freighters.

Now for replacement of the KC-10 if the USAF requires the same level of fuel offload at relatively long range then the A330-800 MRTT with its 251t MTOW would be able to do that. But it is highly likely that the USAF will just use three KC-46 tankers instead of a pair of KC-10's when refueling a large number of fighters.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:58 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The KC-135 fuselage is actually skinnier and shorter than the A321NEO.


We often forget that the KC-135 fuselage narrower than the 707/737 which are narrower than the A320.

Thanks for the analysis.

For other nations, the A330 is a better fit because of the cargo capacity, which the USAF already have in spades - C-17 and the much cheaper Civil Transport.

With the new emphasis on distributed air communication network/hub, it would not be far off to say the USAF would want more frames in the sky as opposed to fewer.

bt
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:17 pm

The KC-46 as it sits now is more combat capable than any A330MRTT


Nope.

The U.S. Air Force has described its bedeviled KC-46A Pegasus tanker as a “lemon,” amid ongoing problems that prevent it from performing its primary aerial refueling mission on a day-to-day basis. Now the Air Force is trying to find other ways to make use of these aircraft, of which it has already received 42 examples located at four operating bases.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ade-out-of

The MRTT has proven itself in various theatres. But my point is not the USAF to select an MRTT version, I would advise Airbus to stay out. People want to believe qoutes like RJMAZ's "more combat capable" . Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages. We saw it a decade back, don't go there. Let congress single source Boeing with what ever they promise. Saves everybody a lot of time, energy and moral flexibility.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:54 am

keesje wrote:
Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.


Just like turbo prop is better than tubojet because it provides better loiter time. :roll:

We all play that game :wink2:

bt
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:43 am

keesje wrote:
The U.S. Air Force has described its bedeviled KC-46A Pegasus tanker as a “lemon,” amid ongoing problems that prevent it from performing its primary aerial refueling mission on a day-to-day basis. Now the Air Force is trying to find other ways to make use of these aircraft, of which it has already received 42 examples located at four operating bases.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ade-out-of

As soon as I read that article I instantly thought that it had to be written by a European due to the exaggeration and misquotes. The Author is German.

The KC-46 can currently refuel 10 aircraft with some restrictions as stated by the article. Basically the vision system does not reach the USAF high standards. If the KC-46 was operated by the RAF or RAAF it would be deemed 100% combat capable to their respective requirements. The A330 boom system does not satisfy USAF requirement either. Just last year the South Korean A330 system had huge problems refueling the F-15. The poor aerodynamics of the A330 boom causes the F-15 to roll as it gets close. It has severe restrictions that of course the Koreans can live with.

The Boeing vision system might never be able to meet the USAF requirement. Who knows the only way to meet the requirement might be to have the boom operator in the tail. Cameras might never be able to give the depth perception required to meet the USAF requirement. But the USAF will no doubt eventually compromise and deem the KC-46 fully operational with a remote system that is excellent.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:48 am

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
The U.S. Air Force has described its bedeviled KC-46A Pegasus tanker as a “lemon,” amid ongoing problems that prevent it from performing its primary aerial refueling mission on a day-to-day basis. Now the Air Force is trying to find other ways to make use of these aircraft, of which it has already received 42 examples located at four operating bases.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ade-out-of

As soon as I read that article I instantly thought that it had to be written by a European due to the exaggeration and misquotes. The Author is German.

The KC-46 can currently refuel 10 aircraft with some restrictions as stated by the article. Basically the vision system does not reach the USAF high standards. If the KC-46 was operated by the RAF or RAAF it would be deemed 100% combat capable to their respective requirements. The A330 boom system does not satisfy USAF requirement either. Just last year the South Korean A330 system had huge problems refueling the F-15. The poor aerodynamics of the A330 boom causes the F-15 to roll as it gets close. It has severe restrictions that of course the Koreans can live with.

The Boeing vision system might never be able to meet the USAF requirement. Who knows the only way to meet the requirement might be to have the boom operator in the tail. Cameras might never be able to give the depth perception required to meet the USAF requirement. But the USAF will no doubt eventually compromise and deem the KC-46 fully operational with a remote system that is excellent.


An F15 special software update was certified for MRTT in 2018 with F15 operators. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10 ... -f-15-jet/

No doubt Boeing will find a solution too, making it the most scrutinized and safest boom ever.. And make it part of the KC-Y also.

I guess the USAF highest priority is to get tankers that do the basic job like the old KC-135s.

By that time the Koreans and Singpore Airforces use automatic taking for their F15s by night and bad sight.

If KC-Y selection is pulled forward Boeing can increase production rates, improving efficiencies.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:00 am

bikerthai wrote:
keesje wrote:
Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.


Just like turbo prop is better than tubojet because it provides better loiter time. :roll:

We all play that game :wink2:

bt


Turbo Props are preferred for lower speeds, lower attitudes, lower fuel consumption and lower cost. Overlapping with MPA requirements.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:00 pm

keesje wrote:
Turbo Props are preferred for lower speeds, lower attitudes,


keesje wrote:
Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.


bikerthai wrote:
We all play that game


bt
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27679
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:29 pm

keesje wrote:
If KC-Y selection is pulled forward Boeing can increase production rates, improving efficiencies.


With the final KC-X tranche buys now pushed back to at least 2024, realistically a KC-Y win will just extend the production line deeper past 2028 at the current Rate 3.

In 2018, when Boeing announced they would increase to Rate 3 at the start of 2020, they alerted 767 suppliers that the rate might be increased to Rate 3.5 and then Rate 4 by the end of 2020. This was tied to a possible large new-build order from Amazon, which never happened, and UPS' contract which gives them Right of First Refusal to any newly available 767 production slot.

Supposedly Boeing is again considering a short-term increase, which is probably tied to FedEx and UPS placing their final top-up orders prior to the 767-300F line closing in 2028 when the ICAO emissions rules come into effect.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:51 pm

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
If KC-Y selection is pulled forward Boeing can increase production rates, improving efficiencies.


With the final KC-X tranche buys now pushed back to at least 2024, realistically a KC-Y win will just extend the production line deeper past 2028 at the current Rate 3.

In 2018, when Boeing announced they would increase to Rate 3 at the start of 2020, they alerted 767 suppliers that the rate might be increased to Rate 3.5 and then Rate 4 by the end of 2020. This was tied to a possible large new-build order from Amazon, which never happened, and UPS' contract which gives them Right of First Refusal to any newly available 767 production slot.

Supposedly Boeing is again considering a short-term increase, which is probably tied to FedEx and UPS placing their final top-up orders prior to the 767-300F line closing in 2028 when the ICAO emissions rules come into effect.


For both the freighter business > 2027 and KC-Y a GENX upgrade for the 767 makes sense. EIS 2018 would even have been better IMO. https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 57.article


bikerthai wrote:
keesje wrote:
Turbo Props are preferred for lower speeds, lower attitudes,


keesje wrote:
Disadvantages are liberally turned into advantages.


bikerthai wrote:
We all play that game


bt



? For dropping a raft, sono, torpedo & hanging around an area for half a day, scanning/sharing, checking out small boats (women / children on board? ) not cruising 400 kts at 20k ft just makes sense. And props are better there than turbofans. Physics.

Image
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... e-diameter
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27679
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:25 pm

keesje wrote:
For both the freighter business > 2027 and KC-Y a GENX upgrade for the 767 makes sense. EIS 2018 would even have been better IMO.


Well we know Boeing (and, presumably, GE) have been floating it, but I am guessing the value proposition is just not there for the commercial operators. Likely the same reason they did not push Airbus to make the A330-800 into a freighter now that the A330-200F is nearing End of Sales Life, as well.

Commercial freighters have such long service lives that I could believe that everyone who has or will take delivery of a new-build 767F or A330F by the end of 2028 have as many as they think they will need and with P2F conversions not subject to the ICAO rulings (interesting loophole - wonder how that was lobbied in) any capacity needs post-2028 will be able to be taken care of by freighter conversion of passenger 767 and A330ceo retirements.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1512
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:53 pm

Stitch wrote:
P2F conversions not subject to the ICAO rulings (interesting loophole - wonder how that was lobbied in)


The idea is that they're not going out of their way to accelerate the decline in value or even decline in utility of extant airframes, so I don't see tolerating continued use of those frames as a 'loophole.' They're saying 'no more after 2028' -- conversions aren't "more."
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1512
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:17 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The KC-135 fuselage is actually skinnier and shorter than the A321NEO.


Huge inefficient wing and four engines. Reminds me of the B-52... fuselage is smaller than 757, huge wing and eight engines. Might suggest that a 21st century 'bomb truck' and a 21st century *large* fuel truck could perhaps share a narrowbody fuselage and widebody wings, and neither just happens naturally from 21st century civil airframes. But that's the problem... they want to pay for neither new tube nor new wings.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27679
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 7:35 pm

ssteve wrote:
The idea is that they're not going out of their way to accelerate the decline in value or even decline in utility of extant airframes, so I don't see tolerating continued use of those frames as a 'loophole.' They're saying 'no more after 2028' -- conversions aren't "more."


Fair enough, and freighter frames fly significantly less hours per year than a passenger frame so such lower utilization does help reduce the overall CO2 contribution of aviation on an annual basis.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:31 pm

There aren’t going to be too many pax 767’s that aren’t utterly worn out by around 2028-2030, ripe for conversion. A new 767-size aircraft of some sort (re-engine/winged or not) is almost inevitable toward 2030. I doubt it starts it’s career as a tanker design, though.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10968
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:33 pm

keesje wrote:
The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.

What exactly is wrong with the US government buying local to preserve technology and jobs in the USA, how could the largest military contract go elsewhere when they have local capability?
 
johns624
Posts: 4055
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:36 pm

par13del wrote:
keesje wrote:
The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.

What exactly is wrong with the US government buying local to preserve technology and jobs in the USA, how could the largest military contract go elsewhere when they have local capability?
He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:32 pm

johns624 wrote:
par13del wrote:
keesje wrote:
The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.

What exactly is wrong with the US government buying local to preserve technology and jobs in the USA, how could the largest military contract go elsewhere when they have local capability?
He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.


I'm perfectly ok with USAF again ordering the awesome KC46 for whatever tbd reasons. I only advise Airbus not to propose, makes no sense.

A400M vs C17? Different requirements. Fast jet/ helicopter tanker capability, tactical capabilities, flight envelope protection, no MBT requirement, auto low level flight, lower cost, they are not the same category.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:59 am

keesje wrote:
I'm perfectly ok with USAF again ordering the awesome KC46 for whatever tbd reasons. I only advise Airbus not to propose, makes no sense.

I agree. Airbus has no off the shelf frame to match the KC-46. With the A330 MRTT offering only 15% more fuel capacity despite having an empty weight 50% higher than the KC-46 it should stick to being an overweight passenger plane. Unless the A330 frames frames are given to the air force fo free like with Turkey then it is a bad option.

Boeing invested on filling a light frame with extra fuel tanks and it pays off. The KC-46 can carry more fuel than its empty weight a whopping 117%.

Airbus needs to also make an expensive custom solution to have a competitive plane. To have the slightest chance at the bare minimum Airbus needs to offer a tanker that can carry as much fuel as its empty weight. The A330-800 with a 251t MTOW comes close. It needs the empty weight to be kept below 125t and it will need extra fuel tanks to increase fuel capacity from 111t up to 125t. Adding fuel tanks is easy but keeping the weight down might require the fuselage to be shortened to A300 length. Airbus wouldn't be able to charge enough per frame to pay for the development cost. It makes no sense for them to bid.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:12 pm

Unless Airbus would propose the A-330F in an MRTT form I don't think the USAF would be interested. The A-330MRTT in its current form is a pax airplane that doubles as a tanker. The USAF would want a main deck cargo door, a real freighter main deck cargo floor, and almost no windows.
 
johns624
Posts: 4055
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jul 05, 2021 1:30 am

keesje wrote:
johns624 wrote:
par13del wrote:
What exactly is wrong with the US government buying local to preserve technology and jobs in the USA, how could the largest military contract go elsewhere when they have local capability?
He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.


I'm perfectly ok with USAF again ordering the awesome KC46 for whatever tbd reasons. I only advise Airbus not to propose, makes no sense.

A400M vs C17? Different requirements. Fast jet/ helicopter tanker capability, tactical capabilities, flight envelope protection, no MBT requirement, auto low level flight, lower cost, they are not the same category.
The A330 and C46 are different requirements also. One is a dedicated tanker for an air force with a large transport fleet and the other is a combo tanker/freighter for smaller militaries that really can't have both. Before the A400, nobody saw a requirement for it. They got along fine with C130s and Transalls.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:48 am

johns624 wrote:
keesje wrote:
johns624 wrote:
He ignores the fact that different militaries have different needs. He still hasn't answered why so many European militaries went with the A400 over the C17. It's the same argument, only in reverse.


I'm perfectly ok with USAF again ordering the awesome KC46 for whatever tbd reasons. I only advise Airbus not to propose, makes no sense.

A400M vs C17? Different requirements. Fast jet/ helicopter tanker capability, tactical capabilities, flight envelope protection, no MBT requirement, auto low level flight, lower cost, they are not the same category.
The A330 and C46 are different requirements also. One is a dedicated tanker for an air force with a large transport fleet and the other is a combo tanker/freighter for smaller militaries that really can't have both. Before the A400, nobody saw a requirement for it. They got along fine with C130s and Transalls.


No that not the case, lets not change the past. The MRTT and KC46 requirements were / are for tanker transport & that's how the KC46 is also promoted. The KC46 has no lower deck cargo capability because fuel tanks are there. The A330 has lower deck capability for standard pallets & containers in addition to main deck capability. Loading lower deck is moften ore practical than maindeck (airport infrastructure). E.g. the Australians and RAF can be savvy/ focused with their expensive C17's, because their MRTT's can do a lot, for much lower cost. Boeing sees that as a threat to their C-17 bu$iness.

Image
https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020-pv08-p55-kc46/

BTW the A400M is build to fulfill UK, German, Spanish, Belgium and French transport requirements. To suggest that before the A400, nobody saw a requirement for it is a total ignorance / re-write of history!
The requirements were so diverse & extensive, it cost a lot of times and money to realize them. Many thought it was overspecified, maybe it was. With the international crises (Middle East, Africa), UN operations expanding and typical armored vehicles growing those air forces saw the need for a bigger tactical/strategic transport. E.g. they were hiring Russian/ Ukraine aircraft all the time.

I think there's just a capability / quality gab between the C46 and MRTT and air forces around the world have selected one over the other because of it. The USAF still got the C46 after a competition that was lauded by all involved, until the moment NG / Airbus won. Boeing, congress & an army of lawyers & lobbyist saved the day for America.

That's why I advise Airbus (& LM) to simply stay out this time. They don't need it, contrary to Boeing. Let Congress/ Boeing do their thing, but don't get used as a supernumerary to suggest a fair competition for the bigger public. Just make it a transparent Sole Source Purchasing Program!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:16 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The USAF has 242 tankers in the fleet today, I guess i active units, yet around 450 total if you include Nat’l guard/reserve.

Of course you count both, some of the first units to get KC46 were ANG units.

bikerthai wrote:
Rehash after rehash.

Let's wait for the RFP to come out before we restart the debate again.

The argument of protecting the industrial base may sound true, but if the US government really want to protect Boeing, then it should pump money into getting a 787F which can be developed into a future KC-787. After all composite manufacturing will do more for Boeing and the development of future aircraft than old metal tech.

Indeed. I wrote this a good decade or so. The life limiting factor of KC-135 is metal fatigue, even still they had sufficient airframe life to last till the mid 2040s. The KC-135s should have been extended/re-engined till there was enough capacity to replace them with composite based frames.

keesje wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
I like the capability differences in KC-46 and MRTT. I'm ok with the USAF having both.

The MRTT is more capable in almost all areas, so someone invented it was "too" capable, was too big and had to be as cheap as possible, but it wasn't the USAF. Politics/ congress intervened after NG/ Airbus won.

You always forget to mention the part where GAO found USAF did not evaluate its own RFP properly.

keesje wrote:
After this trick, NG withdrew from competition Airbus stayed as a gesture & didn't protest afraid of being blamed for further delays.

Seems to me Airbus hired the wrong partners, consultants and former generals. Costly mistake. Maybe they'll do better next time around. LM is a lot more politically connected than Boeing ever was. If you want proof, just look at the F-35 program. If they can get Congress to swallow that, they can get Congress to swallow anything.
 
WingedVictory
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:22 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:37 pm

I am joining the discussion a bit late in the news cycle for this discussion, which has been a very good debate from all sides, per usual for A.Net. I'd like to point out that there has been little discussion thus far on the USAF's decision to effectively resurrect the KC-Y program and wrap it in the title of a "Bridge Tanker" program. I think a further analysis from the A.Net community here may expose a better understanding of the what may be happening behind the AMC green curtain, in terms of the catalyst(s) to bring forward this Bridge Tanker program as an RFI and its possible nexus to the very problematic KC-46A development & production history over the last 10+ years.

Last fall, AMC Commander General Van Ovost provided some public details and explanation with the following:

The KC-Y is “what we call the bridge tanker,” she elaborated. There will “be a full and open competition for a non-developmental tanker — in other words a commercial capability that’s out there, or can be developed. Right now I know of two types that are out there, Airbus and Boeing.” Those interim airplanes will serve “until we can determine the final requirements of what we call Advanced Air Refueling, which you would call KC-Z,” she added.

The originally envisioned program spiral development of KC-X,Y, & Z was to accomplish a full replacement of the KC-135 fleet (KC-X & Y) and the later replacement of the KC-10 (KC-Z) with the added benefit of developing an autonomous platform capability, now described by General Van Ovost as the "Advanced Air Refueling" initiative. However, over the intervening years since the introduction of KC-X,Y, & Z development spirals, senior USAF leadership determined that it was best to terminate KC-Y in order to avoid the added costs and development delays that would otherwise be mandated for implementing it. The obvious thought was the KC-46A, under KC-X, could be extended further to cover the higher production requirements that would be targeted for the full KC-135 replacement, yet the program has been brought back to life.

The question of why was KC-Y resurrected under the moniker of a Bridge Tanker non-development program is likely the result of not only the KC-46A's legion of problems, but may also be due to notable operational gap issues related to the China INDOPACOM pivot and related impacts to the emerging roles and missions of the USAF's strategic tanker fleet and its need to quickly adapt to these emergent requirements, such as adaptive basing and the ability to shift to an untraditional fuel logistics role with the loss and/or major disruption of key forward MOB fuel POL land-based distribution systems, etc. An attached 2019 article from the "Over The Horizon Journal" highlights some of these issues in more detail and I recommend for further reading.

https://othjournal.com/2019/04/17/air-mobility-commands-future-tanker-problem/

I think with this added piece of the puzzle inserted to the current discussion some the prior highlighted points may either rise up or be pushed down as to what may or not happen in a pending RFP, as a matter of speculative debate.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27679
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:38 pm

keesje wrote:
E.g. the Australians and RAF can be savvy/ focused with their expensive C17's, because their MRTT's can do a lot, for much lower cost. Boeing sees that as a threat to their C-17 bu$iness.


Well Boeing doesn't have a C-17 business anymore, so... And even when KC-X was being fought over the C-17 program was winding down as the USAF had ordered all they wanted and had also ordered all they didn't want that had been forced on them by the US Congress.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
E.g. the Australians and RAF can be savvy/ focused with their expensive C17's, because their MRTT's can do a lot, for much lower cost. Boeing sees that as a threat to their C-17 bu$iness.


Well Boeing doesn't have a C-17 business anymore, so... And even when KC-X was being fought over the C-17 program was winding down as the USAF had ordered all they wanted and had also ordered all they didn't want that had been forced on them by the US Congress.


:sarcastic: Sustainment closely related to flight hours.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... t-contract

Revelation, I know GAO = congress & far from objective, they don't even pretend.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27679
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:15 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation, I know GAO = congress & far from objective, they don't even pretend.


And yet Congress could have easily done for KC-X what they with the 2001 KC-767 lease deal and just declared Boeing the only viable contractor and not accept bids from anyone else.

Neither Airbus nor Lockheed-Martin strike me as companies run by stupid people, so if two European a.netters could figure out they would never be allowed to actually win the bid, I would think they would also have known every dollar they spent on the RFP was wasted and Boeing also would have said "Hey! Why are we even going through this farce of having a competition? It's just wasting our money making us develop all these 'frankentankers' - just award us the contract like you already intend to."

As such, the logical conclusion is that it was meant to be an open competition with the lowest bid the winner and Boeing offered the lower bid.

But hurt buttocks never heal, I guess. Perhaps try a softer pillow...
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:43 am

Stitch wrote:
As such, the logical conclusion is that it was meant to be an open competition with the lowest bid the winner and Boeing offered the lower bid.

But hurt buttocks never heal, I guess. Perhaps try a softer pillow...

It is common sense that an aircraft that weighs 82t will be able to be cheaper than an aircraft that weighs 125t.

Airbus was pitching a tanker more than double the weight of the KC-135.

The original requirement was heavily weighted towards lowest bid. The USAF did not follow their own criteria. But some members will take this mistake as corruption and that the 125t MRTT is vastly superior choice to replace a 56t tanker.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:24 am

Lowest costs for minimum spec was introduced after NG/Airbus won. A goalpost protectionist thing by an outraged congress.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry

I'm perfectly ok with that, it was the GFC, Boeing was deep into 787 trouble & needed the contract. Same now, just award Boeing the contract & have the Pentagon adjust their requirements, follow orders and get over this non-sense.

Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now. Hard to imagine a majority approve that. Boeing is a great American company and the C46 is exactly what the USAF and the American People need. A great KC10 replacement too.

Image
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-1%3famp

Maybe they can get export orders too. The Indian, Canadian, Brasil, Spanish, Turkish air forces are also looking for tanker transports.
 
LTEN11
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:09 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:47 am

keesje wrote:
Lowest costs for minimum spec was introduced after NG/Airbus won. A goalpost protectionist thing by an outraged congress.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry

I'm perfectly ok with that, it was the GFC, Boeing was deep into 787 trouble & needed the contract. Same now, just award Boeing the contract & have the Pentagon adjust their requirements, follow orders and get over this non-sense.

Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now. Hard to imagine a majority approve that. Boeing is a great American company and the C46 is exactly what the USAF and the American People need. A great KC10 replacement too.

Image
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-1%3famp

Maybe they can get export orders too. The Indian, Canadian, Brasil, Spanish, Turkish air forces are also looking for tanker transports.


Just the minor detail, that is the KC-46 is a tanker, not meant to be a transport, though that is an added benefit.

A C-46 would indicate a transport aircraft and highly unlikely that any of those nations you have carefully chosen would ever want one, considering they all have transport aircraft in their inventory, with absolutely no need for a 767 sized transport aircraft. But you are right, the KC-46 will be a fine tanker for decades to come and if chosen will be a fine replacement for the KC-10 as well.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 8:56 am

LTEN11 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Lowest costs for minimum spec was introduced after NG/Airbus won. A goalpost protectionist thing by an outraged congress.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry

I'm perfectly ok with that, it was the GFC, Boeing was deep into 787 trouble & needed the contract. Same now, just award Boeing the contract & have the Pentagon adjust their requirements, follow orders and get over this non-sense.

Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now. Hard to imagine a majority approve that. Boeing is a great American company and the C46 is exactly what the USAF and the American People need. A great KC10 replacement too.

Image
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-1%3famp

Maybe they can get export orders too. The Indian, Canadian, Brasil, Spanish, Turkish air forces are also looking for tanker transports.


Just the minor detail, that is the KC-46 is a tanker, not meant to be a transport, though that is an added benefit.

A C-46 would indicate a transport aircraft and highly unlikely that any of those nations you have carefully chosen would ever want one, considering they all have transport aircraft in their inventory, with absolutely no need for a 767 sized transport aircraft. But you are right, the KC-46 will be a fine tanker for decades to come and if chosen will be a fine replacement for the KC-10 as well.


Interesting! Luckily the KC-Y requirements have yet to be completed, so the cargo requirements can be reduced/ extracted. Lots of C-17s and commercial capacity around, so that cannot be a serious requirement. They can also order 50 777Fs, if there's a requirement afterall.

Image
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.avgeek ... der/2/amp/

No, nothing for LM/Airbus to go after, hopefully the Biden government is decisive here and doesn't waste any time on a competition that really isn't. The KC-135 fleet is getting real old and the nation, the men on the frontline and Boeing need this aquisition asap.

Past performance has always been subjective & totally overrated anyway. In this ever changing world, DoD must look forward facing new challenges and opportunities serving the country when and where it really matters.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10382
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 9:37 am

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation, I know GAO = congress & far from objective, they don't even pretend.


And yet Congress could have easily done for KC-X what they with the 2001 KC-767 lease deal and just declared Boeing the only viable contractor and not accept bids from anyone else.

Neither Airbus nor Lockheed-Martin strike me as companies run by stupid people, so if two European a.netters could figure out they would never be allowed to actually win the bid, I would think they would also have known every dollar they spent on the RFP was wasted and Boeing also would have said "Hey! Why are we even going through this farce of having a competition? It's just wasting our money making us develop all these 'frankentankers' - just award us the contract like you already intend to."

As such, the logical conclusion is that it was meant to be an open competition with the lowest bid the winner and Boeing offered the lower bid.

But hurt buttocks never heal, I guess. Perhaps try a softer pillow...


Game theory. If I bid for a contract while knowing that I can not win, I am still limiting the profit the competition can make with their bid.
 
LTEN11
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:09 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 10:13 am

keesje wrote:
LTEN11 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Lowest costs for minimum spec was introduced after NG/Airbus won. A goalpost protectionist thing by an outraged congress.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... neindustry

I'm perfectly ok with that, it was the GFC, Boeing was deep into 787 trouble & needed the contract. Same now, just award Boeing the contract & have the Pentagon adjust their requirements, follow orders and get over this non-sense.

Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now. Hard to imagine a majority approve that. Boeing is a great American company and the C46 is exactly what the USAF and the American People need. A great KC10 replacement too.

Image
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 20-1%3famp

Maybe they can get export orders too. The Indian, Canadian, Brasil, Spanish, Turkish air forces are also looking for tanker transports.


Just the minor detail, that is the KC-46 is a tanker, not meant to be a transport, though that is an added benefit.

A C-46 would indicate a transport aircraft and highly unlikely that any of those nations you have carefully chosen would ever want one, considering they all have transport aircraft in their inventory, with absolutely no need for a 767 sized transport aircraft. But you are right, the KC-46 will be a fine tanker for decades to come and if chosen will be a fine replacement for the KC-10 as well.


Interesting! Luckily the KC-Y requirements have yet to be completed, so the cargo requirements can be reduced/ extracted. Lots of C-17s and commercial capacity around, so that cannot be a serious requirement. They can also order 50 777Fs, if there's a requirement afterall.

Image
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.avgeek ... der/2/amp/

No, nothing for LM/Airbus to go after, hopefully the Biden government is decisive here and doesn't waste any time on a competition that really isn't. The KC-135 fleet is getting real old and the nation, the men on the frontline and Boeing need this aquisition asap.

Past performance has always been subjective & totally overrated anyway. In this ever changing world, DoD must look forward facing new challenges and opportunities serving the country when and where it really matters.


That's why I mentioned that a KC-46 has the added benefit of being a transport aircraft. Nice that you show the KC-10 being used as a transport, but again it was an added benefit, the C-141's and C-5's along with the C-130's and civilian transport available were more than adequate then too.

Anyway, you keep swinging that Airbus was hard done by axe of yours, though it is very tedious.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 11:55 am

LTEN11 wrote:
keesje wrote:
LTEN11 wrote:

Just the minor detail, that is the KC-46 is a tanker, not meant to be a transport, though that is an added benefit.

A C-46 would indicate a transport aircraft and highly unlikely that any of those nations you have carefully chosen would ever want one, considering they all have transport aircraft in their inventory, with absolutely no need for a 767 sized transport aircraft. But you are right, the KC-46 will be a fine tanker for decades to come and if chosen will be a fine replacement for the KC-10 as well.


Interesting! Luckily the KC-Y requirements have yet to be completed, so the cargo requirements can be reduced/ extracted. Lots of C-17s and commercial capacity around, so that cannot be a serious requirement. They can also order 50 777Fs, if there's a requirement afterall.

Image
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.avgeek ... der/2/amp/

No, nothing for LM/Airbus to go after, hopefully the Biden government is decisive here and doesn't waste any time on a competition that really isn't. The KC-135 fleet is getting real old and the nation, the men on the frontline and Boeing need this aquisition asap.

Past performance has always been subjective & totally overrated anyway. In this ever changing world, DoD must look forward facing new challenges and opportunities serving the country when and where it really matters.


That's why I mentioned that a KC-46 has the added benefit of being a transport aircraft. Nice that you show the KC-10 being used as a transport, but again it was an added benefit, the C-141's and C-5's along with the C-130's and civilian transport available were more than adequate then too.

Anyway, you keep swinging that Airbus was hard done by axe of yours, though it is very tedious.


That's right, the strategic transport role of these Tankers Transport is not really important because other aircraft are available and the role is somewhat impractical for the KC46. When refueled, a C-17 can carry a lot more across the Pacific if needed. To be perfectly honest, the MRTT large cargo volumes and payload-range are really overdone for any USAF requirement. Those requirements are so specific, they really can't be compared to all the other air force tanker transport selections happening now and in the past.

Image
https://www.travis.af.mil/News/Photos/i ... 002088144/

Plenty of other capacity is available, or can be bought. Not that a K-46 would fall short in any way, but changing requirements requiring new ways to fulfill evolving operational requirements in the best and most economic way possible for today and tomorrow. The investments Boeing is making in the KC-46 today will benefit generations of service members. I believe the partnership between Boeing and the Air Force will also produce additional KC-46 innovations that will carry the warfighter well into the future.

Looking forward, good progress is being made on the KC46 & by 2023 it will be the most scrutinized and tested tanker in world. With retrofits being completed shortly after an additional KC-Y order will lead to further unit cost advantages for the USAF. https://breakingdefense.com/2021/05/has ... 2022-ndaa/
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4182
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:27 pm

keesje wrote:
Boeing need this aquisition asap.


By the time the KC-Y contract is signed, Boeing and Airbus would have moved beyond the current crisis.

Neither company need this contract ASAP.

Both these companies need the airline industry to recover ASAP so new commercial airlines gets delivered. Boeing has started ramping up their factory work again and Airbus is probably doing the same.

At max production rate, the KC-Y will still be a small fraction of delivery vs. the commercial market.

bt
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14613
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:09 pm

bikerthai wrote:
keesje wrote:
Boeing need this aquisition asap.


By the time the KC-Y contract is signed, Boeing and Airbus would have moved beyond the current crisis.

Neither company need this contract ASAP.

Both these companies need the airline industry to recover ASAP so new commercial airlines gets delivered. Boeing has started ramping up their factory work again and Airbus is probably doing the same.

At max production rate, the KC-Y will still be a small fraction of delivery vs. the commercial market.

bt


I think at this stage, Airbus and Boeing situations are unfortunately not really comparable in in terms of debt, backlogs, deliveries, portfolio and quality. Good thing cashflow blinded WS has no idea that even the 787 backlog has been dropping for a decade (787 : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 8dd94b.png ) & there's still an open bill for $10B+, 777x is in deep trouble, lets not even rehash 737 or NMA. Selecting LM/Airbus KC45 / MRTT would only help keep open A330 lines longer, how would that help the 787? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/boeing- ... 0of%202019. So..

Having the outlook of an additional well priced 150 Boeing tankers for the USAF, including billions in aftermarket for the next 40 years, would be a welcome shot in the arm for Boeings stability & financial credibility today. In my opinion (well invested) state support for Boeing should be considered, to secure long term market competition and choice for airlines in all categories. I suspect most congress members share such a view. That's why I think a competition based on tbd doctored requirements can better be avoided. Just make sure USAF doesn't come up with unreasonable (Pacific?) requirements publicly and free cash flow is invested rather than extracted.

Image
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/years-del ... ming-soon/
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27679
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Another Boeing-Airbus tanker war is coming soon, KC-Y

Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:58 pm

keesje wrote:
Billions have been spent getting the C46 right, it would be waste of money ordering something from Europe now.


The billions that have been spent are almost all from Boeing, so there should be no "sunk-cost fallacy" on the USAF or US DOD to influence the RFP.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LTEN11 and 10 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