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

Stitch · Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:41 pm

Flying-Tiger wrote:
Even if the USAF sets a price they are willing to pay and want to set it up as a fixed price contract: there´s always the other party which needs to accept such an order...

Well if Boeing isn't willing to take the price, if LM-Airbus is, then good on them.

Flying-Tiger wrote:
We don´t know if the current fixed price contract actually covers (production) costs for Boeing. They might decided that it is not worth incurring further losses in the hope of winning support contracts down the line.

Assuming Boeing can actually mature the production of the KC-46A, they should see significant reductions in the production costs. Boeing might have low-balled their bid to win, but based on past behavior, I expect they bid at a price they presumed they were going to make money on.

Flying-Tiger wrote:
It assumes that the KC-Y contract specifies a frame very similar to the KC-46A. If this isn´t the case - and it looks as if the KC-Y is more a DC-10 sized frame - if will be hard to bid the KC-46A in anyway.

If KC-Y is designed around the KC-10A, then the A330MRTT is going to be the only option and Boeing should not bother bidding.

But the USAF has been working hard to retire the KC-10 and they have done so with no direct replacement planned, which makes me believe they feel the mission can be handled by the KC-46 (just with more of them).

petertenthije · Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:45 pm

Stitch wrote:
If KC-Y is designed around the KC-10A, then the A330MRTT is going to be the only option and Boeing should not bother bidding.

Would a 767-400 based design not fit the KC-10A?

Stitch · Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:56 pm

Stitch wrote:
If KC-Y is designed around the KC-10A, then the A330MRTT is going to be the only option and Boeing should not bother bidding.

petertenthije wrote:
Would a 767-400 based design not fit the KC-10A?

Heck, the 767-300F would be a great replacement (other than maximum payload). But it would have to be certified for military use as the 767-200ER was to create the 767-2C (which is the basis for the KC-46A). And that will take time and money when the A330MRTT is arguably ready to go (especially if the USAF just take the KC-30B as used by the RAAF).

bikerthai · Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:40 pm

Question is, do they want the cargo capability of the KC-10 or just the fuel off-load capability?

If it's just fuel off-load, then can the KC-46 meet the requirement by adding extra lower lobe tanks?

If it include increase cargo, the the KC-45 would win.

I do not see the Air Force nor Boeing funding a KC-777.

bt

JayinKitsap · Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:48 pm

The number of B-52, C-17, and C-5's is static or declining. The KC-10 had extra fueling capability but the demand for larger volume of tankage is static or declining along with the larger frames. What is today's and the future's need for a tanker larger than the KC-135 or KC-46.

I'm not familiar with the requirements to go past the 179 in the KC-x competition, but it seems to regularly happen with the C-17, the P-8, engines, helicopters, etc. With the F-15ex, there has been a scuffle and an engine re compete is in progress, clearly this is past the original engine procurement quantities. I feel that if Boeing ever gets its act together and put all the deficiencies to bed they should get additional frames well past the 179, otherwise it will be apparent that it is time to change planes.

KC-Z is the interesting part, probably a fleet of drone tankers that could also be loyal wingman bomb trucks.

Buckeyetech · Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:19 pm

The USAF has said time again that they have an excess of transport aircraft. Coupled with the KC-46s coming online, and the number of civilian air cargo flights that Transcom uses, there is no reason to buy anything bigger than the KC-46. I doubt the hangars they’re building for the KC-46 can fit anything much bigger as well.

keesje · Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:55 am

A very capable proven tanker transport would mean e.g. C-17 / C-5 hours can be saved for their specific capabilities and less tankers would be needed to fuel them. Something Boeing and the many KC135 bases can do without. A fleet of strategic transports, a fleet of tankers, a fleet of troop transports, a fleet of tactical transport, a fleet of EW aircraft, a fleet of VIP aircraft, the more the better!

Multirole is a threat !!

https://www.airbus.com/defence/a330mrtt.html

brindabella · Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:59 am

keesje wrote:
A very capable proven tanker transport would mean e.g. C-17 / C-5 hours can be saved for their specific capabilities and less tankers would be needed to fuel them. Something Boeing and the many KC135 bases can do without. A fleet of strategic transports, a fleet of tankers, a fleet of troop transports, a fleet of tactical transport, a fleet of EW aircraft, a fleet of VIP aircraft, the more the better!

Multirole is a threat !!

The problem that I would perceive is that the units can't be in two (or three) places at once.
For small air forces, the multi-role versatility would be very attractive.
So sales there would be expected.

However for the USAF I would expect that on the approach of hostilities the Commanders of the Operational elements would immediately lower the boom on the tanker force.
They wouldn't be going anywhere.

No freighter trips.
No troop transport.

They would be standing-by for the #1 role only - tanker support.

So the air force has to provide additional equipment for these tasks anyway.

https://www.airbus.com/defence/a330mrtt.html

Revelation · Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:14 pm

keesje wrote:
I think it is essential to get the timeline right. The lowest price for meeting minimal requirements came after Airbus won. Since then many tried to rewrite history or forget.

If it is essential to get the timeline right, you'll remember that round of the competition was canceled after USAF admitted they gave the NG extra credit points for things that were not part of the RFP. The fact the USAF general in charge of mobility got a civilian job with Airbus shortly after that "win" says a lot about how that evaluation was being conducted. Did you "forget" this part?

In black and white:

Boeing submitted the final version of its proposal on 3 January 2008.[17] On 29 February 2008, the DoD chose the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-30, over the KC-767. The KC-30 was subsequently designated KC-45A by the USAF.[18] Boeing submitted a protest to the United States Government Accountability Office on 11 March 2008 and began waging a public relations campaign in support of their protest.[19] On 18 June, following a series of admissions by the USAF on flaws in the bidding process, the GAO upheld Boeing's protest and recommended the contract be rebid.[19] On 9 July 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the USAF would reopen bidding on the tanker contract.[20] Secretary Gates put the contract for the KC-45 into an "expedited recompetition" with Defense Undersecretary John Young in charge of the selection process instead of the Air Force.[21] A draft of the revised RFP was provided to the contractors on 6 August 2008 for comments. By mid-August the revised RFP was to be finalized.[22] However, on 10 September 2008, the U.S. Defense Department canceled the KC-X solicitation.[23]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

keesje · Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think it is essential to get the timeline right. The lowest price for meeting minimal requirements came after Airbus won. Since then many tried to rewrite history or forget.

If it is essential to get the timeline right, you'll remember that round of the competition was canceled after USAF admitted they gave the NG extra credit points for things that were not part of the RFP. The fact the USAF general in charge of mobility got a civilian job with Airbus shortly after that "win" says a lot about how that evaluation was being conducted. Did you "forget" this part?

In black and white:

Boeing submitted the final version of its proposal on 3 January 2008.[17] On 29 February 2008, the DoD chose the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-30, over the KC-767. The KC-30 was subsequently designated KC-45A by the USAF.[18] Boeing submitted a protest to the United States Government Accountability Office on 11 March 2008 and began waging a public relations campaign in support of their protest.[19] On 18 June, following a series of admissions by the USAF on flaws in the bidding process, the GAO upheld Boeing's protest and recommended the contract be rebid.[19] On 9 July 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the USAF would reopen bidding on the tanker contract.[20] Secretary Gates put the contract for the KC-45 into an "expedited recompetition" with Defense Undersecretary John Young in charge of the selection process instead of the Air Force.[21] A draft of the revised RFP was provided to the contractors on 6 August 2008 for comments. By mid-August the revised RFP was to be finalized.[22] However, on 10 September 2008, the U.S. Defense Department canceled the KC-X solicitation.[23]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

Was congress missing in action? It was all purely legal wasn't it ? :rotfl:

Keating was hired in 2008 to leverage his political clout after Boeing initially lost the Air Force aerial refueling tanker contract to Northrop Grumman, which had proposed a tanker based on an Airbus jet.

In 2011, Keating’s aggressive lobbying of Congress was instrumental in Boeing reversing that decision and winning the KC-46 tanker contract.

After that victory, Keating opened a celebratory bottle of wine with Rich Michalski, his counterpart at the headquarters of the International Association of Machinists union. The two had collaborated to swing Republicans and Democrats behind Boeing.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ngton-d-c/

Revelation · Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:16 pm

keesje wrote:
Was congress missing in action? It was all purely legal wasn't it ?

Lobbying is legal, not reporting payments to "consultants" to win business all around the world is illegal, can results in billions of euros of fines.

Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... corruption

Paying former USAF tanker generals as board members right after a major procurement is legal, but you might want to do a thorough background check first.

Ref: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... board.html

keesje · Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Was congress missing in action? It was all purely legal wasn't it ?

Lobbying is legal, not reporting payments to "consultants" to win business all around the world is illegal, can results in billions of euros of fines.

Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... corruption

Paying former USAF tanker generals as board members right after a major procurement is legal, but you might want to do a thorough background check first.

Ref: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... board.html

Lets avoid fraud, tankers & Boeing, been there done that.. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/ ... v_412.html

Revelation · Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:20 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Lobbying is legal, not reporting payments to "consultants" to win business all around the world is illegal, can results in billions of euros of fines.

Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... corruption

Paying former USAF tanker generals as board members right after a major procurement is legal, but you might want to do a thorough background check first.

Ref: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... board.html

Lets avoid fraud, tankers & Boeing, been there done that.. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/ ... v_412.html

Yep, dirty hands everywhere you look, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Best not to go with the 'holier than thou' fake outrage, people see right through it.

texl1649 · Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:12 pm

I still am not convinced Boeing really wants to produce/sell more KC-46’s at this point. Their 787 skyline also is not terrific right now, especially 5+ Years out. Maybe not ‘off the shelf’ but I remain skeptical either the A330 nor 767 are in production still by 2029, so a solution might have to be a different commercial derivative.

Stitch · Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:09 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I still am not convinced Boeing really wants to produce/sell more KC-46’s at this point. Their 787 skyline also is not terrific right now, especially 5+ Years out. Maybe not ‘off the shelf’ but I remain skeptical either the A330 nor 767 are in production still by 2029, so a solution might have to be a different commercial derivative.

Well the A330ceo and 767 will not be allowed to be sold commercially after 2028 when the ICAO Emissions Limits come into effect. These do not apply to military craft, however, so the A330MRTT and KC-46 will still be available.

kitplane01 · Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:10 pm

I believe I've read that the A330 MRTT has won every international competition except the USAF when going up against the KC-46. Is this true? And why does the MRTT do so well against the KC-46?

zeke · Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:06 am

Stitch wrote:
I don't think anyone with a critical-thinking approach would argue the A330MRTT is not a more capable airframe than the KC-46A. And considering almost every RFP other than the USAF had criteria that played to the A330MRTT's greater capability, it is not surprising it was chosen for them.

I mean the USAF had to deliberately rig the competition to get the KC-45/A330MRTT to win in 2008 because the RFP did not call for that extra capability and it came with not-insignificant costs and hardships for the USAF to integrate the frame into the existing base infrastructure. Which ended up with the award being thrown out on review when the chicanery came to light.

The assumption there was that Boeing would deliver lower risk due to their tanker history, on time, on spec, on price, it failed, the tanker still has not reached the product it is supposed to be. We are all aware there have been cost blowouts that Boeing have absorbed, however again that goes against Boeing as it demonstrates they failed to understand the project they bid on. Meanwhile Airbus has been delivering tankers to various customers around the world, and they have been delivering fuel to US aircraft. The A330 based tanker is now a known quantity with boom and hose for US receivers.

During the competition there was a lot of statements that Airbus did not have the ability to deliver fuel with a boom, the KC-46 would be a simple FBW upgrade of the KC-10 boom. The USAF now sees itself spending 100 million to redesign and fix the boom as it does not do what it should do.

A major part of the win to Boeing was over life cycle costs, with the A330-800 base frame they have an aircraft that now burns less fuel than a KC-46 which is more suited to the Pacific instead of the Middle East. Additionally Airbus now has fully autonomous tanking sorted.

kitplane01 · Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:40 am

zeke wrote:
A major part of the win to Boeing was over life cycle costs, with the A330-800 base frame they have an aircraft that now burns less fuel than a KC-46 which is more suited to the Pacific instead of the Middle East. Additionally Airbus now has fully autonomous tanking sorted.

I really really really didn't think the MRTT was based on the A330-800. I believe it uses the older engines. Can you provide a cite that Airbus is even considering an MRTT based on the NEO?

seahawk · Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:44 am

Obviously make a MRTT -800 is not hard from the airframe point of view, but you would need to re-certify the plane for all receivers.

zeke · Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:44 am

kitplane01 wrote:

I really really really didn't think the MRTT was based on the A330-800. I believe it uses the older engines. Can you provide a cite that Airbus is even considering an MRTT based on the NEO?

The Airbus A330 tanker modification is an STC that can be applied to new build or retrospectively to second hand aircraft (eg the Ex QF aircraft for the RAAF), any of the 10+ engine options can be used. There are multiple GE and RR engine variants already in service.

kitplane01 · Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:30 am

zeke wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

I really really really didn't think the MRTT was based on the A330-800. I believe it uses the older engines. Can you provide a cite that Airbus is even considering an MRTT based on the NEO?

The Airbus A330 tanker modification is an STC that can be applied to new build or retrospectively to second hand aircraft (eg the Ex QF aircraft for the RAAF), any of the 10+ engine options can be used. There are multiple GE and RR engine variants already in service.

The A330-800 has differences to the older A330 models. For example, the wing is 13 feel wider. It's got a max gross weight 20,000lb more. I don't think it's just a re-engine. Can you offer a reference that it's possible to buy a MRTT with the NEO engines? Or an example of anyone who has?

zeke · Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:47 am

kitplane01 wrote:
The A330-800 has differences to the older A330 models. For example, the wing is 13 feel wider. It's got a max gross weight 20,000lb more. I don't think it's just a re-engine. Can you offer a reference that it's possible to buy a MRTT with the NEO engines? Or an example of anyone who has?

The wing on the -200 and -800 are the same to outboard of the ailerons and slats, what is different is the wing tip attachment and the wing tip device. As far as aerodynamicist are concerned the wing area on the -200 and -800 are the same, the wing tip devices are not counted. The other differences are between the -200 and -800 wings are fairings etc. There is no changes to the ribs, spars, or engine location.

The fuel load is the same, the fuel tank arrangement is the same, the engine thrust and location is the same.

The -800 has something like 10 different weight variations already, at EIS it was 242 tonnes, the same as the -200, they range from around 230 to 250 tonnes.

The Trent 7000 is just another engine option on the A330, they are still A330s, they are on the same TCDS. The tanker modification is a STC (supplemental type certificate) which is a mini recertification for that modification for aircraft on the TCDS. The modification is known as a multiple STC, this is evidenced by the various different configurations and engine/airframe combinations the STC has been applied on. “Multiple” STCs can be amended for things like different engines, which is different to a “one off” STC which cannot be amended.

Years ago on this site I stated the A330 freighter was an STC and could be applied to any A330 on the TCDS, I had people arguing with me that it can only be used for new production airframes, other saying it can only be for -200 aircraft, others saying only for certain engine types. Fast forward to 2021, the STC has been applied to both -200 and -300 ex passenger aircraft with different engine types.

Applying the STC on the -800 does not mean zero work, however it does not mean starting from new, it is very similar to going from the CF6 to Trent 700 previously.

Trying to suggest that a -800 cannot be used as the base airframe for a tanker is like saying that it cannot be used to put a cargo door on. Both are possible, and relatively straightforward under the STC process. Especially where the organisation that owns the STC also owns the TCDS.

texl1649 · Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:14 am

I think the A330NEO wing actually had some of the under-skin stuff changed to where the points where hose/drogue mount to the old A340 engine 1 and 4 points. Maybe aerodynamically the same but I think it is different. Now, GE was in talks about offering the GENX on the A330NEO, but I am not sure if that is completely dead at this point or not. In any case, I could have sworn Airbus folks had stated they wouldn’t offer the NEO variant as MRTT but again I can’t recall where I read it/why. A GEnX commonality with C-5M engines would make some sense to break the USAF Pratt-only dogma on the KC-46.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... airbus-jet

Leeham post;

https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/22/hotr- ... ach-other/

Stitch · Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:57 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I believe I've read that the A330 MRTT has won every international competition except the USAF when going up against the KC-46. Is this true? And why does the MRTT do so well against the KC-46?

It is because everyone but the USAF is buying a dozen or less frames and is using them for a variety of different missions with air-to-air refueling possibly being one of the more uncommon ones. And with such a (relatively) small fleet operating from a handful of bases, infrastructure modification costs are comparatively small. So the RFP criteria strongly favors a frame like the A330MRTT over a frame like the KC-46A.

The USAF, on the other hand, will be buying (perhaps) hundreds of frames operating them from bases all over the world with infrastructure dimensioned around a 767-sized airframe and that would require not-insignificant modification to work with an A330-sized airframe. And the primary purpose of the KC-46 will be to refuel planes, with secondary roles being just that - secondary.

zeke · Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:54 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I think the A330NEO wing actually had some of the under-skin stuff changed to where the points where hose/drogue mount to the old A340 engine 1 and 4 points.

No, those changes were made years ago when the A340 went out of production. The reality is no A330 has bolt holes on the wing for a pod to be attached. Every tanker has internal strengthening for the pod attachment. Where the A340 came in was they had done the numbers for putting a lump of something out that far in the wing, had thought about, and provisioned how to run the systems, (electrics, hydraulics, and fuel) to that location inside the wing.

Stitch wrote:
The USAF, on the other hand, will be buying (perhaps) hundreds of frames

Over dramatic, the article in the OP says “service plans to buy 140 to 160 KC-Ys”

kitplane01 · Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:44 pm

zeke wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
The A330-800 has differences to the older A330 models. For example, the wing is 13 feel wider. It's got a max gross weight 20,000lb more. I don't think it's just a re-engine. Can you offer a reference that it's possible to buy a MRTT with the NEO engines? Or an example of anyone who has?

The wing on the -200 and -800 are the same to outboard of the ailerons and slats, what is different is the wing tip attachment and the wing tip device. As far as aerodynamicist are concerned the wing area on the -200 and -800 are the same, the wing tip devices are not counted. The other differences are between the -200 and -800 wings are fairings etc. There is no changes to the ribs, spars, or engine location.

The fuel load is the same, the fuel tank arrangement is the same, the engine thrust and location is the same.

The -800 has something like 10 different weight variations already, at EIS it was 242 tonnes, the same as the -200, they range from around 230 to 250 tonnes.

The Trent 7000 is just another engine option on the A330, they are still A330s, they are on the same TCDS. The tanker modification is a STC (supplemental type certificate) which is a mini recertification for that modification for aircraft on the TCDS. The modification is known as a multiple STC, this is evidenced by the various different configurations and engine/airframe combinations the STC has been applied on. “Multiple” STCs can be amended for things like different engines, which is different to a “one off” STC which cannot be amended.

Years ago on this site I stated the A330 freighter was an STC and could be applied to any A330 on the TCDS, I had people arguing with me that it can only be used for new production airframes, other saying it can only be for -200 aircraft, others saying only for certain engine types. Fast forward to 2021, the STC has been applied to both -200 and -300 ex passenger aircraft with different engine types.

Applying the STC on the -800 does not mean zero work, however it does not mean starting from new, it is very similar to going from the CF6 to Trent 700 previously.

Trying to suggest that a -800 cannot be used as the base airframe for a tanker is like saying that it cannot be used to put a cargo door on. Both are possible, and relatively straightforward under the STC process. Especially where the organisation that owns the STC also owns the TCDS.

There would be significant advantages to using the -800 for the MRTT or the freighter. But ..

No one has ever ordered an MRTT based on the -800. Airbus has never built one.

No one has ever ordered an A330F based on the -800. Airbus has never built one.

I don't know why it would be hard to make a A330F or MRTT based on the -800, but apparently it is.

I don't think things are as you argue. Again, can you provide anyone (best would be Airbus, Flightglobal, Janes, etc) saying these things are as you claim?

Stitch · Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:21 pm

zeke wrote:
Over dramatic, the article in the OP says “service plans to buy 140 to 160 KC-Ys”

As the post I was replying to included the KC-X RFP, my figures included both the original KC-X purchase of (up to) 179 frames and the potential KC-Y total of 140-160.

texl1649 · Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:12 pm

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. It’s not unrealistic/dramatic to posit that the total KC-y buy could go over 200 if in fact it replaces any future KC-46 purchases, and some notional KCZ/stealth tanker doesn’t show up in the next 10 years. The total KC-X timeline to get the KC-46 into limited service has of course taken over 25 years, and if the -46 isn’t the winner of this next round, it simply won’t be in production any longer past the present buy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... e_aircraft

The years of delays/losses/fails on the KC-46 only increase the likelihood Boeing and USAF move on past it, at this point.

zeke · Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:24 pm

kitplane01 wrote:

There would be significant advantages to using the -800 for the MRTT or the freighter. But ..

No one has ever ordered an MRTT based on the -800. Airbus has never built one.

No one has ever ordered an A330F based on the -800. Airbus has never built one.

I don't know why it would be hard to make a A330F or MRTT based on the -800, but apparently it is.

I don't think things are as you argue. Again, can you provide anyone (best would be Airbus, Flightglobal, Janes, etc) saying these things are as you claim?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the first two A330-800s only were delivered on 29 October 2020, and you are making the claim that since Airbus has not built a tanker or freighter based on that frame in that short period of time they will never be able to do so. Sorry buddy, that is a not an argument anyone would bet the farm on.

The statements you are making are ignoring the STCs that have already been issued, and how they can be reused on different aircraft. For example satellite antennas are not part of an A330 basic design, they are added as an STC, the satellite antennas that were delivered on the first two A330-800 frames were installed under the existing STC from the A330-200/300, it does not require restarting the process from scratch. That is the whole point of going to all the effort of obtaining an STC, to reuse the modification over again.

And in the past week or so we have seen Turkey will also take advantage of this STC process, they have announced their intention to convert a number of their existing A330 passenger aircraft from Turkish Airlines into tankers for their airforce replacing the KC135s. Airbus will reuse it’s STC again in this process.

kitplane01 · Sat Jun 26, 2021 7:14 am

zeke wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

There would be significant advantages to using the -800 for the MRTT or the freighter. But ..

No one has ever ordered an MRTT based on the -800. Airbus has never built one.

No one has ever ordered an A330F based on the -800. Airbus has never built one.

I don't know why it would be hard to make a A330F or MRTT based on the -800, but apparently it is.

I don't think things are as you argue. Again, can you provide anyone (best would be Airbus, Flightglobal, Janes, etc) saying these things are as you claim?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the first two A330-800s only were delivered on 29 October 2020, and you are making the claim that since Airbus has not built a tanker or freighter based on that frame in that short period of time they will never be able to do so. Sorry buddy, that is a not an argument anyone would bet the farm on.

The statements you are making are ignoring the STCs that have already been issued, and how they can be reused on different aircraft. For example satellite antennas are not part of an A330 basic design, they are added as an STC, the satellite antennas that were delivered on the first two A330-800 frames were installed under the existing STC from the A330-200/300, it does not require restarting the process from scratch. That is the whole point of going to all the effort of obtaining an STC, to reuse the modification over again.

And in the past week or so we have seen Turkey will also take advantage of this STC process, they have announced their intention to convert a number of their existing A330 passenger aircraft from Turkish Airlines into tankers for their airforce replacing the KC135s. Airbus will reuse it’s STC again in this process.

I agree. Absence of evidence is only absence of evidence. And I agree, it ought to be easy to make a MRTT with NEO engines. But there is no evidence that Airbus has ever offer this configuration, nor even talked about offering it. None has ever been built.

zeke · Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:23 am

kitplane01 wrote:
But there is no evidence that Airbus has ever offer this configuration, nor even talked about offering it. None has ever been built.

Oh well, I guess that means Airbus is out of the tanker business, they don’t sell A330-200/300s any more.

VMCA787 · Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:42 am

Just a couple of things from a disinterested party. We can safely state this was not Boeing’s finest hour. However, the debacle is not entirely their fault. In May of this year, there was an IG (Inspector General) report issued on the problems with the KC-46 program. Clearly there is enough blame for all parties. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/05 ... -redesign/

This is just one of the areas which was criticized. I can’t find the report in its entirety but there were several areas where the USAF went in a completely different direction than Boeing. The cargo handling system was one area, the EVS, the boomer’s pod and many more.

Realistically, I don’t think Airbus has a chance for the KC-Y. Having two tanker fleets is costly and I am sure that will be one of the arguments for the KC-46. Also, no certification since the 767 was already approved.

Lust some thoughts.

keesje · Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:27 am

It must be comforting for Boeing that despite not meeting schedule, quality, budget, performance specs, availability and matching competition, they'll still get the order. I doubt Airbus will seriously propose other than for price setting. Avoiding doctored congress acquisitions of wrong doing when Boeing must win after all. Avoids lots of stress on all sides! Boeing gets a badly needed shot in the arm.

So far Australia, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Nato MMF, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates selected the MRTT. Canada, Qatar, Brasil & Indonesia probably next. MRTT Automatic Air to Air Refuelling will be certified later this year and be an optional modification for existing operators.

https://youtu.be/eKZ30lMnl9w

texl1649 · Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:09 am

zeke wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
But there is no evidence that Airbus has ever offer this configuration, nor even talked about offering it. None has ever been built.

Oh well, I guess that means Airbus is out of the tanker business, they don’t sell A330-200/300s any more.

Well, Airbus has stated that they have the A330-200 production available thru at least 2024, per Didier Plantecoste, the company’s head of tanker and derivatives programs’ interview in August 2020;

With production of the MRTT’s A330-200 baseline platform secure until 2023 or 2024, Airbus is eyeing additional sales opportunities. Beyond providing extra aircraft for an expanded MMF group in Europe, it is entering “a new round of negotiation” with the UAE, which last November signalled an intention to double the size of its three-strong fleet of the Airbus type.

Further, they seem to think the NEO option will require a ‘huge investment.’

“We are expecting something like an RFI [request for information] in the months to come. Our objective will be to answer that jointly with Lockheed Martin,” Plantecoste says.

He notes that previous Airbus studies have shown that despite its smaller size, the A330neo’s much lower fuel consumption could allow it to “compete perfectly in terms of capability”.

“We have all the competencies to offer an A330 MRTT Neo, [but] we will have to make a huge investment for that,” Plantecoste says. However, he quips: “If you are ordering 30 MRTT tomorrow, I will find a solution.”

I do think the ‘huge investment’ for a new engine option might be worth it if bidding on KC-Y and they think they have a fair shot at the business, but understand the cynicism for some. The automated air to air refueling system was validated last month, notably.

Link;

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 38.article

zeke · Sat Jun 26, 2021 12:40 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I do think the ‘huge investment’ for a new engine option might be worth it if bidding on KC-Y and they think they have a fair shot at the business, but understand the cynicism for some. The automated air to air refueling system was validated last month, notably.

The term “huge investment” is a relative term, more than I will ever earn in my lifetime, however any aerospace project that can pay for itself with 30 units is relatively cheap epically with a KC-Y program that is looking at around 4 times as many aircraft.

texl1649 · Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:33 pm

zeke wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I do think the ‘huge investment’ for a new engine option might be worth it if bidding on KC-Y and they think they have a fair shot at the business, but understand the cynicism for some. The automated air to air refueling system was validated last month, notably.

The term “huge investment” is a relative term, more than I will ever earn in my lifetime, however any aerospace project that can pay for itself with 30 units is relatively cheap epically with a KC-Y program that is looking at around 4 times as many aircraft.

I don’t disagree on that, but I also don’t think it’s just ‘ready for others to order’ today (a la STC). It’s going to take a reasonably large customer(s) to drive that. Further, I am not sure what they’ll do with Lockheed on this but my suspicion is if they are putting a new engine type on it, the GEnX makes more sense for USAF than the Trent7000. I think the commonality with the C-5M, and as well the fact that the bypass ratio on the new Trent is so much higher might make the GE a simpler/more attractive option to bid.

The changed/higher bypass ratio means that in particular I’m guessing they’d have to totally re-do things like certifying refueling for each type (this affects turbulence behind), auto air 2 air refueling, etc. Maybe an engine expert can chime in but my understanding is that the more thrust the fan generates vs. the core, the more the thrust/turbulence spreads behind the engine.

What if, and this is just for laughs, not serious, in some future date A330’s are only assembled in the US, and yet the KC-45 (or whatever it would be called) is completed in Spain? Further, Boeing’s only widebodies might be built only in South Carolina. It’s again amusing to ponder.

keesje · Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:02 pm

texl1649 wrote:
zeke wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I do think the ‘huge investment’ for a new engine option might be worth it if bidding on KC-Y and they think they have a fair shot at the business, but understand the cynicism for some. The automated air to air refueling system was validated last month, notably.

The term “huge investment” is a relative term, more than I will ever earn in my lifetime, however any aerospace project that can pay for itself with 30 units is relatively cheap epically with a KC-Y program that is looking at around 4 times as many aircraft.

I don’t disagree on that, but I also don’t think it’s just ‘ready for others to order’ today (a la STC). It’s going to take a reasonably large customer(s) to drive that. Further, I am not sure what they’ll do with Lockheed on this but my suspicion is if they are putting a new engine type on it, the GEnX makes more sense for USAF than the Trent7000. I think the commonality with the C-5M, and as well the fact that the bypass ratio on the new Trent is so much higher might make the GE a simpler/more attractive option to bid.

The changed/higher bypass ratio means that in particular I’m guessing they’d have to totally re-do things like certifying refueling for each type (this affects turbulence behind), auto air 2 air refueling, etc. Maybe an engine expert can chime in but my understanding is that the more thrust the fan generates vs. the core, the more the thrust/turbulence spreads behind the engine.

What if, and this is just for laughs, not serious, in some future date A330’s are only assembled in the US, and yet the KC-45 (or whatever it would be called) is completed in Spain? Further, Boeing’s only widebodies might be built only in South Carolina. It’s again amusing to ponder.

The C5's are re-engined with CF6 engines, I think the Australians use the CF6 for their MRTT's.

GEN-X would make more sense for long term sustainability & capability IMO. Specially if GE does a contribution for the investment, which isn't as unlikely as it sounds.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... airbus-jet

zeke · Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:14 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I don’t disagree on that, but I also don’t think it’s just ‘ready for others to order’ today (a la STC). It’s going to take a reasonably large customer(s) to drive that. Further, I am not sure what they’ll do with Lockheed on this but my suspicion is if they are putting a new engine type on it, the GEnX makes more sense for USAF than the Trent7000. I think the commonality with the C-5M, and as well the fact that the bypass ratio on the new Trent is so much higher might make the GE a simpler/more attractive option to bid.

The tanker STCs are there, they already have around half dozen for different configurations. What the STC brings is the AFM changes, continued airworthiness changes, production capability for the boom and console. The engine choice is part of the solution, however as they have already demonstrated they are more than happy to have GE or RR powered tankers, and even different engine variants from each are flying in service.

I think Airbus would be happy having both the T7000 and GEnx on the A330, all of the engines on the A330CEO will be banned under new noise regulations on new built aircraft in the not too distant future.

texl1649 wrote:
The changed/higher bypass ratio means that in particular I’m guessing they’d have to totally re-do things like certifying refueling for each type (this affects turbulence behind), auto air 2 air refueling, etc.

I don’t foresee this to be a big issue, the amount of thrust in cruise required should be less than today’s A330 based tanker as they have cleaned the airframe up a little. The wingtip devices should also reduce the interference as they are designed to reduce the wingtip vortex to reduce drag.

texl1649 wrote:
What if, and this is just for laughs, not serious, in some future date A330’s are only assembled in the US, and yet the KC-45 (or whatever it would be called) is completed in Spain?

I would guess Airbus would send over stuffed fuselage sections and wings to the US and assemble them in the Mobile, Alabama based facility like the A220, A320s, Lakota, CN235. With the low production rate of the A330 I could see them moving all A330 production to the US and using the facilities in TLS for increased A350/A320 series FAL.

I’m not sure what LM would provide, maybe some of the defensive equipment, datalinks, post production support. I think it’s fair to say that Airbus has the best boom and hoses available on any tanker at the moment, and getting better to the point where they have an autopilot like function to do automatic refueling based off computer vision of the receiver in trail with the tanker.

One would think the direction the majority of other NATO members with tankers have gone, Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Eqypt), Asia Pacific (India, Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea, Australia) would play a part in this. If the US could tap into this global network through co-operation of similar tankers it would provide global reach with probably fewer overall frames required.

texl1649 · Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:36 pm

Ah, thx keesje, if in fact Boeing is sticking with the ancient Pratts then Airbus surely might as well similarly stick with the CF6. I agree that commonality with the Nato folks and also the fact that it might benefit the USAF to have two tankers in the fleet in numbers moving forward would make the A330 my choice/preference, from an analytical point of view.

The timing might be better this time, and John McCain won't...be playing a role in the politics. The wild card might be if the specs/timing/business/future production plans drive Boeing to actually do the KC-787, or even re-engine the 767 with the GenX finally to keep it alive for future cargo sales. There's no telling, and I would guess we will all shake our heads a few times over the drama over the next 5 years at least.

keesje · Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:43 pm

I think a tense battle behind the scenes must already be going on. On the requirements, competition and how to score. If Boeing lawyers can somehow make sure past performance is not/hardly a factor in the KC-Y competition, that would be a big advantage.

https://www.aerotime.aero/28229-How-KC- ... dium=email

johns624 · Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:33 pm

There has been quite a bit of rhetoric here that Airbus doesn't stand a chance since Boeing had the "home field" advantage. Couldn't the same thing be said about the A330 MRTT? Yes, it is a little more capable, but how much chance did Boeing really have to sell to countries that had Airbus interests? I think the competing aircraft must be MUCH more capable and/or lower priced for the "foreign" aircraft to win.

JayinKitsap · Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:35 pm

An interesting recap article
https://www.aerotime.aero/28229-How-KC- ... er-737-MAX

Just noticed that Keesje posted the same link

keesje · Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:54 pm

johns624 wrote:
Yes, it is a little more capable, but how much chance did Boeing really have to sell to countries that had Airbus interests?

The list is a bit to long to suggest they all had Airbus interests. Apart from that, over the years the KC46 development probably didn't really make an impression on selection commitees. While the MRTT had a more typical maturation.

par13del · Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:01 am

keesje wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yes, it is a little more capable, but how much chance did Boeing really have to sell to countries that had Airbus interests?

The list is a bit to long to suggest they all had Airbus interests. Apart from that, over the years the KC46 development probably didn't really make an impression on selection commitees. While the MRTT had a more typical maturation.

So the flip side, why is Airbus so greedy to produce all tankers used in the world? The list of countries who have selected the Airbus tanker is impressive and numerous, so would it be good for the world and the duopoly if Boeing get's at least one contract, push it off as a domestic buy if the politics is required, say the USA needs to preserve their industrial capacity.

LyleLanley · Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:54 am

keesje wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yes, it is a little more capable, but how much chance did Boeing really have to sell to countries that had Airbus interests?

The list is a bit to long to suggest they all had Airbus interests. Apart from that, over the years the KC46 development probably didn't really make an impression on selection commitees. While the MRTT had a more typical maturation.

More typical, how? The MRTT’s boom was essentially non-operational for years, and even now has aerodynamic issues the USAF isn’t pleased about. Same with the WARPS.

As someone who has flown on the KC-135, the KC-10, KC-46, and the KC-30, both tankers have serious strengths and serious weaknesses, but overall the MRTT is a better fit for air forces that need a smaller, relatively niche strategic refueling and transport role. The KC-46 will be a better fit for the USAF and their style of tactical power projection.

keesje · Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:23 am

LyleLanley wrote:
keesje wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yes, it is a little more capable, but how much chance did Boeing really have to sell to countries that had Airbus interests?

The list is a bit to long to suggest they all had Airbus interests. Apart from that, over the years the KC46 development probably didn't really make an impression on selection commitees. While the MRTT had a more typical maturation.

More typical, how? The MRTT’s boom was essentially non-operational for years, and even now has aerodynamic issues the USAF isn’t pleased about. Same with the WARPS.

As someone who has flown on the KC-135, the KC-10, KC-46, and the KC-30, both tankers have serious strengths and serious weaknesses, but overall the MRTT is a better fit for air forces that need a smaller, relatively niche strategic refueling and transport role. The KC-46 will be a better fit for the USAF and their style of tactical power projection.

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

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23KC30A

I enjoy all the often misty theories why the KC46 is the best tanker, for equaly creative evolving requirements. It's all water under the bridge, the USAF will make the best if what the KC46. The 42 disfunctional ones they got already, will be upgraded at some point.

The overriding strenght, USP of the KC46 tanker always has been BuildInAmerica. And that goes for the KC-Y also.

Boeing needs support badly, so forget vendor selection & lets move on. Saves everybody a lot of flagwaving, legal costs, overpromising and time. USAF will follow orders from the Hill, Boeing can increase production, everybody happy!

bikerthai · Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:50 pm

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.

bt

Spacepope · Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:12 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
keesje wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yes, it is a little more capable, but how much chance did Boeing really have to sell to countries that had Airbus interests?

The list is a bit to long to suggest they all had Airbus interests. Apart from that, over the years the KC46 development probably didn't really make an impression on selection commitees. While the MRTT had a more typical maturation.

More typical, how? The MRTT’s boom was essentially non-operational for years, and even now has aerodynamic issues the USAF isn’t pleased about. Same with the WARPS.

As someone who has flown on the KC-135, the KC-10, KC-46, and the KC-30, both tankers have serious strengths and serious weaknesses, but overall the MRTT is a better fit for air forces that need a smaller, relatively niche strategic refueling and transport role. The KC-46 will be a better fit for the USAF and their style of tactical power projection.

Hey now, that's not fair. The KC-30's Rapid Detachable Boom System counts as SOME sort of "operation"

INFINITI329 · Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:17 pm

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

keesje · Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:35 pm

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.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net