Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
petertenthije
Posts: 4298
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:49 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Senators and the Pentagon want the illusion of a competition. But it's LM money that needs to be spent to create that illusion. How will senators and the pentagon induce LM to waste money that LM knows will not produce a win?
Should not be hard.

Gov: "How much will it cost you to bid"
LM: "10 million, but we are not interested"
Gov: "How much to paint the ejector lever on the F-35 black and yellow instead of yellow and black"
LM: "10 million, and you know what, I changed my mind on the tanker bid"
Gov: "Let's do it"

And that's fiddling around with the public budget. This would be even easier using the black budget.
 
TaromA380
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:18 pm

Why not using the A330NEO?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 2008
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 pm

petertenthije wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Senators and the Pentagon want the illusion of a competition. But it's LM money that needs to be spent to create that illusion. How will senators and the pentagon induce LM to waste money that LM knows will not produce a win?
Should not be hard.

Gov: "How much will it cost you to bid"
LM: "10 million, but we are not interested"
Gov: "How much to paint the ejector lever on the F-35 black and yellow instead of yellow and black"
LM: "10 million, and you know what, I changed my mind on the tanker bid"
Gov: "Let's do it"

And that's fiddling around with the public budget. This would be even easier using the black budget.


I bet a clever lawyer could convince a jury this was a crime. I wouldn't want to put my name on the contract!
 
vnauta
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:33 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:54 pm

bikerthai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Can you explain more? Why would LM lose the ability to bid on other projects if they don't bid on this one?


It's not a matter of not being able to bid on other project. It is a matter of being able to effectively lobby Congress (which or better or worst is still legal).

You provide the bid to allow a member of congress to use in local election campaigning, you get better access favor from that member. Not saying that this is the case here, but it is a possibility.


That would give LM quite some leverage if they are sort of asked to participate. I think the US lawmakers are making their own position weak by demanding a "US only" bid with a local market that does not provide genuine competition. That leads to lack of innovation.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4178
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:56 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I bet a clever lawyer could convince a jury this was a crime. I wouldn't want to put my name on the contract!


Since when clever lawers work for the government as it would be government lawyers who will be the prosecution.

The clever lawers are busy helping lobbyists maneuver around the regulations.

bt
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:21 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Per reply 164 in the above linked thread;

The 767 is more efficient per kg of payload compared to the A330. This is why the 767 is the world's favourite freighter.

Let's calculate efficiency per kg of payload.
KC-46
OEW: 82t
MTOW: 188t
Available fuel plus payload: 106t

A330 MRTT
OEW: 125t
MTOW: 235t
Available fuel plus payload: 110t

Now the A330 MRTT carries only 4% more fuel plus payload. Yet is taking off 25% heavier. Flying that much heavier it will be burning way more than 4% more fuel per hour. The A330 is burning more fuel per kg of payload. Now the reasons are very obvious to an aerospace engineer.

The reason why Airbus wouldn't use the A330-300 instead of the A330-200 as the tanker is no doubt easy for you and keesje to understand. The extra structural weight of the larger cabin subtracts from the remaining fuel/payload making it in inferior tanker. The same reason why the 777 freighter uses the shorter -200 length.

Now the A330-200 has 48% more cabin area than the 767-200. 237m2 versus 160m2. The KC-46 fits a tiny fuselage to reduce empty weight and maximize fuel capacity. So to theoretically match the KC-46 the Airbus model would need a smaller fuselage with only 25% more cabin area than the KC-46 to match the 25% higher MTOW. The problem with this is the even the A300 has 34% more cabin area than the KC-46. 160m2 versus 215m2

The core problem is the large diameter cross section makes it a poor tanker. That's why the KC-135 has a fuselage smaller than the A321. You can fit 40t of fuel into less space than 40t of passengers. The A330 is more efficient per square meter of cabin area. That is why it outsold the 767 as a passenger plane.


At 6,000nm the smaller and lighter KC-46 now has more fuel.


Also;

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1461901&start=200#p22868613


It seems the LMXT now carries nearly 30% more fuel than the KC46.
 
CX747
Posts: 6682
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:17 am

keesje wrote:
FlapOperator wrote:
par13del wrote:
If the KC-46 is refined / matured by then, offer up a 2 for 1, for every A330 they could get 2 KC-46's, dramatically increase the number of booms, using existing infrastructure with a/c already in inventory.


Here is the answer.

The US needs booms, not higher offload.

A tanker that has better individual metrics (fuel uplift/bring-back, for example) for a military like Australia, Canada or France (that frankly will never buy or put enough tankers in one spot to have MOG consideration) makes TOTAL sense.

For a country like the US, that is looking at buying potentially 250 of these things, against their specific requirements (even if they were arrived at with some questionable factors) the assessments change. The US maintains lots of tanker bases, all of which have their existing facilities footprint.


If the Pacific, China becomes more urgent, 40t extra fuel seems more bang for the buck, replacing KC-10s, going places, getting the job done. But I could be wrong, maybe it will about the number of (not perse automatic) booms this time.

LM deciding to assembly the LMXT in the Seattle area because of resources, skilled workers, long term strategy could be an interesting move IMO.


Completely understand what you are saying, but the number of booms and not total offload capability is what the focus has been. Also, with the vast amount of space being looked at in a war over the Pacific, having a greater number of booms available to your assets, which are spread out, becomes critical.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:04 am

TaromA380 wrote:
Why not using the A330NEO?


RR engine would decrease US content further, and it’s not available to others as such, anyway, so more cost to do so. Now, if RR does in fact win the B-52 re-engine this month, perhaps they could consider building the XWB for the LMXT in Indiana as well…I believe a real cargo A330NEO tanker with the benefits of course of the airbus camera/automated refueling system would be the best possible bid.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:48 pm

texl1649 wrote:
TaromA380 wrote:
Why not using the A330NEO?


RR engine would decrease US content further, and it’s not available to others as such, anyway, so more cost to do so. Now, if RR does in fact win the B-52 re-engine this month, perhaps they could consider building the XWB for the LMXT in Indiana as well…I believe a real cargo A330NEO tanker with the benefits of course of the airbus camera/automated refueling system would be the best possible bid.


A 251t MTOW, fully cargo capable, GENX powered multi role LMXT is nearly of the shelve.

But 160 capable assets would pose be a real threat to many current and future aircraft projects, jobs, units, bases. Some liberals might even consider reviewing the required DoD budgets & you just don't want to go there. Multi-role can be a job, budget killer..
 
estorilm
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:14 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Quick question; what was the last Lockheed aircraft for the USAF that came in on time/cost/met performance goals within 5 years of IOC. The F-104 (not really in USAF service)? C-130, U-2?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_aircraft

Even raising this question is completely pointless when you're (inevitably) comparing any answer to BOEING.

On top of that, almost everything about the MRTT is proven and in service, with quite a lot of experience and time behind the technologies (many of which Boeing still can't seem to figure out). There are some variables with systems like A3R, but it's already been tested and mostly developed. Boeing can't even keep the their planes from leaking fuel. Airbus' version of RVS is already mission-capable, and Boeing continues to push software and hardware fixes, potentially to 2024!

This isn't a ground-up LM aircraft, the important stuff is already there and flying.

Even with the insane budget and a huge head start, I honestly believe the LMXT will still be a more capable and reliable option for the competition.

Will they still issue another hand-me-out freebie contract just because they're Boeing? Probably. I doubt they want another type in the fleet, even if it is better. The right thing to do would have been to purchase it in the first place.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14611
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:12 pm

estorilm wrote:


Will they still issue another hand-me-out freebie contract just because they're Boeing? Probably. I doubt they want another type in the fleet, even if it is better. The right thing to do would have been to purchase it in the first place.


Agree.

=>The only thing the US taxpayer may hope for, is that a credible LMXT offer raises the bar for Boeing & they come up with better value.

I can see congress jumping in again if things threaten to move in the wrong direction.

Pacific / endurance / fuel capacity seems to have growing importance (China, KC-10 capability). Tthey could ask DoD to give Boeing a few years more, to come up with e.g. a 777 based tanker with KC46 specific tanker equipment. Giving Boeings 777 program and supplychain a welcome shot in the arm.

The requirements and selection process will be fluid anyway. Local interests, "level playing field", changing strategic context, evolving requirements, they'll fix it! They kept the 777 in reserve last time.

Image
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 7-pics.htm
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:28 pm

Keesje, you stated that the LMXT carries 36 percent more fuel than the KC-46, as is now. Ok, so how much of that is available 5-10 hours down range? The KC-10 was again a result of a need, in a different time, for an ability to tank large aircraft in a different scenario (heading to Europe). Clearly, it’s being phased out as the need isn’t pressing now.

An enormous tanker still requires an enormous amount of ramp space, and drinks a lot more fuel itself. This was true when (only) the Iranians bought a KC-747, and it’s still true today.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:55 pm

This is as much about politics as it is about what the best option actually is.

LMXT will still be seen as an Airbus, even though it's built in America, by Americans for Americans as Lockheed Martin states it. On top of that the production site would likely be in Alabama, a red state - instead of Washington which is a blue state. Current leadership would not prefer that, even though these things will change multiple times up until the first delivery.

This process will be rotten to the core, pushed by a corrupt military industrial complex lobby. It's all about favors. Like it always has been. The fact that one side has done nothing but royally screw up everything the last 10 years, and the other side is offering a modified in-service, combat proven system doesn't matter.

Okay I'm going to try to cheer up now.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:35 pm

I think Lockheed/Airbus needs offer it with the same main cargo deck as the KC-45. The USAF didnt ask for this plug an play option so why offer it? With a main cargo deck it allows the USAF the ultimate flexability to do what they need. I think also not offering it with the NEO engines are a mistake. They could easily market the fuel savings it would bring the taxpayer.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14749
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:42 pm

vnauta wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Can you explain more? Why would LM lose the ability to bid on other projects if they don't bid on this one?


It's not a matter of not being able to bid on other project. It is a matter of being able to effectively lobby Congress (which or better or worst is still legal).

You provide the bid to allow a member of congress to use in local election campaigning, you get better access favor from that member. Not saying that this is the case here, but it is a possibility.


That would give LM quite some leverage if they are sort of asked to participate. I think the US lawmakers are making their own position weak by demanding a "US only" bid with a local market that does not provide genuine competition. That leads to lack of innovation.


Yeah but this isn't about innovation anyway, or we would be talking about a pilot-less stealth tanker able to refuel stealth pilot-less fighters.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:00 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
I think Lockheed/Airbus needs offer it with the same main cargo deck as the KC-45. The USAF didnt ask for this plug an play option so why offer it? With a main cargo deck it allows the USAF the ultimate flexability to do what they need. I think also not offering it with the NEO engines are a mistake. They could easily market the fuel savings it would bring the taxpayer.


GEnX would at least increase US parts, the RR engines would be a real issue there, I believe. Besides, since when does the USAF go for new generation engines on tankers? Even the KC-10’s weren’t cutting edge when procured in that regard. Again the wild card might be if the RR engines get the big B-52 contract (they’d be my pick as in inventory already etc). With that massive facility in Indiana perhaps throwing in a hundred or two hundred Trent 7000’s would make sense (especially if long term A330NEO production moves entirely to Alabama). But that would beg the question as to how excited RR would be to support/move forward with such a bid, also.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:08 pm

After the U.S. and Australia angered the French because of the AUKUS alliance and submarine contract I’m very curious if France will end up pressing on with these planes since the submarines got cancelled and if the U.S. would agree to ease the tension by buyin the LMXT tankers?
Last edited by Oykie on Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:08 pm

Slightly off topic, but still, a lot of this discussion of the LMXT/KC-y requirement is around efficiency. Let’s just get some remembrance of some old SAC decisions dealing with this (and automation/other savings) with the KC-135’s from clear back in the late 70’s.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... -years-ago
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:14 pm

I expect fuel efficiency is not going to be important to the RFP and therefore will not drive engine selection. The USAF could have paid to have the GEnx adapted to the 767-200 and 767-300 platform for the KC-46 if it was. And then we have the most recent A330 MRTT customers not pushing Airbus to offer the A330-800 with Trent 7000s.

The KC-45 would have had General Electric CF6-80E1s so I expect LMXT will be offered with the same.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:59 pm

Of course, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Boeing offers a KC-46B with the same GenX fans that the new AF1 will be flying around. There's certainly a knock on benefit there for both programs. The kc-46B gets a range, efficiency and sustainment cost boost, and the new AF1 program gets engine commonality with another program.
 
johns624
Posts: 4053
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:41 am

Oykie wrote:
After the U.S. and Australia angered the French because of the AUKUS alliance and submarine contract I’m very curious if France will end up pressing on with these planes since the submarines got cancelled and if the U.S. would agree to ease the tension by buyin the LMXT tankers?
Once again, the UK is completely ignored. This is getting comical and shows that there's an agenda out there.
We are already buying a bunch of FREMMs.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:13 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
Of course, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Boeing offers a KC-46B with the same GenX fans that the new AF1 will be flying around. There's certainly a knock on benefit there for both programs. The kc-46B gets a range, efficiency and sustainment cost boost, and the new AF1 program gets engine commonality with another program.


A 3rd benefit would occur, the 767-400F would be launched as the GEnX doesn't fit under the -300ER but it does under the -400. It also gains with the new wing and wheels 38,000 of added MTOW. Shrink it back down to around the KC-46 length to maximize the fuel load. The new emission compliant freighter is born.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5915
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:35 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
LightningZ71 wrote:
Of course, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Boeing offers a KC-46B with the same GenX fans that the new AF1 will be flying around. There's certainly a knock on benefit there for both programs. The kc-46B gets a range, efficiency and sustainment cost boost, and the new AF1 program gets engine commonality with another program.


A 3rd benefit would occur, the 767-400F would be launched as the GEnX doesn't fit under the -300ER but it does under the -400. It also gains with the new wing and wheels 38,000 of added MTOW. Shrink it back down to around the KC-46 length to maximize the fuel load. The new emission compliant freighter is born.


That's not happening.
Boeing has enough trouble providing a working tanker based on an existing platform. Designing and certifying a new Franken-plane with bits and bobs from other aircraft would add billions and years worth of development to what is already an expensive program even in its 'simple' form. Mating the GenX to the 767 alone...
As said above, efficiency is far from being the prime metric. Those aren't airliners flying 17 hours a day on average.

Not that there is any incentive anyway. Boeing will get this contract no matter what. The requirements will be tailored to fit the current KC-46, maybe with minor modifications at most...
...And Boeing will likely still mess it up somehow.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16356
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:03 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Slightly off topic, but still, a lot of this discussion of the LMXT/KC-y requirement is around efficiency. Let’s just get some remembrance of some old SAC decisions dealing with this (and automation/other savings) with the KC-135’s from clear back in the late 70’s.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... -years-ago


Last paragraph in that article

“ In the meantime, the near-antique C-135 family is as busy as ever and the introduction of the new KC-46A Pegasus to the aerial refueling community has been painful, to say the least. With that in mind, it seems the Air Force really did miss a big opportunity when it had the chance to equip these aircraft with winglets back in the early 1980s. The modifications would have paid for themselves many, many times over by now, and then some. ”

reminds me of this article “ Air Force Says KC-46 Is A “Lemon” That It’s Trying To Make Lemonade Out Of” https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ade-out-of

I would bet airtanker would relish the opportunity mentioned in the article for private tankers to provide the capability the KC-46 cannot provide.
 
744SPX
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:28 pm

During one of the rounds between the 767 and A330 they had the 767-200 based tanker with APB blended winglets. That would have saved gobs of fuel but they chose in the end not to go with them. No excuse, really, to waste that much fuel.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:17 pm

Exactly zeke. The USAF, unlike any commercial/quasi-private airline, is just not motivated by long term fuel savings. Yes, it can count in some sort of points system or some flag officers will participate in a paper studying it, but it doesn’t drive tanker decisions, ultimately. Even the C-5 and B-52 re-engine programs are really driven by…a need to drive down maintenance costs/increase mission capable rates, not actual fuel costs/environmental impacts etc. SAC, and it’s successors has been very consistent for many decades in this trend.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:40 pm

I don't think that emissions are necessarily going to be a driver for this project. I do think that the ability to fly a long way away from base and deliver a healthy amount of fuel will be absolutely critical. I don't think that Boeing needs to make the airframe the length of the -400. Just shaving off a couple of frames from the existing -400 design to make it roughly 300 length and fitting the GEnX engines will do a lot of the work, both for the Bridge tanker project, and also for the need for a future emissions compliant freighter for commercial use. This is something that I believe that Boeing would be willing to accept a lot of financial risk to do. Such a frame should have the capacity to hold a lot of additional fuel over the KC-46, and also take it a lot farther from base.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:05 pm

744SPX wrote:
767-200 based tanker with APB blended winglets…would have saved gobs of fuel but they chose in the end not to go with them. No excuse, really, to waste that much fuel.


WARPS precluded having winglets.
 
stratable
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:29 pm

I am no engineer but I am just wondering. The A330 has winglets. Would strengthening the wing to add them on the KC-46 while also having the warps be/have been an option, or even adding the 767-400 raked wingtips?
I'd assume they must have considered that during the design process. Not sure what the weight penalty would have been or if wing span considerations are important for US operations.
The A330 has a significantly longer wing span than the KC46. Maybe that's also a disadvantage for the aircraft apart from political reasons
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:01 am

It’s not just the weight of winglets on a WARP’d wing to consider, but also the airflow nightmare for the receiver pilot trying to use that pod. The WARPS on the airbus are much further inboard than on the 46, utilizing the A340’s engine 1 & 4 mount locations. The 46’s pods are near the wingtips.

Point to remember: this is the same Boeing that took the TRs and forward slide rafts off in order to save weight. Winglets and their structural reinforcement are similar “clean-kills”.
 
BestIntellect
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:20 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:32 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Senators and the Pentagon want the illusion of a competition.


As I have said before - in a post that has since been silently deleted by the mods - it is extremely clear to any idiot that the T-X program was not a competition at all. The USAF had clear design criteria, and very clearly informed Boeing and only Boeing of this criteria as only their aircraft met said criteria, leaving Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to effectively waste their time. NG realized this themselves, hence why they completely withdrew pretty early.

Gee it's almost as if Boeing and the US government have a long-standing history of being in bed with scandals.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 2008
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:11 am

BestIntellect wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Senators and the Pentagon want the illusion of a competition.


As I have said before - in a post that has since been silently deleted by the mods - it is extremely clear to any idiot that the T-X program was not a competition at all. The USAF had clear design criteria, and very clearly informed Boeing and only Boeing of this criteria as only their aircraft met said criteria, leaving Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to effectively waste their time. NG realized this themselves, hence why they completely withdrew pretty early.

Gee it's almost as if Boeing and the US government have a long-standing history of being in bed with scandals.



I’m not an idiot. Also I didn’t write that quote. It was someone else. Not me.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 2008
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:15 am

LyleLanley wrote:
It’s not just the weight of winglets on a WARP’d wing to consider, but also the airflow nightmare for the receiver pilot trying to use that pod. The WARPS on the airbus are much further inboard than on the 46, utilizing the A340’s engine 1 & 4 mount locations. The 46’s pods are near the wingtips.

Point to remember: this is the same Boeing that took the TRs and forward slide rafts off in order to save weight. Winglets and their structural reinforcement are similar “clean-kills”.



Winglets *reduce* turbulence coming off the wing. That’s where the drag reduction comes from.

If I remember right they weighed just 100 lbs and saved more than that in fuel every flight. They represented a payload increase.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4178
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:50 am

BestIntellect wrote:
The USAF had clear design criteria, and very clearly informed Boeing and only Boeing of this criteria as only their aircraft met said criteria,


Yep, the design criteria was to have a capable frame at a low cost and Boeing was the only bid to meet that criteria :biting:

bt
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10968
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:52 pm

johns624 wrote:
Oykie wrote:
After the U.S. and Australia angered the French because of the AUKUS alliance and submarine contract I’m very curious if France will end up pressing on with these planes since the submarines got cancelled and if the U.S. would agree to ease the tension by buyin the LMXT tankers?
Once again, the UK is completely ignored. This is getting comical and shows that there's an agenda out there.
We are already buying a bunch of FREMMs.

The UK is involved in a lot with the USA, you do know that the UK did not have sufficient F-35's for their most recent deployment to Asia?
 
johns624
Posts: 4053
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:09 pm

par13del wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Oykie wrote:
After the U.S. and Australia angered the French because of the AUKUS alliance and submarine contract I’m very curious if France will end up pressing on with these planes since the submarines got cancelled and if the U.S. would agree to ease the tension by buyin the LMXT tankers?
Once again, the UK is completely ignored. This is getting comical and shows that there's an agenda out there.
We are already buying a bunch of FREMMs.

The UK is involved in a lot with the USA, you do know that the UK did not have sufficient F-35's for their most recent deployment to Asia?
Yes, I'm well aware of USMC F35Bs being deployed on the QE. What does that have to do with this discussion. I was replying to "Oykie", who said that the US and AU angered the French. My comment was that, once again, the UK was being ignored as part of it. Yet, the chances are good that the Aussies might be buying British subs, not American. The French are being disingenuous. They know the US is always plays well domestically as the bad guy and they have nothing else to sell the Australians. However, they have developed weapons systems with the UK and the UK is right next door, so they have to play nice with them.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:24 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Winglets *reduce* turbulence coming off the wing. That’s where the drag reduction comes from.

If I remember right they weighed just 100 lbs and saved more than that in fuel every flight. They represented a payload increase.


Thank you for the tutorial.

While winglets *reduce* the net turbulence coming off the wing, they also *induce* non-linear airflow disturbances which reduce basket stability in trail but most importantly during extension and rewinding and can also negatively affect the receiver in the refueling envelope.

100 pounds doesn’t include the wing strengthening required. Which is compounded with the weight of the WARPS themselves, and you have to design the loads both with WARPS and without.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4178
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:13 pm

How long does a typical tanker mission stay aloft? Just like a commercial airline, the longer you stay aloft, the tradeoff goes to rake wingtip.

bt
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:24 pm

Is there a marked difference between the airflow from a 767-400 style raked wingtip and the -300 winglet?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:18 pm

bikerthai wrote:
How long does a typical tanker mission stay aloft? Just like a commercial airline, the longer you stay aloft, the tradeoff goes to rake wingtip.

bt


Training missions are usually between 3-5 hours and the jets generally fly once a day or every other day. Unless they’re going somewhere they’re also nowhere near optimum altitudes/airspeeds. Certainly not long enough and/or often enough to be a slam dunk case for winglets when compared to the technical hurdles.

As difficult as it is for some to understand, the USAF ≠ an airline.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:33 am

Why do I suddenly have memories of the $500 C5 toilet seats and $3,000 C5 coffeemakers?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4178
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:05 am

LyleLanley wrote:
Training missions are usually between 3-5 hours and the jets generally fly once a day or every other day.


No wonder. You would never make up the cost of fuel saved vs the cost of the winglets and carying that weight, and maintenance.

bt
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:08 am

SteelChair wrote:
Why do I suddenly have memories of the $500 C5 toilet seats and $3,000 C5 coffeemakers?


Well the "$600 hammer" Boeing was lambasted for turned out to actually cost the USAF $15 so it is possible the actual price of the toilet seat and coffee maker was significantly less.

https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/19 ... mmer/5271/
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:26 am

bikerthai wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
Training missions are usually between 3-5 hours and the jets generally fly once a day or every other day.


No wonder. You would never make up the cost of fuel saved vs the cost of the winglets and carying that weight, and maintenance.

bt


I wholeheartedly agree!

A few years back, there was this big focus on fuel savings vis-a-vis weight reduction, and some genius who needed an OPR bullet decreed all the stuff we need when we're TDY, such as cargo straps, chains, and devices, the cargo door sill conveyor, etc. to be removed for all local flights and put back on when the jet went TDY. They even drained the potable water tanks and gave us alcohol wipes to "wash" our hands with (pre-COVID, but they haven't reactivated the tanks). Saved ~ 1,000 pounds per aircraft, which saves ~ 500 pounds of gas per flight and probably saves ~ 50K of gas per year, per tail. Great idea. Only problem is the powers that be have obligated each coast (McGuire and Travis) to have two WARP'd jets per coast at all times, and those jets fly all over the globe, but very rarely do actual WARP AR. Now imagine that WARP'd jet going from CA to Japan, hauling cargo and not doing AR, with an extra 5-6% drag index and burning an extra 15K of gas during the entire mission because they're carrying those stupid pods. So long fuel savings! I know because I've flown a WARP'd jet during cargo runs at least 4 times in the last couple of years, and I'm but one person in one squadron!

At least not flying at optimum altitudes/speeds during training missions makes sense, as those altitudes and speeds are entirely incompatible with air refueling. Simply too high and too fast.
 
744SPX
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:45 am

LyleLanley wrote:
744SPX wrote:
767-200 based tanker with APB blended winglets…would have saved gobs of fuel but they chose in the end not to go with them. No excuse, really, to waste that much fuel.


WARPS precluded having winglets.



That makes more sense. I hadn't heard about that.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 2008
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:36 pm

bikerthai wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
Training missions are usually between 3-5 hours and the jets generally fly once a day or every other day.


No wonder. You would never make up the cost of fuel saved vs the cost of the winglets and carying that weight, and maintenance.

bt


I believe the article said it save 6% of fuel on ” a typical mission “”
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:52 pm

If you mean the original winglet story from The Drive, then that’s a 6.5% fuel burn improvement on a KC-135A: that’s winglets attached to a first-generation jet airliner wing on a typical SAC mission profile (AR, nav-leg, etc). You can’t extrapolate the (somewhat) large fuel burn improvement for the water burning Stratoturd and say winglets on the far more modern and aerodynamic KC-46 will improve fuel burn by a similar amount. The equations just don’t balance.

The winglet manufacturer issued a press release saying their winglets will improve the cruise efficiency of 767s by ~ 6%, but that’s also predicated on long-duration flights at optimum altitudes and speeds, like an airline would fly. Not hanging in the low-20s more than .1 Mach off optimum with the boom hanging down or receptacle open, like the Air Force flies.
 
744SPX
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:15 am

SteelChair wrote:
Why do I suddenly have memories of the $500 C5 toilet seats and $3,000 C5 coffeemakers?


I remember the $14,000 toilet seats for the Navy back around 1990...
 
Eiszeit
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:24 am

Stitch wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Why do I suddenly have memories of the $500 C5 toilet seats and $3,000 C5 coffeemakers?


Well the "$600 hammer" Boeing was lambasted for turned out to actually cost the USAF $15 so it is possible the actual price of the toilet seat and coffee maker was significantly less.

https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/19 ... mmer/5271/


But what did all the extra inspections for other "free" tools included by boeing cost?
 
estorilm
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:42 pm

par13del wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Oykie wrote:
After the U.S. and Australia angered the French because of the AUKUS alliance and submarine contract I’m very curious if France will end up pressing on with these planes since the submarines got cancelled and if the U.S. would agree to ease the tension by buyin the LMXT tankers?
Once again, the UK is completely ignored. This is getting comical and shows that there's an agenda out there.
We are already buying a bunch of FREMMs.

The UK is involved in a lot with the USA, you do know that the UK did not have sufficient F-35's for their most recent deployment to Asia?

Let's not forget that we just dumped (potentially) up to $2.6 BILLION into a UK-owned company to re-engine the B-52. ;)

As for the LMXT, considering that Airbus is already pretty far along with A3R with Singapore, I'd expect it to be a low-risk feature for the LMXT while offering some incredible capabilities. The KC-Y seems to really focus on increased battlefield / command and control capabilities / SA - this platform has always seemed very "modular" in nature, and I think lends itself well to these capabilities and add-ons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKZ30lMnl9w

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ITMercure, par13del and 22 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