Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
texl1649 wrote:Smart words
texl1649 wrote:even notions of a space based tanker resource etc.).
bikerthai wrote:The US Airforce will want something that has a ramp. Any cargo capacity that can be done by the KC can be hauled by contract operators.
bt
ThePointblank wrote:Unless the intention is for the tanker to also carry cargo to support a large fighter drag across the ocean.
LyleLanley wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Unless the intention is for the tanker to also carry cargo to support a large fighter drag across the ocean.
The USAF is over that, but it’s a great option for most other air arms.
texl1649 wrote:The USAF may in fact have an excess of airlift today, but if in fact tankers are expected to go 40-60 years in service (or more, as per KC-135’s), this may not always be the case. Those C-17’s and C-5M’s won’t last forever (especially when looking at utilization the past 3 decades), and the reality is their replacements won’t be…cheap. The KC-Y is for a type/procurement that is unlikely to enter service in numbers before the mid-2030’s (meaning significant numbers as in 100 or so), at the very earliest (which is irrationally optimistic given the efforts to buy new tankers over the past 3 decades).
This is especially true as…the USAF itself has preferred lately to look to exotic/expensive stealthy options in the future (flying wings, tilt rotors for tactical transport, even notions of a space based tanker resource etc.). As such, this may be their last/best chance to get a real combo role tanker transport at a comparatively good value/price point, if in fact the LMXT offers that (cargo floor/door, etc.).
Just as it’s expensive to modify an A330 to an A330 P2F configuration it is expensive to add the (real) cargo capability later. I hope they look at this with eyes wide open, is all.
RJMAZ wrote:Francoflier wrote:As I replied before someone took a machete to this thread, 125T is not a realistic OEW unless you have a fully equipped passenger interior and windows.
It looks like it has windows to me.
You have the boom, wiring, fuel pumps and probe/drogue pods on the wing. That is why the MRTT has a OEW of 125t. This is 4,400kg more than the A330-200.
If you think LMXT will weigh 7,000kg less than the RAAF MRTT so that it can offload 124t of fuel at the 242t MTOW then that is your opinion. LMXT compared to the MRTT will have a MTOW 9,000kg higher, fully redundant wiring and shielding to handle a nearby nuclear blast. This adds weight.
Francoflier wrote:I can easily see one of them dragging a detachment of fighters across the Atlantic or Pacific via Hawaii while carrying over 100 supporting ground personnel/troops in the main cabin on palletized seat modules
The KC-46 can do this in an aircraft with 50% lower ground footprint and 50% lower empty weight.
Fully fueled with 96t of fuel the KC-46 still has approximately 10t of payload remaining before hitting MTOW. This is perfect for 100 passengers. 10,000kg of passenger in the LMXT means it has to remove 10,000kg of fuel significantly reducing capability.
Francoflier wrote:At the end of the day, the main selection factor will be political.
The LMXT loses based on performance as shown in my evidence using actual sources. You have already prepared an excuse so you don't have to accept the LMXT is the most unoptimised tanker.
RJMAZ wrote:It looks like it has windows to me.
SteelChair wrote:What IS the utilization on the 5M and 17? Poster after poster have said on here for years that USAF utilization rates are low. I would love to know how many FH and FC the average KC135 has. My guess is less than a 738 or A320 delivered in 2000
According to AMC, the KC-10 provides 13 percent of the total U.S. military organic airlift capacity. In Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm, KC-10s conducted over 12,200 air refuelings and offloaded 297.6 million pounds of fuel (25 percent of the total), carried 53.7 million pounds of cargo, and transported over 6,700 passengers.
Compelling reasons to consider a joint cargo/tanker aircraft include the added utility of this combination, airframe commonality, increased reliability and maintainability, and the reduced operating and maintenance expenses of modern aircraft.
texl1649 wrote:The C-17 will probably be extended further, and possibly re-engined at some point. It’s unlikely (per the thread above from Ozair) to be retired in full before 2060. Certainly not before 2040’s.
Yet again, if one accepts even the early 2040’s, the KC-Y fleet will be handy as a contributor to cargo if that is true. The C-5M fleet…will remain a very expensive outsize capability, but there is going to be a real need for lift (and kerosene/tankers) for any contingency plans in the Pacific.
Newark727 wrote:The contract civilian operators like bikerthai mentioned or some other change in how the USAF does business?
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.
af0777 wrote: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 is actually false. Weight savings by Boeing engineers to meet contract requirements did. This rumor keeps getting perpetuated, and there may be a grain of truth in the sense that winglets change the airflow in that area, but the ultimate decision came down to making weight.
Boeing opted against revising its so-called NewGen tanker marketing materials in advance of the source selection despite having earlier determined that the winglets would not be needed after conducting design trade studies. “Based on the USAF refueling requirements, the missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets,” according to a company statement provided as a response about the winglet issue.
Revelation wrote:Reading that old thread points out that the way the last RFP was set up ( last, i.e. after the earlier one was found to have been conducted improperly because the USAF gave "extra credit" for things it didn't say it wanted up front ) was that the government specified what it wanted, and once that was provided, the competition came down to cost.
If the next RFP is set up that way, I'd expect the same result. The current articles aren't very specific on how the next RFP will be structured but I presume it'll be similar to the last one.
Revelation wrote:Reading that old thread points out that the way the last RFP was set up ( last, i.e. after the earlier one was found to have been conducted improperly because the USAF gave "extra credit" for things it didn't say it wanted up front ) was that the government specified what it wanted, and once that was provided, the competition came down to cost.
If the next RFP is set up that way, I'd expect the same result. The current articles aren't very specific on how the next RFP will be structured but I presume it'll be similar to the last one.
SeamanBeaumont wrote:Revelation wrote:Reading that old thread points out that the way the last RFP was set up ( last, i.e. after the earlier one was found to have been conducted improperly because the USAF gave "extra credit" for things it didn't say it wanted up front ) was that the government specified what it wanted, and once that was provided, the competition came down to cost.
If the next RFP is set up that way, I'd expect the same result. The current articles aren't very specific on how the next RFP will be structured but I presume it'll be similar to the last one.
The RFP hasn't been written yet but the USAF stated at the recent symposium, where LM unveiled the LMXT, that the KC-Y RFP will be very similar to KC-X. Meanwhile KC-Z is where the USAF will push the boundaries. So expect this to be vanilla and unless something changes almost certainly a Boeing win.
The whole point of LM unveiling the LMXT was to try and influence the future RFP to consider additional features beyond the KC-X RFP.
SeamanBeaumont wrote:Revelation wrote:Reading that old thread points out that the way the last RFP was set up ( last, i.e. after the earlier one was found to have been conducted improperly because the USAF gave "extra credit" for things it didn't say it wanted up front ) was that the government specified what it wanted, and once that was provided, the competition came down to cost.
If the next RFP is set up that way, I'd expect the same result. The current articles aren't very specific on how the next RFP will be structured but I presume it'll be similar to the last one.
The RFP hasn't been written yet but the USAF stated at the recent symposium, where LM unveiled the LMXT, that the KC-Y RFP will be very similar to KC-X. Meanwhile KC-Z is where the USAF will push the boundaries. So expect this to be vanilla and unless something changes almost certainly a Boeing win.
The whole point of LM unveiling the LMXT was to try and influence the future RFP to consider additional features beyond the KC-X RFP.
Newark727 wrote:Could you explain a little more what you mean by "over that?" The contract civilian operators like bikerthai mentioned or some other change in how the USAF does business?
Just curious.
af0777 wrote:That is actually false. Weight savings by Boeing engineers to meet contract requirements did. This rumor keeps getting perpetuated, and there may be a grain of truth in the sense that winglets change the airflow in that area, but the ultimate decision came down to making weight.
LyleLanley wrote:There are fewer moving parts in the dual-role mission, but because they're so interdependent any mission snag delays everyone. E.g. cargo being an hour and a half late can mean the ALTRV being cancelled or missing their force extension tanker. Although there are more moving parts by doing it separately, you can actually get more done without excessive bottlenecks.
JayinKitsap wrote:SeamanBeaumont wrote:Revelation wrote:Reading that old thread points out that the way the last RFP was set up ( last, i.e. after the earlier one was found to have been conducted improperly because the USAF gave "extra credit" for things it didn't say it wanted up front ) was that the government specified what it wanted, and once that was provided, the competition came down to cost.
If the next RFP is set up that way, I'd expect the same result. The current articles aren't very specific on how the next RFP will be structured but I presume it'll be similar to the last one.
The RFP hasn't been written yet but the USAF stated at the recent symposium, where LM unveiled the LMXT, that the KC-Y RFP will be very similar to KC-X. Meanwhile KC-Z is where the USAF will push the boundaries. So expect this to be vanilla and unless something changes almost certainly a Boeing win.
The whole point of LM unveiling the LMXT was to try and influence the future RFP to consider additional features beyond the KC-X RFP.
Yes, as in all Defense procurement there is a lot of influence tossed from the potential bidders to get their product favored.
By the way, which sub is your profile pic. I see subs quite often - NSB Bangor is just a few miles away. The Connecticut is based there, concerned about how much damage it incurred.
SeamanBeaumont wrote:Its the Big D dude, spent its life at Groton. Are you too young to get the joke?
JayinKitsap wrote:By the way, which sub is your profile pic.
SeamanBeaumont wrote:Its the Big D dude, spent its life at Groton. Are you too young to get the joke?
Stitch wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:By the way, which sub is your profile pic.SeamanBeaumont wrote:Its the Big D dude, spent its life at Groton. Are you too young to get the joke?
"The Hunt for Red October" was a great film. (For the record, that is the USS Dallas * SSN-700)
As for myself, I am too old to get the joke because at first I was thinking "Operation Petticoat", but that was Seaman Hornsby.
texl1649 wrote:
Perhaps having an (evolved) ability to create a 'cruise missile carrier aircraft' a la Boeing 747 proposal from the early 80's might also make sense as a 'back pocket' capability to notionally discuss in this regard as a long term differentiator (the A330 offering so much more capacity vs. a 767.)
https://jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design ... 1605150371
The 777 CMCA aircraft could be operated by the Air National Guard, sharing many of the same airports as their airliner-based tanker cousins, operating the aircraft at lower cost than active units, and leveraging the nation’s supply of commercial 777 pilots. Assuming non-descript livery, these three types of aircraft could operate from 10,000 foot military and civilian runways and mix in with civilian air traffic without attracting significant attention, complicating adversarial targeting. When not loaded with launchers, the aircraft could potentially serve as a dual-role freighter aircraft offering a useful surge capability in the event of a humanitarian crisis. Two squadrons of 10 777 CMCA aircraft would exceed the lost naval and bomber launcher capabilities at a slight fraction of the up-front or operational cost of new Navy combatants or Air Force bombers. One could be based on the West Coast or Hawaii for operations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, while the other could be based in Europe or Central Asia for use against a range of regional targets.
At a time when budgets are tightening, and the military is losing sea and air-based strike assets in bulk, the 777-300ER-based modernized CMCA, operated by the Air National Guard, presents an excellent opportunity to cost-effectively bolster or enhance U.S. long-range strike capabilities well before shipyards and new-build aircraft manufacturers could respond with new platforms.
After the successes in the civilian sector, Airbus now wants to get involved in the military aircraft market. In addition to transporters, tankers and reconnaissance aircraft, the European manufacturer has the outdated bomber fleet of the West in its sights. "We are planning a competing model for the American B52 bomber," says CEO Noel Forgeard. The eight-engine machine, which was developed during the Cold War, was also used in Afghanistan. It flies 16,000 kilometers and can drop up to 50 bombs, each weighing over 200 kilograms.
Airbus has not yet officially started the "B52" project. German industry experts are certain that the multinational company will not leave the business with a successor model to the US manufacturers alone. Airbus Industrie already offers converted civil aircraft as flying tankers. In recent weeks, international defense experts have repeatedly called for the Western alliance not to be allowed to do without strategic long-range bombers in the future.
On Thursday, 21 October 1948, Boeing engineers George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen, and Vaughn Blumenthal presented the design of a four-engine turboprop bomber to the chief of bomber development, Colonel Pete Warden. Warden was disappointed by the projected aircraft and asked if the Boeing team could come up with a proposal for a four-engine turbojet bomber. Joined by Ed Wells, Boeing vice president of engineering, the engineers worked that night in The Hotel Van Cleve in Dayton, Ohio, redesigning Boeing's proposal as a four-engine turbojet bomber. On Friday, Colonel Warden looked over the information and asked for a better design. Returning to the hotel, the Boeing team was joined by Bob Withington and Maynard Pennell, two top Boeing engineers who were in town on other business.[38]
By late Friday night, they had laid out what was essentially a new airplane. The new design (464-49) built upon the basic layout of the B-47 Stratojet with 35-degree swept wings, eight engines paired in four underwings pods, and bicycle landing gear with wingtip outrigger wheels.[39] A notable feature of the landing gear was the ability to pivot both fore and aft main landing gear up to 20° from the aircraft centerline to increase safety during crosswind landings (allowing the aircraft to "crab" or roll with a sideways slip angle down the runway).[40] After a trip to a hobby shop for supplies, Schairer set to work building a model. The rest of the team focused on weight and performance data. Wells, who was also a skilled artist, completed the aircraft drawings. On Sunday, a stenographer was hired to type a clean copy of the proposal. On Monday, Schairer presented Colonel Warden with a neatly bound 33-page proposal and a 14-inch (36 cm) scale model.[38] The aircraft was projected to exceed all design specifications.[41]
Dutchy wrote:Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need.
Dutchy wrote:Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need.
Dutchy wrote:Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need. Especially taken into account that this would be a political decision and the A330, uhhh LMXT, is viewed as a foreign product. I see a 10% chance of winning for Airbus, uuuhhh Lockheed, but I know, I am generous on this one.
I cannot assess if LMXT exceeds the KC-46 within the competition to replace the KC-10.
bikerthai wrote:There is one unknown with this venture is how well the to company can work together.
Curious . . . Are Airbus planes built with metric fastener?
bt
Dutchy wrote:Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need. Especially taken into account that this would be a political decision and the A330, uhhh LMXT, is viewed as a foreign product. I see a 10% chance of winning for Airbus, uuuhhh Lockheed, but I know, I am generous on this one.
I cannot assess if LMXT exceeds the KC-46 within the competition to replace the KC-10.
INFINITI329 wrote:I think that will be the American product,Dutchy wrote:Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need. Especially taken into account that this would be a political decision and the A330, uhhh LMXT, is viewed as a foreign product. I see a 10% chance of winning for Airbus, uuuhhh Lockheed, but I know, I am generous on this one.
I cannot assess if LMXT exceeds the KC-46 within the competition to replace the KC-10.
I think we need to switch the priority of buying an American product to buying the product that is the best value for the American taxpayers.
chiki wrote:INFINITI329 wrote:I think that will be the American product,Dutchy wrote:Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need. Especially taken into account that this would be a political decision and the A330, uhhh LMXT, is viewed as a foreign product. I see a 10% chance of winning for Airbus, uuuhhh Lockheed, but I know, I am generous on this one.
I cannot assess if LMXT exceeds the KC-46 within the competition to replace the KC-10.
I think we need to switch the priority of buying an American product to buying the product that is the best value for the American taxpayers.
Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk
trex8 wrote:In the civil aviation thread theres talk of from 2028 some engines cant be certified on new production planes due to Icao emissions rules. I know this may not apply to military deliveries but would the A330 MRTT having Trent 700s, GE CF6s etc be potentially impacted by a A330 ceo based solution?? IIRC the KC 46 delivereis were up to 2027 only so the PW4000 may not be an issue unless there is production beyond that.
Stitch wrote:trex8 wrote:In the civil aviation thread theres talk of from 2028 some engines cant be certified on new production planes due to Icao emissions rules. I know this may not apply to military deliveries but would the A330 MRTT having Trent 700s, GE CF6s etc be potentially impacted by a A330 ceo based solution?? IIRC the KC 46 delivereis were up to 2027 only so the PW4000 may not be an issue unless there is production beyond that.
ICAO rules do not apply to military airframes so Airbus and Boeing will still be allowed to deliver the A330MRTT (on the ceo plaform), the KC-46A and the 737NG derivatives (P-8 / E-7, etc.).
texl1649 wrote:I think the bigger question is whether the military programs can dovetail into a profitable overall one for the mfg’s. For Boeing, if they can’t deliver 767F’s, the answer is probably no (without a truly huge price increase on KC-46’s). Airbus has the A330NEO, but it is dying too, and they could just make the military ones in the US.
texl1649 wrote:Stitch wrote:trex8 wrote:In the civil aviation thread theres talk of from 2028 some engines cant be certified on new production planes due to Icao emissions rules. I know this may not apply to military deliveries but would the A330 MRTT having Trent 700s, GE CF6s etc be potentially impacted by a A330 ceo based solution?? IIRC the KC 46 delivereis were up to 2027 only so the PW4000 may not be an issue unless there is production beyond that.
ICAO rules do not apply to military airframes so Airbus and Boeing will still be allowed to deliver the A330MRTT (on the ceo plaform), the KC-46A and the 737NG derivatives (P-8 / E-7, etc.).
I think the bigger question is whether the military programs can dovetail into a profitable overall one for the mfg’s. For Boeing, if they can’t deliver 767F’s, the answer is probably no (without a truly huge price increase on KC-46’s). Airbus has the A330NEO, but it is dying too, and they could just make the military ones in the US.
ThePointblank wrote:Leeham is saying Lockheed Martin is going to reveal more details about the assembly plans of the LMXT:
https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/24/lockh ... ine-in-us/
The tidbits so far is that Mobile, AL or Marietta, GA are the lead contenders. LM will import a duplicate set of A330 tooling to the site build the aircraft in the US, and Airbus has confirmed that passenger A330 production will remain in Toulouse.