Lockheed reveals new LMXT refueling tanker

texl1649 · Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:04 pm

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.

LyleLanley · Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:10 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Smart words

Which is exactly why I’m pretty confident in saying the USAF will pass on this jet and go for more 46s.

Newark727 · Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:30 pm

texl1649 wrote:
even notions of a space based tanker resource etc.).

Forgive the naive question but how the heck would this even work?

bikerthai · Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:26 pm

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 · Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:45 pm

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

Unless the intention is for the tanker to also carry cargo to support a large fighter drag across the ocean.

LyleLanley · Tue Oct 05, 2021 1:58 am

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.

Newark727 · Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:48 am

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.

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.

SteelChair · Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:49 am

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.

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

Francoflier · Tue Oct 05, 2021 5:02 am

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.

And there's a KC-45 that looks it it has no windows...

Your 'actual sources' are visibly photoshopped pictures of an MRTT hastily done by the marketing department...
If the USAF wants a tanker based on a freighter with no windows, that's what LM will offer (if they're not stupid).

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.

Again, you base all your assumptions and calculations on figures you pull off Wikipedia, which are themselves extrapolated from civilian figures. I know what a -200F weighs and the KC-46 suffers equally from a weight increase from all the refueling hardware and hardened gear. In fact, the weight penalty would be about the same on both airframes. 124T fuel and payload seems very achievable to me.
We'd all love to see a real World OEW for the KC-46, but I suspect that's not forthcoming either...

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.

You can fuel the LMXT with 110T of gas and still load 150 pax at least, or a combination of people and cargo, using the lower cargo holds which the KC-46 lacks. It can just carry more and has more ways of doing it. The 46 definitely has a smaller footprint, but it just can't carry what the LMXT/330 can. However you look at it, the LMXT will have an extra 20T payload 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.

Your 'evidence' and 'actual sources' seem to be grade school arithmetic and Wikipedia, respectively... Unless you have any idea of the actual USAF requirements are and what the price package of both offerings is, I'll firmly consider this your uneducated opinion.

JayinKitsap · Tue Oct 05, 2021 6:14 am

A typical KC-135, KC-10, or KC-46 mission - is the full compliment of fuel used or is like 20% brought home?

zeke · Tue Oct 05, 2021 6:55 am

RJMAZ wrote:
It looks like it has windows to me.

What does windows have to do with anything ? Ever hear of the C-9B Skytrain or C-40A Clipper ?

France is doing that with their next batch, main deck cargo door with quick change interior.

mxaxai · Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:20 am

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

Their daily utilization is low compared to commercial aircraft, but they also have relatively low limits on flight hours and cycles. There was a thread here a while ago with a good summary by Ozair. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1455475

C-17 limit: originally 30,000h, later increased to 42,000h
A320 limit: originally 48,000h, later increased to 60,000h
Some older models, like the 737, DC-9 and 747, have specimen with well over 100,000 flight hours.

In addition, most A320 are retired by 30, while the oldest C-17 is already 28 with no retirement date in sight. There's no designated replacement aircraft either. It is generally expected that the first C-17 will reach the end of its regular lifetime in the early 30s, so the fleet will either need a major life extension program or a replacement ready at that point.

Anyway, I doubt that the cargo capability of the A330 will make or break a deal, but it'd certainly be utilized in USAF service. Both the KC-10 and KC-46 see use as airlifters. An example from an old 1996 GAO report:

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 · Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:21 am

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.

mxaxai · Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:45 am

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.

True on both points. The youngest C-17 can easily last until 2040. Problem will be at that point (assuming no life extension program) that a dwindling fleet becomes increasingly expensive to maintain.

bikerthai · Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:19 pm

Newark727 wrote:
The contract civilian operators like bikerthai mentioned or some other change in how the USAF does business?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Reserve_Air_Fleet

This is why I suggest the C-17 replacement will need a ramp for roll on/roll off.

Shipping through these operator would cost less than transporting by tankers.

There was a discussion in this forum on whether the USAF need a 747-8F.

bt

af0777 · Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:28 pm

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.

Revelation · Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:15 pm

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.

I think it is false, but for a different reason, it was about lowering overall cost. The winglets not only add weight but also cost $millions to buy and come with at least some on-going maintenance burdens. They were able to meet the stated performance specs in the RFP without the winglets, so there was no need to add them, doing so would just add to overall cost thus make their bid less competitive.

From a thread 10 years ago:

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.

Ref: viewtopic.php?t=1024391#p13562619

Revelation · Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:20 pm

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.

Stitch · Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:24 pm

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.

All I ask is that the USAF does not decided to "gold plate" the RFP on the sly and after the fact like they did when they chose the KC-45 over the KC-46 in 2007 and then have Boeing (or LM/Airbus run to the GAO to (legitimately) overturn it and then the losing parties' fans will forever decry "politics!" as they do now with the 2011 decision.

Just be up front with what they want. And if it is more than what KC-46 offers and that means LM-Airbus will win (since KC-777 is not going to be able to compete with A330MRTT), then that is how it will be.

SeamanBeaumont · Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:03 pm

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.

JayinKitsap · Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:50 pm

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.

Revelation · Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:09 pm

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.

Thanks for the very useful info. Seems Boeing will have a while till the KC-Z RFP drives them to break new ground. Seems wise of LM to try to shape that contest as soon as possible since they really won't have a decent shot at KC-Y.

LyleLanley · Mon Oct 11, 2021 6:44 pm

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.

The USAF is no longer interested in the dual-role mission of dragging fighters while hauling the fighter mx and equipment in the back. The USAF now prefers to move the cargo/pax and fighters separately. 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.

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.

That is actually true, and we're even saying the same thing but in a different way. If you'd bother looking at my next post elaborating on why the WARPS precluded, one reason of which was the weight (strengthening) needed to have WARPS and winglets on the same aircraft being excessive, and that weight was a "clean kill" to eliminate in order make weight. Airflow changes wrt hose extension/rewinding with winglets are another. Because the winglets are removable and can be dispatched with only one also means you'd essentially have to have two WARPS flight test programs in order to satisfy FAA certification requirements. I need not tell you how much FAA certification has affected this aircraft... After years of trial and error with the Italian KC-767 WARPS/slat difficulties, Boeing very wisely decided not to push the envelope with WARPS and winglets. Especially since it was on their dime.

bikerthai · Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:40 pm

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.

Funny, same goes with Engineering releases. The more you try to group packages together, the more chances you have someone throw in a monkey wrench and delay everything.

bt

SeamanBeaumont · Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:12 am

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.

Its the Big D dude, spent its life at Groton. Are you too young to get the joke?

cjg225 · Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:05 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Its the Big D dude, spent its life at Groton. Are you too young to get the joke?

Marine mammals know a hell of a lot more about SONAR than you do, but you do seem to know a lot about other stuff.

Stitch · Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:00 pm

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. :silly:

JayinKitsap · Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:13 pm

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.

Too old to get the joke. But I too saw "Operation Petticoat" at the theaters back when the earth's crust cooled.

texl1649 · Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:59 pm

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

Quoting the concept early, maybe the CMCA type of idea again has/could have a role in this acquisition. An A330 or 777 based option would afford such possible derivatives.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 00959.html

I doubt this happens, as it wouldn’t fit neatly into the KC-Y bucket right now, but it would be an interesting capability to include, even if only procured for a subset of the acquisition total (others could be retrofitted.

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.

Has Airbus ever studied using something like an A-330 for cruise missile carriage/deployment? Has Lockheed (well, I guess they proposed as much with a L1011-500 back in the 70’s, but no one still works there from that era I would guess).

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... sions.376/

Lockheed builds the JASSM, again, so it’s likely they’d have a head start on any engineering to put a rotary launcher onto the cargo deck/belly of an A330.

texl1649 · Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:15 pm

I guess Noel Forgeard certainly thought of it, at least in 2002. Notably, though this was based on the A340, the A330 of course is the same basic fuselage. I think they also considered an A380 cruise missile carrier, briefly.

In German (translated here): https://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/airb ... 19232.html

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.

Revelation · Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:46 pm

More evidence of how amazing B52 is. Basic design was hammered out in a hotel room in Dayton OH with a bunch of math done with slide rules while a model was being carved out of balsa wood. Still going strong ~60 years later. Wings with huge tanks because the early engines were so inefficient now mean it has incredible range with better engines. Huge belly due to the size of weapons of the era now allows carousels to spin out dozens of smaller weapons. Several major attempts to replace it have come and gone.

Wiki's version of the story:

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]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B- ... tofortress

SQ22 · Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:47 pm

Feel free to continue the discussion of a CMCA aircraft in a separate thread, but please keep this thread on topic, thanks.

Dutchy · Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:21 pm

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 · Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:47 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need.

Red herring. By the time this contract is award, Boeing would be out of their funk.

You can say that the contract will help, but in the grand scheme of things, what would really help Boeing is them getting their engineering house in order and the commercial market returning after the pandemic.

What will really help in the short term will be more orders for more P-8As, F-15X, and even more E-7s. Those contracts can be executed faster.,

From an Ameican strategic needs, I see more benefits t o having a second tanker line in Alabama. It would bring good paying jobs to an area that needs those jobs more than the already high priced Seattle area.

bt

Stitch · Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:20 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Looking from an American point of view, it would be most logical, especially to help Boeing out in their time of need.

Looking at it from "an American point of view", the LMXT would do much the same at helping US companies in a time of need considering a fair bit of kit for an A330 airframe is sourced from United States suppliers. It would also be outfitted by US workers in a US facility.

texl1649 · Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:38 pm

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.

The KC-10’s will be retired before any aircraft procured via this acquisition will be delivered/in service. I believe the USAF has to maintain 26 of them thru 2023, but frankly this is HIGHLY unlikely to be delivered anytime before…2025 or so. Yes, the KC-10 capabilities were/are great, but functionally the elephant in the room remains the ancient KC-135’s. The KC-10 is, and will be much more so in the future, a drop in the bucket as a historical comparison point as to capabilities, largely irrelevant moving forward.

I remain dubious Boeing will even bid more KC-46’s, as without the commercial product to support/sell, why would they want to keep haggling with IAM751 to keep the money-losing KC-46 line open? The LMXT will have at least a decent shot vs. a 777 freighter. Lockheed is much more potent as well as a lobbying partner vs. Northrop Grumman.

bikerthai · Fri Nov 12, 2021 4:34 pm

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

texl1649 · Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 pm

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

I really doubt that is an issue (outside of the pesky issue of lost/missing 10mm sockets, lol). Pretty much all modern combat aircraft are engineered using metric measurements, including, gasp, American ones.

Airbus has also set up finishing/mfg facilities in places from China to the Middle East, and, yes, the American south, which basically assembles Airbus helicopter knock down kits, fairly efficiently, not to mention the A220. With A330 manufacturing at what could charitably be called a ‘very mature’ state, it’s even feasible that if Lockheed does win this, the last A330’s built would be done by them.

INFINITI329 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 3:08 am

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 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 6:07 am

INFINITI329 wrote:
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.

I think that will be the American product,

Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk

Dutchy · Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:02 am

chiki wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
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.
I think that will be the American product,

Sent from my SM-J415F using Tapatalk

Why?

bikerthai · Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:48 pm

Yes, why? The Grey Wolf heliopter is really Italian at its base.

And all AH-64 fuselages are being built in India.

What seems to matter any more is the amount of actual physical work is being done and where the FAI is located.

Even the amount of physical work can be deceiving as typical contract count offsets in terms of dollar, so detail part and subassembly build do not have the same ofset weight as final assembly work.

bt

trex8 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:17 pm

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 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:35 pm

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 · Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:01 pm

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.

Stitch · Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:28 pm

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.

Well Airbus/Lockheed and Boeing can take that into account when they submit their RFP pricing for KC-Y - they can raise the unit pricing to account for increased shipset and production costs (due to lower production rates).

kitplane01 · Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:23 am

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.

Is that true? I thought the KC-46 was almost all the output of the factory, and the 767F was small potatoes. But I cannot find the numbers (Google failed me).

Stitch · Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:55 am

Based on unfilled orders, it's effectively 50:50 between the two (48 KC-46A and 47 767-300F). All the 767-300F need to be delivered by 2028 and FedEx recently added 20 with deliveries of 10 each in 2024 and 2025 (767 production is currently 3 per month).

Between delivered and on order, KC-46A orders stand at 101, so presuming the USAF does procure the planned 179, that leaves 78 more left for them to order and original plans were to have all 179 in the force by the end of 2027.

ThePointblank · Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:41 pm

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 Toulose.

Grizzly410 · Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:41 pm

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.

I understand more or less thqt Airbus will provide the sections and licence an assembly line. Is it right ?
If so, that's a clever way for them to grind a hardware footprint in the US military market without risk. Let's see if LM can make that happen now, at least they will have the made in USA cleared to pretend a contract !

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net