Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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 Toulose.
aumaverick wrote:At some point, you have to look at the debacle that was/is the KC-46 and hedge your bets on something proven.
Stitch wrote:aumaverick wrote:At some point, you have to look at the debacle that was/is the KC-46 and hedge your bets on something proven.
That is the trick, though. Will the USAF accept an "off-the-shelf" configuration as used by other operators or will they demand a custom solution that could possibly encounter its own set of integration and certification roadblocks?
Revelation wrote:Stitch wrote:aumaverick wrote:At some point, you have to look at the debacle that was/is the KC-46 and hedge your bets on something proven.
That is the trick, though. Will the USAF accept an "off-the-shelf" configuration as used by other operators or will they demand a custom solution that could possibly encounter its own set of integration and certification roadblocks?
Indeed. IMO life would have been much easier for Boeing if USAF just accepted the Japanese or Italian 767 tanker configurations, but they did not.
Revelation wrote:Indeed. IMO life would have been much easier for Boeing if USAF just accepted the Japanese or Italian 767 tanker configurations, but they did not.
Grizzly410 wrote: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 !
I'm so happy to be back in Alabama today, where I learned to fly helicopters many years ago. This time I'm in Mobile, where @Airbus builds #A320s and #A220s... and where we hope to build #A330s for the @LockheedMartin LMXT tanker aircraft.
Grizzly410 wrote:Grizzly410 wrote: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 !
Answering to myself here : No, it you're not right !
Michael Schoelhorn, Airbus Defense&Space CEO, was in Mobile today
https://twitter.com/SchoellhornMike/status/1488244650645331969?s=20&t=pfeTxrhL9GARHYDralFGmgI'm so happy to be back in Alabama today, where I learned to fly helicopters many years ago. This time I'm in Mobile, where @Airbus builds #A320s and #A220s... and where we hope to build #A330s for the @LockheedMartin LMXT tanker aircraft.
Then Airbus plan is to build the green aircraft (+whatever modification reused from the MRTT, I think) in a new FAL in Mobile.
More costly than what I previously suggested but still remains a low risk venture.
Grizzly410 wrote:Main A330 line won’t move from Toulouse. The line for LMXT would just need one or two structural assembly station and a ground testing position. A FAL calibrated for a modest output rate with the arriving more or less complete and no need for cabin outfitting and testing.
And there’s also no need to make space in Toulouse anyway. Whatever new program with a FAL in TLS would certainly find home in JLL (A380 FAL).
Something I don’t get is the level of involvement of Airbus Defense&Space in LMXT.
Within Airbus with the A330 MRTT setup they "buy" the green frame to Airbus civil division and perform the military MRTT modification in Getafe.
But as far as I understand the previous discussions in this thread it is likely, if not obvious, the USAF would require their own modifications, that’s where LM enters isn’t it?
I was under the impression LM would take the whole military modifications, leaving to Airbus (civil!) the airframe assembly but seeing this latest communication performed by Airbus D&S CEO puzzles me.
JerseyFlyer wrote:Very clear now, from Leeham:
"“We will transition the assembly line for the A330s to the United States and transitioning all conversion lines from Spain to the United States,” said Larry Gallogly, director of the LMXT program. The A330 tooling and production lines moved to the US are for the A330ceo only; A330neo production remains in Toulouse. A330 MRTTs ordered by non-US customers will be assembled and militarized at the current facilities in Toulouse and Spain...
Gallogly said that assuming LMCO wins the contract, the first few LMXT aircraft will be built in Europe as Lockheed and Airbus prepare the US facilities. US workers will go to Europe to work alongside those workers to learn their jobs. About 1,300 new jobs will located at Mobile and Marietta.
“We’ll try to source as much of supply chain in America, recognizing the existing supply chain for MRTT,” Gallogly said. The A330 MRTT comes with either the Rolls-Royce or GE engines. Regardless of which engine LMXT chooses, the engine will be assembled in the United States, he said."
https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/31/hotr- ... more-38447
JerseyFlyer wrote:Very clear now, from Leeham:
"“We will transition the assembly line for the A330s to the United States and transitioning all conversion lines from Spain to the United States,” said Larry Gallogly, director of the LMXT program. The A330 tooling and production lines moved to the US are for the A330ceo only; A330neo production remains in Toulouse. A330 MRTTs ordered by non-US customers will be assembled and militarized at the current facilities in Toulouse and Spain...
Gallogly said that assuming LMCO wins the contract, the first few LMXT aircraft will be built in Europe as Lockheed and Airbus prepare the US facilities. US workers will go to Europe to work alongside those workers to learn their jobs. About 1,300 new jobs will located at Mobile and Marietta.
“We’ll try to source as much of supply chain in America, recognizing the existing supply chain for MRTT,” Gallogly said. The A330 MRTT comes with either the Rolls-Royce or GE engines. Regardless of which engine LMXT chooses, the engine will be assembled in the United States, he said."
https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/31/hotr- ... more-38447
Grizzly410 wrote:Main A330 line won’t move from Toulouse. The line for LMXT would just need one or two structural assembly station and a ground testing position. A FAL calibrated for a modest output rate with the arriving more or less complete and no need for cabin outfitting and testing.
And there’s also no need to make space in Toulouse anyway. Whatever new program with a FAL in TLS would certainly find home in JLL (A380 FAL).
Something I don’t get is the level of involvement of Airbus Defense&Space in LMXT.
Within Airbus with the A330 MRTT setup they "buy" the green frame to Airbus civil division and perform the military MRTT modification in Getafe.
But as far as I understand the previous discussions in this thread it is likely, if not obvious, the USAF would require their own modifications, that’s where LM enters isn’t it?
I was under the impression LM would take the whole military modifications, leaving to Airbus (civil!) the airframe assembly but seeing this latest communication performed by Airbus D&S CEO puzzles me.
JetBuddy wrote:If LMXT wins this competition, I wonder if the Lockheed Martin / Airbus joint venture will open the doors for further cooperation in the future.
JerseyFlyer wrote:Grizzly410 wrote:Main A330 line won’t move from Toulouse. The line for LMXT would just need one or two structural assembly station and a ground testing position. A FAL calibrated for a modest output rate with the arriving more or less complete and no need for cabin outfitting and testing.
And there’s also no need to make space in Toulouse anyway. Whatever new program with a FAL in TLS would certainly find home in JLL (A380 FAL).
Something I don’t get is the level of involvement of Airbus Defense&Space in LMXT.
Within Airbus with the A330 MRTT setup they "buy" the green frame to Airbus civil division and perform the military MRTT modification in Getafe.
But as far as I understand the previous discussions in this thread it is likely, if not obvious, the USAF would require their own modifications, that’s where LM enters isn’t it?
I was under the impression LM would take the whole military modifications, leaving to Airbus (civil!) the airframe assembly but seeing this latest communication performed by Airbus D&S CEO puzzles me.
I can only guess that they want to demonstrate "made in USA" to the utmost extent. Flying green frames in from Toulouse would not do that. Flying in even large parts like wings would not create the same impression of a "foreign airplane" as would flying in a green frame.
If LMXT frames are to be assembled in Mobile, it is no great leap to envisage that all A330 construction could be transferred there later on, especially MRTTs that are based on the 330ceo as is the LMXT.
Waiver of Buy American Statute for Civil Aircraft and Related Articles (Feb 2016)
(a) Definition. "Civil aircraft and related articles," as used in this provision, means-
(1) All aircraft other than aircraft to be purchased for use by the Department of Defense or the U.S. Coast Guard;
(2) The engines (and parts and components for incorporation into the engines) of these aircraft;
(3) Any other parts, components, and subassemblies for incorporation into the aircraft; and
(4) Any ground flight simulators, and parts and components of these simulators, for use with respect to the aircraft, whether to be used as original or replacement equipment in the manufacture, repair, maintenance, rebuilding, modification, or conversion of the aircraft, and without regard to whether the aircraft or articles receive duty-free treatment under section 601(a)(2) of the Trade Agreements Act.
(b) The U.S. Trade Representative has waived the Buy American statute for acquisitions of civil aircraft and related articles from countries that are parties to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft. Those countries are Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macao China, Malta, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei), and the United Kingdom.
LyleLanley wrote:Good luck to Lockheed and Airbus in this venture. Hopefully their threat will kick Boeing's a$$ into gear and actually force them to fix the KC-46's myriad (mostly overblown) problems.
Stitch wrote:I doubt Boeing needs any more motivation than the nearly six billion they have already blown on those problems.
LyleLanley wrote:Stitch wrote:I doubt Boeing needs any more motivation than the nearly six billion they have already blown on those problems.
That’s nothing.
Imagine if you will, Boeing sending off the 179th KC-46 and, contract in hand, saying “So Air Force, want a couple hundred more of these? Or maybe a KC-777! How’s that sound?” as the USAF shakes their head “Nah. We’re good”.
A LM/Airbus win would not only be a stake in Boeing’s tanker legacy heart, but it would be a complete repudiation of Boeing’s developmental penny-pinching wrt their supposed easy win cash cow. $6 billion dollars with nothing to show except a tattered reputation. At least no one has died from this, though.
par13del wrote:Well if money is an issue, why get a middle man involved, simply buy the a/c direct from Airbus and save the millions that would be going to LM.
No penny pinching, just getting the product from a OEM who actually produces a jet tanker versus a local OEM reseller.
Just a thought.
LyleLanley wrote:par13del wrote:Well if money is an issue, why get a middle man involved, simply buy the a/c direct from Airbus and save the millions that would be going to LM.
No penny pinching, just getting the product from a OEM who actually produces a jet tanker versus a local OEM reseller.
Just a thought.
Not a bad idea at all. But first you gotta ask why that middle man (read: major American aerospace manufacturer) has to be involved at all…
LyleLanley wrote:par13del wrote:Well if money is an issue, why get a middle man involved, simply buy the a/c direct from Airbus and save the millions that would be going to LM.
No penny pinching, just getting the product from a OEM who actually produces a jet tanker versus a local OEM reseller.
Just a thought.
Not a bad idea at all. But first you gotta ask why that middle man (read: major American aerospace manufacturer) has to be involved at all…
Stitch wrote:A fair bit of the 767 structure is manufactured in Japan at the panel level and then assembled into actual fuselages and wings in the US, so Airbus should be able to argue the same for the A330MRTT if the panels are built in Europe and then shipped to the US for assembly into the actual structures.
bikerthai wrote:Never fully understood the local content laws. I always assumed it's based on cost and not mass.
If so, then the local content of one 767 panel may not even match the cost of one military grade radio on the KC-46 (hypothetically speaking and not necessarily factual).
bt
ThePointblank wrote:LyleLanley wrote:par13del wrote:Well if money is an issue, why get a middle man involved, simply buy the a/c direct from Airbus and save the millions that would be going to LM.
No penny pinching, just getting the product from a OEM who actually produces a jet tanker versus a local OEM reseller.
Just a thought.
Not a bad idea at all. But first you gotta ask why that middle man (read: major American aerospace manufacturer) has to be involved at all…
Lockheed Martin is probably adding some of their equipment to the LMXT tanker; remember that LM was talking about adding an upgraded communications suite to the tanker, which would make the tanker much more of a command and control and communications asset.
LyleLanley wrote:Apart from the ‘made in ‘murica’ content laws, LM is also much more versed in milspec’ing for the US military than Airbus.
Boeing themselves, screwed this pooch, too, by thinking their commercial aircraft division could make the KC-46 make that grade.
Grizzly410 wrote:This "A330neo production remains in Toulouse. A330 MRTTs ordered by non-US customers will be assembled and militarized at the current facilities in Toulouse and Spain..." confirms what I said actually. It's just a new A330ceo line specific for LMXT, Toulouse keeps its historic A330 line and Getafe the MRTT conversions.
It doesn't make sense to think Airbus could plan to shift their A330 assembly operations based on a bid result we'll have in 3-4 years.
A bid they have very few chances to win unless the KC-46 don't fix its problems in time.
zeke wrote:Grizzly410 wrote:This "A330neo production remains in Toulouse. A330 MRTTs ordered by non-US customers will be assembled and militarized at the current facilities in Toulouse and Spain..." confirms what I said actually. It's just a new A330ceo line specific for LMXT, Toulouse keeps its historic A330 line and Getafe the MRTT conversions.
It doesn't make sense to think Airbus could plan to shift their A330 assembly operations based on a bid result we'll have in 3-4 years.
A bid they have very few chances to win unless the KC-46 don't fix its problems in time.
I think these A330s will be produced under a FAA production certificate, and receive FAA airworthiness certificates. Presently A330s are manufactured under EASA production and TCDS, and the tanker modification is a EASA STC.
I think it will be closer to what the A320 line is, rather than closer than the A330 centre in China.
Grizzly410 wrote:I'm not very familiar with the production system certification. Surely Airbus POA which covers EU FALs can't be valid as is in US plant. I have no idea how it's done with A320 line.
But yeah an assembly line with structural assembly like the Mobile A320 FAL, not a completion center. In this project LM facility would be the "completion center".
LyleLanley wrote:I have a hard time reading through his points without shaking my head. And I actually support the LMXT effort.
The LMXT's TOLD situation being one: as the USAF has a 7,000' minimum runway length stipulation, why he believes a heavier LMXT can use airfields too small for the KC-46 doesn't make particular sense, as the KC-46 already has outstanding TOLD and the odds of a much larger LMXT operating off an airfield with a 7,001' runway is fairly remote. Secondly, he seems to conflate FAA certification of the baseline 767-2C and KC-46A with receiver AR clearances - most of which are actually done and will only need token recertifications when the new boom hardware is installed. Third, he seems to think the AR clearance process used to clear USAF receivers with foreign MRTT operators wouldn't need to be re-done with a winning LMXT, which just isn't the case.
There is a world of difference between AR clearances to refuel off of foreign tankers than that required to meet USAF testing, procedural, and operational effectiveness requirements.
texl1649 wrote:I still can't believe LM won't include the cargo door. Even Boeing way back in 1961 with the KC-135A included that in their graphics/aircraft:
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... kOP-IBSR4w
texl1649 wrote:I still can't believe LM won't include the cargo door. Even Boeing way back in 1961 with the KC-135A included that in their graphics/aircraft:
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... kOP-IBSR4w
Grizzly410 wrote:texl1649 wrote:I still can't believe LM won't include the cargo door. Even Boeing way back in 1961 with the KC-135A included that in their graphics/aircraft:
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... kOP-IBSR4w
Maybe I misunderstand you but if a cargo door is needed on KC-Y it will obviously be included in LMXT. Don't you think so ?
However, the LMXT does not come equipped with a main cargo deck accessible via a large side-opening door for palletized or oversized loads. The KC-10A Extender, the KC-135 Stratotanker, and the KC-46A Pegasus all have the capability to carry large cargo as well as perform aerial refueling.
Schoellhorn also touched on differences between the LXMT and current MRTT. One difference is that the USAF appears to have no requirement for the jet to carry cargo or personnel, it is a pure tanker.
Lockheed has said that the LXMT will have 123t (271,000lb) of fuel capacity – 12t more than the MRTT. This is 27t greater than that of the KC-46.
bikerthai wrote:Well, without the cargo requirement, there goes one of the reason why the A330 was chosen ove the KC-46 for many Air Forces.
Curious though, how much weight can be saved by not having a cargo floor?
bt