More KC-46A woes....

[sandiego89]

Boeing may or may not make money later on. It depends on the contract. KC-46 is a high stakes gamble. Northrop Gumman pulled out early rather than accept the risk. Airbus accepted a lesser risk by bidding a higher price.

KenV, read the article in post #1. "Boeing executives previously have said they expect to recoup the $1 billion in excess development costs during the program’s $39 billion production phase". The real money comes in subsequent orders or special sub-contracts. I am quite confident they will make up for this cost over run in the course of the program.

I would rather that the USAF had bought 100 KC-10Bs (my personal designation for Mil-Spec tanker/cargo versions of the MD-11, fitted out as per the KC-10 but updated [the 60 KC-10As were built in the mid-1980s])

Wow Greenknight, I am really glad they did NOT buy a MD-11 derivative. They don't call the 11 "the turtle" for nothing....rolls on its back and dies....

you'll only confuse him if you supply factual information.....

[KenV]

Cargo

The main deck can carry 280 passengers or 26 463l pallets. Loading and unloading is through a 141in x 100in cargo door. The lower deck can carry an additional six pallets. The KC-45 cargo loading system is supplied by AAR Cargo Systems which is based in Livonia, Michigan.

Well good for them! They added the cargo door after NG pulled out and Airbus decided to go it alone. I still don't get why they did not then and do not now offer the main deck cargo floor, nor the revised nose gear of the freighter.

[KenV]

KenV, read the article in post #1. "Boeing executives previously have said they expect to recoup the $1 billion in excess development costs during the program’s $39 billion production phase". The real money comes in subsequent orders or special sub-contracts. I am quite confident they will make up for this cost over run in the course of the program.

The operative word there is "previously". You're assuming a $1 billion over run. Right now, that's a rosy estimate. And even the $1B makes huge assumptions about the follow on production contract(s). There's a reason Boeing's stock dropped even with unprecedented airliner deliveries and orders. KC-46 is a big part of that drop.

[3engnever]

A330 MRTT can carry a lot more than 28 stretchers!! However, Ken V does make a very good point about the practicality of loading them!! The MRTT stretchers also stack 3 high, with stowage bins fitted and are fully certified.

[BEagle]

A330 MRTT can carry a lot more than 28 stretchers!!

Indeed it can, 3engnever!!. The fit to which I referred was the 'intensive MEDEVAC configuration' with 6 critical care modules also fitted. In the maximum stretcher fit, according to the tech specs it can carry up to 130 standard stretchers.

All without compromise to the AAR capability and without any loss of space for any additional centre tanks......such as are needed by the Frankentanker.

[D-IFF_ident]

KenV - you're getting your MEWs and OEWs confused.

You're quoting MEWs - and you need to add the AAR equipment, seats, paint, galleys etc. Publicly available OEW figures range from 274,000 - 300,000 Lbs.

Also, you should read these:


http://defensetech.org/2008/04/01/fi...45-in-germany/

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...nundrum-airbus

[KenV]

I'm reading about all this wonderful stuff the MRTT has, but this begs a few questions:

1. A few days ago the mantra was:
The A330MRTT is wonderful and angelic as is and it does not need a demonic cargo door like the Frankentanker.

And now the mantra is:
Airbus is so wonderful because they've added a cargo door option to the angelic MRTT which adds SO much to its capabilities and utility.

I find it interesting that the mantra uttered by the true believers has done a complete 180 without the slightest pause.

2. Why did Airbus wait more than 4 years to offer all this stuff? Why did they not include it in their offer back in 2009? NG would likely have stayed in the program had Airbus done so.

3. Why does Airbus refuse to offer an MRTT based on the A330-200F? The freighter development is now done and it's in production. All that Airbus would need to do is offer a freighter with the -200 wing which includes the center wing tank rather than the current -300 wing without the center wing tank. How hard/expensive can that be? Surely there is a market for an air tanker that is more optimized for freighter duties than for passenger carrying duties. After all, the vast majority of the world's air tankers are optimized for freight rather than passengers. Perhaps there's a message there.

4. Perhaps all these new offerings relates to the A330NEO and A350. In 2009 Airbus could barely keep up with A330 orders and selling tankers was a minor sideline. Perhaps even a distraction. It could be argued that just developing and building a freighter was considered a distraction back then. At that time Boeing was desperate to keep selling 767s with the 787 coming on line and was willing to jump through all sorts of hoops to keep that production line open. Now Airbus is desperate to sell A330s to bridge the gap to the A330NEO. Airbus may have decided that tankers are the answer rather than a distracting sideline. And they may have decided that competing successfully against a "Frankentanker" in the world market place requires strengthening the "Multi" in MRTT.

[Mil-26Man]

1. A few days ago the mantra was:
The A330MRTT is
wonderful and angelic as is and it does not need a demonic cargo door like the
Frankentanker.

And now the mantra is:
Airbus is so wonderful
because they've added a cargo door option to the angelic MRTT which adds SO much
to its capabilities and utility.

I find it interesting that the
mantra uttered by the true believers has done a complete 180 without the
slightest pause.

That's simply not true. The mantra is, and has always been that the MRTT doesn't need a cargo door because it retains all of its cargo capacity in the undefloor hold, but the option was there for the USAF and is there for anyone else who wants it.

I stopped reading after 1, so can't comment on 2 to 4 I'm afraid.

[KenV]

The mantra is, and has always been that the MRTT doesn't need a cargo door because it retains all of its cargo capacity in the undefloor hold.

Yes of course. And when it's pointed out that a customer (like USAF) says they need more "cargo capacity" in terms of mass and/or dimensions (including length and height) than will fit in a lower cargo hold the answer from those chanting the mantra has consistently been what amounts to "but that's not needed."

As for not reading 2 thru 4, that's your business. (and one could argue, your loss.)

[3engnever]

KenV,

I would suggest that if the USAF was to change tack, which clearly it won't, Airbus has sold quite a few of these Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft and so the waiting time would be considerable. I am not aware of the KC46 receiving the same interest?

I suppose the point is if you can still afford in this financial climate to pay a vast amount of cash for an aircraft with a single purpose then great, the KC46 is probably good to go. If you need a true Multi Role platform then I would suggest the MRTT is the choice. I've seen the stands for both, and whilst the MRTT doesn't meet the USAF requirements due to cargo door, the KC46 certainly doesn't meet the RAF requirements for FSTA in terms off Multi Role performance.

It's all quite simple really. Not about which tanker is best,more about which meets the customer requirements.

[D-IFF_ident]

My last post on this thread; i can't be bothered with it anymore. KenV is clearly a troll and I'm bored now.

[melmothtw]

Ah, the usual PPRuNE mantra - he/she/it doesn't agree with me, therefore they must be a troll.

[BEagle]

melmothw, hardly the case here. Some clear corrections of KenV's misinformation have been provided by those in the know. The fact that he chooses to ignore them and to pursue some weird agenda of his own is particularly revealing.

Anyway, since the KC-46A has yet to turn a wheel, let alone fly or start its flight test campaign, most of the claims made for it have yet to be proved - leaving the tanker market to the Airbus A330MRTT and IAI's modified 'pre-owned' 767s. When it's a choice between something sitting in the static display or some glossy brochure peddled by Boeing, the latter would have to be pretty compelling to be successful.

[TBM-Legend]

Boeing has built KC-767's for Japan and Italy that now seem to work fine...

[cornish-stormrider]

But not the KC-46.......

So one one hand we have people saying what Airbus are offering is ****e and ole Bubba's wonder jet pisses all over it......

Oh wait, it will do, maybe if it gets in the air.
I know what I'd rather fly in thank you.

Every aircraft has four dimensions, seeing as how KC-46 is struggling with number four and then getting a working jetin the air.

I mean, how many Multi role tankers did Airbus build before MRTT? Vs Bubba?
So Boeing had all the skills and the expertise and no product in the air still yet according to those "truly in the know" is the best and will out perform Airbus by orders of magnitude....

I don't smell pork barrels here at all.

[KenV]

KenV - you're getting your MEWs and OEWs confused.

You're quoting MEWs - and you need to add the AAR equipment, seats, paint, galleys etc. Publicly available OEW figures range from 274,000 - 300,000 Lbs.

Ummm, no, you are dead wrong. I provided OEW data, not MEW.
OEW includes everything to "operate" the aircraft except usable fuel and payload and includes lubricants, hydraulic fluid, trapped fuel, OLE (Onboard Loose Equipment, like fire axes, O2 masks, O2 walk around bottles, cargo rails/rollers/locks, tie down chains/straps, first aid kits, etc), survival equipment, the flight crew, the flight crew's baggage allowance, etc, etc.

The bottom line is that the A330-200 is 20.5klb under its MTOGW limit when full of fuel. Unless the aerial refueling equipment on the Voyager weighs 20.5Klb (which is certainly possible, but seems highly unlikely) then the Voyager should not be able to reach its MTOGW limit with just fuel alone. Conversely, if the Voyager reachs its MTOGW limit with fuel alone, then its OEW must be 20.5Klbs higher than a typical A330-200.

Howewver, none of you Voyager guys have ever cited the Voyager's OEW, just its ZFW. OEW is well defined internationally. ZFW (generally) includes everything (including payload!) except usable fuel. ZFW varies greatly for every mission. With no payload ZFW equals OEW and ZFW can go all the way up to OEW + max payload, with max payload usually defined as the numerical difference between OEW and MZFW. MZFW is a structural limit determined by (generally) max fuselage bending moment on the ground and (generally) max wing bending moment in flight. Although related, MTOGW is another structural limitation defined quite differently than MZFW.

If the definition for ZFW you Voyager guys are using is the same as the general definition, then there is your problem. You are including the payload weight, which for the A330-200 is 20.5Klbs at max fuel. I have no idea what it is for the Voyager and may be more or less than 20.5Klb depending on the Voyager's OEW.

[KenV]

KenV, I would suggest that if the USAF was to change tack, which clearly it won't, Airbus has sold quite a few of these Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft and so the waiting time would be considerable. I am not aware of the KC46 receiving the same interest?

1. The RFP had hard delivery dates that lay years in the future. BOTH manufacturers' proposals met those delivery dates.

2. If USAF were to change horses in mid stream at this late date, USAF would change to the KC-45 and not the MRTT. Although KC-45 is based on the A330-200 like the MRTT, it is quite a bit different than the MRTT, just as the KC-46 is quite a but different than the KC-767 that Boeing had previously produced. It would take a few years for Airbus to develop the KC-45 just as it is taking Boeing a few years to develop the KC-46. The production slots would be reserved years in advance while Airbus completed development, so the wait for delivery would not be "considerable".

On the other hand the waiting time may be infinite. By the time Airbus developed the KC-45 from the A330-200, the A330-200 may no longer be in production. The production line may have converted over to producing A330NEOs. Boeing's replacement for the 767 is the 787. Those are entirely separate production lines so Boeing can produce KC-46s at the same time as 787s. I don't know, but I believe that the A330 production line will be converted to producing A330NEOs. So the only way to produce KC-45s and A330NEO at the same time would be to have two separate production lines. Airbus would likely be loathe to do that. If Airbus had won the KC-45 contract, they would have been forced to create a separate production line for the A330NEO. Maybe losing the KC-45 contract was in Airbus' best long term business interests.

[KenV]

hardly the case here. Some clear corrections of KenV's misinformation have been provided by those in the know.

Wow. "those in the know". What a joke. You "in the know" guys are clueless about what was included in the three tanker RFPs and clueless about what Boeing and Airbus actually offered in response to those RFPs. And clu4u, Airbus did NOT offer an MRTT, just as Boeing did not offer a KC767. All you had were the typical knee jerk reactions of true believers of a favored product from a favored producer.

And you "in the know" guys appear to not even understand the difference between ZFW, OEW, and MEW. In the know indeed.

The fact that he chooses to ignore them and to pursue some weird agenda of his own is particularly revealing.

Wow. My agenda is and has been from the beginning, "better" is in the eyes of the beholder. My "agenda" stated that USAF's eye beheld the offered KC-30 (based on the A330-200) to be "better" than the offered KC-767 and then beheld that the offered KC-46 to be better than the offered KC-45. The "in the know" boys do not seem to grok that NONE of these offered aircraft existed at the time nor do ANY of them exist even now. My "agenda" also stated that the RAF's and RAAF's eyes beheld the MRTT to be "better".

And about "ignoring" and "choosing" things, YOU chose to "ignore" USAF's clearly established priorities for their tanker and chose to try to convince the readers here what the USAF "really" needed. And this while you "in the know" boys are utterly clueless about USAF's (and more specifically, AMC's) operational environment.

And if you "in the know" boys want to talk about "weird" agendas, just look at your fetish with the "Frankentanker" epithet. Now that's weird. And oh yes, YOU guys are the only ones setting up the "weird" competition between a KC-46 and an MRTT. They've never competed. Clu4u, the KC-45 is NOT the same as an MRTT, and the KC-46 did not compete against the MRTT.

Anyway, since the KC-46A has yet to turn a wheel, let alone fly or start its flight test campaign, most of the claims made for it have yet to be proved

Hmmmm. "Claims made"? Do you "in the know" boys really imagine there is the teeny tiniest scintilla of doubt that the KC-46 will have a boom, will have three drogues, will have belly tanks, will have a cargo door, willl have a cargo floor and will be able to operate from 10,000 ft runways. Those are essentially the only claims I made.

And oddly enough, the KC-45 is even farther from reality than the KC-46. Image that!!! Oh wait, you're still going on about that "weird" comparison between the KC-46 and the MRTT. Yeah, you "in the know" boys please do keep making that weird comparison.

When it's a choice between something sitting in the static display or some glossy brochure peddled by Boeing, the latter would have to be pretty compelling to be successful.

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the needs of the user (which includes timing), and the product being offered. Which is to say it depends on the eye of the beholder. You "in the know" boys are apparently unaware that the F-35 was years from IOC while LOTS of folks from multiple nations chose it over the "on the ramp right now" Eagle, Hornet, Falcon, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Fulcrum, and the various derivatives of the Flanker.

"In the know" indeed.

And oh yes, a final question for the "in the know" boys. Who's the troll with the "weird agenda" here really.

[KenV]

So one one hand we have people saying what Airbus are offering is ****e and ole Bubba's wonder jet pisses all over it......

Odd claim. No one even remotely suggested that "what Airbus are offering is ****e". That's a fabrication. Lots of follks are saying that what Airbus and what Boeing are offering are different. And which differences are "better" depends on the needs and the priorities of the user.

So Boeing had all the skills and the expertise and no product in the air still yet according to those "truly in the know" is the best and will out perform Airbus by orders of magnitude....

"No product in the air?" Really? The "in the know" boys apparently don't know that Italy and Japan are flying KC-767s now and said KC-767 was flying in 2005. First flight of the A330MRTT was in 2011, six years AFTER the KC-767. And real "in the know" folks understand that while it's true that the KC-46 is not yet flying, the KC-45 is literally infinitely farther from getting off the ground. Those truly "in the know" understand that it's utterly ludicrous to compare the first flight of the KC-46 with the first flight of the MRTT.

As for which tanker "out performs" the other, only the "in the know" boys are attempting to make "performance" comparisons. Most truly "in the know" folks are comparing the different FEATURES of the KC-767, A330MRTT, and KC-46 and how different customers put different priorities on these different FEATURES. Thus different customers make different procurement decisions, some (wisely) choosing the KC-767, some (wisely) choosing the MRTT, some (wisely) the KC-30, and some (wisely) the KC-46.

Or course some would say those choices had nothing to do with wisdom, or needs, or requirements, and it was all just politics. I'm not one of those.

I don't smell pork barrels here at all.

I'd recommend seeing a doctor about that problem.

[KenV]

So one one hand we have people saying what Airbus are offering is ****e and ole Bubba's wonder jet pisses all over it......

Odd claim. No one even remotely suggested that "what Airbus are offering is ****e". That's a fabrication. Lots of follks are saying that what Airbus and what Boeing are offering are different. And which differences are "better" depends on the needs and the priorities of the user.

So Boeing had all the skills and the expertise and no product in the air still yet according to those "truly in the know" is the best and will out perform Airbus by orders of magnitude....

"No product in the air?" Really? The "in the know" boys apparently don't know that Italy and Japan are flying KC-767s now and said KC-767 was flying in 2005. First flight of the A330MRTT was in 2011, six years AFTER the KC-767. And real "in the know" folks understand that while it's true that the KC-46 is not yet flying, the KC-45 is literally infinitely farther from getting off the ground. Those truly "in the know" understand that it's utterly ludicrous to compare the first flight of the KC-46 with the first flight of the MRTT.

As for which tanker "out performs" the other, only the "in the know" boys are attempting to make "performance" comparisons. Most truly "in the know" folks are comparing the different FEATURES of the KC-767, A330MRTT, and KC-46 and how different customers put different priorities on these different FEATURES. Thus different customers make different procurement decisions, some (wisely) choosing the KC-767, some (wisely) choosing the MRTT, some (wisely) the KC-30, and some (wisely) the KC-46.

Or course some would say those choices had nothing to do with wisdom, or needs, or requirements, and it was all just politics. I'm not one of those.

I mean, how many Multi role tankers did Airbus build before MRTT? Vs Bubba?

That's an odd question, but OK, I'll bite. "Bubba" has been building (and has built literally HUNDREDS of) multi-role tankers since before Airbus even existed.

I don't smell pork barrels here at all.

I'd recommend seeing a doctor about that problem.