Latest news about Boeing tanker deal
Self Loathing Froggy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: elsewhere
Age: 18
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest news about Boeing tanker deal
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...tankers29.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...anker30ww.html
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...cs/6657900.htm
a bit puzzled to see that nobody posted that ...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...anker30ww.html
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...cs/6657900.htm
a bit puzzled to see that nobody posted that ...
Wasn't this just a disguised subsidy that the Euros would protest if given outright?
It helps therfore to guess how and to fill in the blanks according to best guess.
There are 2 tankers being proposed for the RAF's Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme. These are the elderly ex-BA 767-336s being offered by TTSC and new A330-200 derivatives being offered by AirTanker. The 767s are not the same as the Boeing KC767A, having much less fuel and nothing like the KC767's new -400 derived flight deck. The A330-200s will have the A340 wing with Trents on the inboard pylons and AR pods on the outboard. If you examine the payload range graphs for both types, it will be readily apparent that the A330 offers a considerable payload range advantage over the B767, particularly at ranges in excess of 5700 nm. For example, it would be possible for an A330 to fly non-stop direct from Brize Norton to the Falkland Islands, a great circle distance of 6800 nm, carrying at least 100 passengers whereas a B767 would be unable to fly the route non-stop with any payload. The A330 has a baseline seat fit of 293 seats, 30 B-class at 40” pitch and 263 Y-class at 32” pitch. British Airways operates the B767 in a variety of seating configurations; typically in ‘Longhaul Regional’ configuration it is fitted with 32 B-class ‘Club World’ seats at 43” pitch and 183 Y-class ‘World Traveller’ seats at 32” pitch. However, other B767-300ER configurations include 24 B-class seats at 38” pitch and 245 Y-class at 32” pitch, a total of 269 seats. The A330 cabin interior is considerably more spacious than that of the B767, allowing standard 42” width Y-class seat pairs to be fitted in an 8 seat abreast configuration with 2 x 19” aisles, apart from the rearmost 5 rows which are fitted 7 seats abreast. The narrower cabin of the B767 means that seats and aisles of the same dimensions may only be fitted in 7 abreast configuration. Both aircraft offer substantial underfloor cargo areas without any compromise from additional Air Refuelling fuel tanks; the maximum cargo volume available in the A330 is 4803 ft³, using 26 LD3 cargo containers, the most common container in use world-wide, plus 695 ft³ bulk cargo in the rear of the hold whereas the B767 offers a maximum volume of 4030 ft³, some 16% less. However, to achieve this the B767 needs to use 30 smaller LD2 containers plus 430 ft³ bulk cargo. Unlike the A330, the B767 cannot carry LD3 containers in side-by-side pairs.
Although British Airways Fact Book 2002 lists the maximum take-off weight of its B767-336 aircraft as 181.4 tonne, Boeing quotes the MTOW of the B767 aircraft as 186.9 tonne in 269 seat configuration. At ISA+15°C in still air at sea level, the B767 at 186.9 tonne requires a take-off field length of 10100 ft, whereas at its MTOW of 230 tonne under the same conditions, the A330 requires a take-off field length of only 8300 ft. On such a 8300 ft runway under the same conditions, the B767 would be limited to a MTOW of 175 tonne.
For the Air Refuelling role, on a North Sea Air Refuelling Area sortie upon which a full VC10K3 could offer 2:10 hours on task or a VC10C1K/K4 1:44 hours, an ex-BA B767 with 73.1 tonne of fuel on take-off could offer 2:16 hours or a new A330-200 with 111 tonnes 3:41 hours at the same assumed constant offload rate.
It has been alleged that the A330 faces infrastructural problems at certain bases from PCN/ACN and dimensional constraints; hence one should examine the A330’s capability if forced to operate from a base some 500 nm further from the ARA. In such a case it could still offer 3:16 hours on the same task, an hour more than the rival B767 and thus the purported deployability limitation of the A330 is clearly more than offset by its much greater AR capability.
It will be readily apparent that AirTanker’s Airbus A330-200 platform offers a markedly superior capability in both Air Transport and Air Refuelling roles when compared against the ex-BA Boeing 767-300ER proposed by TTSC even when deployed to a base 500 nm further from the ARA than that used by its competitor. It is also a far more modern aeroplane in all respects; however, the viability of operation of either aircraft by the RAF is inextricably linked to the business case presented by the bidding consortium as the aircraft are planned to be 'hired' under a public-private partnership deal rather than being acquired conventionally.....
Although British Airways Fact Book 2002 lists the maximum take-off weight of its B767-336 aircraft as 181.4 tonne, Boeing quotes the MTOW of the B767 aircraft as 186.9 tonne in 269 seat configuration. At ISA+15°C in still air at sea level, the B767 at 186.9 tonne requires a take-off field length of 10100 ft, whereas at its MTOW of 230 tonne under the same conditions, the A330 requires a take-off field length of only 8300 ft. On such a 8300 ft runway under the same conditions, the B767 would be limited to a MTOW of 175 tonne.
For the Air Refuelling role, on a North Sea Air Refuelling Area sortie upon which a full VC10K3 could offer 2:10 hours on task or a VC10C1K/K4 1:44 hours, an ex-BA B767 with 73.1 tonne of fuel on take-off could offer 2:16 hours or a new A330-200 with 111 tonnes 3:41 hours at the same assumed constant offload rate.
It has been alleged that the A330 faces infrastructural problems at certain bases from PCN/ACN and dimensional constraints; hence one should examine the A330’s capability if forced to operate from a base some 500 nm further from the ARA. In such a case it could still offer 3:16 hours on the same task, an hour more than the rival B767 and thus the purported deployability limitation of the A330 is clearly more than offset by its much greater AR capability.
It will be readily apparent that AirTanker’s Airbus A330-200 platform offers a markedly superior capability in both Air Transport and Air Refuelling roles when compared against the ex-BA Boeing 767-300ER proposed by TTSC even when deployed to a base 500 nm further from the ARA than that used by its competitor. It is also a far more modern aeroplane in all respects; however, the viability of operation of either aircraft by the RAF is inextricably linked to the business case presented by the bidding consortium as the aircraft are planned to be 'hired' under a public-private partnership deal rather than being acquired conventionally.....
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Sep 2003 at 00:58.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sussex
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I became involved on the periphery of FSTA a couple of years ago. "Never in the field of commercial conflict has so much bs been talked by so many, knowing so little, at such enormous cost, and to such little effect, to so many" is a phrase that comes to my mind, with apologies to Sir Winston.
But PFI is of course a wonderful idea, and no doubt it'll be alright on the night.....
But PFI is of course a wonderful idea, and no doubt it'll be alright on the night.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another view:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/f...20030903.shtml
. . . ." As the legislative branch works to help President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld “transform” the U.S. military in order to fight and win the Nation’s 21st Century wars, there are few actions Congress can take that will have a greater, near-term transformative effect than would its approval this week of the lease of 100 new tankers. The American people surely understand the transaction that will make such an acquisition possible. They are unlikely, however, to comprehend – or forgive – further, unwarranted interference with its prompt execution. "
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/f...20030903.shtml
. . . ." As the legislative branch works to help President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld “transform” the U.S. military in order to fight and win the Nation’s 21st Century wars, there are few actions Congress can take that will have a greater, near-term transformative effect than would its approval this week of the lease of 100 new tankers. The American people surely understand the transaction that will make such an acquisition possible. They are unlikely, however, to comprehend – or forgive – further, unwarranted interference with its prompt execution. "
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With reference to the Times article particularly, I find it amazing that anyone in Airbus would possibly believe that they had a dog's chance of winning a USAF contract against a US manufactured aircraft. At best, Airbus was used to lower the Boeing price, but there could never have been a realistic chance of getting the deal.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbette
McCain is popular because he is seen to question, not to merely block as so many Senators do. He is not attempting to redirect the contract to another manufacturer in his district, probably because Boeing have bought or subjugated all competitors in the US.
The 135 lasted 40 years because it took a product in early lifecycle (Dash80/707 first flight 1954, KC-135A first flight 1956) and ran with it. The 767 was launched 25 years ago in 1978, by contrast. Thus it is a one generation further on (warmed over with 764ER) rather than the second generation which if the US had got off its ass before now might have been possible if 7E7 had launched already rather than wasting people's time with Sonic Cruiser FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt - as practiced by Microsoft, based in WA too...)
This is not a plea for Airbus, the 330/ 340wing concept is by no means proven and suffers from the logistical issues of airport access pointed out in the FSTA discussions on the Mil forum.
Which brings me to Akerosid, who asks us why Airbus ever expected to win. They probably didn't, but considering they were the only way a tender process could have been run (since MD-11/KC-11 is dead and owned by Boeing anyway) the least the US could have done is respected commercial confidentiality, which it is alleged they haven't done.
McCain is popular because he is seen to question, not to merely block as so many Senators do. He is not attempting to redirect the contract to another manufacturer in his district, probably because Boeing have bought or subjugated all competitors in the US.
The 135 lasted 40 years because it took a product in early lifecycle (Dash80/707 first flight 1954, KC-135A first flight 1956) and ran with it. The 767 was launched 25 years ago in 1978, by contrast. Thus it is a one generation further on (warmed over with 764ER) rather than the second generation which if the US had got off its ass before now might have been possible if 7E7 had launched already rather than wasting people's time with Sonic Cruiser FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt - as practiced by Microsoft, based in WA too...)
This is not a plea for Airbus, the 330/ 340wing concept is by no means proven and suffers from the logistical issues of airport access pointed out in the FSTA discussions on the Mil forum.
Which brings me to Akerosid, who asks us why Airbus ever expected to win. They probably didn't, but considering they were the only way a tender process could have been run (since MD-11/KC-11 is dead and owned by Boeing anyway) the least the US could have done is respected commercial confidentiality, which it is alleged they haven't done.
Very interesting to note that BA are seriously considering the 7E7 (Flight International). The ISD of which is 2008, which is ideal because thats when BA wants to get rid of its 767's to the RAF. On the contrary however, this weeks articles from the FT refering to the McCain vs Boeing/USAF saga, state that the A330 over its lifecycle is considerably cheaper than the KC767 program.
Therefore what do we get.....bail out the BA balance sheet by buying the used 767 at a good price, aiding UK industry (must check those Cobham and Marshalls shares). Or boost BAe by buying the A330?
Old 767 or new/recently used A330. Probably going to have the about same through life costs to the RAF....now will FSTA be politically decided? Or will we get what we really need? probably not.
Anyone know the date for a decision (Oct or Jan?)
Therefore what do we get.....bail out the BA balance sheet by buying the used 767 at a good price, aiding UK industry (must check those Cobham and Marshalls shares). Or boost BAe by buying the A330?
Old 767 or new/recently used A330. Probably going to have the about same through life costs to the RAF....now will FSTA be politically decided? Or will we get what we really need? probably not.
Anyone know the date for a decision (Oct or Jan?)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sussex
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sangiovese,
"bail out the BA balance sheet by buying the used 767 at a good price".
The B767-300s are, I believe, owned by Spectrum Capital, not BA. Spectrum have been part of the TTSC consortium since way back.
"bail out the BA balance sheet by buying the used 767 at a good price".
The B767-300s are, I believe, owned by Spectrum Capital, not BA. Spectrum have been part of the TTSC consortium since way back.
MarkD is quite correct to point out that KC135 longevity stems from early lifecycle acquisition. The KC767A has nearly 20 years more product development behind it than the elderly ex-BA767-336 aircraft; it also carries 14.5 tonne more fuel and has a real glass flight deck based on the 767-400, unlike the BA aircraft. Whereas the A330-200 has over 50% more fuel available than the B767-336, Airbus industry-proven FBW and capabilities which comprehensively outclass any 767.
The A330 wing already has hardpoints and it is a straightforward task to modify them to carry an AR pod rather than an outboard engine.
Whilst the A330 is bigger and heavier than the 767, even operating from a larger aerodrome hundreds of miles further away from the Air Refuelling Area than one used by a B767, it still offers far greater fuel offload volumes.
The alleged 'dirty tricks' concerning the USAF's acquisition won't do any favours for Boeing, following on as it does from the recent missile scandal. Whereas Airbus have a product which sells itself without needing any 'help'....
The A330 wing already has hardpoints and it is a straightforward task to modify them to carry an AR pod rather than an outboard engine.
Whilst the A330 is bigger and heavier than the 767, even operating from a larger aerodrome hundreds of miles further away from the Air Refuelling Area than one used by a B767, it still offers far greater fuel offload volumes.
The alleged 'dirty tricks' concerning the USAF's acquisition won't do any favours for Boeing, following on as it does from the recent missile scandal. Whereas Airbus have a product which sells itself without needing any 'help'....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Wild Blue Yonder
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, I'm confused. Have MOD changed the FSTA requirement? As I understand it, at the Invitation to Negotiate Stage, all 4 competing consortia were offering the Boeing 767 - specifically the BA fleet of 767s. What's changed that MOD suddenly need a much bigger tanker?