Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Who said 10 years?
The RAF went that route in 1974 when we bought East African VC10s as a cheap job lot then the BA VC10s. So that is 34 years and counting.
Then we bought the PanAm (I think) T* and that was 24 years ago.
The RAF went that route in 1974 when we bought East African VC10s as a cheap job lot then the BA VC10s. So that is 34 years and counting.
Then we bought the PanAm (I think) T* and that was 24 years ago.
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
Then we bought the PanAm (I think) T* and that was 24 years ago.
Actually with our relatively few numbers reqd in comparison to the US, it would have been sensible to have snapped up a good few extra T* over the years to replace the Vickyten's in a progressive way...?
Far too sensible I suppose for MOD.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GeeRam, I didn't specify but the principl is the same. Buy 'low fatigue' civil airframes, fly them well below the civil rate but possibly at a higher fatigue level and keep them going long after an African airline would have sh1t canned them.
PN - the VC10K2s were very tired ex-BOAC, ex-Gulf Air 'Standard' jets with very high hours on them when the RAF bought them. The VC10K3s were relatively youthful ex-Super VC10s, but were repossessed from the bankrupt EAAC. Whereas the VC10K4s were long-in-the-tooth ex-BA Supers which had been sitting around at Abingdon for years after acquisition, then given a lowest-cost (except that we're talking BWoS, of course) rebuild to become the nicest, but lowest capability VC10 tankers. No fuselage tanks, just a wet fin - so less fuel than either a K2 or K3. But with the 4 compressors, full cabin soundproofing and extra seats - and without the 'million pound dustbin' nonsense escape chute, they were nice and quiet to fly in. In, that is!
Actually, what should have happened was that, once the clearly demonstrable inability of Marshall Aerospace to fit pods on the TriStar had been confirmed, the TriStars should have become 100% transport assets. Because a single point tanker is just not good enough for probe-and-drogue receiver formations. Yes, I know the TriStar has 2 hoses, but they cannot be used simultaneously. The second is just a very expensive redundancy device.
With 216 being 100% transport, then the AT role should have become a very minor secondary capability for the VC10C1Ks of 10 Sqn allowing the single role VC10K2/3*/4s of the premier tanker squadron to have been tasked less heavily.
However, if there had really been a single functioning brain cell in the MoD-box of the '90s, the VC10s and TriStars would by now have been replaced by 24 spanking new A310MRTTs. Triple role and burning roughly 64% of the hourly burn rate of the Vickers FunBus.
Trouble was, someone came up with the utter bolleaux of PFI.......
*OK - not quite 'single' role...
Actually, what should have happened was that, once the clearly demonstrable inability of Marshall Aerospace to fit pods on the TriStar had been confirmed, the TriStars should have become 100% transport assets. Because a single point tanker is just not good enough for probe-and-drogue receiver formations. Yes, I know the TriStar has 2 hoses, but they cannot be used simultaneously. The second is just a very expensive redundancy device.
With 216 being 100% transport, then the AT role should have become a very minor secondary capability for the VC10C1Ks of 10 Sqn allowing the single role VC10K2/3*/4s of the premier tanker squadron to have been tasked less heavily.
However, if there had really been a single functioning brain cell in the MoD-box of the '90s, the VC10s and TriStars would by now have been replaced by 24 spanking new A310MRTTs. Triple role and burning roughly 64% of the hourly burn rate of the Vickers FunBus.
Trouble was, someone came up with the utter bolleaux of PFI.......
*OK - not quite 'single' role...
Last edited by BEagle; 19th Mar 2008 at 20:58.
A little bit OT.
Looks like they will by a third user of KC-767 or I should say
B767 BDMRTT. One used B767-200ER modified by IAI Bedek into MRTT configuration for Columbia.
Arrakis
Looks like they will by a third user of KC-767 or I should say
B767 BDMRTT. One used B767-200ER modified by IAI Bedek into MRTT configuration for Columbia.
Arrakis
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BEagle, thanks for the detailed summary.
Apart from ending up with 4 different marks of VC10 you forgot to mention the advantage of buying from a variety of civil operators. We get to see how each aircraft could be developed individually
and spend probably the same again demodding them all to a common airfrane before remodding them to a mil spec.
I was at a wedding reception with the wg cdr who acquired the EAAC for £100k apiece. Dog with two tails. He also acquired a shed load of spares then got out before the mod bills arrived.
Apart from ending up with 4 different marks of VC10 you forgot to mention the advantage of buying from a variety of civil operators. We get to see how each aircraft could be developed individually
and spend probably the same again demodding them all to a common airfrane before remodding them to a mil spec.I was at a wedding reception with the wg cdr who acquired the EAAC for £100k apiece. Dog with two tails. He also acquired a shed load of spares then got out before the mod bills arrived.
Rumour has it that a zero was inadvertently let off the invoice for the ex-East Efrickan jets.....
When we first had them, the 1960s/70s 'steward call' inserts on the K3 passenger facility units still had 'brown' faces! You could only see the other ex-EAAC traces if you opened an overwing escape panel and looked at the paintwork in the cabin aperture.
When we first had them, the 1960s/70s 'steward call' inserts on the K3 passenger facility units still had 'brown' faces! You could only see the other ex-EAAC traces if you opened an overwing escape panel and looked at the paintwork in the cabin aperture.
Originally Posted by BEagle
However, if there had really been a single functioning brain cell in the MoD-box of the '90s, the VC10s and TriStars would by now have been replaced by 24 spanking new A310MRTTs. Triple role and burning roughly 64% of the hourly burn rate of the Vickers FunBus.
Originally Posted by BEagle
Trouble was, someone came up with the utter bolleaux of PFI.......
There are going to be some serious post-PFI costs come home to haunt UK-PLC in 20+ years time, judging by some of the PFI's I've been involved with.
Let's face it-Boeing blew it. If they didn't understand the RFP (and offered the B777), they should have asked. The risks developing the Frankentanker was an important fact, especially given the 6 year delay already incurred. The AF could scarcely wait like the IAF has.
It is my feeling (and I'm not excited about Airbus, but it is the best plane) that the AF really wanted a DC-10 sized freighter/tanker. AMC loves the KC-10 and would have bought more, it available new. The advent of the F-22 and B-2 as combat planes, combined with UCAVs, is making vast strike packages of tankers, CAP fighters, attack planes, Weasels, etc a thing of the past. Freighting is just as important as tanking and the Airbus has it all over the 767. And it can do more to off-load fuel than the 767.
Boeing and your fans-get over it! If Congress gets involved, they will show how stupid they are and how the military's needs are NOT on their agenda.
Not excited? I'm a conservative type and Airbus FBW and cockpit is not something I appreciate. NO, I don't fly 'em, so it is a BS opinion, yes.
It is my feeling (and I'm not excited about Airbus, but it is the best plane) that the AF really wanted a DC-10 sized freighter/tanker. AMC loves the KC-10 and would have bought more, it available new. The advent of the F-22 and B-2 as combat planes, combined with UCAVs, is making vast strike packages of tankers, CAP fighters, attack planes, Weasels, etc a thing of the past. Freighting is just as important as tanking and the Airbus has it all over the 767. And it can do more to off-load fuel than the 767.
Boeing and your fans-get over it! If Congress gets involved, they will show how stupid they are and how the military's needs are NOT on their agenda.
Not excited? I'm a conservative type and Airbus FBW and cockpit is not something I appreciate. NO, I don't fly 'em, so it is a BS opinion, yes.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Graybeard
Please describe a typical AAR mission, US Herk, in terms of number of hookups and total fuel transfered. Do you often need the additional tonnage of the KC-10A?
Whilst we do refuel with KC-10A, it has more to do with boom availability than tonnage from an OCU perspective - what I do is fairly artificial though.
The most we'll offload is 6-7k pounds (~3 tonnes) & more frequently don't transfer any fuel at all. These token offloads are typical for training.
As we're based in New Mexico, we wouldn't schedule AAR with a unit much further east than, say, McConnell. I'm fairly certain there aren't too many KC-135E west of the Mississippi! (if any at all - anyone got a listing of where all these E-models are??)
As mentioned, I haven't seen an E-model in ages...
Back to topic - if I were king, I'd select the best tanker with the most capability. If that happened to be a plane that was principally built outside of my country & I was concerned about the future viability of my aerospace industry, I would have them build the new tanker under license somehow. Might not always be a viable solution, but it sure beats flat out subsidies & handouts. The end goal being to build & maintain a certain level of capability and expertise for future whilst still delivering the best product for the military...
...apparently, I live in utopia as well.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a Tool, not a Toy
Pulfrew: "No it doesn't. First you need 170+ second hand aircraft to be available - which they aren't. Then you need to bring them to the same standard. Then you need to modify them to KC configuration. And how long would it actually take to buy up 179 second hand aircraft (even if they are/were available) and convert them?"
Since we're talking a converted 767, there are some available immediately, and most of them will eventually become available, as it's not popular for cargo, due to its different fuselage tube. "As of December 2006, total orders for -200/200ER stand at 249." That provides a significant supply. Other than engine choices, 95% of airline configuration differences are interiors, which get stripped out anyhow.
10 Tanker is converting their second DC-10 to firefighting, with a 12,000 gallon canoe on the keel, and it will be done in four months, start to finish. Conversions can be done at various MROs in the US and around the world, simultaneously.
When would the first A330 tanker be available? How quickly would all 179 get delivered? What happens when the next large hurricane hits Mobile?
"And as has been pointed out many times on this thread, you then have to replace them again in 10 years time. With what? And at what cost? You have to just start the whole process again."
As has been pointed out in another post, the AAR mission is diminished, as we don't have B-52s flying 'round the clock anymore. We'll have fewer manned fighters to refuel, also. There are 20 B-2, and 59 KC-10A, a seemingly adequate ratio. In 10 years time there will be even less need for AAR. Considering the few hours flown by tankers, used 767s, DC-10s, A310s, and MD-11s would last almost indefinitely.
"Second hand aircraft may make a viable proposition to an airline or charter outfit that cannot afford new, however, it just doesn't make sense with a capability you want to last for another 20, 30 or 40 years."
Technology is progressing faster than ever. Why be tied to obsolete airframes for 20 or 40 years? Besides, it's not "can't afford," it's dollars and sense. Fedex and UPS are wealthy, fly schedules where on time arrival is more critical than for pax airlines, and they buy used when available.
The tanker is a tool, not a toy that has to be new and shiny.
GB
Since we're talking a converted 767, there are some available immediately, and most of them will eventually become available, as it's not popular for cargo, due to its different fuselage tube. "As of December 2006, total orders for -200/200ER stand at 249." That provides a significant supply. Other than engine choices, 95% of airline configuration differences are interiors, which get stripped out anyhow.
10 Tanker is converting their second DC-10 to firefighting, with a 12,000 gallon canoe on the keel, and it will be done in four months, start to finish. Conversions can be done at various MROs in the US and around the world, simultaneously.
When would the first A330 tanker be available? How quickly would all 179 get delivered? What happens when the next large hurricane hits Mobile?
"And as has been pointed out many times on this thread, you then have to replace them again in 10 years time. With what? And at what cost? You have to just start the whole process again."
As has been pointed out in another post, the AAR mission is diminished, as we don't have B-52s flying 'round the clock anymore. We'll have fewer manned fighters to refuel, also. There are 20 B-2, and 59 KC-10A, a seemingly adequate ratio. In 10 years time there will be even less need for AAR. Considering the few hours flown by tankers, used 767s, DC-10s, A310s, and MD-11s would last almost indefinitely.
"Second hand aircraft may make a viable proposition to an airline or charter outfit that cannot afford new, however, it just doesn't make sense with a capability you want to last for another 20, 30 or 40 years."
Technology is progressing faster than ever. Why be tied to obsolete airframes for 20 or 40 years? Besides, it's not "can't afford," it's dollars and sense. Fedex and UPS are wealthy, fly schedules where on time arrival is more critical than for pax airlines, and they buy used when available.
The tanker is a tool, not a toy that has to be new and shiny.
GB
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Obsolete, never Worn Out
My Quote:
"Planes designed for the military are often worn out or obsolete in several thousand hours."
Pulfrew: "Well by your own examples that doesn't apply to the USAF KC135 fleet which have already lasted 40+ years, does it?
That would be because........ they were bought new, maintained well, upgraded when necessary and have a low hours utilization in comparison to airline usage."
If they keep flying at the same rate, the first KC-135 will hit its modest airframe life limit of 39,000 hours in 2040. It's already been obsolete for about 30 years. That's why all the upgrades have been needed.
BTW, buying used will please neither Airbus nor Boeing. It just means less pain for the taxpayers, and less profit for the Washington DC lobbyists.
GB
"Planes designed for the military are often worn out or obsolete in several thousand hours."
Pulfrew: "Well by your own examples that doesn't apply to the USAF KC135 fleet which have already lasted 40+ years, does it?
That would be because........ they were bought new, maintained well, upgraded when necessary and have a low hours utilization in comparison to airline usage."If they keep flying at the same rate, the first KC-135 will hit its modest airframe life limit of 39,000 hours in 2040. It's already been obsolete for about 30 years. That's why all the upgrades have been needed.
BTW, buying used will please neither Airbus nor Boeing. It just means less pain for the taxpayers, and less profit for the Washington DC lobbyists.
GB
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"pre-used" widebodies ...
Reading today's flioghtblogger & other reports, there's a big demand for any 2nd-hand widebodies as both A & B have long line-ups, with the nearest free slots well into the next decade, while the latest 787 delays have made the market even tighter. So for the next few years, there just ain't goin' to be anything available to satisfy the "give 'em old & used aircraft" believers ...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767s Available
From GeeRam, #200:
-----
A quick Google suggests as of Mar08
767 = 24
DC10/MD-11 = 11
I suspect that's airworthy/active rather than what may or may not be in deep store/reclamation out in one of the desert boneyards...?
-------
The 767 isn't quite a widebody, is it? Is it a tight market for all widebodies, or only the long range ones? A 767 non-ER becomes very long range when you add the AAR tanks.
The USAF isn't expecting to receive the first operational KC-45 until, when, 2013? They could have a whole lot of used 767 converted to tankers before that.
The details of the IAI 767 for the Colombian AF would be interesting. It wouldn't surprise me to see IAI submitting an unsolicited bid to the USAF.
GB
-----
A quick Google suggests as of Mar08
767 = 24
DC10/MD-11 = 11
I suspect that's airworthy/active rather than what may or may not be in deep store/reclamation out in one of the desert boneyards...?
-------
The 767 isn't quite a widebody, is it? Is it a tight market for all widebodies, or only the long range ones? A 767 non-ER becomes very long range when you add the AAR tanks.
The USAF isn't expecting to receive the first operational KC-45 until, when, 2013? They could have a whole lot of used 767 converted to tankers before that.
The details of the IAI 767 for the Colombian AF would be interesting. It wouldn't surprise me to see IAI submitting an unsolicited bid to the USAF.
GB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Applying a bit of common sense/economics. The price of second hand 767s might be low because of the number of bidders. As soon as anyone knew the USAF wanted 170+, the second hand price would go through the roof, undoubtedly far in excess (with a suitable lead time) of new A330s. Supply and demand and all that.
They could, of course, at that stage, ask Boeing about new build airframes - which would take us back to the starting point.....
The USA got themselves into this situation when they reduced their industry down to only Boeing as a major airframe/tanker manufacturer. They either had to accept them as a single supplier with an absolute say over price or change the rules to allow EADS to bid. They did so. If they now change the rules to give the contract to Boeing, they can expect to pay untold billions to Boeing for the KC-Y and KCV-Z competitions, as there will be no point in EDS bidding. (Ignoring suing for getting their costs back on the KC-X competion bid).
They could, of course, at that stage, ask Boeing about new build airframes - which would take us back to the starting point.....
The USA got themselves into this situation when they reduced their industry down to only Boeing as a major airframe/tanker manufacturer. They either had to accept them as a single supplier with an absolute say over price or change the rules to allow EADS to bid. They did so. If they now change the rules to give the contract to Boeing, they can expect to pay untold billions to Boeing for the KC-Y and KCV-Z competitions, as there will be no point in EDS bidding. (Ignoring suing for getting their costs back on the KC-X competion bid).
Huh?
Boeing sold the 767 as having "The widest economy seat ans aisle combination of any widebody airplane available today".
Although, of course the A310 has a wider body with the same 222 in fuselage cross-section as the A330.
Now, the non-ER 767s have wing tanks only (50.5 tonnes) and the -ERs also have centre tanks of 11.9 - 22.5 tonnes. The KC-767A was supposed to have a further 18.6 tonnes in additional centre tanks, for a total of around 91.6 tonnes. But the additional center tanks feed into the center tank - so without that you're pretty well stuffed trying to turn old 767 non-ERs into acceptable AAR aircraft.
Unlike firebombers, AAR aircraft do NOT have specific 'AAR tanks' - the whole fuel system is used for both receiver and tanker requirements.
Boeing sold the 767 as having "The widest economy seat ans aisle combination of any widebody airplane available today".
Although, of course the A310 has a wider body with the same 222 in fuselage cross-section as the A330.
Now, the non-ER 767s have wing tanks only (50.5 tonnes) and the -ERs also have centre tanks of 11.9 - 22.5 tonnes. The KC-767A was supposed to have a further 18.6 tonnes in additional centre tanks, for a total of around 91.6 tonnes. But the additional center tanks feed into the center tank - so without that you're pretty well stuffed trying to turn old 767 non-ERs into acceptable AAR aircraft.
Unlike firebombers, AAR aircraft do NOT have specific 'AAR tanks' - the whole fuel system is used for both receiver and tanker requirements.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
As an aside - after the problems the RAF found in building internal tanks for the purchased old VC-1s, and the wings for the Nimrod. If they USAF bought second hand 767s, how "bespoke" are the airframes, and would they be able to mass manufacture new centre line tanks? or would the costs, after the lessons of trying to fit the second set, escalate out of existence? 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle's last sentence reminded me of a point from history, when tankers did not necessarily give away their own fuel only - how easy would it be to isolate a fuel tank on the KC45 should any receiver want, say, JP7 to be passed down the boom?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
IIRC the only tankers which isolated the tanks for the receiver in order to carry a separate type was the KC-135Q/T (for the SR-71).
The down side for the conversion is that the receiver fuel now becomes pure cargo, limiting tanker range/offload flexibility, giving requirements to be able to have separate fuel dump and measuring systems etc.
I am sure it could be done if necessary - and the KC-45s greater capacity would allow the carriage of a greater combined total, retaining as much as possible of the original performance figures.
The down side for the conversion is that the receiver fuel now becomes pure cargo, limiting tanker range/offload flexibility, giving requirements to be able to have separate fuel dump and measuring systems etc.
I am sure it could be done if necessary - and the KC-45s greater capacity would allow the carriage of a greater combined total, retaining as much as possible of the original performance figures.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
The USA got themselves into this situation when they reduced their industry down to only Boeing as a major airframe/tanker manufacturer.