Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the A330 was not originally designed for cargo - but the KC-45 is capable of carrying 26 NATO pallets on the main deck and 6 more in the hold.
The KC-45 simply uses the aircraft's own tanks to provide 111 tonnes of fuel capacity. No extra fuel tanks are fitted, and hence the cabin and holds remain available. Although I guess that some of the aft hold has been used for the boom and hose-drum installation.
So what do all those T-tails do then? Supplemented by the KC-10, which spends a good deal of it's time engaged in the airlift mission. Yes, most of the people moving will continue to be done by contract, but if you need to go directly into theatre, protected by a DAS, then a 280-seat KC-45 is more efficient than a 102-seat C-17. That particular mission is not about cost but about capability. As is the 120-stretcher aeromed fit.
The new president may well try to cancel the order - but what will that achieve? The competion will have to be re-run because, unlike the controversy with the B-1A, the debate is not about whether the programme itself should continue; the requirement for a replacement aircraft is not disputed. The objections appear to be purely based on parochial self-interest and not on achieving the best capability or value-for-money. What will Boeing do differently if the competition is re-opened? Will they offer a KC-777 or a KC-787? Surely on the basis of mission performance, the KC-767 would just lose again.
Graybeard, your assumptions about the work done by the B-1B and the KC-10 reveals that you are somewhat lacking in knowledge of current operations and the role of tanker-transport aircraft. Surely by now you can acknowledge that everyone with relevant experience regards the notion that KC-X programme could be fulfilled by a bunch of secondhand 767s (beginning next year!) as risible.
Then where does the tanker fuel go?
The USAF has relied on commercial operators for hauling most of the troops and cargo since at least the mid 1960s. There is no way AMC can haul at lower cost, using $200 Million tankers.
The new president may well try to cancel the order - but what will that achieve? The competion will have to be re-run because, unlike the controversy with the B-1A, the debate is not about whether the programme itself should continue; the requirement for a replacement aircraft is not disputed. The objections appear to be purely based on parochial self-interest and not on achieving the best capability or value-for-money. What will Boeing do differently if the competition is re-opened? Will they offer a KC-777 or a KC-787? Surely on the basis of mission performance, the KC-767 would just lose again.
Graybeard, your assumptions about the work done by the B-1B and the KC-10 reveals that you are somewhat lacking in knowledge of current operations and the role of tanker-transport aircraft. Surely by now you can acknowledge that everyone with relevant experience regards the notion that KC-X programme could be fulfilled by a bunch of secondhand 767s (beginning next year!) as risible.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The B-52 does carpet bombing, and the B-2 has the glamour, but the B-1B is ignored for whatever reason.
The same holds true for your knowledge of KC-10 ops. I can assure you they are no longer 'shiny and new,' but overstretched, worn out and constantly on the go. Simply because they have only two home bases has no bearing on their operations, they're just places to park the crews' families because the jets and crews are very rarely there.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just got through reading the Boeing protest. It reads to me like a complaint from an ex-wife who has recently been replaced by a younger model. There is little about the ways in which Boeing considers it's product to be better, and lots about how they've always been the prefered manufacturer before, so they should be now. Generally lacking in substance, but heavy on the guilt-trip, the greatest threat to the defence of the 'warfighter and the American people' would be if this emotive piece of twaddle delays the introduction of the weapons system by even a single day.
Meanwhile, IMHO, that an AT/AAR asset can provide global support from only 2 bases is surely testimony to its capabilities? A less capable asset would need more distributed MOBs to satisfy similar demands.
Meanwhile, IMHO, that an AT/AAR asset can provide global support from only 2 bases is surely testimony to its capabilities? A less capable asset would need more distributed MOBs to satisfy similar demands.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure why we're still debating the selection.
The USAF RFP should have read, "We're replacing the venerable old KC-135Es. Offer us a bigger and better tanker." Since larger aircraft always offer more airlift, then the KC-45 wins hands down. End of debate.
Or is it really that simple?
I recall that NG/EADS almost quit the KC-X competitiion because the original RFP was not to their liking. Who threatens to walk out on a possible $40 billion dollar contract? Then the RFP was changed, and now they're the winner. Yep, a bigger tanker is always a better tanker.
The USAF RFP should have read, "We're replacing the venerable old KC-135Es. Offer us a bigger and better tanker." Since larger aircraft always offer more airlift, then the KC-45 wins hands down. End of debate.
Or is it really that simple?
I recall that NG/EADS almost quit the KC-X competitiion because the original RFP was not to their liking. Who threatens to walk out on a possible $40 billion dollar contract? Then the RFP was changed, and now they're the winner. Yep, a bigger tanker is always a better tanker.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bigger tanker is always a better tanker
Not always so by any means. Only two receivers require top-up, fine, but multiple receivers on different missions in different places at the same time means more tankers. But the only tankers are big ones requiring big support facilities and probably being underused as each task does not often require full fuel loads. There is an ideal balance between size of tanker, number of tankers, anticipated tasking and affordability. The choice is, of course, further confused by introducing the Transport element because there, size will tend to prevail.
Not always so by any means. Only two receivers require top-up, fine, but multiple receivers on different missions in different places at the same time means more tankers. But the only tankers are big ones requiring big support facilities and probably being underused as each task does not often require full fuel loads. There is an ideal balance between size of tanker, number of tankers, anticipated tasking and affordability. The choice is, of course, further confused by introducing the Transport element because there, size will tend to prevail.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sour Grapes
... are one thing, but this Boeing response is quite another. In fact, it's amongst the most amusing things I've read in ages! Bravo, Boeing!
For example on pg. 3:
"Furthermore, the Air Force's actions show that it altogether failed to comprehend the inherent manufacturing genius of the 767 bid. It gave Boeing no credit for offering exactly what the US Government acquisition strategy seeks: a low-risk, high value proven baseline commercial aircraft, which Boeing proposed to modify to RFP specifications using an established in-line production process."
Hmm... So exactly how many 767-200/300/400 hybrids are currently in airline service then?
I can think of quite a few A330-200s, though.... and 66 A330-200Fs entering service in 2009. 
I can completely understand that Boeing is disappointed / pi
ed off / whatever about losing KC-X; but this document does them no favours at all. Bottom line: the USAF and the US taxpayer have used competition to get themselves a technically superior product at a lower price from a keener supplier - and Boeing's self-congratulatory spin won't change that.
S41
For example on pg. 3:
"Furthermore, the Air Force's actions show that it altogether failed to comprehend the inherent manufacturing genius of the 767 bid. It gave Boeing no credit for offering exactly what the US Government acquisition strategy seeks: a low-risk, high value proven baseline commercial aircraft, which Boeing proposed to modify to RFP specifications using an established in-line production process."
Hmm... So exactly how many 767-200/300/400 hybrids are currently in airline service then?
I can think of quite a few A330-200s, though.... and 66 A330-200Fs entering service in 2009. I can completely understand that Boeing is disappointed / pi
ed off / whatever about losing KC-X; but this document does them no favours at all. Bottom line: the USAF and the US taxpayer have used competition to get themselves a technically superior product at a lower price from a keener supplier - and Boeing's self-congratulatory spin won't change that.S41
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting reading on what the DOD/USAF originally wanted in a KC-135 replacement, and why they wanted it.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf
This report was prepared by the Federation of American Scientists, participating in the Congressional Research Service, and submitted to members of Congress on Feb 28th, 2008. It's 41 pages long but an easy read, and it covers all the major selection criteria.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf
This report was prepared by the Federation of American Scientists, participating in the Congressional Research Service, and submitted to members of Congress on Feb 28th, 2008. It's 41 pages long but an easy read, and it covers all the major selection criteria.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How NG/EADS worked itself into the game. It mostly centered on "weighted values" for cargo and passenger capacity (i.e. in favor of a bigger airplane).
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-for-kc-x.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...draw-from.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...awal-from.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-for-kc-x.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...draw-from.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...awal-from.html
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
How NG/EADS worked itself into the game.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different American view of the Boeing protest. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...otanker22.html
I've just got through reading the Boeing protest. It reads to me like a complaint from an ex-wife who has recently been replaced by a younger model.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory: "... KC-10 ops. I can assure you they are no longer 'shiny and new,' but overstretched, worn out and constantly on the go..."
Overstretched and worn out? Can you supply numbers, rather than generalities?
GB
Overstretched and worn out? Can you supply numbers, rather than generalities?
GB
The main aim of any tanker is to get as much fuel as possible airborne and then give it away quickly. Clearly, the Airbus won this competition due to it's 110T fuel load. The ability to carry a lot of freight and troops as well is a massive bonus. The Airbus is in a different league to the Boeing being more modern and more capable.
My company has 18 A330s. They are massive money earners. The ability to carry 35T of freight in the belly means some of our routes don't need to carry passengers to be profitable. In fact, one of our routes is run because of freight instead of pax.
My company has 18 A330s. They are massive money earners. The ability to carry 35T of freight in the belly means some of our routes don't need to carry passengers to be profitable. In fact, one of our routes is run because of freight instead of pax.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Boeing had offered a KC777 instead of a KC767, we'd be having this debate in reverse I think, if size matters, and more modern is better. Then KC30 supporters would be arguing smaller is better.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily so. Optimal is better, although there was nothing to stop Boeing offering the 777, and a performance/cost study comparing the 330 and the 777 would be interesting.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mainland Europe
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily so. Optimal is better, although there was nothing to stop Boeing offering the 777, and a performance/cost study comparing the 330 and the 777 would be interesting.
There was nothing stopping me from coming 1st in my exams either, except I chose answer C instead of A...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus freighters
for Brain Potter ... don't forget that behind the A330Fs there are the Fedex and UPS (inter alia) fleets of A300-600Fs, with pretty well the same fuselage (and freight doors) as the KC-45: the A330F is just a logical extension of previous Airbus practice. The 222-inch fuselage is a proven cargo-lifter ...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I finally tracked down the RFP, and a multitude of other documents if anyone has the time and inclination to wade through them:
http://fbo.gov/servlet/Documents/R/1543915/289982
Enjoy
http://fbo.gov/servlet/Documents/R/1543915/289982
Enjoy
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRS Report
As posted above, the CRS, Congressional Research Service, submitted its report on 28 Feb 08, seemingly a little late to matter.
The part most interesting to me, of course was about buying used.
"Convert Used Commercial Aircraft into Tankers. The Air Force has argued against purchasing surplus commercial aircraft and converting them into military tankers. However, Rand’s AOA appears to agree with the earlier DSB study— although with distinct caveats — that purchasing used aircraft may merit additional study. Rand’s AOA found that purchasing used aircraft as tankers is “generally not as cost effective” (as purchasing new aircraft), but “...close enough in
estimated cost to not exclude it from competition.”
"Some have suggested that surplus DC-10 aircraft, in particular, might offer attractive means of acquiring air refueling capabilities for less money up-front. Those that hold this view point out the Air Force already operates the similar KC-10 a commercial derivative that “retains 88 percent systems commonality with the DC-10. Thus, significant additional investments may not be required in operations, maintenance, and supply if surplus DC-10s were procured and converted into Air Force tankers. Likewise, some may suggest that surplus aircraft of the design selected in the KC-X competition may also be worthy of future consideration. Both of these options would seem to assuage Air Force concerns of adding additional aircraft types to the air refueling fleet."
"While it is unlikely that a large portion of the Air Force’s air refueling fleet could be recapitalized with used commercial aircraft, proponents of this alternative may believe that even a small number of used aircraft could potentially free scarce budget dollars for other DOD priorities."
It then goes on to mention just one airplane, the Northwest Airlines DC-10, having been recently sold off in favor of new A330 passenger planes - for fuel savings. Fuel is a really big deal if you're flying 16-18 hours a day, which scheduled airlines do with long haul. They don't even mention the few hours that the present KC-10A fleet flies. Nor do they mention that the ex-NWA DC-10 are early -40 variety, with Pratt&Whitney engines, unlike the KC-10 and most other DC-10 that have more fuel efficient GE engines.
Ironically, some of the ex-NWA DC10-40s are now flying troops on USAF contract with carriers such as Omni-Air. In fact, the majority of USAF cargo and troops are hauled by contract carriers flying venerable 747s and DC-10s.
If the CRS wanted real world experience for recommendations, they would have looked at the present contract carriers and could have even hired the experts, Fedex and UPS, to study the best plane for the job. Fedex and UPS buy used planes whenener suitable ones are available that meet their needs. The CRS should have also talked to the large leasing companies, who could tell them exactly which airplanes will be coming off lease, and when.
Beyond that, the USAF plans to go through long, drawn out planning and testing phases that will stretch out for five years before planned IOC. Costs always grow grossly as the programs drag on.
Meanwhile, they could have 767's, DC-10s or A300s within a year, for lots less money. The Israelis, as reported previously, are modifying a 767 right now for Colombia, a project no doubt bought by US tax dollars for the drug war.
We don't need new tankers at $200 Million each. We could use some used tankers at $50 Million or less, which will last a long time at the rates they will fly. Boeing has proposed used tankers in the past, and been rebuffed, as it's obvious the USAF wants New and Shiny.
GB
The part most interesting to me, of course was about buying used.
"Convert Used Commercial Aircraft into Tankers. The Air Force has argued against purchasing surplus commercial aircraft and converting them into military tankers. However, Rand’s AOA appears to agree with the earlier DSB study— although with distinct caveats — that purchasing used aircraft may merit additional study. Rand’s AOA found that purchasing used aircraft as tankers is “generally not as cost effective” (as purchasing new aircraft), but “...close enough in
estimated cost to not exclude it from competition.”
"Some have suggested that surplus DC-10 aircraft, in particular, might offer attractive means of acquiring air refueling capabilities for less money up-front. Those that hold this view point out the Air Force already operates the similar KC-10 a commercial derivative that “retains 88 percent systems commonality with the DC-10. Thus, significant additional investments may not be required in operations, maintenance, and supply if surplus DC-10s were procured and converted into Air Force tankers. Likewise, some may suggest that surplus aircraft of the design selected in the KC-X competition may also be worthy of future consideration. Both of these options would seem to assuage Air Force concerns of adding additional aircraft types to the air refueling fleet."
"While it is unlikely that a large portion of the Air Force’s air refueling fleet could be recapitalized with used commercial aircraft, proponents of this alternative may believe that even a small number of used aircraft could potentially free scarce budget dollars for other DOD priorities."
It then goes on to mention just one airplane, the Northwest Airlines DC-10, having been recently sold off in favor of new A330 passenger planes - for fuel savings. Fuel is a really big deal if you're flying 16-18 hours a day, which scheduled airlines do with long haul. They don't even mention the few hours that the present KC-10A fleet flies. Nor do they mention that the ex-NWA DC-10 are early -40 variety, with Pratt&Whitney engines, unlike the KC-10 and most other DC-10 that have more fuel efficient GE engines.
Ironically, some of the ex-NWA DC10-40s are now flying troops on USAF contract with carriers such as Omni-Air. In fact, the majority of USAF cargo and troops are hauled by contract carriers flying venerable 747s and DC-10s.
If the CRS wanted real world experience for recommendations, they would have looked at the present contract carriers and could have even hired the experts, Fedex and UPS, to study the best plane for the job. Fedex and UPS buy used planes whenener suitable ones are available that meet their needs. The CRS should have also talked to the large leasing companies, who could tell them exactly which airplanes will be coming off lease, and when.
Beyond that, the USAF plans to go through long, drawn out planning and testing phases that will stretch out for five years before planned IOC. Costs always grow grossly as the programs drag on.
Meanwhile, they could have 767's, DC-10s or A300s within a year, for lots less money. The Israelis, as reported previously, are modifying a 767 right now for Colombia, a project no doubt bought by US tax dollars for the drug war.
We don't need new tankers at $200 Million each. We could use some used tankers at $50 Million or less, which will last a long time at the rates they will fly. Boeing has proposed used tankers in the past, and been rebuffed, as it's obvious the USAF wants New and Shiny.
GB
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article you quote talks about using old aircraft as tankers for "less money up front".
There's your problem right there. Where does the true cost of Through Life Support come from?
There's your problem right there. Where does the true cost of Through Life Support come from?