Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
I would guess that the problem with the 787 is tail clearance, as it is with the 767-300. There's a Boeing patent that shows a boom retracting into the rear fuselage.
Personally, apart from the A330 being a larger aircraft, I think a huge distinction was pallet capability. Cargo aircraft tend to bulk out more often than they max out on weight, so the A330's wider body and ability to carry pallets long-side-across is a big factor once you (very sensibly) decide to haul cargo; and there's a lot of military cargo that can go on pallets on an A330-type cargo aircraft versus a C-17.
Personally, apart from the A330 being a larger aircraft, I think a huge distinction was pallet capability. Cargo aircraft tend to bulk out more often than they max out on weight, so the A330's wider body and ability to carry pallets long-side-across is a big factor once you (very sensibly) decide to haul cargo; and there's a lot of military cargo that can go on pallets on an A330-type cargo aircraft versus a C-17.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dc-10 Tankers
Re The Idea Of Buying Used Dc-10-30s With Less Than 50,000 Hrs, I Doubt If There Are Any That Would Meet That Requirement. Most Are Much Closer To Or Beyond 100,000 Hrs.
With The Higher Labor Rates In Europe Vs The Usa In Dollar Terms, I'm Curious To Know How Eads Could Match Boeing's Price Especially Since The Kc-43 Is A Bigger Aircraft.
With The Higher Labor Rates In Europe Vs The Usa In Dollar Terms, I'm Curious To Know How Eads Could Match Boeing's Price Especially Since The Kc-43 Is A Bigger Aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buy Used
A for-profit airline would never buy a new plane they need only a few hours a day. It makes no economic sense. A $200 Million plane will cost $30,000 a day in interest @ just 6% per annum. In reality the finance costs, including depreciation, are much higher.
Airlines that haul most of the pax and cargo for the US military are flying high time 747 pax planes that have been converted to cargo, older 757s, DC-10s, etc. They cannot justify the cost of new planes for the job, so the USAF can't either.
The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.
While there may not be any or many midlife DC-10s left, there are plenty of MD-11, and at reasonable prices. Heck, the 757 may even be a good direct replacement for the KC-135.
Converting a used pax plane to tanker is not at all unthinkable. Upon delivery of the 60th and final KC-10A to the USAF, McDonnell-Douglas offered to convert some used DC10-30, but it fell on deaf ears.
GB
Airlines that haul most of the pax and cargo for the US military are flying high time 747 pax planes that have been converted to cargo, older 757s, DC-10s, etc. They cannot justify the cost of new planes for the job, so the USAF can't either.
The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.
While there may not be any or many midlife DC-10s left, there are plenty of MD-11, and at reasonable prices. Heck, the 757 may even be a good direct replacement for the KC-135.
Converting a used pax plane to tanker is not at all unthinkable. Upon delivery of the 60th and final KC-10A to the USAF, McDonnell-Douglas offered to convert some used DC10-30, but it fell on deaf ears.
GB
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mainland Europe
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With The Higher Labor Rates In Europe Vs The Usa In Dollar Terms, I'm Curious To Know How Eads Could Match Boeing's Price Especially Since The Kc-43 Is A Bigger Aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mainland Europe
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.
GB
GB
Lastly, not buying new would screw voters and job plans in AZ as well as profits for wall street..
Graybeard
I am utterly stunned, but at least you are showing your true colours. And studiously ignoring many of the counter arguments to your, IMHO, naive viewpoint.
Your argument is typically short-termist. You don't work for the British Government do you?
If you buy and convert second hand airliners, even if there were suitable numbers available - which there aren't - you would have to pay to convert, pay to modify to the same standard, pay to fit with DAS and secure comms etc and then pay to maintain an ageing fleet. You would then have to replace that fleet in 10 or 15 years, maybe 20 at a push. If you buy second hand again you have to pay to maintain an ageing fleet which you might get 10 or 20 years out of before you have to replace again.
Now which one of these will end up more expensive than buying a new fleet, which has a better capability than anything else on offer at present, in terms of whole life costs? That's fiscal responsibility for you.
You are not going to find sufficient standard mod second-hand types to meet this requirement. If they aren't to the same mod state then your maintenence costs go up (RAF Tristar and VC10 experience, and USAF KC135 experience), or you have to pay to mod them to the same standard as opposed to getting them all to the same standard straight off the production line.
Additional KC10s once the 60 order was complete? Who knows? Maybe the USAF had enough tankers by then and didn't need any more. Or they decided they had higher priorities than more tankers. 757 as a tanker? Forget it! Looked at by Boeing (and others) and ditched as impractical!!
By your simplistic argument none of the major airlines should buy new aircraft either. If the USAF can't afford new then why should the airlines. And why don't the USAF deserve the best that there is? As I said before, and a point you ignored, the KC135 fleet has lasted as long as it has because they were bought new and not converted from some knackered airline stock. That is fiscal responsibility and I would suggest excellent VFM for the tax payer.
I am utterly stunned, but at least you are showing your true colours. And studiously ignoring many of the counter arguments to your, IMHO, naive viewpoint.
They cannot justify the cost of new planes for the job, so the USAF can't either.
The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.
The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.
If you buy and convert second hand airliners, even if there were suitable numbers available - which there aren't - you would have to pay to convert, pay to modify to the same standard, pay to fit with DAS and secure comms etc and then pay to maintain an ageing fleet. You would then have to replace that fleet in 10 or 15 years, maybe 20 at a push. If you buy second hand again you have to pay to maintain an ageing fleet which you might get 10 or 20 years out of before you have to replace again.
Now which one of these will end up more expensive than buying a new fleet, which has a better capability than anything else on offer at present, in terms of whole life costs? That's fiscal responsibility for you.
You are not going to find sufficient standard mod second-hand types to meet this requirement. If they aren't to the same mod state then your maintenence costs go up (RAF Tristar and VC10 experience, and USAF KC135 experience), or you have to pay to mod them to the same standard as opposed to getting them all to the same standard straight off the production line.
Additional KC10s once the 60 order was complete? Who knows? Maybe the USAF had enough tankers by then and didn't need any more. Or they decided they had higher priorities than more tankers. 757 as a tanker? Forget it! Looked at by Boeing (and others) and ditched as impractical!!
By your simplistic argument none of the major airlines should buy new aircraft either. If the USAF can't afford new then why should the airlines. And why don't the USAF deserve the best that there is? As I said before, and a point you ignored, the KC135 fleet has lasted as long as it has because they were bought new and not converted from some knackered airline stock. That is fiscal responsibility and I would suggest excellent VFM for the tax payer.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Utilization vs. Capital Investment
Pulgrew berated, "By your simplistic argument none of the major airlines should buy new aircraft either. If the USAF can't afford new then why should the airlines. And why don't the USAF deserve the best that there is? As I said before, and a point you ignored, the KC135 fleet has lasted as long as it has because they were bought new and not converted from some knackered airline stock. That is fiscal responsibility and I would suggest excellent VFM for the tax payer."
The very point is the smart airlines have very high utilization of their long haul planes; on the order of 14-18 hours a day. Back when the 747-400 first came out, it would generate its own $140 Million cost in revenue about every 8 months. Fixed costs are huge for a new airplane vs. an old one, and the tanker fleet has very low utilization.
Military charters use old airplanes due to low utilization. If a clapped out DC-10 or 747-100 is good enough for 300 of our high value troops, it's good enough for a flying fuel farm.
GATM and other electronic advancements have to be put in the entire fleet anyhow. Makes little difference if it's a KC-10A or a military A330. Used 767s can receive avionics upgrades while the tanks and boom are installed.
"Rust never sleeps" means the older a plane, the more serious the corrosion and other aging items, such as wiring. Converting a fifteen year old plane that is half run out in hours and cycles, and dropping to utilization in tanker service to where wearout and obsolesence converge is prudent economics.
The longer you plan into the future, the less you can be sure that today's device will be competitive, so better a ten year tanker than a 50 year old flying dinosaur.
Note, the firefighting DC-10 tanker was on its way to the boneyard when converted. It is getting 100-200 hours per year, a ridiculously low number if it were a new plane. The second DC-10 tanker is even longer in the tooth (older) than the first one. The 747 Evergreen has converted to firefighting is a -100 that is within view of its life limit in cycles or hours.
It's high time to put the Pentagon on a diet. $350 Million fighters are nonsense.
GB
The very point is the smart airlines have very high utilization of their long haul planes; on the order of 14-18 hours a day. Back when the 747-400 first came out, it would generate its own $140 Million cost in revenue about every 8 months. Fixed costs are huge for a new airplane vs. an old one, and the tanker fleet has very low utilization.
Military charters use old airplanes due to low utilization. If a clapped out DC-10 or 747-100 is good enough for 300 of our high value troops, it's good enough for a flying fuel farm.
GATM and other electronic advancements have to be put in the entire fleet anyhow. Makes little difference if it's a KC-10A or a military A330. Used 767s can receive avionics upgrades while the tanks and boom are installed.
"Rust never sleeps" means the older a plane, the more serious the corrosion and other aging items, such as wiring. Converting a fifteen year old plane that is half run out in hours and cycles, and dropping to utilization in tanker service to where wearout and obsolesence converge is prudent economics.
The longer you plan into the future, the less you can be sure that today's device will be competitive, so better a ten year tanker than a 50 year old flying dinosaur.
Note, the firefighting DC-10 tanker was on its way to the boneyard when converted. It is getting 100-200 hours per year, a ridiculously low number if it were a new plane. The second DC-10 tanker is even longer in the tooth (older) than the first one. The 747 Evergreen has converted to firefighting is a -100 that is within view of its life limit in cycles or hours.
It's high time to put the Pentagon on a diet. $350 Million fighters are nonsense.
GB
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing Gripes
This is probably old news
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...93&c=AME&s=TOP
It's interesting that Boeing claim that the were actively discouraged from entering the 777 by the USAF, a tanker which in their opinion would have been more appropriate given the reasons for the A330's selection. Is this sour grapes or do they have a point?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...93&c=AME&s=TOP
...Boeing.... say service officials' explanation about how they picked the winner were a bit out of line with the requirements proffered during the competition. They say the Air Force told the Chicago-based company throughout the competition it wanted a medium-sized plane like Boeing's 767, not Airbus' A330.
"In our reading of the RfP [Request for Proposals] this was never about being the biggest" plane, said James Albaugh, Boeing's defense chief. "This was never about who could haul more fuel. This was never about who could haul the most cargo or personnel," he said during a Wall Street conference last week. "This was about deploying fuel to the fight. This was about deploying to forward runways. This was about replacing the KC-135."
Albaugh said Boeing would have offered a tanker based on its larger 777 if the air service had made clear it wanted a bigger tanker, but "we were discouraged [by the Air Force] from doing so."
"In our reading of the RfP [Request for Proposals] this was never about being the biggest" plane, said James Albaugh, Boeing's defense chief. "This was never about who could haul more fuel. This was never about who could haul the most cargo or personnel," he said during a Wall Street conference last week. "This was about deploying fuel to the fight. This was about deploying to forward runways. This was about replacing the KC-135."
Albaugh said Boeing would have offered a tanker based on its larger 777 if the air service had made clear it wanted a bigger tanker, but "we were discouraged [by the Air Force] from doing so."
It's sour grapes. If they'd wanted to interest the USAF in the 777, they would have actively done so.
Whereas they just sat around complacently on their elbows bleating about how good their KC-767 was going to be - without actually building one (the Italian and Japanese aircraft aren't full-up KC-767s) or even managing to conduct a wet offload through the pods.... Their primary objective being to keep the 767 in production.
"This was about deploying fuel to the fight. This was about deploying to forward runways. This was about replacing the KC-135."
If you have a larger fuel volume to offer, you simply don't need to deploy so far forward but can operate from a safer rearward location.
In any case, those 'forward runways' would have to be pretty long ones to cope with the Boeing Frankentanker at MTOW!
Whereas they just sat around complacently on their elbows bleating about how good their KC-767 was going to be - without actually building one (the Italian and Japanese aircraft aren't full-up KC-767s) or even managing to conduct a wet offload through the pods.... Their primary objective being to keep the 767 in production.
"This was about deploying fuel to the fight. This was about deploying to forward runways. This was about replacing the KC-135."
If you have a larger fuel volume to offer, you simply don't need to deploy so far forward but can operate from a safer rearward location.
In any case, those 'forward runways' would have to be pretty long ones to cope with the Boeing Frankentanker at MTOW!
As BEagle says.
If Jim Albaugh is serious (surely he knows what he's saying?) and "this was about deploying to forward runways" then that's an admission that the right aircraft won.
Because a KC-767 with 92 tonnes of fuel needs a longer runway than a KC-30 does with 111 tonnes!
And a 777 would be even more of a non-starter.
If Jim Albaugh is serious (surely he knows what he's saying?) and "this was about deploying to forward runways" then that's an admission that the right aircraft won.
Because a KC-767 with 92 tonnes of fuel needs a longer runway than a KC-30 does with 111 tonnes!
And a 777 would be even more of a non-starter.
Put it this way:
Given a 4-hour sortie from 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA, still air and assuming the same aerodrome characteristics for landing (4 hours from take-off to landing, land with equivalent of 1 hr fuel burn remaining to tanks dry), state the maximum offload capability of each tanker type.
The answer:
When we first set up the query, the immediate first quesion from the US was "Can you make it a 12000 ft runway?".
"NO"
Mind you, some fighter general, never having heard of balanced field length, tried to say that the 767 didn't need long runways...he quoted its take-off run, knowing cock all about accelerate-stop distance requirements.
Given a 4-hour sortie from 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA, still air and assuming the same aerodrome characteristics for landing (4 hours from take-off to landing, land with equivalent of 1 hr fuel burn remaining to tanks dry), state the maximum offload capability of each tanker type.
The answer:
- KC-767: 50000 kg
- A310MRTT: 45500 kg
- A330MRTT: 82500 kg
When we first set up the query, the immediate first quesion from the US was "Can you make it a 12000 ft runway?".
"NO"
Mind you, some fighter general, never having heard of balanced field length, tried to say that the 767 didn't need long runways...he quoted its take-off run, knowing cock all about accelerate-stop distance requirements.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: LFBO
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tale of the tail?
I would guess that the problem with the 787 is tail clearance, as it is with the 767-300.
So the 777 with the same style tail might not be a way out for Boeing (apart from being much bigger on the ramp and much more expensive to run).
Groybard
Go for it, mate. I see you are still ignoring the cost through life. I take it back. You don't work for the British Govt (although you should), you work for Boeing!
Yes airlines have high utilisation. Shocked and stunned, its called profit. Tankers don't necessarily have high utilization. Shocked and stunned. At least buying NEW KC-30/45s will allow the USAF (potentally) better utilization as they can be used in the tanker and transport roles!!
Military charters use old airplanes because they are cheap - pure and simple.
You are still studiously ignoring whole life costs.
Yes they can, but it adds to the cost. You need to redesign the cockpit to accept GATM requirements. Buy them built in, you don't have the redesign costs.
Yes but in 10 years the military charter companies will have sold their old aircraft (probably to the fire-fighters) and replaced them with the latest generation of second-hand aircraft, thereby safeguarding your troops.
Really? Really!!! So the F-35, that brand new, not yet in service, designed to serve for 25-30+ years fighter won't need tanking in 20, or 25 years? Or 30 years? It is all about looking across your entire service, not just about a single item. If the FJs are designed to be around for that length of time and they need tanking when they enter service, why will they not need tanking in 10, or 20 or 30 years?
There still aren't sufficient second hand airframes around to meet the USAF REQUIREMENT for this, the first tranche of replacements.
Converting to fire fighters. Specious argument. You wouldn't want to invest in a brand new 787 as fire fighting aircraft in such a dangerous role, would you? Maybe you do work for the British Govt.
COMPLETELY different argument.
Stop changing the argument. As BEagle and Jackonicko point out. The right aircraft won. It met the requirement (actually probably exceeded it) the 767 was the only alternative and it lost. There were no other competitors so specious arguments about second-hand aircraft are actually completely irrelevant!! I give up.
Go for it, mate. I see you are still ignoring the cost through life. I take it back. You don't work for the British Govt (although you should), you work for Boeing!
Yes airlines have high utilisation. Shocked and stunned, its called profit. Tankers don't necessarily have high utilization. Shocked and stunned. At least buying NEW KC-30/45s will allow the USAF (potentally) better utilization as they can be used in the tanker and transport roles!!
Military charters use old airplanes because they are cheap - pure and simple.
You are still studiously ignoring whole life costs.
Used 767s can receive avionics upgrades while the tanks and boom are installed.
Military charters use old airplanes due to low utilization. If a clapped out DC-10 or 747-100 is good enough for 300 of our high value troops, it's good enough for a flying fuel farm.
so better a ten year tanker than a 50 year old flying dinosaur.
There still aren't sufficient second hand airframes around to meet the USAF REQUIREMENT for this, the first tranche of replacements.
Converting to fire fighters. Specious argument. You wouldn't want to invest in a brand new 787 as fire fighting aircraft in such a dangerous role, would you? Maybe you do work for the British Govt.
$350 Million fighters are nonsense
Stop changing the argument. As BEagle and Jackonicko point out. The right aircraft won. It met the requirement (actually probably exceeded it) the 767 was the only alternative and it lost. There were no other competitors so specious arguments about second-hand aircraft are actually completely irrelevant!! I give up.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: LFBO
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the 777 with the same style tail might not be a way out for Boeing (apart from being much bigger on the ramp and much more expensive to run).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caspian237 is right, Boeing's protest is not about the merits of each tanker (as both would be excellent tankers), this is about making last minute changes to the RFP (request for proposal) in favor of the NG/EADS aircraft!!
First, the "frankentanker" argument is pure garbage. Doesn't the A330MRTT use the A340 wing? Each airframer is assembling airframe components to produce the tanker they feel best meets the mission requirements, period.
This also isn't about the fact that the KC30 is a larger tanker than the KC767, of course it's freak'n larger. But larger is not always better, as it depends on the mission. This is why in all the aviation universe there are both larger and smaller aircraft, as each have their place. Look at the current USAF mix of tankers, 500 plus KC-135s, and less than 60 KC-10A Extenders. One is medium sized, the other is large. I note that most airlines have more smaller aircraft than larger aircraft, and I note that DOD has more smaller cargo transports than larger cargo transports. This mix of more smaller than larger aircraft is common in aviation, as you all know.
This RFP was originally drafted to replace the KC135 fleet (the medium sized tanker, not the larger tanker). Boeing's complaint is that the RFP was changed at the last minute to favor the larger KC30, which WAS NOT the original requirement. If it had been the original requirement, Boeing would have offered a 777 based tanker instead. Boeing further states that the complex evaluation formula, was both created for the USAF and altered at the last minute by ANOTHER DIVISION of Northrop Grumman, thus creating a direct conflict of interest favoring the larger KC30 at the last minute.
Again, this is not about which aircraft has better merit as a tanker, they both have merit. This is about changing the requirements at the last minute, all other arguments are total BS at this point. Imagine your outrage if you worked many many months and did your best to meet the exact requirements as laid out in an RFP, only to have your competition change those requirements right before the decision is made, in favor of their offering!!!
That's what this is about.
First, the "frankentanker" argument is pure garbage. Doesn't the A330MRTT use the A340 wing? Each airframer is assembling airframe components to produce the tanker they feel best meets the mission requirements, period.
This also isn't about the fact that the KC30 is a larger tanker than the KC767, of course it's freak'n larger. But larger is not always better, as it depends on the mission. This is why in all the aviation universe there are both larger and smaller aircraft, as each have their place. Look at the current USAF mix of tankers, 500 plus KC-135s, and less than 60 KC-10A Extenders. One is medium sized, the other is large. I note that most airlines have more smaller aircraft than larger aircraft, and I note that DOD has more smaller cargo transports than larger cargo transports. This mix of more smaller than larger aircraft is common in aviation, as you all know.
This RFP was originally drafted to replace the KC135 fleet (the medium sized tanker, not the larger tanker). Boeing's complaint is that the RFP was changed at the last minute to favor the larger KC30, which WAS NOT the original requirement. If it had been the original requirement, Boeing would have offered a 777 based tanker instead. Boeing further states that the complex evaluation formula, was both created for the USAF and altered at the last minute by ANOTHER DIVISION of Northrop Grumman, thus creating a direct conflict of interest favoring the larger KC30 at the last minute.
Again, this is not about which aircraft has better merit as a tanker, they both have merit. This is about changing the requirements at the last minute, all other arguments are total BS at this point. Imagine your outrage if you worked many many months and did your best to meet the exact requirements as laid out in an RFP, only to have your competition change those requirements right before the decision is made, in favor of their offering!!!
That's what this is about.
You would have thought that Boeing might have learned from the FSTA saga.....
TTSC offered secondhand 767s which met the RFP (or rather ISUN or somesuch); AirTanker offered new build 330s which met and exceeded the RFP.
The military customer will always prefer the solution which offers more for the same price.
Besides which, no-one else is interested in the Frankentanker, whereas the 330 has already attracted other orders.
The writing was there on the wall for all to see.....
TTSC offered secondhand 767s which met the RFP (or rather ISUN or somesuch); AirTanker offered new build 330s which met and exceeded the RFP.
The military customer will always prefer the solution which offers more for the same price.
Besides which, no-one else is interested in the Frankentanker, whereas the 330 has already attracted other orders.
The writing was there on the wall for all to see.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
As always, the outcome for this amount of money will be political. I was surprised that Boeing didn't win it for that reason, but as I've said, I'll wait until new tankers are on USAF ramps before I believe it.
Re Graybeard's 'buy used' comments, may I simply ask you to do some research on the E-8C JSTARS 707 program?
A really wonderful system packed into a pig of a clapped out, highly used, highly expensive to modify, highly expensive to operate 'bargain' airframe.
Only going to use a tanker for 5, even 10 years? Sure, get a used one then throw it away when you are done.
Want it around for the 50 years and counting that the -135s are flying, and I'd say the US taxpayer got a helluva lot for his money. As it's likely that a new tanker will have to last for a comparable time, a used one will more expensive over that same period to keep flying. Defeats your argument, I think.
By the way, your '600' is for only for surge ops, not so much for accuracy either.....
Re Graybeard's 'buy used' comments, may I simply ask you to do some research on the E-8C JSTARS 707 program?
A really wonderful system packed into a pig of a clapped out, highly used, highly expensive to modify, highly expensive to operate 'bargain' airframe.
Only going to use a tanker for 5, even 10 years? Sure, get a used one then throw it away when you are done.
Want it around for the 50 years and counting that the -135s are flying, and I'd say the US taxpayer got a helluva lot for his money. As it's likely that a new tanker will have to last for a comparable time, a used one will more expensive over that same period to keep flying. Defeats your argument, I think.
By the way, your '600' is for only for surge ops, not so much for accuracy either.....
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety,
You make good points, however there are a few issues that may reveal that both main thrusts of your argument are incorrect...
1) The mix of parts (-200/-300/-400/ER versions) proposed for the KC-767 has not yet been physically assembled and flown (the Japanese and Italian KC-767 tankers being different beasts)...whereas the A330MRTT is already flying, its airframe being the one proposed in the KC-X programme.
Boeing may be correct in its assessment that the risk is low etc, the reality is that they have not yet flown that unique mix...until they do so it is a forecast, to be proven. The A330MRTT is flying and that affects the overall risk issue. (The other issue that is not being viewed is that EADS has developed their boom specifically, and on spec. for this competition and have flown it and transfered fuel, Boeing has stated they will develop a new boom, but in the near term have quite rightly used their unrivalled boom building and flying experience as guarantors of its skill and ability to deliver a new generation boom)
2) From what has been published openly it would seem that Boeing does have a point about the change in criteria. However far from being a change to 'favour' Airbus it was the expansion of the criteria to permit a quantitative analysis of the overall airframe capacity; mainly volume and pallet numbers. This naturally favours a larger airframe. Again if those same open sources are to be believed; at the time of the change bidders were able to alter the base airframe on which they were going to submit best and final bids. It would appear that at some point an informed choice was made to retain the 767 as a base.
One would imagine it was done so for very clear reasons, mainly to do with the advantages a smaller airframe has in terms of ramps space, hangar space and so forth..all already integrated into parts of the criteria. One must furthermore assume that an internal Boeing evaluation made it clear that the increased scoring on the new criteria was outweighed by loss of points on the other criteria.. in other words a net loss of points, hence staying with the 767.
So whilst there does seem to have been a change, it would equally appear it was neither 'hidden' nor where bidders denied the opportunity to modify their bids to take advantage of it.
Now which is the best tanker is always going to depend on one's criteria and so its always going to be a balance and as brickhistory says, until one of these appears in service colours on a squadron ramp 'the fat lady ain't sung'...
You make good points, however there are a few issues that may reveal that both main thrusts of your argument are incorrect...
1) The mix of parts (-200/-300/-400/ER versions) proposed for the KC-767 has not yet been physically assembled and flown (the Japanese and Italian KC-767 tankers being different beasts)...whereas the A330MRTT is already flying, its airframe being the one proposed in the KC-X programme.
Boeing may be correct in its assessment that the risk is low etc, the reality is that they have not yet flown that unique mix...until they do so it is a forecast, to be proven. The A330MRTT is flying and that affects the overall risk issue. (The other issue that is not being viewed is that EADS has developed their boom specifically, and on spec. for this competition and have flown it and transfered fuel, Boeing has stated they will develop a new boom, but in the near term have quite rightly used their unrivalled boom building and flying experience as guarantors of its skill and ability to deliver a new generation boom)
2) From what has been published openly it would seem that Boeing does have a point about the change in criteria. However far from being a change to 'favour' Airbus it was the expansion of the criteria to permit a quantitative analysis of the overall airframe capacity; mainly volume and pallet numbers. This naturally favours a larger airframe. Again if those same open sources are to be believed; at the time of the change bidders were able to alter the base airframe on which they were going to submit best and final bids. It would appear that at some point an informed choice was made to retain the 767 as a base.
One would imagine it was done so for very clear reasons, mainly to do with the advantages a smaller airframe has in terms of ramps space, hangar space and so forth..all already integrated into parts of the criteria. One must furthermore assume that an internal Boeing evaluation made it clear that the increased scoring on the new criteria was outweighed by loss of points on the other criteria.. in other words a net loss of points, hence staying with the 767.
So whilst there does seem to have been a change, it would equally appear it was neither 'hidden' nor where bidders denied the opportunity to modify their bids to take advantage of it.
Now which is the best tanker is always going to depend on one's criteria and so its always going to be a balance and as brickhistory says, until one of these appears in service colours on a squadron ramp 'the fat lady ain't sung'...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something not discussed yet (at least in this thread) is how the tankers will be used in warfighting.
I'm not sure of the criteria for this, but is having more medium tankers better during air operations than fewer large tankers? Is ramp space a consideration when busy air operations are ongoing? Is it better to send out more tankers during combat operations to refuel in more diverse locations, than it is for aircraft to wait in line to fill up at fewer but larger tankers?
Since these tankers are going to be used for the next 40-50 years, does the procurement of more F-22s and F-35s (stealthy aircraft) change the way strike packages will be put together? My understanding is that fewer aircraft are used in each strike package when stealth aircraft with precision weapons are used. This seems to suggest that during combat air operations with high sortie rates, that more medium tankers (able to deliver fuel in more diverse locations) would be better than fewer large tankers.
Granted when used as a transport, a larger tanker can carry more troops or cargo on each sortie, but a tanker is an absolutely vital asset during combat air operations, therefore selection criteria should favor a tanker's contribution to the warfighting effort over its cargo capability. During a build up to a conflict, the tanker (as a transport) is valuable at moving assets into the theater. But during the conflict, the tanker will be used mainly as a tanker. Also, a long range tanker transporting fuel over long ranges, has an adverse affect on sortie rates, but the capability could be useful at other times.
Also, operating costs are a consideration for the military just as they are for anyone else when it comes to plane size. It just costs more to send a larger aircraft when a smaller aircraft can get the job done. Conversely, it costs more to send 2 smaller aircraft when a larger one can get the job done.
I honestly don't know details for these criteria, but perhaps the USAF needs a mix of both tankers types. I just wonder, since Boeing has decades of experience with these criteria, if they chose the KC767 because they believed it would be the right size for the warfighter.
mfaff, this should answer item 2). In regards to item 1), all of the parts have been certified and fly on other aircraft, and Boeing has mixed parts before (first BBJ, 747 SRS, etc), so I don't really see this as a problem.
I'm not sure of the criteria for this, but is having more medium tankers better during air operations than fewer large tankers? Is ramp space a consideration when busy air operations are ongoing? Is it better to send out more tankers during combat operations to refuel in more diverse locations, than it is for aircraft to wait in line to fill up at fewer but larger tankers?
Since these tankers are going to be used for the next 40-50 years, does the procurement of more F-22s and F-35s (stealthy aircraft) change the way strike packages will be put together? My understanding is that fewer aircraft are used in each strike package when stealth aircraft with precision weapons are used. This seems to suggest that during combat air operations with high sortie rates, that more medium tankers (able to deliver fuel in more diverse locations) would be better than fewer large tankers.
Granted when used as a transport, a larger tanker can carry more troops or cargo on each sortie, but a tanker is an absolutely vital asset during combat air operations, therefore selection criteria should favor a tanker's contribution to the warfighting effort over its cargo capability. During a build up to a conflict, the tanker (as a transport) is valuable at moving assets into the theater. But during the conflict, the tanker will be used mainly as a tanker. Also, a long range tanker transporting fuel over long ranges, has an adverse affect on sortie rates, but the capability could be useful at other times.
Also, operating costs are a consideration for the military just as they are for anyone else when it comes to plane size. It just costs more to send a larger aircraft when a smaller aircraft can get the job done. Conversely, it costs more to send 2 smaller aircraft when a larger one can get the job done.
I honestly don't know details for these criteria, but perhaps the USAF needs a mix of both tankers types. I just wonder, since Boeing has decades of experience with these criteria, if they chose the KC767 because they believed it would be the right size for the warfighter.
mfaff, this should answer item 2). In regards to item 1), all of the parts have been certified and fly on other aircraft, and Boeing has mixed parts before (first BBJ, 747 SRS, etc), so I don't really see this as a problem.
Last edited by Flight Safety; 15th Mar 2008 at 18:03.