Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)

Old 21st Mar 2010, 06:08
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BEagle:
A massive 65% better than the KC-767, or 45% better than the KC-135R!
And how does that compare to the KC-10A? The USAF bought 60 of them at a "bargain" price so McDouglas could keep the DC-10 production line alive in the early 1980s. The AF has reported that the KC-10A is too large, which would imply the A330 is also too large.

It doesn't matter which new airplane fits the mission better. A mix of used airplanes can do the job sooner at much lower cost. That mix includes the A310.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2010, 09:20
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
The AF has reported that the KC-10A is too large, which would imply the A330 is also too large.
Not at all. Certainly the KC-10A is 'too' large for most mission requirements - according to the figures we were given, it offered 85% more fuel in the standard scenario than the KC-135R. Whereas the figure for the A330 was 45%.

However, when required to carry passengers, the KC-10 can only carry 75 and the KC-135R only 53. In windowless 'Rendition Class' squalor.

The next generation tanker transport needs to be properly multi-role. Although offering 12% less fuel then the KC-135R in the standard mission scenario, the KC-767 can at least carry 192 passengers. But again, ol' Bubba Boeing seems insistent on 'Guantanamo Tourist Class' levels of passenger comfort.

Both the A-310MRTT and A-330MRTT are true wide body airliner derivatives. In fact they both have the same 222" cabin cross-section. Which is wider than the KC-767 by about 1 seat - so they can both carry paired LD3 cargo bins. Unlike the KC-767 which cannot. In all-passenger fit, the A-310 can carry 214 passengers, but when configured as tanker, this reduces to 57. The A330 offers the best capabilities without a shadow of a doubt - up to 111 tonnes of fuel and up to 293 passengers, so the optimum balance can be achieved for the specific mission. Plus, of course, all Airbus designs have normal airline standards of comfort and safety.

Which is why the A330MRTT has now been acquired by several nations. The A310MRTT customer nations have no 'boom' needs, hence the aircraft is the right size for their multi-role tanker transport requirements. Nations with more modest tanker requirements might consider the A400M or perhaps the KC-390 if they have a parallel tactical transport requirement.

A mix of used airplanes can do the job sooner at much lower cost.
Not really. Operating several different types has a distinct disadvantage in terms of training and support - the only advantage being that a mixed fleet would be less susceptible to a single point failure risk. The cost of modifying and certificating an old airliner is significant - particularly if you include a boom and its operator. Which is why the OmegaAir tankers don't have booms.

Hence a 50/50 split of KC-767 and KC-45A might yet be the best option for both the USAF and the politicians.

Last edited by BEagle; 21st Mar 2010 at 14:24.
BEagle is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2010, 23:00
  #43 (permalink)  
"The INTRODUCER"
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Posts: 437
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fly by wire and envelope protection on tankers

The FBW argument shows the true desperation of Boeing's position. I wrote this two years ago, 20 months before I was being paid by Airbus Military as I am now.
Algy is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 09:16
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like Conklin & De Decker demonstrated that an aircraft with a 30% higher MTOW burns only 24% more fuel, so they proved that the A330 is 6% more economical.

Lies, damned lies and statistics; all irrelevant because the KC-X will be bought based on politics, not capability.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 09:49
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Or, to put it another way, D-IFF_ident:

To match the offload of the KC-45A using our test scenario, you would need 1.65 KC-767s. If a KC-767A has a burn rate of 76% of that of the KC-45A (which frankly I doubt), you would thus burn 1.65 x .76 = 1.254 the fuel the KC-45A would burn.

25.4% more fuel burn, twice the crew, twice the maintenance costs - does that really make sense?

The intelligent customer chooses Airbus!
BEagle is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 15:09
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All the arguments about tankers hauling cargo or troops are worthless. The USAF doesn't even want any more C-17. Civilian airliners have been hauling cargo and troops for the US Mil for more than 50 years, at a much lower cost than USAF planes.

The prudent customer buys used airliners and converts them to tankers, and puts the $Billions saved into UAVs.

Now there is a career path for all those kids playing Microsoft Flight Sim.

EADS should be moving into UAVs, if they aren't already. Seen the Hexacopter?

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 17:26
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thought this was a done deal?

EADS Considers Bidding Alone For USAF Tanker - Defense News
Flyingblind is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 08:20
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UK confirms Rivet Joint: key.Aero, Military Aviation

Only the UK MoD would buy 3 airframes from the Yanks which are being retired primarily due to perceived danger of structural failure..

There is logic in here somewhere right?
Flyt3est is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 07:23
  #49 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,229
Received 1,500 Likes on 678 Posts
EADS ‘Will Bid,’ Sarkozy Says

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today that the Franco-European defense giant EADS “will bid” on the tanker contract after receiving assurances from President Obama that the competition will be “free and fair.”

And in what looks like a clear signal to EADS that the Pentagon will seriously consider opening the bid to EADS, the Air Force Chief of Staff told my colleague Andrea Shalal-Esa of Reuters that, “they have to say they’re serious and then the department will decide how much time to allow.” He spoke to Andrea at an event hosted by Air Force Association.

“If you say to me that the competition will be free and fair and transparent, then we say EADS will bid and we trust you,” Sarkozy said at a joint White House press conference. Obama said that Sarkozy’s “trust is justified.”

And, just in case anyone wondered whether Obama was stepping on Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ procurement toes with his declaration, the president made it clear he was not.

“The Secretary of Defense makes procurement decisions. The president does not meddle in these decisions and that’s a long-standing policy, so I maintain an arms-length approach. I have assurances from Secretary of Defense Gates that, in fact, the rebidding process is going to be completely transparent and completely open and a fair competition,” Obama said.

Obama’s declaration comes after major European leaders blasted the United States for being protectionist after Northrop Grumman dropped its bid for the KC-X tanker. Even Britain’s Gordon Brown said at the time that he was “disappointed.” The administration, keenly aware of the importance of its allies’ help in Afghanistan, clearly decided to make the nicest noises possible during Sarkozy’s visit.

The question to be answered — after EADS decides whether to bid or not — is whether EADS North America will place the bid or the company will look for a large American partner like Lockheed or another larger company like Raytheon. I’m skeptical that Lockheed would take the political risk of aligning itself with EADS on this program (but not on the A400M). Any other American company would also have to grapple with the prospect of angering Rep. Norm Dicks, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, and a host of other powerful lawmakers. Whether EADS North America would be sufficient political cover for EADS is open to question.
ORAC is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 08:11
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Whanganui, NZ
Posts: 278
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
So EADS will bid, eh ...

I wonder how pi$$ed-off they're feeling, knowing that the USAF almost certainly won't be allowed to buy not-a-Boeing, this time?

If I was EADS, and feeling really septic about the whole situation, then how about:
  • Bid an absolutely bog-standard RAAF (or UAE) aircraft, off their existing production lines
  • Make absolutely no concessions to additional US content, only fit US GFE different to the other models
  • Bid an almost-no-profit price, and shout out about how cheap it will be
  • Point out loudly and often they can have the first aircraft Real Soon Now , not in quite a number of years time
  • make a lot of noise about how it's a real aircraft, no R&D risk at all
Then when Boeing get the deal anyway, they haven't wasted any engineering money, and to meet their price (with a significant R&D effort) Boeing's eyes would be fair watering.

And if per chance they do get the gig, well they've put Boeing out of the tanker market which is a happy side-effect.
kiwi grey is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 09:00
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I also would have thought that ownership of a strike aircraft by a friendly nation which contributed to the devlopment of that aircraft would have alloed full access to all aspects of that aircraft including software.
I wonder when the next defence review happens will all this be taken into account by many European nations and they suddenly discover JSF isn't up to spec or is to expensive for what they are getting?
Interesting since the EADS descision to pull out of KC-X new life has been breathed into A400M
.
NURSE is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 09:29
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kiwi Grey -

a couple of good points there.. The Boeing propaganda machine is actually pretty good, and it's an area where EADS fell down.. They should be making a hell of a lot of noise about the clear advantages they can offer over the 767, god only knows why they don't.
Flyt3est is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 10:03
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kiwi, you may have made the first euro centric comment about EADs and tankers that makes any sense. If EADs offers the 310 variant at a bargain based price that Boeing has no hope of beating, that may be their best bet. In other words, go for good enough and a lot cheaper rather than the best but very expensive.
busdriver02 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 10:09
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A310 ???

The A310 line's been shut for some time now, so it would be hard top start it up again just for this "deal" ...
Big B's advertising of the 767 as "operational" in an Avweek pop-up is surely worth a "misleading publicity" lawsuit ???
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 10:13
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's a difference between "misleading" and "Lying".. Unfortunately for Airbus, Boeing are absolute masters at the former.
Flyt3est is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 10:26
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
310? Well I claim no knowledge of tankers, I really meant just offering an off the shelf tanker in current production that offers nothing above and beyond the required spec. Maybe that ship has already sailed, beats me.
busdriver02 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 12:36
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And if per chance they do get the gig, well they've put Boeing out of the tanker market which is a happy side-effect.
And there's nothing like a nation voluntarily giving up a strategic indigenous capability and being beholden to others

I wonder if that's ever been done before?




Successfully, I mean...
brickhistory is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 13:20
  #58 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,229
Received 1,500 Likes on 678 Posts
And there's nothing like a nation voluntarily giving up a strategic indigenous capability and being beholden to others


NASA green lights April 5 launch of Discovery

WASHINGTON--NASA gave its thumbs up Friday to launch the space shuttle discovery on April 5 with its seven-member crew, including a Japanese astronaut, to the International Space Station (ISS).......

Discovery's flight will be the second shuttle mission of the year. Only three will remain before the shuttle program shuts down for good at the end of this year.

US space missions to the ISS will be flown on Russian Soyuz spacecraft until the shuttle's successor can take off by 2015 at the earliest.
ORAC is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 14:51
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ORAC, indeed.

My point still stands as the "successfully" part is still to be demonstrated during the period (will it be permanent? But that's a separate thread) of no US manned access to space capability.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 16:38
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tankers get about 10% of the utilization of airliners. Half life airliners will last as long as needed when converted to tankers. Sooner, cheaper, better, and they can be converted by MROs, Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul companies anywhere in the world, cutting both Boeing and EADS out of $Multi-Billion profits.

EADS bet on the wrong horse in 2008, putting lobbyists to work on McCain's campaign staff. Justice is a bitch.

GB
Graybeard is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.