More KC-46A woes....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Travel in the A330MRTT (or even the A310MRTT) in transport role and you travel in normal wide-body airline comfort - the Voyager has a seat pitch extended to cope with troops in bulky clothing in particular.
Travel in the KC-46 in its transport role and it's the same windowless, palletised seating rendition-class comfort as the KC-135...
Travel in the KC-46 in its transport role and it's the same windowless, palletised seating rendition-class comfort as the KC-135...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition, if USAF is to be believed, KC-46 can "join the fight" and deliver that fuel in a much less benign airspace than legacy tankers. And can deliver that fuel to the entire range of US stealth aircraft. And after delivering fuel to fighters in the theater, KC-46 can perform an aeromedical evacuation of wounded personnel out of theater. KC-46 can also be used to carry "outsize" cargo, including vehicles, into and out of theater and move it around within the theater. It also has some in-theater electronic support capabilities I can't get into. Bottom line, for USAF it's the full military capability package that matters, not "fuel uplift".
One more time, USAF did not want a tanker that could only pass gas and only do it in a benign airliner environment. It wanted a tanker that could pass gas in a much more hostile environment than airliners operate in and wanted a tanker that could be used for military taskings other than just passing gas. Some customers other than USAF may want such capabilities, in which case they'll want to buy KC-46. Other customers may not want those capabilities, in which case they'll buy A330MRTT.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two comments:
1. According to multiple sources, A330-200 and A330-300 have the same fuel capacity. So where does the -300 put the fuel that the -200 puts in the centerwing tank if -300 has no centerwing tank?
2. Consider that A330-200 and A330-300 also have the same Max Take Off Weight (MTOW). A longer fuselage means more empty weight, so less payload if MTOW is held constant. Adding a center tank on a -300 fuselage would then make no sense because the extra empty weight means you can't fill that center tank. By comparison, each time Boeing stretched the 767, it also increased the MTOW, thus increasing payload weight capacity to match the increase in payload volume.
1. According to multiple sources, A330-200 and A330-300 have the same fuel capacity. So where does the -300 put the fuel that the -200 puts in the centerwing tank if -300 has no centerwing tank?
2. Consider that A330-200 and A330-300 also have the same Max Take Off Weight (MTOW). A longer fuselage means more empty weight, so less payload if MTOW is held constant. Adding a center tank on a -300 fuselage would then make no sense because the extra empty weight means you can't fill that center tank. By comparison, each time Boeing stretched the 767, it also increased the MTOW, thus increasing payload weight capacity to match the increase in payload volume.
Last edited by KenV; 29th Jan 2019 at 13:40.
By comparison, KC-46 can only "uplift" 106 tons of fuel.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
The Pigosaurus has a max capacity of 212299lb (SG not stated though). Which is 96.3 Metric tonne, 94.78 imperial ton or 106.15 US ton.
More sales blah from ol'Bubba Boeing?
More sales blah from ol'Bubba Boeing?
Adding a center tank on a -300 fuselage would then make no sense because the extra empty weight means you can't fill that center tank. By comparison, each time Boeing stretched the 767, it also increased the MTOW, thus increasing payload weight capacity to match the increase in payload volume.
In round figures, if you fill the A330-300 till every tank is full you still have well over 10 Tonnes of freight to offer in an otherwise empty and voluminous lower cargo bay, with the pax fit still installed above.
Somebody else can work out how much fuel a KC-46 can realistically carry with 10 Tonnes of freight. I do recall though that, at one point, the extra capacity offered by the MRTT was rather appealing to the USAF. The complaint from the other side was that it was unfair to consider the increased capacity and that only meeting the minimum specification should count and nothing more.
2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”
Ken - Your guys won. And you can say what you want about the various capabilities of the KC-46, but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution (with or without an upper deck cargo floor - as far as I can tell, the A330 as offered had a cargo door for casevac, but met the pallet requirement in the underfloor) including provision for the cloaking device, defensive laser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.
Had it not been a compliant solution, it would have been rejected as such before the bids were in, and the AF would have found itself in a one-bid situation again, which didn't turn out too well the first time around. So as a US taxpayer, EADS did you a hell of a good turn by returning to the fight after the spec was "clarified" the first time around.
Had it not been a compliant solution, it would have been rejected as such before the bids were in, and the AF would have found itself in a one-bid situation again, which didn't turn out too well the first time around. So as a US taxpayer, EADS did you a hell of a good turn by returning to the fight after the spec was "clarified" the first time around.
Also worth noting that the Koreans, which have no industrial drum to beat, selected the A330 MRTT over the KC-46A. When it made its selection in 2015, DAPA noted it had largely chosen the MRTT because of its superior performance - specifically endurance, fuel capacity, personnel and cargo capacity were all cited.
And I imagine if any nation is going to be flying their tankers 'close to the fight' it will be South Korea.
Go figure.
And I imagine if any nation is going to be flying their tankers 'close to the fight' it will be South Korea.
Go figure.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken - Your guys won. And you can say what you want about the various capabilities of the KC-46, but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution (with or without an upper deck cargo floor - as far as I can tell, the A330 as offered had a cargo door for casevac, but met the pallet requirement in the underfloor) including provision for the cloaking device, defensive laser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.
As an side, there's an interesting aspect to the respective capabilities of both platforms in this Flight Global report from 2010, with Boeing criticizing the 'envelope protection system' of the A330 compared to the 'complete, full access to the aircraft envelope' of its KC-46A. I'm guessing the crew and passengers of ZZ333 were very happy for the protection system in February 2014...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ensive-345235/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ensive-345235/
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, the A330 is clearly "far superior" to the 737 in range and payload, with the Airbus able to carry many more passengers much further than the Boeing airplane. But economy carriers are very focussed on price and thus buy 737 or it's Airbus equivalent A320. They neither want nor need the additional performance. But the major carriers want and need more performance, and buy the big airplane.
Perhaps comparing freighters rather than airliners is a more proper comparison. 767 freighter is clearly smaller and has "less performance" than A330 freighter. Yet over 300 767 freighters have been ordered vs 42 for the A330. Clearly, some (many?) customers need/want a freighter smaller than the A330.
In the case of USAF's tanker, a large airplane was pitted against a smaller airplane, with both able to meet the performance requirements. The smaller airplane won on price.
Last edited by KenV; 30th Jan 2019 at 14:19.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an side, there's an interesting aspect to the respective capabilities of both platforms in this Flight Global report from 2010, with Boeing criticizing the 'envelope protection system' of the A330 compared to the 'complete, full access to the aircraft envelope' of its KC-46A. I'm guessing the crew and passengers of ZZ333 were very happy for the protection system in February 2014...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ensive-345235/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ensive-345235/
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also worth noting that the Koreans, which have no industrial drum to beat, selected the A330 MRTT over the KC-46A. When it made its selection in 2015, DAPA noted it had largely chosen the MRTT because of its superior performance - specifically endurance, fuel capacity, personnel and cargo capacity were all cited.
And I imagine if any nation is going to be flying their tankers 'close to the fight' it will be South Korea.
Go figure.
And I imagine if any nation is going to be flying their tankers 'close to the fight' it will be South Korea.
Go figure.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.
Last edited by KenV; 30th Jan 2019 at 14:32.