A400M
 

The goldilocks factor favours the A400M - C-17 ... Too much aircraft for quite a lot of tasks, C-130 not quite big enough these days (internal width) ... A400M - just right for modern military loads ... (Still unproven, specially the engines ...).
Watch Marshalls at Cambridge for news of ground run progress - and getting the poor old Herc flying - and then the joy at Seville when at last they're cleared to get all four engines flying together in formation on the A400M.
:rolleyes:
P L U S ... The A400M's not from Boeing ... 'nuff said.

KC-45A
 

JFZ90 wrote: Anyone know how long NG were in "Go Mode" before things the decision was officially overturned? I assume the USAF will now have put NG work on hold, but even this could still be costing them a fortune.

As soon as Boeing filed the "protest" with the GAO, there was an immediate "stop work" issued by USAF- just like Lockheed-Martin did when they protested the USN BAMS UAV. In both cases from what I know, there is immediate US Government oversight (by local DCMA) to audit job-charging for the suspension period. Other long-lead activities like purchased CFE from vendors was placed on-hold and staffing requisitons were also suspended. Many plans are impacted and skills have to be either
"retained" someway or reassigned.

As for NGC, I work for them in Bethpage, NY (different division) and of course they are dismayed at this political "football" being played in Washington, DC. As other posters here have said- let the better aircraft win based on the performance criteria spelled out in the RFP!

Yes, Boeing won the protest- but their tanker is a "paper-airplane". The NGC/EADS Airbus is flying and has made fuel transfers, end -of-story!

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

Except for those already delivered to Japan, of course.

(I know the interior fit is probably different, but it IS a KC-767.)

And in flight test for Italy.

Except that the Japanese aircraft (over 18 months late) is just a windowless Boeing 767-200ER with a boom. The Italian aeroplane is also a 767-200ER with a boom and much of its two and a half year delay is down to the problematic wing AAR pod system which suffered buffet limitations at normal AAR speeds.

None of the 3 767 tankers now flying are anything like the KC-767A, apart from the name. The KC-X competitor offered by Boeing has yet to be built, let alone fly, whereas the A330MRTT is well ahead and has completed all aerodynamic flight testing.

The KC-767A is based on the 767-200LRF, amongst other sub variants, and has different engines and an increased maximum fuel load - substantial modifications which weren't needed for the A330MRTT.

So, whilst it is true to say that there are 3 767 tankers now flying, they are simply converted airliners. The version on offer to the USAF is years away from first flight, let alone completion of its test programme and is indeed still very much a 'paper aeroplane'. Long before the KC-767A would ever become reality, the A330MRTT will be in service with the RAAF and other nations.....

BEagle wrote: The version on offer to the USAF is years away from first flight, let alone completion of its test programme and is indeed still very much a 'paper aeroplane'

Thanks for backing me up on the "paper-airplane" analysis.

Lee:ok:

Franken Tanker
 

Here, possibly, is the image of the Frankentanker, the 'minor derivative' of the 767. Boeing were also promising a 'new' boom as well. All of these promises have yet to leave the drawing board.

http://http://www.flickr.com/photos/liem/2224074677/

But would that be exactly the same as a KC-45 ? Somehow I doubt it, and I assume both proposals promised to meet the required delivery schedules. Would Boeing have subsequently encountered production delays ? Would NG/EADS ? Judging from recent events I'd say the likely answer is yes to both.

maybe I missed something, but while I knew SDD-1 had flown and I knew the KC-45 boom had transferred fuel from an A310, I was not aware that "The NGC/EADS Airbus is flying and has made fuel transfers" i.e. as a mated package.

It's immaterial anyway, which is why I sought to deflect this train of thought.

The USAF picked the airframe they wanted presumably because it is the better of the two. Having a working prototype was not part of the RFP providing, as I said before, both responses met the I/S date requirement.
Did it in fact count for anything ? Only the USAF knows.

I think NG/EADS just got shafted. I still think they'll get (most of) it after all this expensive rehash, but I'll also be expecting some umm.. offset to end up going BA's way. KC-46 anyone ?

A310 Fuel Transfer to F-16 Video link
 

Here is the link to the video showing A310 to F-16 fuel hook-up:

America's New Tanker - KC-45


Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

Some additional news from EADS Media Day as reported 7/13/08 in Leeham News:

Gallois, Enders and EADS North America COO John Young (no relation to the Defense Department’s chief procurement officer of the same name) are confident Northrop Grumman will win the recompete for the tanker. Collectively, they said only a few of the seven items of the protest filed by Boeing are centered on Northrop’s KC-30 bid, which is based on the Airbus A330-200; the other items had to do with the USAF process and analysis. The EADS officials believe that Boeing won’t offer a plane different than the KC-767AT that lost the competition. Young opined that the Air Force recompete decision could come as late as March instead of the end of the year, simply because the timeline outlined by the Defense Department is probably too aggressive.

PS: I personally know EADS North America COO John Young while John was at Grumman (now Northrop Grumman) and played against him in Grumman League Softball Games- he was a good shortstop!

Usual half (if that) truths
 

A video has appeared of a Congressman called Dick (no comment from me at least), urgently appealing for the new round of the Tanker-battle to stick to the "original specification". What he didn't say, and perhaps doesn't know, is that that spec was written (like those for the KC-97 and -135) by Boeing, round the aircraft they had available. The difference now is that there's an alternative which the USAF found to be better. At Boeing, that hurts, of course, so they feed their spokespersons in Congress with sufficient half-truths and shaded argumentation to make the night's nooze; hoping that nobody will pick up on the ploy ...
Nice to see that someone on the JSF programme has also seen through the Seattle-originated smoke and mirrors, this time about the F/A-18... With such evidence of standard company tricks (legal, but vulnerable) it is to be hoped that the new examiners will be convinced that what comes out of Chicago/Seattle and their verbose mouthpieces needs very close examination. Very close indeed ...
Nice also to see that NGC/EADS are "confident" ... Go, people, go !!!
:8

KC-45A Press Release
 

Jig Peter wrote: Nice also to see that NGC/EADS are "confident" ... Go, people, go !!!

Well folks here is a NGC press release from today, says it all:

FARNBOROUGH, England - July 14, 2008 - Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) Tanker team announced today that all four initial tanker System Design and Development (SDD) airframes are scheduled for final assembly and initial flight testing by the end of 2009. The first two SDD airframes have been built and flown, and are awaiting modification to the tanker configuration.

"As we've always said, Northrop Grumman is ready now; and having all four SDD airframes ready next year shows our commitment to the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense and our Airmen who are currently forced to fly 50-year-old tankers," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman vice president and general manager of Air Mobility Systems. "While our competitor still has not built the tanker or boom system they offered -- our configuration is built, tested and flying now -- and has been selected by four other allied nations. Clearly our tanker is superior, offering better fuel efficiency, greater fuel offload and much lower risk. It's won all five competitions against the 767."

Flying aircraft vs. Paper Aircraft!

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

I'm not saying having a working prototype was material to the RFP. It was material to the statement that I quoted (post 343). While it absolutely made sense to test the boom from a 310, that's not the same thing as a mated A330+mission system+fuel system+transfer system test, which is what I initially inferred from the statement "The NGC/EADS Airbus is flying and has made fuel transfers, end -of-story!".

While its not clear here whether technology maturity was a feature of the competitive process for the Tanker or not - it would be quite reasonable for it to be a factor.

Unproven technology (or that with a low Technology Readiness Level or TRL, a NASA metric for measuring such things) is always associated with cost, performance and timescale risk - considering this should always feature in any procurement decision making.

You would normally only consider high technology risk projects over more established technologies if the performance benefits were essential or worth it (F-22 vs F15) or they offer cheaper long term benefits (e.g. investing in risky hi-tech production automation worth it due to massive cost savings downstream). It doesn't look like the Boeing 767 tanker falls into either category however, so the "paper aircraft" vs "real aircraft" should actually be quite a big issue, politics aside.

KC-767 realities
 

Excuse my ignorance, but how many KC-767s, in any format, are actually flying? What stage is their boom developed to? Are they making wet contacts with a range of receivers yet? Just out of interest, not making a statement here.

Flight International: New Rules for Second KC-X Competition Create Controversy

Boeing supporters in Congress throwing toys out of the cot as the DoD rewrites the requirements to support what they want, as the GAO complained they hadn't. The problem of Boeing being that the rewrite backs the case for the KC-330, not the KC-767....

Am I wrong in thinking that this is just one of 2 (or more?) USAF tanker replacement programmes required in the next couple of years? If so, what are the likely differing requirements between this and the others, and why are Boeing being so obstructive when they have other opportunities to bid? Is it really likely that the USAF will put all their eggs in one basket with regards to tanker types, and therefore isn't it likely that Boeing will win something anyway?

Ideally, there will be only one new tanker. Adding another adds to training, spares, and other infrastructure costs that really aren't needed.

That was the idea.




However, I wouldn't be too surprised to see two selected as a compromise.

Politics as usual.

There are 3 planned tanker programmes over the next 30 years, KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z. These will initially replace the KC-135, then the KC-10.

The design for the KC-X was left somewhat open to allow the best, as the USAF saw it, proposal to win. If it was a larger jet, then the selection in the KC-Y or Z competitions could be scoped to give the best fleet size/number mix. Buy small now, large later; large now, larger later etc, depending on the need in 20 years time (small wars, tactical tankers; threat from China, large tankers to drag formations and support across the Pacific etc).