The KC-45 deal is to replace just the remaining KC-135Es - the R model replacement comes later (as does the 'E-10' ISTAR replacement)

Doth the UK PFI deal not cover life-time operating costs, as against the USAF deal is just purchase cost?

It was based on "more".
 

I do not really understand how the whole process was run. What I heard on the broadcast announcement here was that it was because it was a bigger and newer airplane.

"The KC-45A is the tanker of the future," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, AMC commander. "It will enable us to carry more fuel and cargo, and allow us the flexibility to refuel any type of receiver on every mission."

If bigger/newer was the major cirterion, why didn't Boeing offer the 777? If bigger/newer was not in the selction criteria, Boeing should get a do-over.

It's the thin end of the wedge, time to start a thread like this one
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=312926

How did the USA lose the lead in aviation?

This was the KC-X competition to replace the first 200 tankers in the USAF. There will be two further competitions to replace the remaining KC-135s and the KC-10s.

The reason for the 3 competitions was for several reasons. Firstly, they don't need to replace all the fleet now, so can afford to wait to take advantage of new technologies etc. Secondly, they don't need all the tankers to be of the same type; depending on the threat/need in the future they may buy smaller tactical tankers or larger strategic tankers - or both. Thirdly, it keeps the first winner on their toes for price and support since the level of satisfaction with them of the next few years will undoubtedly influence the next buy.

The KC-Y competition be around 2023. Expecting the 767 to be gone, and Boeing's own comment that the 787 is unsuitable for the role (don't ask me why), they are thought to be exploring offering a variant of the X-48 blended wing - lots of room for 2 booms and freight, and mil pax can't complain about no windows, roll rates etc. EADS/NG can offer more KC-45s.

The KC-Z competition is expected around 2033. I won't even guess the requirement or the possible candidates.

Well I guess the one I was in on 19 Feb 2008, which refuelled 7 Tornados in Rosy Anchor, must have been made of paper, eh Mr Wroblewski?

Has the 767 made any wet offloads through the pods yet?

Meanwhile the KC-30 has already passed all its aerodynamic flight trials...:ok:

Boeing's sales pitch is basically: ''We've been making wet offloads for 50yrs''

Mr Wroblewski is easy to find at Machinists Union District 751 if anyone wants to email him to tell him he is speaking rubbish.

Not sure if this has been mentioned but:


http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...63030520080228

Someone in the USAF changed the competition as apparantly at that stage the A330 was the runaway success - so they wanted it changed in Feb to give the 767 a better chance.

`yeah` for the world of politics.

Well the website is easy to find:

http://www.iam751.org/

But I can't find the gentleman's personal email address anywhere on the site; perhaps you could post a link?

Uncalled for, gentlemen. As was the vendetta against the ANG A-10 guy. Very poor form.

You'd be up in arms if a mass of US folks started badgering a UK spokesman for something.

What would you expect a union leader to say? "I'm happy my folks will be losing jobs?"


UFB..........................

Brick,

Whilst it is of course a disappointment to Mr Wroblewski and his union colleagues to learn that Boeing lost, there is no schadenfreude or vindictive campaign exhibited on PPRuNe to merit your comment.

The fact is that Mr Wroblewski is seemingly ignorant of the fact that Airbus has built tankers for the Canada and Germany and is currently building tankers for Australia. Hence the comment regarding making him aware of this.

Work I did some while ago for the multi-national 'Future AAR' group compared the A330, A310 and B767 on similar missions, using information supplied by national reps in response to a set scenario, including aerodrome definitions (10000ft balanced field, sea level, zero wind, ISA) for departure, arrival and alternate. Warning bells began to ring when the US rep asked for a 12000ft runway. We refused. Hence, when the results came in, we found that, under the specified conditions, the B767 was only marginally better (in fuel offload and time-on-task terms) than a 4 x ACT A310. Something like 16 tonnes of the KC-767's 92 tonne fuel load had to be left on the ground because it was limited by field length even under fairly benign requirements! A fact I'd always suspected ever since Boeing had let it slip to me years earlier that "Runway length is something which we think Airbus beats us on".

A (theoretical) 5 x ACT A310 beat the 767 by a couple of tonnes of fuel load, but the outright winner by far was the A330 which could still take-off with 111 tonnes of fuel.

This was an international forum, with impartial views.

It must be gutting for Boeing; however, their own brass shot himself in the foot by earlier ruling out the 7-late-7 as a tanker because it "Didn't have the right configuration" - whatever that was supposed to mean.

Oh, and just for Mr Wroblewski:

EADS Completes Successfully 1st Flight Test phase A330 MRTT Aircraft

News Category: [Defence-Air] (Madrid, February 14, 2008) -- The first A330 MRTT prototype MSN747 has landed today at EADS MTAD facilities in Getafe, Madrid at 12:15h local time after completing Phase 1 of the flight testing that has been primarily devoted to civil certification. EADS MTAD has officially announced the conclusion of a key Australian A330 MRTT programme milestone.

Flight Test Phase 1 has been conducted in just 3 months logging up a total of 63 flights and 202 flight hours.

During this phase, the A330 MRTT has proven to be extremely reliable fulfilling the flight test programme in accordance to the flight test schedule. The A330 MRTT has behaved as expected, showing that the modifications introduced to the MRTT configuration (including refuelling pods and boom) had no significant effect on the aircraft's performance. The flight test programme has met all defined test objectives. The flight test campaign was oriented to analyze the behaviour of the aircraft with regard to the following disciplines: anemometry & clinometry, handling qualities, buffet, flutter, loads, performance, flight controls (new tanker and receiver adapted control laws), new autopilot mode (bank angle) and the antenna re-location.

The results of loads, performance and handling qualities measured during flight test have shown full consistency with the data calculated by design. Also, it has been verified that the aircraft is Buffet-free and Flutter-free in the whole flight envelope until maximum design speed (MD/VD) after the military modification.

During this flight test phase, the full flight envelope has been validated and no limitations or restrictions have been found.

In addition to the above disciplines involved in the civil certification, the following military development tests have also been performed: Hose deployment and stability, proximity flights in receiver mode (A310 Boom demo acting as tanker) and proximity flights in tanker mode (F18 acting as receiver).

The flight control laws that have been successfully tested and will provide the aircraft superior handling qualities characteristics in the new roles of the aircraft as tanker and receiver. To enhance the capabilities of the aircraft an electronic tail bumper has also been incorporated to minimize the possibility of a tail-strike at take-off.

The Flight Test Phase 1 has been conducted at Getafe and Toulouse depending on the requirements of the flight test program, involving EADS MTAD and Airbus Flight Test organizations. In addition, the RAAF crew has also participated in some of the flight test activities.Additionally, the Phase 1 Flight Test Programme has also included formal certification flights with the participation of the civil European Authority (EASA).

The reliability of the modified A330 MRTT and its state-of-the-art flight test instrumentation has been outstanding: Not a single flight has been delayed or cancelled due to a technical failure. This is a good example of the excellent capabilities this aircraft will provide to the RAAF

BEAgle,

I've no problem with those expressing their displeasure at the sour grapes from Mr. W. I've no problem with those views sent in writing through official channels - to Boeing, to the union office, to editorial pages, etc.

Sending such to his personal e-mail or address, yeah, I think that crosses the line. As in the A-10 instance.

Brick, Calm down chap - nobody has said that they are sending emails to the chap at home on a Sunday morning! Henry merely suggested that Mr W was easy to contact via his office, at Machinists Union District 751, and I feel he was suggesting that folks might like to tell him to his face what they are saying about him on this forum. i simply suggested that he is NOT easy to contact via the Machinists Union District 751 website. I'm not sure how you got the impression that there are plans afoot to send a lynch mob round to his gaff while he's reading the Sunday papers, but I think you might be misunderstanding what we are saying.

That said, he is obviously saying exactly what anybody in his professional position would say. He would probably lose his position if he said 'it's a fair cop, Airbus is better than us'.

:hmm:

Perhaps you're right.

It's easy to see how

could be lost in translation.........

I do wonder how much the UK posters will be crowing about this EADS win when Airbus closes Filton and moves wing manufacturing to the southern USA.

Couldn't agree with you more Mr Hound. Ok, here we go, the UK backed the US in the war with Iraq and gets a piece of the billion dollar pie. If they're happy to award the contract to the " or you're against us " crowd, then they aint going to care too much about lil' ol Filton now are they ? So much for loyalty. Boeing should have built a new airframe from the drawing board.

brick: I agree, my post was open to interpretation.

It is as D-IFF_ident suggests, a suggestion that the gentleman can be advised of his error through the Machinists Union District 751 website.

Forgive him. He may have been thinking of that C-130 2.0 you champion as well.

I guess its on its wheels last I saw.

If you are so clueless about the competition, then maybe you deserve to lose. Complacency, perhaps?