|
Should the unforgiveable happen, and Boring's lawyers manage to overturn the USAF's decision, their Frankentanker will forever be known as 'The Tanker the Air Force didn't want'.
As for some KC-777 version, Boring should recall that one of the reasons they won the Italian 767 tanker programme (if their corporate memory stretches back that far into history) was that, at the time, Airbus couldn't decide whether to offer them the A310MRTT or the A330MRTT. "If they can't decide which to offer, they obviously haven't understood our need' was the IAF feeling.... The runway at Pratica de Mare has since been extended to cope with the ground-gripping characteristics of the still undelivered 767-200 tanker. But even so, it still will be unable to get airborne at MTOW in the summer. Perhaps they build the KC-767 at Kansas because it's nice and flat? Face it, Boring, your jet isn't as good. Dress it up however you will, but it simply doesn't measure up to the A330. And what a shame that your own Top Brass announced that the 7-late-7 "Didn't have the right configuration to be a tanker"..... |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 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. 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. 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. |
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 |
Boeing Gripes
This is probably old news
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." |
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! |
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. |
What is the runway length required by the Boeing's Frankentanker at MTOW?
Arrakis |
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. |
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. 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. |
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). |
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. |
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..... |
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..... |
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, hanger 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'... |
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. |
Flight Safety
I'm not sure of the criteria for this, but is having more medium tankers better during air operations than fewer large tankers? Defensively, there are arguments for and against - Tankers are considered HVAAs, and you might increase the number you have to 'defend'; against this is the idea thet the loss of one doesn't take the whole capability away. In the late 80s and early 90s, there was alot of talk of small tankers (VC10/Victor) operating relatively close to the red line, supported by large tankers to refuel the small refuellers further behind the line. Unfortunately, from a UK perspective, we are hamstrung not only by the poor serviceability of tanker assets, but also by the number of crews available - from this last point at least, it follows that fewer is better, but that's what happens when the military is run by accountants! STH Edited for 90s/80s muppetry! |
Flight,
I think your view on how the tankers are used is a good one, but is it the one used during selection? Bear in mind that the EADS tanker is configured for centreline boom and drogue and can have (not certain if they are part of the order) drogue pods on each wing, so double tanking (USN/USA helos and allies) could happen, as well as large offload...this double tanking potential is an advantage over the 767 as proposed, making th enumbers arguement more complex. There is a balance to strike (ho ho) between the 'combat' operations side and actually getting the combat capability to the combat area in the most effective and efficient manner as well as the peace time operational tempo. If we were to consider the 'warfighting' aspect as primary then the 767 is still potentially the wrong aircraft, its too big WRT to its off load capability and airfield performance compared to the A310MRTT; admittedly not offered as in EADS's view the larger airframe offered the better compromise. The A310 would offer, for the overall budget greater numbers of airframes and hence number of refueling points airborne, potentially..and an offload capability that pretty much matches the 767 on a one to one basis, whilst being a smaller plane to locate more diversely etc etc. The answer sadly is that in order to replace the 135 there were two board approaches.. a similar sized unit which replaced the 135 on a one for one basis (not in the order..) or a larger unit that doubled up with increased capacity and so the overall number could be reduced. EADS felt that bigger offered the tanking capacity required as well as something more, whereas Boeing stuck to the tanking requirement....and made a clear call not to offer much more. As for the parts mix, yes they are flying in different airframes and Boeing have made hybrids before very successfully, and as with the boom, offered their massive experience as proof the 'could' do it. But the reality as that Boeing offered a great track record and a design, EADS offered a good track record and a design that was already flying. A fine balance indeed. But the political battle is only just beginning and the actual capabilites and needs of the warfighters will be overshadowed by the political needs of those assigning tax payers dollars to them. |
Boeing Bleats
Way back in the Tanker Saga, when the "Mk.2" RFP was issued, didn't the NG/EADS team comment that it was still so skewed towards the 767 (like RFP Mk.1) that it would not be worth their while to enter such a biased "contest"? Apparently the Committee agreed and then allowed NG/EADS to have some input, after which things proceeded as we now know.
Now Boeing complains that the playing field has been tilted ... well yes, but at least it was then pretty well level - and they still reckoned it was bound to go their way ... Granted they could have then proposed a 777 base, but with curent airline demand, when would production slots have been available? The 767 line has only been kept "open" for the KC version, so they stuck with the "Bitza" (bitsa this 'n bitsa that), and perhaps felt that they could then charge the shut-down costs to Uncle Sam ??? (Just a thought). |
Hi, Anyone know where there is a copy of the USAF RFP for the KC-X, the DOD seem to have taken theirs down!
|
Red Herring Cargo
There is hardly a greater freighter than the DC-10 or MD-11, yet the USAF does not use their KC-10A fleet for regularly hauling cargo. The missions of cargo and refueling don't normally coincide. The 767 is an oddball for hauling cargo, so what?
According to Wiki, the KC-135 fleet is largely used in theatre, while the KC-10A are used over the pond. The economics of buying a plane to last for 50 years is laughable. Most of the KC-135 fleet have had two engine changes, from J-57 to TF-33 (from retired 707s) to CFM-56. "As of 2006, the KC-135E fleet is flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet is flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecasted usage and sustainment costs. The Air Force projects that E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit. Nevertheless these aircraft are over 40 years old and maintenance costs are increasing, with airframe corrosion being the worst problem." It's better to put 767-200ERs into semi-retirement at a few hundred hours per year, with total cost undoubtedly under $50 Million each, vs. brand new $200 Million whatevers. There may even be used 737s that fit the mission, or a combination of 737s and 767s. In order of utilization, hauling pax on scheduled ops is normally highest, followed by various cargo ops, and aerial refueling is near the bottom. Fedex and UPS, two of the world's most successful airlines, buy new planes only when used ones are not available for the mission. Fedex has even spent $50 Million a copy to create the MD-10, a DC-10 with MD-11 cockpit. The USAF should contract with Fedex and UPS to take their half-life or third-life 767s and MD-11s, and convert them to tankers. The A330 refueler is supposedly scheduled to replace the KC-10A fleet. The A330F empty operating weight is 109 metric tons and takeoff max is 230t. The KC-10A base DC10-30 EOW is 121t and max 260t. That's in the same league, but not quite a direct replacement. The MD-11 empty operating weight is 113t and max takeoff weight is 286t. Now there's a real fuel farm. GB |
Red Herrings
The economics of buying a plane to last for 50 years is laughable. Most of the KC-135 fleet have had two engine changes, from J-57 to TF-33 (from retired 707s) to CFM-56. Nevertheless these aircraft are over 40 years old and maintenance costs are increasing, with airframe corrosion being the worst problem According to Wiki, the KC-135 fleet is largely used in theatre, while the KC-10A are used over the pond There may even be used 737s that fit the mission The USAF should contract with Fedex and UPS to take their half-life or third-life 767s and MD-11s, and convert them to tankers. The A330 refueler is supposedly scheduled to replace the KC-10A fleet The MD-11 |
Just a thought - B claims lower fuel burn, and so does A. Under take-off load, that may be true for the 767, but A states their A330 burns less at common load. Does that mean, when the A330 offloads enough fuel to equal the take-off qty of the 767, the A330 will burn less than the 767? Discuss...
Cheers, y'all |
Originally Posted by Flight Safety
First, the "frankentanker" argument is pure garbage. Doesn't the A330MRTT use the A340 wing?
If A330MRTT was proposed with A350 or A300 parts, then you could call the argument "garbage" - well actually you couldn't. The argument - that planes assembled from bits of other planes are Frankensteins - would be true. You could call Airbus hypocrites though. |
Originally Posted by MDJETFAN
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.
It may be that given their relative market share in the widebody sector at present, Pratt & Whitney were not able to offer their engine for the Boeing at a similar cost to the booming General Electric did for Airbus, but that would be speculative. It could also be that the strike-threatening unions at Boeing have raised costs, even in the weak US exchange rate, to the point where strike-threatening French unions become competitive - if so, that would be quite an achievement. |
GB, your statements regarding the USAF not utilizing the cargo capacity of the KC10 are, I am afraid to say, tosh. The many 'channel' missions around the Pacific are but one set of examples available. :=
|
"Most of the KC-135 fleet have had two engine changes, from J-57 to TF-33 (from retired 707s) to CFM-56."
In actual fact most of the KC-135 fleet have only ever had ONE engine change. 157 Air Guard and Reserve aircraft went through the A-to-E conversion in the 80's, where they utilised the TF-33's and larger tailplanes of retired B-707's, and an entirely seperate programme for USAF KC-135A's which saw 400 or so go from J-57 to CFM-56. I'm unaware of any KC-135's that have gone through all three iterations of available engine (possibly a few of the "queers", you know, "insert another letter in front of the C" jobs!). The air guard are still happily toiling away with TF-33 engined E models, and as far as I know there are no plans for them to receive CFM-56's. |
I don't think there are too many KC-135E models flying anymore. I schedule 3-7 AAR sorties every week as part of the OCU here and we use all units - active, guard, & reserve. I haven't seen a KC-135E in well over a year...I'm not about to say they're all gone, as I don't have that bit of info, but I would at least put them on the endangered species list...
IIRC, my contact list for their scheduling, ops, & CP doesn't have a single KC-135E unit listed (but I'm at home w/o my list & make no claims as to its completeness as a comprehensive tanker listing, perhaps only half the country as we're out West - will try to remember to look tomorrow). I do recall having AAR cancelled over a couple of periods last year as a couple of the units were converting from E-model to R-model - these were primarily ANG units. |
Originally Posted by Flight Safety First, the "frankentanker" argument is pure garbage. Doesn't the A330MRTT use the A340 wing? No. It uses the A330/340 wing. There is no A330-specific wing for non-MRTT aircraft. In fact some might say non-MRTT aircraft are underoptimised. |
As I understand it, the A330MRTT has the A330/340 wing with all the necessary plumbing - but has a pod rather than an engine on the outboard pylon.
This helped considerably with development - and meant that they weren't bedevilled by buffet problems caused by the pod pylon as were Boeing. One of the reasons why the Italian aircraft are so late is the delayed development of the essential wing AAR pod system. The A330MRTT has already trailed and wound its hoses; not sure when wet contact trials start, but they won't be long in coming! |
KC-135 Questions
US Herk hypothesized: "I don't think there are too many KC-135E models flying anymore. I schedule 3-7 AAR sorties every week as part of the OCU here and we use all units - active, guard, & reserve. I haven't seen a KC-135E in well over a year...I'm not about to say they're all gone, as I don't have that bit of info, but I would at least put them on the endangered species list..."
------ Aren't the KC-135E models the first to be replaced by the New and Shiny? To all: if you don't like what Wiki says, you are invited to correct it. They do provide references for the doubters and deeper delvers. Re-engining "All KC-135s were originally equipped with Pratt & Whitney J-57 turbojet engines which produced approximately 13,000 pounds of thrust and, in some conditions, utilized water-injection to boost takeoff power output. In the 1980s the first modification program re-engined 157 Air Force Reserve (AFRES) and Air National Guard (ANG) tankers with the Pratt & Whitney TF-33-PW-102 engines from retired 707 airliners. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, is 14% more fuel efficient than the KC-135A and can offload 20% more fuel. Only the KC-135E aircraft were equipped with thrust-reversers for takeoff aborts and shorter landing rollouts." "The second modification program re-engined more than 410 with new CFM56 engines produced by CFM-International. The re-engined tanker, designated either the KC-135R or KC-135T, can offload 50% more fuel, is 25% more fuel efficient, costs 25% less to operate and is 96% quieter than the KC-135A..." "Upgrading the remaining KC-135E into KC-135R would cost about three billion dollars, about 24 million dollars per aircraft.[4]. According to Air Force data, the KC-135 fleet had a total operation and support cost in fiscal year 2001 of about $2.2 billion. The older E model aircraft averaged total costs of about $4.6 million per aircraft, while the R models averaged about $3.7 million per aircraft. Those costs include personnel, fuel, maintenance, modifications, and spare parts [5]." ---- OK, so each KC-135R did not get a double engine upgrade, but there have been two upgrades. ---- Replacing the KC-135 "As of 2006, the KC-135E fleet is flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet is flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecasted usage and sustainment costs.[9]" "The Air Force projects that E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old." "The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit.[10]" "Nevertheless these aircraft are over 40 years old and maintenance costs are increasing, with airframe corrosion being the worst problem." -------- Please describe a typical AAR mission, US Herk, in terms of number of hookups and total fuel transfered. Do you often need the additional tonnage of the KC-10A? GB |
Is it a Military Mission, or just a Flying Club?
Replacing the KC-135 fleet with 15 year old airplanes such as 767s, or A310s at a fraction of the cost of new, and keeping them ten years, makes economic sense. An astute enterprise demands payback within three years, often less.
Planes designed for the military are often worn out or obsolete in several thousand hours. Well built commercial airliners such as the DC-10 are flying over 100,000 hours. The USAF should take advantage of that robustness for a replacement tanker, and buy airframes that have half their usable life and the majority of their cost behind them. Spending $200+ Million for a New and Shiny airplane is folly when used can be had for a quarter of the price. The USAF should be run like a business, not a taxpayer funded flying club. How are the old A310s holding up? GB |
Graybeard
You make an interesting point. However, the great unknown is how many ex-airline 767 / DC-10 / MD-11s are actually available - and the mod state / engine choice / corrosion blah blah - and trying to buy 179 similar aircraft is likely to nothing but increase the price of those second hand jets. So in principle a good idea, but for all the reasons outlined, I think that it is probably a non-starter. S41 |
Originally Posted by Squirrel 41
However, the great unknown is how many ex-airline 767 / DC-10 / MD-11s are actually available
767 = 24 DC10/MD-11 = 11 I suspect that's airworthy/active rather than what may or may not be in deep store/reclamation out in one of the desert boneyards...? |
As of January 2008 the following KC-135 models remained in the inventory
E 114 R 364 T 54 also KC-10A 59 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.