irtuskFound this on a website:
“Boeing had initially selected Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines for its KC-X entrant, but has reportedly considered General Electric’s GEnx engine developed for the 787 and 747-8.”
I’m interested in this story, could you link to it?
Thanks
irtuskFor those of you concerned about the American taxpayer, don’t worry, Boeing will be under a microscope of this deal.
If Boeing ever wants another big contract…to say nothing of the follow-on orders…the planes will have to be perfect and delivered on time and on cost.
Until the next big contract comes along and everyone starts screaming about keeping money at home.
Boeing doesn’t HAVE to do squat because the US has so few options they can’t afford to kick Boeing to the curb.
Kind of like a battered wife in some ways. “I know Boeing truly is a good company. Sometimes things just get a little out of control, but he can’t help it. I still love him and he loves me and that’s all that matters.”
irtuskAnd as usual, Dicks manages to nauseate me
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCDTK7mlrj5k&pos=4
“This is very good news,” said Dicks, a Democrat from Washington state, where Boeing’s manufacturing hub is located. “We can now go forward with the program.”
Even if you think the KC-767 is the better choice, the ONLY people this is good news for is Boeing and their lackeys, as they get to run-up the price and not put forward as competitive a bid
In other words it’s horrible news for the US military and taxpayer
irtuskEven NG/EADS have not made the claim that the 330 will provide more US jobs than the 767. Yes, I know the 330 will have US engines and avionics, but the relativly low value final assembly work doen’t come close to excusing all the high value parts and systems being imported.
Unlike you, I’m not badmouthing the “other” jet.
My point, which you seem blind to, is that since the 767 can do the mission…and more money stays in the USA, why not buy it.Do I need to make it any clearer?:rolleyes:
60% of the direct value of the contract stays in the US with the KC-30, 85% with the KC-767
but that’s just the direct cost, you can’t ignore the HUGE indirect benefit of getting an EADS plant here
to me, that potential more than covers the gap in direct value
irtuskDid they factor in things like larger foot print, foreign sources of parts, questionable supply lines when the other guy’s politicians don’t like our “adventures”, and so forth when coming up with “FREE!”? I doubt it.
Did they factor in the larger size? YES, it was included in both the milcon and fuel costs. The KC-30 started out $15-20 million CHEAPER per frame, after the milcon and fuel adjustments, it came out to approximately the same as the KC-767 over its lifetime
So YES, you do truly get extra capability for FREE.
As far as questionable supply lines, you’re completely offbase. EADS is only supplying 1) the base commercial airframe which CAN’T be embargoed and 2) the boom which is manufactured in the US
Most everything else (engines, avionics, etc) comes from the US
Maybe you should take a look at the 767 before you start pontificating. It has major assemblies come from both Japan and Italy. Oops, so much it’s supposed ‘security advantage’.
irtuskAirbus is doing business in the US for the same reason Boeing does…to sell airplanes in that country.
If part of a plane is made there, the greater the likelyhood that nation willll buy it. There are too many examples to list. So Airbus isn’t doing it out of concern for the American worker, taxpayer or defense budget. :rolleyes:
At the end of the day, the Boeing product…which looks rather nice with winglets and its 3-point probe & drogue refueling system, plus a boom refueling recepticle above the cockpit) meets all USAF criteria. If it keeps more work in the US than the competition, why not buy it.
If Airbus/NG can guarentee the same…that’s a different matter. But we know, they can’t do it. The promise of building civil freighter in the US is just a ruse for the gullible.
It’s no different that the French government demanding an (untried) all-Euro engine for the A400 instead of the PW Canada one offered.
If you build in a country so that country will buy it, why did Boeing ship the A-10 rewing work off to Korea as soon as they got it? Is Korea buying A-10s? Are they refurbishing their large A-10 fleet?
No, Boeing moved it to Korea because its cheaper (theoretically anyways). Likewise EADS has wanted to move work to the US for a LONG time to protect themselves from currency fluctuations. All their costs are in euros but their deals are done in dollars. When the dollar drops, they get absolutely hammered. Moving more of their costs to the dollar zone lessens their risk.
This isn’t some ‘ruse’ they just came up with for the tanker deal, they have been serious about it for a long time. Not to mention, when they move stuff to the US, they do it to right-to-work states so not only do they get protection against currency fluctuations, they get no labor unions and lower salary costs.
http://www.spiritaero.com/assets/0/75/62/79/665B50CB-96E5-411E-90F4-E8373A6BF810.pdf
Spirit won a contract with Airbus in May to design and produce the A350 XWB’s composite fuselage structure, known as Section 15, which will be approximately 65 feet long, 20 feet wide and weigh nearly 9,000 pounds. The company also will produce the front spars for the aircraft’s wings at the Kinston [North Carolina] plant, which is scheduled to be operational in 2010
This is ‘just’ a subcontractor, but it is a very key component. If they could move ‘EADS proper’ facilities over, more would follow.
Getting EADS to establish a line here would a great economic benefit for decades to come.
irtuskhttp://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/boeing-selects-kc-767-for-tanker/
We are hearing more and more than Northrop is more likely to protest the Final Request for Proposal than to no-bid the project.
irtuskPratt & Whitney to power Boeing NewGen tanker
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/196662.asp
The NewGen Tanker Boeing will propose for the U.S. Air Force will use Pratt & Whitney’s PW4062 engine, Pratt & Whitney noted Friday.
. . .
The PW4062 delivers 62,000 pounds of thrust
some commenters from the airliners.net
I would have offered the newest engine generation available at this moment : the GEnx-2B engine, optimised for bleed delivery and with a reduced fan diameter for better ground clearance.
Advertised (will be demonstrated with the 747-8) is a 13-15% TSFC gain.
Over 40-50 years expected service time, this will save a lot of fuel and probably will avoid a future re-engine program.In normal operation the GEnx will be always fully derated, so very low engine maintenance costs can be expected. The PW4062 is the top of the line of the PW4000-94 family, operating more often at maximum Turbine Entry Temperatures.
If needed the full T/O thrust of the GEnx engine can be used in emergency conditions and/or abnormal operating circumstances.
Boeing must have had a debt owed to P&W, for they made a concerted decision to go with they as opposed to GE, who powered all previous KC-767’s up to that point. I’m thinking it was something to do with the 787 and no P&W option, or maybe the 777-300ER or something. While I will forever hold a grudge for the TF-30 in the F-14, P&W isn’t necessarily bad, but I’d prefer a more future proof engine considering how long we can expect these aircraft to solider on; GTF or GEnx would be logical.
I still want to see the financial numbers here, I think the cost versus fuel savings over the life of the aircraft would more than makeup for the extra cost. Maybe NG will come in with a GEnx now; not only would it be preferred, but they could expose Boeing’s decision to not go that route.
irtuskBoeing says the A330 will cost $40 billion more in fuel costs over the life of the jet.
Well of course Boeing says that. That MAY not be exactly true.
It depends on many things, what the actual fuel burn rate of the 2 planes is (which no one really knows right now), how fuel costs will change over the next 40 years (which no one knows at all) and probably most importantly, usage patterns.
The Boeing calculations are undoubtedly based on flying the same number of hours. However the AF calculations have shown that the KC-30 does not require the same number of planes to perform the same mission, so it would be flying FEWER hours than the KC-767.
At least with Boeing, more American money stays in the U.S. where it’s taxeed and spent by more US suppliers and workers.
Boeing can’t ship work out of the US fast enough. EADS is trying move work INTO the US
I wonder which behavior we should reward? Hmmmmm
EADS is desperately trying to get a plant in this country and this contract will allow them to do it (by allowing them to pacify their unions who would otherwise reject any attempt to build a plant here)
Once a plant is established here, it will provide quality jobs for DECADES not to mention creating an aerospace cluster around it as suppliers move there to supply its needs.
An EADS plant in the US will generate far more long-term jobs and greater economic impact than any temporary life-extension of the dying 767 line.
Also, are there any critical parts that the EU could embargo if it doesn’t like Americfan policy sometime in the future?
The 767 has foreign supplied parts too . . .
However the point is that all EADS is supplying is the airframe and the boom. The airframe is a standard commercial A330 so there IS NO WAY TO EMBARGO IT. It is too widely available not to mention the civilian safety issue. We still support Iran’s 747s even though Iran is embargoed because civilians fly on them. An A330 embargo will never ever ever happen.
The EADS boom is built right here in the US, so any threat of an embargo just went away.
Most of the rest of the parts (engines, avionics, etc) are from American companies.
irtuskSpain has therefore suggested that the machinery currently at the British factory in Filton, near Bristol, where the plane’s wings are made, be brought to Spain, and the country has even offered to pay the costs of the transfer.
And Britain just says ‘Think about pulling a stunt like that and we cancel our entire order.’
irtuskBoeing to Offer NewGen Tanker to US Air Force
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/media/Release-20100304
ST. LOUIS, March 4, 2010 – The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that it will offer the Boeing NewGen Tanker in the competition to supply the U.S. Air Force with a multi-mission aerial refueling aircraft that will meet all the warfighter’s mission requirements for the next several decades.
Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said the Boeing NewGen Tanker will satisfy all mandatory Air Force requirements and offer an American-made tanker that will be capable, survivable, and combat-ready at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.
“Having supplied tankers to the Air Force for the past 60 years, Boeing has drawn on its unmatched aerial-refueling experience to thoroughly review and evaluate the KC-X solicitation issued by the Air Force,” Muilenburg said. “We respect and understand the KC-X requirements, and appreciate the importance of this program for the United States and its warfighters. We intend to bid for the honor to work with our Air Force customer to replace the existing fleet of KC-135 aircraft with a new-generation, multi-role tanker in a fair and transparent acquisition process.”
Boeing studied the mission requirements closely to determine the optimal airframe size that would deliver the most capability for the lowest cost to own and operate. The result was the NewGen Tanker, a widebody, multi-mission aircraft based on the proven Boeing 767 commercial aircraft, updated with the latest and most advanced technology and capable of fulfilling the Air Force’s needs for transport of fuel, cargo, passengers and patients.
The multi-mission aircraft is named NewGen because it includes several state-of-the-art systems to meet the demanding mission requirements of the future. They include:
* A digital flight deck featuring electronic displays taken directly from the most advanced commercial airliner in existence – the Boeing 787 Dreamliner – that show all flight attitude, navigation, engine indication and crew-alerting information on screens 75 percent larger than on a commercial Airbus A330.
* A new-generation fly-by-wire boom with an expanded refueling envelope and increased fuel offload rate. It will meet the Air Force requirement and simplify refueling operations to reduce workload for the aircrew and improve safety and reliability. Boeing is the only team in the KC-X competition that has invented, manufactured and delivered combat-tested aerial refueling booms.
* The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.The NewGen Tanker will meet all of the Air Force’s 372 requirements – including a production rate at whatever level the Air Force determines – with a low-risk approach to manufacturing that relies on existing Boeing facilities in Washington state and Kansas as well as U.S. suppliers throughout the nation, with decades of experience delivering dependable military tanker and derivative aircraft.
“The NewGen Tanker will draw on the experience and talents of an integrated U.S. Tanker Team, including the best of our Boeing defense and commercial businesses and our nationwide supplier network,” said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “It’s a proven team and existing infrastructure that is ready to deliver these NewGen Tankers on Day One.”
More cost-effective to own and operate than the larger, heavier Airbus airplane, the Boeing NewGen Tanker will save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel. The Boeing NewGen Tanker program also will support substantially more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe.
irtuskNew Pic and Update: Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
Boeing has “unveiled” its so-called “NewGen Tanker,” a 767-based design for the U.S. Air Force KC-X competition.
Boeing officials are using the 787 Dreamliner flight deck
. . .
Also a departure is this boom design that is pictured. The design is more reminiscent of a KC-10 boom rather than the KC-135
. . .
Boeing has been dealing with the flutter issue on its international tanker design, and the wings on this 767-based tanker appear to be significantly longer than a baseline 767-200 commercial model.
Interesting backtrack after they said they wouldn’t do a ‘frankentanker’
if indeed the wings are longer (unknown), that could hurt the milcon part but possibly help other performance factors
irtuskRelatively speaking, the UAE (with only 1/4 the population) is going to have a more impressive transport fleet
1 An-124
6 C-17
12 C-130J-30
3 A330 MRTT
11 CN-235
irtuskhttp://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4514663&c=AIR&s=TOP
USAF Sets KC-X First Flight, IOC Dates
The U.S. Air Force expects a first flight for its KC-X tanker by 2012 and hopes to have the plane flying refueling missions by 2017, service officials said Feb. 25.
Sign In
