Cannot help with the questions asked, but

EC 1/7 is supposed to have 15 C, 5 B with EC 1/19 having 20 B.

Normand-Nieman is supposed to stand up 2010.

IIRH AASM from late 2009.

GBU-24 and Reco recon pods early 2010.

ASMP-A and Damocles mid 2010.

From 2012 the F3-OT should enter service with AESA (engages 8 tgts, probbaly NCTR mode), DDM NG MAWS (provision for DIRCM).

They would like HMD, buts it is unfunded currently.

True. I wasn’t fishing or trolling – I was reading a newspaper article on the financial effect of the Olympics on Rio. It was mentioned Montreal took 30 years to pay off the debt. ISTR Greece canceled the original Eurofighter order to divert funds to the Athens games.

Be interesting to see what effect, if any, the 2016 games will have on the fighter project.

According to Boeing Kool Aid @ 1850 km (1000 nm):
KC-135 off loads 79 klbs (35833 kg) – does meet min KC-X requirement (obviously!)
KC-767 offloads 97 klbs (44000 kg) – o pts extra
KC-30 off loads 153 klbs (69400 kg) – 10 pts extra
KC-777 off loads 199 klbs (90265 kg) – 10 pts extra

Check out the smallish image here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/01/332939/northrop-grumman-calls-new-kc-x-competition-unfair.html

It clearly shows the tradeoff between radius and offload.

Unless the KC-30 is cheaper compared with extra capability of the KC-777.

Remember its a cost tradeoff – the current RFP doesn’t give extra points for the KC-777, is 10 points for both KC-30 and KC-777.

Slide 4 shows 2008 (how many high intensity missions and/or conflicts occurred in 2008?) – if the KC-30 is useless, then the KC-777 is worse.

Slide 6 is a fair reference – the KC-767 is only slightly larger, but more capable.

Slide 7 is pure Boeing Kool-Aid. Looking at Google Earth, Boeing is only showing the main ramp space at Incirlik, Turkey. In reality it has many smaller ramp spaces scattered around. The 2009 view clearly shows KC-135 parked at these other spaces as well.

Slide 9 is kinda the point, Boeing are doing the right thing here by proposing both KC-767 and KC-777. KC-767 might be right-sized for the 7 existing airbases – but if thats an issue the KC-777 is also out. Extra capability of the KC-777 isn’t an issue (see slide 4) – likewise the KC-30.

Slide 13 is definitely fair. The KC-X is going to be around when we expire – the support, depot maintenance costs, etc are going to hugely overcost the initial startup costs.

Slide 14 is irrevalent, except for lobbyists – there are no points given for ‘US jobs’.

Its cost vs capability – Beoing is quoting 2008 low intensity operation figures. The RFP mentions classified wartime scenarios – tankers on ramp space (size) providing offload to combat aircraft (booms in air, fuel offload), etc.

In the very simplified example I attempted – are 20.3 KC-767 vs 13 KC-30 vs 10.1 KC-777 equivalents worth the cost? There is a huge gap between the KC-767 and the KC-30/KC-777; there isn’t much between the KC-30 and KC-777 (whats aviation fuel worth these days?). Are the overall program costs worth the capability?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1467308

Seems to indicate the KC-777 would be awarded the same points as A330. Max is 10 points bonus, both exceed this.

Check out the Boeing marketing at:
http://static.unitedstatestanker.com/SiteContent/Static/Docs/AFA-2009-Tanker-Briefing.pdf

Page 7 bags the KC-30 my showing how only 4 KC-30 fit in the same space as 7 KC-767 – fair enough, I’m not here to judge. Also the KC-767 provides an additional 3 booms and 3 orbits (Yea, already made that point) and offloads more fuel.

Then page 8 starts on how the KC-777 is bigger and more capable than the KC-30 – kinda defeats the argument as its still 3 booms/3 orbits less. If we assume the 1000 nm offload from a 7000 foot runway
7 KC-135 can offload 553,000 lbs fuel (55 fighters)
7 KC-767 can offload 679,000 lbs fuel (68 fighters)
4 KC-30 can offload 460,000 lbs fuel (46 fighters)
4 KC-777 can offload 564,000 lbs fuel (56 fighters)

This simple example is ‘weighted’ towards the KC-767 and is based on ramp space (one more KC-30 would equal KC-135). It shows the KC-30 in bad light (surprise, surprise!), but the KC-777 doesn’t exactly shine either.

There are some pretty huge US bases around the world:
7 KC-135 can offload 553,000 lbs fuel (55 fighters) from 1,400,000 lbs total (25,454/fighter)
7 KC-767 can offload 679,000 lbs fuel (68 fighters) not sure.
7 KC-30 can offload 805,000 lbs fuel (81 fighters) from 1,715,000 lbs total (21,172/fighter)
7 KC-777 can offload 987,000 lbs fuel (98 fighters) from 2,156,000 lbs total (22,000/fighter)

Page 6 compares the KC-767 to the KC-135 and definitely shows how superior the KC-767 is. Then Page 9 compares the KC-135 to the KC-30 and KC-777. You’ve gotta flip between the pages to compare all 4.

Good information in the presentation, but an interesting take. It shows how numbers should be kept in context.

Basically any of the three contenders would easily replace the KC-135 (most obvious statement ever on this forum? :rolleyes:). The delay had been ‘good’ for both sides, both the KC-767 and KC-30 boom systems are proven (KC-767 is in service) – its removed risk for the USAF.

We know even the current KC-135 isn’t stretched by current operations. They barely offload half there fuel in a single mission (is this because they run out of endurance before offload fuel?), hardly ever use the cargo (yea, not much call for KC-135 hauling 6 pallets. One C-130 could do this!).

But the contenders can all be refueled – this adds the existing KC-10 and handful of KC-135 and allows for long range missions from a single base (say Guam) – in the past the USAF has had to base tankers along the transport/bomber mission flight path. In a future higher intensity operation, maybe the transport capability will be used – more stores can be deployed by tankers along with the fighters. Trooping probably isn’t a big deal – current operations seem to show many charter flights; the US has the CRAF, but again deploying tankers can carry the maintenance crews and equipment at the same time -whereas the KC-135 could not.

Supposedly a 20 a/c F-22 squadron requires 7 C-17A required for support equipment with 258 support personnel (30 day deployment). The F-35A requirement is also set at 7 C-17 to support 24 F-35 for 30 days. Same deployment requires 13 C-17 for F-16.

If we assume all pallets, a C-17 can carry 18 pallets. There would be some trade off in offload fuel and cargo – I’ve ignored this.
7 x 18 = 126 pallets (21 KC-135, 6.6 KC-767, 4 KC-30, 3.3 KC-777)
13 x 18 = 234 pallets (39 KC-135, 12.3 KC-767, 7.3 KC-30, 6.2 KC-777)
258 personnel (6.9 KC-135, 1.4 KC-767, 1.2 KC-30, 0.8 KC-777)

So our 2017 F-22/F-35 squadron deployment would require:
28 KC-135 or 8 KC-767 or 5.2 KC-30 or 4.1 KC-777 worth of transports plus any tankers.

If we assume three 1000 nm offloads, each 20,000 lbs.
20 fighters x 3 refuels x 20,000 lbs = 1,200,000 lbs fuel required.
KC-135: 1,200 k / 79 k = 15.2 tankers
KC-767: 1,200 k / 97 k = 12.3 tankers
KC-30: 1,200 k / 153 k = 7.8 tankers
KC-777: 1,200 k / 199 k = 6 tankers

Total equivalents: 43.2 KC-135 or 20.3 KC-767 or 13 KC-30 or 10.1 KC-777.

I can see the USAF using the KC-X more as transports also and leaving the ~50 C-5M and ~200 C-17 for the oversized stuff.

If real world ramp space is an issue then KC-767 wins out. Transport – bigger is better (but how often will this happen? Probably more than currently). Current operations aren’t much to measure KC-X against – you need the capacity in wartime. This surge capacity needs to balanced against actual running costs.

The Ozzies used to have an 81mm fitted to the old Freemantle boats.

The 81mm mortar on the Fremantles was purely for illumination rounds only.