JackonickoJoe H,
I’m a big fan of the F-22, and were money no object, I’d like to see the RAF take a squadron or two. It’s superior, in some critical respects, to anything we have on this side of the Atlantic (and inferior in others). So I’d like the RAF to buy some. Once all of the multitude of problems are properly sorted, that is. I wouldn’t want jets with compromised titanium bulkheads, jamming canopies, the J3 problem or whose navigation and communications systems all shut down on crossing the international date line.
The point is that the world’s most advanced and capable fighter should be able to make a routine deployment like this without such problems, which should have been eliminated during testing, or even in the rig or sim. It’s starting to look as though the aircraft’s very real capabilities are compromised by an inadequately thorough test process.
FooFone,
I suppose that I’m supposed to be offended by the reference to the Queen pulling her underwear down? I would have laughed (not at the joke, which wasn’t funny to anyone with a mental age of more than about six) but I know that it’s poor form to laugh at the mentally defective. Even when they come up with barely intelligible and puerile nonsense of the type that you conjured up.
As to the Typhoon, at least none got shot down by RAF Jaguars during the recent TLP. Unlike the poor old under-powered Rafale with its dead end radar and risible MMI, which is presumably one example of “the crap that the Europeans can spit out” described by your new best buddy, Joe H.
You and he make a great partnership, I must say, like a kindergarten Laurel and Hardy (if only you had a sense of humour). If only you could combine your IQs, we might get some sensible comment out of you, rather than the slack-jawed and knuckle-headed xenophobic piffle that you usually spout.
JackonickoIs there any evidence to suggest that this ‘delivery’ took place?
A purchase (and then a lease) of three, four or six Tu-22M-3s has been reported (and denied!) so many times over the years that I’d be surprised…..
JackonickoOnly a fool or a liar would look at only one aspect of cost (up front price) when judging affordability, while deliberately ignoring the bulk of overall cost.
Capability and through life costs inevitably impact on whether one aircraft or the other represents better value for money, even if the KC-30’s sticker price does end up being marginally higher than that of the KC-767.
“Air Force data showed KC-135s were used to carry cargo in less than 1.8 percent of recent missions.”
The limitations of the Cold War KC-135 make this inevitable. It doesn’t mean that a more versatile, more capable tanker transport isn’t a better choice for post Cold War expeditionary ops.
JackonickoThough developed as a private venture, the Gnat fighter (designed by Teddy Petter – previously responsible for the Westland Whirlwind, Canberra and Lightning!) was evaluated by the RAF as a potential replacement for the Venom in the ground attack role in the NEAF/MEAF, alongside a ground attack version of the JP and a ground attack Hunter variant. The Gnat scored highly in the evaluation, but the Hunter offered compelling logistics advantages.
It was also proposed as a parasite fighter/strike fighter for carriage (in threes!) under a Vulcan V-bomber.
JackonickoThe proposed modifications will give a marginal improvement in take off and landing roll. Unfortunately, this isn’t the 767’s Achilles heel when it comes to balanced field requirement, and crucially won’t significantly improve stopping distance in the event of a rejected or aborted take off.
A shortened take off roll will help, of course, but not enough, and my understanding is that the revised 767 still won’t be able to operate from a 9,000 ft runway WITH FULL FUEL, whereas a KC-30 will.
Boeing’s problem is that it doesn’t really have an existing model in its portfolio to make the basis of a really good tanker. The 787 is made out of the wrong materials (not as an airliner, just if you want to modify it as a tanker) and the wings are too flexible, the superb 777 (which beats the 330 as a jetliner) is too expensive, too big, and shares the 767’s balanced field disadvantage, the 767’s fuselage cross section is too narrow, and the aircraft needs to reduce weight to operate from real world tanker bases.
If it were me, I’d be looking to buy A330 to meet KC-X, but I’d reduce the requirement as much as I could by also buying as many C-17s as I could configured as re-rolable KC-17 transport/tankers, giving me a fleet of flexible, reconfigurable aircraft which could address tanker and airlift shortfalls, and that would allow Boeing to keep the C-17 line open.
JackonickoSpacepope
1) The KC-330 has better balanced field performance than any existing 767 model.
2) The needs of expeditionary warfare stress deployed operations. You’re still living in the 1980s, while the rest of the world has moved on.
3) The A330 can use shorter runways – why will it be further from the towline?
4) Because though the 777 offers a good fuselage cross section, its balanced field requirements are even more challenging, and it’s an even more expensive airframe. It’s also entirely unproven as a tanker.
You won’t have twice as many 767s – the proce difference is much smaller – and in any case, if you’re spending more of your budget supporting tankers that cost more to operate, there will be less money in the pot to buy new ones. There’s no evidence that a KC-767 fleet would be any more numerous than a KC-30 fleet – but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that 767s would be less able to spend time, and give away fuel, on a towline.
JBoyle,
No-one sees the C-17 and A400M as being equivalent. They are complementary. The A400M is far more capacious than a C-130, but that’s the class of aircraft that the A400M is.
The USAF should be ordering the KC-30 because it’s the best alternative.
Jackonicko“The 330 might have a batter shot if EADS weren’t developing the A400. If European nations had bought C-17s…..”
I wish!
You may be aware that the UK RAF operates a handful of C-17s.
It’s a magnificent aeroplane. It’s arguably the most outstanding aircraft in Boeing’s current portfolio. I wish we could afford 20 more.
Despite its size it enjoys superb tactical capabilities, though it’s so expensive that no user will risk it in real tactical ops – not even the USAF.
The A400M is much closer in cost to the C-130, and represents a more capable alternative to the C-130J. But no A400M sale represents a lost C-17 sales opportunity.
And in any case, European air forces are packed with US types, and there has never been the kind of protectionism we see in the USAF’s equipment procurement programme. There isn’t a two way street – because the USA doesn’t come close to Europe’s record of embracing US types (P-3s, C-130s, F-16s, etc)!
“Imagine if you’re in the Pentagon or USAF…would you like the job of explaining to the public that you’re buying a more expensive plane…with many of its parts are made overseas?”
Yes, in this case, I would. It’s not that hard.
“A tanker is a key frontline force enabler, and our warfighters deserve the very best tools to help them to accomplish their vital mission. Even when the best is a foreign design. And the KC-30 is significantly more capable than the alternative, and it will be a much better aircraft to support our warfighters in post Cold War expeditionary operations.
And though it’s a foreign design, it’s not really a foreign airplane. Like the KC-767 (major sub assemblies of which are built overseas), the KC-30 does include foreign built components, but it will be finished in the USA, and it will provide X,000 US jobs with Northrop Grumman.
Moreover, taking into account the running costs over the life of the aircraft, as well as the up-front sticker price, we will save the US taxpayer billions of dollars by selecting the KC-30. The KC-30 – good for you, the taxpayer, and great for the warfighter.”
Job done.
Jackonicko“As I’ve stated above, the 767 is the better airplane for the USAF’s particular situation.”
No it isn’t – it’s a better solution to the USAF’s POLITICAL situation.
If, as we all expect, the KC-767 is selected it will not indicate that it is “more suited for the USAF’s PARTICULAR SITUATION”, nor even that it’s the more cost effective choice – only that it’s the favoured choice politically.
“I don’t deny that the A330 is a better tanker because it’s larger and carries more fuel with slightly more range.”
The KC-30 isn’t a better tanker simply because it’s larger – it’s a better tanker because it
1) Can operate from real world tanker airfields, with full fuel – the KC-767 can’t.
2) Is a better, more capacious transport for the men and equipment it will need to carry when supporting expeditionary operations.
3) Has more fuel to give away, further from base.
4) The cost differential is negligible, but the capability advantage offered by the KC-30 is massive.
The world has changed, and we’re now a far cry from the Cold War, when tankers like the KC-135 and converted bombers like the Victor and Tu-16 were adequate to support Cold War ops.
Tankers today support expeditionary warfare, and thus require additional capabilities, and a much more robust ability to operate from more austere bases, and to self deploy to airfields without massive fixed infrastructure and in-place USAF personnel. They’re no longer only there for supporting fighter QRA, or to support routine deployments to major USAF facilities.
JackonickoThe KC-30 isn’t a better tanker because it’s larger – it’s a better tanker because it
1) Can operate from real world tanker airfields, with full fuel – the KC-767 can’t.
2) Is a better transport for the men and equipment it will need to carry when supporting expeditionary operations.
3) Has more fuel to give away, further from base.
4) The cost differential is negligible, but the capability advantage offered by the KC-30 is massive.
KC-X may be replacing the -135 (initially), but the -135 is already plainly less useful in the post Cold War world than bigger, more capable tankers.
Tankers today support expeditionary warfare, they’re not there for supporting fighter QRA, or to support routine deployments to major USAF facilities.
JackonickoPhant.
…..there is no way the USAF could get nearly as many A330’s as it could 767’s.
COST
What matters is how much a tanker force will cost the USAF, in total. If aircraft X costs $10 m more than aircraft Y, but costs $50 m less to operate, support and sustain through its life, which is the more affordable?
Cost = initial unit price + through life costs (operating, support, spares, upgrade) + infrastructure costs
“Bigger planes means more cost per plane, more logistics required per plane, more support personnel required, more maintenance, etc.”
Not when the bigger aircraft is more modern, with lower maintenance and support costs. When you include through life costs, the KC-30 is cheaper than the KC-767.
Fewer, better tankers don’t mean that the mission gets done any more efficiently.
While numbers of ‘hoses in the sky’ are of course important, so is the ability to give away enough fuel on a towline. If you need two or three small tankers because they can’t get airborne from the deployed location with full fuel, and have insufficient fuel to give away where the receivers need it, then that’s plainly less efficient than using a bigger tanker that has enough fuel to offload at the right place.
the USAF doesn’t want the European plane…….it’s not the practical choice and it WON’T be the end selection.
1) The informed tanker professionals DO want the KC-30.
2) It is the practical, capable choice – it’s just not the POLITICAL choice.
It probably won’t be the end selection, and that’s sad for the operators, who will be saddled with a more old fashioned, less efficient, less capable, less suitable tanker, each one of which will cost more, over its lifetime, than the alternative.
JackonickoJoe H,
It’s a shame that you have to clutter up an honourable argument with rudeness and idiocy.
It’s an entirely legitimate and valid position to say that the “U.S. defence market should be closed to outside companies” and that therefore the KC-X should have been given to “Boeing from the beginning”, though you still have the problem that the KC-30 is being offered by a US company (Northrop Grumman) and will be little less American by value than the KC-767 (major elements of which are built offshore).
You would, moreover, also have to accept that by granting Boeing an effective monopoly, you would pay much more (real competition keeps prices down).
When McDD and Lockheed were still building airliners competition was possible without involving Airbus. You still had “an aviation industry capable of more than filling your defense needs” and which could do so without relying on a monopoly, and there was “no reason to even bother allowing other countries to compete.” (As long as you didn’t expect other countries to exclude US aircraft manufacturers in retaliation).
Protectionism would save some American jobs, but most people believe in free trade, and recognise that the effect on US exports would be catastrophic.
The KC-767 might be far better than the -135 its replacing, but it’s not as good as the alternative and it won’t be “far less expensive”, because you cannot exclude support and operating costs when judging affordability. The KC-767 therefore won’t allow “them to buy a lot more”. Nor is a “smaller tanker what they wanted” – and especially not if it can’t carry what is needed for expeditionary warfare and if it can’t operate from normal runways with full fuel.
The ONLY advantage of the KC-767 is its up front lower sticker price, and the fact that final assembly jobs are in the USA.
JackonickoWhile it’s hard to see major parts of the core structure being replaced by composites, the MiG-29K and -35 still seem to have metal tailplanes, ailerons, flaps and wing leading edges, undercarriage doors, canopy frame and small items like aileron actuator fairings. All of these could be substituted, fairly simply, and with major weight savings.
The real obstacle to incorporating more composites is the cost of tooling, and the impact it would have on MiG’s current production methods, which may be archaic, but which allow small scale batch construction in less than optimised facilities.
JackonickoQuite right.
Even after the Druyun scandal, Boeing will have to screw up royally not to win this one.
But what is right from Boeing’s interests, and what may be right from the most short term cost point of view is VERY different from what is right from the military/capability pointo of view, and even from a through life cost perspective.
For reasons of keeping Boeing happy and minimising in-year spending up front, the USAF will end up with an inferior tanker, that will probably cost more in the long run.
There’s nothing new, or wrong, with that, necessarily.
JackonickoThe limitation isn’t to do with take off roll, or landing roll. It’s to do with balanced field length – and in the case of the KC-767 it’s to do with stopping distances at high weights, especially in the case of a rejected or aborted take off.
You’d need better brakes and/or better thrust reversers to change this.
JackonickoIn what way is a tanker that can use shorter runways, and which can carry more of the personnel and kit it needs for deployed, expeditionary ops, less ‘tactical’ than an aircraft that needs longer ones, and which can’t?
Characterising the KC-30 as strategic on the basis of ticket price, or a marginal difference in external dimensions, is misleading.
Sign In
