JackonickoBring It On,
You’re mistaking which offers the the best overall solution (which may or may not be the 767 – some might say that forcing that line to shut down might force Boeing into investing more in more viable programmes) with which is the best tanker aircraft.
Jobs, infrastructure and cost all impact on what is the best overall solution, but aren’t relevant to which is the better tanker platform.
Nor should anyone be too quick to assume that the ‘Yoorpeen’ airplane has benefited from more state aid than the 767. If one counts only direct subsidy, perhaps, but then Boeing has been buoyed by so many effectively uncompeted orders from the US forces, NASA contracts, etc. that it would be simplistic and misguided to view Boeing as being a paragon of free market virtue.
JackonickoThere may be some in the USAF who ‘don’t give a squat’, but all of the senior officers I’ve spoken to – in both the customer and tanker communities – feel that the KC-767 is the wrong aircraft for the kind of expeditionary ops they anticipate, and that it doesn’t meet THEIR idea of what the requirement is or should be. It may be a small and possibly unrepresentative sample, but I haven’t met anyone who isn’t privately VERY concerned about this.
And while the 777 has more fuel to give away, it’s too big and too expensive to be affordable, and crucially still requires more runway than either Airbus option.
As I say, I don’t mind over-much what the USAF select (I don’t have shares in Airbus or Boeing), though I’d hope that the crews get the best aircraft. But I do object to people characterising the KC-767 as a better tanker option, when it isn’t. It may be a better option for job creation and pork barrelling politicians, but it’s an inferior tanker.
JackonickoIf the USA is happy to tailor its military procurement for Boeing’s convenience and commercial gain, that’s fine (we’re used to that in Europe) but in purely military terms, there can be no doubt that the USAF will get a second best aircraft if the KC-767 wins out over the KC-30. A third best, actually, as the A310MRTT would also be a better choice.
Jackonicko“It has been pointed out to the USAF that when you lower the fuel payload/gross weight of a certain larger airframe aircraft (which carries a considerably larger fuel payload than the KC-767) to meet the same wheel loading as the KC-767, its still beats out the KC-767 on max fuel/cargo payload. So the larger aircraft is still more efficient and effective than the KC-767 as it allows mission planners to carry larger loads from these ramps. Also, because of the larger fuel load capability, these aircraft do not have to based so close to the front line and these smaller airfields.”
Moreover, being able to operate on low stressed surfaces is of questionable relevance if the runway is too short for you to operate with anything approaching a full fuel load.
JackonickoAn A330 airframe is not an A310 airframe.
Well true, but there is a degree of read across between the A310 and the A330, and in any case the A330 had been thoroughly proximity tested with a wide variety of receiver types, long before the Aussie decision. As had the KC-767. In any event, the toughest problem is always the underwing pods, and because the A330 MRTT has existing structural hardpoints and plumbing, this is likely to be more straightforward than it has proved on the 767.
JackonickoLook it up yourself. I suggest you start by comparing the planned in service date in the tanker role with the AMI’s latest estimate.
You might then look at the aerodynamic problems with the pod and pod pylon, and at the inordinate amount of time it has taken to come up with a fix that is crude and unduly draggy.
You might then chat to any of the AMI tanker force about their impression of the mission system software…..
None of this is insoluble. Not much of it is even terribly serious, but it does put overblown claims of Boeing’s “more tanker performance metrics of every tanker mission done in the last 50 years than god” in context.
In any case, we don’t need to get mired in detail. The inferred claim was that Boeing’s tanker heritage would give it an edge in producing a better tanker, quicker. It clearly has done neither.
The A310 and A330 are superior tankers to the 767 in all key metrics.
The Germans have flown tanker A310s. No-one has flown op 767 tanker missions.
It’s hard not to conclude that the Airbus MRTT is better and quicker.
JackonickoAgain, don’t get me wrong. Just as we bought Tornado F3 for industrial and logistical reasons when two seat F-15s would have been better, there are compelling industrial and logistical reasons for the USAF to opt for the inferior tanker. Perhaps especially so if the Pentagon finds itself forced to select a European aircraft for other requirements (eg CSAR-X).
JackonickoYou can imagine that the RAF conducted a pretty thorough evaluation of tanker bases and likely FOLs and diverts in the UK, Europe and the Middle East when it was considering the A330 and KC-767 for FSTA.
There are a very small number of airfields where the A330’s longer span could restrict ops in some areas (ruling out the use of some taxyways and perhaps making it necessary to backtrack before turning off a runway, for example), but I’m told that none were ruled out by ground loading. These are factors, in other words, but they’re seldom relevant. Whereas runway length was absolutely critical for the 767 in many cases.
Jackonicko“Boeing has more tanker performance metrics of every tanker mission done in the last 50 years than god.”
And yet they’ve comprehensively f*cked up the Italian 767s.
And every experienced tanker pilot I’ve spoken to who has seen both aircraft prefers the Airbus cockpit, and prefers the Airbus mission systems.
Airbus have the more mature technology, have made more effort to get and incorporate user input, and base their tankers on more suitable platforms.
I’m by no means suggesting that the USAF shouldn’t opt for the second best platform, but that’s what the KC-767 is, in almost all key respects.
“…..the USAF is of the opinion that it needs two sizes in its tankers ( atleast those that i have talked to anyway) again for reasons such as runways and other restrictions where they need the KC767 going into.”
If that’s the case, then they need Airbus tankers, which can operate from a 10,000 ft runway with a full load, where braking limits mean that a 767 simply can’t.
JackonickoIf the USAF wants a baby tanker, then the best aircraft would be an increased MTOW (164 tonne) A310MRTT with the 5th Additional Center Tank (giving 77 tonnes of fuel) and with the updated ‘FedEx’ cockpit.
It would be small, but it would use shorter runways than the KC-767 (which would struggle even at Brize!) and would carry industry-standard LD3 containers two abreast.
Moreover, German squadron crews have flown refuelling missions in their A310 MRTTs already, and Airbus has been flying its boom for some time…… so the argument that the KC-767 “actually flys and has a working boom” is actually a bit of foot-shooting for Boeing, if they press it.
JackonickoJackonickoThere’s nothing wrong with buying ‘second best’ for industrial reasons – to provide more high tech jobs, to protect industrial capabilities within Boeing, etc. It’s an entirely legitimate thing to do, in my view. There may even be infrastructure reasons for selecting the 767 – if you have hundreds of hangars into which you can fit a 767 but not an Airbus, for example.
There may be really compelling reasons to give the USAF’s tanker wings a second best aeroplane.
But to pretend that the KC-767 isn’t entirely inferior as a tanker to the Airbus MRTT (A310 and A330) is risible.
When operating from a representative 10,000-ft runway, on a typical four hour sortie (with one hour’s fuel for diversions/reserve), the KC-767 has just 50,000 kg to give away to receivers. By contrast, the the A310MRTT has 45,500 kg of fuel available to offload (but can offer 5,700 kg more if a fifth ACT is fitted), and the A330MRTT has 82,500 kg.
Even if you allow the 767 the luxury of an unlimited runway, it’s fuel for offload would still be only 64,800 kg.
The 767’s span may allow it to taxy in more confined spaces than a 330, and it may be able to taxy on less sturdily built surfaces – but not many existing tanker bases and tanker OLs couldn’t take a 330 at full weight. And crucially, the 767 does need longer runways – and they may not always be available.
And while a KC-777’s fuel offload would be much better than the 767 given an unlimited runway length, it’s field requirements are even more demanding.
The argument that the KC-767 “actually flys and has a working boom” is superficially attractive, though the A310MRTT is also flying, and Airbus are flight testing their boom just as Boeing are, and there is no reason to believe that the A330MRTT will be any more difficult than the 310, and it does use the same boom and the same pods. It remains to be seen who will finish boom development first, but after the incredible difficulties Boeing have experienced with the KC-767’s underwing pods, I wouldn’t want to stake a fortune betting on Seattle/Wichita…….
JackonickoHardly.
Production is still quicker than the customers’ ability to accept and use the aircraft. Not one of the customer air forces wants to speed up deliveries.
Jackonicko100 have not yet been delivered to the air forces.
The 100 includes IPAs and ISPAs.
“The last figure they gave [on 24/07/2006]….”
The current figure (given earlier this month), including aircraft 100, is:
95 – but that does include two ISPAs.
34 to the RAF (20 single-seaters and 14 two-seaters),
27 to the Luftwaffe (16 single-seaters and 11 two-seaters)
19 to the AMI (11 single-seaters and eight two-seaters)
15 to the Spanish air force (eight single-seaters and seven two-seaters).
The partner air forces had accumulated more than 10,500 flying hours
UK 4,550 hours,
Germany 2,100 hours
Italy 1,800 hours
Spain 1,550 hours
Industry 4,635 hours
JackonickoThe latest delivery to Coningsby was BS020, delivered to CBY on 26 September, whose planned handover was 8 September.
Sign In
