JackonickoThe IAF is one of the few air forces that is likely to face a robust A-A threat – F-16s to the West, ‘Flankers’ to the East and North.
As such A-A capability is vital, and ensuring the highest possible exchange rate is equally important. Super Hornet won’t provide that, and nor will F-16IN.
Typhoon and Rafale may be expensive, but dead aircrew (or losing the war) can cost far more!
JackonickoSo she was lying then, according to you?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
1) Refueling capability was NOT compelling to her decision? She says that it was, and said so on the record.
2) The U.S. Air Force didn’t find Northrop Grumman’s bid superior to Boeing’s in four of the five most important selection criteria? They say that they did.
3) KC-45 didn’t win on Mission Capability? The USAF and NG both say that it did.
4) The Air Force didn’t find that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases” (eg: more fuel at greater range)? It does, and the USAF confirm that.
5) The Air Force didn’t find that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better air refueling efficiency”? It does, it is more fuel efficient when executing the tanker mission and the USAF do confirm that.
6) The Air Force didn’t find that the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better offload rate and receive rate” and has “A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing”? It does, and the USAF confirm that.
The USAF, like the RAF, the RAAF, the RSAF and the UAE Air Force, all found that the KC-30/45 was a better tanker than the KC-767, and I’ll lay good money that the AMI are heartily regretting their choice.
JackonickoThe gun isn’t a precision weapon?
It’s the most discriminatory method of delivering effect available to the helicopter or fixed wing aircraft.
JackonickoTalk about re-writing history!
In a written explanation of the Air Force thinking on this subject, Sue Payton, the Air Force’s chief acquisition officer, said the Air Force determined that Northrop Grumman provided “Significant refueling advantages.”
Payton said that the Northrop Grumman KC-45’s “Refueling capability was compelling to my decision.”
“Northrop Grumman’s offer was a superior solution to the air refueling requirement, which is a key performance parameter,” Payton wrote.
The U.S. Air Force found Northrop Grumman’s (NYSE:NOC) bid to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers superior to Boeing’s in four of the five most important selection criteria. Despite this fact, the losing bidder wants the Government Accountability Office to overturn the Air Force decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman.
First off. KC-45 won on Mission Capability, which includes the crucial function of aerial refueling.
The Air Force found the Northrop Grumman KC-45 provides “Better fuel offloads at all distances from bases,” “Better air refueling efficiency,” “Better offload rate and receive rate,” and has “A greater boom envelope vs. Boeing.”
This means the Northrop Grumman plane can provide more fuel at greater range, is more fuel efficient when executing the tanker mission, can perform many refueling operations faster, and can connect to receivers over a greater volume of airspace behind the tanker than Boeing’s aircraft.
JackonickoIt’s much more closely comparable to the Aussie 127 or the Indian aircraft.
JackonickoMate, hard as you doubtless find this to believe, this is not about the ‘nationality’ of the aircraft, it’s all about capability.
Give the KC-767 to BAE to build, and it’s still the third best tanker.
If you’re procuring the best fighter in the world, you’d buy F-22.
If you’re procuring the best attack helicopter in the world, you’d buy AH-64 (though the European engines improve it).
If you’re procuring the best strategic transport in the world, you’d buy C-17.
If you’re procuring the best heavylift helicopter in the world, you’d buy CH-47.
If you’re procuring the best AEW aircraft in the world, you’d buy E-3. Or maybe Wedgetail ……
American is very often best.
But occasionally, the best answer comes from elsewhere. And so, if you want the best tanker in the world, at the moment its the A330 MRTT, and second comes the A310 MRTT, with the 767 a distant third.
(and if you want the best medium helicopter for CSAR or VIP, you’d buy AW101).
JackonickoPfcem,
“that excess fuel you are so fond of comes at the expense of not being able to operate tankers from many of the aifields you want/need too”
No it doesn’t, because the KC-45’s ability to lift that extra fuel from shorter runways means it can use more airfields, not fewer.
Quote:
Boeing say they’ve found some, but won’t name them, isn’t exactly persuasive.
“Try asking them.”
I have. They can’t answer any more than you can because the claim is empty and hollow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
It’s easy to name lots of real world tanker bases that will take a fully laden KC-45, but which won’t take a 767 unless it reduces its fuel load to less than that of an A310 MRTT.
“No it isn’t.”
Yes, actually it is: Fairford, Brize, Mildenhall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
And all three main tanker bases in the UK fall under that description.
No they do not. Your ‘study’ is using a KC-767 with a fuel capacity of ‘just’ 160,000 lbs. Not the KC-767AT with it 40,000 lbs of additional fuel capacity, wing, landing gear & engines of higher MTOW 767s.
Yes, they do. The RAF studies a 767 tanker able to carry 92 tonnes of fuel – eg the 767AT, but determined that to use a 10,000 ft balanced field length it could carry only 77 tonnes.
JackonickoThe KC-767AT meets the KC-X fuel offload requirement from a 7,000′ runway – which is what matters.
So the 767 can lift a 135 load of fuel from a 7,000 ft runway, but can’t lift anything like its maximum fuel load from 10,000 ft, while the A330 can lift 111 tonnes from that runway. You may not see any advantage there. I do.
I have given the general conditions which exist in the real world which make it so & Boeing identified over 400 airfields (that permit tanker operations) which fall into those conditions.
But you (and Boeing) have failed to name one single real world tanker base where ACN or footprint would permit a 767 to operate, but not a KC-45.
Boeing say they’ve found some, but won’t name them, isn’t exactly persuasive. It’s easy to name lots of real world tanker bases that will take a fully laden KC-45, but which won’t take a 767 unless it reduces its fuel load to less than that of an A310 MRTT.
And all three main tanker bases in the UK fall under that description.
JackonickoSeahawk,
The remark “Count the number of widebody Airbus planes that have lost their rudder in flight and compare to 767s.” is ignorant and offensive.
Michelf,
Your contribution is even worse.
Your remarks are utterly beneath contempt.
Jackonicko“It is obvious that the only right choice is Boeing.”
Not to anyone with a brain, old chum.
JackonickoI can name (and have named) real world tanker bases whose runway lengths permit operation of a fully laden A330, but where a KC-767 would have to operate with less than full fuel.
You (and Boeing) have failed to identify any such bases where ACN or footprint would permit a 767 to operate, but not a KC-45.
What you present is therefore an ENTIRELY false premise, and very far from being fact, deniable or otherwise.
And a fully laden KC-45 (which you present as being some kind of unusually large leviathan) is actually significantly lighter than the usual operationally laden C-17.
JackonickoWhen Nhampton intervenes, you know that you’re right.
Yes, KC top boom is a KC-135 crewman. That gives him valuable experience of the -135 and tanker missions as shaped by the -135’s inadequacies. It also gives him bagfuls of prejudice.
The points I have made have all been validated by experienced tanker pilots, crew-members and force commanders, and by the user community.
The key fact is that Airbus were lucky in having two aircraft in their product line that were well suited to tanker conversion, while Boeing were unlucky in not having any.
That is not to say that given proper investment, the 767 could not be transformed into a good tanker (it needs a new wing, new brakes, better thrust reversers and new landing gear to beat the Airbus, and just new brakes, reversers and main landing gear to compete).
PFCEM,
You continue to hold to the entirely false premise that the 767’s smaller footprint would allow it to operate from airfields closer to the towline. Firstly, the difference in footprint and ACN is marginal and you have failed to name a single regular tanker base that could accomodate a 767 that could not also accomodate a 330. Don’t feel bad, Dave Bowman was unable to do so, either. (Dave is head of tanker programs at Boeing). Secondly, forward airfields are much more likely to have more than adequate taxyways to accomodate any of the tankers, but to have shorter runways. Runways that would force the 767 to operate with much smaller fuel loads but which would pose no problem to the A330.
The KC-30 is the right choice for any Air Force that puts capability ahead of industrial priorities. To try to pretend that the UK and Australia have “significantly less stringent requirements then the US” is infantile and wrong – in fact, because they have to do more with less, and can’t afford hundreds of tankers, those nations have to have the best and most effective, most capable tankers, like the Germans and the Canadians, who opted for the A310.
JackonickoAustralia are long-time 707 tanker operators and are very enthusiastic customers for the C-17 and Chinook.
Saudi Arabia have E-3s, KE-3s, and RE-3s, plus various Boeing jetliner types. And 120 or so F-15s.
The UK are long-time E-3 operators, and are happy customers for Chinook and C-17. When the RAF looked at alternative tankers, the 767 was widely expected to be the favourite – and when the A330 and A310 proved so clearly superior it came as a major shock.
Had Boeing had a half-way decent tanker, all three air arms would have bought it ahead of an Airbus that was merely ‘equally good’.
JackonickoIf the KC-767 ticks more ‘tanker’ boxes, then clearly the KPPs and KSAs are bol.locks.
You only have to look at NG’s tricksy ‘spider web’ drawing to get an initial inkling as to KC-45’s obvious superiority (its tricksy and irritating but fundamentally accurate, and then you have to bear in mind the following:
1) The KC-45 lifts more fuel, from shorter runways. That means more fuel to give away, more time on station, and an ability to use more runways.
2) Airbus’ boom is proven (albeit on a 310MRTT), Boeing’s new-tech boom for the USAF KC-767 isn’t. Not anywhere near.
3) Airbus’ underwing pods are proven, the 767 WARP is proven only to be in massive trouble (see the Italians).
4) The Airbus tanker mission system is tried and tested. The mission system for the USAF KC-767 is not. Not anywhere near.
5) A host of traditional Boeing customers have looked at the KC-767 and said no-thanks, opting instead for the Airbus……
Because it’s the better tanker.
We could all write a batch of KPPs and KURs, KSAs and the rest that could favour an inferior aircraft. Write the requirement the right way, and Typhoon would be a shoo-in over the F-22. Just emphasise unit price, make a helmet sight a go/no-go item, and weight connectivity heavily and the Raptor would struggle to look good.
Just as long as you didn’t look at the overall, overview of role suitability and mission capability.
JackonickoNow that’s a display!
Sign In
