pfcemI dislike those whose only contribution is to repeatedly shout down and tell others that their opinion is worthless, in much less polite language than that, whilst at the same time providing absolutely no good evidence to support their views. Feel free to disagree with me on this. It is a free world…well mostly…
The evidence has already been provided. That you & others CONTINUE to ignor it simply demonstrates my position that providing it agiain is a waste of time & effort.
***
Well of course, you’re right about that, I agree. Personally generations really don’t bother me, the reason being is because I don’t really believe in it. I’m just more interested in what a particular airplane can do and how it does it, pretty much as you say.
That’s funny, you claim to be interrested in what a particular airplane can do and how it does it yet do not believe the nomenclature devised (DECADES AGO) to tell you that (in general terms).
pfcemYour not agreeing with it doesn’t make it pathetic reporting.
The fact that the PROJECTED TOTAL PROGRAM COST GROWTH IN THEN YEAR DOLLARS is 57% and 89% yet the headline says “nearly 90%” (among other things I noted) does make it pathetic reporting. You know as well as I do that there are people out there that see this & think the flyaway cost is now never going to drop below $135 million. It has nothing at all to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the numbers themselves but rather how the numbers are presenting which is misleading at best.
To my mind, 89% increase is near-equal to double the amount. In simple numbers, it’s as if you want to buy a 10,000 $ car, you pay an advance and then the dealer tells you that… well, the price somehow went to 18,900 $.
There, does it sound better now?
Thus proving my point. You go to the high end (89%) & don’t even acknowledge the low end (57%) AND talk about the purchase price when the numbers in the article are total cost, not purchase cost.
Yes, of course. Pigs do fly, the Earth is flat, I’m the Pope Venedict XVI and the F-35 is ahead of schedule. Sure thing. Do keep up.
Try reading the post again…
Talking about misleading headlines… :rolleyes:
Nothing misleading at all.
So, that must be the reason Denmark’s military recommended on withdrawoing from the procurement, the Dutch keep postponing the decision and Fidgegibbon nearly canceled Australia’s participation?Jeeez, all the stupid customers in the world must have gathered around the F-35, ain’t it awesome?! LM offers them a product ahead of schedule and they complain!!! Stupid, ungrateful people. Shame on them… :rolleyes:
Try again, you are still missing it.
You know, leaving sarcasm aside, the F-35 having problems and delays is not really that strange. On the contrary, I think it’s perfectly understandable, it’s a brand new design trying to merge the demands of many different clients.
Nor is it out of the ordinary – problems and delays are the NORM.
The problem, and at the same time what frustrates most people with common sense, is that some people in LM pretend there is nothing wrong and that the F-35 will be soooooo cool.
NOBODY (ESPECIALLY not in LM – they are dealing with it every day) is pretending there is nothing wrong but the REALITY is that it is not as bad as it is being made out to be.
pfcemThat’s fine by me, eventhough there is still no solid fact suggesting anything like this, only concepts and speculation. But never mind, let’s assume that it will take 6 AAMs internally some time in the future with some modifications.
This still doesn’t explain (in fact it even contradicts) the “good reasons” Sens mentioned, only to admit later on that actually he has no idea what he’s talking about.
So, if F-35 carries only 2 AAMs, it’s because either they’re more than enough or because there are some “unscpecified unknown good reasons”, and it’s super cool as it is. But if it will eventually carry more than 2, it’s because 2 are not enough and with more it becomes even more bad a$$ mathafacka’ and -again- it’s super cool as such.
F-35.
It’s soooooo cool. :rolleyes:
Six internal AAMs is a planned F-35 Block 4/5 improvement (whether it ends up 4 or 5 depends of how soon it recieves priority).
Two AAMS is typical for aircraft on strike missions (as is two PGMs). Aside from it being enough, the F-35’s 2 AAMs + 2 PGMs + 18,000+ lbs of fuel is a pretty tight fight as is, you would be hard pressed fitting more (internally) in a fighter of its size.
***
Approximate rendition of radar blocker (in blue) vis-a-vis compressor face (in red):
[ATTACH]183084[/ATTACH]Note: rb slightly oversized, accounts for LEVCON deployed downwards in today’s pics, and the various aerodynamic intake ‘devices’ preceding rb (unless you think the 117 is shaped thus _/ ;)).
Compressor face is more in line with the intakes (a bit more out & lower – but still closer to the red than blue I think). Consider that the picture does not show the plane as it would be in level flight…
pfcemWhy do some continue to get upset about the whole generations thing anyway?
Because 5th generation fighters have surpassed their favorite 4th/4+ generation fighter(s).
***
No, Fedaykin is not wrong. There is no such thing as an objective, measurable definition of “5th gen” or any other generation for that matter. It’s marketing rubbish.
Yes he IS wrong. Fighter generations nomenclature has been in used since the 1950’s & there IS a measurable definition of “5th gen” just as there is for every previous generatoins.
To give you an example: when LM invented this nomenclature a “5th gen” could supercruise.
1. LM didn’t invent “5th gen” nomenclature, it is just the lead contractor building fighter 5th generation fighters.
2. Supercruise has never been requirements for 5th generation fighters. Supercruise (>Mach 1.5) was specific to the F-22.
***
BS yourself. I have been reading books about military aviation for a long time. And before mid-nineties (i.e. when the Raptor became real) nobody was talking about fighter generations. The only term that came up occasionally was “next generation” but that has nothing to do with fighters. It is a normal English phrase used for all kinds of things such as iPods, fertilizers, audio recording media and so on.
By the way, if you check LM’s website you’ll find an entire page devoted to 5th generation fighters. They even designed a logo for it…
Then you have not actually read very many before the mid-90’s then. Try a trip to the nearest public library, quite often you will find aviation books written WAY earlier than the mid-90’s that talk about fighter generations.
***
Just to be clear, why don’t the people who favour the usage of “generations” define exactly what constitutes a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th generation.
Because those definitions have already been made by those who make them. It is in fact only those who don’t like that their favorite fighter is a ‘legacy’ 4th/4+ generation fighter(s) that try to ‘redefine’ what makes a fighter a 5th generation fighter so as to either exclude a particular aircraft (i.e. the F-35) &/or make it appear that there is not that much difference between 5th generation fighters & their favorite 4th/4+ generation fighter(s).
***
I feel I need to clarify, whilst I do feel the term “generation” is pretty much marketing BS when comparing one aircraft to another I am aware it has been used for many years Pfcem.
That is not what you posted now is it…
The problem I have is trying to compare one aircraft to another when everyone has a different concept of what the term means.
Actually MOST have the SAME concept of the term means.
Actually within an airforce the term can be fairly useful when comparing different aircraft purchased over the years for example the RAF would call the MD F4 Phantom as one generation beyond the English Electric Lightning. Or the step between the Mig 23 and the Mig 29 within Russian service, all fine but it falls flat when comparing different manufacturers aircraft globally or what one airforce defines as a generation to another. It really falls flat when the latest aircraft have a fusion of different avionics and weapons which really makes comparing them by a simple generation pointless.
LOL
What I have little time for is people coming onto a forum and saying “My aircraft is better then yours because a manufacturer or airforce says its X generation…end of debate” that really gets up my nose.
And just where has ANYBODY done that?
pfcempfcem,
could you link us to some info that demonstrates that the program is now ahead of the schedule?
The program IS ~6 months behind the previous schedule. The ‘new’ schedule extends the previous one by 13 months. Do the math…
pfcemthat is really interesting!
it brings me back to an old question
has the f-35 ever made any sense or should all that money been invested in further development/production of F-22
Did the F-16 &/or F/A-18 make sense or should all money been invested in further development/production of F-15 &/or F-14? 😉
***
We have a great deal of information about F-35 prices, thanks to US budgetary habits. $58.7 mn for LRIP is incompatible with the long-term (post=LRIP) production price, & the LRIP price, in the US budgetary estimates. If the US budgetary figures are correct, selling LRIP F-35As at $58.7 mn would either be at a hefty loss, or imply that LM is intending to grossly overcharge the USAF.
The post is in reference to PRICE QUOTES.
And quite to the contrary, the $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars) F-35A flyaway cost fell right in line with the then $70-75 million (FY2014 dollars) full rate production projected cost. Basically the deal was to sell LRIP aircraft to partner nations at projected full rate production cost so they had no need to wait for full rate production to get the ‘best price’ – encouraging them to buy LRIP airframes (thus securing early orders & ramping up production quickly) instead of waiting for full rate production.
The above figures can only be got by playing games with exchange rates. The current fixed-price production contract for Typhoon is at a unit price of 55 mn Euros. At todays exchange rate (seems fair – we’re talking about current deliveries), that’s $74.6mn. With the export levy of 7% (which can be waived by the partners), that’s $79.8mn. That isn’t quite the same as the ‘flyaway’ prices used by the USA: it includes a bit more, & to be strictly comparable, it should therefore be reduced slightly.
Tranche 1 was more expensive, but since Tranche 1 production is complete, that’s no longer relevant. The Austrians signed for 62.9 mn Euros per aircraft in July 2003, including the export levy, i.e. a base price of 58.8 mn – $71.5 mn/$66.8 mn when signed, or $85 mn/$80 mn at todays exchange rate. The Saudi export contract was priced at £61.5mn each ($92.3 mn today), but is not a flyaway price. It is uncertain exactly what it includes.
Rafale prices paid by France are similar to the Tranche 2 Eurofighter price. Various official numbers (as presented to the French Senat) have been posted here, between 50 & 60 million euros, depending on batch & type (naval Rafale is more expensive), i.e. $68 mn to $81 mn at todays rate. I am not sure if they include more than US ‘flyaway’ prices, or are on the same basis.
We thus see that pfcem has given the real maximum ‘flyaway’ price for Typhoon & Rafale as the minimum, & quoted an imaginary upper limit to the price range he gives. As usual (he’s been banned from at least one other forum for it), he’s not being entirely honest.
Note that I SAID the numbers come from playing with exchange rates. Funny how YOU are playing with numbers & yet YOU come up with ~$80 million…
***
So unlikely they could ever get a unit cost per F-22 down below $140 million. We can contrast that the the F-35 where its only getting cheaper once the line opens up to full production. That $140 million still looks a lot more attractive than buying many F-35’s, but the cost over the life of each unit would eat us alive.
No, they WOULD likely get the unit flyaway cost of the F-22 down to ~$120 million had production continued.
Each new lot (year of production) has seen the price of the F-35 go down. The FY2011 budget projects the flyaway cost of the F-35A matching the ~$140 million of the 60 lot 7-9 F-22s in FY2012, dropping below $100 million in FY2014 & averaging ~$85 million from FY2016 on.
pfcemIt’s nothing about believe or not believe. With are not dealing with religion but with a stupid aircraft. If the specs are so good, let us see them. Until then it’s just guesswork.. Once we learn the F-35 has realistically demonstrated claimed performance, then we can claim to know anything.
Data or guesswork?
People who have flow the aircraft &/or seen the data are telling you (in generalities of course, the details & actual data is classified). You either chose to beleive what they are saying or you chose not to.
Yes, it is. Range is limit of every design.
The F-22 has more than enough range with internal fuel to conduct the typical Alaskan peacetime air partol sorrtie. The drop tanks are there to mask the F-22’s RCS, they ARE NOT needed to extend the F-22s range for said missions.
You haven’t provided anything to read.
PLENTY has been provided throughout the years. IF you chose to ignor or not read it is not my problem.
pfcemDATE:19/03/10
SOURCE:Flight International
F-35 cost estimate grows up to nearly 90%
By Stephen TrimbleThe US Department of Defense today confirmed the cost estimate for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement has leaped between 57% and 89% since contract award eight years ago.
The new estimate raises the average cost of the latest Lockheed Martin stealth fighter from $59 million to between $93 million and $112 million, the DOD says. If adjusted for inflation over the programme’s 30-year production plan, the average cost per aircraft grows to $114 million to $135 million. The average cost is based on the DOD’s plan to buy 2,443 operational F-35s through 2035.
The data confirms prior statements indicating the F-35 could breach a cost ceiling mandated under the Nunn-McCurdy Law, which triggers an automatic review of the programme….”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/19/339714/f-35-cost-estimate-grows-up-to-nearly-90.html
Truly pathetic reporting.
For starters note that (even IF you believe the numbers) the PROJECTED cost groth is 57% and 89% yet the headline say “nearly 90%”. FAR too many people don’t even bother to reach the article & simply go by the misleading headline.
Next, this is the same numbers/data that has been out since Mar 11th (the $80-95 million average per unit production cost) but are per unit TOTAL PROGRAM COST in then year dollars (very misleading give the difference in the value of a dollar over such a long period of time). As I posted earlier, these numbers/data calculate to an average unit flyaway cost of ~$81.91-97.27 million in FY2010 dollars. Nevermind that it is all based on JET II rather than reality.
***
@ Loke
one thing you should know, actually, with pfcem, even if the schedule is revised ten times for 3 years, and then late 6 months from the latest schedule (meaning, thrity and a half years late), he’ll say “naaah, it’s not late, it’s just a 6 month delay”
I just oevrflew his mile-long post, saw a couple of nonsense thingies he posted and hopped to the next one… he posts the same thing time after time, and even if the people in the program say something he doesn’t like, he’ll claim he knows better 😀
Nonsense, LM, the Program, the USAF/DOD, the GAO, JET et cetera ALL used the same base schedule in determining there delays.
Of course if you prefer to use the “latest” (aka 13 month extention) schedule instead then the Program is actually now AHEAD of schedule but I have yet to see ANYONE use such…
***
If I remember correctly, the F-35 was supposed to be a “cheap” stealth fighter/bomber (or bomber/fighter if you want to put it like that) from the start? Don’t think I remember anyone from LM or DoD or where abouts saying it was going to be expensive to buy and maintain?…
No, “cheap” was never the word used. It is/was always “affordable” &/or “cost-effective.
***
Critics: Time to bail on Navy JSF
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/navy_hornet_jsf_032110w/
😀
Nothing new, the ‘critics’ have been wish the USN would bail on the F-35C since BEFORE it was designated the F-35C.
***
The F-18 Super Hornet is on target to end production in 2013 IIRC unless new orders are secured. India could order it but Brazil is almost certainly not going to. Doesn’t it make sense for the USN to buy some more – if just to keep an alternative to the F-35C open as a possibility, should there be further F-35 delays or other problems come to light in testing?
No it does not make sense for the USN to order any more F/A-18E/F. The only thing it does is waste money that should be spend on F-35Cs. F/A-18Gs OTOH makes since to procure until we get enough to maintain the desired 5 per CAW.
***
I thought the F-35C will have a pretty decent range…?
What combat radius would the Navy really want then?
IMO, the USN needs an unrefueled combat radius of 1600+ km. Any adversary who can deploy a sophisticated IADS also has an ability to locate a CVBG within 600-800 km of its coastline. This means the CVBG must operate from farther away to stay “lost in the big blue sea”. If it fails to do so, it becomes an anti-shipping missile magnet and cannot perform its primary role of projecting power inland. The amount of internal fuel required to fly 1600 km forces the airplane across the “light attack” threshold and solidly into the arena of “medium attack”. F-35 was forever constrained to be “light attack” by the requirement to fit on the elevator of an LHD.
~768nm radius on internal, and ~927nm w/ 2 EFTs.
Ideally, they’d probably like a striker with a radius ~1000nm or greater on internal fuel.
The F-35C is the replacement for the F/A-18C/D & exceeds the USN combat radius requirement for that.
The USN (unfortunatley) won’t be getting a true A-6 (long-range stike) replacement until ~2025 F/A-XX &/or UCAS planned IOC.
pfcemAre we discussing the same aircraft?
To my knowledge, a fully filled 330F will get off the ground quicker than a fully filled 767-200ER…
In fact, Northrop Grumman highlighted field performance as one of the reasons for winning the 2nd tender…
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141392
Yes we are talking baout the same aircraft.
Being able to take off with more fuel (from long runways) DOES NOT mean you can operate from more airfields. The fact is runway length is seldome THE limiting factor. MUCH more often the limiting factors are the size (footprint) & weight (ACN) of the aircraft. And at a PCN of ~50 (or lower) the KC-767 can actually take off with a GREATER payload than the KC-30.
Any airport with a sufficient refuel system to handle A2A tankers will already have taxiways and parking areas of more than sufficient strength. How many airbases currently used by tankers are not fit to take C-5s or C-17s?
Not true by a LONG shot. IF it were then BOTH the KC-767 & KC-30 (& the KC-135 & the KC-10) could operate from ALL 1643 worldwide airfields allowing tanker operations.
What you fail to realize is that MUCH of the infrastructure from which KC-X will operate from was BUILT around the KC-135 (or the KC-135 & the B-52) &/or similar size/weight aircraft.
The analysis was not clear at all in what data it used.
Yes it was. Try reading it.
The only thing made clear by it was the author’s desire to hide the assumptions used during the analysis.
Quite the opposite. The report was VERY clear & open. The problem is people not bothering to actually READ IT to find out.
Wooossshhhh…. and my point went sailing completely over your head.
If they adjust the mission profile to consist of 20 mins climb, 10 mins cruise, and then descent, of course the mission average fuel consumption will go up. I know what the A330 cruise numbers are… and they are nowhere near the average fuel consumption stated in that Boeing report.
Thus, Boeing have had the mission profiles “adjusted” to greatly favour the smaller aircraft.
No it did not. The FACT is that the facts disagree with you.
Of course.
And what the report did is put numbers as to how much that FACT effects the cost of fuel for COMMERCIAL 767-200ER & A330-200s (the aircraft the KC-767 & KC-30 are built on) airliners.
You bet? Based on what?
You knowing everything and the rest of us apparently knowing nothing?
Based on understanding the mission profile of USAF tanker operations.
Why would it be higher?
becasue tanker spends A LOT more time flying a far less optimal speed & altitude (including A LOT more changes in speed & altitude – which is where you really burn fuel vs cruising at near optimal speed & altitude).
How on earth can you assume it will be higher? Commercial airlines will operate at most efficient speed for cruise. When at their refuelling waypoints, tankers can operate at the most efficient speed for endurance (somewhat slower).
Commercial airlines will operate at most efficient speed for cruise for more or less the entire flight (save for climbing to & decending from or weather considerations). Tankers do not.
***
lol, they should add that to the contract.. no risk for US budget there…
as for “higher difference”, tankers are usually used for extending other aircraft’s range, which means they don’t just go up, and start descending 5-10 minutes later.. chances are they have an even lesser consumption difference than airlines, especially when air-refueling (tanker to tanker) gets taken into account.
but I guess that, as usual, you won’t bother about facts and will just discard what doesn’t fit into your fantasyland
It is YOU who won’t bother about facts and will just discard what doesn’t fit into your fantasyland.
A ‘typical’ airliner mission profile is ONE climb/acceleration to near optimal cruise (speed & altitude), flying said near optimal cruise (speed & altitude) until decending/decelerating for landing. Tankers OTOH do many more climb/acceleration & decend/decelerate during the course of a ‘typical’ refuel mission.
***
I just have to read the majority of your posts to see that everyone is ill-informed but you. You state it not me, even though you have no personal experience with tanking operations, something else you have stated. You have also mentioned that you get some of your info from third parties even tanker commanders. That makes it secondhand information subject to interpretation errors.
IOW you can’t back up your BS claims or done any of your own research into the facts/reality of USAF tanker operations.
pfcemI don’t think that anyone takes this claim seriously for the time being.
I KNOW that the only people who don’t are those who don’t want to believe it is true.
Most future customers seem to express concerns about its performance much more often than joyous excitations. Makes me wonder why if the bird is so good.
Name ANY future customer to have expressed ANY concern about the F-35s performance.
Depends on what would you want to use it for. General claims about the aircraft are the same from almost everyone who has flown it. +s: very comfortable, good electronics, good nose pointing ability at low speeds, a good striker. -s: slow acceleration, below average agility, slow max. speed, rather ‘lazy’ for a fighter
Still waiting tor the “sh*tbox of an airframe”…
It also has to deal with more weight and more drag.
Not as much as you want to think. ESPECIALLY not when comparing similarly loaded aircraft.
Range is the limit.
No it is not. The F-22 is perfectly capabale of performing its missions WITHOUT external tanks.
The max. range is the same in peacetime or in war.. Just like the fact that F-22 in SC consumes more fuel than in subsonic regime..
True but does not support your claim.
Looks like you have more info about that.. Please, share your information.
Read.
***
@pfcem: why on earth would F-22 bother with RCS up in alaska ?
I think you missed what I said…
The intent of the external tanks is to hid/mask the F-22’s clean RCS (no need for them to hind during the typical peacetime Alaska air patrols). We don’t want our Russian friends learning much about it…
pfcemSo we’re looking at 167′ wingspan on their bid?
Yes, same as it was for the previous KC-767AT bid (& all the currently flying 767s with THE SAME winglets).
I remember reading something about using 777 wings on the KC-X.
I am sure you ‘remember reading’ a lot of complete BS.
If you look at the renderings of the KC-767AT & thoss of the KC-767NG, you can tell them apart except for the different boom appearance.
pfcemThese are export prices which differ from those offered to respective domestic air forces. F-35 offered to Israel went for $202mil, in comparison.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/15293-israel-buy-25-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-aircrafts.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s-02381/
Even the ‘domestic air forces’ cost for the Eurofighter Typhoons & the French Air Force Rafales fall in $80-120 million range (where depends on the exchange rate).
The “~$200 million each” for Israel is the ENTIRE contract price WITH ALL OPTIONS EXERCISED. It includes a lot more than just the planes themselves. More recent ‘news reports’ have cited a cost of Israel’s ‘special’ variant of the F-35A at ~$130 million (for the 1st 25 expected to be delivered in 2014, the remaining 75 are expected to cost considerably less).
pfcemIt always amazes me how everyone is so ill-informed but you.
I notice how you are unable to show how where I am ill-informed…
pfcemBoeing says the A330 will cost $40 billion more in fuel costs over the life of the jet.
Err…
“more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life”
***
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.
The fuel burn rates of commercial 767-200ER & A330-200 airliners is public knowledge (as is the engines of the proposed engines for both tankers). So we (or more accurately those who have bothered to do ther homework) DO have reasonably close ACTUAL burn rates of the two tankers.
You know full well where the $40 billion comes from & we have already discussed how useful/accurate it is.
Sorry but NO USAF calculations ‘have shown that the KC-30 does not require the same number of planes to perform the same mission’.
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.
All EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid lies.
The 767 has foreign supplied parts too . . .
Yes, <30% of the 767 airframe is foreign parts BUT Boeing retains the full ability to manufacture ALL PARTS it is just that it is more economical for for them to be manufactured overseas. The A330 airframe OTOH is >95% foreign (non US) parts.
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.
In your EADS/KC-30 induced hallucinations.
***
Pratt & Whitney to power Boeing NewGen tanker
I really hate the short-cuts marketing people make. The PW4062 is rated at 63,300 lbs of thrust. The ‘62,000 lbs’ comes from P & W’s engine naming system. The 4000 series engine in the 62,000 lb thrust class.
So you get the idea (these numbers are from Janes)…
PW4052: 52,300 lns
PW4056: 57,100 lbs
PW4060: 60,200 lbs
PW4062: 63,300 lbs
While I agree that the GEnx-2B would be nice the USAF has made it clear in ALL THREE rounds that it prefers low cost/low risk.
***
It might be good to look at how that programme has gone and use Boeing’s experience of the Italian and Japanese 767 tankers. One would assume, based on the experience that Boeing has in designing and developing tankers that these would have been problem free, however it has not been the case.
Yeah right. It is absurd to do such nonsense. First, Boeing having experiance with tankers in no way indicates that they would have been problem free but rather than Boeing has the exerience & expertise to deal with the inevatable problems that occur. Second, all of the Italian tanker work has been done using JUST ONE AIRFRAME & much of the actual work has been done by Alenia Aeronavali (& what REALLY slowed things down was that when Alenia Aeronavali made a mistake the airframe has to be flown BACK to Boeing to be fixed). Boeing has already stated that it should have tanken a more active role & testing should have been done using more than one airframe. KC-X OTOH is ALL BOEING & SDD includes 4 airframes, PLUS all of the problems with the Italian KC-767s are problems which won’t occur with KC-X.
So looking at that then the chances of the KC-767 being late and over budget appears rather higher than that of the 330 being either…but none of us really knows…
You should do some research into the problems with the Australian KC-30. Of course THAT work is being done by Qantas, not NG/EADS…
***
another thing to point out, the A330 assembly line that’s supposed to open if NG/EADS get the contract won’t only built tanker airframes, but all civilian cargo A330 airframes, which is even more work than the 767 line will produce since it will only make the tankers
The A330 assembly line won’t BUILD anything. It is a FINAL ASSEMBLY PLANT, not a full MANUFACTURING PLANT.
And Boeing has indicated that it is likley to drop the 787-3 & go with an updated 767 to fill that market (not to mention all the other military application the 767 is all but certain to be chosen for).
Of course the A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY PLANT would have a $9.45-10.8 billion deficite just from the difference in US workshare from the KC-767 to make up FIRST.
***
Which is of course why airlines queued up for the A330 and dropped the 767 virtually overnight?
Typical EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid. As ALWAYS, reality is quite different.
$40 billion? BILLION?
180 tankers…
Fuel is currently $86/barrel, or ~ $750/tonne – $40 billion is 53.3 million tonnes of fuel.The average A330 fuel consumption in cruise is about 5.5 tonnes/hr (ranging from 5 to 6 tonnes/hr)…
So that would mean about 10 million hours in cruise, or 54,000 cruising hours per tanker. There is ~8740 hours in every year.
Which means there is 6 years of constant running… that is every minute of every day of every week for every last one of the tankers.
Bull****? I smell a strong whiff of it.
Not $40 billion. More than $10 billion.
Commercial 767-200ER
1722 gal (per hour average for commercial flight)
750 hrs per year
40 years of service
=
51,645,390 gal
Commercial 767-200ER
2139 gal (per hour average for commercial flight)
750 hrs per year
40 years of service
=
64,173,774 gal
64,173,774 – 51,645,390 = 12,528,384 gal
Of course tanker operate differently & the difference there is likley to in fact be HIGHER.
Please. This is a serious discussion.
Ramp strengthening… like every taxiway and runway on the planet got strengthened to deal with an A330?
Not ALL of them, but a significant number if you want to be able to operate KC-30s from them.
What happens now is not applicable to what will happen when 767 parts are running short, and the A330F line is still recieving full parts support from the manufacturer.
Sorry this is reality, not your EADS/KC-30 induce fantasy land. The commercial A330 will be LONG out of production by the time we take delivery of out last KC-X.
Because the A330MRTT is flying, right now. Because the boom proposed for KC-X has been built and tested.
The A330 MRTT is NOT the NG/EADS KC-30.
Oh FFS, here we go. I thought you were knowledgeable on aerospace.
You know fine well the work share implications of the deal, and if you seriously attach more importance to keeping a dying line open for a few more years than getting the 2nd large OEM building aircraft on US soil (with the associated benefits that provides to the US aerospace supply chain), then you need your head examined!
YOU need to stop drinking the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid. And then get YOUR head examined to discover if there has been any permanent brain damage.
***
According to boeing, Airbus eats fuel while the 767 (an older airframe, with older aerodimanc concept and all that) runs on thin air? yeah, right
No, ACCORDING TO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE COMMERCAIL DATA the A330-200 burns an average of 417 gal more fuel per hour than the 767-200ER. And there is not enough difference between the commercial airliners they are based on & the KC-767/KC-30 for that number to be significantly different for the KC-X. The BIG difference however, is that commercial airliners fly the most econimical speed altitude for much of thier flight where as KC-X won’t nearly as much.
***
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.
Still confusing greater capacity with greater capability I see.
AND you know full well that the life cycle numbers from the last round were grossly inaccurate in the KC-30’s favor.
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’.
Yes EADS COULD embargo the airframe (not that I think it is at all likely).
No, the KC-30 boom is NOT built in the US.
And A LOT more than just the aiframe & boom come forum outside the US.
Boeing retains the ability to FULLY MANUFACTURE every part of the 767 airframe. So if any of the foreign suppliers that provide <30% of the 767 airframe stop supplying, Boeing can ‘fill the gap’ – it would just be a bit more expensive.
***
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
Nice rounding. ACTUALLY it is <58% for the KC-30 & >85% for the KC-767. That is a DIFFERENCE of $9.45-10.8 billion is US workshare.
Yes you CAN ignore the indirect benefit of getting an EADS plant here. Not that you SHOULD. But how convient that you EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker make such a big deal of the supposed benefit for the NG/EADS A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY PLANT while ignoring the same for the Boeing 767 FULL MANUFACTURING PLANT.
I DARE you to figure out how many A330s the NG/EADS A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY PLANT has to assemble just to make of the $9.45-10.8 billion is US workshare & how many A330s the NG/EADS A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY PLANT has to assemble for each 767 the 767 FULL MANUFACTURING PLANT manufactures.
***
How many jobs do you think the 767 will provide other than those for the KC-X? How many 767s do you expect to be sold to other customers?
How many jobs do you think an EADS production plant in the USA building A330 freighters would provide? For how long?
IMO, the prospects for the 767 are approximately zilch. No KC-X deal, no more 767 sales. Additional 767 sales over & above the tankers are very unlikely. The A330 will be in production for much longer. The total number of jobs, & total value added, is likely to be greater for the A330.
The Boeing 767 PRODUCTION LINE provides more US jobs than the NG/EADS A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY LINE. Without KC-X there is little chance the NG/EADS A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY LINE will happen. Without KC-X the Boeing 767 PRODUCTION LINE is STILL likely to have some work – there are a significant number of other platforms which the USAF & other need to replace for which the 767 is the best fit for as well AND Boeing has said it is considering dropping the 787-3 & going with an updated 767 for that market.
How many A330s does the NG/EADS A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY LINE have to assemblt JUST TO MAKE UP FOR the $9.45-10.8 billion KC-X different between the KC-767 & the KC-30?
***
This time, they’re basically saying, “Whoever can replace the KC-135R for the least money wins”. It’s a price competition because they want to avoid protests.
people keep overlooking is that USAF decided somewhere in the first competition they wanted the NG/EADS product, so much so that they changed the rules after the competition was on and also “cheated” a bit to get it (note that I’m not accusing NG/EADS itself of doing anything underhanded nor am I making any judgments on the relative merits of the two aircraft).
No, the USAF has NEVER decided AT ANY TIME it wanted the NG/EADS product. Contrary to what the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker want you to believe, the KC-X Source Selection Team WAS NOT the USAF.
This time, they’re basically saying, “Whoever can replace the KC-135R for the least money wins”. It’s a price competition because they want to avoid protests.
Utter BS. This time the requirtements are essentially the same as last time. Actually, this time the requirements are even MORE strict with 372 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS that are simple pass or fail. Fail to meet ANY ONE & your bid is rejected for failure to meet the requirements.
And IF the KC-30 were truly less expensive like the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker want everyone to believe, a ‘low cost wins’ competition should favor NG/EADS…
***
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
Utter BS. Boeing CAN NOT run-up the price.
It is in fact GREAT news for the US military & taxpayers. The USAF/DOD FINALLY get the tanker that was the no-brainer correct choice a decade ago & the taxpayers (hopefully) won’t have to folk over more money for ANOTHER destined to be protested competition.
***
The other jet does the mission better.
It will bring more money into the USA over the long term.
IMO it is a crazy decision to turn down the chance of having both large OEMs assemble commercial (and military derivative) aircraft in your country.
SO wrong on all three counts.
***
well, now the money will be american, it will just go in bigger quantities from taxpayers pockets to boeing’s ones
But a SMALLER quantity in total. With a greater share to the US economy & less to foreign economies.
***
it’s another story… and it’s obviously peanuts compared to what the US taxpayer would have spared/gained through a real competition… in such a big deal as the KC-X market
The US taxpayer would have spared/gained NOTHING through another destined to be protested competition.
anyway, each year, airbus takes a little more market shares from boeing… the USA could have had a bigger part of that through A330 assembly line on US soil, instead of what, they’ll just keep a line that was supposed to close for lack of orders with lesser production of an older airframe
BUT with the WTO ruling & the 787 that trent is all but certianly now to be reversed (& likely accellerated when Boeing applies 787 tech to its 737 replacement).
***
I tried to tell you guys. A330 was simply NOT politicaly acceptable.
Quite the oppisite. It was politics which FORCED the A330 to be acceptable. Prior to politics taking over the A330 was rejected by the USAF/DOD.
What IS politically unacceptable is simply giving the contract to Boeing without a ‘complete fair & transparent competition’.
***
Let’s wait and see if Boeing can perform. P-8 and Wedgetail haven’t gone so well.
What alternate reality are you from?
The P-8 is going quite well. And the problems with Wedgetail are with NG’s radar, NOT Boeing’s airframe…
pfcemIf this were a competition for a KC-10 replacement, then I would certainly believe that the A330 was the aircraft for the job. Although it doesn’t carry quite as much fuel as the KC-10, it is still far larger than is necessary for a KC-135 replacement.
I feel like people who get caught up in the pro-European vs. pro-U.S. argument are forgetting just what the original requirements were written for…..a KC-135 Stratotanker replacement.
Not only is the KC-30 a poor choice for a KC-135 replacement (due to its size & weight) it is a poor KC-10 replacement due to its poor payload (fuel capacity) for its size & weight.
It is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10. In fact it is BIGGER & HEAVIER than EVERY aircraft in USAF inventory except for the C-5 & a handfull of 747-based specialty aircraft.
***
Should the transatlantic consortium decide to enter the race for a second time, it will do so with a strong platform. While both platforms are designed to meet the requirements of the Air Force, the KC-45 by far exceeds many of the requirements. In fact, the 2008 decision in favour of the KC-45 is primarily attributed to its capacity, carrying about 45,000 lbs more fuel than the current KC-135. As a consequence, Boeing used the delay in the competition to revise its strategy and put the larger 777 platform into the race. The Boeing 777-based tanker is comparable in size to the Airbus A330, which is the basic airframe of Northrop Grumman’s KC-45, but delivers 54,000 lbs, or 23 per cent more fuel.
The KC-30 IS NOT the KC-45! The KC-X (what ever it ends up being) IS the KC-45.
The KC-767 exceeds many of the requirements BUT does not REQUIRE tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure improvement in order to operate.
Boeing was ready & willing to offer the KC-777 during the previous solicitation but when it asked the USAF if it wanted the KC-777, the USAF response was no.
***
However, playing devil’s advocate, using foresight (a capability surgically removed from a high percentage of military officers at the basic training stage!) one could argue the selection of the larger tanker could entirely negate the need for a future competition (and, judging by this one, several years of moving goalposts, political infighting, a dodgy dealing on all sides) to replace the KC-10, by either extending numbers the KC-X order at a later date, or by a refining of the required capability. Then of course you’d only need the engineering and logistical setup for one type too.
It would do no such thing. There is a requirement for BOTH a ‘medium’ tanker (KC-135 replacement) AND a ‘large’ tanker (KC-10 replacement). THe KC-30 is a poor choice for EITHER much less both.
***
The issue is not so much about airframes, what’s fundamental is providing the required capability, in the most cost-effective way. The time to review how that capability can best be provided is when the current hardware – in this case the KC-135 – comes up for replacement. Simply replacing the KC-135 one-for-one with a new aircraft of similar size is missing the opportunity to have a ‘back-to-basics’ review of how the job can best be done. It could be 50 years before the next chance to do this comes around.
The review how ‘that’ capability can best be provided started in 1996…
***
I accept your point, and yes, it is correct in saying the 767 is a better fit for a high-low mix of tanker. However, I disagree and here is why (well, a few of the reasons):
1. The armed forces are always looking more lift capacity*. Thus, more lift capacity = better.
2. Maintenance cost going forward (this becomes a biggie). The 767 line is on the verge of closure (it prob will close if the tanker order doesn’t come through). Thus, the USAF are last of the line, and due to their probable operational life, will be operating the aircraft far beyond any other commerical user. This of course means part prices skyrocket through the aircraft lifespan. Conversely the A330F is only starting to come into service, and has a long life ahead of it as a civilian freighter, meaning lower parts costs across the lifespan of the frame.
3. The KC-Y competition will be coming up in what… 10 years? The A330 MRTT is a potential option for that program, the 767 is not. That would mean fleet commonality with associated reduction in costs across the board. Which feeds back into point (2).
4. Program risk. The A330 MRTT is in the air, it has pretty much finished flight testing (?). The boom that would be used for KC-X has also been flight tested. It is almost the dictionary definition of a low risk project. Conversely, the 767 “variant” Boeing wishes to use exists only as DMUs on hard drives in Seattle. With the current JSF debacle, the recent Marine 1 replacement debacle and military funding under pressure, the last thing the DoD needs is another project draining finite financial resources unexpectedly.
5. Airbus starting a final assembly line in the USA. Its simply too good to turn down. Infact, if I was making the decision, and both tankers were basically up to the job, I would choose the 330 on this alone. Having both large OEMs assemble aircraft on your soil with the associated security that provides to the whole aerospace supply chain nationally is worth its weight in gold.
*The C-17 debacle is to do with keeping more C-5s in the air and not replace them on a 2:1 basis (or whatever) with C-17s.
1. KC-X is a TANKER with secondary airlift capability, not an airlift asset with secondary tanker capability.
2. BS. It is looking likely that Boeing will drop the 787-3 & go with a new 767 variant to fill that part of the market so commercial 767 could very well stay in production just as long as the A330 (which ALSO looks to remain in production for some time to come to fill specific markets where the A350 is overkill).
3. Despite its size & weight, the KC-30 lacks the fuel capacity for KC-Y. KC-Y will no doubt be a competition between the 777 (or ‘787-10’) & the A350
4. You don’t know what 767 variant Boeing will offer this time. BUT, even with the KC-767AT ALL of the airframe components are currently flying on one or more commercial 767 variants. And Boeing has proven it is more than capable of merging components from existing aircraft variants to create new ones.
5. The Boeing 767 PRODUCTION line provides much more than a A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY line…
*. What C-17 debacle? The C-17 replaced the C-141.
***
as for the assembly line, you have on one side an assembly line for the 767 which will only have to produce USAF tankers (boeing engineers have moved already to other stuff, except the team supposed to develop teh 767 tanker, and these will move on anyway after that), and, on the other side, the assembly line that will assemble USAF tankers and all A330-based freighters for the civilian market… it’s rather easy to see which one will bring more benefits to US economy
The Boeing 767 ‘line’ is not JUST a final assembly line like the NG/EADS A330 line would be & again, Boeing is looking to likely drop the 787-3 & offer a new 767 variant to take its place.
Yes it IS easy to see that the Boeing ‘line’ brings MUCH more to the US economy than a NG/EADS FINAL ASSEMBLY line. Just from the difference in US content between the KC-767 & the KC-30 the KC-767 provides $9.45-108 billion dollars to the US economy. On the civilian side it is a lot more difficult to say as NOBODY knows how man more 767 &/or A330 will be built BUT just to make up for KC-X would require >100 more A330 than 767.
***
Do you want them to relocate everything inside a year?
If an assembly line is in a a certain country… or continent even, do you really think transport costs will not affect where the constituent parts and sub-assys are made?
If Airbus built an A330 line in the US, you can be damn sure it would be a bigger net boost to the US aerospace industry than finishing out the 767 line.
Airbus have been trying to hedge against the euro for quite some time, having a foot into the dollarzone is a strong way to do that.
BS. The EADS NA A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY LINE is to be a FINAL ASSEMBLY LINE, PERIOD. Airbus/EADS have NO plans to extent it to a FULL MANUFACTURING FACILITY, all it is for it to replace the A330 FINAL ASSEMBLY LINE in France – ALL of the MANUFACTURING is STILL to be done throughout Europe by the various Airbus/EADS partners as it is done now.
***
Tanker operations are slightly different though to airlines.
Yes they are but that does not change the correctness of his comment at all.
Why do you think we have C-130s, C-17s & C-5s INSTEAD of an all C-5 airlift fleet?
Specificly for US tanker operations, the USAF with its MANY DECADES of experience has identified & EXPRESSED that the most effective fleet (for the USAF) is one that consists of a large number of ‘medium’ tankers (KC-135, KC-X, KC-Z) complimented by a smaller number of ‘large’ tankers (KC-10, KC-Y).
***
Perhaps in a war…but 90% of the time (for CONUS training missions rtefueling fighters and the odd AWACS and transport) they don’t need the extra capacity.
A nephew is assigned to a 135 ANG unit, he says most of the time they carry loads that a stretched 737 could handle.
Even in war time, the KC-135 has proven to be MORE than enough TANKER for the VAST MAJORITY of the operations & for those comparatively few where it isn’t, THAT is what we have the KC-10 for.
AVERAGE PER SORTIE FUEL OFFLOAD
Operation Desert Storm: 47,500 lbs (256 KC-135s & 46 KC-10s)
Operation Allied Force: 48,700 lbs
Operation Enduring Freedom: 75,400 lbs
Operation Iraqi Freedom: 60,800 lbs (149 KC-135s & 33 KC-10s)
With your argument, why not buy 747s or better yet, A380 tankers?
I (& others) have made that point countless times & still the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers spout their ‘bigger = better’ BS.
Yes, the military has to be prepared for anything (which is why they need the C-17 instead of just cheaper 747Fs…the argument I make to the chagrin of the anti-C-17 croud at this forum) but somewhere they have to make a decision about buying “more plane then they need” and the resulting fuel costs of a larger plane (such as the difference between a 330 and 767) will incur during a 50-year career.
Not only that but if bigger is in fact better (contrary to what the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers want everyone to beleive there are REAL WORLD negative operational aspects to larger/heavier aircraft), which in the case of the KC-X it is not. In fact something SMALLER than the KC-767 (which EXCEEDS all KC-X fuel offload & airlift requirements) would be better if not for so much emphasis on airlift capacity.
***
teh whole idea is that, what armed forces buy is tools to wage wars… it’s their job. In peace time, they train for war, all the time. Sometimes they do a humanitary mission, but most of teh time, it’s training.
WHen you get to war, the more you can do, the better… imagine for a second that you have an air raid and your fighters going home refill and the last two come behind tankers and hear:
“well, guys, that’s it, we have no more left, ya know, in peace time we wouldn’t have used it, so we didn’t choose that option.. have a nice walk home, see ya…”
And it is with the KC-30 that you are more likely to have such a scenario occur because you could not get enough tankers close enough to the fight to refuel all the receivers. Even the KC-135 can offload MORE than enough fuel for the VAST MAJORITY of missions & for those comparateively few where it doesn’t…THAT is what the KC-10s (KC-Ys) are for.
P.S. for all who are slightly slow to understand, obviously, no aircraft would be left behind in a real mission, but you would have to take another tanker in the air or send less fighters, which may hurt your mission capabilities somewhat… that’s why you need to get the tools tailored for your primary mission which is war, not just for training over your homeland
THE primary mission of the KC-X is refueling large numbers of receivers with comparatively small amounts of fuel per receiver in the most effective/efficient way. For THAT mission, the smallest/lightest/least expensive to operate tanker that meets the requirements is the best. EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid want everyone to believe we live in a fantasy world where by the mission (& the infrastructure) is tailored to the KC-30 rather than admit that in reality the KC-30 is a poor match to the mission (& the infrastructure).
***
Is it possible to design two booms into a single tanker and would it be an advantage?
Only with a all-new ‘clean sheet’ tanker design.
***
Yet somehow, hose-and-drogue refuelling isn’t even seriously considered
Hose-and-drogue refuelling IS & HAS been considered! But contrary to what the EADS/KC-300 Kool-Aid drinker want everone to believe the refueling time difference (1 boom vs 2 hose) is NOT that much.
***
It’s a religious thing.
The Boom is the Only True Way. All Hail the Boom! Smite the hoses of the infidels!
No it is a REALITY thing. First the refueling time difference (1 boom vs 2 hose) is NOT that much. Second there are OTHER reasons the USAF prefers booms.
***
actually, if boeing proposes the saùe tanker as for japan, one may say “it’s already in service”, but if they propose to their initial idea, one part from here, antoher from there, they build, indeed, a whole new aircraft which has to go through testing and all that.
It appears they want now to do things simpler, but, still, we have to see their definitive proposal… and they wait to know whether EADS/NG does make theirs and how..
If there’s no competition, they can propose more or less anything, and increase the price for following bathes to earn good money on it (under the scheme decided by the DoD, only the first batch or two can’t go beyond a previously fixed price, after that, boeing may be free to incfrease it at the only expense of the DoD.
Typical EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid.
All of the airframe components of the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT are flying today on one or more 767 variants and Boeing has demonstrated time & time again that it is MORE than capable of creating new platform variants.
The Australian KC-30 isn’t the same tanker as the NG/EADS KC-X.
You either accept that BOTH the KC-767 (what ever variant Boeing proposes) & the KC-30 are based on ‘existing’ tankers or NEITHER are an existing tanker.
Boeing CAN NOT change its price if NG/EADS drops out & the only price increases allowed under the RFP are inflation adjustments.
***
I’m not aware of any USAF analyses that showed that booms were better for fighters. Receptacles were fitted to tactical air because the tankers had booms.
The USAF has plenty of experience with both. It does not need an ‘analyses’ to tell it which is better.
***
I personally expect the lifetime costs of an A330 tanker fleet to be significantly lower than a 767 fleet.
Stop drinking the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid. Even with the BOGUS evaluation of on 25 years for an aicraft meant to be in service for 40 years (as well as OTHER bogus KC-30 cost evaluations) the KC-X Source Selection Team found that the lifetime costs of the KC-767AT (even with its higher SDD cost) was LOWER than that of the KC-30.
Or do both.
Supporting a redeployment? Why not haul out a load of mechanics or munitions while your at it.
What part of ‘principal mission’ do you not get?
Sorry, they are completely different aircraft.
Different wing, different fuselage, different avionics. As I said, the KC-767 as envisaged for the USAF exists only in DMUs in Seattle.
Sorry, but they are NOT completely different aircraft. AND the NG/EADS KC-X is NOT exactly the same as ANY other KC-30 either – the NG/EADS KC-30 envisioned for the USAF exists only in some DMU somewhere.
***
Based on the fact that the USAF would have to support parts for a unique model, which is based on a model line that is set to close (without a tanker order).
Conversely, the A330F is only entering service, so parts will continue to be made to support the commercial freighter fleet for years to come.
There is absolutely no basis for saying the KC-767 will not suffer the same fate as the KC-135… namely parts costs ballooning, and many having to be broken up for spares to keep the others going.
THERE ARE NO UNIQUE AIRFRAME PARTS TO THE 767-LRF/KC-767AT! EVERY SINGLE ONE IS FLYING TODAY ON ONE OR MORE COMMERCIAL 767 VARIANT.
There is absolutely no basis for saying the KC-767 will not suffer any more than the KC-30.
Better to merely meet, or better to significantly beat a requirement?
Typical EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid. The USAF had made it clear WITH ALL THREE ROUND RFPs that exceeding requirements is of little value. Do you not even understand what a requirement is?
Which doesn’t change my point. One is in the air, the other is only on hard drives. Which one is lower risk?
Not true. NEITHER KC-X spec tanker are in the air. During round two BOTH offers where assessed as having ‘low’ risk.
THE NG/EADS KC-X IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE AUSTRALIAN KC-30!!! IF it were the NG/EADS KC-X would have ZERO SDD time/cost.
No risk for the American one? I would be very dubious.
NOBODY ever said no risk.
***
That is based on the assumption that greater capability ALWAYS means greater cost.
In this case, information from the last competition showed that the KC-45A (KC-330 US) would deliver that extra capability without extra cost… the extra capability was FREE!
Therefore, NO “taking away money from other programs” at all.
Why not factor that in then?
You are confusing greater CAPACITY with greater capability. And there ARE/WRE significant cost (not just monetary) to the KC-30’s greater CAPACITY.
***
New Pic and Update: Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
Amy & Bill should go back & look at previous rederings of Boeing’s KC767 KC-X offering…
if indeed the wings are longer (unknown), that could hurt the milcon part but possibly help other performance factors
They look IDENTIAL to every (non -400ER) 767 winlet wings (including all previous Boeing’s KC767 KC-X offering rederings) to me. The winlets are 11′ tall & the two combined add a total of 11′ to the 767’s wingspan.
***
Still think the 767 is low-risk?
No, I & everyone else who knows jack about it (& that INCLUDES the UAF/DOD) KNOW that it is low risk.
***
I would amend that to “only for large aircraft”
Refuelling 2 fighters at once is much better than queuing… For the KC-45, the probe/drogue is only capable of ~2500 lb/min, while the boom is around 9000 lb/min. (For an F-15E, thats around 5 mins 20 sec and 1 min 30 sec)
But by fuelling in tandem, thats really 5000 vs 9000… of course, then minus the time taken for the first fighter to disengage and the second to get in position and hook on… which I would expect is a couple of mins at least.
Wrong.
For one thing the F-15 recieve rate is ~4000 lbs per/min while the offload/recieve rate for hose & drogue is ~2800 lbs/min.
BUT, aerial refueling is a complicated matter & refueling with two hose & drogue is nowhere near as fast as EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker want people to believe.
***
er, 1 ton truck instead of a golf? I have a “small” 20 year old mercedes that weighs 1.1 ton, and it’s a pretty “light car”
your “1 ton” truck is just a very small van… some people do have much heavier things. like all US pick-up owners
Err…the “1 ton” refers to the PAYLOAD of the truck. Of course a modern “1 ton” truck has an actual payload significantly more than “1 ton” (but we still use the ‘classification’ anyway) & have curb weights of ~5500-6000 lbs.
The A330 gives you more than the 767, but in the same time the price difference isn’t proportional. Basically, if you get 20% more on a certain performance type, you don’t pay 20% more. Still, if you don’t take into consideration the advantage it gives you, obviously, the price alone that’s slightly higher makes the deal look worse than it is.. that’s the whole problem:
But the KC-767 gives you more than what is requiremented/wanted/needed & doesn’t have anywhere near the operational cost (not just monetary) of the KC-30 (BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10). Stop drinking the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid, just becasue the KC-30 can carry more fuel DOES NOT mean that it will carry more fuel OR that you need fewer of them.
the way things were asked shows clearly that the will behind the RFP is to take the smaller aircraft, even if the USAf prefers the other one… and that’s also why NG/EADS may refuse to participate.
The USAF prefers the KC-767. It MUCH more closes matches the stated requirements. IF the USAF preferred the KC-30 then the requirements would indicate as such but they don’t.
And if they do so, well, the result will be fixed price on initial batches, and then, boeing will make their profits on later ones since without competition, they’ll be able to increase the price at the taxpayers expense only… basically, that may be NG/EADS’s way to tell the US congress: “serves you well…”
BS. The only price increases allowed on later batches are inflation adjustments.
It is truly PATHETIC how EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker try to make out as though Boeing wants/intend to screw everyone. The TRUTH is that it is in Boeing’s best interest NOT to screw anyone.
If you make a competition, but say “I don’t care who’s better”, you can’t expect anything else but the lowest bidder… which, usually, ends by costing more and giving you less
The USAF/DOD already tried getting the better tanker. But that contract was cancelled due to USAF/DOD mistakes & it was FORCED by Congress to run another competition. NG/EADS used the demand for competition to threaten to pull out unless the requirements/criteria were chnaged to better suite its otherwise noncompetative KC-30. And the KC-X Source Selection Team couldn’t even ‘select’ the KC-30 based on the altered requirements/criteria NG/EADS agreed to – in fact its ‘selection’ was in direct contradiction to the requirements/criteria. So now in an obvious attempt to minimize the possibility of such things the requirements remains essentially the same but the evaluation criteria is simply pass ot fail (to meet all mandatory requirements) & assuming both bidders do the the one with the lowest evaluated cost is the winner. It is positivly histerical how EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers will in one breath claim that the KC-30 costs less & then in the next claim that the new RFP favors the KC-767.
***
Quick question here, and I am not sure if it will solicit a quick answer. I notice the latest 767-based proposal for the KC-X features a new boom seemingly based on the McDonnell Douglas boom used on the KC-10 and KDC-10. Boeing has been proposing various versions of the KC-767 for over a decade and all of them (including those sold to Japan and Italy) have featured a Boeing-style boom.
Every time I have seen one of these proposals, I have always wondered why Boeing didn’t utilize the McDonnell Douglas designed boom considering its more advanced design and Boeing’s acquisition of McDonnell Douglas in 1997? So, my question is, why did Boeing resist using the McDonnell Douglas boom these past 13 years, and what occurred with this latest RFP that finally compelled them to do so? Was it merely the transfer rate (Boeing Boom ~1,000 gal/min maximum v. MDD Boom ~1,200 gal/min maximum)?
The KC-10 boom is actually capable of 1500 gal/min. And Boeing’s current 5th generation boom of the Italian & Japanese KC-767s is in fact a more advanced design than the KC-10 boom but with a lower (900 gal/min) max offload rate.
Sign In
