pfcemWhich full in service varient of the F35 did this?
I think that at this point in time making such statments as yours is BS.
When a fully combat capable squadron aircraft does this, then fine go ahead and celebrate it, until that time you are just regurgtating market hype.
AA-1 with weight simulated to represent a service varient with two ‘2000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + ~75% internal fuel load.
Note that AA-1 is somewhat HEAVIER than service F-35A. It is almost as heavy as the service F-35B & F-35C.
***
1st: Where did you get the idea a “COMBAT LOADED” “nearly matches” an “CLEAN F-16C Block 50” to begin with ?
F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley.
2nd: A F-16 Block 50 comes in about in the middle of an EF Typhoon and an Airbus 380, so what doesn’t suck about F-16 Block 50’s performance ?
let alone anything worse, i.e F-35 ?But since Airbus 380 carry more cargo internally then F-35 i guess it makes it superior to F-35 performance-wise…:D
Only is some people’s wet dreams. The ‘performance’ of a clean Eurofighter Typhoon is better than a clean F-16 Block 50 but not nearly as much as some want everyone to believe.
pfcem1. just create a new post instead of completely rewriting your post 10 hours later, that just adds confusion to the situation
oh wait, that exactly what you want
2. so . . . you’re saying 3.2.10.1.1.7 is an objective? glad we finally agree that you were wrong
3.2.10.1.1.7 = TRADE SPACE, not an actual requirement.
3.2.10.1.1.8 (THRESHOLD, KPP #1).
3.2.10.1.1.9 (OBJECTIVE KPP #1).
how fast does a boom have to be to meet 3.2.10.1.1.7?
Not 1200 gal/min. 🙂
pfcemFrom a performance point of view, the F-35 suck
BS. No way can you call an aircraft that when COMBAT LOADED “nearly matches” a CLEAN F-16C Block 50 (except for top speed) as a poor performer.
pfcemthe objective was to not be the limiting factor
Thats right. The ONLY limiting factor was 3.2.1.1.1.1…
how fast does a boom have to be to meet that objective?
Neither the THRESHOLD nor the OBJECTIVE under 3.2.10.1.1 had any fuel offload rate requirement.
you can’t answer this very simple question because you would have to admit being wrong
What question have I not answered?
And since we know that is in error, AGAIN, what does an objective of not being the limiting factor ACTUALLY MEAN in terms of GPM?
Is it an error? Or is it just who ever is answering the question citing some OTHER document that is in error but the NATO AR procedures document being correct? Not that it REALLY matters either way other than it would be nice if the TRUE value was given in ALL relevant documents.
The ONLY limiting factor was 3.2.1.1.1.1…
nice fail
that is about calculating fuel offload at range in certain conditions. one of those conditions happens to be 900GPM. NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about 900GPM being the objective, that is merely what is required for that one scenario
if anything, that treats 900GPM as an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, certainly not as an objective
The only place in the round two KC-X RFP where a numerical falue is given for fuel offload rate is 3.2.1.1.1.1.
NONE of the items under 3.2.10.1.1 do. Not the TRADE SPACE 3.2.10.1.1.7, not the THRESHOLD 3.2.10.1.1.8 & not the OBJECTIVE 3.2.10.1.1.9.
pfcemamazing you JUST HAPPENED to ignore the requirement immediately before that
oh wait, no it’s not :rolleyes:
I am not ignoring anything.
3.2.10.1.1.7 is TRADE SPACE, not an actual requirement.
3.2.10.1.1.8
The aircraft shall be able to effectively provide (non-simultaneously) both boom and drogue aerial refueling on the same mission (THRESHOLD, KPP #1).
I already provided the 3.2.10.1.1.9 (OBJECTIVE KPP #1).
Read the Q & A. In answering Boeing’s original question concerning why the change to 1200 gal/min a previous TRADEABLE requirement was referenced & that ‘1200 gal/min’ was ‘clearification’ (aka putting a numerical value to what was previously not).
You can see from BOTH the THRESHOLD & OBJECTIVE requirements, NEITHER say 1200 gal/min.
You can however see a numberical value for required fuel offload in 3.2.1.1.1.1…
pfcem1991: 648
1993: 442
1997: 339
All order reductions due to budget changes.
USAF requrement STILL stands an a minimum of 381. Another 60 aircfram MYP contract would have brought the ‘current’ total up to 243 which the USAF states would represent a moderate risk (meaning that there would be a significant chance in some future conflict of the F-22 fleet being insufficient in number to ensure air superiority).
The Bush administration ‘punted’ the decision on the final number of F-22 by agreeing to the 60 aircraft MYP contract in exchange for no further discussion of the final number until the next administration. That brought the total up to 183. The USAF states would represent a high risk (meaning that there would be likely in some future conflict of the F-22 fleet being insufficient in number to ensure air superiority).
An additional 4 were authorized through WOT supplimental appropriations ‘to replace aircraft lost’. Gates & Obama made the decision to end F-22 at that making for 187.
JSF order has ALSO decreased, not increased.
There is no flaw with the F-22. It is not THAT expensive & if we were to have procured them in sufficient numbers & at sufficient rate would be LESS expensive.
F-35 production is still ramping up with per unit procurements cost decreasing significantly with each new production lot. It is projected that FY2013 per unit production will be below $100 million in then year dollars (FY2012 projected to be just over $100 million). Full rate production of the F-35A is projected to be ~$70-75 million per unit in FY2014/2015 dollars.
pfcemyou can dance all you want
you’re still wrong
YOU are the one dancing & YOU are the one still wrong.
then pray tell what was the previous objective?
3.2.10.1.1.9
The aircraft should be capable of aerial refueling all current USAF tanker compatible fixed wing receiver aircraft using current USAF procedures with no modification to existing receiver aerial refueling equipment and no degradation to the receiver aircraft refueling capability, including after-body effects for wide-body aircraft and fuel temperature, and in accordance with international standards (e.g., STANAG 3971 and STANAG 7191), and taking into account established technical guidance (e,g., MIL-A-87166, MIL-F-38363B, NATOPS) at its maximum inflight gross weight (OBJECTIVE, KPP #1).
***
Yes, but all I’m saying was the reason the KC-10 has such a larger fuel capacity is because it has had tanks fitted in its adaptation from the DC10 airframe design. As basic airframes before adaptation they both have very similar fuel capacity.
And what I am saying is that doing the same with the A330 would require increasing its MTOW (& corresponding OEW) where as the the 767 has the ‘extra’ payload/lifting capacity to do so WITHOUT requireing increasing its MTOW (& corresponding OEW).
THE reason why the KC-10 has such a larger fuel capacity is because it has greater payload/lifting capacity.
Do you have to try and turn everything into an argument? I was merely helpfully explaining something to someone (which is difficult within a mountain of huge long lists of bickering posts), yet you feel the need to butt in completely unnecessarily.
I am not turning it into an argument just explaining that increasing the KC-30’s fuel capcity would not be as fitting additional fuel tanks as it is for the KC-767.
***
I think you could lose several tons by removing some of the passenger cabin fittings, galleys, etc. from the A330. Airbus gives a “typical” operating weight empty (exact weight will differ according to customer choices) of 119.6 tons for the A330-200, & maximum T/O weights of 230 (233) tons. I don’t know why there’s a slightly higher figure given in brackets.
Some years back Airbus increased the A330’s weight. MTOW went up from 230,000kg (507,058 lbs) to 233,000kg (513,672 lbs). More recently Airbus has began offering a further IGW variant with a MTOW of 238,000kg (524,695 lbs)
pfcem“Tyree said that the greater size of the KC-10 versus the KC-135 makes it an in-demand asset for some missions, because it can carry more fuel.”
Which is what having SOME large tankers is good for & why the USAF plans to replace its current larger tankers (KC-10) with new large tankers (KC-Y) in the future.
***
Yes. And the relevance of that in response to my post? No one was saying anything about putting any more fuel in the A330 – as you mention, for KC-X you wouldn’t need to. I was merely pointing out to F35b what was going to make up for a 10-15t difference in empty weight, as opposed to the KC-10’s much greater MTOW.
The KC-30 does not carry less fuel than the KC-10 because “it hasn’t been fitted with extra capacity for refuelling“. It carries less fuel because it does not have the payload/lifting capability of the KC-10. As I explained, with 246,000 lbs of payload (fuel) the KC-30 IS ALREADY essentially maxxed out. You can not simply add auxiliary fuel tanks to increase the KC-30’s fuel capacity as Boeing can do with the KC-767. Increasing the KC-30 fuel capacity would require increasing its MTOW weight (with a corresponding increase in OEW).
***
if you bothered to read the Q&A’s, you would know why you’re wrong
No, if YOU bothered to read the Q&A’s and better yet read the previous RFP you would see that YOU are wrong. I say again, 1200 gal/min max fuel offload WAS NOT a requirement (THREESHOLD or OBJECTIVE) during the last solicitation.
It is true, however, that the CHANGE in max fuel offload (now MANDITORY – aka THRESHOLD) is a ‘clarification’ of the previous OBJECTIVE but the previous OBJECTIVE was not to have a max fuel offload of 1200 gal/min.
pfcemIn the negated competition, both NG/Ab and Boeing had threatened to pull out if certain things weren’t changed… they were and the GAO said that wasn’t allowed.
Boeing did not threaten to pull out during round two.
Therefore nothing can be significantly changed this time.
While the requirements (except for max fuel offload) remain essentially the same, THE CHANGE this time is how the offers are evaluated.
However, NG/Ab is correct… the USAF was told to write the specs so Boeing would be favored, and they did.
No it is NOT. The USAF has NOT been told to write the specs so Boeing would be favored. It is just that the 767 is MUCH closer to what the USAF wants/need than the A330.
The reality is that the KC-767 & KC-45 are too different for one competition to reasonably compare them in a non-biased manner.
The KC-30 IS NOT THE KC-45! KC-X (what ever it ends up being) is the KC-45.
The USAF & Congress should accept reality and do the following:
1. award Boeing a sole-source contract for KC-X (179 aircraft to replace the KC-135E).
2. award NG/Ab a sole-source contract for KC-Y (300+ aircraft to replace the KC-135R), but split the contract, moving ~120 aircraft to KC-Z.
3a. open a genuine competition for the remaining 120 or so “KC-Y” and the original KC-Z buy (59 aircraft to replace the KC-10), making this round not limited to “developments of existing aircraft”.
3b. issue a definite group of “set in stone” requirements for KC-Z by 2012 (10+ years before production is expected to begin, and some 6+ years before the award is made), to give plenty of time for a really “21st-century” solution.
KC-Y is the KC-10 replacement & IIRC is for ~108 tankers. KC-10 replacement was moved up (was previously KC-Z) due to the identified need to replace the KC-10s before ALL the KC-135Rs.
KC-X COULD be sole sources to Boeing since it is the only offerer offering a platform which meet the requirements but there is ZERO justification for sole sourcing anything to Airbus/EADS.
pfcemWell written article on US tanker operations:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/December%202009/1209risky.aspxAnd as to why new tankers are needed:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/December%202009/1209airlift.aspx
No mention of needing greater fuel offload…
***
IF the A330 is so much heavier than the KC-10 but carries less fuel what is this extra weight taking up by on the A330?
There is not IF. It is FACT.
KC-10
181′ 7″ x 165′ 4″
OEW: 240,000 lbs
ACN F: 056.1 – 061.5 – 074.4 – 101.4
ACN R: 045.1 – 054.6 – 066.7 – 077.4
fuel capacity: 356,000 lbs
KC-30
193′ 7″ x 197′ 10″
OEW: ~265,000 lbs
ACN F: 061.5 – 066.7 – 077.7 – 105.1
ACN R: 052.2 – 061.1 – 072.4 – 083.6
fuel capacity: 246,000 lbs
***
Incorrect
requirement was always 1200gpm
last round they gave partial credit for not meeting the requirement
this time there is no partial credit
BS. NOWHERE in the previous [round two] KC-X RFP was there a 1200 gal/min fuel offload requirement.
***
The A330 carries less fuel as it hasn’t been fitted with extra capacity for refuelling – hence the MRTT name – it’s a transport as well as a tanker.
I suspect the empty weights quoted include basic role equipment, hence for and empty A330-200 it’s about 120t, and with the boom/pods/centreline HDU up towards 125t for the A330 MRTT/KC-30. With seats, galleys, toilets etc, combined with the slightly larger dimensions, goes a fair way to explaining the weight difference. It’s also unclear whether the later addition of wing pods to some of the KC-10 fleet is included in certain figures – although the difference would be fairly negligible.
AFAIK, the the KC10 cabin is fairly spartan, just like the KC-135. I know they occasionally expose people to hours down the back in the cabin of the 135 on the fold down cloth seats (which can only be a little more comfortable than hours in a C-130), but do they also do so on the KC-10?
The KC-30 carries less fuel because 246,000 lbs of fuel puts it essentially at its MTOW. In order to carry more fuel its MTOW would need to be increased (with a corresponding increase in OEW – which is already ~15,000 lbs more than the KC-10). BUT that is going in the WRONG direction for KC-X.
As I have posted before going up to A340-200 weights SHOULD be possible.
OEW: 277,780 lb (126,000 kg)
MTOW 573,196 lb (260,000 kg)
A340-200 fuel load: 274,443 lbs (155,040 L, 40,962 gal)
pfcemyou can read their pdf letter in the link above, but here’s the relevant quote
. . . clear preference in the draft RFP for a smaller aircraft with a limited multirole capability and its imposition of a structure that places contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept
In other words the RFP, again, is clear in what is being asked for & NG/EADS recognizes that what it wants to offer is noncompetative so it is ‘playing its trump card’ & threatening to pull out of the competition unless changes are made to MAKE what it wants to offer competative.
So the question now are does the USAF/DOD have the backbone to stick to what IT wants or will it ONCE AGAIN compitulate to NG/EADS for the sake of competition and will Congress allow the USAF/DOD to proceed with a sole source contract to Boeing or stick to its demand for a ‘full competition’ even when only ONE competator is willing to compete…
pfcemIf Boeing could offload 1200gpm it would not ask any questions..
We know it can’t and hence the question as to why that figure at all…
Lets see…In round two the fuel offload requirement was 900 gal/min, in round three is has been INCREASED to 1200 gal/min. So Boeing asked why the change & why 1200 gal/min.
Here you are getting lost…
1) The 767 max fuel offload is less than that of the -30 so comparing max to max is not correct…
2) Compare like with like;- say actual lbs to be off loaded.
3) Is the increased ACN a limiting factor at the matching offload weights to the extent defined in the reports you have read and use as justification. I.e. that at max MTOW the -30 ACN being greater than 50 limits the number of austere bases that the tanker can use.
As the actual ACN may remain (at comparable fuel offload weights) below this magic 50 then that arguement reduces in importance..The ACN issue is important at both max ACN but far more important at operational weights and hence ACNs.
I am not lost. YOU ARE. You are claiming that getting the full capability of the KC-767 requires more infrastructure improvement than getting the full capability of the KC-30. :rolleyes:
Agreed the -30 is damn big.. and agreed the 767 is bigger and heavier than needed…(at last!)
And that IS the whole point! The KC-767 is ALREADY more tanker than is needed. BUT it is NOT so much more as to not be a workable solution. The KC-30 OTOH is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 (in fact bigger & heavier than every aircraft in US invantory except for the C-5 & a few 747s) but to quote the USAF “The KC-330 increase in size does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload,…“.
I thought the historical off load was well below the full fuel load. Any airfield can lay claim to reduced MTOW operations…if you herald that as an example then a -30 operating at comparable off load figures can operate at many other places it cannot at MTOW…
You appear to triumph this below MTOW max fuel load as an advantage, yet fail to see that the -30 can operate at below MTOW if the mission/ airfield require it…
Forgetting your own argument again I see.
But of course aircraft can (& often do) operate at below MTOW. BUT the point is that the KC-767 IS BELOW MTOW even with a full load of fuel but the KC-30 is essentially AT its MTOW with a full load of fuel. So in order to get the max fuel offload from the KC-767 doe not even require operating at its MTOW.
No matter how you try to spin it, the size (footprint) & weight (ACN) of the KC-767 is MUCH less of a burden on infrastructure than the size (footprint) & weight (ACN) KC-30.
Now we are getting somewhere..
Its capacity that can be used.. not always, not often but its there…
You now see it as an advantage in the 767 yet decry the same flexibility in the -30..
But the IMPORTANT POINT is that it is capacity that DOES NOT HAVE TO BE USED in order to get the max fuel offload capability of the KC-767 (unless of course a KC-767 varient with even greater fuel capacity is proposed – for the 395,000 lb MTOW that would be up to ~210,000 lbs or for the 412,000 lbs MTOW that would be up to ~225,000 lbs AND if one were to bump up the 767-200 airframe to the 767-400ER’s 450,000 lbs MTOW it could match the max fuel capacity of the KC-30).
At all weights the 767 flight performance is… shall we say less than sparkling…
And the A330 is EVEN WORSE!
Agreed… but then the vast majority of the time the 767’s max capability is not used…so we can say its unnecessary.. as is its MTOW in excess of full fuel load…
So this capacity you say in one line is handy for other things is now unnecessary for the majority of the time…
The issue is that both 767 and 30 will change USAF tanking and support operations because of their capacity over and above tanking…that capacity will be used…so how much to have…
I did not say the ‘extra’ capacity is handy for other things only that it COULD be used as it is there.
But THE POINT is that ‘extra’ capacity will not be utilized the VAST MAJORITY of the time & thus is only of ANY benifit if it comes at little or no cost. For the KC-767, the cost of its ‘extra’ capacity is MUCH lower than the ‘extra’ capacity of the KC-30.
Measuring max versus max is really unfair to the 767..as the missions it can do at that end of the spectrum are overshadowed by the 30..
Use an off load figure and then re-run….
Agreed the actual airframe dimensions are bigger and this will alter how the airbases are used from the current USAF model. Looking simply at quoted dimesions for headline effect misses the important aspects of track, wheelbase, turing radii and clearance issues that are as important… oh and balanced field length..;)
Forgetting your own argument again I see.
And the -30 is 101,000lbs heavier and has 40,000lbs+ more fuel on board.. so it should need a greater runway…
Apples to apples…
AND IT DOES!
But BOTH aircraft meet the performance OBJECTIVE, thus runway LENGTH is a non-issue.
Ok…
At max MTOW the -30 ACN is in excess of this ’50’ value that has been used in the reports you quote…(Just a side note… PCN’s are normally odd numbers.. hence either a 49 or 51 figure for the PCN and hence ACN would be more appropriate.)
However we know, as the historical data you have quoted, that actual mission weights involve far less fuel off load than the max even of the 135R…
So if we use actual fuel off load figures as a guide and apply then to the -30 its operating weight falls far below its max.. hence a reduced ACN.
In the reports you have quoted, which give a high number of fields the USAF may want to use that are unable to accept an aircraft with an ACN greater than 50, this high ACN is used to illustrate how limiting this ACN is in terms of future deployment.
Looking simply at max ACN then it is correct. If we use realistic ACN’s based on the actual mission parameters then the -30 will operate more often below its max ACN…and hence the number of airfields that are unable to operate the -30 reduces…opening up a greater number of bases suitable for deployment. This seriously erodes what is percieved as a 767 advantage.Does that clear this up?
Don’t you get it? Once you drop the payload of the KC-30 to where its ACN is <50 then you have reduced it fuel load such that it can no longer offload more fuel at range than the KC-767.
BUT while you can reduce an aircraft’s payload in order to reduce its weight (ACN), reducing or even eliminating its payload advantage in the process, you CAN NOT reduce its size (footprint) so where it can operate & in what numbers is STILL limited.
You are right ‘you’ did not say it.. you repeated the words others have played…
No, read what you posted again…
Interesting twists and turns here…
Just correcting your factual errors.
1) Max fuel capacity has little to do with actual fuel offload requirements..as defined by the historical data…
2) Politics are driving certain performance requirements.. not operational reasons..
3) If even the 135R has excess fulel capacity…then the replacement, if that is really what it is, should be in the same area.. not in excess of it..as both the 767 and -30 are…
4) Unless as you have admitted politics is playing a driving role in performance….
5) Boeing is limiting its published fuel capacity to what it thinks is needed.. not what it can do. .nor what may give greater future flexibility.. but for political reasons (to say nothing of actual aircraft performance reasons…)
6) Its about matching objectives… which may or may not be relevant to actual operational requirements but are set by political criteria…
1) & 2) Correct.
3) More correctly any ‘extra’ capacity should come at a s little cost (not just financial cost) as possible.
4) Politics is driving requirements, not performance.
5) No, Boeing is increasing the KC-767’s fuel capacity to equal that of the KC-135R so nobody can complain about it not having at least as much capacity as the KC-135R. With that capacity the KC-767 meet even the fuel offload at range/runway length OBJECTIVE – and “offerors were unambiguously informed that their proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective.”
6) No, it is about meeting THRESHOLDS & coming as close to OBJECTIVES as one can at little or no cost (not just financial cost).
Its a tanker.. not an airliner.. increasing its fuel capacity is a bit of a no brainer…but limiting its full fuel capacity to less than MTOW raises a bit more than passing concern….why would it do that I wonder? If its a good tanker then max full= max MOTW. We know that max fuel is far greater than anything hisotrically needed, so allow the full spectrum of max fuel/ zero freight to all freight to be avaliable… unless there is an a/c performance issue at MTOW in its primary role..
See 5) above…
We agree the 767 is more tanker than is needed for the KC-X mission..
We could argue that as a tanker its too big…
Agreed.
The airlift is a consideration in addition to tanking…and in this role the 767 is bigger than a 135.. but far less capable than a -30….
Correction, airlift IS SUPPOSED TO BE secondary to tanking…and in that role is is better than our primary airlift asset the C-17.
So it does the tanking mission less well than a smaller unit and the airlift less well than a -30….
Looks like its a a second rater in both roles…
No, it IS the best compromise of offered solutions
The -30 is a better airlifter and a more flexible tanker. The downsides are actual size and weight…but how limiting that actually is in operational situations is far less clear..
The KC-767 is a more flexible tanker do to its size (footprint) & weight (ACN) being not so limiting.
Your assumption is that the KC-Y will happen…
It IS part of the current tanker recapitalization roadmap.
If it does then great. Chances are it will not for another decade or more…becuase of the KC-X procurement debacle (not the fault of either airframe).
So the KC-X will need to assume more of the KC-10 missions as this fllet ages and more airlift missions…
The KC-Y is planned for the mid 2020s.
The USAF knows this is a possibility…and is planning accordingly.
Yes. That is why who hear some in the USAF indicate that perhaps KC-Y should come 1st or, even better if Congress would release the fund to do so, KC-X & KC-Y should BOTH be occuring at once.
That is the obvious question…which permits you to argue details.. when the actual reality is playing in the background…
No it DEMANDS recognizing the details & bringing reality to the foreground.
pfcemInteresting point of view…
1) The criteria is given.
2) We know, from Boeing itself and the USAF that the 1200 gpm figure is in excess of the known data on both the 5th and 6th generation Boeing boom.
3) This figures applies to a very limited number of ac in the USAF inventory.. which were already present in the fleet at the time of both previous solitcitations.
40 Boeing asks a question as to why this figure.. or higher…makes no difference.
5) Is dissatisfied with the answer..And from that you do not understand that it has questionned the need for 1200 gpm.. it has recieved an answer and is unhappy with it… ho hum..
NONE of that is Boeing questioning the NEED for 1200 gal/min. It IS Boeing questioning why 1200 gal/min rather than some other number.
Not missing the point at all; merely stating, rightly, that the KC-30’s performance offers flexibility and additional capacity and capability from the same piece of runway. There are other pay offs of course..
The measure of the value of that and how one wishes to pay for it are entirely artificial measures, suited to a certain agenda…nothing wrong with that..
Yes you ARE missing the point. To get maximum fuel offload with the KC-767 requires LESS weight (ACN/PCN) & LESS runway than to get maximum fuel offload with the KC-30. AND because the KC-767 isn’t SO big & heavy it is not so limited by the EXISTING infrastructure where as the KC-30 IS so big as to REQUIRE infrastructure improvement even to do the job as well as the KC-135R.
So potentially 101,000lbs greater MTOW…
That is a BAD thing as it comes with ~80,000 lbs (~43.2%) greater empty weight, 34′ 5″ (~21.6%) greater length & 41′ 9″ (~26.7%) greater wingspan. ESPECIALLY since the KC-767 is bigger & heavier than needed.
So your point is?
That with a full load of fuel the KC-767 (AT or non-AT) is well below its MTOW so an airfield does not even have to be capable of supporting the KC-767 at MTOW in order to get full fuel load capability…
Other than even with a full fuel load the 76 could carry additional freight…
Was not my point BUT there are lots of thing that can be done with that weight margin…
Or are you saying that the 767 as a pure tanker is under-designed as clearly it could have additional fuel load…because its below its potentially certified MTOW?
No, that the 767 has plenty of payload/lifting capacity to spare for what ever you want to do with it…
In other words, loading up the 767 with a full load of 202,000 lbs of fuel DOES NOT MAX OUT its payload/lifting capacity. THINK what happens to the flight performance of an aircraft when operating at lower take-off weight. 🙂
And the full load of the -30 is 44,000lbs greater.. potentially…
Which is unecessary & will be unitilized the VAST MAJORITY of the time AND comes at the cost of ~80,000 lbs (~43.2%) greater empty weight, 34′ 5″ (~21.6%) greater length & 41′ 9″ (~26.7%) greater wingspan.
Again your point being?
That in order to get the max fuel offload with the KC-767 requires an airfield able to operate its ~385,000/390,000 lbs take-off weight (NOT MTOW), 159′ 2″ length & 156′ 1″ wingspan. In order to get the max fuel offload with the KC-30 requires an airfield able to operate its ~511,000 lbs (~32.7/31.0% greater) take-off weight (VERY near its MTOW), 193′ 7″ (~21.6% greater) length & 197′ 10″ (~26.7% greater) wingspan. Even to get similar fuel offload as the KC-767 requires an airfield able to operate the 193′ 7″ (~21.6% greater) length & 197′ 10″ (~26.7% greater) wingspan KC-30 at ~475,000 lbs (~23.4/21.8% greater) take-off weight.
That a bigger a/c with a greater fuel load is heavier than a smaller one with a smaller fuel load.. yet that smaller tanker requires a longer balanced field length….
No, as already pointed out, the KC-767 can operate with a full load of fuel from a ~9,000′ runway, for the KC-30 to operate with a full load of fuel requires a ~11,000′ runway…
Perhaps airfield design and construction is one of your specialist subjects..?
‘Small’… as in? Mildenhall? Fairford?But again, spinning this to your historical data and the use of traditionally much smaller fuel loads does the max capacity have a determining factor…or do YOU not understand what drives the ability of a particular airframe to operate from a particular field?
Why yes I DO understand what drives the ability of a particular airframe to operate from a particular field. Size (footprint) & weight (ACN/PCN) – note that runway performance is related to weight (ACN/PCN).
As it should.. however the runway from which they both operate will retain its PCN value.. so your arguement that a certain number of airfields around the world cannot operate the -30 at an ACN in excess of 50 becomes moot when the real world/ historical data shows that to have the historical off load the -30 can operate at an ACN >50, thus bringing a number of those airfields back into the equation.
Are you really that easily concused? What you just posted makes no sense.
Care to try that again? I have never said anything of the sort.
Right. Let’s go at your pace shall we…
1) The 767AT cannot reach its MTOW with a full fuel load
2) The 767AT can use 7000′ runway with full fuel….
3) The 767AT can fulfill the fuel offload requirements from that 7000′ runway..We agree so far?
1) The -30 can reach its MTOW with fuel only.
2) The -30 can see a 7000′ runway at MTOW
3) The -30 can meet the off load requirements…
No.
KC-767
1. With a ful load of fule the KC-767 has not maxed out its payload/lifting capacity.
2. The KC-767 requires a ~9,000′ runway in order to take-off with a full fuel load.
3. EXACTLY! Which means that the KC-767 meets the KC-X OBJECTIVE/NON-MANDATORY runway/fuel offload requirement.
KC-30
1. With a ful load of fule the KC-30 has essentially maxed out its payload/lifting capacity.
2. The KC-730 requires a ~11,000′ runway in order to take-off with a full fuel load.
3. Yes.
So lets look at the one item the 767AT cannot do.. which is reach its MTOW with a full fuel load…why is that?
1) Because Boeing have a clear view on the quantum of fuel the USAF require…and see no need to provide more…
2) Because they cannot find space for it…
3) Because they know that at MTOW the 767AT cannot use a 7000′ runway…
#1
Now in reality if we take the historical figures that ‘fact’ is irrelevant as the quantum carried already is far greater than normally used.. but it looks pretty damn poor on the evaluation if there is a big NO in that column.
Thats right. The fuel offload at range requirement is to match of exceed that of the KC-135R from a 10,000′ runway. Matching said capability from a 10,000 runway being the THRESHOLD/MANDATORY requirement & matching said capability from a 7,000 runway being the OBJECTIVE/NON-MANDATORY requirement.
The KC-135R already has MORE fuel offload at range capability (from a 10,000′ runway) than has been historically needed. But remember all the whining & moaning when the tanker lease fuel offload at range requirement was less than that of the KC-135R? So even though we DON’T REALLY NEED even the KC-135R’s fuel offload at range capability POLOTICS demands that the KC-X rfuel offload at range requirement be at least that of the KC-135R.
So a very easy, clean way to deal with it is to reduce the max fuel uplift to ensure it does reach the balanced field performance….and hey presto you can look good and even better say you are not even reaching MTOW with full fuel…
Psst…for KC-X Boeing has INCREASED the 767’s fuel capacity. And as pretty much everyone is speculating to the same as that of the KC-135R.
Now the reality is that both the -30 and 767 are too big as KC-Xs…but as they are the only current game in hand the USAF is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
As I have said before, the KC-767 is more tanker than necessary for KC-X. BUT given how much emphasis is being placed on airlift capability I would not go so far as to say it is too big…
The KC-30 OTOH is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 but 110,000 lbs short of the KC-10 in fuel capacity. It is a large tanker without large tanker fuel capacity.
The current economic climate means that the KC-X will happen, but the follow on programmes are being poisoned, perhaps terminally by this selection process.
Agreed.
With that in mind….which airframe has the most potential?
The KC-767. It is the only one of the two with the potential to get the job done without BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in infrastructure imporvement. Plus because of its relative closeness in size to the C-135/707, the 767 has the potential to be the platform to replace all current C-135/707 based systems. And it leeves plenty of ‘room’ for a 777-200 or A350-900 based KC-Y.
Therein lies the real question…not the explicit KPPs and other static in the RFP…
No, THE QUESTION is which of the two most closely matches the requirements & which will have the lowest TLCC…
pfcemLet’s assume that there are receivers that can accept more than 120gpm… they were present in the inventory in the first round (no 1200 gpm requirement) they were in the inventory in the second round.. (again no 1200 gpm requirement). So questionning its appearance is logical… doubly so when you, as a tenderer know its a requirement you do not currently meet… but hey.. you know best.
Thus why Boeing guestion WHY 1200 gal/min was the chose number rather than something HIGHER.
Are you able to understand English.. questionning the need…are the words.. not ‘asking for a reduction’…
BOEING HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE NEED FOR 1200 gal/min! It has HAS questioned WHY 1200 gal/min was chosen and pointed its inconsistency with the the explination give as to why.
As I said.. the KPP can be matched and exceeded….the KC-30 can do even more…it might be relevant or desirable.. or not…but its not BS..
You are missing the point. THE KC-767 DOES NOT REQUIRE RUNWAY LENGTHENING! It MEETS THE OBJECTIVE of offload as much or more from a 7,000′ runway than the KC-135R can from 10,000′. In the 1st two rounds it was CLEAR that exceeding the other offer is NOT desirable & in the 3rd it is only ‘relevant or desirable’ IF the offers are within 1% of each other in adjusted price.
And the MTOW of the KC-30 is what? Compared to that of the 767.. Try to keep up and compare apples to apples…
KC-30: 513,000 lbs
KC-767AT: 412,000 lbs
non-AT KC-767: 395,000 lbs
BUT for BOTH the KC-767AT & non-AT KC-767, a full load of 202,000 lbs is still BELOW its MTOW where as the KC-30 with a full load of 246,000 lbs is essentially at its MTOW.
In order to get MAXIMUM FUEL LOAD (202,000 lbs at take-off) from the non-AT KC-767 requires ‘just’ ~385,000 lbs take-off weight. For the KC-767AT ~390,000 lbs. BUT for the KC-30 to get MAXIMUM FUEL LOAD (246,000 lbs at take-off) requires ~511,000 lbs take-off weight.
Do you SERIOUSLY not understand how much ‘easier’ it is for a small airfiled to operate ~385,000-390,000 lbs take-off weight vs ~511,000 lbs take-off weight? By the way, with ‘just’ 202,000 lbs of fuel at take-off (which WOULD NOT be enough to match the fuel offload of the KC-767) the KC-30 would be ~467,000 lbs take-off weight.
Oh.. old chestnuts again.. you have banged on about how little fuel is offloaded historically, illustrating that even 135s often do not approach MTOW…so historically is entirely probable that both 767 and -30 will operated below MTOW.
Or to be a tad more rigorous compare ACNs at comparable weights.. either in terms of actual lbs… or percentage of MTOW or even, perish the thought in terms of actual lbs of fuel off loadable at the planned distance, based on actual mission data.
You will find.. or not as the case may be, that this alters the ACN/PCN issue….Thus balanced field issues are a more problematic issue than ACN/ PCN ones…once you compare apples to apples.
For ANY given weight of payload, the KC-767 has a lower ACN than the KC-30.
THERE ARE NO BALANCED FIELD ISSUES! BOTH MEET THE OBJECTIVE!
***
How will changing the Boeing offering from the mish mash combination (the -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear and cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flightdeck and flaps) to the 767-200 change the performance offered in the previous round?
As far as I am aware, Boeing have not stated which they will be using.I can only assume these changes degrade the performance.
The non-AT KC-767 has plenty of performance (for those who like to do such things compare T/W ratios, wing loading et cetera vs the KC-30). But with the -300F wing is slightly more efficent AND the -400ER flaps & engines provide better runway performance.
pfcemNOT aircraft carriers but carry aircraft.
Israeli Sa’ar 5 class corvette (1200 tons).
They even have a hanger.
Ecuadorian Esmeraldas class corvette (685 tons).
Sign In
