For an aircraft which is equal in size to the F-15C, but which is almost 7t heavier the larger internal fuel load is somewhat meaningless in comparison.

The ‘meaning’ is simply to put into perspective how much fuel the F-22’s internal capacity is.

The F119 is certainly not optimised for cruise efficiency either.

Yes it is. Supercruise at >Mach 1.5…

But I know what you mean, the F-22/F119 is not as efficent at high subsonic cruise as the previous generation F-15 & F-16 with F100 or F110. The F119 is ‘optimized’ towards combat efficency rather than ferry efficency.

Yet I believe the 1600 nm figure is related to maximum range on internal fuel. Back in 1997 I have seen a stated 1730 nm figure for the F-22, though it was certainly an estimation.

1600nm could very well be in the ballpark for the unrefueled ferry range of the F-22 with internal fuel. BUT Cola1973 is comparing that number (accurate or inaccurate as it may be) to the unrefueled ferry range of F-18C with three external tanks.

LOl, here we go again, ahahahaha…

Here’s F22’s and F15’s data. Plain and simple and this source puts F22’s ferry range, at even lower 1500nm. F22(~11.9t fuel) has 1600nm with 8 missiles, F15(~11.4t fuel) has 2400nm (I guess without missiles), but even if we put 8 missiles on F15, do you really think F15 will loose 800nm of range?? I mean, are you that dumb, LOL???
Further, I used F15 configuration without FAST packs and with 3xtanks, to get approximately similar fuel load. If I used 2xFAST packs and 1xtank, the difference would be even larger.

You have very poor reading comprehension.

Do you even know what greater than means? Or that much of the F-22’s performance data is still classified?

The F-22 has ~28,690 lbs of fuel with two 600 gal drop tanks (certification for four tanks was dropped as a cost saving measure but the plumbing is there for four). The F-15C has ~25,515 lbs of fuel with three 600 gal drop tanks.

F35 in combat load as you stated and with ~8.3t will have radius of ~590nm and F16 with similar ordnance load and external fuel for a total of ~6.3t has ~740nm combat radius.
Do I need to comment more?? LOL.

Err…The F-35A’s combat radius with internal fuel is 626nm. Just as I said, the F-16 needs three drop tanks to do that.

But if 626nm is not enough the F-35A can add two 420 gal drop tanks – [note I am not saying this is how it works, just putting it in very simple terms so that you MIGHT understand it] even using the somewhat inaccurate ‘rule of thumb’ 50% loss for external tanks that should bring the combat radius of the F-35A up to ~720nm (at a more realistic 40% loss it is ~740nm).

Where/how/LOL, did you get the idea the idea that F35 has longer combat radius than F16, then??

From the USAF, the DOD, LM, et cetera

LOL, what was that babbling about anyway, then. 😀

Asking you a simple question since you appear unable to respond to anything I say but instead come back with some BS out of your rear end that I did not say.

LOL, assuming again, eh?? Look, I don’t care what do you think. Read runway PCN measurment and ACN-PCN allowances/overload procedures, before posting your next comment on the topic.

I would ask you to do so but you are obviously incapable of understanding it.

…and you know that?? how small??

Varies.

Ah, some strong claims, again.
I could easily respond “Where as a fleet of KC-767s operating from small airfields with PCNs below its ACN ‘overloads’ them at unacceptably high rate.”

Ok, do you actually know the number of daily allowed ACN overloads, for a certain runway/PCN, or is it just more babbling??

You are so hopelessly lost you are not even making sense.

You don’t say, LOL. And military, doesn’t?? What kind of dribbling is this, LOL??
That Swedish airfield with PCN 50F (from my recent post) operates A330 normally and no one looses sleep over that. I don’t know how many landings of A330 they daily have, but surely more than one fighter airbase with 1 or 2 tankers.

Thanks for once again demonstrating your ignorance. The US does not operate 1-2 tankers per airfield.

LOL pfem, we’ve been here 2/3 pages ago.
Ok, to keep story short, that may be true or not it doesn’t matter, but based on that you claimed 767 to be better tanker than 30! Are you insane?? hahaha
I’m sure we can find a suitable PCN to prove KC130 is “better” tanker than KC767, but what kind of stupid argument is that, LOL??

Seriously, what are you smoking?

LOL, if it was “A” and not “D”, nothing. 😉

KC-767 (based on “D” ACN/PCN) can operate from that airfield with a ~75,000 lbs payload. The KC-30 with only a ~40,000 lbs payload. 🙂

You see, just as I said from small airfields with low PCN (in this case it is the “D” subgrade that REALLY gets you) the KC-767 can operate with a greater payload (& corresponding greater fuel offload at range).

LOL, they’re getting higher, hence reopened tender (current KC-45 has some different numbers than orig. KC-30) and this whole KC-X in the first place.

The “reopened tender” is because the KC-X Sourse Selection Team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation.

Thus far the only requirement ‘increase’ is now the requirement for the boom to offload at a maximume of at least 1200 gal/min. The fuel offload at range requirement is still that of the KC-135R from a 10,000′ runway.

KC-X is KC-45 & obviously we don’t know that that will be yet.

Otherwise, USAF would be driving 135s, forever.

The KC-135’s don’t need to be replaced because of lack of fuel offload at range…

With 777 entering the contest, some certainly appealing opportunities opened for USAF and I wouldn’t be surprised if 777 wins in the end. Yes, EADS may find it’s “lucky” PCN, but only KC-50 (A350) would stand a real chance. Raptors need to be fed and that’s all that matters.

No, 777 has ZERO chance of winning KC-X. KC-Y possibly but as I said before, I believe a tanker based on the A350-900R would be the best of current known platforms – but then again who knows what Boeing will come up with to possibly/likely replace the 777 by the mid-2020’s when it comes time for KC-Y (rumer is the USAF is eyeing a Boeing BWB)…

***

if sidetracking the discussion bothers you, then post the file

oh wait, sidetracking the discussion is your whole goal, lol

No, sidetracking the discussion is YOUR goal. Instead of discussing the content of what I have posted, you continue on with the BS double standard. I suppose if I were to cite a book as a source you would be demanding a ship you a copy.

sure i did

LOL

Your continued attempts to rewrite history will not work on me.

To use a sports analogy, you are ignoring who called the plays.

where is the title or when it was released or who created it?
where is a simple description of the document?

Post #123.

F18C’s range is > 1800nm.

Very good. Now try not to be such a fool & compare the F/A-18Cs unrefueled ferry range to its air-to-air combat radius.

But the point is you claimed that the F/A-18C’s range is “about 200nm more than F22“, which is complete BS because the F-22’s unrefueled ferry range is not anywhere near 1600nm, it is MUCH greater.

Just consider this…The F-22 has ~28,690 lbs of fuel with two 600 gal drop tanks (certification for four tanks was dropped as a cost saving measure but the plumbing is there for four). The F-15C has ~25,515 lbs of fuel with three 600 gal drop tanks. The F-15C’s unrefueled ferry range with three drop tanks is >2500nm (~700nm greater than the F-/A-18C).

Nobody who KNOWS just how much greater is going to say as it is still classified. 😀

Is it now…

See, it was not suggested that USN felt Typhoon’s “threat” and so demanded the E/F.

What was MORE than suggested was that it was the Eurofighter Typhoon’s supposed range that so demanded the F/A-18E/F. The Eurofighter Typhoon had NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.

As per FAS.org :- “As the F/A-18C/D empty weight increased the aircraft were returning to the carrier with less than optimal reserve fuel and/or unexpended weapons. The additional range and “bring back” is not as essential to shore based operations.”

Thus, it’s low range was the primary reason why it was seen necessary to build f-18 e/f.

No, THE reason for the F/A-18E/F was for a low cost/risk replacement for the A-6 (not the F/A-18) since the US government was not willing to accept any more cost/risk after the cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II.

See, an engine of higher thrust will be more economical than a similar sized engne of lower thrust. If F-18 C/F can reach supersonic only after turning the afterburners on, the Typhoon can do it without. Interpolating it further, even in the subsonic regime, an F-18 C will need much more thrust than a Typhoon to reach the same speed, under the same conditions. More thrust –> more fuel consumption.

Not thrust. The F/A-18 & Eurofighter Typhoon are two quite different aircraft.

Hence the Typhoon manages much greater range even though Typhoon and F-18 C have nearly the same fuel (give or take a few gallons and a few leaks) . It is no wonder then that the F-18 C has been relegated to the US Coast Guard only, for it’s remaining days.

What are you smoking? The F/A-18C is still operating from USN carriers & will continue to do so for decades to come until the entire fleet is replaced by F-35Cs.

The MiG-35 too has had to have 172 kN thrust, to make up for it’s fuel shortfall of 4,500 kgs (about 500 kgs less than Typhoon). It’s larger avatar — like the F-18 E/F is to F-18 C — is the Su-30 MKI.

Dream on. Greater thust is no needed for greater range. More fuel &/or better fuel effeciency &/or less drag is what is needed for greater range.

***

The Luftwaffe fact sheet states that the Typhoon has an internal fuel capacity of 6,125 litres/1,618 US Gallons, and as Scorpion82 already mentioned the NATOPS flight manual for the F/A-18 credits the C model with an internal fuel capacity of 1,589 US Gallons. The same figure can also be found here in this document (page 24) –

http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/library/dcpubs/aviation/TO00-1105E-9Seg20Ch21.pdf

This removes any ambiguity over different fuel types being used and confirms that the Typhoon has a greater internal fuel capacity than the F/A-18C.

Not unless you can explain how it is that source is correct & all others are wrong. I am talking about many, many sources over many, many years.

When I say that the F-18C has a fuel capacity of 1700 gals, that is the conclusion from the dozens of sources that I have seen over more than a decade.

***

Actually, F18C has a range (~8t of fuel, FF=0.74) of ~1800nm and that’s about 200nm more than F22 (FF=0.6) at ~11.9t of fuel.

The F-22’s range is >1600nm. Nobody who KNOWS just how much greater is going to say as it is still classified.

1) Pfcem, civilian A330 doesn’t take off at reduced weight, because it isn’t cost/effective and the company would sooner send smaller plane than suffer direct looses due half-filled airplane, LOL. If the airport states it can accept A330, this means it can handle its MTOW as well.

Not at airfields with PCN’s lower than its ACN at anywhere near tanker operations tempo.

Airfields generally charge fees to cover the ‘life loss’ doing so causes to the pavement & even at that there is a limit as to how low you can go & how often/what rate you can do it.

2) Care to back up your comment on F22/F35 range?? 😀
In the interest of public, the ranges I used for F-15/16/22/35 are cross referenced on several sites including manufacturer’s and operator’s (USAF).

Very simple. Just look at the combat radius requirements (there are no range requirements & any ‘range’ number you see given for thre F-22 &/or F-35 is a completely made up number with no relation to reality – ‘range’ is >2x combat radius) for the F-22 & F-35. The F-15 can not meet the F-22’s combat radius & the F-16 can not meet the F-35’s combat radius radius requirement without three drop tanks.

Well since it’s pretty obvious you know sh1t about aircraft (and physics/mathematics in general), I though you’re maybe a good manual laborer and you’ll know your way around concrete and laying pavement down (PfCeN :D), but apparently you know sh1t about that either, LOL.

I know more about aircraft (and physics/mathematics in general) than there is time to explain (which you wouldn’t understand anyway).

You don’t have to be an expert on concrete OR laying pavement down to understand ACN/PCN.

Pfcem, is there anything you really know (and I mean anything)?? Maybe we could adapt, or translate more complex texts for you, so you could participate in our discussions, of course to the best to your abilities.

You don’t even understand the simple answers I have given you (or you do & are deliberately ignoring/misrepresenting them since it debunks the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid you are on).

***

i don’t see a link to that pdf anywhere

I gave you MORE informantion of the source than you & other have given to some of yours. If you want the pdf so bad, I have given you MORE than enough information for you to be able to find it yourself. I am NOT going to spood feed you your EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid.

you’re all about suppressing information that counters your position instead of trying to counter it with better information

I am not suppressing any information & there is NOTHING in the CAS/EADS-NA study that counters my position. Quite the opposite, I am using the study’s own figures to counter ITS position.

until you are committed to an OPEN, truthful debate, your ‘contributions’ will remain pointless

It is not I who am not committed to an OPEN, truthful debate.

saying ‘my source is a pdf that i have and you don’t neener neener neener’ just reaffirms how petty and immature you are

If you were informed as you make yourself out to be, you would already have the pdf (&/or all the relavant information contained within it – the only thing it ‘adds’ that other sources do not have is the inclusion of slightly higher MTOW KC-767 & KC-330) & if you don’t I have given you MORE than enough information that you SHOULD be able to find it yourself.

and even on other stuff, i’ve watched you and you’ve used the phrase ‘i have give my sources countless times’ far more often than you have actually given your sources

That is an outright lie & you know it.

***

True, but then again military generally operate concrete runways, for which KC-30 makes just under or within 5% of PCN 50 tolerance, at MTOW.

Which DOES NOT mean that the KC-30 can operate at near MTOW from PCN 50 airfields at any kind of operational tempo in any kind of sustained operation. There is a HUGE difference between a couple/few periodic take-offs & landings & even low tempo tanker operations.

Now, I don’t know how many such airfields are there and how those have been dispersed over possible theaters of operations, but USAF apparently thinks enough, since initially chose KC-30.

You have a vivid imagination.

Finally, Boeing introduced its larger 777 into competition, which is a clear sign that PCN 50 isn’t an issue, but the amount of “hungry” Raptors is.

Boeing is “introducing” the 777 into competition to trump the “bigger is better” BS (& remind fools like you what a true large tanker is). It still intends to win the contract with the 767.

1. Is this summary of facts correct?:

2. Boeing smaller but needs longer runway

3. EADS bigger but needs shorter runway

4. EADS has cargo capacity

5. Cargo capacity may or may not be useful

6. EADS will lift more fuel

7. That extra fuel may not be needed now

8. That extra fuel may not be needed ever

9. USAF moving to an (even) more expeditionary model so future fuel requirements are tricky to predict

10. EADS and Boeing both have a number of airframes (of varying ages) which might be better suited for conversion to the role

11. Boeing US-owned so money will stay in US hands if they win

12. Boeing would keep open an existing production line

13. EADS will build new facility if they win

14. EADS facility might be used only for assembly

15. EADS facility may be used for future EADS civil aircraft

16. No firm figures available on US jobs secured by either proposal

17. Neither finalised on having drogues or not

18. So we don’t know whether either will support USN and/or other friendlies

19. Some Boeing employees are implicated in corruption wrt first round

20. USAF not getting involved in some bonkers PFI scheme

21. PfCEM has found a document with a couple of lines which support his(?)
favoured solution and lots(?) which don’t

22. PfCEM has quoted from said document but is not prepared to post it or a link to it

Any FACTUAL corrections or omissions?

Al

1. No. Just a list of comments by you. 🙂

2. The KC-767 is smaller & can operate from any runway a KC-30 can.

3. The KC-30 is bigger & heavier than even the USAF’s current larger tanker, the KC-10. As long as the airfield PCN is greater than ~50 (& the runway is ~6000′ or more) then a single KC-30 can offload more fuel at range than a single KC-767 from a given length of runway. BUT reguardless of the length of runway, if the airfield PCN is less than ~50 then the take-off weight of the KC-30 must be reduced to the point where the KC-767 can actually offload more fuel at range than the KC-30.

4. Both the KC-767 & the KC-30 have cargo capacity. The KC-30, being a significantly larger & heavier aircraft, has more. BUT the KC-767 has more cargo capacity than what is being required for KC-X.

5. Cargo capacity is useful. BUT KC-X is a TANKER 1st & a cargo hauler 2nd.

6. See #3.

7 & 8. We do not even utilize the full fuel capacity of the KC-135R & even though better planning & improved tanker operations efficency will very likely increase typical/average per sortie fuel offloads in the future, the current typical/average per sortie fuel offloads are so comparatively low that even if increaced by 50% (even DOUBLED), the KC-767 would still have enough fuel offload capacity for the VAST majority of the sorties & for the small % of the time where it is not is what the large tankers (KC-10/KC-Y) are for.

9. Moving to a more expeditionary model: true.
So future fuel requirements are tricky to predict: only in terms of the exact amounts.

10. Not true.

11. More than 85% of the KC-767AT is US content/workshare vs less than 58% for the KC-30. For the estimated $35-40 billion KC-X developement & procurement contract that results in $9.45-10.8 billion more US content/workshare with the KC-767AT.

12. True.

13 & 14. A FINAL ASSMEBLY facility.

15. True. BUT the Boeing MANUFACTURING & ASSMBLY facility will be used for future Boeing civil & military aircraft.

16. Depends on what you consider ‘firm’…

17 & . False. Both designs have BOTH a boom & hoses.

19. One Boeing employee (Sears) & one USAF/DOD employee (Druyun). Their unethical/criminal conduct was discovered & exposed BY BOEING, which lead to criminal prosecution for both & IG investigation into the entire tanker lease which uncovered screw-ups by the USAF/DOD in its rush to get new tankers 6 years earlier than the previous tanker recapitalization roadmap.

20. I do not know exactly what you are referring to here.

21 & 22. I have found & linked to MANY documents which support my comments. As for the ONE document you are referring to, I gave the title of the document, when it was released, who created it for/in conjunction with whom & for what purpose. I could done what so many others do & simply posted the figures from it with NO indication where they came from.

***

To tell the truth, I’m not all that in that tanker business, but hey,” no day like today to learn something new” and the first three documents I’ve encountered (of which I’ve posted two) state pretty clear that KC-30 is superior to KC-767 in more than just one aspect. I mean, they aren’t even close overall.

It is sad that you are so ignorant & so easily fooled.

The only role in which 767 comes closer is tanker and that’s because Boeing overloaded the airframe with fuel, to meet USAF’s demands and not because it was designed for that weight from the beginning and that’s why 767 has trouble with takeoffs and I won’t even get into handling in the air, but I suspect it’s even more problematic, which may have led to loosing previous three (correction FOUR, thx swerve) tanker contests to KC-30.

Boeing DID NOT overload the 767 with fuel. With a full load of fuel the KC-767 (unlike the KC-30) is well below its MTOW & 767s have been operating commercially at near MTOW for DECADES.

The 767 has no trouble with take-offs & handles better in the air (& on the ground) than the A330.

So, KC-30 factually is superior in all aspects to 767 and the rest is just, well, looser’s crap and catching the straws from Boeing side, but pfcem even managed to conclude, >>> that 767 has higher fuel offload than 30<<< LOL, in spite official documents which put ’30 some 36,000lbs in front of 767, at the same range.
I mean this is kind of argument I can’t parry and I doubt not even EADS’ constructors can, neither. 😀

Al. here, gave a good overview of the topic.

Quite the opposite. For the requirements of the KC-X the KC-767 factually is superior in most/all aspects.

Do you REALLY have such poor reading comprehension OR are you deliberately misrepresenting what I have said?

***

except that even his cherry-picked charts show nothing of the sort

for all runway lengths shown, KC-30 > KC-767

you can try to extrapolate some sort of crossover point, but those graphs weren’t linear so that’s a very dangerous thing to do

It is not runway length, but PCN…

Again, the infamous RAND ‘Analysis of Alternatives’ & CAS/EADS-NA study (I even posted the figure showing it) both stated such!

***

Previous four selections, actually: Australia, UK, Saudi Arabia & UAE.

NONE of which have anywhere near the requirements of the US.

This is no argument, at all, Pfcem, LOL.
Well then, maybe USAF should switch to KC-130, since it has even lower PCN requirements. LOL, it doesn’t even need a pavement!
767 wouldn’t be able to take off from dirt runways at all, hence KC-130 has even larger fuel offload than 767, doesn’t it?!

We have KC-130 for those very reasons. But that is only a small portion of the US’s tanker needs so we have comparatievly few of them.

Or hey, let’s just put a million (and carrier capable at that), KcF-18 in the air and we solved the problem. I mean just imagine the sortie rate for LO KcF-18 from a carrier. 767 can’t never hope to match it.
Man, this sounds so good, I think USAF/USN should put this plan into action immediately.
ROFLMAO, pfcem…

We have F/A-18 “buddy tankers” too…Also a small portion of the US’s tanker needs so we have comparatievly few of them.

But what is REALLY not an argument is the BS that the KC-767 can’t take-off from shorter runways. The TRUTH is that it can & not only that but (even ignoring ACN/PCN like EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers do) as the length of runway shortens the payload (& corresponding fuel offload at range) advantage of the KC-30 gets LESS & LESS. Add to that the reality that airfields with shorter runways have lower PCN & you actualy reach the point where from many airfields the KC-767 can actually operate with a greater payload (& corresponding fuel offload at range) than the KC-30. For the 3rd time in THIS thread, the infamous RAND ‘Analysis of Alternatives’ & CAS/EADS-NA study both stated such!

This isn’t an argument at all, since KC-X has been designated to service modern/future USAF fleet. But I guess US budget would welcome 767 as a gap filling measure, wouldn’t it?? 😀

And legacy assets will be a significant portion of the future USAF fleet for decades to come.

LOL, pfcem !! Compare range and fuel carried for F-15/F-16 and F22/F35. 😀

F-22/F-35 greater range & fuel carried. 🙂

LOL, like you know what USAF meant and what didn’t!
Again, no argument here on your part, just fanboy assumptions.

Bottom line, it doesn’t even matter. If KC-30 pushed the KPP threshold, good for them and USAF recognized that and took the opportunity.

It is spelled out for all to see in the requirements!

The KC-767 EXCEEDES the fuel offload at range THRESHOLD (in fact the KC-767AT even exceeds it from a 7,000′ runway – which was an OBJECTIVE) & the last solicitation was unambiguous that proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective.

LOL, on what does the EADS base it’s claim KC-30 can offload more fuel at 1000nm then??
Give me a straight answer here. Did the EADS’ lie when said KC-30 has more offload capability than 767, in the document I’ve posted earlier??

I have already explained this to you TWICE!

LOL, here we go again. You already used that crappy argument about 3 or 4 times, so is that all you got??

I realize how reality gets in the way with what the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid is telling you.

LOL, thanks. I didn’t even checked this out but if true, than this 767 is even more screwed than I thought.

How so?

The truth is it completely debunks your BS.

LOL, here we go for the third time. EADS could have take Beluga, cram it with fuel and have higher fuel fraction than 767. However, this is not the way to design a tanker, although I can understand your fanboy pov on the subject.

What you also don’t do is take an aircraft that is bigger & heavier than the KC-10 but with 110,000 lbs [30.9%] less fuel capacity (& ‘only’ 44,000 lbs [21.8%] more than the KC-135R) & claim it is a good replacement for the KC-135.

Let’s conclude.
Pfcem, all you’ve managed to offer is ZERO (0) arguments and the stuff you posted here, is merely xenophobic babbling, LOL. But that’s alright just chat(ter) away. 😀

Quite the opposite.

***

lol, so basically you’re afraid that if people saw the full uncensored document, they would realize how full of it you are

let me translate: ‘relevant figures’ = ‘only parts that could even slightly be interpreted as being positive for the KC-767’

your dishonesty is truly boundless

if the other information in the document is wrong, you shouldn’t have any problem shooting it down . . . right?

Not at all. Aside from the higher MTOW KC-767 [210,000 lbs fuel load] & KC-330 (KC-30) [257,000 lbs fuel load] variants there is nothing in the document that has not been stated by others.

It just happens to have those nice figures which demonstrate my point so well (a picture is worth a thousand words).

I especially love how you call actual facts as being “positive for the KC-767”. 🙂

***

Good to see that you are keen to ensure all the possible documents for a coherent argument are available.

What you are trying to say is that you found a large document supporting the KC-30, but its all irrelevant other than the parts that support your argument.

Not at all. Aside from the higher MTOW KC-767 [210,000 lbs fuel load] & KC-330 (KC-30) [257,000 lbs fule load] variants there is nothing in the document that has not been stated by others.

It just happens to have those nice figures which demonstrate my point so well (a picture is worth a thousand words).

For some bizarre reason you still believe that the USAF will run the much larger KC-30’s with the same mission offload as the KC-135.

No, what is bizarre (actually no it isn’t) that you & others so ignor the COUNTLESS times I have stated the exact opposite.

But what the historical numbers DO show is that the US does not use anywhere near the full capacity of the KC-135R.

The figures show that the average offload of both the KC-135 AND the KC-10 works out at around the same % of total fuel available.

What does this mean? It means the USAF can work out that it can offload more fuel from a larger tanker.

What is shows is that even large tankers don’t use their full capacity. It completely debunks the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid that the KC-30 will magically use its full fuel capacity.

Using your figures, you are saying that in times of war, more than 50% of tankers offload more than 70-75% of their max offload? Compared with only around 50% of their max during peacetime.

The figures say no such thing. In fact the numbers actually say that the per sortie fuel offload remains much the same. The big difference between peacetime & wartime is simply the tempo of operations.

***

And the not so hidden costs of the tankers:
http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/09/28/daily44.html

Hm, Northrop Grumman defeats Boeing. Boeing considering a protest… Some kind of trend? :rolleyes:

There is nothing in that article (or ANY others on the matter) which indicates Boeing is actually considering a protest. Just commentary by the author.

***

Basically Pcfem is saying the KC-30 supports believe anything Northrop Grumman and EADS tell them even when it’s not true. They will follow the KC-30 is the best argument no matter what. This sounds a bit like Pcfem with his KC-767 is the best talk. Pcfem STOP DRINKING THE KOOL AID. lol:D;)

Correction. There is a group of KC-30 supporters which have a cult-like acceptance of anything pro-EADS/KC-30 &/or anti-Boeing/KC-767 even after it has been shown to be false or misleading.

What i find that favours the KC-30 is it won the last time.

But it DIDN’T actually win. The KC-X Source Selection Team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. The Boeing offer met more requirements, was found superior in more & higher valued requirements AND was the lower cost bid (even under the flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation methodology).

The lease deal doesn’t really count as a competition.

This is the kind of rewriting of history that EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have to resort to so that the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid appears to be accurate.

The A330 is also winning on the commercial front against 767. i know the 787 is taking the 767’s place but the A330 is still regarded as a world leading aircraft with more room for future development where the 767 is seen as being at the end of the road.

More EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid.

The 767 & A330 are NOT direct competators in the market. The demise of the of the 767 is all about the market (ever increasing numbers of passengers but great difficulty & cost to increase the number of flights) & the Boeing decision to replace it with the (larger) all-new 50% composite 787, NOT the A330.

Airbus decided to go with a less risky route with the (composite skin but still metal frame) A350 to replace the A330. But the A350 is much more targeted at the 777 than the 787.

The fact the seems to be missed is that the KC-X, Y and Z are all meant to be the same aircraft so it is important to find the best aircraft to replace the KC-135 and KC-10 and it to also be good at hauling cargo as the cargo fleet is cut. We may well see a different aircraft being purchased for the 3 tanker replacement sections depending on the outcome of KC-X and how well the aircraft picked performs and how the deliveries go and costs end up.

No, the KC-X, KC-Y & KC-Z are each to be a DIFFERENT aircraft! The KC-X & KC-Z (& you are smoking something REALLY raunchy if you think KC-Z is going to be based on any airframe operational today) are ‘medium’ KC-135 replacements & the KC-Y is a ‘large’ KC-10 replacement.

On a separate issue i feel that Boeing seems to just be running on products it inherits from companies it buys and doesn’t seem to go to much effort to develop items itself.

You don’t know much about Boeing products then. Yes it has products that it has ‘inherited’ from buyouts (F-15 & F/A-18 in particular) but the bulk of its products (& profits) are its own developed.

If Boeing really wants this order and the future KCY and Z it could spend some money developing an aircraft that offers the US air force a huge leap in capability and that is cheap enough for them to purchase. According to Boeing they know what they Air Force wants so they should be able to deliver an aircraft that is a clear winner over anything else out there.

The 767 is the best platform for KC-X (something a bit smaller would be even better but nobody is offering such). The 777 is the best currect platform for KC-Y (although by the time KC-Y comes around something like the A350-900R [increased MTOW A350-900] will be).

The biggest problem with your comment however is that the US governement wants comparatively low cost & low risk existing commercial platform based tankers, not expensive & risky cutting edge clean sheet designs.

Unlike, Airbus/EADS, Boeing has shown a willingness to tailor a product specifically to what the government asks for in the RFP.

Also about the Fuel offload numbers that were posted are these just the off load or do they include what the tanker used its self? if they are just off load they can’t be used to prove anything.

It is just the amount of fuel transfered to receivers & it shows how much fuel is actually needed (which is comparatively small amounts of fuel transfered to comparatively large number of receivers).

For all we know the aircraft may of been flying distance and staying in the air for hours using the spare fuel for them selves. This is what i see future combat tanker duties being like. you will have an aircraft that will be in the air for hours on a track providing lots of fuel but also using lots of fuel it’s self. It will then transfer the remaining fuel to the next tanker going to the track. the idea of 24 hour tanker coverage for different tracks is how things are going and have been for a while. For Iraq and Afghanistan the tankers are going round a track and anyone who needs fuel goes to these tracks in the sky tops up and goes back to it’s mission. The tankers there fore stay until they are empty or until the are relived and in the future will pass there fuel to the next tanker so they go home empty.

Quite the opposite, the intent is to improve efficency by having tankers that can operate from smaller airfields closer to the refueling points/tracks so that the tankers waste less time & fuel not refueling recievers.

See, F/A-18 C weighs nearly the same as the Typhoon, while carrying the same or slightly less internal fuel than Typhoon’s ~5,000 kgs. I’m of the opinion that Typhoon approaches 5,000 kgs because it has also been corroborated by Toan, whose estimate is close to 5,000 kgs.

However, the above is NOT the matter of concern, because both jets are nearly matched in empty-weight, internal fuel capacity and external payload.

F/A-18C
empty weight: 23,050 lbs (10,455.4 kg)
internal fuel capacity: 1,700 gal (6,435.2 L) ~11,390 lbs (5,166.5 kg) [JP-8 @6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5]
F/A-18D
internal fuel capacity: 1,621 gal (6,136.2 L) ~10,860 lbs (4,926.1 kg) [JP-8 @6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5]

Eurofighter Typhoon
Scorpion82 is the only one to have posted to an ACTUAL official source so I will use the numbers from it.
empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,250.6 lbs)
internal fuel capacity: 6,125 L (1,618.0 gal) ~10,840.6 lbs (4,917.3 kg) [JP-8@6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5]

difference
empty weight: 1,500.6 lbs (680.7 kg) lighter F/A-18C
internal fuel capacity: 82 gal (310.2 L) ~549.4 lbs (249.2 kg) [JP-8 @6.7 lbs/gal, add 1.5% weight for JP-5] more fuel F/A-18C

However, the F-18 C had 160 kN of thrust (same proportion as Gripen’s 100 kN for 7 tons empty-weight), whereas Typhoon has 180 kN of thrust with supercruise ability. Thus, Typhoon manages greater range than the F-18 C; hence the US Navy thought it better to transform the F-18 to a 14 ton fighter with 196 kN thrust (exactly twice that of Gripen), but with increased internal & external fuel.

The difference in engine thrust has NOTHING to do with the relative range of the two aircraft.

The F/A-18A was built to a set of design requirements & it met or exceeded the range requirements & 1st flew in Nov 1978.

The Eurofighter Typhoon was built to a very different set of design requirements & 1st flew in Mar 1994.

The USN had NOTHING to do with the greater size & weight of the F/A-18E/F (aside from its role in screwing up the A-12). Neither did the Eurofighter Typhoon. The F/A-18E/F is what the USN got stuck with after the cancellation of the A-12. It was a ‘low cost/low risk’ A-6 replacement.

See, we must not calibrate to the last gallon or pound. As mentioned above, both the F-18 C and Typhoon are matched in empty weight , internal fuel and external payload. It is Typhoon’s larger thrust and supercruise ability that gives it higher range — and thus better performance — than an F-18 C. It was this that made the US Navy demand the F-18 E/F.

No, the F/A-18C is LIGHTER than the Eurofighter Typhoon (you can debate the relavance of the difference but the F/A-18C is LIGHTER) AND has a GREATER internal fuel capacity than the Eurofighter Typhoon (you can debate the relavance of the difference but the F/A-18C does have a GREATER internal fuel capacity).

The relative range of the two aircraft has NOTHING to do with their relative thrust ratings.

The USN did not demand the F/A-18E/F, it got stuck with it after the cancellation of the A-12 & had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Eurofighter Typhoon IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER!

Please stop this nonsense! The F/A-18C is NOT a contender for MMRCA & NOTHING about it (or even the F/A-18E/F) has ANYTHING to do with the Eurofighter Typhoon. The F/A-18 is primarily a carrier-borne strike aircraft with a sencondary air-to-air capability (which 1st flew in 1978), the Eurofighter Typhoon is primarily a land-based interceptor with a secondary air-to-ground capability (which 1st flew in 1994).