pfcemIf the KC-767 ticks more ‘tanker’ boxes, then clearly the KPPs and KSAs are bol.locks.
So now even the requirements/criteria as changed so the KC-30 could compete (or rather NG/EADS would compete – they clear stated they would not compete unless they were convinced they would win) that I don’t recall any EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers winning about being anything but vaforable towards the NG/EADS bid were “bol.locks”.
Of course EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers just can not see (or if they do flatly refuse to recognize) the fact that the Boeing offer was a much better offer that met all the key requirements, many more non-key requirements, was assesed by even the now exposed to be anti-Boeing KC-X Source Selection Team as being superior in far more requirements, inferrior in far fewer requirements and who’s superiority was mostly more in the higher priority requirements & who’s inferirity was mostly in lower priority requirements.
You only have to look at NG’s tricksy ‘spider web’ drawing to get an initial inkling as to KC-45’s obvious superiority (its tricksy and irritating but fundamentally accurate, and then you have to bear in mind the following:
You only have to do a little bit of research to find how inacurate that spider chart really is & how it does not reflect real world tanker operations.
1) The KC-45 lifts more fuel, from shorter runways. That means more fuel to give away, more time on station, and an ability to use more runways.
Doesn’t matter in the real world. The KC-X reguardless of whether KC-767AT or KC-30 will not offload anywhere near its maximum capability the vast majority of the time.
But if it is KC-767AT it can operate from more airfields closer to the refueling points/tracks due to it smaller size (footprint) & lower weight (ACN) and runway performance good enough to meet the requirements (even according to the KC-X Source Selection Team). That means more booms in the air to meet the peak demand & more effective/efficiant operations even when not at peak demand due to each tanker burning (wasting unecessarily) less fuel from a more efficient platform operating from airfileds closer to the refueling points/tracks.
2) Airbus’ boom is proven (albeit on a 310MRTT), Boeing’s new-tech boom for the USAF KC-767 isn’t. Not anywhere near.
EADS’s boom has yet to transfer fuel in flight from an A330/KC-30.
Boeing’s new boom is a 6th generation developement of the 5th generation boom already in service on Italian (soon to be) & Japanese (3 officially operational with the 4th due later this year).
3) Airbus’ underwing pods are proven, the 767 WARP is proven only to be in massive trouble (see the Italians).
Actually according to reports from Australian sources Austrailia is experiencing similar (although not as severe) problems with its wing pods.
And you can bet Boeing would have solved the pod issues much quicker on a program for 179 tankers vs on for four tankers in which the customer nation wanted to do much of the work on itself (the Italian KC-767s are converted from ‘green’ 767s to KC-767As by Aeronavali – much of the delay has been do to having to fly the aircraft back & forth to Boeing for work that Aeronavali is/was unable to do).
4) The Airbus tanker mission system is tried and tested. The mission system for the USAF KC-767 is not. Not anywhere near.
What “tanker mission system”?
5) A host of traditional Boeing customers have looked at the KC-767 and said no-thanks, opting instead for the Airbus……
:rolleyes:
Because it’s the better tanker.
No it isn’t, just a bigger/heavier one that may fit some nation’s needs quite well but not the US.
We could all write a batch of KPPs and KURs, KSAs and the rest that could favour an inferior aircraft. Write the requirement the right way, and Typhoon would be a shoo-in over the F-22. Just emphasise unit price, make a helmet sight a go/no-go item, and weight connectivity heavily and the Raptor would struggle to look good.
LOL
Really grabbing at staws now aren’t we. 🙂
Sorry but the requirements/criteria were altered to accomodate the KC-30 & EADS made it clear they would not even compete unless they were convinced they would win so you BS about the requirements/criteria favory Boeing is complete BS.
Just as long as you didn’t look at the overall, overview of role suitability and mission capability.
You have it backwards. When you look at the overall, overview of role suitability and mission capability the KC-767AT is clearly superiory. It is only by overstessing the view spacific areas that the KC-30 exceeds the KC-767At while ignoring that that excess does not translate into real world superiority &/or that there are very significant costs (not just $ cost) to that excess.
***
so you admit the USAF did all the work?
it was a USAF group selected by the USAF made up of USAF personnel (with some select representatives of the other branches)
the only time it went outside that was for FINAL APPROVAL, where they signed off on the USAF’s decision
LOL
Nice try.
But if you were half as informed as you want others to believe you would know full well it did not work that way.
***
Australia are long-time 707 tanker operators and are very enthusiastic customers for the C-17 and Chinook.
Saudi Arabia have E-3s, KE-3s, and RE-3s, plus various Boeing jetliner types. And 120 or so F-15s.
The UK are long-time E-3 operators, and are happy customers for Chinook and C-17. When the RAF looked at alternative tankers, the 767 was widely expected to be the favourite – and when the A330 and A310 proved so clearly superior it came as a major shock.
Had Boeing had a half-way decent tanker, all three air arms would have bought it ahead of an Airbus that was merely ‘equally good’.
None of those countries have tanker requirements anywhere near that of the US.
As I have said many times, the KC-30 may very well be the right choice for smaller Air Forces with significantly less stringent requirments then the US.
And don’t be such a fool as to beleive that politics did not play a role in any/all of those ‘selections’.
pfcemIt would imply that the F-22A, 100nm on SC are by far too small a figure?
Again, 100nm is just part a “Mission 1” radius requirment, not the actual capability of the F-22.
“Mission 1 radius requirement
300nm subsonic cruise
+
100nm supercruise
+
20 min combat
+
100nm supercruise
+
300nm subsonic cruise.
pfcemi thought i had grown tired of your lies, but then you trot out yet another stupendously stupid claim
You are the one lying, not me.
true the team made the decision, but who created the team? who made up the team? who had authority over the team?
that’s right, the USAF
No, not the USAF. The SecDef…
you act like they were victims with zero input over the process. in reality they had FULL CONTROL.
No, from the cancellation of the tanker lease & the creation of the new competition control was taken away from the USAF.
about the original team:
LOL.
See the GAO ruling to see just how much ‘expertice’ there was in the KC-X SOurce Selection Team.
however, considering the issues they had last time, Gates is considering STRIPPING authority from the USAF for the NEXT RFP
however even if authority is stripped from the USAF they will definitely have a say
YOu are confusing who is tasked with actually doing the work with you is directing & overseeing the work…
which service? the USAF
whose team? its team . . . the USAF’s team
That is the way it is supposed to be but not how it was done.
so you’re saying that the responsibility was at a lower level IN THE AIR FORCE last time?
For KC-X contracting responsibilities and oversight were moved to the SefDef. Which the SecDef then delegated.
The “USAF” was still tasked with doing the work but under very strict contracting responsibilities and oversight by the SecDef.
***
You should stop drinking that Boeing kool-aid.
KC-767AT
98 discriminators
01 weakness
KC-30
30 discriminators
05 weakness
(plus the GAO ruling takes away a number of KC-30 discriminators & adds a number of weaknesses)
“with regard to the overall evaluation of the key system requirements subfactor, the RFP stated that “evaluation of the offeror’s proposed capabilities and approaches against the SRD requirements will be made in the following descending order of relative importance: KPPs, KSAs, and all other non‑KPP/KSA requirements.” RFP sect. M.2.2.1.1.c.“
“the record shows that most of Boeing’s evaluated “major discriminators” in the aerial refueling area were assessed under KPP requirements, and conversely most of Northrop Grumman’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under less important non-KPP/KSA “requirements.”
Although the record thus evidences that most of Boeing’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under KPP requirements, and conversely most of Northrop Grumman’s evaluated “major discriminators” were assessed under less important non-KPP/KSA requirements,[45] we have found no document in the contemporaneous evaluation record that shows that the SSAC or SSA gave any meaningful consideration to the weights that were to be assigned to the various KPP, KSA, and other requirements. That is, the SSAC’s briefing slides to the SSA and its PAR do no more than identify the SRD requirements for which the evaluated discriminators were assessed, but do not evidence any consideration of the descending order of importance assigned to these various SRD requirements.”
pfcemHence the USAF evaluation stands. Period.
No, hence the GAO not sustaining that item of protest does not mean that the GAO agrees with it. If Boeing had protested IFARA on grounds other than that the agency (KC-X Source Selection Team) did not include the required real world “insights and observations” it may very well have been sustained.
Can you make even less sense?
I’ll repeat it for you : Cannot conclude it meets the requirement != Conclude that it doesn’t meet the requirement.
Simple boolean logic, the GAO ruling does not say anything about whether the KC-30 could physically meet the requirement or not.
Satisfying a trade space objective is not the same as reaching 100% of this objective.
No, in procurement law an offer is to be assumed to not meet a requirement until it has reasonably been reasoned that it does meet the requirement. Thus the KC-30 is to be assumed to not meet the requirement since it has not reasonably been reasoned that it does meet the requirement.
The 767 (in any incarnation) cannot take off from a 7000′ runway at MTOW. That’s a fact, I even provided Boeing’s own reference documents. As the KC-767 won’t have a new gear/braking system, it’s physically impossible for this plane to reach 100% of the objective.
The 767 (in any incarnation) with a full load of fuel is well below its MTOW.
But what you & others have done so well of skirting the issue is that the only thing that matters is that the KC-767AT is able to meet the fuel offload requirement from a 7,000′ runway. It does not need to take off at MTOW to do so.
And even if it did; it won’t change the fact that for a given runway the KC-30 will always be able to carry a larger payload.
Not true. For many runways the limiting factor will not be length but PCN/ACN).
It will burn less fuel doing that (>5% fuel burn difference at equal mass).
Not.
In the most favorable mission profile the A330-200 burns an average of 417 gal ((2794 lbs) more fuel per hour than the 767-200ER. And the more efficient wing of the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT should increase the difference!
The A330-200 has a maximum range of 6,750nm on 36,745 gal (139,090 L; 246,192 lbs) of fuel. The 767-200ER has a maximum range of 6,590nm on 23,980 gal (90,770 L; 160,666 lbs) of fuel.
Now in both of the above the aircraft are at near MTOW where as in real world tanker operation neigher will but the KC-30 starts off with a ~80,000 lbs weight disadvantage & a significat drag disadvantage due to is significantly larger airfame (fuselage & wing) and due to both burns more fuel carring the same payload the same distance.
It will require less maintenance (A check every 800 hours vs 600 for the 767).
You should do better research. A check interval for the 767 is at 500 hours. For the A330 it was only just recently (announced 17 April 2009) improved from 800 to 600 hours.
It will be cheaper to procure (because Boeing is greedy as hell while EADS desperately want to break into the US military market).
No, because Airbus is (& has been known to) willing take a loss on the procurement side of an order to ‘steel’ an order from Boeing & make up its losses elsewhere in the program.
And that isnstead of tell the US govenement what it should take like EADS, Boeing is much more so tailoring its offer specificly the the requirements thus Boeing’s KC-X offer has higher SDD costs.
It will keep improving at a faster PACE because there are more engineers at Airbus working on the A330 than at Boeing working on the 767 (see the recent increase in MTOW, maintenance intervals, engine performance package).
The A330 needed that increase in MTOW, maintenance intervals, engine performance package.
Yes, the KC-767 can be parked on less area and burns less fuel if you fly it almost empty.
Correction…the KC-767AT can be parked, taxied, maintained, operated, et cetera on less area and burns less fuel from empty all the way to MTOW &/or from no payload to maximum payload even when the payload is the same.
Apparently, that hasn’t convinced any of the airforces where it has been pitched again the KC-30 (UK, Auistralia, UAE, Saudi Arabia and USA).
None of them have the same requirements as the US. Perhaps if they too had a requirement for hundreds of tankers & the desire for both a medium tanker & a large tanker they too would require/choose something smaller/lighter than the KC-30 for their larger number of medium tanker & something heavier (although not necessarily larger or even if larger not much larger) for their smaller number of large tankers.
The USAF adjusted its requirements to meet Boeing 767 limitations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/redacted_oig2004171_shaded.pdf
“February 2001 – E-mail series: Roche, Sambur, Druyun discusses ways to fake competition“
“In late October 2001, the Air Force began to develop an operational requirements document for the tanker tailored to Boeing KC-767A tanker aircraft capabilities even though it had not performed an analysis of alternatives to determine whether the Boeing KC-767A was the preferred solution to the tanker replacement issue.“
Yes, even prior to 9/11/01 the US DOD/USAF had determined that the KC-767 best fit its requirements & that leasing tankers so that it could get much desired/needed new tankers three years earlier than could be developed & procured.
Although the crooked lease deal was cancelled, the KC-X RFP was based on these biased requirements.
No they are not. They are/were both based on the same previouisly determined requirements.
As the USAF agreed with this analysis and adjusted its RFP accordingly, I’d say this LOL just demonstrated your lack of clue.
LOL to your ignorance that the KC-30 does not need to dump fuel. There are safety regulations that require fuel dumping!
***
Err… the RFP is pretty clear as to what the USAF required ….afterall they have been working (with help from Boeing) on the spec for it for years.
Err… The RFP was very clear as to what the USAF required (before it was forced to change it to accomodate the KC-30 that it had already rejected for not meeting its requirements) & they had been working (with help from both Boeing & Airbus with reguards to commercial platform expertice) since 1996.
pfcemI have read the GAO report several times and in their conclusion they are at pains to point out that it should not reflect on the merits of either aircraft.
Thats right. The protest the GAO was ruling on was a protest over the selection not the offers. It wasn’t “as to the merits of the firms’
respective aircraft”, it was as to the merits of the Agency’s (KC-X Source Selection Team) selection.
Also the majority of Boeing complaints are thrown out in the report,
No they were not. See the post ruling HASC hearings where the GAO specificly addressed that piece of BS.
the major issue I can see is the dive and breakaway performance of the KC30 which didn’t meet KPP, on the other hand Northrop Grumman had proposed a solution for the development phase and the test team accepted it. The GAO’s issue with that is the solution would possibly (only possibly) require FAA certification which would bring in risk into the program and the airforce should of accounted for that. The GAO didn’t say that the Airforce sholuldn’t of selected the KC30 on this basis.
No, the GAO ruled that the Agency (KC-X Source Selection Team) was unreasonable in its determination that the KC-30 met said requirement. That NG/EADS’s promise to make changes to the KC-30 that NG/EADS believed would allow it to meet said requirements is insufficient reasoning to determine that the requirement had been met.
Just as above, it is not about whether the KC-30 could or could not meet the requirement but that it was wrong for the Agency (KC-X Suurce Selection Team) to have assessed that said requirement had been met.
***
The report says alot of things to alot of different people as PFCEM proves.
What it says to me is that both offers meet the requirements although the NG exceeds more (but not all) of them than the Boeing.
No, the reports says exactly the opposite. That the Boeing offer in fact met more requirements & was superior on more (& higher priority) requirements than the NG/EADS offer.
But the Agency (KC-X Source Selection Team) did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation.
My reading of it is that the airforce chose the a/c because they thought it was better but, but that they hadn’t specified it and that is what the GAO are pulling them up on.
Not the Air Force, the KC-X Source Selction Team. The Air Force was not in control of the proccess.
pfcemDid it sustain this part of the process or not?
If not, the USAF evaluation stands. Period.
Since you flat out refuse to do a simple task & read what the GAO ruling…
The GAO did not sustain Boeing’s protest on IFARA because Boeing’s protest on IFARA was that the KC-X Source Selection Team did not include real world “insights and observations” in its evaluation. Obviously the KC-X Source Selection Team was able to convice the GAO that it did.
You’re the one who doesn’t get it.
The threshold requirement was that the aircraft should be able to take off from a 7000 feet runway with at least 1 gallon of fuel. That’s a ridiculous requirement.
No, the THRESHOLD was:
3.2.1.1.4.1 The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules.
The OBJECTIVE was:
3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules.
And according the the Agency (KC-X Source Selection Team) report & as quoted by the GAO in its ruling “both Boeing and Northrop Grumman satisfied“.
The KC-767 cannot take off from a 7000 feet runway at MTOW, see http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf.
At MTOW, a 767-400ER needs 10000 feet (for all purpose the KC-767ADV offered was a shortened 767-400ER, if you want to argue it’s closer to the 767-300F fine, it still needs 9000 feet).
The 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is not a 767-400ER nor is it a 767-200ER or 767-300F. Again, read the GAO ruling &/or the KC-X Agency (KC-X Source Selection Team) report.
And they couldn’t bring new documentation.
BS. They were encouraged & even on occation requested to!
Reading comprehension failure. Cannot conclude it meets the requirement != Conclude that it doesn’t meet the requirement.
Time to go back to school.
Read the GAO ruling. The GAO said that failing to reasonable justify that the KC-30 met the requirement means that the KC-30 did not meet the requirement as it is the default that an offer has failed to meet a requirement until it can be reasonably justified that it does meet the requirement.
Reality does hurt if that’s your only answer.
An airplane 10 years newzere being better cannot happen if it’s not made in the US I guess.
The reality is that the A330-200/KC-30 is more expensive to maintain & burn more fuel per mile/hour.
The A330-200/KC-30 is not 10 years newer than the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT. Remember what the Kool-Aid says “the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is a paper airplane that has not even flown yet“.
Tankers are not airliners. Whether the KC-X is a KC-767AT or a KC-30 the vast majority of the time it will offload the same (comparatively small) amount of fuel on each sortie.
Which is why the fact that NG offered the birds at more or less the same price as Boeing is relevent. There would have been he same amount of tankers with either choice.
No what is relavent is that with the existing infrastructure you can not operate KC-30s from as many airfields as you can KC-767ATs & you can not operate as many KC-30s from each airfield as you can KC-767AT.
This was made clear when the USAF ran the KC-30 & KC-767AT in CMARPS & the KC-30 could not even complete the evaluation missions! Thus requiring that the CMARPS model data be altered from reality in order for the KC-30 to be able to complete the evaluation missions.
At a lower pace than the A330. It’s simple logic.
But the A330 is not at a lower price.
On the commercail airline market 767-200ERs retail for ~$120 million, A330-200s retail for around $160 million.
Because the USAF deleted most of the original requirements of its later tanker study when the KC-767 couldn’t fill them (like offloading more fuel than the platform it replaced…).
You are confusing RFPs…
And it was not that the KC-767 could not meet them, the USAF made it clear that it was confident that the KC-767 would meet all its requireemnts but that in order to facilitate getting new tankers (through a lease) three years earlier than what could be done through normal development & procurement, the requiremnts for the 1st 100 lease tankers were relaxed so that the lease could procede with what was essentially the same KC-767 varient as the Italian KC-767A. It was always the intient that a “full spec/capability” USAF varient would be developed during the time of the lease. Also note that not being required to meet some desired requirement does not mean that it doesn’t meet said requirement.
Wrong (again). Fuel dumping is made to lower the aircraft until it can land safzely. The A330 can land safely at MTOW, hence no fuel dumping is needced.
LOL
pfcempfcem has allowed his passion for the (perceived or actual) injustices of the (stalled) procurement have blinded him to the weakness of argument strong on insult and weak on verifiable facts.
I have zero to very little knowledge on this procurement. From this forum debate jackonicko’s case appears much stronger. What frustrates ME as an onlooker is that pfcem’s may be factually correct but I CANNOT TELL FROM OR POSTS DUE TO THE WAY YOU HAVE ELECTED TO CONDUCT THEM.
Read the GAO ruling.
If that is not enough to convince you, read the (KC-X Source Selection Team) Agency report [but when doing so remember what you read in the GAO ruling].
pfcemHmmm. Typical of your ‘facts’. It’s a claim, and it’s wrong!
KC-30 MTOW 233,000 kg (KC-45 will be within a whisker of this!)
C-17 MTOW 265,000 kg.
Nice try.
MTOW is the weight of the aircraft plus as much payload as it can carry & still take off. OPERATIONAL EMPTY WEIGHT is the weight of the aircraft (for which the KC-30 & C-17 are essentially the same being <2% difference).
But what really matters (more so than weight) is ACN. In which case even with its greater MTOW, the C-17 is less restrictive.
A330-200
ANC-F: 61.5 – 66.7 – 77.7 – 105.1
ACN-R: 52.2 – 61.1 – 73.4 – 85.6
C-17
ANC-F: 49.6 – 56.2 – 67.2 – 89.2
ACN-R: 51.0 – 49.3 – 53.6 – 65.7
The KC-45 can operate from a 10,000 ft balanced field carrying a full 111 tonnes of fuel. The KC-767 needs 12,000 ft to carry 92 tonnes.
You can repeat that lie as many times as you like, it is still an outright lie.
No, you wouldn’t, because you can’t demonstrate what isn’t true.
Absolutely I would.
It’s not short runways, it’s 10,000 ft runways. It’s bases like Mildenhall, Fairford and Brize Norton. Their ‘short’ runways can take a fully laden KC-45, but not a max weight KC-767. FACT!
The KC-767AT met the requirement to be able to operate from a 7,000′ runway.
Numbers at an airfield, perhaps, but parking is cheap to provide, whereas extending runways to allow a 767 to take off with full fuel is not.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
No PFCEM, It’s the absolute truth. Boeing were horrified when asked to provide data for a 10,000 ft balanced field length for the RAF and requested 12,000 ft. When told that 10,000 ft was the requirement, they confirmed that the KC-767 would have to operate with just 77 tonnes (170,000 lbs) of fuel.
Sorry, don’t believe that for a second. If it were true there is no way it could have met the Italian, Japanese or tanker lease requirements (which were for a 8,000′ runway) much less the more strict KC-X 7,000′ requirement which it did meet.
Name them. Name airfields that can allow a KC-767 to take off safely, with full fuel, which a KC-45 can’t lift just as much fuel from. I’ve listed the three main tanker bases in the UK which can accomodate a full weight KC-45 but which a KC-767 would have to offload fuel to be able to use. Name a main tanker base where the KC-45’s wingspan or ACN would be a show stopper.
airfields with greater than…
A C N – F: 48 – 54 – 66 – 87
A C N – R: 44 – 52 – 62 – 71
… but less than…
A C N – F: 61 – 66 – 77 – 105
A C N – R: 52 – 61 – 73 – 85
OR
…have the space to operate for an aircraft 159′ 2″ long &/or a 156′ 1″ wingspan but not one 193′ 7″ long &/or a 197′ 10″ wingspan.
Boeing clearly don’t think there are any, since they’re now proposing the 777 – even bigger, dimensionally, than an A330.
Quite the opposite. Boeing identified 451 of the 1643 as being so.
And no, Boeing is not proposing the 777. It is saying that it is prepared to offer the government the best platform to meet the requirements. Requirements for longer range and more fuel offload = 777. More flying from forward air bases and tactical flexibility = 767.
Brize Norton, Mildenhall and Fairford. The three main tanker bases in the UK. None can operate a KC-767 carrying 92 tonnes, according to the RAF’s FSTA selection team.
LOL
Complete invention. EADS offered the A330 to the USAF because it gave a quantum leap in capability, whereas the edge offered by the A310 was marginal. Whereas the A310 offers greater fuel to offload when operating from a 10,000 ft balanced field, the A330 offers more fuel to offload across the board.
No it is not invention. It is the reasoning Airbus/EADS gave for not proposing the A310. The A330 is not a quantum leap in capability. It is simply a bigger/heavier (way excessive for KC-X) aircraft. The KC-767AT exceeds the KC-X fuel offload & airlift requirements and as was clear & unambiguous in the KC-X solicitation there is no value for the KC-X in exceeding the requirements beyond what the competing offer does. In the real world even the KC-767AT’s full fuel offload capability will extremely rarely (if ever) be used much less the KC-30’s.
But it’s a cold hard fact that operating from a 10,000 ft balanced field, the A310MRTT gives more fuel to offload than the KC-767, which has about the same fuel as a VC10 K3. And that’s not BS, it’s fact, and I’ve provided the real world sortie profile figures that PROVE it.
More than the Italian & Japanese KC-767s with ‘just’ 160,000 lbs of fuel capacity but not the KC-767AT with its 200,000+ lbs fuel capacity, -330F wing & landing gear, -400ER flaps & engines…
***
The requirements aren’t set in stone.
They should be.
All this crap of changing requirements/criteria to accomodate a tanker the USAF has rejected has cost way too much time & money already.
There are minimum requirements which must be met, whatever the formal requirements are, but either of the contenders, & some aircraft not offered (e.g. the A310MRTT, if it was still available new-built) can do the job. The question is only how well.
There are requirement THRESHOLDS (minimum acceptable) that must be met & there are requirement OBJECTIVES that do not have to be met but which the solicitation identifies positive value in meeting but there is no positive value in the solicitation for exceeding OBJECTIVES beyond what other competing offers do.
There are also KEY REQUIREMENTS which must be met & there are NON-KEY REQUIREMENTS that do not have to be met but for which there is positive value in meeting.
Among the key reasonings for the GAO sustaining Boeing’s protest is that the KC-X Sources Selection Team gave NG/EADS ‘extra credit/positive value’ for exceeding OBJECTIVES that Boeing had met or exceeded AND it did not give Boeing any ‘extra credit/positive value’ for meeting far more NON-KEY REQUIREMENTS than NG/EADS did.
Boeing has been lobbying to get the formal requirements drawn up so as to make the 767 a contender, & failing that, the 777. It’s worth their while spending a lot on that, as there’s a lot of money to be made if it succeeds.
Boeing has been doing no such thing.
***
Indeed it isn’t. But the size issue is used again and again against the KC-45, and it is often assumed that, as a larger aircraft, the A330 would require more runway than the smaller KC-767.
On the contrary, in the some 7 years this has been going on it has been exceedingly rare for someone to be so uninformed as to assume such.
In fact, the KC-45 enjoys some of the advantages you’d expect from the smaller aircraft – and the fact is that it can lift more fuel from a shorter runway (which will often mean a more forward airfield). That’s counter-intuitive, so its worth highlighting.
Completely ignoring the fact that the determining factor on whether an aircraft can or can not operate from a given airfield (especially in the case of the A330 with its excellent runway performance for its size) is the size (footprint) &/or weight (ACN) of aircraft that the airfiled can accomodate either at all or in sufficent numbers.
I would suggest that if the KC-767 meets the US requirement (and I’m sure that it does) then that requirement is not stringent enough. A tanker that can’t lift more than 77 tonnes from Mildenhall isn’t impressive.
LOL
I suspect that given a tighter requirement, Boeing could redesign the 767’s brakes and landing gear enough to significantly improve balanced field performance figures, and to erode the Airbus advantage. That would require investment, but would result in a better tanker for Boeing to export, and for the USAF to operate.
I guarantee that if the 767 required any further modification to improve its airflied performance that it would. The fact is that the KC-767AT met the airfiled performance requirements set for KC-X & those requirements were ‘tighter’ than any previous ‘medium’ tanker.
***
some talk, not of a split buy, but a double buy (combining KC-X and -Y and maybe -Z)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/172389.asp
which sort of ties in with what murtha is saying
Two problems with this idea.
1) Even if you combine KC-X, KC-Y & KC-Z into one single all-emcompacing program [not to mention one of the key seasoning behind the KC-X, KC-Y & KC-Z is for the government to have the opportunity to take advantage of advancements with each successive program] where is the KC-30 supposed to fit. There is a clear requirement for a ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement tanker optimized for ‘tactical’ opertions & some airlift capability from small airfields close to the refueling points/tracks [for which it can be argued that even the KC-767AT is overkill] & there is a clear requirement for a ‘large’ KC-10 replacement tanker optimized for long-range high fuel offload ‘strategic’ operations & significant airlift capability from large airfields. But nowhere is there any requirement for a tanker that is larger & heavier than the KC-10 that greatly exceeds the ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement tanker fuel offload & airlift requirements but despite its size & weight does not meet the ‘large’ KC-10 replacement tanker requirements. The problem with the KC-30 is that its capacity does not justify its size & weight.
It really is unfortunate that EADS has pushed the A330-200 for KC-X. A ‘beifed-up” A330 with the weights of the A340-300E [286,598 lb (130,000 kg) operational empty & 606,265 lb (275,000 kg) MTOW] with say 90,000 lb class PW4090s or GE90s could have a fuel capacity of 300,000 lbs & actually match or exceed the KC-10 at longer range fuel offload while offering notable size & weight benfits over the 777-200ER/777-200LR. But with the A330-200 proposed for KC-X it is hard to justify anyhting less than a 777-200ER/777-200LR for KC-Y.
2) It is very unlikely that with this administration &/or this (or similar) Congress that enough money would be provided for such a plan.
(basically accelerating the tanker program so you can retire older tankers earlier and ‘save’ on overhaul costs of the older tankers)
Yes it would save money in the long run but it is very unlikely that with this administration &/or this (or similar) Congress that enough money would be provided for two tankers a month much less three. And with a split, two tankers a month is still (if split evenly) only one tanker a month for each and BOTH Boeing & Airbus/EADS have indicated that they require a minimum of 15 per year otherwise their costs (obviously passed on to the governement) per tanker rises considerably.
pfcemAnd Boeing assembles 767 with parts from Japan, Italy… What’s the difference (expect that there are a bit more US parts in the 767)?
The difference is those parts of the 767 add up to only ~30% of the airframe vs 95+% (for all sense & purposes the entire airframe) for the Airbus A330s to undergo final assembly in the US.
Quote the part where the GAO sustains Boeing’s protest on the IFARA results.
I’m waiting (but you and I know you can’t because there is no such ruling).
I didn’t say the GAO did sustain Boeing’s protest on the IFARA. But it takes reading the ruling to understand its reasoning. Which is not because it agrees with the KC-X Source Selection Teams results.
Yes, you only have to lengthen runways. Oops, it’s almost impossible in the real world.
No you do not have to lengthen runways.
The KC-X requirements was that the aircraft has to be able to take off on a 7000′ runway without specifying the payload. That’s a ridiculous requirement that every plane can fullfill.
Your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers disagree with your sentement.
The KC-X objective was to be able to operate at full load from a 7000′ runway. The KC-767 can’t in any of its incarnation.
Nope. There would be so much less disagreement if you EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers would at least attempt to get your facts correct.
From the KC-X RFP…
3.2.1.1.4.1 The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules.
3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules.
The KC-767AT with a full load of fuel is still >20,000 lbs under its MTOW.
From the GAO ruling “The capability to operate from a 7,000-foot runaway at sea level at the aircraft’s maximum gross weight was a non-KPP/KSA trade space requirement, see RFP, SRD § 3.2.1.1.4.2, which both Boeing and Northrop Grumman satisfied. AR, Tab 55, PAR, at 21.” Like much of the selection & GAO’s ruling this is an item that EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker misrepresent. Both offers met the requirement. NG/EADS was assisted a ‘major discriminator’ on said requirement, not because it was the only offer to meet the requirement but because it met the requirement with a greater load of fuel.
They weren’t given the opportunity as the GAO based its ruling on the information provided during the RFP process. There was no “second chance” to present new information. The USAF did state in its filing that it felt that the informationprovided during the RFP process was enough. The GAO disagree and that’s it.
Yes there was. All parties were called in by the GAO on multiple occasions for just such purposes.
From the GAO ruling “At the hearing that our Office conducted in this protest, the Air Force produced its SSET mission capability factor team chief to testify regarding the agency’s evaluation of the capability of Northrop Grumman’s aircraft to satisfy this KPP threshold.“
The GAO ruling doesn’t say anything about whether the plane can or cannot meet the requirement, it’s a statement about the quality of the data provided by NG.
From the GAO ruling “From this record, we cannot conclude that the Air Force reasonably evaluated the capability of Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft to satisfy the KPP threshold requirement to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures. The contemporaneous record, as explained by the hearing testimony, does not establish that the Air Force understood Northrop Grumman’s response in discussions concerning its ability to satisfy the solicitation requirements, nor does it demonstrate that the agency had a reasonable basis upon which to accept Northrop Grumman’s promises of compliance.
Meaning that the KC-30 did not meet the requirement but NG/EADS “promised” that it could/would make changes that NG/EADS says could/would allow the KC-30 to meet the requirement. Unfortunately a “promis” from an offer is not, in the view of the GAO “a reasonable basis” upon to accept/determine that it meets the requirement.
Wrong again. The A330 cost less to maintain (it’s a newer design) and burn less fuel per pound of fuel offloaded.
LOL.
And the USAF estimated that both the KC-767 and KC-30 would require new infrastructure (no, the 767 doesn’t fit in KC-135 hangars, they’ll have to build new ones) and that difference for both would be marginal.
And the GAO disagreed with said sentiment.
Then why not buy KC-737?
Because even the greatest fuel capacity 737-700ER only carries 10,707 gal (71,737 lbs) of fuel with 9 auxiliary tanks. That’s at take-off, not what it can offload at any given range.
The argument that KC-135R don’t offload their full fuel load so wa can buy planes with less (like in the original lease agreement) is nonsense. In the military world you buy a plane for its performance when you need it the most, not what it can do on average.
We certainly could, but remember what was said of the tanker lease & that KC-767 variant’s inability to match the fuel offload of the KC-135R…
Something in between the 737 & 767 with a fuel capacity of ~130,000-135,000 lbs (fuel offload of ~100,000 lbs @ 500nm – my estimation) would be enough to get the job done the vast majority of the time with still some reserve. But it isn’t about just being able to meet the majority/average fuel offload now is it…
Besides, a more capable tanker will lead to change in tactics to maximize its use, the USAF would quickly adapt.
Except for that the greatest demand for tankers is not in the amount of fuel each tanker can offload but the number of booms in the air so as to be able to most effectively & efficiently refuel large numbers of aircraft. The average fuel offload per receiver is quite low (4,000-6,000 lbs IIRC).
No, from a technology improvement point of view, the 767 is dead. OTOH engine makers for the A330 have roadmaps for fuel efficiency improvements and Airbus keeps improving the plane performance (MTOW was raised recently by several tonnes).
LOL
Just because the 767 may not remain in production much longer does not mean that the worldwide 767 fleet will not continue to be updated.
Perhaps you did not hear, Boeing is even saying that its next offering may include GEnx engines. The 66,5000 lbs thrust GEnx engines proposed for the 747-8 would do quite nicely on the 767. 😉
No they don’t. The 767-400ER looks vaguely like a 777 but it doesn’t operate in the same way given that the 777 is a FBW aircraft.
Yes they do. The 767-400ER, 767-200LRF/KC-767AT & 777 share the same cockpit architecture (obviously not the exact same cockpit due to the fuselage size difference but many shared components & design).
Bringing the difference at a few millions over a multi-billions contract. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that a much smaller plane like the 767 would be offered as pretty much the same price as the larger A330? Even though the NG bid included the costs of setting up a new manufacturing plant. Do you find it right that Boeing tried once more to overcharge the USAF (and ultimately the US taxpayers)?
But it was a flawed/inaccurate calculation.
Boeing didn’t try to over charge the taxpayer, not duing the tanker lease (indepedent auditors concluded the price was fair) & not during the later KC-X solicitaion.
The KC-X RFP was tailor-made for the 767 so it doesn’t mean a thing.
It means everything.
Ever since the begining of the 1st solicitation (which was prior to 9/11/01) Boeing has made it clear that it is willing & able to provide the government with exactly the tanker it asks for. It has even said it could develope & propose an all-new tanker design for the next round.
EADS OTOH has made it clear that it is unable &/or unwilling to do so & that it will not even compete unless it feels what is ‘asked for’ fits what they are willing &/or able to offer.
Did you know that the first* RFP even specified the rate at which the plane should be able to dump fuel in case of emergency (a rate that was identical to the proposed KC-767)? Do you find such level of details to be consistent with a document that should be based on objective requirements?
Not at all. The USAF has been clear since even before 9/11/01 that something like the KC-767 is what it wanted (dare go so far as to say that the KC-767 is what they wanted). And why is it you assume that the RFP specification was (as you seem to be implying) was purposely set to that of the KC-767 & not the other way around, that the KC-767 specitifation was purposely set to that of the RFP?
(BTW NG rightfully got the RFP modified on that point, given that the A330 doesn’t have a fuel dumping capacity as it doesn’t need it)
Sorry, in the real world tankers do (on occation) require to dump fuel. And the rate is tied specificly to safety concerns.
*technically it wasn’t the first, the USAF had a document detailing its objective requirements but then spent several months with Boeing “tweaking” it, removing unnecessary requirements like having a larger fuel offload than the plane it was meant to replace (the KC-135)…
And the USAF was abundantly clear that it was confident that the KC-767 would meet all of its objective requirements but that it was ‘relaxing’ the tanker lease requirements in order to be able to get the new tankers sooner (driven to a large extect to retire its KC-135Es) rather than have to wait the additional time to develope a ‘full spec/capability’ KC-767 (which was still to have happened while the initial 100 tankers were leased & to be procured after the tanker lease).
pfcemYou make claims, but can’t support them.
I have supported my claims with facts. I (& others) have been debunking the lies & half truths of people like you concerning the USAF’s efforts to recapitalize its tanker fleet for some seven years. I have long since grown tired of constantly providing exact links/references to every single well established truth/fact.
You say that the A330 “doesn’t work for the USAF” and make vague claims that it can’t operate from forward airfields. You can’t name a single airfield where a 767 can take off where a KC-45 cannot, and you certainly can’t name an airfield where a KC-767 could take off with more fuel than a KC-45.
The A330 doesn’t work for the USAF because it is bigger & heavier than every aircraft if USAF inventory (bigger & heavier than the CK-10, the C-17 & the B-52) except for the C-5 & a handful of 747s. The USAF has clearly identified that it requires large number of ‘medium’ tankers to replace its KC-135s (not because the KC-135 lack the necessary fuel offload capability but because they are old & can not fly forever) that it wants to be able to operate from smaller airfields closer to the refueling points/tracks in order to maximize effectiveness/efficiency. And without having to spend billions of dollars upgrading the current infrastruction the KC-30 can not operate in sufficient numbers to meet the demand to refuel large numbers of aircraft.
I do not have a list of the 1643 worldwide airfields allowing tanker operations otherwise I would be more than happy to go through each & every one of them & demonstrate how it is the KC-30 can not operate from as many as the KC-767AT.
But…even Kadena AB, Japan (the largest Air Force installation in the Pacific region) requires significant upgrading/rebuilding is order to operate the KC-30 from the existing tanker operations areas.
In fact the opposite is true.
No it isn’t. You have this false ideal that there are all these airfields out there with short runways that can accompdate a 193′ 7″ long, 197′ 10″ wingspan, 513,670 lbs MTOW (61 – 66 – 77 – 105 ANC-F, 52 – 61 – 73 – 85 ACN-R) beast of an aircraft.
There are airfields that could ‘park’ more 767s than A330s, but that’s not the same thing, and pouring concrete for parking areas is cheaper than extending runway length.
Not just ‘park’ but move around & operate.
Not having to pour concrete for parking areas & taxiways is a lot cheaper & the KC-767AT does not require runway lengthening.
The argument about basing large numbers of tankers is another thing, but if you want to operate from smaller airfields, with shorter runways, the KC-767 does not cut it.
It more than cuts it. The KC-30 doesn’t. Despite its good runway performace the KC-30 is simply too big &/or heavy for many identified airfileds to accomodate (either at all or in sufficient number to meet the peak demand). If it did it would have bene able to complete the IFARA mission scenearios without having to alter the model data.
It isn’t BS. The KC-767 cannot operate, with full fuel, from a 10,000 ft balanced field length (it requires 12,000 ft, in fact). I am aware that the KC-767 is not the 767-200ER, so I’m talking about the KC-767. Simply saying “BS” and contradicting me does not cut it. The figures are clear.
The KC-767 could not operate from Brize, Fairford or Mildenhall with full fuel. The KC-45 can. Again, simply saying “BS” and contradicting me does not cut it. The figures are absolutely clear. And we could add plenty more – including the KC-767’s planned home in Italy!
When limited to a 10,000 ft balanced field at sea level (assuming ISA standard conditions and still wind), the KC-767A certainly can NOT carry a full load of 200,000+ lbs, it can carry only 77 tonnes (170,000 lbs). Again, simply saying “BS” and contradicting me does not cut it. The figures are absolutely clear.
Complete 100% lie.
We know it is a lie because 767s operate from runways shorter than your complete & utter nonsense of 12,000′ crap every single day & have for decades. And because if it were true the KC-767AT could not have met the KC-X runway operating requirements & if it didn’t the KC-X Source Selection Team & NG/EADS would have made a huge deal out of it. Instead the KC-767AT met the runway operating requirement.
The KC-767 (whether we’re talking about the Italian, the Japanese or the proposed USAF version) simply can’t do what you claim. It cannot operate with a full fuel load from standard NATO bases nor from an 8,000 ft runway. It’s not about the wing and engines, because it’s not about take off roll – it’s about stopping distances at high weights, and no 767 variant can stop quickly enough to allow it to carry 200,000 lb of fuel and stop safely on an 8,000 ft balanced field.
The Italian & Japanese KC-767s can operate with a full load of fuel (160,000 lbs for them ATM as they do not have the KC-767AT’s auxiliary fuel tanks) from a 7,700′ runway. They exceed their 8,000′ runway requirement.
Your claim is entirely incorrect. The KC-767AT did meet the KC-X runway requirement but it can NOT DO SO WITH FULL FUEL.
The KC-767AT met the requirement to be able to offload the required fuel @ range from a 7,000′ runway. In terms of the KC-X & what it is the USAF wants it to be able to do, that is what matters. And just like fuel offload, that the KC-30 can do better is unecessary excess.
And it is untrue that the KC-767AT did not meet the requirements with full fuel. There wasn’t even a requiremment to meet for full fuel. There was an OBJECTIVE (not THRESHOLD) for MTOW but, unlike the KC-30 which is very close to its MTOW with a full load of fuel, the KC-767AT with a full load of fuel is >20,000 lbs under its MTOW. In order for a KC-767AT to reach MTOW it would have to carry >20,000 lbs of cargo in addition to a full load of fuel.
You claim that there are regular tanker airfields that the KC-767 could use that, because of footprint or ACN, the KC-45 could not operate from, or that a KC-45 could only operate from with less fuel to give away than a 767.
Yes those are the facts. I know the truth hurts but the pain will subside once you have accepted it.
There are identified airfields allowing tanker operations that can not accomodate the KC-30’s 193′ 7″ length &/or 197′ 10″ wingspan &/or, 513,670 lbs MTOW (61 – 66 – 77 – 105 ANC-F, 52 – 61 – 73 – 85 ACN-R). Many of them were built around the KC-135 or even the B-52. And many of those civilian (as apposed to strictly military) airfields were also not built to operate aircraft as large &/or heavy as the A330-200/KC-30.
I’ve named three bases that the KC-767 can’t operate from with full fuel, the challenge now is for you to name this mythical mainstream tanker base that a KC-45 could not use. There simply aren’t tanker bases that do have the 12,000 ft + runways that a fully laden KC-767 would need that also have such weak taxyways or such narrow and constrained taxyways that a KC-45 could not operate from them.
No you named three airbases the KC-767AT can easily operate from. I am too lazy at the moment to check on what the three were but I do remember earlier when you named two & both of them can & do operate aircraft larger/heavier & with worse runway performance than the KC-767AT.
Again, you won’t be able to name a base where this applies, because there isn’t one.
Provied the list of 1643 worldwide airfields allowing tanker operations & I would be happy to name hundreds of them.
The point about the A310MRTT is that with five ACTs it can operate from shorter runways than the 767, and from a 10,000 ft balanced field can carry 77.7 tonnes of fuel (.7 tonnes more than the KC-767), and then burns less fuel when airborne. (It’s a better tanker than the 767, in other words).
No the point is that when EADS looked at the A310MRTT vs the KC-767 it determined that its 97,200 liters (36,000 from the five additional fuel tanks) or 25,579 gal or 171,379 lbs (77,737 kg) fuel capacity could not compete with the KC-767 which could (with auxiliary tanks) have a capacity of 30,000+ gal 201,000+ lbs of fuel. Which is unfortunate (escpecially given how the KC-767AT so exceeds the requirements) because the A310MRTT would make for a much better KC-X than the A330MRTT/KC-30 could ever hope to be.
Operating from typical tanker bases, the KC-767 offers about the same capability as a VC10 K3. Again, that’s not BS, it’s FACT.
No, it is BS. The VC10 K3 doesn’t even quite match the fuel offload of the KC-135R but the KC-767AT exceeds the KC-135R by >25,000 lbs or 500nm.
There are arguments for the 767, but operational capability and performance is not one of them.
On the contrary, operational capability & performance in the real world are among the best.
pfcemBut there is a little discrepancy between the liters and the gallons of -11%!
Nice catch.
Never really even looked at the liters. Appears who every wrote the thing used the wrong conversion factor for gallons to liters. Seems they knew the conversion was near four but the added the differences from four to get ~4.22 instead of subtracting to get the correct conversion of ~3.78. The fact that that error was not noticed & corrected just goes to show how little liters mean in the US with reguard to fuel capacity.
You can be assured that the gallons numbers are correct (they even used decimal points where are the liters are “rounded” to the nearest whole number). The noted discrepancy between the liters and the gallons decrease the F-22’s fuel capacity…If you convert the indicated liters to lbs you get ~23,000 lbs.
pfcemIt certainly isn’t ‘BS’ that runway length is the limiting factor in whether a tanker can or can not operate from a given airfield. It’s usually the most critical factor.
Yes it is BS. The limiting factor for newer more powerful aircraft is seldom runway length but the size (footprint) &/or weight (ACN/PCN) of aircraft they can realistically support.
Don’t confuse the KC-767AT or KC-30 with the comparatively underpowered & thus runway limited KC-135.
There are other factors, of course, and I’m glad that you raise the old chestnut of PCN/ACN. When the RAF did it’s evaluation of FSTA contenders it could not find one single NATO airfield that it wanted to operate tankers from where the Airbus loading was too high for existing runways and taxyways. Not one. And were this a factor, Airbus can offer a KC-330 with an extra centerline landing gear bogey. They expected to find fields where taxyway width limits (wingtip clearance) would be a factor and (guess what) couldn’t find one.
Good for the RAF that its standards for what airfields it wants to operate tankers from are so laxed.
But it was expressed in the KC-X solicitation (& throughout the KC-135 recapitalization effort – which began in 1996) the USAF’s desire to utilize smaller airfields closer to the desired refueling points/tracks in order to maximine operational effectiveness/efficiency.
Hangar width and height limits, and parking is another matter. Building new hangars is expensive, too, though pouring concrete for parking areas is not.
Of course the KC-767 will have advantages – and being able to fit -135 hangars, and being able to pack more of them into existing airfields are two of those advantages.
At least you are able to abmit that. Some EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers can not.
But when you come to operational capability, it’s all disadvantage and drawbacks for the KC-767.
While the KC-767A can carry 91.8 tonnes (202,000-lb) of fuel, given an unlimited runway, it cannot do so with 10,000 balanced field length – because of stopping distances, not because of take off roll.
When limited to a 10,000 ft balanced field at sea level (assuming ISA standard conditions and still wind), on a four hour sortie (landing with the equivalent of another hours flight time as a reserve) the KC-767A certainly can NOT carry a full load of 200,000+ lbs, it can carry only 77 tonnes (170,000 lbs).
BS. The KC-767AT can operate from a 10,000′ runway with a full load of 200,000 lbs. Again, the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT is not the 767-200ER.
Your claim that the KC-767AT can operate from airfields that the KC-45 can not (or can only do so at reduced take-off weight) is nonsense.
No, it is an undeniable fact. The KC-767AT has a significantly lower footprint & a significantly lower ACN. Both of which allow it to operate from airfield that the C-30 vcan not, eith due to its footprint or ACN.
The KC-767 could not operate from Brize, Fairford or Mildenhall (just as convenient examples) with full fuel. The KC-45 can.
BS.
You say that “EADS did not proposed the A310MRTT because it knew it could not match the KC-767’s fuel offload.”
WRONG! With a fifth ACT, the A310MRTT exceeds the 767’s fuel offload from a representative runway. EADS/NG did not propose the A310 because, though better than the KC-767, they did not believe that such a small tanker best met the USAFs requirement and aspirations. Just as the KC-767 does not!
Sorry, I will trust EADS over you.
Even with five additional fuel tanks (German A310MRTT’s emply four) the maximum fuel capacity of the A310MRTT is 97,200 liters (36,000 from the five additional fuel tanks) or 25,579 gal or 171,379 lbs (77,737 kg).
You say that: “The KC-767AT (hell, even the Italian & Japanese KC-767s) can lift more fuel load than is required from airfields even smaller & more limiting than one with a standard tanker base runway.”
It depends what you think is ‘required’. If the USAF is looking for no better capability than is offered by a KC-135, that’s true, to an extent. But from representative tanker base runways, on representative real world tanker sortie profiles, the 767 ends up with about as much fuel to offload as a VC10 K3.
No, the KC-767 ( the italian, the Japanese & the similar proposal for the tanker lease) are/were required to be able to operate with a full load of fuel from stander NATO bases. More specifically from a 8,000′ runway, which they exceeded with 7,700′.
Procuring a new tanker with about the same ‘real world capability’ as a VC10 in 2009 really is BS!
And who is proposing such a thing?
You ”bet a KC-777 loaded with ‘just’ the 246,000 lbs the KC-30 can carry would surprise you are to how short a runway it could take-off from.”
I do have a good idea of KC-777 balanced field length requirements, thanks, and when I was briefed on them I was surprised at the runway length required. And it really wasn’t pretty! The idea that the 777 can meet KC-45 balanced field length requirements is, to use your favourite phrase, “BS”.
I never said it would meet the requirement. Not at anywhere near MTOW.
The fact remains:
The A330 can operate from an airfield with a shorter balanced field length (with it’s full fuel load) than the KC-767 can.
That’s right, the ‘small’ KC-767A needs a longer runway to take off with 91.8 tonnes than is required by the ‘big’ A330 to take-off with 111 tonnes. The ‘small’ KC-767 can’t operate from a 9,000 ft runway WITH FULL FUEL, whereas a ‘big’ KC-45 can.
That means that the ‘big’ KC-45 can use more forward airfields closer to the towline, and will do so carrying full fuel. The ‘small’ KC-767 has less basing flexibility. That’s FACT, not ‘BS’.
No the fact remain:
The KC-767AT meet the KC-X runway requirement (thus even the KC-X Source Selection Team is/was convinced it can operate from a 7,000′ runway).
In the real world, modern airliners are limited in where they can operate by their footprint &/or ACN much more so than runway length. And the KC-767AT’s smaller footprint & ACN allows it to operate from airfield the KC-30 can’t and can operate in greater numbers from each airfield.
The problem you EADS/KC-30 Kool-aid drinkers have is you completely ignore reality & focus on far to simple ideas. Just because the KC-30’s excellent runway performance means that it can land at/take-off from shorter runways than its size (footprint) & weight (ACN) would imply does not mean that it can operate from any airfield that its runway performance indicates it can land at/take-off from. You also only make reference to the KC-767AT being different from other 767s when it suits your purpose of claiming it is riskier than the KC-30 but then completely ignore that a number of the differences improve its runway performance over other 767s – it has the wing, landing gear & engines of heavier 767 varients.
***
Peter G,
KC-Y & KC-Z have been switched. KC-Y is now to be the KC-10 replacement with KC-Z replacing the last KC-135Rs.
And planning on having more ‘large’ tankers (KC-Y) to replace the KC-10s makes it even less necessary for KC-X &/or KC-Z to have such unnecessary excess capacity (all the crap about greater capacity – that is what the ‘large’ KC-Y tankers are for) than if the plan was to keep the same number/proportion of ‘large’ tankers.
Current orders have the last 767 being delivered in 2012.
***
tiddles,
Actually you could take every other KC-30 planned for every other country & operate them together & still not have enough to truly realize how it doesn’t work for the USAF.
pfcemthe mental gyrations you go through truly are astounding
No mental gyrations, just a simple statement of fact.
hardly, airbus is perfectly capable of keeping all assembly in europe
We are talking about any assembly plant in Europe.
they aren’t the ones that need it, we are the ones that need it, it is a gift/bribe to us, not the other way around
We don’t need it.
which is already fully accounted for in your 85%
No it isn’t.
they’re only serious about it as an attempt to win KC-X
otherwise they’re perfectly willing to keep everything at home
In other words they aren’t serious. It is just as BS scam they need to run in order for their noncompetative tanker to look more attractive.
fine, call it whatever you want if it helps you deal with it
but whatever you call it, you still have to account for it
No I don’t. It is not a part of the $35-40 KC-X developement & procurement program.
and that benefit is completely finished once KC-X ends and the line shuts down
BS. Once the KC-X ends, that manufacturing & assembly plan is ready to work on the next program decides to utilize it for.
the airbus plant is a gift that keeps on giving
So does the Boeing plant. Only more so because instead of being just a final assembly plant it is a full manufacturing & assembly plant.
your narrow-minded view would be funny if it wasn’t so sad
You are just too drunk on EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid.
well, what else are they going to build on a 767 line?
once the 767 line finishes, the equipment will be scrapped and the workers will be dispersed throughout boeing
eventually they may use the buildings for some new project, but that new project is in no way dependent on the 767 line, they are completely separate. if anything, it might be hindered by lack of room because the old 767 line is hogging valuable space
What ever Boeing decides to build using that line & those workers. Most likely won’t be 767s but some new product utilizing 787 technology.
the 767 used to sell quite well. it doesn’t any more. where did the customers go? they went somewhere . . .
The customers didn’t go anywhere. They got the 767s they needed/wanted/ordered. There are a lot of 767s out there & the market segments the 767 fills just hasn’t continued to grow. The number of passengers grew but hadn’t grown to the 777 & Airbus reaped the benefits of having the A330 which fit inbetween the 767 & 777.
because it’s available now and the 787 isn’t?
Being available isn’t enough. It being available was enough the 767 would still be selling. It is not a time gap but a passenger/range gap.
are you trying to argue there will be more 767 orders in the future? that’s funny, you just said “I didn’t say additional 767s & you know it.”
More likely a new platform utilizing technology from the 787 but in a smaller airframe.
not that this is in ANY way related to the topic, but that’s incorrect. maybe you were comparing A330 DELIVERIES to 787 ORDERS?
A330 orders
———–
A330-200: 557
A330-200F: 65
A330-300: 399
total: 1021787 orders
———
787-3: 28
787-8: 627
787-9: 211
total: 866
I will have to see if I can find the numbers. Perhaps it was deliveries or perhaps the oders number I was looking at for the A330 was from an earlier year.
But even at that look at how many 787 order ther are already & it hasn;t even flown yet vs the A330 which has been in service for two decades.
a plant in the US?
I should have used a smilie. The point is that orders for 767 has nothing to do with a A330 backlog. And to get you to admit that Airbus/EADS needs that US assembly plant.
about as many as the 767 gets now
In other words an A330 assembly plant, once it is done assembling KC-Xs is of no benefit. Or are you now contradicting yourself & additting the reality that the 767 manufacturing & assemby plan has value beyong the KC-X…
***
B777 and B767 are 15 years apart technology-wise,
No they are not. Later 767s share much (including the same cockpit) with the 777.
The 767 today is not the same as the 1st 767 that ever flew.
have different engines and generally not too much in common.
Wow imagine that.
And the same is true for the dirrefent Airbus platforms.
Any reproaches against the A330-200 MRTT about being too big for the mission would count for the B777 even more.
Bingo. But if Gates insists of changing the requirements/criteria further to accomodate larger tankers, then being larger than the KC-30 allows the KC-777 to trump that which too many are fooled into thinking makes the KC-30 so great.
I would chose an existing design between both Boeing aircraft.
Wait, there is one: the A330-200MRTT.
No problem if the USAF follows a buy American policy, it is American money, so only fair if they shop Boeing. But technically and from the user’s viewpoint, the A330 is the better product.
No it isn’t.
***
The B767-400 was dead before born, guess why the B787 was born. Boeing hated the A330-200, because it dried the B767’s orderbook. The A330 will sell for another 5 to 10 years, finally as freighter. An established production system has the advantage of having very little non-recurring cost, Airbus can offer the A330 at half of list price and still make profit.
The A330-200 did not dry the 767 orderbook. A changing market with enough 767 delivered to fill the markets it competed in did.
At the moment, there is no B787 or A350 available before 2017ish.
Wrong. Customer deliveries of the 787 are scheduled for 2010. The A350 2013.
***
No KC-X contract: Airbus builds all A330F in Europe.
KC-X contract: Airbus builds all (minus 3 development frames) tankers in the US and all A330F in the US.
No, the US plant is only to be a final assembly plant. All A330 are to still be manufactured in Europe.
The 767 is dead. The A330 is going strong. As a freighter, the A330F will be the leader in its segment for a long time (see how Airbus continued to sell A300F or Boeing B767F long after orders for passenger versions had dried up).
Indeed, the model was far from perfect and parameters adjustments were made.
The 767 & A330 don’t compete for the same market segments.
The GAO did not sustain Boeing’s protest on these points so the IFARA results stand.
Read the ruling again.
Are you for real? Runway limitations are the #1 factor that limits aircraft operations.
Wrong. Most airfields have runways that can accodate larger/heavier aircraft than the rest of the airfield realistically can operate.
You can stregthen tawiways, builds new hangers and parking place but lengthening a runway is extremely difficult in most places as it has impact far beyong a base limit.
And I’d have thought that someone with a clue about aviation would realize that an unloaded C5 obviously require less runway that one at MTOW…
That costs money. With the KC-767AT you don’t have to do anywhere near as much infrastructure improvement as you do with the KC-30. And the point is that just because an aircraft can land at/take-off from a given airfield does not mean it can actually operate at/from said airfield.
Fact is, the KC-30 requires a shorter runway than the KC-767 at any given payload.
Fact is the KC-767AT exceeds the runway requirements for KC-X. The KC-767AT is also >20,000 lbs under its MTOW when taking off with a full load of 200,000 lbs of fuel. And the biggest point of all is that in real world tanker operations the KC-X, whether KC-767AT or KC-30, will offload significantly less than the max it is capable of during the vast majority of its sorties & much of the time it will be the same amound reguardless of of if it is KC-767AT or KC-30 thus the real world runway requirements are much relaxed from what is specified in the KC-X RFP as the KC-X will very very seldom operate anywhere near its MTOW (or with a full load of fuel).
Wrong. The GAO ruled that the USAF failed to document how it came to the conclusion that the KC-30 could meet USAF overrun procedures, not that the plane was unable to. Based on the GAO conclusion, you cannot say that the KC-30 cannot meet this requirement, only that NG failed to provide enough information about how it could.
So why couldn’t Airbus, EADS or the KC-X Source Selection Team convince the GAO that its assesement that the KC-30 could meet said requirement. They were given the opportunity to do so.
I’m willing to bet that once the KC-30B enters service in the RAAF, NG will gladly organize a real world demonstration of the KC-30 ability to meet or exceed all the USAF aerodynamic requirements.
But in order to have reasonably been selected for KC-X they had be able to provide reasonable reasoning that it could. They didn’t/couldn’t.
On what basis? Are you using oeing computation that compared fuel burns between the A330 and the 767-200ER even though their proposal was for a plane more than 100,000lbs heavier? Don’t tell me you fell for that one…
On the fact that the KC-767AT requires far less infrastructure improvement, costs less to operate (including buring significantly less fuel) & maintain et cetera.
Fact is, the A330 is cheaper to operate than the B767 if you use both planes at a reasonable capacity level (if you load an A330 the same as a B767, it will of course be more expensive to operate). That’s why it killed the 767 sales and Boeing developped the 787.
But that is the problem. Real world US tanker operations don’t require even the full capacity of the KC-135R, much less the KC-767AT or KC-30.
No, what ‘killed’ the 767 was the segments of the market it fills having been filled by all the 767s that had been delivered & with ever increasing numbers of passengers those particular segments of the market were actually decreasing in number.
The A330 also keeps getting better as both airframe and engine makers are introducing new technology to improve its performance. Because the KC-30 is close to its civilian counterpart, it will benefit from all these improvements.
The same is true for the KC-767AT.
The KC-767ADV would on the other hand be an orphan plane with no further devlopments planned. Over the next 40 years, it will also become much more difficult to procure spares (the A330 will be in production until the end of the next decade at the very least, the 767 is basically already out of the civilian market) or train pilots (the A330 use a common cockpit philosophy so even in 30 years it will be very easy to keep reserve pilots operating A320NG, A350 or A380 rated on the A330 while there won’t be any US airlines using B757 or B767). All these extra costs are very hard to compute which is why a 40 years evalution would have been simply too inaccurate to make sense.
The only significant difference between the 767 & the A330 in that reguard is that the A330 will (possibly) remain in production/service 10 years longer than the 767.
The newer 767s actually share quite a bit with the 777, For example the 767-400ER, the 767-200LRF/KC-30 & the 777 all utilize the same cockpit architecture.
I’m talking about the last RFP. How do you now the offered KC-30 price was higher than the KC-767ADV? All sources point to NG’s bid being the same or lower than Boeing’s.
Nope, even the KC-X Sources Selection Team admitted (shortly before the GAO ruling on the protest) that it had miscalculated & that the Boeing bid was in fact lower. And that was even still using the KC-X-Source Selection Team’s bogus methodoligy that did not accurately represent the infrastructure costs & only calculated the KC-X Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (MPLCC) over 25 years despite it being required to have a life of 40 years.
The USAF disagrees with your position as it clearly indicated that it could use the KC-30 larger capacity (it did after all select the platform over the KC-767ADV).
No it doesn’t. That is why when the USAF was at all involved in the selection it selected the KC-767 & rejected the (as it was known then) KC-330.
And what is/was clearly & unambiguously indicated in the KC-X solicitation is that the KC-30’s larger capacity is of no positive value to the KC-X.
And you fail to address my other point which is that competition is the only way to keep manufacturers honest.
Competition, yes. Split buy, no.
pfcemit has EVERYTHING to do with the KC-X program
No it doesn’t. Nowhere in the solicitation will you find any mention of it.
if EADS gets KC-X we get an airbus plant
if they don’t get KC-X we don’t get an airbus plant
Poor Airbus/EADS. Seems they need some kind of government assistance in order to obtain enough capital to do anything. 🙁
If Boeing gets KC-X we get to keep the 767 line running (& if EADS is/was really serious about an assembly plant in the US we would still get that too). Which when done manufacturing & assembing KC-Xs would be available to start manufacturing & assembing who knows what…
If it doesn’t get KC-X that manufacturing & assembly line shuts down and we lose more jobs then would be gained by EADS getting KC-X.
that is a very direct result of KC-X
Result of, not a part of.
if Boeing wanted to offer a similar benefit, they could say “If we win KC-X we will build a composite wing factory in the US and build half of the wings for all 787s at it” (instead of them all being built in Japan)
that would be a benefit/bribe to the US directly tied to the KC-X program and worthy of discussion
of course boeing would never do it
The benfit is an entire manufacturing & assembly line, not just a final assembly plant.
Boeing doesn’t have to build any new factory. The factory already exists. The KC-X would keep it working.
lol additional 767 sales?
they have had ZERO 767 sales this year
I didn’t say additional 767s & you know it.
and that gapfiller is called the A330
LOL
Boeing 737-900
177 in two class
2460nm
787-8
250 in two class
8200nm
A330-200
293 in two class
6400nm
A330-300
335 in two class
5500nm
Now how exactly does the A330 (larger, heavier & greater passenger capacity but lesser range than 787-8) fill the 737 to 787 gap?
Seems to me the gap is more in the 150-250 two class passengers & 4,000-6,000 nm range…
As a bit of an off-topic note, Boeing has already recieved orders for more 787s than Airbus has A330. 🙂
the ONLY reason the 767 has made ANY sales in the last 3 years is that the A330 backlog is too large and people can’t afford to wait
What? A A330 backlog? How can they possibly build any KC-30 then?
You really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
once the A330 backlog dries up (either from the bad economy or increased production or competition from the 787), NO ONE will EVER buy another new 767. PERIOD.
The 767 & the A330 don’t even compete for the same segments!
Note that before Boeing announced the 787, the 767-400ER was out selling the A330-200…
And just how many sales do you think the A330 is going to really get once the 787 & A350 are in service? 😉
pfcem[QUOTE=KKM57P;1426653]
Or need space for expansion it’s a dumb idea, to fill up 100% with cold fuel that then start to expand in your F-22 and your F-22 begins drip fuel.
[QUOTE]
Sorry, but the F-22 is not the SR-71 (which becasue of its significant airframe expansion during sustained Mach 3+ flight actuall leaks fuel until the airframe has expanded enough to ‘cover’ the holes).
A expansions reserve of 10% is common.
Then why is a difference only indicated for the F-22 & not every aircraft?
***
A typical guess from wishful interpretation. Maybe you do have a seroius source/link to bolster your personal claim.
The “Mission 1” requirement is given in distance (nm), not time.
I simply calculated what the time was using reasonable assumptions as to how fast the speed is/was during “Mission 1”.
***
Now, as for your aerodynamically illiterate comments on my 2 and 3 point, I’d suggest you go on Rafale News thread and check a film from Rafale demo on LeBourget 2009, posted by arthuro (with pilot’s comments on maneuver and g loading) and I’d suggest finding a EF demo from Perth 2009, although this one has no comment in terms of flight program.
Then, take a stop watch and off you go. After that do the same for F22.
This is an empirical approach to the problem, but should suffice. However, if you at some point feel compelled to learn as why is it so, then I’ll be the first to bid you welcome to the wonderful world of aeronautics. 🙂
Rather than anybody waist their time on this why don’t you explain what the little exercise is supposed to do.
As for the F22’s data, I can’t help but wonder, how does the LM manage to “discover” different SC speed every now and then.
First, it was M1.5, then M1.7, then M1.72, then M1.78 and now we’re on M1.82. I guess at the same time next year, it’ll be what M2?? Finally LM may even surpass F22’s A/B speed with its SC speed. I mean what’s their problem. Got broken pitot tubes, or what? How hard is it to measure a speed in 5th gen fighter?!, ROFLMAO.
LM has done no such thing.
Mach 1.5: US DOD/USAF threshold for supercruise
Mach 1.6: AFT program supercruise FPP
Mach 1.7: never seen used by any officail entity
Mach 1.72: have only seen this number given as an estimate by any officail entity
Mach 1.78: now public ‘official’ supercruise speed of the F-22
Mach 1.82: never seen used by any officail entity
Sign In
