On the US vs foreign content…

It MUST be made clear that when someone calls the KC-30 an “American tanker” or “Northrop Grumman tanker” they are not being accurate. Northrop Grumman & EADS are a TEAM. Airbus would MANUFACTURE the platform (the A330-200 aircraft) in Europe with FINAL ASSMEBLY by EADS North America at its yet to be built Final Assembly facility in Mobile, Alabama. The Northrop Grumman KC-30 Production Center where militarization & modification would take place would be located directly adjacent to the EADS North America Final Assembly facility. So let me be clear on this…EADS (though its subsidiaries Airbus & EADS North America) would deliver a complete “green” aircraft to Northrop Grumman which NG would then militarize & modify into a KC-45 tanker. To put it another way, when some “hot rod” shop soups up a car [a Ford Mustang for example], everyone recognizes what it is [a souped up Ford Mustang].

Beyond that, a nation with the technological & industial base to do so has every right to prefer domestic products. And as a matter of national interrest SHOULD prefer domestic products for its militay. Nations like Israel & Sweden recognize this & have in fact CREATED their own technological & industial military base that goes well beyond that of nations with greater size/population/GDP & military strength.

That is not to say that the US can’t or shouldn’t procure the KC-30 for either of the above reasons. If it were NG/EADS proposing the 767-sized tanker & Boeing proposing the A330-sized tanker I would still be saying that the 767-sized tanker was the right choice because it fits the requirements & the A330-sized tanker does not.

He’s wrong, anyway. Very many components (not just the engines) of the A330 aren’t made by EADS, e.g. Cobham, here in the UK, Thales, Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, Goodrich, Hamilton Sundstrand, IHI, Messier-Bugatti . . many, many, firms.

Shush;)…we all know EADS and Boeing make every rivet and toilet fitted in their aircraft…:D

Good god the level of ignorance & disingenuousness of EADS/KC-30 supporters…

i thinks Obama made clear 2 months ago he was against Airbus while McCain is for competition.So its pretty much on candidates approach to the matter.Democrats seem to be listening to the Unions and Lou Dobbs so probably Boeing will get the contract if Obama is elected.Good for Boeing.it still gets the job done,even if its less capable than the Airbus.Good for Us economy,they need jobs home right at the moment

The KC-767AT isn’t less capable than the KC-30. It can do everything the KC-X is SUPPOSED to & can do MOST of what the KC-X is SUPPOSED to do MOST of the time better than the KC-30.

Isn’t NG American?….won’t Boeing be outsourcing a good few of those job’s to Japan ect….if you want American’s alone to be building your kit, you better build it yourself mate:diablo:

Yes, NG is American but EADS is not. NG only accounts for ~1/3 of the KC-30 content.

Boeing actually MANUFACTURES the 767. Yes parts of the aircraft (~30% of the airframe) is supplied by subcontractors. EADS builds ALL the parts of entire A330 (except for the engines) & NG would do the FINAL ASSEMBLY & tanker conversion.

With the KC-767AT ~$5.25-6.0 billion of the $35-40 billion development & procurement goes overseas. With the KC-30 ~$14.7-16.8 billion goes overseas. Of course the $35-40 billion is over some 20 years so it is not like the KC-X is going to make or break the US economy…BUT to some people, that ~$9.45-10.8 billion does have meaning (especially those who are or know a US worker who’s salary will make up a portion of it).

They didn’t about face…they never selected the 767 after an open competition…I believe you could catagorize the tentative acceptance of the lease offer as: “Boeing offered it, and the USAF said ‘Okay’ as a way to get newer jets sooner”.

Stop revising history. The USAF chose the KC-767. Boeing would be more than happy to sell any tanker platform the USAF wants. It was so obvious to the USAF that the KC-767 was the right platform (ESPECIALLY after seeing the Airbus KC-330 proposal) that it devised a plan to get them ASAP. Even “accepting” a less than full spec version for the 100 leased tankers (knowing full well that a full spec version that met ALL its requirements would be developed & procured later) in order to kick-start the program.

Again, the USAF had been looking into recapitalizing its tanker fleet (the KC-135Es in particular) since 1996. The KC-135R is NOT lacking for fuel offload capacity although better airfield performance (to better utilize the KC-135R’s capacity from smaller airfields with shorter runways closer to the refueling points) & greater cargo capacity are desired. Hell, the Italian & Japanese KC-767s are not even equipped with (although could be later if desired) the auxiliary fuel tank & thus have “only” the ~24,000 gal (~160,000 lbs) fuel capacity of the 767-200ER airliner which puts their fuel offload capability between that of the KC-135E & KC-135R.

And the KC-X source selection team is/was NOT the USAF.

Why they selected it this time…somewhere along the line they came to like the idea of a bigger jet. They also looked at estimated life cycle costs.
Both seem issues that intelligent people can have an honest disagreement over.
As far as the issue of needed base infrastructure improvements…the selecting team probably didn’t consider them…since any costs would come from a different pot of money, so they could ignore those potential costs and civil engineering issues. Likewise, they did not take into account the opinions of aircrews. My nephew is with a large mixed AD and ANG 135 unit, he said the pilots were in open rebellion over the 330 selection…and the airline pilots who fly part time with the ANG love the 767s they fly in their day jobs.

Like I said, not the USAF.

I like Boeing aircraft…

But I have concern about the issue of the 767 being a half? (or full?) generation behind the 330.

At the same time, I’m honest enough to admit I don’t know if that is a big deal in the overall operation of the tankers. When I was in the USAF, the ancient design of the KC-135 didn’t lead to any problems at the base level…and anything you buy has to go through and extensive (and expensive) Periodic Depot Maintenance anyway…so it might be a non-issue.

There is NOTHING more technologically or aerodynamically or in any other way more advanced about the KC-30 than the KC-767AT. In fact isn’t the BS EADS/KC-30 supporter retoric that the KC-767AT is a “frankenstein tanker” which hasn’t even been developed yet? Just one of the self contradictory arguments of EADS/KC-30 supporters.

My main isue of the 330 is I want NG/EADS to make sure it has the same amount of U.S. content as the 767.
I really don’t think that’s too much to ask in a period of a lousy economy.

The economy is not lousy, it is not as good as most would like but it is not lousy. If politicians would stop threatening tax increases (& yes to those who have money to invest in the economy tax increases ARE a threat) & higher government spending on programs that have already proven not to work and this do-nothing Cogress would get off it ass & pass a TRUE energy plan this economy would take-off.

Unlike the colonels and middle management at the Pentagon and AFMC HQ, I do worry about the industrial base and making sure that taxpayers have decent jobs.
And a probably minor point…the assurance that any vital “show stopper” parts would be available under any circumstances since France has a long history of opposing U.S. military actions (the resupply of Isreal in 72, the Libya strike in 86, etc.) …and the EU may very well in the future…(I heard an unconfirmed story that a Swiss firm had to quit supplying JDAM parts because of the Iraq war. It took Boeing months to find and for a U.S. company to get parts into production. True?)

Just my opinion.

Yes, industrial base on such a vital military platform SHOULD be given greater consideration.

Yes, all of the major EADS nations are our friends but ODS proves that your friends are not always so friendly (especially when your friends have economic ties to your enemies).

A document from 1996..nothing more recent and relevant to the debate?

Yes, rather old. There are much more recent analyses, e.g. Congressional Research Service report RL32910 – the copy on my HD dates from October 2006. Among other things, points out the benefits of fitting new-build aircraft, e.g. F-35A, with a probe. Net cost – hardly anything. Could have been zero if a decision had been taken earlier, but there’s now some redesign needed. Got a perfectly good probe available, though – the one for the F-35B & C.

Yes, the five studies were conducted in the 1990’s but I have yet to find any later work which attempts to determine what the benefits of multipoint aeriel refueling are. The 2006 RL32910 doesn’t, is just draws on the benefits found in the earlier studies.

I wish there were, & some that included the benfits of higher transfer rates for ALL attack & fighter aircraft to better take advantage of the boom’s higher transfer rate. I am not talking about everything having 900+ gal/4,000+ lbs per minute like large aircraft have but something like say 525-600 gal/3,500-4,000 lbs per minute, which is a bit higher than the F-15’s ~500 gal/3,400 lbs per minute & certainly LIKELY for both the F-22 & the F-35A (the F-35A has more than 50% greater internal fuel capacity than the F-15).

THough I did like this section…

Which seems to suggest that F22 and F35s should have probes.

No it does not, is suggests that it should be considered. And I assure you that it was.

Does anyone know what this is all about? What do the advantages of multi-point refuelling over single point have to do with the debate on the KC-767 vs A330MRTT? After all, both (in the configurations offered to the USAF) are multi-point, with –
1 boom
1 centreline hose
2 underwing hoses.

Actually not much at all BUT it is EADS/KC-30 supporters which ingnorantly bring it up as a supposed was of supporting the KC-30’s greater capacity.

Mr. pfcem seems confused. He appears to be unable to distinguish between two entirely separate debates.

:rolleyes:
I am the one who brought up the point that they are two separate debates & that the benefits of multipoint aerial refueling vs boom refueling DOES NOT support the greater capacity of KC-30.

Once again swerve plays fast & loose with the facts & misrepresents the truth.

The new drogues can transfer fuel at or slightly faster than SOME fighters can receive it but not ALL fighters. As the number of F-22s & F-35s increase, the number & proportion of fighters which can recieve fuel at a rate higher than the new drogues will increase. Not to mention it being MUCH less expensive to modify ALL boom/receptacle fighters to recieve at higher transfer rates than it is to modify them to drogue/probe.

He also conveinently neglects, as I had already pointed out, that there were a number of studies into multipoint aerial refueling during the early/mid 90’s. The more thorough/detailed the study the LESS the benefit multipoint aerial refueling provided. This is due to two primary facts. Contrary to what swerve wants you to believe, two drogues are NOT twice as fast as one boom & while multipoint aerial refueling provides some benefit to the anchorpoint method of refueling, it provides virtually none to the track method of refueling.

In the end there are two fundamental flaws in his misrepresentations. One being that in REAL WORLD operations multipoint aerial refueling is NOT as much of a benefit over single boom aerial refueling as he wants you to believe & the other being that we do not even utilze the full capacity of the KC-135 & the KC-767AT is a significant improvement over the KC-135 (enough to be able to handle DOUBLE the average fuel offload per sortie of past conflicts) thus what he or anyone else has posted about the supposed benifit of multipoint aerial refueling DOES NOT indicate that the KC-30 can do the same missions as the KC-767AT with fewer tankers.

1. Using larger tankers will eventually lead to the air force replacing all 135’s with less airframes. It’s a standard military ploy, they’ve been doing it for decades

The USAF already plans to replace all the KC-135s with fewer larger tankers. Under the KC-X/KC-Y/KC-Z plan, the 545 KC-135s will be replaced by less than 400 new tankers. Whether the KC-X is a KC-767AT or a KC-30 makes no difference.

That DOES NOT change the fact that the number of tankers needed is MUCH more dependant on the number booms needed to effectively & effeciently satisfy the number of receivers than on the total amount of fuel each tanker delivers. As I said before, even if the average offload per sortie DOUBLES, the KC-767AT has the capacity & unlike the KC-30 does not require billions of dollars in infrastructure improvement in order to do what the KC-X is intended to do.

2. There have been enough cases of tankers almost running out of fuel, one instance of which has been written about at great length.

Really, how many? What were the circumstances which lead to the so-called events?

3. Quote me somewhere in this thread to that effect. The only thing you’ll be able to show is that I said you were wrong, and you are.

4th September 2008 22:35
Planning don’t always get it right, the less fuel-load on the a/c the more chance they have of running out at the wrong moment.

To which I replied
That is why the plans always have a significant reserve to account for such contingecies. The KC-135s aren’t runing out of fuel at the wrong moment, quite the opposite in fact, most of the time they return with excess fuel still in the tank. The KC-135s doesn’t need to be replaced because they don’t have the capacity, they need to be replaced because they are old & expensive to maintain. Even the 2007 KC-X RFP didn’t require more fuel offload capability than the KC-135R & the offerors were unambiguously informed that their proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective.

4. Because the main thrust of your argument is “I am right and the rest of you [/B]and[B] the air force is wrong.” Not what I would call a convincing line of debate.

Typical misrepresentation/falsehood of a EADS/KC-30 supporter.

The “thrust” of my a argument is that the USAF knew what it was doing from 1996 (when it started looking at replacing its KC-135s) thru 2004 (when its choice of the KC-767 was taken away), and even to some extent thru Jan 2007 (when it issued the “final” KC-X RFP). Up until almost the day that the selection of the KC-30 was announced, most/all the experts where convinced that Boeing would win for pretty much the same reasons that the USAF chose the 767 in 2001 & rejected the A330 in 2002 – that the 767 was & the A330 was not what the USAF required, wanted or asked for.

Everything that the USAF did during the tanker lease was an effort to get the KC-767s it wanted ASAP. Once Congress demanded a “full competition” with greater oversight by Congress & the DOD, the USAF was no longer in control.

The selection of the KC-30 (as the GAO ruling proved) was a complete screw up (no made in accordance with the solicitation). With the exception of there thus far being no accusations or proof of a Druyun/Sears-like event, it was easily as screwed up as the tanker lease was. You so convenietly seem to forget how, BECAUSE THE KC-30 SELECTION WAS SUCH A SCREW UP, “everyone” so lost confidence in the USAF’s ability to select a tanker that its authority to do so (already undermined) was taken away. And now, the very man who was responsible for making sure that NOTHING went wrong with the KC-X “competition” is THE man in control of the selection!