Boeing tanker fight isn't over, political leaders say

HeraldNet.com (Everett, Washington) ^ | Saturday, March 1, 2008 | Jim Haley, Herald Writer

[Paleo Conservative]

What could have been a done deal for the Boeing Co. five years ago came down to a two-horse race and finally a multibillion dollar loss for Everett on Friday in the sweepstakes to supply the Air Force with new jet refueling tankers.

The Air Force's announcement that the $35 billion deal goes to Northrop-Grumman and Europe's Airbus parent, EADS, angered members of Washington's congressional delegation and raised the prospect of congressional hearings on the decision.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," six members of the congressional delegation said in a joint statement. "This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America's men and women in uniform."

"I was shocked by the announcement today that the Air Force intends to award the contract for the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers to the Airbus-Northrop Grumman team, and I believe there will be real skepticism among the defense-related committees in Congress," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Dicks is a powerful member of a Defense Appropriation Committee, and funding of the tankers will have to go through his panel.

"While we will await the debriefing of the Boeing team to learn how and why the decision was made, I remain convinced that the Boeing 767 tanker version would have been an extremely capable aircraft that would have created 40,000 U.S. jobs, including 9,000 in Washington state," Dicks said.

...............

Congressional members say they hope the decision wasn't influenced by a Boeing procurement scandal five years ago. And they expect Boeing to protest the decision.

...............

The GAO has 100 days to deny or uphold a protest.

[mad_as_he$$]

Reality is Boeing farms out a large amount of work off shore. Wings come from Australia and many parts are made in Asia.

[e_castillo]

Whty does everyone ask for links around here... Can’t you simply enter a search phrase right here on FR. Try it there are articles that state the Boeing deal was $35 million less per plane than Airbus.

Go ahead try the search feature it really works and is faster than asking someone to do it for you.

[mad_as_he$$]

Aren’t most tanker bases left over BUFF bases? They all have room for BUFF’s and 10,000 runways.

[mad_as_he$$]

Good point. There are many reasons that that should of been the choice.

[Paleo Conservative]

Aren’t most tanker bases left over BUFF bases? They all have room for BUFF’s and 10,000 runways.

No. Lots of them have very little ramp room. Supposedly 5 of the KC=30's can do the job of at least 5 KC-767's but take up less space than 5 KC-767's.

[Politicalities]

Whty does everyone ask for links around here...

Because it's the responsibility of the one making the claim to back it up. It's sort of a tradition.

Go ahead try the search feature it really works

Well, let's see. It doesn't appear to be showing up in the first several results of a search for "boeing", "boeing bid", and "boeing 35 million." Exactly how many articles do you think I should have to wade through to do nyconse's homework for him?

I was just surprised by the claim, because I recall reading somewhere that losing bids are not disclosed by the Air Force, they are disclosed at the discretion of the losing bidder and Boeing hadn't elected to make such a disclosure yet. I was curious to see nyconse's source, but even if true it's somewhat irrelevant. The Air Force's job isn't to pick the lowest bidder (hey, I could bid five bucks and deliver a fleet of paper airplanes), it's to pick the bid that offers the best value for the dollar. They picked Northrup/EADS. They are not idiots. They are not traitors. They are not, absent evidence to the contrary, crooks. They know far more about airplanes than I, and I'm willing to bet that they know far more about airplanes than you, too. There's no reason to doubt that this was a careful, well-considered decision made in good faith.

[Paleo Conservative]

Also, don't completely count out a "KC-380" that would also double as a large freighter.

There are good reasons why the A380 has been put on hold indefinitely. Despite its large volume, it can only haul 150 tons of freight. Also it has two freight decks requiring rare and specialized ground equipment at every airport it visits. It's only good for palletized or container freight due to the dimensions of the ceilings in the cargo holds. The floor between the first and second deck can not be removed to make space for oversized freight, because it is needed for structural rigidity. The floor of the upper freight deck can't support dense heavy freight complicating loading of an A380F. It is also structurally less efficient than the 747. The only criterion on which it beats a 747 is runway and climb performance and range with maximum payload.

A 747 has a very low ratio of Operating Empty Weight to Maximum Take Off Weight, and the 747-800 has even better structural efficiency than previous models. It has a single freight deck that can handle heavy and oversized freight, and it has a nose door to handle oversized items that otherwise can only be carried in military freighters like the C-5, C-17, and AN-124. The 747 has already been certified as a tanker back in the 1970's when Iran Air bought 747's that could be also used by the Iranian Air Force as tankers. It already has been modified for receiving refueling from tankers in the E-4B and VC-25 models. Potentially a 747 freighter could be built with the same upper deck as the 747-800I and have a large number of passenger seats. This would be quite useful for transporting specialists along with cargo on one aircraft. The 787-8 will be the fastest civilian passenger and cargo aircraft so on a transport mission to carry freight to bases near a theater, it can get where its going a lot faster than a C-5 or C-17. It's long range means it could perform some cargo hauling missions without refueling in the air and costing the Pentagon $17 a gallon for fuel.

[Paleo Conservative]

There will be a round two in a few years: The KC-Y. This will be to replace the KC-10.

The KC-45 is bigger than a KC-10 already. Why not just order more KC-45's, or an upgraded KC-45 with GENx engines.

[2CAVTrooper]

There are plenty of other equipment that we use (past and present) that is foreign designed and or built such as:

HH-65A Dolphin (France)

MH-68A Enforcer (Italy)

UH-72A Lakota (France)

C-7A Caribou (Canada)

C-8A Buffalo (Canada)

C-31A Troopship (Netherlands)

C-29A (England)

C-27 Spartan (Italy)

C-23 Sherpa (England)

U-28A (Switzerland)

UV-18A Twin Otter (Canada)

UV-20A (Switzerland)

T-45 Goshawk (England)

AV-8 Harrier (England)

B-57 Canberra (England)

Some of the Navy’s sealift capability is foreign built.

The Coast Guard’s motorized lifeboat is made in Canada

The armor on the M1 Abrams tank was developed in England

AGM-119B Penguin Anti-Ship Missile (Norway)

AT-4 M136 Anti-tank rocket (Sweden)

M11XX Stryker IAV (Canada)

RG-31, RG-33 MRAP (South Africa)

LAV-25 (Canada/Switzerland)

M777 Lightweight 155mm howitzer (England)

M119 105mm howitzer(England)

M120 120mm Mortar & the M1100 trailer (Israel)

M9 Beretta (Italy)

M11 Pistol (Germany)

MP5 Submachine gun (Germany)

M240 Machine gun (Belgium)

M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (Belgium)

M3 MAAWS (Sweden)

Small Emplacement Excavator (Based on a German Unimog truck)

M93 Fox NBC recon vehicle (Germany)

Interim Vehicle Mounted Mine Detector (South Africa)

Hydrema 910 Mine Clearing Vehicle (Denmark)

High Mobility Engineer Excavator (German unimog based vehicle)

Buffalo Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (South Africa)

M10XX FMTV (Austria)

XM104 Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge (German designed bridge)

M973 SUSV (Sweden)

M326 120-MM MORTAR STOWAGE SYSTEM (England)

[2CAVTrooper]

“The KC-45 is bigger than a KC-10 already. Why not just order more KC-45’s, or an upgraded KC-45 with GENx engines.”

The Airforce has the option to expand the contract out to over 300 aircraft in order to replace the KC-10’s and more of the KC-135’s.

[Paleo Conservative]

I'm fully aware of that. It really wouldn't make much sense to have a KC-10 replacement that's just a little larger than the KC-45 when the KC-45 will be larger than the KC-10 anyway. Either the some version of the KC-45 will replace the KC-10 airframes or some much larger aircraft may fill the top end of the cargo/tanker niche. Considering the USAF is only planning on converting the C-5B and C-5C fleet to C-5M's, there will probably be a need to develop a C-5A replacement. A large BWB cargo/Tanker aircraft would be an ideal replacement due to improved structural efficiency of BWB designs and improved aerodyamic efficiency too. A three engined BWB with GE90-110's could a great replacement for the C-5 due to very large cargo bays. With a huge quantity of fuel and three booms, it would make both a good strategic and tactical tanker.

[wolf78]

It is also structurally less efficient than the 747.

While I agree that a KC-380 makes little sense, the claim that the A380 is structurally less efficient than the 747 is not exactly true. Because quite the opposite: it's very efficient as a passenger aircraft and with its ovoid cross section makes optimal use of its interior space - for passenger transport, that is. The pear shaped front end cross section of a 747 is a compromise when it comes to carrying passengers and carries a weight penalty. It's as a freighter that the 747 truly excells, because that was it's primary objective and that's when the design decisions make sense.

In short:
A380 - Efficient passenger hauler - mediocre freighter
B747 - Outstanding cargo aircraft - outdated for air travel.

[Paleo Conservative]

While the 747 ins’t the ideal cross section for a passenger aircraft in its size class, it still has a better CASM than the 777. Also the 747-8 will have considerably better performance than the proposed and abandoned A380-7 shrink of the A380-800. Unless a more optized 400-500 seat passenger plane is developed at a cost of $10-$20 billion, the 747-8 still works pretty well for its niche. With the increase in space allocated to business class seating in recent years decreasing passenger counts plus the increase in the size of the cargo bay, the 747-8i will be able to carry more revenue freight than the A380. In fact Emirates is getting a fleet of 787-8F to handle all the freight that can’t be carried in the belly of their A380 fleet. The main problem with the 747 is the width of the seats in the standard 10 abreast economy configuration.

[Yo-Yo]

The KC-45 is bigger than a KC-10 already. Why not just order more KC-45's, or an upgraded KC-45 with GENx engines.

Bigger how? From the Air Force Factsheet for the KC-10 Extender:

In addition to the three main DC-10 wing fuel tanks, the KC-10 has three large fuel tanks under the cargo floor, one under the forward lower cargo compartment, one in the center wing area and one under the rear compartment. Combined, the capacity of the six tanks carry more than 356,000 pounds (160,200 kilograms) of fuel - almost twice as much as the KC-135 Stratotanker.

The large cargo-loading door can accept most air forces' fighter unit support equipment. Powered rollers and winches inside the cargo compartment permit moving heavy loads. The cargo compartment can accommodate loads ranging from 27 pallets to a mix of 17 pallets and 75 passengers.

From the Northrup Grumman KC-45 website:

Max. fuel capacity 25% more than KC-135 [Northrup site shows the KC-135 to be 200,000lbs, so that would be 250,000lbs. -Yo]

Passengers/Troops: 226 Pallets: Up to 32 463L pallets.

So the KC-45A may hold more cargo and troops, but carrys 30% less fuel than the KC-10A. Part of the difference is that the KC-10 is set up only for a combi mode of passengers and cargo, not all passengers like the KC-45 figure. It is yet to be seen if the Air Force actually fits out the KC-45 to accept an all passenger layout option, or if it remains a combi layout.

Part of the appeal of a large tanker/freighter is that you can escort the flight of fighters to the remote zone, bring along the ground crew, and bring the spares kits. Doing that requires a combi mode, so the real passenger load may be much less than 226.

The KC-10 is also an earlier generation aircraft, so just because it carries 30% more fuel, that doesn't necessarily translate to 30% more offload capability. Doing the range vs. fuel offload capability math can be left to others with more patience.

I know I said the KC-Y was to replace the KC-10, but I was partly wrong. The KC-Y will be an evaluation point after the first 179 KC-45As are in service, to determine if another bid needs to go out, or to simply buy more of the same. It may be that the Air Force decides to buy more KC-45s to replace the rest of the KC-135s, and bid a larger aircraft to replace the KC-10. The "KC-777", which is still very much a paper aircraft at this point, still would be larger than the KC-45 and carry more cargo, if not more fuel.

The KC-Z will most likely be the next generation blended wing that everyone (including me) is so hot for these days, but has it's own very long term development challenges.

[Yo-Yo]

I agree that the 747-8F would make an excellent freighter/tanker for the Air Force, but I still say a "KC-380" cannot be fully counted out, either.

I realize the tonnage issue, and that the A380F has two decks (three counting the cargo hold) that can only hold standardized pallets (the upper cabin floor in an integral fuselage structure that cannot be removed.) I've read Randy's Journal, too. ;^)

The A380F is optimized for max volume, while the 747-8F is better for outsized cargo. However, the 747-8F front load door is best only for outsized cargo. Most palletized cargo goes through the side doors, so the loading nose may not be put on a "KC-747." (The Air Force has lots of C-5s and C-17s for outsized cargo.)

In a Freighter/Tanker role, having an entire upper cabin for seating and the entire lower cabin (and cargo hold) for palletized freight isn't going to hit max gross weight before it hits max volume, and would allow an entire maintenance squadron deploy along with the air squadron, not just the flightline troops as is done with the KC-10 and soon to be KC-45.

There would only be a limited need for this size of an aircraft, thus it would only be purchased in KC-10 like numbers, i.e. 6 or 7 dozen vs. several hundred KC-45s.

[Yo-Yo]

Sorry, forgot the Northrup Grumman link:

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/specifications.html

[Paleo Conservative]

The A380F is optimized for max volume, while the 747-8F is better for outsized cargo. However, the 747-8F front load door is best only for outsized cargo. Most palletized cargo goes through the side doors, so the loading nose may not be put on a "KC-747." (The Air Force has lots of C-5s and C-17s for outsized cargo.)

All the 747-400 and 747-8 freighters have both a side cargo door and a nose cargo door. Some cargo operators might be interested in the 747-8F having a wider cargo door similar to the 777LRF side cargo door.

[Yo-Yo]

According to Cathay Pacific, the side door dimensions are 134 x 120 in, and the nose door is only 104 x 98 in.

The nose door is best suited for very long cargo containers (96" x 20 feet, less than 96 in. height), but the standard Air Force pallet easily fits in either door. The nose door may not be a necessary expense on a new build "KC-747." I dunno.

[wolf78]

Also the 747-8 will have considerably better performance than the proposed and abandoned A380-7 shrink of the A380-800. Unless a more optized 400-500 seat passenger plane is developed at a cost of $10-$20 billion, the 747-8 still works pretty well for its niche.

It's always hard to compare two paper airplanes (748 vs. 387) with each other, so far the market response for the 747-8i has been lukewarm at best (only customer: Lufthansa). But I totally agree that the proposed -700 shrink makes little to no sense at all, at least with the current wing, which already is oversized for the standard A380-800. However, the wing has just about the right size for the 650 pax 380-900 or the ULH -800R. That's when the A380 will really begin to shine and the CASM will be extreme hard to beat.

[Paleo Conservative]

However, the wing has just about the right size for the 650 pax 380-900 or the ULH -800R. That's when the A380 will really begin to shine and the CASM will be extreme hard to beat.

Perhaps on routes like LHR-HKG where some airlines currently have 2 or 3 747-400's taking off within an hour of each other and there are not very many optimal time windows for taking off due to time zone differences, flight lenght, and airport curfews. For shorter flights where there are lots of competitive flights operating at various times of day, it won't be too popular. Even though JFK-LHR has a huge number of flights every day, the trend is for smaller planes rather than bigger ones to allow more frequency.