Posted on 04/21/2008 10:44:59 AM PDT by MHalblaub
“But how many foreign aircraft will we be building UNDER LICENSE from people that hate us?”
Hate is a hard word. France is part of the Operation Enduring Freedom despite the fact France is not member of NATO. For France some curve ball facts weren’t enough cause invading a country.
Would it relieve you to know the wings of KC-45 will be UK made?
For salsa reason the tail is Spanish.
I may have erred in stating that the change was to a smaller airframe when in fact it was the opposite. My apologies.
Actually, Everret, Wa.
It's a tanker. Nothing there that is critical or can't be replaced.
Iran is still flying Boeing 707 and 747 tankers from the days of the Shah, despite a 28 year embargo.
Here’s another perspective from the March 21, 2008 of the Aerotech News, Vol. 23, Issue 8:
“Why did Boeing lose Air Force tanker contract?
By Les Blumenthal, McClatchy Newspapers
It was a question that had been whispered around Capitol Hill corridors in the days following the Air Force’s selection of a European plane rather than a Boeing one to replace the nation’s fleet of aging aerial refueling tankers.
Rep. Norm Dicks finally asked it.
“Some people are saying Boeing was arrogant, discourteous?” the Washington state Democrat asked Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne.
“All my dealings with Boeing were objective and professional,” Wynne responded.
Wynne didn’t elaborate, Dicks didn’t press.
At congressional hearings over the past two weeks, Wynne and other Air Force officials defended the $35 billion tanker contract, insisting the competition was fair, open and legal.
But plenty of questions remain unanswered about how Boeing lost a contract it was heavily favored to win. They include:
1. Did the Air Force make critical changes in the final bid proposal and a computer model used to evaluate the bids that ended up throwing the contract to Northrup Grumman and the European Aerospace Defense and Space Co., the parent company of Boeing’s rival, Airbus?
2. Did Boeing misread crucial signals about the contract becase of a strained relationship with the Air Force in the wake of a 5-year-old procurement scandal that sent two people to jail and led to the resignation of the company’s chief executive?
3. Was Boeing’s commercial plane division so fixated on the new 787 Dreamliner that producing 12 to 15 767s a year for the Air Force tanker program became secondary?
4. Did the Boeing defense team, so convinced it would win, get outhustled by Northrup-EADS, which according to Air Force officials, brought its “A” game to the competition?
5. Did the Pentagon buckle to pressure from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who demanded that there be more than one bidder even if it meant the Air Force couldn’t consider the estimated billions of dollars in possibly illegal government subsidies the European plane manufacturer received?
In early summer, the Government Accountability Office will rule on Boeing’s protest of the tanker contract and answer some of the questions. Until then, many details remain cloaked in confidentiality or can’t be released since they may involve proprietary information.
Boeing, its supporters on Capitol Hill and the defense community were stunned when the Air Force announced it was awarding the contract for 179 tankers to Northrup-EADS. The contract eventually could be worth $100 billion as the Air Force replaces nearly 600 Eisenhower-era tankers.
Nothrup-EADS will use Airbus A330s for the tankers. Boeing would have used the 767.
The A330s are built in Toulouse, France, with major sections manufacturednby the British, Germans and Spanish. The tanker version of the A330 will be assembled at a new plant planned in Mobile, Ala. Boeing was prepared to build the 767 tanker in its Everett, Wash., plant. Tanking equipment was to be added and flight testing conducted at the company’s plant in Wichita, Kan.
The Airbus A330 is newer, larger and can carry more fuel, passengers and cargo. The 767 is smaller, cheaper to operate and can land in more places closer to combat zones.
Initially, the Air Force seemed inclined to favor Boeing. Air Force officials told Congress they were looking for a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135s. Cargo- and passenger-carrying capabilites were not a top priority, and Boeing and others were convinced their 767 would be a better fit than the Airbus A330.
Because it was smaller and lighter, the 767 tanker would be able to fly into more air bases in places like Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Persian Gulf.
In issuing its draft request for proposals, the Air Force raised the issue of government subsidies and a pending World Trade Organization ruling. By some estimates, the A330 and its companion A340 received $5 billion in research and development subsidies, or “launch aid”, from European governments.
McCain reacted quickly when he heard the subsidy issue would be a factor in the competition. The Arizone senator had been the lead opponent of an earlier $23 billion deal that would have allowed the Air Force to lease up to 100 Boeing 767 tankers. The lease deal collapsed amid a major Pentagon procurement scandal.
In a Sept. 8, 2006, letter to Defense Department officials, McCain said he was concerned about the subsidy issue becoming part of the tanker competition and told the Air Force to drop it.
At the time, Republicans still controlled Congress, and McCain was in line to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committe.
McCain said there was no precedent for including the subsidy issue in a procurement competition and that if the Air Force persisted, it would risk eliminating a competing bid for the tanker. The subsidy issue was dropped.”
“Here’s another perspective from the March 21, 2008 of the Aerotech News, Vol. 23, Issue 8:
The Airbus A330 is newer, larger and can carry more fuel, passengers and cargo. The 767 is smaller, cheaper to operate and can land in more places closer to combat zones.”
That shows even Areotech News doesn’t check all facts.
767 is without doubt smaller than the A330 but I doubt a 767 is cheaper to operate. Many airlines think the same way. As well I doubt the option to land closer to combat zones. The C-17 is heavier as the KC-45 and the KC-45 has a better take-off performance than the KC-767.
“Initially, the Air Force seemed inclined to favor Boeing. Air Force officials told Congress they were looking for a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135s. Cargo- and passenger-carrying capabilites were not a top priority, and Boeing and others were convinced their 767 would be a better fit than the Airbus A330.”
Oh no, that was what Boeing thought to be true.
Look at this: http://www.amc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070227-044.pdf
Some Air Force officials told that to lease tankers is a good deal. Some get jailed.
“In issuing its draft request for proposals, the Air Force raised the issue of government subsidies and a pending World Trade Organization ruling.”
That is also a problem for Boeing. EADS is not the main contractor. Maybe EADS has to pay a penalty maybe Boeing. Is that important for a boom operator or a fighter pilot? For what purpose did the Air Force asked that?
Classic apples and cauliflower comparison. The KC-145 is an older technology aircraft that is smaller and lighter than the 767 would be in a tanker configuration so, naturally, it will have better take-off performance. Take-off performance is a small part of the overall operational cost per mile that the AF must consider. All of these things explain why the KC-145 is being replaced by the Airbus A330. The C-17 is not a tanker, it's a cargo plane.
The metric to measure in airline terms is cost per seat mile. The A330 fully loaded has a lower cost per seat mile than a fully loaded 767.
In tanker terms, the metric to measure is cost per lb of fuel offloaded. The KC-45A has a lower cost per lb of fuel offloaded than the KC-767AT IF (and it's a big 'if') both aircraft are fully loaded, fly the same distance, and offload all their available fuel.
Now, if you have a KC-45A and a KC-767AT, and you only offload 50,000 lbs of fuel at a range of 500 miles, then yes, the KC-45A costs more for that sortie. OTOH, if you need to offload 200,000 lbs of fuel at 500 miles, the KC-45A will be less expensive because it can do it in one sortie, were you need two sorties with a KC-767.
You can play games with sorties all day and make one or the other look better. The bottom line for the Air Force was that the KC-45A has the ability to deliver more fuel and more cargo, and costs were very close to the same as the KC-767.
Remember all last year everybody was talking about the $40 Billion Tanker Deal, but now that it has been tentatively awarded to Northrop Grumman/EADS, it's now a $35 Billion Tanker Deal?
That is a Boeing claim that they can land at more airfields closer to the combat zone, and they had to play games to achieve that claim.
Yes, the Boeing KC-767AT can land at smaller fields at MTOW than the KC-45A can land at at it's MTOW.
However, if you have a KC-767AT at MTOW, and a KC-45A carrying the same fuel load as the KC-767AT, then the KC-45A can operate out of more fields than the KC-767AT due to it superior takeoff performance.
I have nothing against either aircraft, and I think both would serve the USAF well. I just happen to think that the KC-45A is the better of the two for the number being purchased, with an eye towards the long distance deployments the USAF faces in the future.
Keep in mind that we will still have KC-145s around, so if we need a slightly smaller tanker for a certain mission we will have it.
It's an Airbus.
Northrop builder of the B52 and the wings of every Boeing Aircraft ever built.
Are you sure?
Northrop used to be the builder of 747 fuselage section panels for boeing. But that business segment was sold to the carlysle group.
The B767 is in design 15 years older than the A330. The same is for B787 and A330. Nearly no airline ordered a B767 recently except of a big order for some freighters. I presume with a big discount to keep the production line open until the Air Force order arrives.
“Smaller and lighter instantly means lower fuel costs per mile, especially with the more fuel efficient engines.”
According to the Air Force the KC-45 tanker is 6 % more fuel efficient than a KC-767. Just think of a pickup and a truck. The efficiency depends on how and what you have to deliver. Ever thought about why the Air Force bought KC-10s and not KC-737s?
Bye the way, why was the B747 such a success? It's such a big plane?
“Classic apples and cauliflower comparison. The KC-145 is an older technology aircraft that is smaller and lighter than the 767 would be in a tanker configuration so, naturally, it will have better take-off performance.”
The KC-135 has the worst performance of all strategic tanker flying. The comparison with the C-17 was due to Boeing's argument about available airfields. I was talking about the KC-45/A330 and not about the KC-135/B707. The bigger KC-45 has a better take-off performance than the KC-767.
The C17 is a cargo lifter for close battle field support. How close did you want to operate a tanker aircraft? Today the C-17 is misused for standard cargo missions a KC-45 or KC-767 would need half fuel.
Aircraft: C-17 / KC-45 / KC-767
Payload(1): 77.5 t / 69 t / 43 t
pallets(2): 18 / 32 / 19
fuel burn(3): 21.5 / 13.8 / 10.5
(1) metric ton ~ 2205 lb
(2) 463L master pallets
(3) according to Boeing's claim to be 24 % more fuel efficient and http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afpam10-1403.htm
“[...]a former Navy pilot, said lawmakers should not put special interests ahead of national defense.”
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1208834657304880.xml&storylist=alabamanews
I think he's right.
Since I live in San Antonio, I see the C-17 all the time. I agree that the C-17 is misused for standard cargo, however, for military aircraft today, the watch word is "Multi-Mission Flexibility". The down side of Multi-Mission Flexibility is that it begins to look like the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. If you have ever seen the HBO movie, "The Pentagon Wars" you will understand the reference. If not, I recommend you rent it and see what I'm talking about.
Back to the tanker problem. One of the issues that strikes me about the document you posted is floors and doors requirement to have the A330 be a Multi-Mission aircraft. IMO, the mission profile of a tanker makes Multi-Mission Flexibility more challenging and more expensive. If each of these aircraft is provided with a set of optional floors for cargo/passenger/medevac ops, it increases the operating costs because this optional material must follow the aircraft around to every TDY op area in the event that the mission profile needs to be altered in midstream. It happens (see the USS Pueblo incident for additional info).
In some cases, Multi-Mission compatibility works out such as carrier-borne Navy fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft that can also be used as tankers. The venerable P-3 has become a Multi-Mission aircraft moving beyond its intended role of ASW and assuming many of the electronic jamming, elint and ECM functions previously provided by the EA-6B. The more we delve into the specifics of this tanker deal, the less it appears that the AF has a clue what it is doing and the more it begins to appear (to me, at any rate) to be another Bradley Fighting Vehicle (see the video and you'll understand the reference).
“If each of these aircraft is provided with a set of optional floors for cargo/passenger/medevac ops, it increases the operating costs because this optional material must follow the aircraft around to every TDY op area in the event that the mission profile needs to be altered in midstream.”
I don’t think you have to buy everything for every plane.
Medevac units may be stored at bases like Ramstein with a big hospital nearby. I doubt you have to buy new ones if the old ones were fixed on 463L pallets. You can only transport patients in a stable condition. Therefore you got enough time to send a well equipped plane.
For passengers or soldiers you need seats. At each base some rows and for bigger events your general should know in advance.
With cargo you won’t have any problem except you got a KC-767A where the lower deck is full of fuel bladders. Both tankers are freighters with a cargo system for handling 463L pallets.
Mission flexibility for KCs is in my eyes not to change the mission in-flight.
KC-45: http://www.videocentre.eads.net/cutv/cms/_vm1500//_vv_1207655836006/fa_playlist/_skin_eadstv/1870/play?show=now&startClip=0&playSpecial=1936
(1:00)
or http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/operations/boomer.html
KC-767A: http://www.leeham.net/filelib/BoeingAFABrief.pdf
(p. 17)
On page 18 Boeing shows that there is a big chance to increase the use of tankers for cargo use to release some C-5 or C-17.
I got something for you:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/images/advertising/pdf/why_we_won_ad.jpg
Not nice at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
