Posted on 02/24/2010 8:06:43 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Edited on 02/24/2010 8:14:23 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Air Force and Pentagon officials made more than 230 changes from the draft to final request for proposals for new aerial refueling tankers but kept the approach that may make Boeing the only bidder.
"Where we haven't changed things is in the basic requirements for the airplane," Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said in a Webcast news conference Wednesday afternoon. "In the end this is about what the Air Mobility Command needs to meet the warfighting needs of the nation."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattlepi.com ...
It just needs wings, engines and a Boeing logo.
As I expected, the specifications are written so that only Boeing can meet them.
Existing KC tanker fleet was nice.
I look forward to seeing more of them in the extended future.
My guess is that most (not all, of course) would prefer the 767.
.
The only airline which ordered B767 last year filed for bankruptcy in January this year.
Pilots may prefer a 767 but an accountable CEO likes more the A330.
would love to know what USAF pilots (tanker drivers and fuel-ees) and ground crew think about this.
My guess is that most (not all, of course) would prefer the 767.
BINGO.. survey says BOEING.
Airlines aren’t buying commercial 767s any more because it’s much more cost effective and fuel efficient to buy the new 787 Dreamliners.
As far as the Boeing KC-767J tankers go,the Italian Air Force ordered 4 and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force ordered 4.
Three of the four have been delivered and have been placed in an active air wing in the Japan Air Self-Defense Force. The fourth was delivered in the January 2010.
For the Italian Air Force, the first tanker, which originally was slated for delivery in 2005, should be ready to undergo a Tender for Acceptance process by the Italian Air Force in early 2010, following the completion of FAA certification. Three of the tankers are ready, and a fourth is undergoing modifications. A series of technical problems, including a problem with the hose-and-drogue refueling system aand flutter problem on wing pods, have held up delivery.
Incorrect. It could do without wings or engines, but the Boeing logo is a show-stopper!
Airlines aren’t buying commercial 767s any more because it’s much more cost effective and fuel efficient to buy the new 787 Dreamliners.
Boeing sales of 767s was decimated by the commercial version of the A330 long before the 787 was offered. If Boeing doesn't get the KC-X contract, 767 production will end, but A330 production will continue even if NG-EADS doesn't bid or loses.
As far as the Boeing KC-767J tankers go,the Italian Air Force ordered 4 and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force ordered 4.
And both of those KC-767s you mention are equipped with a 900 GPM boom.
The KC-X requires a 1,200 GPM boom, which Boeing doesn't have laying around.
Japan and Italy are for the most part refueling fighters, which can't accept fuel at 1,200 GPM anyway, so there was no need for that large of a fuel flow. However, the USAF also refuels B-52s, C-5s, and C-17s that can accept fuel at 1,200 GPM, which is what the KC-135 can deliver (within a few GPM anyway.)
The Italian and Japanese KC-767s hold less fuel than the KC-X requires, which means that Boeing will have to put extra fuel cells in the lower cargo hold. In order to meet the 10,000 foot runway takeoff requirement with that much fuel onboard, Boeing will have to use different wings than those used on the KC-767A/J. Boeing had serious flutter problems with the KC-767A when wing refueling pods were attached. Changing the wing for the KC-767AT may mean more flutter problems to sort out.
The NG-EADS offered last time around was basically the same airframe as sold to the RAAF. No extra fuel cells were required, which left the entire lower cargo hold open for ... cargo. The boom can deliver 1,200 GPM. The aircraft can operate at max fuel capacity (which is much greater than the KC-767AT) from a 10,000 foot runway.
In terms of program risk, the A330 MRTT has only mil spec avionics to deal with, whereas Boeing has to design a new higher flow boom and pumping system, a new airframe, and also deal with the mil spec avionics integration.
I was all for the KC-767AT last time around until the bids were unsealed, and I saw just how close the two bids were in price, and the vastly superior capabilites of the NG-EADS offering in terms of short field performance, fuel offload, loiter time, range, and payload as a transport.
But I suppose "buy American" trumps superior product.
That is not the problem. Both can meet the specifications. One may need longer to offer a solution after the nice CGIs.
The part NG/EADS is so upset about is how Air Force is goeing to calculate the costs. I mentioned that already there:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2458092/posts#10
To avoid a price increase I would prefer a split buy. One manufacturer can loiter more easily without competition.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2459591/posts#5
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.