Replies

“Today Airbus builds 6 times more A330 than Boeing B767 and order backlog for A330 is about 5 times higher.”

Another fine example of EU taxpayer subsidizing industry OR perhaps EADS/Airbus current marketing pitch is “buy our planes at cheap discount prices”

I believe that the 767 still has a higher production number (986) than the A330 (703).

A common practice to extend the life of a production line. Boeing has keep the 767 line open since 2004, delivering 68 aircraft, an average of 12 aircraft per year and since 2004 has gained orders for 110 aircraft.
Previously Boeing elected not to extend the 757 production line, from 45 deliveries in 2001, to 14 in 2003, to just 2 in2005 when the line closed. Boeing also closed the 727 line quickly going from 94 delivered in 1981, to 26 in 1982 to just 8 in 1984 when the line closed.
Airbus keep the A310 line open for 9 years without a single order/delivery and A300 line open for 12 years with deliveries averaging one aircraft every 6 weeks or 9.4 aircraft per year.

“No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.”

Sorry, the KC-30 can be in 1.9 places at the same time.

Still trying to figure out that Northrop Grumman program.
The KC-30 carries just 30% more fuel burns that fuel 40% faster but is worth 1.9 KC-135R?

“And how big is the difference? How many Air Force Bases already have to accommodate the heavier C-17?”

I believe the concern is regarding parking ramps in other (third world) countries.

“Maybe true for Australian KC-30A but are you really sure about the 767?
A basic 767-300F can carry additional 60,000 lbs in relation to internal fuel capacity of 160,000 lbs.
412,000 lbs – (188,000 lbs + 162,000) = 62,000 lbs MTOW - (OEW + fuel weight)”

MTOW 412,000 lbs – OEW 188,000 lbs (my estimate for the KC-767AT/NG is 190k) = 224,000 lbs.
Boeing claims a max fuel load of “202,000 lbs +” they could mean 202,100 lbs or 222,000 lbs anything is possible.

“According to the offered fuel load of over 200,000 lbs just 20,000 lbs are left for boom and other refueling equipment, additional fuel tanks and cockpit protection.”

The difference in OEW (from wiki & Boeing’s 767 pages 10 & 12) for the 767-3ER and the 767-2ER is 17,140 lbs, figure 12,000 is the fuselage weight difference.
Based on the 767-3F OEW of 188,100 (wt of GE or PW) minus 12,000 lbs for the shorter -200 fuselage, the OEW of the 767-2LRF is 176,000 lbs + 20,000 lbs for everything = 196,000 lbs. MTOW 412,000 lbs – 196,000 lbs = 216,000 lbs available.

“BTW, did you know wings for KC-45 originate from A340. That’s why an A330 got such a huge fuel load.”

Yes, the A330/A340 share the same wings.
The A340 another heavily subsidized Airbus FAILURE to design a commercial airliner to compete against the 777.
The A340-300 orders/deliveries 218/218, the 777-200ER orders/deliveries 430/413

“MTOW of an A340 is at least 610,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 40,960 US gal.”

More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.
Did I miss the announcement regarding EADS submitting the A340 for KC-X?

MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.”

More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.

“BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.”

Fuel capacity is still 246,000 lbs.

“How do you think troop’s gear is moved on leased or rented commercial aircrafts (e.g. CRAF) while traveling to Manas AB?

You mean the ones that fly in on commercial or chartered civilian aircraft?
Last time I checked commercial or chartered or CRAF aircraft are NOT OWNED by the USAF.
And I’ve seen 747 Freighter using the 463L when flying cargo charters for the USAF.

“A 767 without additional fuel tanks can carry 5 additional 463L pallets on the lower deck. A KC-767AT couldn’t.”

My understanding is that the additional fuel tanks will be either pallet mounted or in LD8 sized tanks, similar to the LD6 sized auxiliary fuel tanks used by the 777LR. These tanks should be removable allowing an additional 5 pallets to be carried on cargo missions, although whether the USAF would do so is another question.

“ An A330MRTT can carry up to 26 463L pallets on main deck. KC-45 is limited to 24 due to galleys.”

24 or 26 pallet is just more empty and 95% of the time UNUSED space, plus the 65,000 lbs of aircraft needed to support it that EADS hopes to saddle the USAF with. And like last time, will the KC-30 fail to meet several requirements regarding air refueling all aircraft using current procedures?

“During the virtual tour on http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/ I counted just 18 pallets inside KC-767NG.”

Interesting, they need to slow down the cargo demo or allow you to pause it.

“I’ll still have to refer to KC-767AT because Boeing dislikes unveiling some facts about the NG.”

I tend to use 767AT/NG, nor am I a fan of Boeing’s “I’ve got a secret” regarding the 767NG.

“I refer to the A330MRTT as KC-45 then referring to aircraft offered to USAF during last competition.”

I do not believe Northrop Grumman offered the KC-45, they offered a KC-30 based aircraft for the KC-X (KC-45) selection.
The USAF has stated that the winner of the KC-X would be designated as the KC-45A.
Northrop Grumman used the “KC-45A” to describe its aircraft after the selection, referring to it as the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” and completely avoiding any reference the actual origin of the aircraft.
After the selection and contract were overturned by the GAO, Northrop Grumman continued to used the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” until the USAF “requested” that they cease doing so.
This is my reason from referring to the EADS A330 MRTT as the KC-30.

Another fine example of EU taxpayer subsidizing industry OR perhaps EADS/Airbus current marketing pitch is “buy our planes at cheap discount prices”

We should delay this discussion until the second WTO dispute according commercial aircraft production is made public. Maybe WTO rates tax breaks also as a subsidy.

I believe that the 767 still has a higher production number (986) than the A330 (703).

Airbus and many other speak of the A330/A340 aircraft family. Production number is over 1050.

Among these 27 freighter for UPS and several compensations for the sevenlateseven.
Airbus gained 46 orders for A330 in 2010 up until now.

Previously Boeing elected not to extend the 757 production line, from 45 deliveries in 2001, to 14 in 2003, to just 2 in2005 when the line closed. Boeing also closed the 727 line quickly going from 94 delivered in 1981, to 26 in 1982 to just 8 in 1984 when the line closed.
Airbus keep the A310 line open for 9 years without a single order/delivery and A300 line open for 12 years with deliveries averaging one aircraft every 6 weeks or 9.4 aircraft per year.

What was possible due to the way Airbus assembles an aircraft. A way Boeing tries for the first time with 787.

“No, that was discovered by USAF. One KC-45 can replace 1.9 KC-135.”
Sorry, the KC-30 can be in 1.9 places at the same time.

It is sufficient for an aircraft e.g. to stay 1.9 longer on station. At a range of 2,500 nm a KC-45 can loiter nearly three times longer than a KC-135. (Figures derived from here: …)

Still trying to figure out that Northrop Grumman program.
The KC-30 carries just 30% more fuel burns that fuel 40% faster but is worth 1.9 KC-135R?

According to my calculations fuel burn for KC-135 or KC-45 are quite the same for cruising.
According to USAF the KC-135R is reduced to 180,000 lbs of fuel at takeoff. A KC-45 carries 30 % more fuel than a KC-767AT/NG.

I believe the concern is regarding parking ramps in other (third world) countries.

I won’t think you can offer much parking ramps anywhere for KC-767 with unrestricted use while KC-45 got restrictions.

You trade 21 ft of fuselage length for complete refueling installations incl. additional internal tanks.
OEW difference between 767-300F and 767-300ER is about 9,000 lbs. A -300ER offers about 20 % more seats than a -200ER. So seat weight is about 7,500 lbs for -200ER. OEW weight for both ER differ by 18,000 lbs. So fuselage weight for 21 ft is about 10,000 lbs or all additional installations.

Yes, the A330/A340 share the same wings.
The A340 another heavily subsidized Airbus FAILURE to design a commercial airliner to compete against the 777.

The A340 went into service 2 years prior to B777.

Nice figure but that won’t tell as anything. How many training missions are included with low offload? At a range of 2,000 nm a KC-135 can’t even provide 60,000 lbs of fuel to offload.

There was fuzz about one new type of tanker would be quite cheaper to maintain than two types. So it would make sense to replace the KC-10 with a KC-45HGW (with just two engines) to reduce the types of aircraft.

MTOW of an A340-500HGW is 838,000 lbs with a fuel capacity of 59,000 US gal.”
More wasted (unneeded/unused) fuel, the average offload since Vietnam has been less than 60,000 lbs (9,000 gal) per tanker mission.

It’s not just fuel it’s also cargo.
Due to the experience made in Vietnam with KC-135 USAF wanted a bigger tanker.

“BTW, A330-200 is already available with a MTOW of 238 t (525,000 lbs) without a higher OEW.”
Fuel capacity is still 246,000 lbs.

238 t for MTOW minus 109 t for OEW for an A330-200F leaves about 285,000 lbs for fuel and payload or 245,000 lbs of fuel and 40,000 lbs for additional installations.

You mean the ones that fly in on commercial or chartered civilian aircraft?
Last time I checked commercial or chartered or CRAF aircraft are NOT OWNED by the USAF.

You don’t have to be the owner of something then using it.

And I’ve seen 747 Freighter using the 463L when flying cargo charters for the USAF.

A 747-400F can carry about 42 military 463L pallets with just 9 pallets on the lower deck; about 30 % more than a KC-45 with 32 pallets.
463L is not adequate to use the lower cargo deck on commercial airlines. Cargo volume is about 60 % higher for LD3 or LD2 containers on lower deck compared 463L pallets.

Tara weight of one LD8 is about 132 kg or 291 lbs. Volume is about 6.88 m³. Fuel is about 0.8 kg / litre or 1.78 lbs / litre. In each LD8 container about 12,500 lbs of fuel can be stored.

You should differ between the views of USAF and view some lawyers.
BTW, does the KC-767I already meet all the simple Italian Air Force requirements?

Interesting, they need to slow down the cargo demo or allow you to pause it.

Done that. It’s just an animation. The CGI division may as competent as the PR department.

After the selection and contract were overturned by the GAO, Northrop Grumman continued to used the “Northrop Grumman KC-45A” until the USAF “requested” that they cease doing so.

I wasn’t requested by USAF. I choose KC-45 to distinguish better between the different types.