Airbus A330 Tanker Runs Into Trouble
September 10th, 2009
Airbus hasn’t had an easy ride so far in 2009. Its US rival hasn’t had it any easier either.
While Boeing has been plagued with issues on the 787, Airbus has had to contend with the A380 production schedule evaporating quicker than a genie escaping from a bottle as well as pass the proverbial begging bowl amongst its EU compatriots to cough up for the A350XWB - all neatly enmeshed with the political buffoonery attached to the deal to salvage the A400M from joining the dodo in the history books.
With the WTO providing a preliminary ruling that says aid on the A380 is illegal, the repercussions are starting to stretch from beyond the commercial sector into the military and political arena.
Although the WTO case may play out for years to come, this will certainly impact the KC-X tanker competition.
Airbus A330 MRTT’s In Flight
Image courtesy of the RAAF
Congressman Todd Tiahrt’s (of Kansas, location of a key Boeing tanker facility) comments about disqualifying the Airbus tanker may have come under fire from the usual circle of cereal-packet and Airbus-paid critics, but with questions about the way Airbus finances its endeavours without bearing risk is a cloud that will not disappear overnight, if at all. While Tiahrt’s objections are nothing new, the WTO preliminary findings may give them added weight.
Further, with questions about the June 1, 2009 Air France Airbus A330-200 crash still a raw emotion, pilots from the airline are up in arms because Airbus, Air France and the BEA have all but pinned the blame of the crash squarely at the feet of the air crew.
For Airbus, the most debilitating aspect of the KC-X tanker competition is that the A330-based tanker, the A330 MRTT, has thus far failed to verifiably demonstrate active fuel transfer through the boom.
With the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) poised to be one of the first to operate the A330-derived KC-30A tanker, the delay in service entry stems from a design issue with the boom - meaning that fuel transfer is still a distant prospect for the tanker and is being noted by several US Air Force generals close to the KC-X tanker competition.
While tests have already been conducted for passing fuel via the drogues, the RAAF has classified comments and criticism of the boom along with its inability to transfer fuel successfully through it as “sensitive”. First delivery of the RAAF tanker was initially slated for 2008 and is not now expected until next year. Conversion on the second RAAF tanker has slowed to a trickle while work to rectify the failed boom on the first article continues. Conversion of the third RAAF KC-30A also appears to have been postponed indefinitely.
Airbus has been keen to avoid making known the technical faults of the boom on the RAAF KC-30A for fear of further public relations problems as encountered on the A380 and disastrous A400M programs.
None of this will be lost on the US Air Force - particularly as it gears up towards finalising a new RFP.
Critically, questions have recently arisen about the additional certification requirements sought from both the FAA and EASA. These link directly to the KC-30A’s need for further floor strengthening and the flight dynamics regime that has suffered as a result of the increased weight and shift in the CoG/moment arm of the airplane. Combined, these issues have impacted the ability of EADS and partner Northrop Grumman to table a working solution that fits the bill for the upcoming US Air Force RFP.
Where some quarters have claimed that the WTO allegedly dismissed 70% of the US claims against Airbus and the EU, it is worthwhile noting that when the GAO ruled in favour of Boeing’s tanker appeal, it upheld around eight key points that scuttled the whole contest to a grinding halt.
With other Congressmen such as (Puget Sound-based and admittedly pro-Boeing) Norm Dicks weighing in heavily on the WTO ruling, this new revelation about the inherent tactical failings of the A330 in tanker form will surely play on the minds of those who advocate a split deal procurement of the contract.
KC-777 & KC-767 Tankers Refuelling In Flight - Click image for bigger photo
Image courtesy of Boeing IDS
Further, those who are calling for a dual-source 767-777 solution will take heart that any new RFP that intimates that “more” troop, fuel and freight carrying capability are a “must”, then the A330 is trumped by the 777 in every profile.
Fundamentally, when one USAF general stated that “it was impossible to draft an impartial RFP when the characteristics of the airframes were known beforehand,” the question that the USAF must now be asking itself is whether the pretence of a competition is even warranted given the A330’s questions surrounding the Air France crash, the RAAF KC-30A troubles topped off with the WTO siding with the US complaint of illegal funding.
That’s something only the USAF has the answer to - saving aggravation on all sides points to a sole-source contract being the only judicious way out of the KC-X conundrum.
Quite where that leaves Northrop Grumman is frankly another debate altogether.
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A330, Airbus A330-200, Boeing, Boeing 767, Boeing 777, Boeing 777-200LR, US Air Force
308 Comments Add your own
1. Dougloid | September 10th, 2009 at 04:39
Look out, ladies! Saj is in da house.
2. robert | September 10th, 2009 at 05:03
so what is the progress of the 767 tanker??
3. Paula K | September 10th, 2009 at 05:26
@robert
FYI
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=678
4. Mike M | September 10th, 2009 at 06:15
The 767 is in service with Italy and Japan.
AND has successfully transferred fuel through a boom countless times over it appears too.
5. Aero Ninja | September 10th, 2009 at 07:24
HI, I was just wondering where all this information came from (the boom not working properly, the flight dynamics problems and the extra requirements that the certification authourities are demanding)? I cannot find any hint of this anywhere. The only relevant piece of news on the net I could find was an article in May stating that the flutter testing phase was successfully completed. It does seem strange that there is so little information about this program available, good or bad.
6. Aero Ninja | September 10th, 2009 at 07:28
I also read that there are WTO clauses, to which the US is a signatory, that prevent “cross-retaliation”, i.e. the US is not allowed to penalize Airbus due to this preliminary finding. Also would not the fact that Northrop-Grumman is partnered with Airbus make such an exclusion a bit more politically sensitive? Or is the Boeing political juggernaut that omnipotent?
Thanks for any info.
7. Paula K | September 10th, 2009 at 07:55
@Aero ninja
Dont read into the bull on that amateur wannabe Hamiltons site. He has nothing but anti-Boeing sentiment.
The WTO “anti-clause” tripe does not apply if the US Govt decides to scrap a competition, or if Boeing wins it.
The fact of the matter is that if Northrop say the WTO decision is “irrelevant”, then a sole-selection of the tanker to Boeing cannot be deemed as “retaliatory” in any form. No court of law could make that “stick”.
Retaliation is a non issue here - only fools like the McCain crowd believe its relevant because they are probably on the clandestine Airbus payroll.
Northrop Grumman would have a tough time in Congress arguing that it would lose out because it is doesnt build the A330 anyway.
8. Ed | September 10th, 2009 at 09:01
Humm…quite a balanced editorial indeed…Those Brits, Aussies, Saudis, not to mention the French, of course must be real fools!
9. ikkeman | September 10th, 2009 at 09:50
Couple of questions:
in most democratic regions anyone is innocent until a verdict has been passed - do you propose this preliminary draft proposal by the WTO panel, which still needs revision by both the accusor and accused and final revision by the WTO panel before it’s even considered for publication, and of which none of us know - or are allowed to say they know the actual text is anything like a verdict?
If this impacts the tanker competition, than what about the preliminary draft proposal on the counter case - or do you realy think the WTO will not rule in favour some (maybe 30%) of the EU complaints…
What about the questions of how Boeing finances its R&D without bearing risk?
What about the raw emotion of the friends, family and loved ones that died on 767’s? you’d sink so low as to use the dead to push your product?
Of course the 330 boom has passed gas on the A310 based demonstrator… how many gallons has KC-767AT’s boom transferred - oh, wait. paper design.
How many years were the 767 tankers delayed again - but you’re right. This would have no bearing on the KC-767AT because it’s a whole new hybrid design.
Do you mean the breakaway and minimum speed requirements that the A330 isn’t certified to and any KC-30 would have to… Boeing is proposing a whole new hybrid design - not a single part on that design has been certified yet!
Oh no, the floor may require strengthening - maybe along the lines of the 330F???
not wanting to propose a split buy, but realising that’s probably the only politically achievable solution - why not see the 330 as the smaller. I do agree the 777 would make a great large cargo/troop/fuel carrier, suppletmented by the medium sized kc30.
“the question that the USAF must now be asking itself is whether the pretence of a competition is even warranted ” your best statement yet. Not only do you assume to tell the USAF what they must do (wasn’t it the customer that was always right), you blatently admit to seeing any contest only as a pretext, further throwing a shadow over the USAF already tainted by the Druyen schandal. No wonder Boeing lost the last competition. Even if NG/EADS didn’t have the better platform (which they do, the KC30 is better than any KC767AT, IMO), who would buy anything from a company that won’t listen to what you want. “Here’s what we have and you’d better like it” is not something that wins my custom. Then that same company make a mockery of any attempt at comparison with competing products, suggesting such endeavours are just a pretense and assumes to get the business simply based on that it’s headquarters are closer to my home.
No, in my version of the capitalist sytem anyone will have to outperform the competition to win my buck. I buy the best, and hope it’s made in the US, not the other way around.
You’ll get me wrong but I’m not pro Airbus, I’m just not pro boeing either. The simple fact is that NG/EADS have a made the benefits of their products over their competition much clearer than Boeing has. In fact, the only thing I hear from Boeing is complaints of why the other isn’t as good as it seems. What are the strong points of the KC767AT??
10. Skeptic | September 10th, 2009 at 10:09
Good report. I’ve often wondered why news of the airbus tanker went very quiet all of a sudden. If it is technical issues with the boom, or something else, that would be a problem for a tanker, wouldn’t it?
Good discussion of the politics. Airbus can’t bid alone; they need Northrop Grumman. If NG pulls the plug, gave over.
11. Sal | September 10th, 2009 at 10:34
I don’t know if they are foolish or not. I do know, that the Air Forces you mentioned DO NOT rely on the aerial refueling boom anywhere near as much as the U.S. Air Force does.
Say Ed, where is that picture of the KC-30 refueling via its EADS-developed boom to another aircraft in flight?
Saj is quite correct. Lets move on from this charade of a “competition” when clearly, there isn’t one anymore and have the USAF and Boeing develop the Next Generation Tanker without the political clouds that have over shadowed this program since its inception.
12. Skeptic | September 10th, 2009 at 10:38
Kudos also for having the intellectual honesty to raise the issue of AF447 in connection with the tanker. As I recall during the last competition, in a dazzling display of mental gymnastics, the USAF actually rated the KC-30 as the less “riskier” of the two! Few in the media will even touch this now, but along with the WTO ruling on airbus subsidies, this accident hangs in the background and likely won’t go away. How can the USAF ignore an incident like this?
“Pilot error” won’t suffice on this one.
13. JustSomeDude | September 10th, 2009 at 11:47
for blogger 6,
Yes indeed, Boeing is in fact a political juggernaut and is indeed omnipotent (or so they think so)… but you asked it exactly right.
Whether this “power” is good or bad is another topic… Boeing Management has been, however, somewhat misusing and abusing this power more and more since the merger with MD… maybe they’re pulling their heads out recently, but maybe not… hafta see how Jim Albaugh does next.
But I will have to admit that Airbus’s planes are almost inferior in any comparison to Boeing’s from the viewpoints of many airline mechanics and repair shops who told me such things.
14. 787Fan | September 10th, 2009 at 13:20
Isn’t it ironic that the biggest problem with the A330 and it’s Refueling Boom is Boeings biggest success story. I was personally a part of HUNDREDS of refueling missions during Viet Nam and we passed fuel quiet successfuly and I believe has been doing so for about 50 years or so..?? If the AF wants a larger Tanker than the 767 ( which I thought all along ) then they need to let Boeing build it for them. Not go to some Airbust version. The KC-135 proves that NO ONE builds a better Aircraft……All you Boeing haters need to wake up….
Gooooo Boeing…. KC-777..YEAH..
15. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 10th, 2009 at 13:36
I find the AF447 insertion into aerospace posts annoying - despite the valid point.
Why did Saudi Arabia, The UK, Australia and the French buy the A330MRTT in the first place? And they’re all traditional allies of the US. Politically, the US has been unsociable in the eyes of the populations of all these countries.
I thought they delivered the A330 tanker already! If it doesn’t work, that’s quite funny - but not a plane crash. As 9. Sal says, they actually don’t need the tanker capability part. The transport part comes in handy. When they do joint exercises with the US, and compare each others toys, the US will demonstrate how the tanker aircraft works in its primary role - i.e. Transfer fuel to airplanes A-Z (in flight).
But seriously - does the boom not work???
16. Aurora | September 10th, 2009 at 13:45
Its not only EADS that wants to avoid another public relations fiasco. Given Australia’s past defense procurement embarrassments, I would expect them to do whatever they had to to keep bad news about the A330MRTT from entering the mainstream media. Just from memory there were the issues with Wedgetail, Seasprite, Kokum’s submarines, & Eurocopter Tigers. The Australian press beat them about the head and shoulders over these foul ups. Now compounding the desire to avoid the painful glare of public scruntiny on any A330MRTT issues there’s the gallic hypersensitivity to public questioning of their innate superiority in all things technical.
Here’s a prediction. Smarting from this editorial, EADS moves heaven and earth to get the A330MRTT in the air very soon and passes a few liters of fuel to a receiver aircraft. Everyone involved declares it a tremendous success, proof that the airbus tanker is the greatest mavel since the invention of the steam engine.
Then the program goes quiet again. Very quiet.
17. Ed | September 10th, 2009 at 13:58
Saj, Sal: have a look at:
http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3308/KC-30-Tanker-Refueling-Boom-Concludes-Testing-Phase.html
if it is only bullshit, please produce your evidence: as some repeat it time and again on this blog, we want facts, not opinions!
———————————-
Ed,
From your own link:
There is your evidence Sir.
FleetBuzz Editorial.com
18. Dougloid | September 10th, 2009 at 14:24
Do you think that if Airbus gets the boom feed issue licked and takes, say, fifteen or twenty flying in a circle all being refueled in flight that they will have invented a perpetual motion machine?
19. Dougloid | September 10th, 2009 at 14:31
This has got me thinking.
It looks to me as if Uncle Sugar is expending a lot of effort to create and deploy a number of high endurance, heavily armed and very capable ROVs. When I worked for Delavan in 2001 the US completed an endurance test with the Global Hawk that flew nonstop from Australia to Vandenberg AFB.
With that in mind, what’s the point of producing a new generation aerial refueling tanker?
20. Aero Ninja | September 10th, 2009 at 14:52
Saj, I asked you earlier where you received thsi information as I cannot find anything substantiating any of it anywhere. In fact, I mentioned the only story I could find, from Reuters, that reported a successful flutter flight test in May of 2009.
In the meantime, you take the time to answer Ed’s question but have nto answered mine. Why not?
Why won’t you tell me where you got this information from? Incidentally, you are saying that the boom worked all right on the A310 demonstrator but it does not work on the A330 MRTT. Is that right?
——-
Sorry, I’m not “glued” to the PC and did NOT forget to answer you. If you’d have given me an opportunity I’d have done so gladly in your prior comment. I was typing it as this message arrived!
As it is, here is what you seek - the only boom tests thus far have been done with an A310MRTT, NOT with or on an A330MRTT. As to where this info came from, I am not at liberty to divulge it. Sorry.
FleetBuzz Editorial.com
21. Roger | September 10th, 2009 at 15:05
Add me to the list of those who are glad to see the 330 linked to AF447. There are a few complelling theorys still bouncing around and no one French seems to be in any hurry to answer them.
One of the theorys relates to the wiring used and says that the type of wire used is shorting after several years. To me that makes the most sense. Would this be an issue with the tanker, or would the USAF have its own wiring specification? Anyone know?
Another of the theorys relates to the Airbus philosophy of putting the computer in charge instead of the pilots. Does the tanker use the same flight control management software as the commercial version?
22. Sal | September 10th, 2009 at 15:19
I’m sorry Ed, what were you saying?
The aircraft you cited was an A310 with a prototype boom. Nowhere, that I am aware of, will you find a picture of the KC-30 refueling another aircraft, either in the air or in ground testing. If you can produce that picture, I’m sure all of us, including EADS and the Royal Australian Air Force would love to see it.
23. Ed | September 10th, 2009 at 15:31
According to Airdisaster.com, there have been 9 B 767 fatal crashes to date: does this statistic cast any doubt on the 767’s airworthyness? why should it be considered safer than the A330?
24. Mike M | September 10th, 2009 at 15:43
>>>According to Airdisaster.com, there have been 9 B 767 fatal crashes to date: does this statistic cast any doubt on the 767’s airworthyness? why should it be considered safer than the A330?
Probably because no one has tried to cover up the accident?
Look at the Yemen A310 crash - the French were WAY to quick to blame the airline and its staff, dont you agree?
25. Sal | September 10th, 2009 at 15:55
To Ikkeman’s points.
First of all, the boom Boeing is using, and let’s keep in mind that Boeing INVENTED the technology, today on the Japanese and Italian tankers. Even if a more robust version of the 767 airframe is offered, which is likely, or the KC-777 is proposed, both will use the same 5th generation, fly by wire boom being used in today’s KC-767s.
You and I both want the same thing. The best tanker for the USAF. So far, no one has been able to prove that the KC-30 is a better tanker. Its commercial sibling maybe more advanced then the 767, but in no way does that translate into military capability or aerial refueling prowess. I just do not understand why those of you that swear the the KC-30 is “better” downplay the significance of the fact that there seems to be developmental issues with its aerial refueling system and no one is talking about it. The folks in Mobile couldn’t wait to have a picture of the Japanese boom unlatching during one, count them one, landing.
26. Skeptic | September 10th, 2009 at 16:01
Ed. WRT the 767 fatalities, the majority were a result of terrorism. The causes of the others are known. As for the A330 fatal crash, unfortunately the cause may never be known for certain. However, the speculation as to the cause is not only fair game for consideration in the next USAF tanker, I’d venture that it should be mandatory consideration. There were other near crash incidents that could bear on the suitability of this airbus aircraft in a military role.
Like it or not, its fair game, just like the WTO decision.
27. Ed | September 10th, 2009 at 16:02
Mike M:
the “black boxes” of Yemenia A310 have just been recovered, so let’s wait for them to tell what happened…
28. NH | September 10th, 2009 at 16:15
With regards to tanker selection, I have no real opinion one way or the other. I don’t feel that I am particularly pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus, simply pro-aerospace. The USAF deserves to get a tanker fleet solution which provides the highest operational capabilities and good value for taxpayer money. I don’t know what that solution is right now, I don’t know if anybody really will for some time yet. I don’t envy anyone who has to be part of that final decision process.
Nor do I have any comments one way or the other on the WTO ruling and boom technical issues you raised or their potential implications on the USAF tanker selection process. I’m not trying to dismiss these arguments; I simply haven’t been watching either of those issues very closely lately to draw an opinion on them.
However, I do find it unfortunate that your article chose to highlight the recent Air France A330 crash to support an anti-KC-30 argument. I can only assume that you made the argument in order to suggest that the A330 is somehow unsafe and therefore unacceptable or at least more risky for the USAF compared with alternative platforms. I read the Times Online blog article you linked to and it really only supported my previous opinion that this accident, like the vast majority of others, are caused by a combination of factors, both technical and human (including but not limited to the pilots), and not a single event.
There are over 600 A330s flying around the globe every day, and it has been in service since 1994. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first fatal accident in actual passenger service for this type. The world’s aviation authorities clearly think it is safe enough to allow tens of thousands of people to fly in them daily. Per the Times article you cite, the pitot tubes upgrade (which looks like the leading technical factor in this accident) is being implemented on all aircraft now, and Air France has made improvements to its training processes. I’m sure other airlines are taking action where appropriate. So just how should this all affect the USAF tanker selection?
Would you avoid flying on an A330? What about a Trent-powered 777s, to use another recent example? I have no problems flying on either. Many aircraft have accidents for many reasons – we investigate these accidents and fix the problems to prevent them from happening again.
I have been reading this blog for some time now - some posts I agree with, some I don’t; but to use something such as a fatal airliner crash as part of an argument against the USAF tanker selection is not only unrelated, it is also (in my opinion) in bad taste. Please, lets try to stick with only the relevant facts and problems next time so the debate can focus on the important issues at hand.
29. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | September 10th, 2009 at 16:30
Incorrect. It was highlighted because the French authorities have drawn conclusions about the crash devoid of fact. As you say, the accident is likely down to numerous factors but the French authorities have already pinned the blame on the crew. Is this the new accepted norm for air crash investigations?
Sorry, but it is IS related. Until the AF447 cause is known, how could anyone be sure there are no further demons? It is normal practice for any airliner to be continually tweaked and improved - witness the rudder control units on the 737’s, for example.
Ask yourself, A330’s have been flying for years without incident - this one crash has become the sole catalyst for a fleet-wide pitot probe replacement. Almost unheard of in today’s era by any stretch of the imagination.
I usually elect to steer clear of reader comments - everyone is at liberty to share their views and I thoroughly welcome and encourage them, but your dismissal of fact (or lack thereof in the AF447 crash) goes to the very heart about the inherent failings of the A330MRTT and cannot be denied.
Case in point - Audi fixing a flaw on the TT after a spate of crashes/deaths.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/20/automobiles/audi-offers-tt-fix-after-5-deaths.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article673330.ece
- Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson
I have nothing further to add and will happily leave the floor open to readers.
30. Vero Venia | September 10th, 2009 at 16:32
Honestly, this story about this tanker contest starts to annoy me. How come such a defense procurement process comes to public place?
I don’t think it’s a very good taste to throw such debate in public. In reality there are so few parties involved in the story. They are the American government (USAF) and those who make an offer to the call for tender. Do the wide public need to know the details of such specific contest? I don’t think so.
It is even more disturbing when the public debate turns stupid. I think it is clearly not a question about which aircraft is better. it’s all about fulfilling the requirements that will have been defined by the USAF.
I am also a little bit confused by by the objective of the new tanker fleet. Is the main objective to replace the ageing KC-135 or has USAF changed the mission for its tanker fleet, with personnel and materials transport on top of the tanker role?
If USAF think that those tankers must also serve as personnel & materials transport then they have to make it clear in the RFP. If those tanker are meant to be mostly tanker than they must make it clear too.
There are so many air charter companies and cargo forwarders out there. Is it fully justified that the USAF owns and operates aircraft (and the required staff) to serve this “personnel and materials transport market“?
Frankly, I just don’t understand what all this brouhaha is for. The bidders must understand the RFP, provide a proposal and the USAF must do the selection properly.
The last time it was done, the process was nullified by the GAO because the process had not been done properly. I think you must accept the GAO’s authority.
31. Sal | September 10th, 2009 at 16:35
NH,
As uncomfortable as it maybe considering all aspects of a vendors product, including accidents and possible cases, I can guarantee you that the AF incident will be taken into consideration by the DoD’s Source Selection committee. It would be irresponsible not to. What weight it will be given, is anyone’s guess. My opinion is that there are other factors that weigh against the KC-30MRTT much more then the Air France crash.
32. Mike M | September 10th, 2009 at 17:17
>>>I have been reading this blog for some time now - some posts I agree with, some I don’t; but to use something such as a fatal airliner crash as part of an argument against the USAF tanker selection is not only unrelated, it is also (in my opinion) in bad taste.
I think the only bad tasting thing here is the failure to accept that the A330 is under the watchful eye of many observers.
33. Ed | September 10th, 2009 at 18:15
I am the real Ed, not the one from replies # 8 and 1.
ikkeman said in reply #9;
“Of course the 330 boom has passed gas on the A310 based demonstrator… how many gallons has KC-767AT’s boom transferred - oh, wait. paper design.
How many years were the 767 tankers delayed again - but you’re right. This would have no bearing on the KC-767AT because it’s a whole new hybrid design.
Do you mean the breakaway and minimum speed requirements that the A330 isn’t certified to and any KC-30 would have to… Boeing is proposing a whole new hybrid design - not a single part on that design has been certified yet!
Oh no, the floor may require strengthening - maybe along the lines of the 330F???”
Ed said in reply # 17;
“Saj, Sal: have a look at:
http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3308/KC-30-Tanker-Refueling-Boom-Concludes-Testing-Phase.html
if it is only bullshit, please produce your evidence: as some repeat it time and again on this blog, we want facts, not opinions!
———————————-
Ed,
From your own link:
“Activities then shifted to the flight phase in March 2006 with flights conducted on board the EADS A310 Boom Demonstrator aircraft.”
There is your evidence Sir.”
————————————————————————————-
Both of you EADS cheerleaders (ed/ikkeman) are wrong. The KC-30B has NEVER passed fuel through the boom. The boom mounted on the KC-310 is still on that airplane, and that is the one that passed some gas. The cargo deck on the A-330 cannot support the military carg loads. EADS did not competer the A-330F, they competed the A-330 pax version. None of the A-330F is certified, design completed, or even built, yet.
Mean while, the boom currently on the KC-767A/J does work, it is called the generation V boom. The version offered to the USAF on the KC-767AT is the gen. VI boom. The only difference is the lenght, compared to the gen.V boom, and some softwear changes. Mechanically, the two booms are identical.
Every single part designed into the KC-767AT is already FAA and EASA Certified.
The RAAF has pushed back the acceptance, again, of the KC-30B because the airplane does not meet the contract specs. It cannot refuel through the boom, it is heavier than contracted for, and it cannot carry the speced cargo weight at 2.5G. It also cannot receive fuel through its own receptical.
The USAF is going to consider the AF-447 crash in the next KC-X compitition, if the A-330 competes. Even if a definate reason is not found by then, the USAF will still consider the fact that the cause may extend beyond the pitot tubes. Perhaps that is why Airbus and the French investigators suddenly decided to blame the flight crew, without any evidence to back it up. That is irresponsible on the part of the OEM and the French.
The part that everyone seems to forget here is there are 4 viable airplanes thatr are competing for the tanker contest. Only two ever get talked about, the A-330MRTT and the KC-767AT. But there is also the KC777F out there, as well as the reengined KC-135E. The KC-135E, or even reenigining stored KC-135As are still the cheapest option to the new tankers.
34. Aurora | September 10th, 2009 at 18:37
“Real Ed”. Great post. Thank you for the clarification. Folks forget that the rehabbing the KC-135As (and the KC-135Es) are viable options, especially if one goes with JT8D engines, new struts and skins. Of course that would be costly, but its do-able.
35. NH | September 10th, 2009 at 20:17
I do appreciate the reply, thank you.
I’m sure the BEA is handling this investigation as professionally as NTSB or anyone else would. You say the BEA are drawing conclusions “devoid of fact” and blaming the pilots. In the Times Online article you linked to, it says ‘Paul-Louis Arslanian, chief investigator, said the pitot failure was a “factor but not the cause” of the crash.’ That is not the same as “pinn(ing) the blame on the crew”. And the investigation is not “devoid of fact”. They have many facts in this case. What you mean is they are devoid of the FDR and CVR. Let’s be honest, we are probably never going to find those black boxes, so the BEA has to move forward, piece together what it does know about the accident and the aircraft, what it can figure out through experiment and simulator testing, and come up with a sequence of events leading to the crash.
I’m not saying we should all ignore the crash. Of course we should scrutinize it. But I have every confidence that the various civil aviation authorities will know and understand the factors causing the crash, and effective counters to those causes will be put in place by Airbus and the airlines – no body wants a second crash.
So, with that said, if any proposed KC-30 includes upgraded pitot tubes and any other fixes that come out of the investigation (which it would have to be considered airworthy), why should the KC-30 be considered any differently than a KC-767 or KC-777 with respect to risk or safety?
Maybe it boils down to whether or not you (or others) trust the BEA (and EASA and FAA) to ensure that the A330 continues to meet their airworthiness standards. If that is the sticking point, then we may have to agree to disagree. But thanks for the debate none the less.
(I’m not sure if I should use this historical example or not, but the DC-10 had several fatal crashes caused my many different factors, both technical and human, but they were all investigated and fixed and I don’t think anyone would say the DC-10 is not a safe plane to fly on. Plus it went on to make a nice tanker too… isn’t this proof that the system of crash investigation and safety improvement works?)
36. Skeptic | September 10th, 2009 at 20:45
Another article by Mr. Bremmer. The AF pilots are a little more direct here. They are alleging a cover up by the accident investigators.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6817322.ece
A cover up?
37. John | September 11th, 2009 at 01:12
“The USAF is going to consider the AF-447 crash in the next KC-X compitition, if the A-330 competes. Even if a definate reason is not found by then, the USAF will still consider the fact that the cause may extend beyond the pitot tubes. Perhaps that is why Airbus and the French investigators suddenly decided to blame the flight crew, without any evidence to back it up. That is irresponsible on the part of the OEM and the French.”
The issue extends beyond safety, in order to meet the RFI specs the tanker must be able to safely refuel much slower flying aircraft than a jet flying at cruise speed. In specific it has to refuel V-22s. Given the concern of A330 safety at low speeds it is possible the A330 may not be able to prove it meets the technical requirements of the competition and lose by default.
In the last round the Air Force said the KC-767 met the requirement, but did not say the KC-30 could refuel all aircraft types. Some commenters said that one of the aircraft was the aformentiioned V-22 and the previous contract could have been declared void based on this fact. NG of course refuted this and said yes indeed the KC-30 met all requirements, however, the AF will be looking at this issue much closer this time around and it could be a show stopper for the KC-30.
38. Name (Required) | September 11th, 2009 at 03:28
It’s worth remembering that the initial competition was held under a different administration that employed bully tactics against detractors and reward political allies without regard to what was in the best interest of the country. The current administration has shown a willingness to fight ridiculous procurement decisions, such as the purchase of more F-22’s, and I believe Americans can count on the current administration to issue requirements that are based on the needs of the Air Force, not requirements based on pork barrel politics.
The previous requirements were contaminated so that EADS had a shot at winning in an attempt to bring jobs and money to states that have historically supported the party of the previous administration. I hope that when the new requirements are issued they don’t give credit for dubious mission capabilities like occasionally carrying more troops or cargo. Let’s call that what it was, a heavy-handed attempt to skew the requirements in favor of the solution proposed by EADS.
Without the inappropriate intervention of politicians to bend the requirements, the solution proposed by EADS is oversize and doesn’t meet the needs of the Air Force. In the event that the requirements are twisted around yet again, Boeing has other airframes it can offer, and considering that, I don’t see how EADS has a chance.
39. robert | September 11th, 2009 at 07:31
upgrading older KC-135’s is only a partial solution. About half the KC-135’s have allready been heavly modified. You can only modify an old palne so much then it just become more and more expansive to maintain due to rust and metal fatigue. Go kc-777!!!
40. keesje | September 11th, 2009 at 11:04
Somebody already got the idea of linking BA38 to a possible KC777 offer, or Lauda004 to the KC767? Of course not. It’s embarrasing & ridiculous, but apparently anything goes these days in B world.
41. Mike M | September 11th, 2009 at 11:25
Ah, the master of deception returns in Keesje.
tell us Keesje, how many 777-200LR’s have crashed with zilcho explanation (because THATS what the KC-777AT is based on, not the 777-200ER).
Further, if you kindly check the links below, you’ll see that even in the case of the 767 crash you brazenly pike out here, all of the crashes were fully investigated BEFORE the agencies ran their mouth off about what/who was the cause(s) of these events.
Your approach here is as juvenile as that idiot poster NH frankly.
http://www.airfleets.net/crash/crash_report_British%20Airways_G-YMMM.htm
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/16/315940/cracking-the-777-ice-puzzle.html
http://www.airfleets.net/crash/crash_report_Lauda%20Air_OE-LAV.htm
42. ikkeman | September 11th, 2009 at 13:08
25. Sal | September 10th, 2009 at 15:55
Sal, Japan’s and Italy’s tankers didn’t arrive without a hitch either. why should one be counted and the other ignored?
lets turn your question around, because all you’re saying again is why the 330 wouldn’t make as good a tanker as it seems - what makes the 767 the better choice?
26. Skeptic | September 10th, 2009 at 16:01
The 767 does not have a perfect safety record, neither does the 330 - so why is this not a moot point.
29. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | September 10th, 2009 at 16:30
What does any of the failings of the frech autorities (and there are many) have to do with the KC-X tanker selection process - both (767 and 330) are FAA certified.
feb 25 2009 an 737 went down near schiphol. The technical side of the cause is now just about completely clear - a fault prone design of the airspeed indicator plug. The problem is: this problem was known beforehand. There was a NOTAM out requesting data on failure rates of this connection. Boeing knew, but didn’t act (yet - i think they were correct in first collecting data, but that’s beside the point). The question now is: would (did) you fly 737’s after this accident knowing this problem existed? what impact do you recon this technical problem should have on the wedgetail?
How does a crash of unknown origin go to the heart of “inherent failings” of a possible military derivitive airplane. No offense to any flyboys here - but there have been suicides by plane before…
BTW, I do like your participating in the discussion.
30. Vero Venia | September 10th, 2009 at 16:32
but when we can no longer shoot our mouths off at stuff we don’t really know about, have nothing to do with and can’t be decided with simple facts - than what’s left to discuss - the similarities between apples and oranges?
33. Ed | September 10th, 2009 at 18:15
could you provide some reference for your claims on the troubles of the RAAF aircraft. Sounds interesting.
aircraft fall from the sky - what goes up must come down, it takes a million things to work to postpone the down part, and only one thing to fail to acellerate it’s arrival. both 767 and 330 have crashed, nothing is perfect so why even bring it up.
You should reread the Rand report (Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for KC-135 Recapitalization). re-engining KC135 is not cheaper. and there were only 2 a/c in the last competition. I agree that the 777 would make a great large tanker replecement for the kc-10’s - with 330’s to replace the kc-135’s.
35. NH | September 10th, 2009 at 20:17
Hear, Hear.
37. John | September 11th, 2009 at 01:12
indeed, if either competitor fail to meet a critical requirement, that proposal is no longer an option. The last time around, the USAF apparently was convinced of (at least) one of the following:
1) kc-30 will meet the requirement at service entry
2) the requirment was not deemed critical
why do you expect the USAF to change their mind
38. Name (Required) | September 11th, 2009 at 03:28
the USAF was of a different opinion. let’s wait and see what happens this time around.
43. Skeptic | September 11th, 2009 at 13:28
ikeman, we know what caused the 767 crashes. No one can say with any certainty what caused the crash of AF447. Further, what caused the crash of the ANZ A320 that plunged into the Med last year? That wreckage could be salvaged. Airbus has the black boxes. Why the silence?
AF 447 can not be “wished away”.
44. Vero Venia | September 11th, 2009 at 13:49
42. ikkeman | September 11th, 2009 at 13:08 asked, “but when we can no longer shoot our mouths off at stuff we don’t really know about, have nothing to do with and can’t be decided with simple facts - than what’s left to discuss - the similarities between apples and oranges?”
That’s the problem with apple and orange. If you need an apple, you don’t take an orange. Now, let’s wait what the US air force will write down in its RFP. Do they want an orange, a big orange or an apple?
The very first thing is to read and understand what the US Air Force will put in its RFP. Once this is understood then you can discuss.
The previous process was canceled because the GAO decided that there were significant mistakes done by the Air Force. Now the process re-starts once again, hopefully with clear requirements and clear evaluation criteria.
The trouble is that the A330, the 767 and the 777-200LR are all known and different products. Therefore if the evaluation criteria are clear and are available to everybody, you can make a do-it-yourself evaluation at home, assuming that the fuel transfer system works well for both contenders.
45. Mike M | September 11th, 2009 at 13:54
Ikkeman
>>>both 767 and 330 have crashed, nothing is perfect so why even bring it up.
So you’d be prepared to let the Air France crash remain unsolved?
Despite the possibility an outcome could improve the A330 overall?
To even question “why bring it up” is just a European way of saying “we’d rather let sleeping does lay down” and not find out why.
Or is this because Europe doesnt want another Concorde-style fleet wide grounding for fear of perception that is already damaged???????
46. Vero Venia | September 11th, 2009 at 14:04
I wish to make a precision to my previous comment 44. Vero Venia | September 11th, 2009 at 13:49
Since the 767, A330 and 777-200LR are quite different one from another, in reality the selection is virtually done at the very same time the requirements are written down.
47. Aurora | September 11th, 2009 at 14:30
Vero Venia: “Since the 767, A330 and 777-200LR are quite different one from another, in reality the selection is virtually done at the very same time the requirements are written down.”
Well, Vero, that is the gist of the problem for the USAF. Both sides have legions of lawyers on standby to contest even the most minute details, should there be perceived “bias” one way or another. This thing will be engulfed in even more rancor and controversy than it is now–if one can imagine that!
Saj noted above the USAF general’s comments, which I recall reading also. It is virtually impossible at this point to write an impartial RFP.
How we got here is the subject of endless screaming sessions on these internet sites. How we get out of this mess is obvious: only a sole source will get the USAF a new tanker.
48. MPTA-098 | September 11th, 2009 at 16:54
It’s sad to see commentators and bloggers get so much wrong, so badly, bit it’s not surprising as the AF-447 accident has spawned an incredible amount of nonsensical idiocy about “scarebuses” (etc.), and the supposedly dangerous flight envelope protection system which, BTW, is not the demon that overly zealous Boeing supporters want the public to believe. Remember, more often than not, an airliner goes down at the end of long chain of unrelated, seemingly innocuous decisions, malfunctions, mistakes and external factors.
Let’s look, for example, at one much talked accident; namely TWA-800 where the NTSB investigation ended with the adoption of its final report on August 23, 2000; or more than four years after the accident occurred. And what do we have here; people with an anti-A330MRTT-agenda unscrupulously demanding a definite explanation of what transpired on the night of June 1st, 2009, over the equatorial Atlantic Ocean; or a little more than three months after the accident occurred. This is just ridiculous, and clearly some of the people around here seem to enjoy taking advantage of a tragic accident in such a way as to exploit human tragedies in order to further their own agendas.
Now, the recovery excersice is far from finished, and there’s still a good chance that the wreckage of AF-447 may be located on the ocean floor. This is technically doable, as the recovery of flight SA-295 proved when parts of that wreckage was brought to the surface from the depths of the Indian Ocean, or some 4-5 km beneath the surface.
49. Skeptic | September 11th, 2009 at 17:20
MPTA-098, you can not wish this accident away. It is indeed a tragic event and the timing is bad for airbus, but it simply won’t go away. Safety is a factor in evaluating what tanker to buy. Should the USAF pretend the accident never happened?
I seriously doubt that any Euro air force would buy a plane based on the manufacturer’s assurance that “hey, if we find out what happened, you’ll be the first to know, but trust us in the meantime, OK?”
Its a problem for airbus; a BIG problem. The Air France pilots won’t roll over. Then there’s that ANZ A320. What happend with that one?
What I find astonishing is someone actually making the argument that it is somehow inappropriate to consider AF477, and by extension, SAFETY, in the tanker source selection. Of course all the facts are NOT in. What I, and others fears, is that they will NEVER be in. How many ships & submarines are searching the South Atlantic for the wreckage and black boxes as we speak?
50. MPTA-098 | September 11th, 2009 at 18:48
“It is indeed a tragic event and the timing is bad for airbus, but it simply won’t go away.”
It certainly doesn’t seem to go away in the minds of those people who hate more than anything the idea of hundreds of NG/EADS KC-45 in USAF “colours”; and for those people the “timing” is great.
“Should the USAF pretend the accident never happened?”
Certainly the USAF will pay attention to any airworthiness directive coming from the FAA concerning commercially-derived aircraft in their fleet. Infact, the USAF was particularily concerned with the fuel/air explosion in the center wing tank of TWA flight 800 as they have several 747-derived aicraft in their fleet…..
“Its a problem for airbus; a BIG problem. The Air France pilots won’t roll over.”
If there is going to be a “problem”, it’ll be a problem for AF and not Airbus.
“Then there’s that ANZ A320. What happend with that one?”
Yeah, what happended to “that one”? If you’d cared to “investigate” the ANZ A320 accident near Perpignan, France, you’d have found out that there were two entirely separate issues regarding the accident: The aircraft failed the test the three pilots attempted, and the two crew lost control and were unable to regain control before crashing into the sea immediately below. When a pilot tests an aircraft he must anticipate failure. The crew slowed the aircraft below the speed for the test to been successful. Too slow, it stalled. If you’re going to stall a plane you’d better have enough altitude to recover from a stall. In fact, such low speed tests are expected to be performed at FL140, or some 10000ft higher than the altitude of the ANZ A320 when it stalled.
“What I find astonishing is someone actually making the argument that it is somehow inappropriate to consider AF477, and by extension, SAFETY, in the tanker source selection.”
What is truly astonishing is how far people, like yourself, with seemingly no direct interest or business relating to the tanker force of the USAF, are willing to go in order to further their twisted agendas.
“Of course all the facts are NOT in.”
I’d suggest that you sitt down and write a synopsis on all of the major plane crashes in the last 40 years, and on how much the investigative authorities knew about the various accidents three months after they occurred, and when the final reports were issued.
” What I, and others fears, is that they will NEVER be in.
Let me guess. You and the “others” are essentially those overly zealous Boeing supporters in the blogosphere?
How many ships & submarines are searching the South Atlantic for the wreckage and black boxes as we speak?
As for what’s going on right now, try this link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLV89335
As for how they’re going to find the wreckage, try these links:
http://www.titanic-titanic.com/discovery_of_titanic.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ballard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(submersible)
After their missions for the Navy, the Knorr arrived on site on August 22, 1985 [5], and deployed the Argo. Ballard and his team discovered when they searched for the two submarines that they imploded from the immense pressure depth [6]. That implosion littered thousands of pieces of debris all over the ocean floor [6]. Following each of the submarines’ large trail of debris lead Ballard and his team directly to both of them [6]. The trail of debris made it a whole lot easier for them to find the submarines than if they where to search for the hulls outright [6]. Ballard already knew that the Titanic imploded from pressure depth as well, much the same way the two submarines did, and concluded that it too must have also left a scattered debris trail [6]. Using that lesson, Ballard and his team had Argo sweep back and forth across the ocean floor looking for Titanic’s debris trail [5]. Ballard’s team took shifts monitoring the video feed from Argo as it searched the monotonous ocean floor two miles below.
In the early morning hours of September 1, 1985, observers noted anomalies on the otherwise smooth ocean floor. At first, it was pockmarks, like small craters from impacts. Eventually debris was sighted as the rest of the team was awakened. Finally, a boiler was sighted, and soon after the hull itself was found.
51. Sal | September 11th, 2009 at 20:02
“25. Sal | September 10th, 2009 at 15:55
Sal, Japan’s and Italy’s tankers didn’t arrive without a hitch either. why should one be counted and the other ignored?”
No one said they should be ignored. And whatever glitches have been addressed. As you probably can agree with me about, all systems will have kinks that need to be worked out. That’s why the flight test program for both Italian and Japanese versions was so extensive.
[b]Difference here is that the boom on the 767 is proven to work,[/b] whereas, you and other KC-30 fans can not produce evidence thet the EADS ARBS works
52. JerryF | September 11th, 2009 at 20:24
Vero Venia (#44 &46) correctly points out the the requirements defined by the language of the Air Force RFP will make the actual selection of the aircraft model.
The selection will actually have been done when the RFP is released.
Maybe all the King’s horses and all the King’s men as well as a barrage of Lawyers can try to call foul, but at this stage of the selection process lessons have been hopefully learned and it will not spin out of control on misinterpretations , misunderstandings or political and corportate malfeasance
53. ikkeman | September 11th, 2009 at 20:51
45. Mike M | September 11th, 2009 at 13:54
of course not, don’t insult the collective intelligence of this blog with your tantrum.
AF447 is a black mark in the book of aviation history - darker still for the collosal challenge that the investigation is. AS IS ANY OTHER CRASH IN HISTORY.
I’m saying both airframes have crashed, whether a cause is known or not does not change anything on the only fact that matters: aircraft can fail, and then people are likely to die.
49. Skeptic | September 11th, 2009 at 17:20
what’s the cause of the 31 October 1999 EgyptAir crash?
please don’t play this game. what goes up must come down, and the equipment doesn’t always cooperate with the planned descent. one fatal incident in some 15 years, and just because there’s to little left to readily identify the cause you claim the FAA and EASA are staffed by buffoons that can’t see the light shining out of your… and continue to let an UNSAFE aircraft continue to carry passengers to their (almost inevitable) death.
or are you in fact abusing the death of hundreds and suffering of many more just to promote your petty agenda? shame on you!
I know you want Boeing to win the tanker replacement contract, but if I may suggest - try to do so by promoting their products. Or can you not find anything good on the 767 or 777?
54. JerryF | September 11th, 2009 at 20:53
An reference to Vero Venia’s depiction of the choice of fruits to be chosen by the Tanker RFP.
The Air Force has to make a selection between fruits: An Apple, a Pear or an Orange.
Lets change the choice to an Apple, a Pear or a Plum
Each is different and distinct.
There is a hybrid fruit called a “Pluot” which is a combination of a Plum and an Apricot.
Will this form of Plum be eliminated by the language of the RFP
This is all in good humor but does resonate the point that each fruit (plane) is unique and different. There should be no confusion for the chef to select the fare for the meal
55. ikkeman | September 11th, 2009 at 21:11
51. Sal | September 11th, 2009 at 20:02
indeed - the 767 had glitches and Bo took some time to fix them. Let’s give Ab the same time. I cannot believe they won’t be able to get the boom system up to spec. So I cant see that as a positive discriminator for either a/c.
56. Falcon | September 11th, 2009 at 21:23
@MPTA-098
Don’t worry about the clowns bringing up AF447. They are not involved in the selection process and their desperation is clear when they put so much importance to something that we know so little about and there is a lot of work left before conclusions can be made. The people who actually are involved are smart enough to place the right amount of significance to it.
Following up on the TWA accident I doubt many are aware that an AD was just released to reduce the risk of the same thing happening on a 767. Not that they have more than good suspicions about the details. Airlines have about 3 years to implement so using the logic used by too many about the AF crash I guess FAA and Boeing don’t care about people since it will be well north of 10 years before it is required… not what I think but when using same criteria…
Regarding AF447 it is amazing how people continue to claim Airbus doesn’t give pilots authority when in that situation the computers give absolute control to the pilots and don’t fight them like a Boeing plane would…
Speaking about crashes isn’t in “interesting” how pilots almost always claim it can’t be a pilot error that sealed the fate. Looking at too many accidents I’d say the typical chain is that weather or mechanical started a chain of events that in +99.9999% of all cases the pilots manage to control but in that last few cases they failed to be the last line of safety they are supposed to be and since the buck stops with them they usually deserve to be blamed. I have no opinion about what the AF447 cause was since there isn’t nearly enough data available. Despite the claims I have not seen the pilots being accused. I have seen statements that the pitot tubes isn’t enough to be the major cause and I have seen expectations about 18 months before a report can be released and I think neither blame or clear the pilots. That AF requires training of what may or may not be an issue is proactive handling and not blaming. Same for requiring changing the pitot tubes even though there is nothing solid, proactive.
B.t.w. care to speculate what the “cereal-packet” Boeing clowns would have done if it was an Airbus and not a Boeing where half of the emergency exits didn’t work during evacuation because of poor wiring? (resent event but older than AF447 and no fix is available even though they had access to all parts…)
Probably with as little respect as they do the NZ crash where they obviously haven’t checked what kind of maneuvers they tried to do at wrong altitude.
As to the tanker competition I hope the people involved in the process have set requirements based on the expected future needs and not on what is today because of the needs from long time ago. They then need to decide if they want to get the best from the world or limit it to best from US. The end result could be the same but the process of getting there should be very different.
The one point I agree with and I find significant if true is that fuel hasn’t been delivered by now and floors not being strong enough. I’ll take a backseat view on it until there are solid statements but the lack of info is concerning.
57. Skeptic | September 11th, 2009 at 22:05
ikkeman@”hat’s the cause of the 31 October 1999 EgyptAir crash?”
That is a real question? Seriously? Are you part of the moon landing “truthers” that believe NASA staged the event?
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19991031-0
“PROBABLE CAUSE: “The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane’s departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer’s flight control inputs. The reason for the relief first officer’s actions was not determined.”"
You are not inferring that AF 477 crashed due to “suicide by plane” are you?
58. Vero Venia | September 11th, 2009 at 22:29
The root cause of AF447 accident is gravity. This is also valid for many other accidents.
59. Falcon | September 11th, 2009 at 23:04
Vero Venia
as in not enough to prevent it from taking off
60. NH | September 11th, 2009 at 23:07
41. Mike M | September 11th, 2009 at 11:25
Please don’t insult me by calling me an idiot just because our opinions differ. I showed some civility in my posts, can’t you?
61. Skeptic | September 12th, 2009 at 01:16
MPTA-098, I can see that you are very disturbed by the linkage of the as yet unsolved AF447 tragedy with the USAF tanker selection. Unfortunately, as I have been saying, it can’t be “wished away”.
It will be there in the background, no matter what disclaimers are put forth by you and the entire airbus fan club. Sorry.
Perhaps the wreckage is somewhere near the Titanic after all?
62. ikkeman | September 12th, 2009 at 01:34
57. Skeptic | September 11th, 2009 at 22:05
Oh- you’re only looking for a probable cause. I think the french investigator mentioned above just gave you one… Wait, weren’t you lambasting that man (and the french authorities by extension) for being to quick to draw unsupportable conclusions?
you said:
12. Skeptic | September 10th, 2009 at 10:38
“Pilot error” won’t suffice on this one.
then why does it suffice for the other case??? just because it was longer ago - or does it have to do with the oem?
63. chaser | September 12th, 2009 at 02:53
Any airliner can fly into harms way, and the evidence from what data has been retrieved from AF447 suggests just that whether because of an inoperable or maladjusted weather radar.
The thing that bothers me is a statistic published in Flight this last week that a long distance airline pilot doing 800 hours flying per year only actually “flies” the plane about 3 hours of that time, which would not allow an individual to retain a private pilots license.
Notwithstanding simulator flying, which cannot effectively reproduce very abnormal situations, then aircrew with maybe 6,000 hours logbook time have only about 200 hours “real” flying, and not necessarily on type.
This isn’t an Airbus or Boeing issue, it is what automation has done to degrade basic flying skills.
So please lets stick to the subject of KCX and leave accidents out of it.
Just my 2 cents.
64. engineer | September 12th, 2009 at 05:17
Falcon said
‘Regarding AF447 it is amazing how people continue to claim Airbus doesn’t give pilots authority when in that situation the computers give absolute control to the pilots and don’t fight them like a Boeing plane would… ‘
Dear Falcon
Maybe you would like to rephrase that comment and put it the right way around. It is Boeing planes that don’t fight back hence the reason for feedback computers installed under the control column of boeing airplanes so that the pilots know what the airplane is doing and it prompts the pilot to take evasive action. There is no feedback on the playstation joystick of any airbus plane that i have worked on and it is a scary thought when you take an airplane for a test flight and you can hear the engines spool up but the throttle levers don’t move and the joystick well there is no way to tell you that the aircraft is banking until you look at your EADI.
BTW only one boeing airplane is flyby wire that is currently flying, Even that plane has good safety record apart from the fuel icing incident on the trent powered 777. Anyway, don’t the British make the Trent engines; another inferior european product!
BTW yes the NZ crash was an airbus A320 we New Zealanders call the A320s a SKODA here and it will always remain a skoda to us. FYI the manuevers performed were as per the Airbus flight manual, airbus may claim otherwise of course they would. You can bat as many pro Airbus balls as you like but when we have to remove corrosion from a plane that has been in service for 5 years TSN (time since new) because airbus does not know how to mate dissimilar metals in the rear spar of their Skodas will always remain an inferior product.
65. Vero Venia | September 12th, 2009 at 11:01
You guys must read this article.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/331991/aa09-pilot-handling-skills-under-threat-says-airbus.html
Quote:
“We put people into our training today who have forgotten how to fly, basically,” (emphasis added)
66. chaser | September 12th, 2009 at 11:58
Ah Engineer has leaned how to spell his name so now he are one!
The Perpignon crash occurred because the crew were some thousands of feet below the Airbus recommended height for such tests.
67. Skeptic | September 12th, 2009 at 16:28
Vero, thanks for posting that link to the Flight Global article. What a self-serving statement to make by Airbus. Not surprising given the events of the last year, but extremely self serving.
68. Skeptic | September 12th, 2009 at 16:34
The PPRUNE thread discussing the Flight Global article that Vero Venia linked can be found here.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/388573-pilot-handling-skills-under-threat-says-airbus.html
69. Roger | September 12th, 2009 at 18:16
Airbus may have intended it to be self-serving, but I have to believe it doesn’t play well with USAF brass. That’s going to come back to bite them.
And I was wondering, does the warning not to operate the flight controls too violently in an emergency come as part of the tanker proposal? or is it just in some kind of users manual?
70. Vero Venia | September 12th, 2009 at 19:10
I think the issue is with long distance flying. I suppose 777-300ER pilots don’t have so many take-off and landings either.
from this point to the end of this comment, I am in not-serious mode.
When a pilot has nothing to do during a long cruise leg, instead of flirting with the stewardesses in the Crew Rest bunk, I propose to force them to do some take-offs and landings on a flight-sim installed in the bunk.
71. engineer | September 13th, 2009 at 00:59
Chaser
Maybe you would like to learn how to spell; its learnt not leaned to make your sentence grammatically correct. BTW you have no idea what the flight manual of that plane states do you? You, i believe are just another hearsay person who i presume has no idea what a test flight is made up of. And that is another airbus claim that the plane was flying too slow too low. Lastly, you may also would like to learn how to spell Perpignan.
72. Mike M | September 13th, 2009 at 16:21
>>>The Perpignon crash occurred because the crew were some thousands of feet below the Airbus recommended height for such tests.
Thats the biggest crock of shit I have ever read.
An aircraft is supposed to be able to conduct a variety of tests at a variety of altitudes..
Are you suggesting the crew were trying out a 7G move less than 3000ft above water?
STFU and give us a break.
On that A320 crash, Airbus is involved in a HUGE COVER UP.
They tried to do the same f******* thing with the Amerian A300 crash and they couldnt pay off whoever they needed to in order to make it “go away” of somehow blame the pilots.
Your posturing makes me sick.
73. keesje | September 13th, 2009 at 21:11
Mike M it might be usefull to seperate factual info from hystrical mud throwing. Did an Airbus once kill your puppy or something ? pls..
74. Roger | September 13th, 2009 at 22:11
Were there puppys on AF447 too? I thought it was only husbands, wifes, parents and children.
75. chaser | September 14th, 2009 at 01:58
Mike M,
They were conducting a test flight about 12,000 feet too low.
Why don’t you read the flight manual and indulge in a little self abuse before abusing others?
76. ikkeman | September 14th, 2009 at 09:02
72. Mike M | September 13th, 2009 at 16:21
thanks for yet another eloquent addition to this thread. You don’t actually work for, with or close to aircraft or aviation professionals do you? I’d be worried even if you only were a barista at tully’s..
(you believe pulling 6 G’s 4000ft above ground is normal for an airliner?)
the rest of you, do you really believe the USAF is going to hinge their 100 billion dollar selection on a single crash no-one in ther right mind would claim to know the causes for? Shouldn’t an FAA certificate count for more than the emotional rants of some … unidentifiable blog posters?
Looking at the sefety history of both manufacturers, Will you still try to claim one is less safe than the other. Be carefull what you spew - statistics and large number theory mandate such a onesided string of accidents is possible and not at all unlikely - but valid for both entrants in this game. next week a few Boeings migh make unintended flight terminations (lets hope and pray to whatever god favours you that won’t happen). Then where will your shouting be?
77. FF2 | September 14th, 2009 at 14:50
Really don’t know what you’re going on about. The link quoted by Ed above is perfectly clear that the EADS works perfectly well in flight. The only thing they haven’t done yet is to hook it up to the specifc A330 aircraft that will be used by the Australians:
Over the 40-month flight test phase, the ARBS successfully refueled numerous aircraft to include F-16 fighter aircraft, NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, and proximity testing with the Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B MRTT. In total the ARBS accomplished 80 contacts and logged more than 146 flight hours during 122 sorties. Numerous wet and dry contacts were made at various altitudes and airspeeds, confirming both the ease of operation and the high nominal fuel flow rate. The large ARBS in-flight refueling envelope was fully explored, validated, and shown to be significantly larger in all axes than the KC-135’s envelope.
78. Mike M | September 14th, 2009 at 16:29
>>>Keesje: STFU
>>>chaser: ditto since you cant understand the concept of humor.
>>>ikkeman - there is more to the KC-X than just the downed AF447 flight. The WTO funding row wholly undermines the A330 viability far more because the boom/wand stuck up its ass will not secrete fuel.
>>>FF2: The reply by Ed in post 17 (I’m guessing) is just bull.
No A330 with any boom has delivered/trasferred/passed/shared fuel with another aircraft of any type. The ARBS used was from an A310.
You must be fricken french if you cant read that or selectively trawl stuff from Ed’s pathetically embarassing link.
79. Sick as a parrot | September 14th, 2009 at 17:12
Mike M wrote “Your posturing makes me sick.”
And your foul-mouthed, ignorant blogs make lots of us sick. Dude, you’re an embarrassment.
80. USAF Fan | September 14th, 2009 at 17:21
Check this link too:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=835
“Boeing Details Tanker Capabilities at US Air Force Association Conference “
81. USAF Fan | September 14th, 2009 at 17:42
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/blog/main/2009/9/14/tanker-buzz-at-the-afa-convention
Boeing’s Tanker Will Be Mission Ready. Boeing is the only company whose boom-equipped tanker aircraft are flying in combat missions today. And independent reports show that its new advanced tanker designs will be the most survivable and dependable tanker aircraft in history.
Quite a statement given the challenges the Airbus A330-MRTT team is/are having.
82. Roger | September 14th, 2009 at 19:45
Let me just say that Mike M speaks for me, albeit a bit more elequent then I could manage.
Great Link #81 USAF Fan. Boeing is taking the offensive saying that they will supply apples or oranges. Just be sure to tell them which one you actually want to buy this time.
83. Falcon | September 14th, 2009 at 20:30
@Engineer,
No I wrote it exactly the way I intended. I could try to formulate a response but quoting Mandella499 is much easier for me and probably clearer so:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4469631/1/#242
and more direct
I do not understand why you think seeing the throttles move without anyone touching them is less nerving than hearing the engines spool up? From my point of view I know there are reasons why it changes and find it little different than my air conditioner at home starting.
Had no idea you call them Skoda in NZ but judging by the quality reports Skoda is receiving, second only to Lexus, I guess it is a good review
84. Aotearoa | September 15th, 2009 at 03:37
Quoting 83. Falcon “Had no idea you call them Skoda in NZ but judging by the quality reports Skoda is receiving, second only to Lexus, I guess it is a good review ”
Hey, it’s same as in the large Passenger Airframe business as Airbus is second too.
BTW, they’re called Skoda’s because New Zealanders experience of Skoda’s comes from the 70’s and they were not good. There weren’t any Toyotas with leathers seats (Lexus) then, to compare them with.
85. ikkeman | September 15th, 2009 at 09:48
81. USAF Fan | September 14th, 2009 at 17:42
Good link - from quickly browsing it it looks like Boeing finally started listening to their potential customer.
The biggest problem for Airbus might now be that the 330 is not small enough to provide enough differentiation from the 777.
To bad Boeing is still touting the “all american” flag. I thought that myth was thoroughly debunked here. 787 and A-10 rewing clearly shows Boeing is just as much a multinational conglomerate as most other multi billion dollar ventures.
Still, I’d say the AF’s best bet is a mixed 777/330 based tanker/transport fleet.
I’m sorry, but the 767 is to old, almost beyond the end of it’s production life. Both competitors are in the prime of their cycles. And I don’t see another small/medium option for tanker duty.
86. keesje | September 15th, 2009 at 10:18
Hmm isn’t it a bit odd from Boeing to offer the non existant KC777 and then say the KC30 is unproven in the same line?
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/FrenchKC135AustralianA330MRRT.jpg
I think offering a menu instead of a product is strange anyway.
87. Vero Venia | September 15th, 2009 at 12:58
86. keesje | September 15th, 2009 at 10:18
Keesje, there are three aircraft in the menu. They are the 767, the A330 and the 777. The US Air Force will take the plate that fits best to their requirements.
Is it difficult to understand?
88. ikkeman | September 15th, 2009 at 13:09
86. keesje | September 15th, 2009 at 10:18
Why?, Boeing was obviously caught offguard by the USAF’s valuation of exceeding the requirements.
When you go buy a car - do you go to the dealer that has only a single model in it’s line???
89. ikkeman | September 15th, 2009 at 13:18
why is the fact sheet named KC-747?
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/facts/kc747
THe plot Thickens!
90. Skeptic | September 15th, 2009 at 14:10
keesje, both the KC777 and the A330 tanker have one thing in common: neither have transferred fuel yet via their boom.
91. Falcon | September 15th, 2009 at 16:36
Per Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1450177320090915
So no mix of 767 models to minimize risk but then adding 777 that is little more than a study and then consider all the problems Boing had in getting the 767 working. I’d guess Boeing will have far better chance with the now working 767 than the completely unknown 777.
B.t.w. Some people who have posted here stated before A330 doesn’t work because the wake from the engines is too powerful for a tanker. Why don’t they mention this as a concern with the 777?
92. Roger | September 15th, 2009 at 17:19
You are not reading it correctly Ikkeman.
93. Skeptic | September 15th, 2009 at 18:25
What Air Force Secretary Donely actually said was that there was “no immediate reason” to revise the tanker RFP based on the preliminary WTO decision. One can read into this what one wants, but it seems to me that they are not ruling it out at some point.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4277541&c=AME&s=TOP
94. Aurora | September 15th, 2009 at 18:32
The USAF may choose to consider that the preliminary ruling will have no impact. However, there are at least 47 people who disagree at this point. Expect more soon.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/179234.asp
95. ikkeman | September 15th, 2009 at 19:46
92. Roger | September 15th, 2009 at 17:19
what am i not reading correctly?
96. Curious | September 15th, 2009 at 22:38
If the Boeing 767 is given an upgrade in avionics and a digital cockpit, does it represent a “modernization” of this plane.
People write that this is an old model aircraft, but is the airframe antiquated or the shape ungainly, etc? What disadvantage is this model with a substantial upgrade?
Clearly Boeing can offer this at a very good price and it still remains the only aircraft that has delivered fuel. Since the choice has to be one of the three in contention, it appears that this is the safest, cheapest and reliable model. Neither the 777 nor the A300 are even more than design concepts.
If a Tanker is additionally needed to carry freight and troops, there are other planes which are far more capable of doing that without reinventing the wheel. Why a Tanker is expected to have additional tasks is beyond my understanding
Would you experts please comment on this.
97. Jerry1t | September 15th, 2009 at 22:44
Makes no sense to me why a flying filling station has to be burdened with freight and personnel.
It seems to me that the prior RFP asked for a gas station to be a nightclub in its off hours just to avoid some archaic zoning law .
98. Skeptic | September 15th, 2009 at 23:27
Curious, the KC-767 proposed by Boeing would be no more “obsolete” than the A320-200. However, planet airbus needs to maintain their mantra that it is an obsolete aircraft. Of course, this is total b.s. But lately, given the problems with the A330 and the A330MRTT, that’s about all they have left.
Then, consider the KC-777 and you can see why they’re afraid.
99. Vero Venia | September 16th, 2009 at 08:20
97. Jerry1t | September 15th, 2009 at 22:44 said, “Makes no sense to me why a flying filling station has to be burdened with freight and personnel.”
It happens very often that tankers carry materials and personnel, especially during “projection” or “deployment” missions. For example when NATO fighters/bombers must be deployed from the US/Europe/Canada to the Middle East. Mechanics, parts and other equipments must be sent at the same time as the fighters/bombers. Of course, transporting personnel and materials remains an ancillary role for a tanker.
Fortunately, during a massive deployment mission, in general specialized airlift and personnel transport are also deployed.
However, a tanker can be utilized as humanitarian transport, medical evacuation, personnel material/logistic transport when it’s not flying as a tanker. The question is of course to choose the correct size of the aircraft and the fleet such that these ancillary and occasional roles don’t become a dimensioning parameter.
If ancillary roles are taken too seriously the risk is to put a prohibitive long term cost burden to serve occasional use and secondary requirements.
The US Air Force could decide that ancillary roles of its tanker fleet become part of the main roles. In which case they should not continue to call the RFP for the replacement of tanker fleet but it should become an RFP for Multi Role tanker/transport/Medevac aircraft.
As I mentioned before, the most crucial part of this defense procurement is NOT the aircraft but the requirements. Once the requirements and the evaluation criteria are established, the aircraft choice becomes obvious.
The transport role of tankers becomes less and less important today because there are many civilian or commercial aircraft available for charter. Cargo operators like Atlas Air or DHL are very good at doing logistics.
In today environment, personnel and material transport availability is not anymore an issue even in time of crisis.
I can even add that fortunately the military need commercial operators in time of crisis because during major crisis air travel usually plunges.
100. ikkeman | September 16th, 2009 at 10:05
96. Curious | September 15th, 2009 at 22:38
there is an “substantial upgrade” for the 767 on the near horizon - it’s called the 787.
Old Airframe is Old design, Old manufacturing and Old materials science. Just updating the ICT onboard doesn’t improve the efficiency of an airframe. Doeing an Airframe update balloons cost.
The 767 incarnation Boeing is proposing for the next competition, based on only a single model, is a better, cheaper option then the previous multi model meld proposal.
Why wouldn’t you want to use tankers for transportation?
97. Jerry1t | September 15th, 2009 at 22:44
you do realise it won’t perform both missions at the same time, don’t you?
98. Skeptic | September 15th, 2009 at 23:27
767 first flight: 1981 - produced 08: 10 - ordered 08: 29
330 first flight: 1992 - produced 08: 72 - ordered 08: 138
how are these equally “obsolete”?
101. keesje | September 16th, 2009 at 10:21
Anyway don’t worry the KC30 will show all its capabilities long before the USAF makes a decision and no doubt NG / EADS aren’t sitting on their hands and enhancing the aircraft and proposal.
102. Jerry1t | September 16th, 2009 at 13:59
Vero venia ( #97) once again makes the cogent point that the decision by the USAF in crafting the RFP is actually choosing the model for the Tanker replacement.
In addition, he emphasizes that the RFP will determine the nature of the requirements which in turn will decide the model that will satisfy these needs.
If the main function is only to serve as a Tanker replacement, it narrows the choice . If there are ancillary needs, it creates additional requirements that result in a multpurpose model that will add to the long term cost.
But the fact that the Commercial Fleet ( as well as the Military Fleet) is available for these occasional times seems to make the multipurpose model less necessary. From a strictly economic point of view, it seems to make little sense to enlarge the needs beyond fueling.
However, the politics and the internal choice of the USAF will determine this:Tanker vs. Multipurpose. The choice will result in a financial effect as well as a strategic direction. Yet, Boeing seems to be offering two of the three choices and each of their selections are distinguished from Northrop-EADS in a meaningful way.
If the RFP is reduced to only a Tanker replacement, will there be a protest to follow? If the RFP is for a multipurpose model, does size alone make the difference?
This is a facinating issue and one wonders how the USAF will ultimately come to the criteria that makes the choice. It seems that there has to be an overall view of the Air Force’s future strategy which would entail evaluating how the entire Air Force fleet should be positioned because this decision , if it goes beyond a Tanker replacement, it is really a choice on many levels as to which planes will be ordered in the future . This choice certainly seems to impact the future decision of which airlift and personnel carriers would be needed.
This no longer seems to be a one on one competition for a particular model. but an US Air Force choice that forces a wider range of considerations than the “efficiency” of a specific need function. It is no longer the need to replace the Tanker fleet at the earliest time possible with the best plane, but instead, it is to reposition the US Air Force Fleet in the best way possible.
The ball is now squarely in the court of the US Air Force and the squabbling over model comparisons is secondary to an overall view of the needs of the US Air Force…..and it would be hard to argue against the Air Force’s choice because it would be only one part of their strategy. The other parts impact the decision but are not embedded in this RFP
103. Dougloid | September 16th, 2009 at 15:14
Some people are suggesting that because the 767 airframe is older than the 330 airframe it is, a fortiori, obsolete. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only thing that’s different today is the application of supercomputers to mechanize the tasks that were done with drafting tables and 10 key Burroughs adding machines by a legion of draftsmen and stress engineers. The aerodynamics and the robustness of the structure are the same and always have been-there’s no reason at all to think that the math has changed in any substantial way.
Was it ikkeman who sez: the rest of you, do you really believe the USAF is going to hinge their 100 billion dollar selection on a single crash no-one in ther right mind would claim to know the causes for?
Until there is a definitive answer, the answer is YES, because until then it is precisely because the causes of the crash are unknown.
Well, whoever said it, I have only two words for you: Lockheed Electra.
104. Curious | September 16th, 2009 at 15:30
Ikkeman ( #100)
Among the three choices is a plane that will be much cheaper than the others and has already proven to be able to deliver fuel.
Neither of the two competing models have been built nor delivered fuel.
Obsolete is a strong word to describe a tried and tested model. The 787 will not be available for several years and the model that will serve this purpose has not been designed yet.
We are dealing with a present day problem not a future based ideal. Pay less and get what you need or pay more and not be sure for a few years that the plane will be built on time or at the cost offered.
105. keesje | September 16th, 2009 at 18:02
The A330MRTT will pass fuel long before the USAF makes a decision.
I wonder what tweaks NG and EADS will make to the aircraft and proposal.
- More US content /60%?
- 20 Interim A330F’s to relieve operations?
- GENX engines?
- A330F style nose wheel?
- Additional payload/range (like new A332s)?
- An A330/A340 cargo converison line at Mobile?
106. AF Won | September 16th, 2009 at 18:02
Well, the USAF has been put back in charge of procuring the KC-X, so I expect them to write the RFP to favor the plane they really want. Looks like another loss for Boeing.
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1379
“I have confidence that the KC-X selection authority is in good hands with the service’s leadership team of Secretary Donley and General Schwartz.“
107. Vero Venia | September 16th, 2009 at 18:44
106. AF Won | September 16th, 2009 at 18:02 said, “Well, the USAF has been put back in charge of procuring the KC-X, so I expect them to write the RFP to favor the plane they really want.”
That’s exactly what needs to be done. The US Air Force must write down the right specifications for their needs. Let them take the aircraft that fits best their need as per the specifications.
They must apply the rules properly, not like the last time the evaluation was done. There were so many significant mistakes that the GAO could not let the contract be completed.
This time it must be done properly.
108. Dougloid | September 16th, 2009 at 19:23
Yeah, Keez….that’ll sell real well in a country with 10 per cent unemployment and that’s just the ones laying around on the surface who haven’t become waterlooged and sunk. That Mobile business is the biggest village since Mr. Potemkin built his.
AF Won: “Well, the USAF has been put back in charge of procuring the KC-X, so I expect them to write the RFP to favor the plane they really want. Looks like another loss for Boeing.”
Not going to happen. It’s a political decision every step of the way and there are a lot of people hereabouts who think maybe we should take care of our own first. There’s this curious institution here-it’s called picking up the phone or sending a letter to your congressman. It happens a lot here.
109. Mike M | September 16th, 2009 at 19:34
>>>The A330MRTT will pass fuel long before the USAF makes a decision.
Yeah, and I can walk on water AND cure cancer too.
The RAAF A330 MRTT still doesnt have a boom and is overweight - it has more chance of passing wind or urine than passing gas.
And a nice delay wraps up its A400M-style progress!
110. ikkeman | September 16th, 2009 at 21:01
105. keesje | September 16th, 2009 at 18:02
I think I read KC-45 isn’t and will not be based on the 330F frame - so no need for the new crew rest/wheel well.
I don’t know if Airbus is still offering an US finishing line with the package. Wasn’t the plan to assemble all 330F in mobile?
107. Vero Venia | September 16th, 2009 at 18:44
third time’s a charm?? lets hope so
108. Dougloid | September 16th, 2009 at 19:23
You actually proud Boeing needs to win by political clout - it’s tantamount to declaring Boeing builds the inferior product…
111. Dougloid | September 16th, 2009 at 21:16
Ikkeman, this’n here is lame, even for you:
108. Dougloid | September 16th, 2009 at 19:23
You actually proud Boeing needs to win by political clout - it’s tantamount to declaring Boeing builds the inferior product…
Watch closely now: I did not say political clout will mandate the purchase of an inferior product.
What I said was, it is a political decision, just like y’all do when you decide to build an airliner nobody wants, so as to spread the wealth kind of.
Oh…I forgot-you live where the government tells you that crap is ice cream so eat hearty. You wouldn’t understand Anglo Saxons. We’re the people of whom it was said that every Anglo Saxon has a declaration of rights in his back pocket.
112. keesje | September 16th, 2009 at 21:35
ikkeman, I think the nose landing gear lowering has to do with the A330-200 nose down angle. The deck is not entirely horizontal complicating moving around pallets etc. I think the A330F has a heavier cargo deck not neccessary for the KC-X cargo requirements. Just the lowernose gear seems a good idea (not that I have heard anything about it
)
113. ikkeman | September 16th, 2009 at 22:11
111. Dougloid | September 16th, 2009 at 21:16
Where exactly do you think I live - and where on this earth do you live?
If you’re from the USA, it actually states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” - not just the Anglo-Saxons, not even just the Americans (there weren’t any back then) - All men.
114. AF Won | September 16th, 2009 at 22:37
There’s this curious institution here-it’s called picking up the phone or sending a letter to your congressman. It happens a lot here.
Yes it does. Every time I write to mine I get the same form-letter reply. If you think anyone reads them then I have a bridge to sell you.
115. Skeptic | September 16th, 2009 at 22:47
More on AF477. It seems that Airbus knew about problems with the speed sensors since 2002.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hzcZBI1MlG14b5ceA8LYlx9cFggQD9AOHF9O0
The pilots don’t want to lay down on this and accede to the usual finding of “pilot error”.
“Pilots are angry about what they see as an attempt to pin the crash on pilot error. Eric Tahon, an Air France pilot, defended the role of the Flight 447 crew.
“We are trained to deal with multiple failures of the plane,” he said. “We are convinced that without the breakdown of the Pitots, Air France 447 that day would have set down at (Paris’) Roissy (airport).”
116. Paulo M | September 16th, 2009 at 23:49
89. ikkeman | September 15th, 2009 at 13:18
why is the fact sheet named KC-747?
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/facts/kc747
THe plot Thickens!
I wouldn’t read too much into that. On the website, the header has an ‘A’. A & 4 are not that far apart to the untrained non-engineering eye. But hey, hopefully they’re not making that kind of mistake on the actual reading and interpretation of the RFP.
This discussion makes for interesting reading, and is fun too: “The RAAF A330 MRTT still doesnt have a boom and is overweight - it has more chance of passing wind or urine than passing gas.” I agree.
The two schools of thought here - Product A Vs. Product B AND Tanker Role Vs. MRTT - is a distinguishing feature from the way this has been previously debated. The Airbus concept of MRTT is interesting in that it has been touted for well over a decade - I think. Or is probably older than the very first 767 tanker bid Boeing screwed-up - I mean - blended with its brand of corporate corruption when it got into the unfortunate habit of industrial espionage, bribery of government/millitary officials and unconventional boardroom activities from the late 1990’s till H. Stonecipher got the boot (in 2003?).
I think the MRTT is a very shrewd chess move by Airbus/EADS (manufacturer of aersopace insider trading, white elephants) - it has certainly caught the eyes of the Eagle perched at the Pentagon - and opened the door for them. This never used to be a ‘problem’ - I remember reading about UAL 747-400’s, amongst other private establishments and aircraft type, doing charter sorties of personnel to the Middle East.
Why the USAF thinks it can no longer rely on American companies (* Support American jobs in the private sector, ie. Airlines) and instead spend big bucks up front for isolationist strategy (* Support American jobs in the armed forces) is none of my business quite frankly.
This RFP is for an integral piece of the defense mechanism of The United States of America - kind of like procurring new subs or aircraft-carries. The rest of the world should not be entitled to know nearly as much as it does now. But hey - democracy. (But its a whole other spin on that idea that the American private sector makes most of the decisions and the American government buys products and services from the private sector. Maybe the basic idea became flawed with the looming possibility of corruption, etc.)
In summary:
Basically you’re given three glasses. Tall glass, beer mug and tot glass. Now what you need to do is establish, accurately as possible, you’re ambitions for the night: do you want extra range with frequent top-ups, do you want long-range operations with high capacity (see, can you go the extra mile), or do you want to have massive frequency of very small capacities. Now what you do is match exactly the needs/desires/ambitions of the night to the glasses available and you’ll know exactly what you’ll need. You may* also find you need some variation.
Vero Venia is absolutely right.
117. Paulo M | September 16th, 2009 at 23:54
112. Paulo M | September 16th, 2009 at 23:49
You may* also find you need some variation.
Variation is dangerous!
118. Curious | September 17th, 2009 at 12:15
Business Week reports that the landing field requirements for the Airbus 330 is 7000 feet long while the requirements for the BA777 is 12,000 feet.
This seems to be a significant difference and could weigh heavily in a decision. This clearly is one of the important determinants in the choice.
119. Boeing Investor | September 17th, 2009 at 14:48
Do you think the choice has already been determined and the time until the release is being spent on dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s by the Lawyers?
Or, is there still a battle going on and trading and arguing over the spoils to the victors and the defeated?
120. Falcon | September 17th, 2009 at 14:54
@Dougloid
That’s all fine as long as you call now so the RFP can reflect whatever you think is important. Once the RFP is out the rules should be clear and there should only be no changes to requirements and how things are evaluated.
If you get enough people behind you to include certain requirements more power to you but if you don’t have the grace to accept that too. Don’t come crying afterwards if the result isn’t what you want.
121. Boeing Investor | September 17th, 2009 at 15:23
Isn’t it clear that the content and requirements of the RFP will determine the choice. Once that is released, the choice should be quite evident.
If telephone calls are being made to Congress, they better be in the next few days or weeks. It seems from all the language coming from Gates and the USAF that efforts will be made to have this process as clear and evenhanded as possible so there is , ostensibly, no room for protest.
( Given the nature of procurement, I just wonder if a protest will be lodged in any event!)
122. Drinker | September 17th, 2009 at 15:48
Paulo ( #116).
The tot glass you refer to does not require a “massive frequency of very small capacities”.
The refueling capacity is greater than that of the present day fleet.
What it lacks is the larger amount of space for freight and personnel that the other submissions offer.
One could get quite inebriated from its content
123. Ski206 | September 17th, 2009 at 16:14
Here is where I am a little confused. In order for the A330 to serve succesfully as a frieghter Airbus had to modify the nose gear such that the main deck would level when parked on the ground.
Now if the slope of the standard A330 is such that it wouldn’t work as a frieghter without modification and the Air Force intends to employ it in that role at least upon occasion then what’s the deal? It would seem that the KC-30 (which is NOT based on the A330F) won’t infact be capable of handling main deck freight.
This also begs the question with the A330F available and already equipped with a number of essential mods (Cargo Door, Cargo Floor, Extended Nose Gear) why wouldn’t Airus choose it as the basis for the tanker?
Can anyone enlighten me?
124. robert | September 17th, 2009 at 16:35
Easy on the hate. Both the 767 and a330 have had crashes. Both have an excellent safety record. Both could be great tankers. The question then is : Does the Air Force want a larger or smaller tanker? Smaller then go with 767. larger then go with a330. Want to replace the KC-10 then go with the 777.
125. Curious | September 17th, 2009 at 18:04
This article originally introduced the information that the A330 was having difficulty with its fueling boom and was surpressing information to the contrary about its experience with its experience with the Royal Australian Air Force’s A330 Tanker.
To date it has not been able to overcome this.
This has been dismissed by many who have moved on to the issue of safety, etc.
Is this something that will hamper the selection in the RFP or since there is additional time before award, it is just a consideration and one that can be minimized for the time being.
I thought this information would result in a disqualifier.
Any more thoughts on this specific item
126. Mike M | September 17th, 2009 at 18:08
Ski206 raises a valid point.
How can the A330 be a good tanker/freighter when Airbus has failed to fix the “nose down” attitude?
Is the A330 tanker also able to fit cargo side by side like the 777 or spare engines through its cargo door (does it even have one?!) - the 777F has the biggest door on any freight and will surely be used on the KC-777F.
The A330 can EITHER haul fuel OR something else. Its pretty clear it cannot do BOTH.
127. Curious | September 17th, 2009 at 18:56
The only plane with a low risk of production success is the B767.
The A330 has several flaws at this time, including no Cargo Door as well as the “nose down” attitude.
The B7A7 based on the B777 is still a design concept and has yet to be built.
When the RFP is announced, what assurance is given that the plane can produce the model that it has submitted . Is this taken into consideration when the selection is made.
I do not know how to rate the risk factors, but the 787 is the lowest , perhaps the 777 follows and the A300 is possibly the highest.
Could anyone comment on this issue.
128. Silas Lyon | September 17th, 2009 at 19:19
How many people remember Robert McNamara and his all purpose plane, the F-111, which turned out to be expensive to operate; performed weakly in nearly every category and was great at nothing. We finally ended up using most of them as electronic jammers. That is probably what we’ll end up with again. Of course the Aussies bought several.
129. Falcon | September 17th, 2009 at 19:29
@Mike M
Sure it can do both. You just trade fuel for load as you do on any other plane. Only question is if you want to transfer fuel with a heavy plane or with more than minimum passengers on board.
That said one of the reasons Australia picked the A330 is because they can deploy fighters using just two A330’s for what before required 3 x KC-135 plus to C-130.
It does have a cargo door and I have no idea why the sloping floor isn’t an issue but since they not only figured out there was a problem for the A330F but also how to solve it I’m sure they looked at the tanker implications too.
130. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 17th, 2009 at 19:54
122. Drinker
Agree. But. The tot is not actually the KC-135 so much as the value of alcohol it carries - and it is likely to carry the same or more alcohol than the beer mug (~43+% vs 5~10%). The non-alcohol portion in the beer mug/tall glass is the contentious cargo.
126. Mike M
The A330 can EITHER haul fuek OR something else. It’s pretty clear it cannot do BOTH.
If I play with the numbers, I get the same conclusion - so I agree.
131. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 17th, 2009 at 20:11
126. Mike M
But is it for similar missions? And is tanker and freighter roles carried out concurrently?
This RFP reminds me of the Skunk Works engineer Kelly Johnson - does the USAF know what it wants?
132. ikkeman | September 17th, 2009 at 22:02
125. Curious | September 17th, 2009 at 18:04
How can something be disqualified before the rules of the game are published…
126. Mike M | September 17th, 2009 at 18:08
come on dude - you know Boeing isn’t basing the 7A7 on a cargo version either.
127. Curious | September 17th, 2009 at 18:56
the 7A7 is actually based on either the 767 or 777. Boeing is awaiting the RFP to declare a final choice of platform.
This is actually on of the reasons Boeing lost the last award - since they were proposing an amalgamation of all 767 versions, the USAF considered the Boeing effort more risky. I’d say Boeing is proving them right by changing their proposal to a single 767 model.
My 2c: IF Boeing adopts the 767A or 767J as is, that would be the lowest risk option. If they instead offer something that requires any engineering, I think the new factory approach by NG/EADS will be less risky.
128. Silas Lyon | September 17th, 2009 at 19:19
read R-A: http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=301
131. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 17th, 2009 at 20:11
have you seen teh RFP?
133. Curious | September 17th, 2009 at 23:48
Ikkeman (132)
# 125: figure of speech. Thought the “non proved fuel boom”would eventually disqualify the A330
# 127 Yes. The single 767 model is “less risky”. That is why it has been resubmitted as such
Paulo (131) Yes. These planes may carry fuel and freight at the same time. Also, can serve as freighter when it is not fueling
134. James | September 18th, 2009 at 03:55
@ Silas (19:19 hours)
We discussed the F-111 on this thread on FleetBuzz
http://tinyurl.com/nvt5tq
The links in the thread include Dr. Carlo Kopp’s website which has a comprehensive discussion of the F-111.
135. James | September 18th, 2009 at 03:57
Article on F-111
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-Supercruise-2001.html
136. Curious | September 18th, 2009 at 08:03
Falcon ( # 129)
Of course the A330 has a cargo door, but it is much smaller than the B777 whose cargo door and space is large enough to carry the spare engines that often. accompany special missions
137. Falcon | September 18th, 2009 at 11:11
@Curious,
Of course to you and me but for some reason not to Mike M.
Why would you carry a spare engine on any mission save the very rare replacement or even rarer forward deployment?
138. Curious | September 18th, 2009 at 12:17
Falcon,
I read it somewhwere .Maybe it was used as example of the ocassional ability or the necessary capacity in the event of replacement or forward deployment.
I am not very knowledgeable about these requirements but assume that the needs of the USAF will be define in the RFP and the volume of freight capacity will be a criteria.
The central issues is whether this is a RFP for a Tanker or a multiuse plane and if multi use, what needs must it fullfill.
139. Mike M | September 18th, 2009 at 12:27
Of course its difficult for Falcon to grasp that its not just about transporting an engine or its parts - its about moving all the military gear at short notice.
Simple logic deduces that the A330F has a “level” standing on the ground thanks to the raised nosewheel where the tanker variant does not.
And Ikkeman, the KC-777 would be based on the -200LR, which spawned the 777F. They are the same dimensions and any KC-777 would easily be able to incorporate the 777F cargo door(s).
140. ikkeman | September 18th, 2009 at 13:26
139. Mike M | September 18th, 2009 at 12:27
Come on - you can do better than that:
“the [KC-330] would be based on the -200[], which spawned the [330F]. They are the same dimensions and any [KC-330] would easily be able to incorporate the [330F] cargo door(s).”
Or any other adaption for that matter.
However, that would require engineering and certification - I get the feeling the USAF is looking for an “of the shelf” solution.
Of course adding the refuel equipment would deviate from the basic plane, but I bet the USAF want’s a plane that is as much like everyone elses as possible.
It does raise the question of why both competitors are offering solutions based on pax models rather than freighters.
Are F’s heavier, or does the USAF value troop transport more than cargo.
Is it even possible to put seats in a -F? I’d say a palletised solution must be possible?
141. Jerry1t | September 18th, 2009 at 14:25
We are all just guessing and stabbing at the USAF requirements and the politics that shape them.
Its been made perfectly clear that there are three different offerings and the Air Force will have decided what it wants when it issues the RFP.
This dialogue has been interesting and maybe mimics the issues that come up at the USAF table, but until the RFP is offered non of us really know what will determine the final choice.
I still wonder whether there will be another protest, regardless.
142. Falcon | September 18th, 2009 at 16:21
@ Curious,
I have never read such and while I don’t know I imagine it would be difficult to load an engine on a KC-135.
@Mike M,
So after you have claimed the KC-30 doesn’t have a cargo door and that it can’t do fueling missions and carry cargo and / or passengers at the same time you now try to claim I have no grasp.
Then you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension by stating I think it is about transporting engines when I questioned why you would be interested in carrying an engine at all.
Try to support your statements instead of spreading FUD. Hopefully it means you will tell us why it can’t do BOTH and why the sloping floor is an issue when it has been no issue for the many air forces who have ordered it with the clear intention to carry freight. Heck you might even be able to substantiate why it is important it can carry engines.
Just to help you out a bit. I don’t know if the KC-30 can load a spare engine through the cargo door (that you questioned if it has) but I do know engines can be transported on other planes and I think that would be plenty enough for the rare cases where you need to transport an engine.
It would be nice to see a post from you where you backup your statements with facts and / or conclusions. Even better if you can do a post without making false claims.
143. robert | September 19th, 2009 at 01:34
If the a330 wins then airbus can certainly fix the nose gear issue and possibly add a lrger cargo door. The 767 tanker had development problems as well. Cant think of any military procurement that did not have problems. If a smaller tanker, closer to the KC-135 is needed then choose the 767. if a medium tanker is needed choose the a330. If a larger tanker is required then choose the 777.
144. Mike M | September 19th, 2009 at 13:56
>>>you now try to claim I have no grasp
You dont, period.
You’re trying and failing to attribute scenario’s I didnt refer to - the engine example was just that, and example. Why so huffy and puffy about it?
That demonstrated your lack of comprehension in all manners and not just reading, but then this is what we have come to “expect” from your bi-partisan bullshit.
@ Ikkeman:
Nice try with the rewording, however you forget that the KC-777 will have the stronger 777F/772LR fuselage where the KC-330 is based on the adapted A330 passenger model.
All of that makes sense since the Aussies are finding that floor strengthening is now damaging the flight dynamics - or didnt you see that in the article?
145. robert | September 19th, 2009 at 17:30
chachacah…… cant we just all get along. go for the gusto!! The robo tanker wins KC-777.
146. ikkeman | September 19th, 2009 at 18:45
144. Mike M | September 19th, 2009 at 13:56
you mean the flleetbuzz article - I try not to take everything I read there as proof…
On the 772LR vs 332 as basis for the KC-X I agree with you. The 772LR version would probably be better in the freight part of the mission requirement. If nothing else it has much more capacity for pax, freight or fuel. It’s empty weight is also some 27t higher and though it’s MTOW is some 100ton more, it’s MLW is only 50t higher.
I don’t know what this means for a tanker mission - but my guess is if you want a large tanker/transport - go with the 777. If you want a modern medium tanker go with the 330 and if you wish a direct KC-135 replacement - the 767 is your best bet.
147. Falcon | September 19th, 2009 at 20:47
@Mike M,
Stop making up what I have stated. Stop changing what was said by whom about the engines. No doubt in an attempt to cover your own statements and to cover questioning that the A330 doesn’t have a cargo door.
Instead explain your statements that the A330 can’t do “BOTH” missions and why the sloping floor must be a cargo deal breaker despite multiple air forces, including USAF, not finding it a problem instead of misstating what Curious, you and I said about engines.
My guess is that you yet again will FUD what was said instead of explaining your statements. A show of the weakness in not only your arguments but in your ability to partake in a discussion.
@ikkeman,
I think the selection process is a bit more complicated, e.g. cost can complicate things quite a bit.
148. Rocketsurgery | September 21st, 2009 at 06:58
LOL @ Mike M. Very quick to point out that the 330 hasn’t passed fuel from it boom yet, despite the very same boom being developed and tested successfully on the A310, The A330 is flying has passed fuel from the drogues, the only slight fly in the ointment is the integration of the boom. Yet Boeing - the KC767 proposal was a true frankenstein that was yet to get off the ground.
Oh and aparently the flying boom mark 5 has been tested and is fine, yet a the Mk 6 will be too (even though it hasn’t flown either!) Also, when it comes to the Boeing products he’s prepared to issue conclusive evidence of their superiority even when they are only a design concept (has anybody seen a KC777 passing avtur?)
I don’t think I have seen anybody this one eyed in a long while.
In answer to the questions about why the KC 330 is not based on the freighter variant is simple - the freighter wasn’t flying when the A330 was adapted to its tanking role. As aircraft age and become cheaper to buy and therefore more attractive as freighters, either the manufacturer or a specialist conversion company will release a retrofit kit to convert passenger aircraft to freighter spec. If that included a longer nosewheel strut on the KC330, then that’s a factor to consider.
Cannot believe the stupidity of some of the comments above in relation to the aircraft’s tasking. Of course the aircraft should have a multi role - what an incredible waste of an airframe and taxpayers dollars if equipment needs to be moved and the airframe is not required for tanking why outsource that to a civvy firm at considerable cost whilst airforce planes sit on the tarmac?
Before people start accusing me of a european bias - I’m not from there, nor from the US.
I happen to think that Boeing got spanked in the initial runoff because they put forward the most cost effective (to them) proposal and expected the US taxpayer to just buy local as it has always done and buy the airframe that would not tie up the commercial production line - instead it was a ‘just meets the requirements solution’ for a golden price. The NG win and subsequent overturning was the wakeup call for Boeing - if they haven’t learned now not to offer crap they will lose.
Now, everybody (yes, listen up US poiliticians) - let the end users (you know, the guys who will actually employ the bloody things) get on with the decision in the best interests of their service and ultimately, America. Just buy the bloody things (none of this split buy hooha) and get them into service before the oldest KC135E’s get a letter from the Queen…
149. Jason Simonds | September 21st, 2009 at 07:10
Utter nonsense. The first KC-30A for the Royal Australian Air Force transferred fuel to a Portugese Air Force F-16 through the Boom on February 29, 2009.
It is being upgraded at present. The airframe is not grounded and to argue it “can’t transfer fuel” is a non-sequitor. It is in the process of receiving final modifications before the final phase of testing and delivery to RAAF.
Out of interest, how much fuel can the KC-767AT transfer right now?
150. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 07:58
148. Rocketsurgery | September 21st, 2009 at 06:58 says, “Cannot believe the stupidity of some of the comments above in relation to the aircraft’s tasking. Of course the aircraft should have a multi role - what an incredible waste of an airframe and taxpayers dollars if equipment needs to be moved and the airframe is not required for tanking why outsource that to a civvy firm at considerable cost whilst airforce planes sit on the tarmac?”
This is an interesting but silly comment.
Air Force’s role is not doing passenger or cargo transport. They transport military personnel and military material. What’s the volume and frequency of military personnel transport? The reality is that it is stupid for an Air Force to hire permanent staff to serve personnel and cargo transport. It would be way too expensive. Not only they will have aircraft sitting on the tarmac, they will have trained personnel playing cards inside the aircraft.
The service of a charter , a scheduled airline or a cargo forwarder is way cheaper, in the long term, for those transport purposes.
“Multi Role” Tanker/Transport aircraft is a concept for small sized Air Force whose need for tankering is shadowed by the need for personnel and letter/parcel transport.
151. Mike M | September 21st, 2009 at 14:57
@ Falcon/#147
Cry me a river - you dont like it when people “change” comments so quit doing it yourself you crybaby.
Practice what you preach….
@ Jason Simonds:
Do you have a link to the fuel transfer to the Portuguese F16 jet?
I know I’m not alone in wanting to see that, thank you in advance if you can mate.
152. Falcon | September 21st, 2009 at 15:43
@Mike M,
As predicted you failed to provide any support for your statements.
Please show me where I have changed what you have stated.
153. Curious | September 21st, 2009 at 16:10
Based on several of Vero Venia’s past comments as well as his last posting, it appears that if he were the USAF person in charge of the choice, he would choose the B767 because it is the only pure Tanker and it seems that he thinks that there is little need for a multiuse model because the economics and the real costs are not justified by the infrequency of the use.
Doesn’t the USAF must have alot of freigh tcarrying models ? Which planes are presently carrying materials back and forth to Afghanistan and Iraq? Can anyone fill us in on just the USAF’s present capability in this area. Is there a need to supplement the Tankers with other uses?
How do some of you see the need or lack of need.
154. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 16:33
It has been made clear that the Tankers are used as freighters to carry material in addition to their role as refueling planes.
Venia suggests that it is cheaper to charter additional planes when the need for personnel and freight increases beyond capacity…and he suggests there is little need for personnel to be a high priority in any event.
I certainly know little about the USAF’s fleet and needs so have no idea if he is correct. What he says is certainly plausible.
In this time of budgetary constraint, it seems that the least costly and most effective model is to be chosen. If only a Tanker is needed, the RFP will reflect that. The USAF will have made that analysis and defined the needs appropriately.
If other factors are weighed in carefully and a different conclusion is drawn, we will find out that thinking in time.
Once again, the decision is in the hands of the USAF and it will disclose its strategy soon. Vero Venia is implying that in a large Air Force like that of the US, there is little sense or need for a more expensive multiuse plane because it cannot be cost effective.
155. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 16:47
153. Curious | September 21st, 2009 at 16:10
Tankers are used as freighters or personnel transport as secondary role.
154. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 16:33 says, “Venia suggests that it is cheaper to charter additional planes when the need for personnel and freight increases beyond capacity…and he suggests there is little need for personnel to be a high priority in any event.”
Yes.
For US Air Force, the personnel/material transport role for the tankers is really ancillary. There are hundreds of those tankers. Oversizing those tankers to accommodate transport role is useless.
156. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 16:53
I think Atlas Air and DHL are very frequent US military contractors.
Many-many US personnel are transported by commercial flights. We are not anymore in the seventies when there were very few long haul aircraft. Today, international airports are available everywhere. What’s the problem?
Transporting troops back and forth with an aircraft equipped by a heavy and expensive refueling boom and the associated equipments is one of the most stupid things I have heard.
157. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 16:58
Mr. Venia,
Based on your comments and apparent knowledge, it appears that the only sensible choice is clearly the B767 Tanker.
You make it quite clear that there is no need whatsoever to increase the capacity of a Tanker beyond its primary purpose.
I, for one, hope you are correct and that this thinking will instruct the USAF to choose accordingly.
My experience in life, however, tells me that rational choices are not always the one’s that are made!
158. Curious | September 21st, 2009 at 17:15
The Seattle newspaper indicates that the USAF will release the RFP by the end of September.
Prior postings indicate that the RFP will clearly define the choice of plane by virtue of its requirements.
Since the RFP is the handwork of many Generals and Lawyers, do you think it will become immediately recognizeable what the choice is or will it be like wading through 1000 pages of small print legalistically confusing documents that obfuscate the outcome rather than simply making it evident….at least for those who take the time to read this and try to convey its outcome to others.
How do you think the outcome will make it into the Blogs and those that try to follow this chapter.How long will it take to decipher this document?
159. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 17:15
157. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 16:58
If there is another aircraft smaller than the 767 that is more capable than the KC-135 and if I were the US Air Force I would take that smaller aircraft.
In my opinion, the 767 is a little bit too big for a tanker.
160. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 17:25
I’ve just found this interesting link.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-US-Militarys-International-Airlift-Contracts-05066/
161. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 17:34
Mr. Venia,
Is there another aircraft smaller than the B767 that is more capable than the KC -135 ?
Is it possible that the RFP would incentivize a smaller plane than the 767 and Boeing would choose to react to that incentive because Airbus would try to respond accordingly.
That is, could this RFP totally change the name of the game? It is clear to your mind that even the 767 is too large to be an efficient Tanker but , nontheless, it is one of the three models currently being proposed unless the RFP surprises everyone and we have a different requirement .
But based on your prior postings, we will have a choice for an Apple, an Orange or a Large Orange…and I took that to mean the 767, A300 and B777
I do not know if you are suggesting that there are many types of apples i.e. Fiji, Galia, etc and the 767 is not the best apple for a proposed pie.
Or, you are simply indicating that even the 767, the pure Tanker submission, is even too large for the needed purpose and efficiency…but it is one of the choices and since it may even be too large, it can be argued that it is even a “multiuse” plane…and acceptable on all counts
162. Curious | September 21st, 2009 at 17:44
Vero Venia’s post # 160 clearly shows that there is an active commercial fleet that is contracted for by the USAF on an annual basis and it has increased in use over the past recent years ( It only indicates up to 2008).
This certainly substantiates that a multiuse plane seems less needed than before this discussion and his point that it is almost (probably) a waste of money to include these needs as a requirement is made evident.
163. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 17:46
161. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 17:34
So let’s wait what the US Air force wants. If they want the 767, they’ll take it. If they want the A330 they’ll take it. It’s so easy.
A 787-8 tanker would be great. But it has to fly first.
164. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 18:05
Mr. Venia,
Of course! They are the Client and they will take what they want. We are trying to be rational and investigative…and you are giving us information that would normally influence outcome and rational choice.
I do wonder if , since this contract is in several tranches, the first being 179 planes, whether the next tranch could be a different plane model. It will take a while award the contract and get the planes built. By that time, circumstances may change and the needs change.
Hopefully, the 787 will fly soon but its rampup will be slow and easy and they could not meet their customers needs as well as the USAF unless they build a third production line! But maybe down the road …or in another competition..
Perhaps the requirements will indicate something about that too.
165. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 18:34
Mr. Venia,
Please clarify….a prior question…
Are these three planes the only models which the USAF is considering because they are the two submissions which have been under consideration along with the addition of a proposed B777 Tanker…as a result of the challenge from the GAO overturn.
That is, the requirements would not be such that it would alter the submission of the choices.
Everyone on this page has taken it for granted the the RFP will result in a choice of one of the three…not a game changing RFP.
Please confirm that understanding
166. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 19:00
I am not the USAF. That’s clear, so don’t ask me for something I don’t have the credentials.
However please remember the last time the bid was done and voided by the GAO. The USAF expressed one thing and they did another. That’s not correct.
If this time they express their need correctly and the evaluation is done properly there is not any ambiguity possible. So let’s wait the RFP and the resulting evaluation rules.
If they do it correctly, there is not any reason for a protest. Or if there is any protest it would be rejected. So simple.
167. Jerry1t | September 21st, 2009 at 19:12
On 9/14, on the Official Web page of the Boeing Corporation, an announcement was made: “Boeing unveiled additional details of the Company’s POTENTIAL offering in the US Air Force KC -X competition…”
POTENTIAL was capitalized by me to emphasize that the offering discussed was a potential offering which resulted from preliminary discussion with the USAF prior to the release of the RFP.
I am offering this ‘contingent” offering language reference only as a result of recent postings that seem to raise a question as to whether the RFP is basically a choice between the two prior submissions to the Tanker competition along with a potential addition of a proposed Boeing 777 Tanker model or can go beyond these models and make requirement that introduces a need that changes the choice matrix.
It seems that anything that changes the three choice model would be a wildcard that would not be expected nor would make any sense based upon pre release discussions and the need for a clear and transparent competition that would not be challenged.
But since anything and everything does happen in this world, I wonder if anyone else thinks otherwise.
168. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 19:27
167. Jerry1t | September 21st, 2009 at 19:12
Of course it’s still “potential”.
How can you answer a question that has not been asked?
169. Roger | September 21st, 2009 at 19:38
Mr. Venia: Apparently you are the new world’s expert. Anyway, thank you for reminding everyone that last time the USAF specified one thing, then chose another.
170. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 19:47
169. Roger | September 21st, 2009 at 19:38.
Yes, they specified one thing and then took another. But, the GAO said that the process was full of mistakes such that the US Air Force stopped the contract.
As long as the USAF specifies one thing and then takes another this bloody protest game will continue.
If The USAF is disciplined and specifies one thing and then takes that thing, there won’t be any reason for a protest and if there is a protest it will be rejected.
What’s the problem?
171. Roger | September 21st, 2009 at 19:57
I have no problem with you. I think you are completley fair.
I am sincere in thanking you for reminding everyone what the problem was with the last bidding. I have written proposals for USA contracts. The first rule was that I had to respond to the RFQ. If I wanted to propose something else, that was fine. But I couldn’t be non-responsive to the RFQ.
172. Jerry1t | September 21st, 2009 at 20:26
Roger,
Could you inform us what a RFQ is and how it works.
I assume the Q stands for “Question” but would you put it the context of this discussion.
I too find Vero Venia very fair and knowledgeable and his comments have added greatly to a better understanding of what is involved in the Tanker Competition.
There seems rto be complete agreement that the prior competition was unfair and that protests would not be available if clarity and transparence prevailed.
You then introduce RFQ and I just wanted some clarity about its role in the process.
Curious is questioning whether the new RFP would be a curveball. Vero Venia seems to imply that the USAF has three choices and can pick what they wish (need?) You and Venia agree the process could be quite clear , direct and non protestable.
Would you please amplify
173. ikkeman | September 21st, 2009 at 20:45
165. Boeing Investor | September 21st, 2009 at 18:34 et al,
Wasn’t there a third, non Boeing party interested in offering 747 based tankers on the last KC-X competition. The name escapes me, But I know http://www.ausairpower.net/ has an section devoted to why the RAAF should by an 747 based KC-30 instead of the 330MRTT
Mr Venia, I think you underestimate the value of an dual-use fleet. Your link talks of 3 billion a year in private charters, What percentage of the total KC-X does that represent and how much of this expense could the USAF cover by using their own fleet.
How many of the 474 tankers are in active operations - fleet leader has 33970 hours in 45? years doesn’t sound like much…
174. Jerry1t | September 21st, 2009 at 20:46
Roger and Verio Venia,
I do not wish to appear obtuse nor beat a dead horse to death. I remain puzzled about the discussions that occur before the RFP..or during the RFP…and the final selection.
Apparently during the last process, there was a major discrepancy between what was asked for and what was selected. Non of us are clear about how those details were exercised except for the GAO and maybe Mr. Gates.
Now we are assured a clearer cleaner process…and the Company’s have already lined up their models for the competition.
Vero Venia says the RFP will determine the actual choice of plane. The simple question I am asking is whether there can be any surprises that would introduce other planes or models into this competition or whether it is quite clear that it will be one of the three “potential” models identified by their respective sponsors.
For some reason there is a bug my head that a curveball is possible…..and I keep asking whether that is a possibility or I am just “bugged” and it is just a replay of the prior competition with an additional potential model to be introduced by Boeing to counter the “need” for a multiuse that got Airbus to temporarily win the competition last time since Boeing was not informed of that need.
Its really a simple question. I am well aware that neither of you are the Air Force but I am asking your opinion.
Thanks for assisting a confused man.
175. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 21:37
173. ikkeman | September 21st, 2009 at 20:45
A tanker has always dual function. I am not a military man but I would like to share these simple and pragmatic thoughts.
Just imagine that you need to send two F15 from Germany to Israel. What do you need for two F15?
* at least two pilots (in the F15 cockpit)
* several spare parts
* seven mechanics (radio mechanic, systems etc)
* two spare pilots in case of …
* several important equipment (FLIRs, pods etc)
* clothes for those pilots and mechanics
* the mechanics’ toolboxes
* food, beer and gifts for friends in Israel
* playboy or penthouse magazines
* etc etc
It is of course more convenient to have the whole package (personnel and material) in the tanker that will fly with the two F15.
Can we agree with that?
Now, would you carry a spare F15 engine in the tanker? I am not sure it’s the most effective way.
Now if there are occasions the tanker is available and it has to transport, say, 100 troops. Why not? The 767 can do that.
But, if you need to send 1,000 soldiers back home for two weeks perm in the US from Afghanistan, probably a chartered airliners (with those hot stewardesses) are better suited. Hey, the USAF is not an airline, they’re not going to cope with catering and so on.
So yes. There is always a dual use of the tanker, but up to a certain limit.
176. Falcon | September 21st, 2009 at 23:02
I find this discussion about using civilian assets to transport military material very interesting and I think there is one point that hasn’t been mentioned – Consequences of transporting military personnel and material on civilian assets.
For a very long time the idea has been to separate military and civilian assets and consider the later off target. It has become much more important after WW2 but can be seen earlier in cases like Lusitania. Again this is hard to apply in terrorism cases but applies to Iraq for example. Could Iraq be faulted for taking down US marked civilian airliners over the Atlantic if those assets regularly flow military assets? (Their capability to do so is a different issue)
Personally I think not a single military asset should be transported on a civilian vessel. Of course the military can take over a civilian asset but in that case it is important to remove the civilian livery and replace it with military.
I understand the many comments about dedicated tanker fleet but I think it is historical views. Today one trick ponies are disappearing and multipurpose assets are taking over because you can reduce movements and provide backup in a much more efficient way even with the extra cost of the individual missions.
177. Paulo M | September 21st, 2009 at 23:05
175. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 21:37
Yes.
So yes. There is always a dual use of the tanker, but up to a certain limit.
From another of my previous posts:
Why the USAF thinks it can no longer rely on American companies (* Support American jobs in the private sector, ie. Airlines) and instead spend big bucks up front for isolationist strategy (* Support American jobs in the armed forces) is none of my business quite frankly.
On a previous comment here I made a boo boo: · 130. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 17th, 2009 at 19:54 : 126. Mike M
The A330 can EITHER haul fuel OR something else. It’s pretty clear it cannot do BOTH.
If I play with the numbers, I get the same conclusion - so I agree.
Of course the A330 can carry fuel & cargo - anything can do that.
I think if you’re supporting your two F-15’s at anyone time, having a large tanker up there just for that is quite less efficient than a smaller one.
178. Rocketsurgery | September 22nd, 2009 at 07:53
Viero Venia, just how many times do you need to contradict yourself on the issue of having a multiuse tanker/transport? First it is “one of the most stupid things I have heard.” (from post 156), Then we see a total backflip in post 175 “A tanker has always dual function.”
Well mate, which one is it?
Are you old enough to remember Desert Shield in 1990? There was an almighty struggle to get men and equipment to Saudi Arabia to stop any potential moves by Sadam. A MRTT fleet would have been very handy back then. As it was the KC-1 Extenders were utilised in this role:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/020905-o-9999r-015.jpg
I think perhaps you have given everybody an idea of your degree of expertise with this comment: “I am not a military man” - translation - I have no clue what I am rabbiting on about. Perhaps you should pull your head in a tad and listen to those who may be in the military…
179. Rocketsurgery | September 22nd, 2009 at 07:54
Typing error to my post above: KC-10 Extenders.
180. Rocketsurgery | September 22nd, 2009 at 08:11
@ Viero Viera. To your comment below:
“Transporting troops back and forth with an aircraft equipped by a heavy and expensive refueling boom and the associated equipments is one of the most stupid things I have heard.”
All the associated equipment that turns an A330-200 intinto a KC-330A aparrently weighs 5 tonnes.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330
So you would think it would be smarter to charter a civvie operation for this role?
1. In most cases the airframes are not overutilised from an airframe hours point of view (still airframe life left in the KC 135E’s which are 50 plus years old).
2. Useful training for aircrew to fly more hours.
3. Costs can be contained by utilising these existing assets.
But, you go right ahead and give the world your opinions on this…
181. ikkeman | September 22nd, 2009 at 10:00
175. Vero Venia | September 21st, 2009 at 21:37
according to the USAF honcho in the aviation week article referenced above the current KC-135 mission split is 83% pure refuel, something like 3% dual use, 3% pure transport and the rest as training and such.
apparently there’s not much need to transport the playboys for the flyboys (maybe that’s where the $3billion commercial charters comes in ;-))
The USAF may not be an airline but it has immense capacity constantly flying between the US and any area of operations. troops don’t just fly back - they fly to the area as well. Same with equipment.
We do agree Tankers should be dual usedup to a certain limit, but that limit is to low at this time.
177. Paulo M | September 21st, 2009 at 23:05
are you proposing to buy an tanker for every 2 fighters in the arsenal???
182. Curious | September 22nd, 2009 at 14:49
Ikkeman (176) “We do agree Tankers should be dual usedup (sp) to a certain limit, but that limit is to (sp) low at this time”
How do you know that the limit is too low at this time? Based on the Honcho quote in your post, 83% of the time is for fueling only and 3% for dual use .
It has been made quite clear that the Tanker can and is used for carrying military materiel but its primary purpose is refueling..the other uses are seondary.
Unless the requirements will change, this is an RFP for a Tanker replacement. You are trying to change the requirements for a multuse plane beyond the scope of the need and are using Desert Shield as an example…close to thirty years ago. Many things have changed since then and incidently, commercial planes were heavily used in that endeavor.
183. Boeing Investor | September 22nd, 2009 at 14:51
The RFP will be issued this week according to the Seattle Times.
We will all see what the USAF is looking for and, preferably, it will be clear and unambiguous.
184. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 16:09
178. Rocketsurgery | September 22nd, 2009 at 07:53 says, “Viero Venia, just how many times do you need to contradict yourself on the issue of having a multiuse tanker/transport? First it is “one of the most stupid things I have heard.” (from post 156), Then we see a total backflip in post 175 “A tanker has always dual function.”
Well mate, which one is it?”
Nope. Part of a tanker role is transporting small and necessary personnel and materials related to its mission. The 767 can do this with comfortable margins.
The “pure” transporter role is not a tanker’s role. the “dual function” meant by my post is that the tanker can transport the minimum required of personnel and materials related to the deployment. When there are many troops to transport or many materials, there are specific aircraft or service for those purposes.
185. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 16:12
180. Rocketsurgery | September 22nd, 2009 at 08:11 “So you would think it would be smarter to charter a civvie operation for this role? ”
Yes.
When you deploy such a force to distant countries, it is obvious that the tankers are also busy doing other things.
186. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 16:14
And yes, I am sorry to say this again but I confirm that “Transporting troops back and forth with an aircraft equipped by a heavy and expensive refueling boom and the associated equipments is one of the most stupid things I have heard.”
187. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 16:17
181. ikkeman | September 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 says, “according to the USAF honcho in the aviation week article referenced above the current KC-135 mission split is 83% pure refuel, something like 3% dual use, 3% pure transport and the rest as training and such.” (emphasis added)
I can agree with that. That’s why putting so much importance to the transport role for a fleet of tankers is simply irrelevant.
188. Falcon | September 22nd, 2009 at 19:32
@ikkeman & Vero Venia,
I think you’re both stuck in how the tankers have been used.
Look at how other assets have become multitasking, what is the reason the tankers should stay with an 50 or so year doctrine?
With new models coming on-line it’s the perfect opportunity to update the doctrine.
@Verio Venia,
Why is it so stupid to use a plane with a boom to transport troops? If you need to rapidly deploy a lot of soldiers isn’t it better to fly them on readily available tankers than waiting for civilian planes to become available? Must also be better than building two large groups of single task ponies.
189. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 19:54
188. Falcon | September 22nd, 2009 at 19:32 asks “Why is it so stupid to use a plane with a boom to transport troops?”
If you think a little bit more, you’ll find it stupid too.
190. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 22nd, 2009 at 20:26
181. ikkeman | September 22nd, 2009 at 10:00
are you proposing to buy ‘an’ tanker for every 2 fighters in the arsenal???
Yeah sure! That should easily double the production of the 767 - based on the number of F-35’s Lockheed plans to build for the USAF and its international partners - Alone! (Now, we must consider what else the USAF has - and it has a lot. Now we have discovered the perpetual employment machine for the State of Washington! Call the White House, call Wall Street, the recession is over!)
Seriously, a Tanker’s primary role is to refuel fighters, bombers, transport aircraft, etc. A bigger one uses more fuel.
But, let’s think about that $3bn in military contracts to commercial airlines and couriers. The most recent figures for airline revenues I have right now are those of the Global Fortune 500 of 2003. And here they are in US dollar, billions: AMR ~17.3, JAL ~17.1, LUFTHANSA ~16, UAL ~14..3, DELTA ~13.3, AF/KLM ~12.6, BA ~11.9 (TOTAL OF THESE 7: ~102.5). Also note this: UPS ~31.3, FEDEX ~20.6 - TOGETHER, FEDUP: ~51.6.
Now as you can see, three billion American dollars is a lot of dinheiro, but if that’s all the USAF spends on military contracts for commercial transportation, it is peanuts. And a stupid reason for isolationist policies to the American private sector. Anyway, the USAF knows what it wants. We’re just playing with words here.
191. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 20:56
190. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 22nd, 2009 at 20:26
You made a very good point.
I am still wondering what kind of stewardess of steward US Air Force could offer in the BOOMED AIRLINES troop transport?
And just imagine what they can offer for the catering! Oh no! bread and peanut butter.
Now let’s listen to the safety announcement.
“Dear paratroopers, you all have a parachute on your back. In case of trouble, open the doors and jump!”
192. Falcon | September 22nd, 2009 at 21:22
@Vero Venia,
As I showed in the post you responded and partially in earlier posts to it isn’t stupid if you think a couple of steps further than you did.
Let me highlight the reasons again:
* you should not carry military assets on a civilian plane.
* When you want to move large amounts of material you will be able to do much more if you have ready planes than if you need to call in civilian planes.
* The cost of building up paralell tanker and transport / cargo capacity is extremely expensive.
* Building planes that can work both as tankers and transport / cargo is relatively minor additional cost
* The extra cost of carrying the ~5,000 kg refueling equipment on non tanker missions is minor compared to building parallel fleets.
Appreciate if you can argue for your point.
193. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 22nd, 2009 at 22:00
*You should not carry military assets on a civilian airplane*
Good point. There should be a separation between military & civilian.
Anyway, the 767 can seat ~200+ in 31” pitch seating (I think).
These military deployments are not in the order of a few hundred - they’re in the thousands - hundreds of thousands a possible if the Prez says yes. I would think that when the US military contracts a commercial airline to deploy assets/paratroopers at a hotspot, the actual aircraft is operated in accordance with military rules - its operation is likely the ownership of the military - yes? Just the same if the President gets on board ANY (fixed wing) AIRCRAFT whatsoever, that aircraft is AIR FORCE ONE - AND HAS THE HIGHEST MILITARY PRIORITY.
What do you think?
194. Referee | September 22nd, 2009 at 22:19
I think Falcon is looking for a debate and it is just an exercise in argumentation.
Lets postpone the criteria until the RFP which is due out very shortly
195. Civilian Aircraft | September 22nd, 2009 at 22:39
In the type of deployment event that is described above, there is enough planning time to make all the arrangements for adequate equiptment and personnel on chartered civilian flights under full military authority.
This arrangement goes on everyday of the week as indicated by financial statistics cited above.
It seems unnecessary to prepare for an event that occurs infrequently when there are adequate and immediate resources available to meet any of the needs.
196. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 22:59
192. Falcon | September 22nd, 2009 at 21:22
You’re wrong sir.
First, when a civilian aircraft operates for the military they operate under military authorities.
Second, when military personnel is on perm he is a civilian.
Third, the military has also dedicated transport aircraft. Have heard about the C-17?
You just don’t build a huge personnel transport fleet in the military. You use commercial aircraft. You don’t expect a conflict to stay twenty years without the help of allies.
The problem sir, is that carrying tones of metal during more than 80% of the missions is a waste of fuel. You just don’t dimension your tanker for transport purposes.
On the other hand you don’t want to “burn” the cycles of your tanker just for transporting goods or personnel. The aircraft, the boom and the related equipments/systems is a very huge investment.
I think everything has been said. Let’s wait what the USAF wants in their RFP. Maybe they are stupid enough to transport troops back and forth using an equipped tanker. After all, they are the people who specified one thing and then chose another.
197. ikkeman | September 22nd, 2009 at 23:49
193. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 22nd, 2009 at 22:00
So you think it’s a good plan to commandeer a few hundred airframes from the commercial fleet. What are you going to do with the hundreds of thousands commercial passengers you’re leaving in the cold.
Relying on the availability of commercial transport constricts military options, and the possibility of needing that backup is costing the USAF 3 billion a year!
198. ikkeman | September 23rd, 2009 at 00:18
187. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 16:17
based on the current airframes. aside from the limited refuel mission (remember the 34000 hours in 45+ years), the USAF spend the 3 billion in civi contracts. see the upside, consider budget constraints.
190. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 22nd, 2009 at 20:26
but a bigger one also offloads more fuel. one of the mission parameters considered is the fraction of fuel burned vs offloaded in typical and future missions. That should take care of whether the AF wants big or small.
191. Vero Venia | September 22nd, 2009 at 20:56
What’s you fixation about providing stewardess’ to the US troops - what do you think sergeants are for?
and what’s wrong with eating field rations on the plane. they could even have the luxury of heating them…
193. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 22nd, 2009 at 22:00
I think trying to squeeze 200+ troops plus their 40lb personal gear into an 767 severely limits its range (but you’re right, it can refuel!)
I also think some 300 a/c at 200 pax is a big fleet. and they can refuel. And they have self defense options, and they’re always at you beck and call.
199. Vero Venia | September 23rd, 2009 at 09:05
197. ikkeman | September 22nd, 2009 at 23:49
ikkeman, using contracted commercial transport is exactly what’s happening today. Where do you see those poor civil passengers stranded in the cold?
The reality, ikkeman, 3 billions US dollars of contracted transport includes the flight ops, staffing, catering, training, maintenance, fuel costs, and I forgot many other costs. Asking the USAF to run an airline like activity seems to be a little bit exaggerated.
200. Boeing Investor | September 23rd, 2009 at 13:52
There is reason to believe that the RFP will be released shortly. The USAF is scheduled to meert with Congress this week and the release will probably follow.
Politics may be interfering with technical choices and trade matters can result in additional protests when the second part of the WTO report is released later in the year.
Wow. This is a hornets nest
201. ikkeman | September 23rd, 2009 at 15:28
199. Vero Venia | September 23rd, 2009 at 09:05
how many flight are operated daily? How many KC-135 are parked daily? how many KC-135 fly from afganistan to the US daily?
the 3 billion also includes profit and a risk bonus. The USAF can buy this additional capacity at no extra cost. Why not?
The unhappy pax I meant were in case of an immediate airlift requirement such as at the start of an conflict, not ongoing operations.
202. Vero Venia | September 23rd, 2009 at 16:12
201. ikkeman | September 23rd, 2009 at 15:28
So you didn’t catch my comment about “burning” the cycles or about the cost of operating those aircraft as personnel transport. It’s not only about aircraft. It’s also about the ops and other stuffs.
If you don’t want to understand, it’s not my problem.
203. Observer | September 23rd, 2009 at 18:01
I have been following the comments on this subject and have learned alot that is not in the news or discussed in the detail that appears here.
The comments seem to be split as to which size plane and use is needed or is a better choice. There seem to be proponents for each with logical arguments that are then refuted by the other side.
No one is really in a position to know what the USAF is considering and what political pressures get exerted. The requirements will be the result of all the forces at work.
It will be interesting to read the comments after the release of the RFP. Whoever appears to have won will turn out to be the one with the correct choice to fly through all the flack and obstacles that has been put in its path
204. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 23rd, 2009 at 20:38
ikkeman:
As per my post 190., 3 billion dollars US is pocket change however much budgetary contraints come into play.
And as you kindly state in you own post number 201.: ”The unhappy pax I meant were in case of an immediate airlift requirement such as the start of ‘an’ conflict, not ongoing operations.”
So too is the initial capabilities of the tanker - in range and refueling operations - under similar operating conditions (767 or A330).
205. Falcon | September 23rd, 2009 at 20:58
@Vero Venia,
You still don’t get the points so apparently I’m wrong. I’ll try yet again.
How do you distinguish a plane under military authority from one under civilian if they both carry the same livery? What I said, and you probably missed, is that you need to change livery before a plane is used for military missions. The consequence of not doing so is that all civilian planes of that nation become legit targets. Of course this is at times of war and unfortunately US spend a lot of time under those terms even though there hasn’t been a declared war since WW2 if I remember correctly.
Bull, if you’re a member of a military at war you’re a legit target wherever you are.
So why do they use civilian transports…. You like to use dumb and stupid. I think they very much apply to your comment.
You don’t acquire military equipment for peacetime needs. Everything military is based on war conditions. You will use a lot of the equipment during peace time for training but for the most part it will just be stored. That is why most KC-135’s have only 350 or so flying hours per year.
US war planning is built on being able to respond rapidly anywhere in the world but even so not even the buildup to Iraq 1 required all tankers. It takes time to transfer civilian planes (etc.) to military, remember the livery. Why not increase the cargo capacity with all the “un-needed” tanker capacity not only before the civilian transfers take place but also after? It is not like anyone is counting cycles at this time. What does count is how much it costs to have this capacity. The answer is that adding cargo, troop transport and medical evacuation capacity and the extra hourly cost during training missions is very little over the clean tanker cost.
This is why it should be done, on war time, not peace time considerations.
Not to say you will not have advantages from it during peace time too. If each plane is expected to get 350 hours per year so that people are properly trained why not do something useful during those hours?
As mentioned earlier in this thread RAAF expects to save a lot of cycles because they can repositions fighters using just two KC-30 instead of 3 x KC-135 plus 2 x C-130.
@Paulo M,
As mentioned above it is not that the plane is transferred to the military that is critical. It is that no military assets are transported on anything carrying civilian livery.
This is OT but you have the usage of AIR FORCE ONE slightly wrong. It has nothing to do with if it is a rotary or fixed wing aircraft. It is as simple as the call sign relates to who the aircraft belongs to so you have Air Force One, Army One, Navy One, Marine One, Coast Guard One and for civilian aircrafts Executive One.
@Observer,
Since I do not know what US via DoD and USAF value how much I really have no idea what is the best choice and despite what many people claim I have no preference to brand or model.
What I want to see is that they get as much capacity as possible for the money they are prepared to spend on acquiring and peace time operations. I want to see an RFP that have clear terms for how they evaluate additional capacity compared to cost.
I also want the RFP to be clear on how much US content is required and if US content is valued different than foreign content. I really do not want that discussion after the RFP has been released but have no issue with any limitations set before.
That is with one little, don’t break WTO rules by considering the preliminary ruling.
206. Vero Venia | September 23rd, 2009 at 21:01
203. Observer | September 23rd, 2009 at 18:01 says, “No one is really in a position to know what the USAF is considering and what political pressures get exerted. The requirements will be the result of all the forces at work.”
Yes.
Once the RFP is published with the criteria and the evaluation rules, political pressure becomes less important. In other words, political pressure, if any, sculpted the RFP during the last weeks.
207. Observer | September 23rd, 2009 at 21:12
Sir,
I understand what you mean and probably agree.
Given the past history of this RFP, I guess there still is the thought that something will not allow this to be a clear choice.
208. Boeing Investor | September 23rd, 2009 at 21:32
Falcon,
You indicate in your last post that you do not favor any particular brand or model, but you seem to be proposing and arguing for a multiuse plane very strenuously.
Your emphasis is that there is always a wartime need criteria so whether or not capacity is always utilized, just having it is justified in times of need.
Vero Venia takes a different position and shows that the most efficient and main role for the Tanker is precisely that: refueling. He argues well that there is sufficient capacity in this day and age so additional size for personnel and materiel is not cost effective.
This argument just emphasizes the choice between a smaller tanker or a larger cost effective Multiuse Tanker…
It sounds like Mr. Venia would recommend the 767 while you would prefer one of the two multiuse models…and you claim you are agnostic .
209. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | September 23rd, 2009 at 22:40
205. Falcon
Fair enough comment - touché. Basically, under conventional war rules, you separate civilian from military to make that distinction as clear as possible. The U-boats will then only sink aircraft carriers - and not fuel-tankers, bulk-ore carriers, container ships and cruise liners flying The Stars and Stripes or Union Jack, but not sporting any military markings.
210. Falcon | September 23rd, 2009 at 23:07
@Boeing Investor,
I’m arguing for being efficient. I’m arguing for adjusting doctrine to what current and near future material can provide and not what was done several decades ago.
I’m saying set a minimum requirement and then set a value for everything above that. If the cost is less than the value and you stay within budget get the more capable. If you think the cost is more than the value don’t get it.
I don’t know how that indicates getting the larger options?
I do know the 767 will provide cargo, passenger and medevac capacity so even it will provide multi-use.
The only categorical statement I’ve made is don’t use civilian market planes to carry military assets during times that can be considered war.
211. Boeing Investor | September 23rd, 2009 at 23:12
Falcon: You stated:
“I want to see an RFP that have clear terms on how they evaluate additional capacity to cost”
That strikes me as a simple statement but one that is far more demanding and complex than meets the eye.
Would you amplify …give some basis on what or how the evaluation would be structured. Would this criteria be formulated so the result for each model would be clearly comparable, etc.
Is this a way of trying to go beyond bigger is better ….and how do you filter in the amount of fuel vs. extra capacity, etc.
Sounds difficult and problematic…but then, the whole selction process has been that way!
212. Boeing Investor | September 23rd, 2009 at 23:36
One more thought enters my mind as we wind our way closer to the RFP. This may just be for discussion sake.
Two very important factors have been left out in most of the discussions about the Tanker Competition.
1. For Boeing, the presence of Airbus/EADS in Alabama building a plant that can dollar denonimate compete is a very big competitive threat and one that has some future value in it not occurring. I do not know how you assign cost to that but it is significant.
2. For Boeing, the continued use of the 767 production line as well as the increase in the 777 production line must have a big cost advantage
3. For Airbus, a contract of this size, given the problems it is having with other models, must incentivize them to lower the cost tremendously.
4. For Northrop, to partner with a European Aerospace Company, must have certain other benefits that are worth fighting for.
These issues may not have been expressed well or clearly enough, but there must be so many underlying issues that weigh in this decision and then have to be reduced to clear critera that cannot be challenged.
I think everyone understands the jest of these points…it goes beyond technical language.
I do appreciate that most people are Plane affectionado’s and the details may be more important than the outcome….but it would be interesting to hear what others think of these issues.
213. Rocketsurgery | September 24th, 2009 at 02:34
Of corse the tanker should be primarily used as a tanker, but can anybody explain why when the same airframe is not needed for tanking why it should not be used as a trash or personnel hauler?
This idea - flexibility is the new key to operations. Back in the 50’s the airforce built single use airframes - pure interceptors like the F104 and the F102 for example. They also built tankers that were pretty much optimised for that role only too - the many 135 variants.
Todays much smaller airforce has a much larger air deployment need than ever before and flexibility is what is required, not single role airframes. The F16’s are fighter and ground strike aircraft, the F35 will replace a suite of airframes again the F35 is a true multi role aircraft.
Viero Venia has not put forward any explanation why a tanker smaller than a 135 would be optimal.
I’d guess he’s a shill for the 767, no more no less. He rubishes others points yet put’s forward very little reasoning behind his pronouncements.
He cannot for instance explain why it is better to have an airliner airframe sitting on the deck doing nothing, when he believes it is smarter to charter a civvy aircraft to perform this role. Why? Give us a good reason.
Incidentally to suggest that a military person becomes a civillian when they step onto a civvy aircraft is dead wrong. When you are in the military in a full time capacity you are a soldier/seaman/airman 24/7. You may not wear a uniform 24/7, but that does not mean that you are no longer a soldier.
Vero Venia - “Asking the USAF to run an airline like activity seems to be a little bit exaggerated.”
You obviously have no idea that the USAF used to run a regular passenger and freight service within the continental US or its overseas posts. As do a whole stack of other airforces - UK, Australian are just two example I know of that also operate regular flights where freight and personnel can get a flight.
I am not advocating the tankers be pressed into airline service (although there is no reason why if the loads fit and their airframes are not required for tanking why they could not perform that role). What I am advocating is that for reasons of flexibility this tanker should be able to be used as a freighter or in a passenger role where necessary.
214. Rocketsurgery | September 24th, 2009 at 08:10
[I]but it would be interesting to hear what others think of these issues. [/I]
OK, I’ll bite…
[I]1. For Boeing, the presence of Airbus/EADS in Alabama building a plant that can dollar denonimate compete is a very big competitive threat and one that has some future value in it not occurring. I do not know how you assign cost to that but it is significant.[/I]
No idea what you are talking about here. But the gist of it in pre GFC terms when the bid went down was that due to labour and exchange rates it was cheaper for NG?Airbus to do things this way. As well the plant would continue to prduce freighters after the tanker had been delivered IIRC.
[I]2. For Boeing, the continued use of the 767 production line as well as the increase in the 777 production line must have a big cost advantage [/I]
What increase in the 777 line? The original proposal was for the 767 - a dead duck in terms of commercial sales. The 777 line has plenty of backorders, they do not need to add the airforce order to this line.
[I]3. For Airbus, a contract of this size, given the problems it is having with other models, must incentivize them to lower the cost tremendously.[/I]
And Boeing has had a trouble free run with its 787?
[I] 4. For Northrop, to partner with a European Aerospace Company, must have certain other benefits that are worth fighting for. [/I]
Having a ‘local’ on the team is either necessary or a smart political move - that way the perception is it’s not a foreign competitor that is taking a chunky defence contract - it’s Northrop Grumman.
My 5c.
215. ikkeman | September 24th, 2009 at 10:13
208. Boeing Investor | September 23rd, 2009 at 21:32
777 would make a very capable multiuse platform - with (much?) more capacity than any 330.
Mr Venia argues the value of the added capacity/capability is not worth the cost. I think differently and so does (IMO) Falcon.
212. Boeing Investor | September 23rd, 2009 at 23:36
Agreed, the impact is large on many levels. I’d say this is one of the problems with this selection. Though it should be a (relatively) easy comparison between requirement, capacity and cost it has turned into a quagmire of personal and political gain and competition.
216. Boeing Investor | September 24th, 2009 at 12:43
There are now three distict points of view….Rocketsurgery weighs in on flexibility and the need for a multiuse model.
Mr. Venio thinks a Tanker has some ( enough) flexibility but its main job is refueling.
Falcon insists that commercial planes should not be used for military matters so the Tankers should be multiuse. He would like a cost analysis of size benefits. Being agnostic, he looks to both proposed multiuse models
Rocketsurgery indicates that the present day Airforce is smaller and needs more flexibility than the existing Tankers so advocates that the selected tanker should be able to be used as a freighter or a passenger role where necessary. He appears to dismiss that the 767 is sufficient
It seems each proponent could choose a different size model; For Falcon and Rocketsurgery, some study is necessary to determine which size multiuse model would be flexible and cost effective. I think this leaves both multiuse models choices up for grabs
Once again, it appears that the USAF will define its choice
217. Boeing Investor | September 24th, 2009 at 14:53
Is it possible, given the above comments, to have a selection that will not result in a protest.
Others have said the requirements have to be such that the protest can be rejected…as if there is no question but that there will be a protest over the selection.
218. Boeing Investor | September 24th, 2009 at 15:50
Rocketsurgery ( 214)
1. By building a plant to compete with Boeing in the dollar demoninated USA vs. EADS and the Euro, would give Airbus a hugh competitive boost. The line, at first for the A300, would have the ability to increase and begin to compete on commercial models. The Euro is presently much higher than the dollar.
Also, Airbus is considering moving to Alabama which has a much lower wage base that Boeing’s locations and would add to the cost competition
2 If the Boeing 777 was selected, I assume it would be of benefit to the existing production line…which eventually, would have to be enlarged.
The Boeing 767 line is already low on orders and this would boost its capacity
3. Many of us are hoping that the difficulties with the 787 will be short lived and they are dwarfed in size by the current difficulties Airbus has with several of their models ( A380 & A 400) and the A350 barely in design.
The Tanker award will mean large expenditures at first for both Companys but less so for the 767 selection which could then be offered at a much lower price
219. Varo Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 17:36
201. ikkeman | September 23rd, 2009 at 15:28 says, “The unhappy pax I meant were in case of an immediate airlift requirement such as at the start of an conflict, not ongoing operations.”
ikkeman, at the start of a conflict, the tankers are busy deploying bomber, fighters and strategic transport aircraft.
I don’t think they’re available for personnel transport during the beginning of a conflict.
220. curious | September 24th, 2009 at 17:56
There are differences of opinion as to when/if a Tanker can be appropriately and efficiently used for other purposes.
There are also differences in opinion as to the value of incremental multiuse space.
Congress is being briefed today before the release of the RFP.
How long after the release of the RFP will it be before it is evident as to which qualities are more valued ?
221. Vero Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 19:59
220. curious | September 24th, 2009 at 17:56 asks, “How long after the release of the RFP will it be before it is evident as to which qualities are more valued ?”
Interesting question.
In reality I am quite sure Boeing and Airbus have all the characteristics of their own and the competitor’s aircraft. They can run the simulation based on the selection criteria and each of them will know quickly which aircraft the USAF wants.
But, perhaps cost evaluation, risk evaluation, fuel transfer system maturity and also pricing (of the airframe+fuel transfer system+other services) will become the differentiating factors.
So, there is still some kind of competition there (and a risk of protest).
222. ikkeman | September 24th, 2009 at 20:25
219. Varo Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 17:36
(is that an misspelling or are you a poser?)
why do you think the buildup to desert storm takes months - because it takes that long to fly the bombers/ fighters or other transports - or would it have something to do with the hundreds of thousands of troops and tons of equipment that need shifting…
and btw - iraq 1 had some 250 refuel aircraft, iraq 2 just 180 - what were the other 250-320 a/c doing?
220. curious | September 24th, 2009 at 17:56
until the final protest ran it’s full course through all the courts… unfortunately
221. Vero Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 19:59
I agree - the true challenge will not be the technical side of the evaluation.
Don’t think there’s any risk of a protest - it’s a virtual certainty.
223. Varo Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 21:06
222. ikkeman | September 24th, 2009 at 20:25
Come on ikkeman. You transport hundreds of thousand of people using other means than 100 tankers.
Have you ever think about boats? Maybe that’s why it took months to build the force up. Didn’t they send the heavy armored vehicles, heavy artilleries, ammos etc by sea with some troops on the boats?
224. Varo Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 21:22
“About three-fourths of DESERT SHIELD/STORM deliveries were made by ships resulting from the 7 billion investment in strategic sealift programs during the last ten years. Without these programs, there would have been no afloat prepositioning ships, no fast sealift, and no RRF. The APS/MPS ships prepositioned in Diego Garcia delivered ordnance and supplies two or three weeks sooner than sealift from the U.S. could have delivered it. Fast sealift ships delivered cargo at roughly twice the speed of most commercial shipping. The RRF provided militarily useful vessels-roll-on/roll-off ships, breakbulk cargo ships, LASH and SEABEE barge carriers– that are no longer readily available in sufficient numbers from the activeU.S. flag fleet. The deployment in DESERT SHIELD/STORM was impressive and sealift performed close to its realistic potential in its first real test. More to the point, this experience has provided a sound basis for judging the nation’s strategic lift requirements for the future.”
Please search for the string “About three-fourths” in the following link.
Hey guys Ships do exist!!!
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds2.htm
225. Vero Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 21:30
Typo: it should be “Vero Venia”
It seems to be obvious, but I forgot that during a major crisis Marines, Navy and Air Force, Special forces and so on are all deployed.
Why are you obsessed by airborne troop transport? I am quite sure some Desert Storm troops came directly from Saudi Arabia US military base by bus or by trucks to Kuwait.
226. Falcon | September 24th, 2009 at 22:01
The reason those ships were available was because the Navy had planned forward so they already had them. They did not go out and get civilian ships. Granted this had a lot to do with US ship registry essentially being empty.
This provided two major advantages 1) Ships were ready, i.e. they did not need to transfer ownership, “militarize them” and they were at good locations. 2) They had fast cargo ships instead of the (typically) slower ships in civilian use.
Even so the ships came in well after the airlift that provided the foothold and the airlift provided expedited shipments throughout.
Our dear ‘tankers should only be used for tanker missions’ proponents should read up on how tankers were used at that time. A taste can be found at http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/107851/usaf-recalls-air-tanker-ops-in-desert-storm.html
“using the KC-135 as an airlifter as much as a tanker” !!! Imagine how much more they could have moved if they had tankers with more airlift capacity.
227. Vero Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 22:24
http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idINN2446992320090924
228. Vero Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 23:01
What if one of them says ,”NO BID” ?
I have the feeling this will happen soon.
229. Paulo M | September 24th, 2009 at 23:36
Ships….
Tanks, large quantity of very heavy equipment…
Yeah ships still work - and some (Royal Navy) are powered by marine verions of the Trents… (story for another time)
There is no need to endanger the civilian population (using the commercial airliners) - and thereby increase your work load. The planes (tankers) will guarantee a small number of emegency personnel immediately.
Great come back.
Fun to read - there’s a new level here - co-operation between the Joint Chiefs of Staff results in significant cost savings, and a far superior and dynamic military capability. But then that’s what they do. I agree with Falcon’s debate about military assets on commercial planes - but that does not mean the USAF needs the largest possible multi-tasker. The problem is identifying what size they actually need. Back to square one..
230. Rocketsurgery | September 25th, 2009 at 00:41
@ 218. Boeing Investor | September 24th, 2009 at 15:50
Me thinks you are a tad one eyed here - although at least you have nailed your colours to your mast.
1. Airbus no longer makes the A300. The plant will turn out A330’s.
2. Given the size of the production run of the tankers and the backlog on the existing 777 line has 310 unfilled orders http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&pageid=m25066&RequestTimeout=20000 And 61 777deliveries in 2008 http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&pageid=m25063&RequestTimeout=20000, I’d say they will set up a new parallel line - probably where they used to make 767’s.
3. The 787 should have been with customers nearly 2 years ago - it won’t even make its first flight until (providing all goes well this time) by the end of this year. We all hope it will do well, and in time it will be seen as a game changer. The A380 is no longer a program in trouble, although I’ll grant you that man will be back on the moon before the A400 is being delivered (OK, a tad exagerated). Don’t know what your issue is with the A350, it has had a redesign to better suit the market (wasn’t it at the behest of Udvar-Hazy of ILFC?) but it will be being delivered very soon after the 787. Boeing should have been able to have had that market to itself for a couple of years, but all the delays in the 787 program mean that advantage will have been substantially erroded.
You are correct that the 767 should have a substantial cost advantage (the costs of the production line and componentry having been amortised long ago), which begs the question, how arrogant was Boeing in the first round of the competition to gouge the US taxpayer with what it was offering at the price it was charging? I’m guessing this left a sour taste in the mouths in the selectors and was one of the ‘unofficial’ reasons they decided to award the decision to NG/Airbus. Then again the actual purchase cost on a system that will likely be in service at least 30 years will be negligible compared to the costs of maintenance and running the tankers.
231. Rocketsurgery | September 25th, 2009 at 00:52
@ Varo Venia post 224. The intitial troops 82 Airborne Div (?) arrived by air as did most of the soldiers. The interesting thing is that the airborne troops were facing 700 plus Iraqi MBT’’s with a few TOW missiles on HMMWV’s - there was a couple of weeks there where the troops on the ground were very vulnerable during Desert Shield. The C141’s were incapable of lifting MBT’s so were used for pax and general cargo. The fleet of C5’s was not sufficiently reliable or in sufficient numbers to assist greatly. Now that the C17’s which are capable of lifting MBT’s have replaced the C141’s that will shift the troop lift that used to be done by the C141’s onto civvy charter and the tanker fleet. Remember a larger more capable aircraft can perform some tanking as well as some cargo work at the same time.
232. Falcon | September 25th, 2009 at 00:59
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/fal09/isherwood.html
is a link to a document by a NG analyst.
No doubt some of you will write off everything said because of the source but love it or hate it at least read it to get the gist of the advantages multi-use promises.
A few, probably too many, quotes:
On C-17 usage rate
Airlift that could be done by tanker instead of C-17
Actual savings
Vero Venia, what did you say about saving cycles?
Another example
233. Jerry1t | September 25th, 2009 at 01:21
Vero Venio (221)
In earlier posts you were very definite that there were only three choices…Apple, Orange and Large Orange…and that the RFP would actually make the selection…in fact, the RFP was the selection.
This last post of yours (221) changes that definitiveness considerably . ” But perhaps cost evaluations, risk evaluations, fuel transfer maturity and price will be the differentating factors”
Were not these factors present all along. Why the sudden consideration.
I ask because I thought you were so right in pointing out that the RFP WAS the selection.Now some new elements are reintroduced and you seem to indicate that there is actually some kind of competition.
234. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 07:01
232. Falcon | September 25th, 2009 at 00:59 says, “Vero Venia, what did you say about saving cycles?
Another example
The deployment of squadrons to the Middle East as part of the nation’s response to an unanticipated crisis illustrates one measure of the efficiency of dual-role tanker-transport aircraft. Specifically, the Air Force currently would need 72 KC-135s and 18 C-17s—a total of 90 mobility aircraft—to deploy a typical fighter squadron.13 However, using the KC-45 in a multimission mode reduces the numbers to only 29 tanker sorties and 10 KC-45 mobility sorties—less than half the number of aircraft and one-third less fuel. The KC-767 would require fewer sorties as well: 36 tanker and 17 transport.”
Yes falcon. I agree.
It was done with KC-135, a much less capable aircraft than the 767. So, if that role can be done by the KC-135 then the 767 can do it even better. They don’t need bigger aircraft. That’s all what I can read from your excerpts.
235. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 07:20
233. Jerry1t | September 25th, 2009 at 01:21
No Jerry, I didn’t change my mind about the aircraft. In the comment #221 I mentioned that “cost evaluation, risk evaluation, fuel transfer system maturity and also pricing (of the airframe+fuel transfer system+other services) will become the differentiating factors./i>”.
I read several interesting points in the current RFP:
It is not because the 767 is smaller it can’t do the required “dual role”. I am persuaded some level of cargo & personnel transport, as I mentioned in the comment #175, is already in the mandatary requirements. Only the differential of non-mandatary capability between two aircraft is significant as an “enhancement”, probably with a low ponderation coefficient.
On the other hand, the fact that an aircraft is bigger will fatally incur higher maintenance and fuel cost. A cost factor which is now clearly stated in the RFP as a parameter in the price adjustment.
As far as I can see, the latest RFP is fair and clear. Now, it is up to the USAF to run the evaluation properly.
I repost the highlights of the RFP:
http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idINN2446992320090924
236. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 07:25
231. Rocketsurgery | September 25th, 2009 at 00:52 says, “@ Varo Venia post 224. The intitial troops 82 Airborne Div (?) arrived by air as did most of the soldiers. The interesting thing is that the airborne troops were facing 700 plus Iraqi MBT’’s with a few TOW missiles on HMMWV’s - there was a couple of weeks there where the troops on the ground were very vulnerable during Desert Shield.”
Yes Rocketsurgery. But during that same initial engagement period the tankers are busy doing other things for which they are built.
237. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 07:36
Wait a minute!
The current discussion is about the bid for KCX.
My understanding is that this is the first step of three tanker bids (KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z).
Can somebody please correct me if I got it wrong?
238. ikkeman | September 25th, 2009 at 09:52
223. Varo Venia | September 24th, 2009 at 21:06 and 224
Yes, the ugly brutes called ships do exist, unfortunately - and yes, they transport most of the equipment - and yes, that’s the reason ot took months.
So what were the tankers doing before the troops and equipment were in theatre? Providing shade to teh tarmack lizards.
What could they have doen? - contribute to an even more rapid deployment.
236. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 07:25
some tankers are busy refueling - most are not.
237. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 07:36
Correct, AF reaffirmed it is looking for a single airframe for the first 1/3 of the requirement. KC-Y and KC-Z will be started after teh AF has had a chance to evaluate the KC-X winner in the field.
239. Jerry1t | September 25th, 2009 at 13:15
This is the first step of three tanker bids.
Are you suggesting that the second and third bid may have other requirements and thus choose different models?
Most people have the impression that this selection will be the one that gets the full contract over time. Please clarify
240. Curious | September 25th, 2009 at 14:24
I wondered about that too. The press keeps saying that this Contract could grow to $100B giving the impression that the growth comes from the selected model.
It sure makes sense to me to reassess the situation at a later date and put out another RFP with appropriate requirements.
241. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 14:35
239. Jerry1t | September 25th, 2009 at 13:15 asks, “Most people have the impression that this selection will be the one that gets the full contract over time. Please clarify”
Can’t clarify. I’m not the US Air Force.
242. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 14:36
238. ikkeman | September 25th, 2009 at 09:52 says, “some tankers are busy refueling - most are not. ”
May be they’re too old to fly?
243. Jerry1T | September 25th, 2009 at 14:56
Vero Venia (239) I was asking that you clarify your point but it may be self evident.
And, of course, who knows what the Air Force will do.
244. Jerry1T | September 25th, 2009 at 15:02
Vero Venia, If they wait for a new set of reuirements several years from now, your prior expression that the 787 would make a perfect selection may well come to reality.
By that time there would be another competition between the 787 and the A350!
245. Boeing Investor | September 25th, 2009 at 15:18
I think the growth of the contract sales in the press was often based on the foreign sales that would possibly follow.
246. ikkeman | September 25th, 2009 at 17:02
239. Jerry1t | September 25th, 2009 at 13:15
KC-X is the initial batch of kc-135 replacement - KC-Y would be sized to fill out the requirement for KC-135 requirement, taking into consideration the actual capability of the KC-X winner. There’s no rule to ensure KC-X and KC-Y chose the same platform but that’s where my bet lies.
KC-C then would replace the KC-10 fleet. Again, no certainty, but I think this will be a different model.
240. Curious | September 25th, 2009 at 14:24
I thought the $100B came from ancillary costs in maintenance and refurbishment over 40 years.
242. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 14:36
??? maybe there are no a/c to refuel and they’re useless for anything else.
247. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 17:16
246. ikkeman | September 25th, 2009 at 17:02 says, “maybe there are no a/c to refuel and they’re useless for anything else.”
Or maybe they simply think it is absolutely stupid to transport troops back and forth using tankers? Perhaps US Air Force people are not so stupid after all.
248. Curious | September 25th, 2009 at 17:42
Ikkeman (246) Thank you . I stand corrected and you are right.
Do you think there will be any foreign sales? Several countries already have the A330 Tanker
249. ikkeman | September 26th, 2009 at 11:22
248. Curious | September 25th, 2009 at 17:42
several countries fly the 767 as well - there’s still many more countries still flying the 707 or 10 version tankers, so yes there will be more sales, possibly for both (or all three) models.
250. ikkeman | September 26th, 2009 at 15:12
247. Vero Venia | September 25th, 2009 at 17:16
Yes, You must be right - It’s much smarter to leave that massive fleet (and financial outlay) on the ground gathering rust and shell out billions to buy the services you need from third party operators.
Putting civilian airframes and aircrew at risk.
Remember it doesn’t cost anything add the capacity to your refuel airframe. carrying say 5 tons of refuel equipment doesn’t really impact efficiency so much as 3 billion a year.
Bottom line - the USAF wants the capability. That should end the discussion of whether it’s wise or not - right or wrong, the choice is made
251. Boeing Investor | September 26th, 2009 at 19:01
The recent edititon of Business Week has an article i on the Tanker RFP and indicates that their conversation with experts points to a belief that the requirements favor Northrop.
They do not elaborate as carefully as some on this page nor indicate specifically why that is.
I felt the article was not accurate or, at least ,did not substantiate this well.
Its conclusion was that it would be politics that would determine the winner in any event. I was bothered by this summary but do think it was superficial understanding of the RFP.
252. ikkeman | September 27th, 2009 at 08:29
251. Boeing Investor | September 26th, 2009 at 19:01
well… not including bonus points would definitely disfavor the A330. But reading the DRFP I can’t see that it implicitly favors either the 767 or 330 - though I do think any 777 based plan will not be within 1% of the cost of the others.
the final conclusion - that politics would prevail - is valid. unfortunately, the IFARA and MILCON parts in the price determination are to fuzzy and open to different interpretation.
253. Vero Venia | September 27th, 2009 at 10:38
250. ikkeman | September 26th, 2009 at 15:12 “Yes, You must be right - It’s much smarter to leave that massive fleet (and financial outlay) on the ground gathering rust and shell out billions to buy the services you need from third party operators.
Putting civilian airframes and aircrew at risk.
Remember it doesn’t cost anything add the capacity to your refuel airframe. carrying say 5 tons of refuel equipment doesn’t really impact efficiency so much as 3 billion a year.”
I am not sure you are fully aware of the implications of putting the necessary means to transport humans in the tanker fleet.
Let’s consider the case of an 767-200. It can transport about 250 soldiers if the whole deck is used for “one coach-class” seating.
Now, you have to make sure the availability of those seats for the whole fleet. Another option is to leave the seats in the aircraft but then you don’t have the space to take freight. Is that clear is your head?
Now, is that realistic to leave the seats permanently inside the tanker? I don’t think so. It would add weight and thus the fleet would waste tonnes of fuel during of its utilization as tanker (more than 80% of the time).
Let’s consider that the tanker’s main deck is pax/freight convertible using palletized seats. You still have to store those units somewhere. Let’s say that the palletized seats are stored in different Air Force bases in the US. Can you just imagine the work to manage all those things? You have to make sure that all the palletized seats come back to where they belong. You have to build hangars for storage, you have to pay the maintenance staff, handling staff and so on and so on. And all that during the whole life of the tanker fleet. How much do you think all that will cost to the US Air Force on the tanker’s life span?
It’s STUPID.
What I have just described is only one aspect of having tankers as personnel carrier. There are many-many others to be considered.
I sincerely believe transporting troops back and forth using a tanker fleet is stupid especially when you consider that you can use charters for this purpose.
250. ikkeman | September 26th, 2009 at 15:12 added “Putting civilian airframes and aircrew at risk.”
I just don’t understand what this statement means. Using commercial flights for US military personnel is a routine since years.
254. Vero Venia | September 27th, 2009 at 10:50
250. ikkeman | September 26th, 2009 at 15:12 “Bottom line - the USAF wants the capability. That should end the discussion of whether it’s wise or not - right or wrong, the choice is made”
Have you read the RFP? I haven’t and I won’t.
I do believe they ask a “certain level” of personnel and material transport. I am quite sure this feature is put in the mandatory part of the RFP. But that’s a normal use of a tanker. It means if an aircraft can’t provide this minimal personnel and freight transport requirement, it is disqualified from the process.
The extra human/cargo transport capability is considered as non-mandatory. However, the cost consequences related to such extra capability should be integrated as an price-adjustment factor. In particular the construction of extra means (logistic centers for palletized seats and the staffing).
Another consequence of having the extra human/material transport capability that has to be taken into account is the extra fuel burn during the life-span of the tanker fleet.
Considering the aspects above, and considering that there are airlines and cargo forwarders who can do the job perfectly (on occasional basis), it is probably more interesting not to have that extra and not-mandatory human/material transport capability.
255. Vero Venia | September 27th, 2009 at 10:51
Please read:
http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idINN2446992320090924
256. Curious | September 29th, 2009 at 14:35
How does the RFP appear to the many experts on this comment page?
257. Boeing Investor | September 30th, 2009 at 13:31
The information that Boeing’s 777 airframe will not get credit for the extra capacity of fuel carried under the formula provided by the USAF seems to be a very big disadvantage in this competition.
It appears that the USAF knows which aircraft it wishes and has crafted requirements that disadvantage larger capacity than previously submitted.
There may be other factors that can weigh in here, but the 777’s strength was its ability to deliver more fuel and personnel. That seems to no longer count
258. Boeing Investor | September 30th, 2009 at 14:30
It seems brilliant to me that Northrop Airbus starts claiming that the RFP puts it at a disadvantage to Boeing when the truth is probably the other way around.
Based on stories in the press, the advantage remains with the A330 unless the price points are so different that Boeing can win on cost factors.
But in truth, non of us knows yet but politics may assert itself although the politics probably made its appearance in the RFP itself.
The requirements are sufficiently long and complex that it will take some experts to inform us with clarity
259. ikkeman | October 2nd, 2009 at 17:59
254. Vero Venia | September 27th, 2009 at 10:50
I have read the RFP - maybe you should try it so you don’t look a fool.
Among others it’s mandatory to be changeable from cargo floor to pax within 2? hours - doing it within 1? hour is the non-mandatory bonus opportunity.
read the RFP - the AF wants multiuse - mandatory
257. Boeing Investor | September 30th, 2009 at 13:31
the 777 has al the benefits compared to the 330 as the 330 has compared to 767 - and all the problems to.
258. Boeing Investor | September 30th, 2009 at 14:30
All I heard is that NG/EADS claim a disadvantage because sensitive pricing information (their claim) was shared with boeing by the USAF - the USAF claims that data is now outdated and irrelevant, NG/EADS doesn’t agree, but refuses to share the same irrelevant, outdated data about the last Boeing offer.
and I do believe offering the 330 based on 40yr life-cycle cost at less than 1% more than a cut-price offer based on 767 by Boeing is quite a challenge.
260. Vero Venia | October 2nd, 2009 at 23:18
259. ikkeman | October 2nd, 2009 at 17:59 “the AF wants multiuse - mandatory”
Of course. I already mentioned it in several of my comments. The 767 can fulfill those mandatory pax and cargo requirements without any problem. They don’t need bigger aircraft than the 767 for those mandatory items.
The interesting part is the fact that all extra cost due to facility construction and/or extra fuel burn will be factored in as price adjustment. That hurts!
261. ikkeman | October 3rd, 2009 at 21:37
260. Vero Venia | October 2nd, 2009 at 23:18
AF doesn’t need a bigger a/c (they need the better a/c) - agreed. They’re only willing to consider it when the total projected cost is within 1% of the cheapest option.
I don’t think milcon will be a very large part of the cost. fuel burn is factored, but so is efficiency. I’d say there’s a good chance the decision will be made on bonus points - not just cost…
262. AF Won | October 3rd, 2009 at 23:14
“The interesting part is the fact that all extra cost due to facility construction and/or extra fuel burn will be factored in as price adjustment. That hurts!”
It’s unlikely to offset the price reduction that NG will get when the KC-30 slaughters the KC-767 in the IFARA. Again.
263. Vero Venia | October 4th, 2009 at 19:30
261. ikkeman | October 3rd, 2009 at 21:37
There is nothing more to say at this stage of the process. The RFP is out. Both contenders are doing simulations. One of them will drop out from the competition when they realise that they don’t have any chance to win, whoever it will be.
There is not any use to spend hundreds or thousands of manhours just to lose the contract.
I repeated it several times, it’s not about the aircraft. It’s about the requirements. Those requirements are now out. So we can just wait and see.
If the Air Force is disciplined enough with the selection process there won’t be any protest.
264. Falcon | October 4th, 2009 at 20:53
@VV
You really have no clue.
1) The RFP is not out yet. The draft is all that is out. The RFP will go out after the comments to the draft have been considered and possibly incorporated.
2) Neither side knows what exact configuration will be offered and at what price so neither side knows what the outcome will be.
You seem to have very little experience so I’ll share a statement I’ve heard in every single sales training I’ve had. The salesman who sells 100% more is rarely a 100% better. He just needs to be a fraction better on each deal. In this case it is literary 1% better that is required to win on KO.
While it isn’t impossible I very much doubt one of them will drop out without submitting an offer. I’m prepared to back my prediction with a case of my currently favored normal day Champagne, Perrier-Jouet. Are you?
265. Vero Venia | October 4th, 2009 at 21:35
264. Falcon | October 4th, 2009 at 20:53
OK; The draft is out. The final RFP will come out later. One will drop out once the RFP is frozen.
It’s almost sure.
266. Curious | October 4th, 2009 at 21:43
Falcon,
You imply that the draft could be substantially different from the actual RFP.
I doubt that very much, The structure of the RFP is in the draft and the incorporated comments are only intended to clarify any possible missunderstandings.
The way you present it, it is a work in progress and the discussions of the draft will craft the final RFP. I do not think that was the intention of the USAF and this process.
By this time, the model and its requirements should be reasonable clear
267. Boeing Investor | October 4th, 2009 at 22:49
An idea borrowed from the Seattle pi: ” The USAF has been requesting a two seated car. This is what it needs and it meets its requirements.
It is offered a four seat SUV and some think it is getting it for good “value”.”
This is an analogy to the RFP…someone thinks the SUV is a bargain and can do alot of extra tricks that were not originally asked for not possibly needed.
Now, all this competition and clashing over an unnecessary issue that has been introduce into the Contest…and some people want the rules of the Contest to be bent to include even “six seated” vehicles
268. ikkeman | October 5th, 2009 at 07:27
264. Falcon | October 4th, 2009 at 20:53
congrats on living such a blessed live, you have enoug reasons to celebrate that you have a “normal day” celebratory beverage like champagne… but I won’t take your bet - I think you’re right. There is enoug room for politics so neither sill be willing to forego the chance of a 100? billion prize for the cost of just a few million…
266. Curious | October 4th, 2009 at 21:43
the final RFP need only be 1% different to change the whole landscape.
267. Boeing Investor | October 4th, 2009 at 22:49
when you can get a SUV that meets the same mpg, speed, comfort and other requirements you identified, while providing the option of larger capacity and fuel tank - at the same price - will you still buy the 2 seater just because it was assembled by your pappie from parts sourced from abroad?
this is also a valid analogy - I think the latest RFP shows teh USAF is seriously considering both based on it’s own requirement, instead of the assumed outcome.
remember - the lease deal broke because the 330mrtt had more positive discriminators and was still not chosen - the last deal, the 330 won because it was cheaper (milcon was not included - it is now, so that levels the playing field). This time around the USAF seems to have covered all the bases…
269. Boeing Investor | October 5th, 2009 at 16:53
Ikkeman,
i seriously doubt that you can get the SUV for the same price as the two seater. If that were possible it would change the very nature of the competition. MPG, and speed would be greater on the face of it
Its not that Poppie built the two seater, it is that only a two seater is needed….the fuel burn, maintenance, increased facilities all add to the cost.
Take Childrens school buses..Are the stripped down yellow model sufficient or do you need a Greyhound? ( By the way, most Americans should not be driving SUV’s based on travel requirements…they may be willing to pay the price but they are not NECESSARY)
If I am wrong, please identify where. Or does the SUV Company, so desirious of the contract willing to be a big loss leader )
270. Boeing Investor | October 5th, 2009 at 17:01
P.S.
Ikkeman,
Who knows why the two prior contests broke…a scandal took its toll many years ago ( since then the practice of employment has probably become increased but more sophisticated!)…and the DOA seem to think otherwise in the last contest. It clearly was not an even playing field.
You quote costs, etc. but who really knows…the politics, lobbyists, PR, etc. are so thick here that it is confusing just to follow its path. Perhaps you are even a Lobbyist..or a PR person….this contest has turned out to be an industrial free for all …a trough for everyone to dip their nose in.
271. Curious | October 5th, 2009 at 18:24
It would most interesting to know the profession or involvement of several of the people posting on this page.
Both Vero Venia and Ikkeman seem to know a great deal…and Falcon is not too far behind.
Boeing Investor is just who he says ….and Curious seems to ask alot of questions…perhaps he is genuinely curious.
But neither Boeing Investor nor Curious purport to have any specialized inside knowledge…wherein the others are clearly involved in the field.
272. Jerry1t | October 5th, 2009 at 18:34
I have the feeling that one cannot put to much weight on what is argued on this page.
It is food for thought but not determinative. There seem to be two camps all the time and each one presents a point of view that challenges the other.
There are two Companies so there are two viewpoints
273. Falcon | October 5th, 2009 at 19:14
@Curious,
I used “possibly incorporated”, I don’t understand how you can make that in to meaning “could be substantially different from the actual RFP”?
I do not expect any substantial changes to the RFP. I do expect the answers given back to questions raised by NG/EADS and Boeing will make them decide how to tweak their offers. Think about how a racing team tweaks the car before each race to fit that specific race track. Boeing’s offer in the previous RFP is a good example where they took parts from several different 767 versions to get what they thought was the optimum configuration. I guess some people might call that substantial change, I don’t.
I don’t think it is clear to Boeing how NG/EADS will tailor their offer nor how they will price it and vice versa. Most importantly I think this is like almost all other design work – there are multiple right answers - so no I do not think it is a - run the requirements and have a solid answer 5 minutes later kind of deal.
@VV,
So you realized you had jump a step and revalued the “One of them will drop out” to “It’s almost sure”.
As usual you fail to substantiate your claims. Is the lack of substance the reason you didn’t even respond to the bet?
Personally I can only think of two reasons why either will drop out. 1) They can’t handle a mandatory requirement and it is blatantly clear to everyone. 2) They feel they need something changed to have a chance to win and threaten to pull and get called on it.
I’m convinced they will submit a proposal even if they don’t think they are likely to win for the simple reasons that 1) Don’t let the other know they are in a one horse race and set pricing accordingly. 2) The “obvious winner” may stumble on something and unless you have made an offer you can’t pick up the spoils. Guess it could be summarized as surrender monkeys never win.
Where do you stand on the bet? Do you have enough confidence in your statements to take me up on it?
@ikkeman,
There are always reasons to celebrate and on a good day it is the normal champagne and on a great day there is even better champagne. On most day’s there is just celebration because I can’t drink every day
Completely agree with your breakdown of the car seats analogy.
@Boeing investor
As ikkeman described so well, number of seats is a very poor analogy.
MPG or operating cost per hour isn’t that important either when you factor in that you have close to 200 MUSD equipment sitting unused about 11 months each year.
274. Accountant | October 5th, 2009 at 19:29
“The final RFP has to be only 1% different to change the whole landscape”
Would Ikkeman ( 268) clarify what is meant by that comment.
If the cost differential between the two submissions is less than 1% , something else is measured or weighed to make the final determination…..is that the case? Is it possible that the cost structure of these two highly different models could really be so close in price. Seems quite unlikely
If Ikkeman would elaborate on this …or give a good example, it would be very helpful. Does he believe that this proximity is possible
275. Boeing Investor | October 5th, 2009 at 20:13
Facon,
It is not just the number of seats…it is the size of the vehicle ad all the attendant weight and space that is needed to accomodate the increase in the seats.
Lets be realistic about the point and not just enjoy rhetorical argumentation.
Also, we have been through the MUSD argument earlier and there is disagreement without resolve on that point.
It is inconceiveable to my mind that a much larger car/plane can cost less than or equal to a stripped down smaller model that has production advantages and an experiential record.
Remember, this is a fixed price contract…no laying off losses on the government
276. Vero Venia | October 5th, 2009 at 20:42
271. Curious | October 5th, 2009 at 18:24 says, “Both Vero Venia and Ikkeman seem to know a great deal”
Don’t think I know more about tankers than you do.
It’s a question of good sense.
Why would you use multi million dollar tanker equipped with refueling systems (pumps, two pods, boom etc) for human transport? There is fatigue stress on the equipment that could deteriorate those expensive equipment prematurely.
I can better understand if they transform the C-17 time to time for troop transport. Indeed, they seem to do that (see the links below). It is even more understandable in the case of the C-17 because this aircraft can take off and land almost everywhere (close to the theater of operation) while the 767 or A330 need better airfields.
When you know that there are more than 19,000 commercial aircraft flying out there, I fail to see why the US armed forces should transform their tankers for human transport. They’d better buy more C-17 or even buy the A400M.
http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/Pallets/pallets_seat.htm
http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/Pallets/Seat_Systems/PDFs/08-08-C-17SeatPallets.pdf
277. Curious | October 5th, 2009 at 21:28
Vero Venia,
You are being modest and your responses indicate a working knowledge of these matters.
I generally agree with your thought process , at least on a logical, common sense basis with an increasing familiarity with the subject matter from following blogs and comments, etc.
I am also getting the impression that common sense and logic has not prevailed in these competitions. They are so riddled with politics and inter and intra company vying as well as the possibility of military and industrial alignments that , as you often say “I am surprised by nothing”. This is becoming the case.
Thank you for your continued comments. They add to the intelligence of the discussion
278. ikkeman | October 6th, 2009 at 09:56
270. Boeing Investor | October 5th, 2009 at 17:01
agreed, no-one knows exactly what happened. But the fact remains NG/EADS were offering their 330 solution for a total price less than the 767 solution. That may have included soft data like risk-cost, or EADS is willing to take no profit from the contract and Boeing was aiming for the 15% standard - but the price came out as cheaper.
274. Accountant | October 5th, 2009 at 19:29
read the RFP - when the total, adjusted cost of both offers is within 1% non-mandatory bonus points are taken into account. If the difference is more than 1%, the cheapest wins.
Since this cost not only includes the actual price quoted by the offerers but also USAF determined MILCON costs and an “aerial refueling effectiveness scale factor”, the USAF is free to either let the price be close or wide apart - that’s where any complaint is going to be focussed on.
279. ikkeman | October 6th, 2009 at 10:14
275. Boeing Investor | October 5th, 2009 at 20:13
but you need fewer bigger cars - and they can do more work before they need to touch base to refuel themselves… that’s why a slightly more expensive model can be cheaper in the long run.
276. Vero Venia | October 5th, 2009 at 20:42
The C-17 is just as expensive as an A330 - let alone the 767, while carrying no more troops. Do you think the C-17 is more efficient at carying troops than the KC-45 will be - that short/unhardened airfield capability doens’t come cheap in terms of mass, and 4 engines are not more efficient than 2. I’d say an C-17 is at best as efficient as any kc-45, and the C-17 fleet is very busy transporting equipment (the USAF doesn’t hire FedEx for (much of their) their gear - Why should they contract AA for (all) their troops?). If the C-17 is so efficient, Why not add tanker capability?
I know you didn’t read the RFP - but it specifically states a mandatory requirement on how quick it can be converted to full pax using the same pallet system you indicate, and how many pax it can seat. There’s bonus points for doing it faster or seating more.
And there’s another point on the multiuse side. Why would you use an expensive to buy/ expensive to use piece of equipment like C-17 purely for cargo - You multi-use for pax and cargo transport, airdrop, humanitarian relief, medevac - You use a single piece of equipment for as many tasks as you can use it.
Apparently they solved the problem of where to leave the pallets when it moves troops one way and cargo the other…
280. Vero Venia | October 6th, 2009 at 14:50
279. ikkeman | October 6th, 2009 at 10:14
I don’t agree ikkeman.
When you know there are so many commercial aircraft flying out there, without counting the parked and functional aircraft in the deserts, I fail to see the need to dimension the tankers for human transport purposes.
I repeat myself too often, but running a human transport needs staff. The airlines have the required and skilled staff and also all the required catering and so on.
I can’t imagine the US Air Force offering the same quality of human transport as well as commercial airlines do. Perhaps you think US fighters deserve lower comfort standard than normal traveling humans.
281. ikkeman | October 6th, 2009 at 15:41
280. Vero Venia | October 6th, 2009 at 14:50
I think the crux of our disagreement lies in the
“I fail to see the need to dimension the tankers for human transport purposes”
I fail to see that need as well - but I see both competitors offering commercial pax derivative solutions. They’re pax carriers, with refueling added - not the other way around.
282. Vero Venia | October 6th, 2009 at 17:12
281. ikkeman | October 6th, 2009 at 15:41
No ikkeman. It’s only the platform which is based on commercial aircraft for a simple reason that they are not going to build a specific tanker.
But, you don’t need to focus on human transport aspect when you transfor a commercial aircraft to tanker. That’s where the whole story is. In my opinion even the 767 is too big to be a tanker, but unfortunately there is not any smaller aircraft than the 767 that can be transformed to tanker.
283. Vero Venia | October 6th, 2009 at 17:28
Oh, another point ikkeman.
When you transport humans, you need more than just aircraft.
284. ikkeman | October 6th, 2009 at 22:55
282. Vero Venia | October 6th, 2009 at 17:12
read the rfp - airco and such up to FAA standards is mandatory. ability to carry standard USAF palletised seating is mandatory. Seamless integration with current USAF ground cargo handling equipment is mandatory. USAF wants multiuse.
refuel is primary - but it must be multiuse
C-17 regularly transports troops, doesn’t that require the very infrastructure you’re saying would be a trouble for KC-45.
for a smaller a/c try 737/321, but of course you mean an a/c that would be optimized to carry cargo at 0.85kg per liter. small fuselage & large wing (flying wing?) - as you said, they will not develop an refuel optimized solution - but there is a choice of cargo a/c in production that could fill the bill - why not use those as the basis…
285. Rocketsurgery | October 8th, 2009 at 13:18
@Vero Venia | October 6th, 2009 at 14:50
This continual insistence of yours that the USAF is not an airline is getting pretty boring. Have you ever taken a service flight to a destination for military purposes? If not I’d advise you listen and learn. I have deployed overseas on RAAF 707’s. The ‘in flight catering’ is a box containing sandwiches, a piece of fruit, and some boxes of fruit juice. These meals are prepared by the base catering staff (trust me, even the military cannot stuff up sandwiches) and are picked up by each person leaving the terminal to board the plane. If the flight was in a C130, then you also got to pick up a set of earplugs. (and I’ve flown in a C130 from Amberley (near Brisbane) to San Francisco - all three days of it.
Soldiers don’t need the constant pampering that air travellers demand.
You have also not explained why we need a smaller tanker than the 767. Do you not understand how many tonnes of fuel a B52 can require? Or say a C5 that has deliberately taken off with very low tanks because it is carrying a massive load or is operating from a short strip, just how many tonnes of fuel are required in that situation? If anything, there is a persuasive argument for a larger than 767 tanker, not the other way around.
I cannot understand your logic, you applaud the C17’s versatility in that it can be and often is used for medical evacuation flights, as well as troop transport as well as hauling cargo, but you deplore the idea of a tanker that is nothing more than a civil airliner with a few bits added being used as an airliner for transporting troops when not required as a tanker.
286. Vero Venia | October 10th, 2009 at 14:44
285. Rocketsurgery | October 8th, 2009 at 13:18
Still, US Air Force has done all those wars using 707 based tankers. Also US armed forces succeeded to project all those forces to remote countries until now. What has changed?
The 767 is much much more capable than those old tankers.
So what?
287. ikkeman | October 12th, 2009 at 08:28
286. Vero Venia | October 10th, 2009 at 14:44
… do you undestand why armies around teh world went from bows to muskets to rifles?
I mean - the armies of England solidly beat the french time and again using the longbow - so why change to muskets (those were even less capable in the beginning). Muskets were good enough to win independence from the English - so why bother with those new-fangled rifles.
The 50 yr old 707 can be made to work, so why upgrade???
288. Vero Venia | October 12th, 2009 at 08:55
287. ikkeman | October 12th, 2009 at 08:28 asks “The 50 yr old 707 can be made to work, so why upgrade???”
Because they’re falling a part.
In reality, new fighters and bombers are much-much fuel efficient than those from the past. In some cases the efficiency has been increased by more than 20%.
While air supremacy is still relevant, many battles are now of the type “counter insurgency”. The need for fighters, bombers and thus tankers is decreasing. Small and light UAV are taking more and more role in the modern war.
So yes, I think the US Air Force needs small tankers and more versatile strategic transport aircraft.
289. Rocketsurgery | October 14th, 2009 at 00:16
@ 288. Vero Venia | October 12th, 2009 at 08:55
1. Yes, the aircraft are becoming more fuel efficient - but lets look at a typical fighter from the 90’s needs much more fuel than one from the 60’s because they are physically a much larger aircraft. So, whilst they generally do have a longer range, on missions where they do need to be refuelled they require more fuel.
2. The US has far fewer combat aircraft now that it did at the height of the cold war - this means that to achieve meaningful combat power they need to move assets from place to place around the globe, probably moreso than years ago when they physically had more aircraft disbursed at more bases.
3. The F22 and F35 to retain their stealth characteristics must use internal fuel reserves alone. In past times a longer ranged mission may have meant putting more drop tanks on the wings - these days whilst the range of these two 5th gen aircraft is impressive, they are going to need increased tanker support.
4. You cannot make the strategic error of deciding that as all the current wars are Counter Insurgency efforts, the need for tankers will be lower. The USAF needs to train and be equipped for high level action against well equipped adversaries in significant numbers. It is arguable that the only reason Taiwan has not been ‘annexed’ but the PRC is that big buddy America has the means to intervene effectively. Remove that capability and the PRC will take Taiwan and challenge for dominance of the Pacific. Sure the degree of threat NOW may be low, but you cannot create a tanker force, the tactics the aircrew and the entire system that exists today overnight. This is an error the Australian Government fell into with the Australian land forces - concentrating on low level conflict - when Desert Storm came around we would like to have contributed something more than special forces, but were unable to as the equipment and training were lacking.
5. Yes, UAV’s have a much higher endurance than manned platforms, thus requiring less tanker support. The US DoD is testing an in flight refuelling capability for UAV’s - as there is no pilot on board it is entirely likely that these UAV’s will only need to land for maintenance and rearming - therefore the tanker fleet will be required to refuel the UAV’s too.
290. Vero Venia | October 14th, 2009 at 08:10
And yes, the US Air Force needs more flexible, more versatile and smaller tankers.
But hey! Let’s leave them decide what they want. They wrote down the requirements, they wrote down the criteria.
What they need to do now is to run the procurement process correctly such that the GAO does not accept any protest, right?
291. ikkeman | October 14th, 2009 at 09:56
Yes on the “they [af] need to run the procurement process correctly”
No on the “smaller” tankers.
292. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 14th, 2009 at 13:15
This next bit over here is off-topic from the current discussion direction but in line with the underlining theme - which is government procurement of arms, goods and/or services from arms dealers.
It has become apparent that the cost to the South African government for the procurement of a number of the Airbus A400M(ilitary) planes has ballooned from an initial R17bn (US$1 = ~ZAR7.50) to an outrageous R47 bn
293. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 14th, 2009 at 13:39
This next bit over here is off-topic from the current discussion direction but in line with the underlining theme - which is government procurement of arms, goods and/or services from arms dealers.
It has become apparent that the cost to the South African Government for the procurement of a number of the Airbus A400M(ilitary) planes has ballooned from an initial R17bn (US$1 = ~ZAR7.50) to R47bn. This outrageous - whatever Airbus’s reasons for it’s inability to deliver.
Seeing that the parasitic national energy utility has just requested/proposed a 45% hike in tariffs per annum for three years - from 33c/kW.hr to around 100c/kW.hr, my feeling is that we should cut our losses, and expectations of future toy deliveries and put money where it’s needed. Cutting the A400M from government expenditure frees up the equivalent of ~60% of the energy utility’s expected shortfall for future building programmes - with it’s insane tariff hike. GDP per capita in South Africa is around $5000.
I accept the governments vision in creating a viable aerospace engineering industry - but if a major ‘respected’ contractor like Airbus only has pipe dreams to offer, and cannot maintain a realistic cost structure, we need to give them a due kick in the ass.
294. Vero Venia | October 14th, 2009 at 14:52
293. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 14th, 2009 at 13:39
As far as the KC-X tanker is concerned, it seems that the US Air Force wants a fixed price contract. Most probably it will be priced in US dollars.
295. ikkeman | October 14th, 2009 at 16:28
294. Vero Venia | October 14th, 2009 at 14:52
which is why Ab is so keen on getting an final assembly option in a USD country…
296. Vero Venia | October 14th, 2009 at 17:50
295. ikkeman | October 14th, 2009 at 16:28
Assembly line is only 3% of the value of an aircraft. Forget it.
297. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 14th, 2009 at 20:19
The Rand has gone from 6.50’s to the Greenback - touching 5.70 - in 2004, 6.30’s in 2005, through 6.10’s in early 2006, 10.00’s in early 2009 to 7.30’s currently. It’s trading at 7.24 today - now. It’s a commodity currency, there are massive speculative trades carried on it every day.
South Africa signed on to the A400M in late April 2005. If we look at the Rand’s decline to the US Dollar from 2005 to now: 6.35 to 7.30: 14% depreciation.
Dollar vs. Euro: early 2004: 0.7779 to currently: 0.67114 - which is a 13% depreciation.
I just don’t see how Airbus can add 176% to any contract on those currency moves. I hope we specified cost stability linked to the US dollar as the industry is predominantly dollar based on matters cost. This thing looks pathetic. Maybe Airbus will extend a helping hand to a small but strategic partner. We know we’re in strategic positions on the continent - I think we’re more interested in strategic games than long term value.
298. Falcon | October 14th, 2009 at 20:57
@Paulo M,
What details about the increase have been released? What I have seen is little more than a statement on military veterans meeting stating the cost has gone from 17 BZAR to 47 BZAR. (Isn’t that a strange place for releasing this?)
I know there has been a lot of contracts but can’t believe there isn’t limitations for price increases in the contract.
I also find it very hard to believe this is the cost for what Airbus / EADS is delivering as it ~ 800 MUSD per plane.
There must be more to it, question is what?
299. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 14th, 2009 at 22:07
@ Falcon
It came out in Parliament today, top story on national radio at 1pm (that’s how I know).
The cost is €800 million per plane. In ZAR, that’s just over 8 billion, so yes, there’s a lot in the deal to make it worth 47bn. Military contracts typically turn out like this - inflated, with lots of back door dealings - or at least it appears that shady. I guess everybody is okay with the minor inflation-adjustment price and is onboard - buckled-up, and this thing flies by the end of the year with no further hitches.
300. Falcon | October 14th, 2009 at 23:46
@Paulo M,
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the order is for 8 planes and thus at 47 BZAR it is 5.9 BZAR / 540 MEUR / 810 MUSD per plane.
For the life of me I can’t imagine that is for planes only. It could be including operating costs for x years, it could be construction and a lot of other things but for planes only, or planes plus spares, nah it doesn’t add up.
301. AF Won | October 14th, 2009 at 23:58
290. Vero Venia | October 14th, 2009 at 08:10
“And yes, the US Air Force needs more flexible, more versatile and smaller tankers.
But hey! Let’s leave them decide what they want. They wrote down the requirements, they wrote down the criteria.”
I’m struggling to understand why the Air Force insists on wanting almost the exact opposite of what you think they need. Anyone would think they know more than you about the requirements than you!
Have you “bothered” to read the RFP yet? It really might help to stop you making a fool of yourself so often.
As to the KC-767 being too big, you do know it can only deliver a tad more fuel than a KC-135 don’t you? Don’t you?
302. Rocketsurgery | October 15th, 2009 at 00:17
@299. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 14th, 2009 at 22:07
When it comes to military contracts, most often the price includes training of crew and ground crew, provision of ground support equipment, spare parts inventory, delivery, simulators, ongoing servicing and support for a number of years etc. That often leads to these grossly inflated figures that seem implausible when broken down to a per aircraft basis. I wouldn’t rule out kickbacks being paid either.
An example from Oz - our 24 SuperHornets cost $6 Bn Aussie dollars (4.5 - 5 Bn USD). It’s the support package that inflates the cost of each Superhornet to $250M each. And we are an existing Hornet operator.
303. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 15th, 2009 at 09:33
Sorry, a correction to post 299.:
€800 (~ZAR8 billion) for eight planes not per plane.
Lots of money in support and kickbacks, and from Rocketsurgery’s post 302. - that’s whether the country is developed or developing.
304. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | October 18th, 2009 at 01:32
Unfortunately, it appears that the local side did not put up a bidding process for the acquisition of eight transport/airlift category planes.
Also, it appears that the local side did not budget for the operation (spares, training, etc.) of these planes for 30 years.
This is an unfortunate development that leads me to retract my prior complaint. Sometimes, you wonder why Boeing can’t be a sore losser, expose this kind of thing and get the bidding process going again.
305. Analyst takes shot at Ala&hellip | October 21st, 2009 at 00:12
[...] GLG analyst continues, the Airbus tanker program itself is facing delays, with reports coming from industry sources like FleetBuzz and that the first KC-30s for the Royal Australian Air Force have run into serious technical snags [...]
306. Falcon | October 22nd, 2009 at 22:51
Vet contact made.
Change bitching to this and that plane can’t be fueled under this or those circumstances.
307. AF Won | October 22nd, 2009 at 22:54
First Australian A330MRTT passes fuel through its boom. Guess that’s one less argument for the haters!
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Eads-North-America-1063906.html
[quote]The contacts and subsequent fuel transfers were made with two F-16 receiver aircraft and validated the advanced ARBS handling qualities, precision, and stability on the A330 MRTT, as well as the capabilities of its 3-D vision system. The flight lasted four hours and 30 minutes, with more than 3,300 pounds of fuel transferred during 13 contacts.
308. Rocketsurgery | October 27th, 2009 at 02:15
Geez, Vero seems to be having a tough week - first the A330 passes fuel, now the attached article confirms that both the Japanese and Italian Airforces have gone for tankers that are multi use.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed