60 Comments Add your own

• 1. USAF Fan  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 10:48

  

  If there was EVER a situation for which a sole source contract should be awarded on the KC-X, this is it.

• 2. Dave_BC  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 10:57

  

  >> If there was EVER a situation for which a sole source contract should be awarded on the KC-X, this is it.<<

  And use US taxpayers’ money to keep an obsolete airframe in production.

• 3. ikkeman  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 11:23

  

  Beautiful post.

  “Considering most, … more recognition. ”
  convieniently forgetting that the amount of fuel brought back (after a mission, not training) is usually a mandatory (fixed) amount that will not scale up (linearly) with a bigger a/c

  “Infrastructure will … the KC-135’s”
  Are you trying to claim that infrastructure costs (100s of millions) will be the determining factor for an contract worth up to 100 billion?
  MILCON cost is included in the contract costs calculation, as is maintenance - but do you really believe that’s more important than the actual planes?
  BTW - carrying the same 200klbs fuel load, the KC45 will be able to take off from more bases than the KC-767… that is fact.

  “But of course, … the deal.”
  Luckily, mother Boeing did specify excactly how many US jobs would be involved in the KC767.
  Oh, wait - what do you mean they haven’t even said which platform they will propose, but how could they show the jobs they will save?

  “EADS/Northrop Grumman … previous contest.”
  Yes, NG/EADS should be happy the USAF, Pentagon and DOD have repeatedly stated the WTO case is not, cannot and will not be part of the KC-X evaluation.
  Also, it is ridiculus to think that when your competitor has access to detailed pricing/cost information of your offer (do you really think the new proposal will differ wildly from the last), that your competitor could extract some benifit from that.
  Just how useless do you think the beancounters at Boeing are - they just need to beat NG/EADS price by 1%

  “What the … the GAO.”
  lets not look at history (USAF/Boeing claims pricing data is not germaine because this new competition is nothing like the last one, remember?), but lets look at the new draft RFP
  when one competitor beats the next lowest price by more than 1%, they win! period.
  Now explain how that doesn’t make it very likely the smaller, older plane will win…

  “Various Senators … for all.”
  And then there are those senators that claim that not including the preliminary WTO results unfairly advantages NG/EADS… seems like the service is done a disservice from all sides. Poor service.

  “EADS/Northrop Grumman … way around.”
  I dont really know how to say this - I agree.
  And they shouldn’t (have to), but it worked last time (unfortunately) so they are bound to try again.

  “If they … to Boeing.”
  Go read Aboulafia’s last newsletter, he has some words on the effect of protecting industry from international competition (like through sole-source contracts)
  http://www.richardaboulafia.com/newsletters/

  BTW, has Boeing shown their boom can pass gas at the mandatory requirement of 1200 gpm? seems like that when NG/EADS drops out, the USAF is out of options - except for paper planes, high hopes and promises…

• 4. joel  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 12:21

  

  People do the homework. The A330 is basically a ripoff of the A300 which went into service around 1971.

  The 767 is not a ripoff of anything and went into service around 1981.

  So actually The AirBust has an older design.

• 5. denis  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 13:03

  

  Amazing how fast BOEING turned from a looser to a winner. Don’t know the terms of the RFP, but the Frankentanker seems to have become a wonderful multirole tanker…
  Any idea about a future, KC-Y competition?

• 6. 787Fan  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 13:39

  

  Dave_BC
  And use US taxpayers’ money to keep an obsolete airframe in production.
  LOLOL
  How about US Taxpayers money for American Manufacturing Jobs..not just assembly jobs…
  As far as obsolete airframe….The KC-135 is still doing the job after 30yrs and WHO made that aircraft…Not Airbus…BOEING>>>>

• 7. Mike M  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 14:02

  

  >>>And use US taxpayers’ money to keep an obsolete airframe in production.

  The 767 is not obsolete, or did the Airbus blinkers prevent you from realising it is still in production?

  We’re not talking about the obsolete A300 or A310.

  And why does it bother you Europeans (I assume you are European) what the US taxes are spent on?

  Is it because after pouring billions into the A400M EADS had to dress up in a frilly pair of knickers to dismiss claims that they were about to kill it before it had even flown?!

  No wonder Europe is an f’ing joke on the world stage.

• 8. Leelaw  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 14:25

  

  Here’s what Sen. McCain had to say when he had a lot more credibility regarding “tanker mania:”

  …McCain contends the tanker deal itself was an attempt to profit from the sense of crisis after the 9/11 attacks, and that the underlying need for new tankers to replace the Air Force’s KC-135s has still never been proved.

  “Prior to 9/11, they said that they didn’t need to start replacing tankers until 2040,” he said.

  He points to a Sept. 25, 2001, memo describing a meeting in Druyun’s office. Just two weeks after 9/11, Druyun, Boeing lobbyists and Air Force officers came together, paused for a moment of silence for the victims of the Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and then began drawing up a strategy for the tanker deal.

  Last year, the Air Force accidentally gave McCain a new ally in Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, when it was discovered that Air Force officials had erased key data on slides they sent to Warner’s committee showing that problems with the aging KC-135s were fairly rare

  The fallout is that McCain won’t OK a new tanker contract until it is studied more. But he doesn’t trust the latest Air Force analysis being done by the RAND Corp., because of RAND’s dependence on the Pentagon.

  “It’s become so incestuous that it’s hard to find an objective organization to make this evaluation of the need for the tankers,” he said…

  (-Seattle Times, December 26, 2004-)

  Interestingly, if you go back and look at EADS promotional efforts when the ARBS was launched (unfortunately, the former link to these is no longer live - that’s another story) there’s nary a mention of the A330 as the platform, it’s all about, after “painstaking study” the A310 being the “perfect solution.”

  The historical fact is the A330 was the second choice of EADS/Airbus as their tanker platform. Why? Simple, the oraganization of the force structure and total size of the tanker fleets fielded by the RAF, the other purchasers of tankers based on the A330 MRTT platform, and the USAF are so vastly different. The USAF’s share of the potential tanker market (estimated by EADS/Airbus circa 2000 to be roughly 700 aircraft worldwide between 2007 and 2020 according to Aerospace Planet) isn’t merely a slice of the pie, it’s the whole pie less a very small slice for all the other military services combined. Knowing this, and presumably after very exhaustive and careful study, the designers at EADS/Airbus decided the best aircraft to address the needs of the marketplace was the A310-300. Notwithstanding the subsequent decision to substitute the A330 for the A310 as the tanker platform (based more on commercial rather than military considerations), and the decision by the RAF and other services (which represent a tiny portion of the potential marketplace) to buy the A330 MRTT: why wasn’t the larger, “more modern,” and more “capable” A330 platform the logical and obvious first choice of EADS/Airbus when they were trying to crack the new-build tanker marketplace for the first time? Me thinks the answer is the A330 platform didn’t make much sense in addressing the actual needs of the lion’s share of the potential marketplace then or now.

  It’s clear that “tanker mania” was initially ginned-up by the OEMs mostly as a means to profitably revive their own increasingly moribund commercial programs (767 & A310), not by an actual compelling requirement of the USAF for new tankers at the time. There’s probably no rush to judgment necessary. Why rush to commit $35-100B to technology that’s about to be superceded by the next generation of aircraft in order to fulfill a RFP to equip a force structure that’s probably anachronistic, when comparatively modest investment in the existing equipment will buy policy makers enough time to make better judgments?

• 9. Dougloid  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 14:28

  

  I kind of like this youtube video.

• 10. Dougloid  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 14:29

  

  maybe this one??

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPv7DRq9saY

• 11. ikkeman  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 14:30

  

  5. denis | December 2nd, 2009 at 13:03
  frankentanker is out - Boeing has stated any offer would not be based on multiple models.

  7. Mike M | December 2nd, 2009 at 14:02
  767 is old and almost obsolete - look at the commercial orders, there’s hardly a trickle. in 5 to 10 years they’ll be retired en masse.
  Maybe it’s because after pouring billions in various US programs and US wars, we’d appreciate a fair and even evaluation when we happen to have designed the better product.
  No wonder poeple start reacting to the US like they did to the Soviet Union - You’re making the same mistakes (afganistan, closed borders…)

• 12. USAF Fan  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 14:33

  

  “Are you trying to claim that infrastructure costs (100s of millions) will be the determining factor for an contract worth up to 100 billion?”

  I dont see in this article where it claims that infrastructure costs will just be in “millions”. the fact you dont know what costs will be borne by the USAF shows how little you know. The costs are not just the sticker price of the airplanes, but of all the costs associated with introducing it into operation too.

  The fact you overlook this shows you know very little about costs. Your juvenile assessment is ample evidence of that.

  “usually a mandatory (fixed) amount that will not scale up (linearly) with a bigger a/c”

  Wrong again, ask the guys flying the KC-10 Extenders as well as the current KC-135s.

  “the KC45 will be able to take off from more bases than the KC-767″

  Wrong again.

  The bases need to be modified for the A330. That incurs significant costs - costs which the DoD have to pay for. Its not just about buying tankers.

  “Yes, NG/EADS should be happy the USAF, Pentagon and DOD have repeatedly stated the WTO case is not, cannot and will not be part of the KC-X evaluation.”

  I likehow you say with utmost certainty that the WTO “will not” be factored in. Please verify this claim. If NG/EADS get to change the RFP, who is to say the DoD wont change their minds relating to the WTO guidance?

  I like your confidence even if it is misguided.

  “it is ridiculus to think that when your competitor has access to detailed pricing/cost information of your offer ”

  Wake up and smell the coffee dude, the USAF/DoD and everyone connected to this RFP has said that it is not relevant. Crying about it will not change that.

  “there are those senators that claim that not including the preliminary WTO results unfairly advantages NG/EADS”

  They are right to do so. The A330 was born from state aid, was it not? The A330 is NOT and never will be a NG platform.

• 13. Mike M  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 14:43

  

  >>>in 5 to 10 years they’ll be retired en masse.

  You forget that this airplane been flying longer than the A330 and has had a great run.

  767s that have been delivered from 2000 onwards still have at least another 15 years service life left - before a possible freighter conversion (that is not yet available for the A330.)

  Also, you talk like the entire 767 fleet will be grounded in one go - perhaps many will, but not all of them.

  Carriers always buy second hand jets and the 767 is no exception - and there’s no guarantee that the rates of the 787/A350 will achieve the targets set by the oem’s.

• 14. Erik Bloodaxe  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 15:03

  

  Ikke, so why is it that Gallois in Europe talks about only between 300 and 1500 direct jobs being created in the US and maybe 3-5K more at suppliers if they win then turns around in the US and says 60K? Which is it?

  Also, when will the French do a competition for their tanker? Funny, they already selected Airbus. No need for competition. That’s fine, it’s their perogative, but to point fingers at the US and whine about the competition over here, well… we call that Hypocracy.

  This whole thing is just NOC and Airbus trying to have their way again. They are just whining hoping that the USAF will change the rules of the game half way through just for them again. I hope it doesn’t work. The current RFP contains some pretty bitter pills for both. I don’t see the USAF changing the RFP to just suit EADS and NOC. To do so would cause Boeing to immediately protetst, and rightly so. The draft RFP is out there, the responses to the questions have been pretty consistant in no big changes, just clarifications of position.

  If you’d take your Airbussien glasses off, you’d see that there really isn’t a way for the USAF to change the RFP with out causing major problems that delay the contract, if not out right scrap it. They wrote this version of the RFP to what the USAF wanted. They put what their needs were. Now it’s up to the two companies to put up their products to meet that need. This damn game has gone on long enough. For Christ sake it’s been almost a DECADE. You realized that is HALF a career for a Military officer? This has been going on FAR too long as is. If EADS and NOC don’t bid, I can see the USAF being just fine with that. At least there will be some finality to the deal and the USAF will finally get a KC-135 replacement.

• 15. Chris Wallace  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 15:22

  

  Well the USAF was willing to juggle the RFP to ensure that the A330 won because of it’s larger capacities and higher capabilities.

  Perhaps the US DoD is more concerned about total program cost, since they threatened to write the RFP themselves, so perhaps they placed pressure on the USAF to focus on program cost which would favor the KC-767 instead of allowing the USAF to favor capabilities and capacities, with the attached higher costs, which would favor the KC-30A.

  Considering the KC-767 is still better than the KC-135, it’s not like the USAF is being handed a product worse than what they already have, just not as good as they could possibly get. But with the US deficit climbing and the DoD having to rein in spending, it appears the USAF is having their credit limit reduced and they might only be able to afford the KC-767.

  So the answer might be for Northrop and EADS to reduce whatever profit margin they are hoping to secure for the deal in an attempt to lower the total program price to being closer to Boeing’s.

• 16. The Myth of the Medieval &hellip  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 15:28

  

  [...] » If EADS/Northrop Wants Out, Keep Them Out [...]

• 17. Dave_BC  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 16:08

  

  The fact is, the 767 is an old analog contraption with a fuselage cross section that nobody wants. Not even the USAF warfighter wanted it — when they overwhelmingly preferred the A330-based airframe the first time around.

  The fact is, the only hope of selling it now is for the Boeing’s acolytes embedded the US Govt to force its subjugates to take it one way or another. Apart from the USAF, the other big losers from all of this, would of course be the US taxpayers who would yet again foot the bill as they are fleeced by big bully (and crybaby) Boeing.

  But it’s no surprise that other governments around the globe have not been so stupid since they have selected A330 tanker and MRTT versions over anything that Boeing has to offer.

• 18. Aurora  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 16:18

  

  I am a little skeptical of Northrop Grumman’s …no. ..lets be honest…I am a little skeptical of Airbus’ protestations here. I think they are going for a repeat when the USAF ran after them and kissed their ass to stay in the competition. They figure they have nothing to lose by doing the same thing again. That said, both companies have to be very careful in committing to a fixed price contract, where the preponderance of the risk is on the bidder. Boeing has two programs that are consuming huge amounts of cash at present, the 787 & 748I. However, barring more “unknown unknowns” cropping up, these programs should start generating revenue by early 2011 at the latest.

  Looking at it from the perspective of EADS, this contract could be a very frightening prospect. For starters there are three programs that must keep Gallois up at night: the A380 is a business case flop—there’s really no other way to say it; the A400M is fighting for its life and only massive infusions of funds from the airbus countries will save it; the A350XWB is in development and is by no means assured of future subsidies by the member governments. Even more worrisome to EADS is the pending WTO decision and the potentially adverse consequences.

  EADS’ last experience with a fixed price contract was/is the A400M and we all know how that turned out!

  The A380 will probably be a business case classic for B schools for decades to come but for all the wrong reasons. (Richard Aboulafia likens the A380 launch as the worst commercial disaster since New Coke!) EADS’ may even be forced to abandon its market share strategy and become bottom line focused. Sure, right after the next snow storm in Singapore.

• 19. ikkeman  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 16:38

  

  12. USAF Fan | December 2nd, 2009 at 14:33
  Where to begin -
  I said MILCON is in the hundreds of millions (did you notice the 100s in front of the millions?) - at least significantly less than the total program cost (at least 35 billion)

  KC-45 will be able totake off from more bases than KC-767 when both carry the same amount of fuel.
  A330 and 767 are designed to the same runway requirement at their respective MTOWs, but the 330 carrying 200klbs of fuel is 50klbs under it’s MTOW, allowing for shorter take-off distance and lower runway loading - the only difference is that the A330 doesn’t fit in a few of the USAF hangers (it’s still smaller than an KC-10 or C-5, do you hear anyone complain they can’t be parked where they are needed), and fewer of them fit together on a given area (but then again, fewer are needed - IFARA should ascertain whether one can park enough planes on the available tarmac).

  are you willing to put some wager on my claim? the draft WTO ruling will not be a factor in the USAF evaluation. it may “incite” those senators that favour Boeing, but it cannot be part of any punitive action by the gov’t

  USAF/DoD and everyone connected to the contest said they wanted KC-45s last time around… why trust tiihr words now? (and the crying by Boeing worked a treat last time, why not adopt successful strategies?)

  indeed, A330 is and never will be an NG platform - KC-45 is a different matter.
  EADS is “just” a major supplier in this competition. NG buys the airframes and then adds the military stuff by themselves. Boeing has (many) foreign suppliers too. Though they are smaller apart, together they make a significant portion of the 767.

  13. Mike M | December 2nd, 2009 at 14:43
  that’s preciecely what I’m not forgetting. It’s been flying longer - and older items are more likely to be retired than newer items.
  I do not intent to say they will all be grounded in one go - they’re still being build, so the last few will be flying for another 20 to 30 years. However, it is a big fleet out there, and the average age is climbing.
  Though the 787/350 may not be produced in the numbers dreamed of by the integrators, they will be build, and at that time resale value of 767 is going to take a hit.

  14. Erik Bloodaxe | December 2nd, 2009 at 15:03
  haven’t heard him say that, nor did I read it anywhere - do you have links?
  Maybe the bulk of the US jobs will be at the prime contractor?

  As do we - but the 330mrtt’s will replace KC135’s… and nobody likes the french, but if you want to model your great nation after them frog-eaters, be my guest.

  OK, that paragraph is just all over teh field:
  It’s not Airbus, it’s EADS - and it’s not EADS, it’s NG doing the complaining - and it’s not complaining (like running to the referee), it’s stating your intentions so everyone knows what to expect -
  And yes, they’re not serious, it’s just posturing (i think), and I wouldn’t.
  You do realise this is just a DRAFT RFP, do you - published with the express intent of getting industry comments so the USAF could improve it when they put out the FINAL RFP.
  I’m not saying the USAF should change the RFP because of this (I think there are a few, much more valid points - like the 1200gpm mandatory requirement, of sink flow rates as mandatory requirements), But this is the time for NG to make they thoughts known, not after the final RFP is out like last time?
  When are you planning to retire? at 40 after just 20 years of working- you must have one hell of an 401K

  and if you believe the final result of this competition will not be contested by the losing party, I’ve got some prime, Miami beach front property in located in Kansas to offer you.

  15. Chris Wallace | December 2nd, 2009 at 15:22
  but can they out-bid Boeing… Surely the whole EU-build, NG-modified, new factory approach is more costly than Boeing’s “I’ve got an idle line and am firing 10k workers”. And that’s on top of the cost difference for the platforms.
  And Boeing has had a good look at NG/EADS price data. I can understand why NG thinks there’s a few kinks in their future.

• 20. Mike M  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 16:45

  

  >>>the 767 is an old analog contraption with a fuselage cross section that nobody wants.

  Yah, except those customers waiting to take delivery. Sheesh.

  >>>Apart from the USAF, the other big losers from all of this, would of course be the US taxpayers who would yet again foot the bill as they are fleeced by big bully (and crybaby) Boeing.

  Pray tell, just what have the EU tax payers “won”?

  Losses on the A340, A380, A400M. Add the A350 as well.

  The only one(s) crying are NG and EADS.

• 21. Dave_BC  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 17:51

  

  >> Yah, except those customers waiting to take delivery. Sheesh. <>Pray tell, just what have the EU tax payers “won”?<>Add the A350 as well <> The only one(s) crying are NG and EADS.<<

  No, I don’t think so. they are merely stating their intentions. Also, they are making far too much money on the A330 pax programme (and miltary MRTTs) to ‘cry’ over this one off defence contract.

• 22. Dave_BC  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 18:08

  

  “[767] customers waiting to take delivery”?
  ~ Not many of those left! lol

  “Pray tell, just what have the EU tax payers “won”?
  ~ A330/A340 sold over 1,000 and repaid any investment many times over.

  NB Meanwhile US taxpayers, never got A SINGLE DIME back from all that the miltary & NASA research that paid for much of Boeing commercial R&D by the back door.

  “Add the A350 as well .. ”
  ~ Indeed – over 500 orders now and counting. More return on the investment is guaranteed.

  ~ And A380? You won’t be sayoing that when the recession is over. It will take the whole market for the next 20 years at least.

  ~ A400M? You shouldn’t throw stones in a glass house. What about your C17, of which US taxpayers like you will never see a dime back?

  The only one(s) crying are NG and EADS?
  No, I don’t think so. they are merely stating their intentions. Also, they are making far too much money on the A330 pax programme (and military MRTTs) to ‘cry’ over this one-off defence contract.

  btw you forgot the A320 — also a huge money maker. 4,000+ of these delivered already.

• 23. engineer  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 18:33

  

  Say, how about some news on the 787. I read ZA001 started its sucky motors yesterday.

  I m getting bored to read about this tanker debacle.

• 24. ikkeman  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 18:39

  

  Hey, I just noticed - reading the last blog post and on the freight capacity requirement - does teh USAF use LD2 containers?

• 25. jacobin777  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 18:42

  

  Dave_BC stated:

  “~ And A380? You won’t be sayoing that when the recession is over. It will take the whole market for the next 20 years at least.”

  Its a financial flop and that’s a fact. “You will see over the next 20 years” doesn’t hold water given the enormous financial hole that it has created.

  The USAF basically changed the requirements midway of the RFP for the larger plane. They gave extra points to the A330 for it being a larger plane.

  ikkeman stated:

  “767 is old and almost obsolete - look at the commercial orders, there’s hardly a trickle.”

  Gee, after >1,000 orders, one would expect sales to slow down. Not to mention, the electronics, etc. are nothing “old” or “obsolete” as you want others (or yourself) to think it is.

• 26. Leelaw  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 18:47

  

  LOL, the nascent “roaring turnaround” of the increasingly moribund WhaleBus[t] program is always around some new illusory corner: certification, entry in service, the next air show, the “next order intake jamboree,” the end of the recession…yada, yada, yada…The doctrinaire “Airbusiers” hold firmly to their fervent belief in the fading promise and questionable inevitability of Mr. Forgeard’s putative “cash cows” (A380, A400M, A330 MRTT), usually spiced up with a fair amount of self-serving jingoism to boot, just as “American Rednecks,” in the words of noted “Europhile” Barack Obama, cling to their “guns and religion.”

• 27. Mike M  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 18:58

  

  >>>A330/A340 sold over 1,000 and repaid any investment many times over.

  Oh puhleeze.

  Bring forth some evidence.

  The A330 has been given away for the last half a decade while the A380 program screwed up. As Singapore Airlines!

  The A340 has been in a loss position ever since the 500/600 versions sucked up taxpayer funds and will never break even, let alone “repay” investment “many times over”.

  >>>(A350) Indeed – over 500 orders now and counting. More return on the investment is guaranteed.

  Like the 787, it means nothing. No deliveries means no money. The A350 is saddled with a 11bn Euro bill/ $16bn+. Nothing like counting your chickens before they’ve hatched, eh Euroboy?

  >>>(A380) You won’t be sayoing that when the recession is over

  Haha! Biggest joke ever - it makes the losses on the 747-8 and even Concorde look miniscule. The A380 is a failure in every sense of the word. Airbus cant even build the ones that have been ordered. It represents everything thats wrong in aviation. After 10 years of boom time, you’re saying we have to wait another 20 for it to “peak”.

  Bravo. It will have by that time, 40 year old designed engines - hardly “efficient” with whatever will be flying at that moment in time.

  As for the A320, well, we all know that Airbus A320s sell because of lower price and 737s because of its better performance. Why did it take almost 3 decades for Airbus to fit some winglets?

  No, its not because the wing was better than the 737. Perhaps against older ones yeah, but it cant cut it against the 737NG. Ask Easyjet!

  BTW, delivery numbers mean nothing when margins are non-existent. Nice try though Euroboy

• 28. Skeptic  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 19:42

  

  BTW, this has to be distressing news for all those cheering the passing of fuel on the airbus MRTT for the RAAF. Aviation Week just has an article out which mentions the delay in entering service.

  http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/AUSJSF120209.xml&headline=Will%20Australian%20JSF%20Buy%20Avoid%20Delays?&channel=defense

  “Also under scrutiny is the Airbus Military KC-30 tanker, for which Australia is the lead customer. The fleet is expected to reach initial operational capability a year late, with final operational capability 18 months behind original plans, the audit office says, contradicting Airbus officials who say that despite some schedule adjustment, key milestone dates will be met. Auditors note that “Airbus Military’s ability to meet the contracted schedule milestone continues to be the greatest challenge.” The KC-30 is now to be fully operational in the third quarter of 2012.”

  OK, cue to Darleen Druyun in 3, 2. 1….

• 29. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA)  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 20:06

  

  26. Leelaw | December 2nd, 2009 at 18:47

  I see you’re talking about cows, cash cows to be exact - European cash cows to be exact - further more (or exact stretch).

  I take exception to such talk - NOT!

  Did you know, European cows are by far the most subsidized animals on the planet. Their life is more cosy than those of the majority of Indians (humans), Chinese (humans), Africans (humans) and those Americans (humans) ‘considered to be’ living under the poverty line - hell, probably me (lemur) too!

  Remember that milk protestations of a few weeks ago - the Germans and French spilling milk everywhere - finally, working together (btw, to utter disgust to viewers in the third world)? Well, Europeans are happy with the majority of their national budgets going to the farming industry, who wilfully flush out on the streets - in order to create more subsidized jobs.

  Can you milk the A380?

  Looks like the A400M can’t milk the German government any more - because the Germans said no more. Luckily, South Africa bid it fair well too. We’re thinking of going with the Hercules - that Lockheed plane that flies. And also the Boeing C-17. It also flies.

  —————————————————-

  Oh! By the way, 50,000 jobs in sweet home Alabama? What’s going on here? How many people are employed on the 777 or 767 or A330 lines? Doubt that it is even 10,000 for say the 777 - much less 50,000. These are quite ambitious numbers.

  And does the A330 MRTT NG/EADS boom really work?

• 30. Edd  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 20:09

  

  Skeptic,
  bringing us a link showing us just how far Boeings Wedgetail is behind schedule (4 years), and bearing in mind just how far the KC-767 is behind scheduled (5 years and counting for the italian air force) is not a great way of displaying how bad Airbus is!

• 31. Aotearoa  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 20:48

  

  “2. Dave_BC | December 2nd, 2009 at 10:57

  And use US taxpayers’ money to keep an obsolete airframe in production.”

  Obviously not your tax though aye Dave?

  “17. Dave_BC | December 2nd, 2009 at 16:08

  “The fact is, the 767 is an old analog contraption with a fuselage cross section that nobody wants.”

  Apart form the customers that have bought over 1,000 and are still buying it now that is. Are you an idiot or what?

• 32. ...  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 21:34

  

  Love that Prodigy track!

  Excellent!!

• 33. MPTA-098  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 22:11

  

  Mike M: BTW, delivery numbers mean nothing when margins are non-existent. Nice try though Euroboy

  You sound an awful lot like that “McKinney character” in the 1972 motion picture Deliverance. Hopefully, you don´t behave in the same way as well……

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliverance

• 34. Skeptic  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 22:25

  

  Edd:
  The article is the standard recap of Australian military procurement tribulations. You didn’t mention Tiger in your little riposte either.

  What is remarkable about the article it that it appears to be the first confirmation of schedule slippage that FleetBuzz Editorial first broke. I find the juxtaposition of this news alongside airbus/NG’s latest temper tantrum as more than coincidental.

• 35. ikkeman  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 23:18

  

  25. jacobin777 | December 2nd, 2009 at 18:42
  Compare 777 and 767 sales if you will, and look at the course of 767 orders - it’s on the end of it’s production life cycle.
  747 is at 1400 sold - lived quite a bit beyond your expected 1000 units…

  26. Leelaw | December 2nd, 2009 at 18:47
  then again, Boeing admitted the “forward loss” position of the 748, the 787 is in DEEP trouble, F22, C-17 are done and KC767 is still not certain.
  again, both are quite comparable.

  27. Mike M | December 2nd, 2009 at 18:58
  you did notice the little non horizontal parts on the 320 wings, didn’t you?

  29. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | December 2nd, 2009 at 20:06
  Yes, the boom works - The company proclaimed it in no uncertain terms and therefore it is culpable.
  I can see that Boeing’s promises over the last years on 787 first flight may have set you on the wrong track, but usually companies are forbidden from issuing lies.

  What aboiut it poeple, does anyone have the answer - does the USAF use LD2’s, or can Boeing not use the belly cargo for KC-X

• 36. Sal  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 23:32

  

  Edd,

  You forgot to mention why the RAFF Wedgetail is so behind schedule… It’s directly related to on going software and hardware issues with its NORTHRUP GRUMMAN supplied radar, not its “obsolete” 737-based airframe. On the other hand, the US Navy’s P-3A, also based on that 737 airframe is *ahead* of schedule and had its Raytheon built radar installed today.
  So perhaps the relative “obsolescence” of a commercial airframe has little to do with its military utility?

• 37. keesje  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 23:36

  

  I happy the USAf did not select a 30 years old design in 1955, with those still forming the backbone in 2009.

  Just 767 capasity & we won’t reward anything more.. come on.. I’m afraid the rest of the world won’t eat the all to clear US protectionism.

  Next time US weapon/aircraft salesmen argue they want a fair chance in a free competition they will get a good laugh from their public.

  I think we should hold our US aircraft orders (JSF, Herc-J’s, C-17s, Apaches, Chinooks, etc) and have a good talk. In the end we are giving them huge loans to buy the stuff.

• 38. USAF Fan  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 08:30

  

  Ikkeman, correct us please, yes the 747-8 is a loss, albeit much less than the debt saddled around the A380

  But of course, why mention that point?

• 39. USAF Fan  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 08:33

  

  “I can see that Boeing’s promises over the last years on 787 first flight may have set you on the wrong track, but usually companies are forbidden from issuing lies.”

  A bit rich coming considering EADS is still in legal limbo over the insider trading on the A380!

  Perhaps when the same is proven about Boeing “lying” on the 787 you will have a case, but for now, you need to get off your soapbox.

• 40. ikkeman  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 09:32

  

  38. USAF Fan | December 3rd, 2009 at 08:30
  Because I felt Leelaw painted a very one-sided picture. I’ve painted the other side.
  He’s right, I’m right - do two rights make a wrong?

  39. USAF Fan | December 3rd, 2009 at 08:33
  Then again, EADS/Airbus never issued a press statement on the insider trading.
  Also - Boeing never technically lied about the first flight of the 787 - I’m sure the planned dates from the press releases conform to the then most current plan.
  However, when Boeing says the 787 has flown, you (and I) can believe it without having seen it - it’s a statement of fact not covered by the standard disclaimer about not having a crystal ball. By the same token, when EADS states their boom has passed gas from their A330MRTT platform you can believe it.
  So to the disingenious question at the end of post 29. Paulo M I can resond with an convinced yes - the boom has passed gas, and that qualifies it as working to me (and I think to most).

• 41. Skeptic  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 10:12

  

  The A380 is a commercial disaster. There is talk in the media today that Emirates, the airline, may be “on the block”. If that happens, I seriously doubt that ALL the remaining 53 whalejets will be delivered. Of course, there would be some face saving talk of deferrals, but the reality would be that most would never see the light of day.

  BTW, anyone want to speculate if the RAAF airbus delay goes from 18 months to ____?

• 42. Leelaw  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 11:12

  

  “both are quite comparable”

  I don’t disagree. Perhaps we can probably agree that doctrinaire OEM partisans are just like camels, they only see the other camels’ humps?

  “I [sic] happy the USAf [sic] did not select a 30 years [sic] old design in 1955, with those still forming the backbone in 2009″

  Neither the A330 nor the 767 platforms represent the kind of cutting edge technology the KC-135 offered in 1955 over the aircraft it replaced, which had only been in service for 5 years. That’s why it’s certainly questionable policy to adopt 20-30 year old designs like the A330 and 767 as the new tanker platform, when they are about to be superceded by the next generation of aircraft which could offer huge savings in terms operational cost over a 50+ year lifespan.

• 43. Dave_BC  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 12:46

  

  “Neither the A330 nor the 767 platforms represent the kind of cutting edge technology” . . . “That’s why it’s certainly questionable policy to adopt 20-30 year old designs like the A330 and 767 as the new tanker platform, when they are about to be superceded by the next generation of aircraft which could offer huge savings in terms operational cost over a 50+ year lifespan.”

  The A330 has a backlog of about 400 orders and rising. So it is **not** about to be replaced by anything. The A330 incorporates the crucial jump to digital fly-by-wire architecture with full integrated modular avionics. This remains the standard for the foreseeable future. Even the 787 and A350 are simply refinements of this type of architecture.

  The 767 (and 757), on the other hand, when introduced, were the **last** in a long line of machines of the analog vintage era. In sharp contrast, the A330’s digital modular architecture naturally accepts new developments in software, memory and CPU advances while the 767 stays stuck in its analog past. So the A330, crucially, keeps getting better all the time. It is also getting better R-R, GE, and P&W engines because the engine OEMs continue to see a big future in investing in the A330 application, as does Airbus. And as do airlines who continue to order it in large numbers. And there will be active A330 maintenance providers all over the world as well as inventory stockists, long after the last commercial 767s have been retired to the desert. The 767 is essentially breathing its last gasps, now relying on only the US DoD to save it.

  Then there is the cross-section issue: Both the 767s maindeck, and its lower hold are fundamentally incompatible with industry standard cargo pallet efficient layout preferences – i.e. LD3 96in containers. The A330 can carry these efficiently on **both decks**. The 767 cannot.

  Moreover, if needed, the A330 as a tanker / transport can also carry all the off-loadable fuel required (for the fuelling mission) all in the lower deck, leaving the maindeck essentially free for anything else that the warfighter would want to transport. In effect, you get a free troop/equipment/medevac transport aircraft thrown in for free (or a free tanker thrown in) – ie there are fundamental flexibility advantages of the A330 which ever way you look at it. Moreover, in today’s tactical conflict zones or disaster-relief environments (as distinct from the cold-war era), that’s precisely the flexibility that warfighters need (esp as the USAF cannot afford any more C-17s with astronomical acquisition, operational and maintenance costs.)

• 44. Vero Venia  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 17:41

  

  Again, it is all about the requirements. The aircraft is only an answer to those requirements.

  Let the US Air Force do their homework and publish the final RFP and then you can discuss.

• 45. Vero Venia  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 18:14

  

  On another topic, I’ve just written down a bizarre thought about air travel in Japan.

  http://wp.me/piMZI-00

• 46. ikkeman  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 18:14

  

  43. Dave_BC | December 3rd, 2009 at 12:46
  all you say maybe true, but you did nothing to discredit or reduce the validity of what Leelaw said.

  Also, as far as I know, the KC-45 carries all required fuel in it’s standard tanks - no filling the belly cargo with aux tanks.

• 47. Aotearoa  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 20:53

  

  43. Dave_BC | December 3rd, 2009 at 12:46

  “The A330 has a backlog of about 400 orders and rising. So it is **not** about to be replaced by anything.”

  Ever heard of a proposed frame to be call A350 Dave?

  “Then there is the cross-section issue:”

  So how wide is the KC35 Dave? If the 330 is the optimim, then why is the 350 going to be XWB?

  Dave, get off your Euro horse and if you must, get the massive (sic) Euro Air Forces to buy what their Political masters have been investing their illegal subsidies into and leave the Yanks to their own.

  BTW, I’m from the Southern hemisphere (so not poiltically aligned to Europe or Ameica) and even I note how one-sided your weak narrow-minded opinionated arguments are. Mate of keesje are you?

• 48. Erik Bloodaxe  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 21:14

  

  Ikkeman, the quote I have is hard copy from La Depeche du Midi in March of 2008. However he’s been quoted numerous times in La Depeche, Le Figaro, Radio 1, etc etc etc. It’s truely interesting how the jobs created number is so vastly different between the French press and the American press.

  Dave BC… you demonstrate a keen lack of understanding of just how the USAF operates. The USAF does not mix tanking with any other operation (either cargo hauling, certainly not medivac or troop transport). In fact, most of those missions are mutually exclusive of each other. You do make a good fanboi though, so if that’s what you were going for, you’ve succeded.

• 49. Paulo M  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 22:24

  

  In my post:

  29. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | December 2nd, 2009 at 20:06

  I said quite a bit about cows, and also the following:

  Oh! By the way, 50,000 jobs in sweet home Alabama? What’s going on here? How many people are employed on the 777 or 767 or A330 lines? Doubt that it is even 10,000 for say the 777 - much less 50,000. These are quite ambitious numbers.

  And does the A330 MRTT NG/EADS boom really work?

  ———————————————————-

  35. ikkeman | December 2nd, 2009 at 23:18

  Yes, the boom works - The company proclaimed it in no uncertain terms and therefore it is culpable.
  I can see that Boeing’s promises over the last years on 787 first flight may have set you on the wrong track, but usually companies are forbidden from issuing lies.

  ———————————————————-

  I feel that 50,000 Americans jobs in Alabama is a lie.

  Also, unrelated to my wrong track of opinion, I feel that Airbus top brass were totally transparent in their handling of the very, very, very first A380 delay - and no insider trading was committed. Further, I can see how current A380 production is in the order of 45 per annum - and how this is by no means a further delay to that aircraft.

  ————————————————————

  And Boeing and its 787? Well, they’re not adding another deck and new engines to the 707. So they’re got leave to get their totally new bird ready.

  And the 747-8? Well, company elements, and the 787 unsettled that one, bfd. No one lied, and better still (for credibility’s sake), the market flopped.

  ———————————————————–

  I’m not sure why Northrop Grumman feels the need to complain at this stage. Has something happened in the past 48 hours that we’re unaware of? What did we miss? Besides the financing details legally in Boeing circles now? Strange. All is not well in the EADS/Northrop Grumman camp perhaps?

• 50. JmBee  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 22:52

  

  @ Dave_BC

  “The 767 (and 757), on the other hand, when introduced, were the **last** in a long line of machines of the analog vintage era. In sharp contrast, the A330’s digital modular architecture naturally accepts new developments in software, memory and CPU advances while the 767 stays stuck in its analog past. ”

  No, just like your desktop computer the CPUs and flight control system can and have been upgraded for both aircraft. The KC-767AT was every bit as advanced as the KC-30 in terms of its electronics and avionics and it featured an updated modern glass cockpit from the 777. The one area where it suffered was in it’s lack of a Fly By Wire System, we can certainly debate the merits of this aspect with respect to each aircraft, but saying the KC-767 is not every bit as advanced as the KC-30 in terms of its basic systems is simply wrong.

  “Then there is the cross-section issue: Both the 767s maindeck, and its lower hold are fundamentally incompatible with industry standard cargo pallet efficient layout preferences – i.e. LD3 96in containers. ”

  It doesn’t matter have you ever seen the US military utilize standard LD3 containers? Well they don’t, LD3 containers are important to commercial operators and the A330’s cross section is a big reason for its commercial success, however, for the Military the wider fuselage section is just extra drag and more weight. In fact if you would bother to read Northrop’s complaints about not being given extra credit you would realize the fuselage is actually the KC-30’s Achilles heel. Since, the whole reason it has this big fuselage is to carry more cargo and pax, not fuel. Well, if the Air Force is not going to give credit for more pax and cargo all of that extra structure is simply dead weight that the KC-30 has to carry around. You might say that what the Air Force really likes about the KC-30 is it’s wings and their ability to lift and carry more fuel. The AF is giving significant credit for extra fuel offload capability and zero credit for cargo and pax, a 767 sized fuselage would actually greatly improve the A330-200 as a tanker from the perspective of the current draft RFP.

  “Moreover, if needed, the A330 as a tanker / transport can also carry all the off-loadable fuel required (for the fuelling mission) all in the lower deck, leaving the maindeck essentially free for anything else that the warfighter would want to transport.”

  Again, not an issue for a tanker, at it’s MTOW a KC-30 is carrying 245 tons of fuel and it can’t carry any cargo period or it would be over its weight limit. A tanker can carry some cargo and some fuel, or it could carry just cargo, and a little fuel, or it can full fill its mission as a tanker and carry just fuel and no cargo. There is no scenario under which you could max out a KC-767s or KC-30s cargo space and still have it perform a useful role as a tanker, and the USAF utilizes it’s tankers in a cargo role only around 1 percent of the time anyway, so why should they care about some theoretical mission where they offload a small amount of fuel and then carry a small amount of cargo to some humanitarian disaster relief spot.

  “Moreover, in today’s tactical conflict zones or disaster-relief environments (as distinct from the cold-war era), that’s precisely the flexibility that warfighters need (esp. as the USAF cannot afford any more C-17s with astronomical acquisition, operational and maintenance costs.)”

  And a KC-30 is even bigger than a C-17, and can be operated on far fewer runways and in far fewer environments. How exactly is a KC-30 or for that matter a KC-767 in anyway better than a C-17 with the exception that it can offload gas to other aircraft? Again, the USAF clearly wants a tanker to perform as a tanker and the fact that they are not giving NG/EADS any extra credit for the cargo/pax role clearly demonstrates this. As far as acquisition costs go a C-17 costs the USAF $200 million a pop, including all the associated costs for the KC-X program at $40 billion each frame will cost the Air Force around $220 million so there isn’t much difference in frame price. You’re barking up the wrong tree here.

• 51. ikkeman  |  December 4th, 2009 at 09:01

  

  49. Paulo M | December 3rd, 2009 at 22:24
  I agree - the 50k jobs in alabama are as likely as the 50k jobs Boeing claims.
  BTW, many of the jobs probably don’t care who wins - they’ll subcontract with whoever wins.

  Why do you feel the need to excuse B for their trouble on the 787 and 748?

  I don’t think this is a new complaint by NG - their letter indicates they took this matter up with the AF several times before. I guess this is just the first time they publicize it.
  Could this be the reason why the AF is delaying the final RFP? I hope not.

  50. JmBee | December 3rd, 2009 at 22:52
  But, if both planes had similar (delicate) electronics - why did I hear so many claim the KC-767 had better survivability in case of an EMP blast?

  I agree with the fuel and fuselage. What teh AF would really like is an 330 wing coupled with an 737 fuselage. Maybe NG should investigate adding a boom to the B2?

  The fact that the kc45 can carry the full 250klbs fuel load in its normal tanks and the kc767 requires additional fuel bladders to get up to 200klbs does mean you’ve lost the option to do a quick change. When your KC767 arrives carrying cargo to the warzone you’ll need to spend time modifying the thing to get it to uplift as much fuel as it can (or accept it carries less and thus needs to come home faster) - Then again, the KC45 is always heavier - burning more fuel whatever it’s payload and thus it will not be more efficient (than KC767) if it doesn’t carry enough to make it pay for it’s weight.

  The USAF uses it’s tankers for cargo only 1% of the time becuase their current hardware is just not fit for the job - not because they are unwilling to use them.

  your last paragraph is just plane wron. Read the RFP - the USAF wants a multirole platform that offloads a minimum amout of fuel (non mand reqrmnt for higher offload), carries a minimum amount of pax (non mand reqrmnt for more pax), has a minimum capacity for medevac (non mand reqrmnt for more) and meets a certain toilet sink flow rate (yes, it’s in there)
  The C-17 was specifically designed to carry non palletised cargo to an unimproved landing strip at the front - 95% of it’s time it’s flying airbridge missions shutteling pallets and poeple. This burns through their airframe hours and ensures they will need replacement before their planned date.
  KC-X can (and the transport division or whatever it’s called hopes it will) relieve the C17.
  It’s not that KC-X is better, but it will be cheaper to operate and be more efficient in the air-bridge role. That leaves the C17 to shine in it’s intended mission

• 52. Dave_BC  |  December 4th, 2009 at 10:36

  

  [CORRECTION TO ABOVE POST]

  To ikkeman: | December 3rd, 2009 at 18:14

  “all you say maybe true, but you did nothing to discredit or reduce the validity of what Leelaw said.”
  I not trying to discredit anyone here. And his point is very valid: the 767 is at the end of the product lifecycle. The A330 is nowhere near the end of it’s lifecycle – hence it’s large backlog.

  “Also, as far as I know, the KC-45 carries all required fuel in its standard tanks - no filling the belly cargo with aux tanks.”

  Yep indeed – my oversight – even better then!

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To JmBee:

  “No, just like your desktop computer the CPUs and *** flight control system *** can and have been upgraded for both aircraft”
  But this flatly contradicts:
  “. . . The one area where it suffered was in it’s [ie 767’s] lack of a Fly By Wire [flight control] System . . .”

  “In fact if you would bother to read Northrop’s complaints about not being given extra credit you would realize the fuselage is actually the KC-30’s Achilles heel.”
  Funny how that was one of the [many] reasons why the USAF said originally in no uncertain terms that they wanted the KC-30/45 over the 767.

  “Again, not an issue for a tanker, at it’s MTOW a KC-30 [i.e. KC-45] is carrying 245 tons of fuel and it can’t carry any cargo period or it would be over its weight limit.”

  It won’t be over its weight limit if it would otherwise be sitting on the ground because there is no refueling mission underway. (a KC-45 could be doing something else more useful than sitting on the ramp.)

  “How exactly is a KC-30 or for that matter a KC-767 in anyway better than a C-17 with the exception that it can offload gas to other aircraft?”

  I never said the C-17 was “better”. But the C-17 production is finished. And there a lot of missions the C-17 is used for that could be done by other aircraft.
  And if you have a load of 767 tankers sitting idle most of the day, because they can’t do anything other than air-to-air refueling missions, that would be a non-utilized investment. However, a fleet of KC-45s could be constantly providing a useful return on their investment by being able to fulfill support roles currently only possible using scarce C-17. That’s my point.

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To Aotearoa:
  “Ever heard of a proposed frame to be call A350 Dave?” . . . “So how wide is the KC35 Dave? If the 330 is the optimim, then why is the 350 going to be XWB?”
  It’s very simple, you should know that the A350 is a larger plane (than the A330-200), designed to carry more pax for a given fuselage length – bridging to the larger 777s. Note: one of the A350’s requirements was to carry 9-abreast pax in economy in a higher level of comfort than can the 787. The A330’s 222in fuselage cross section, on the other hand, is sized (a) for eight abreast economy using same 17.2in seat width as a 747 etc. and (b) comfortable six-abreast business; and (c) side-by-side 96in industry standard cargo pallets underfloor (A330 killed the 767 commercially because of these and other advantages – esp its business class). But this is off-topic here.

  “Dave, get off your Euro horse and if you must, get the massive (sic) Euro Air Forces to buy what their Political masters have been investing their illegal subsidies into and leave the Yanks to their own.”
  I am surprised that you don’t seem to be aware that the “Euro” airforces have bought s**tloads of big-ticket US aircraft: F16s, F18s; AWACS; JSFs; C-130s; and yes, even C-17s, plus of course, all those Chinooks; Apaches; Blackhawks etc..(not to mention lots of F4s & F104s in years gone by etc.).
  Now it’s about damn time the US Govt reciprocated. Otherwise, indeed, Europe ***should*** stop buying all these US products.

  By the way, wait for the WTO verdict on the US State of Boeing, and all the freebies that it receives. Not to mention those freebies from Japanese govt — esp for the 787’s subsidized wings etc.

  “Mate of keesje are you?”
  Actually I’ve no idea who he/she is. The only real name I know from this forum is the FleetBuzz Editorial administrator, Saj Ahmad.

• 53. ikkeman  |  December 4th, 2009 at 15:34

  

  52. Dave_BC | December 4th, 2009 at 10:36
  Sorry, but the WTO will not be ruling on the subsidies Boeig got from any foreign gov’t - I Guess EADS/EU didn’t wanna ruffle the asian feathers.

• 54. Erik Bloodaxe  |  December 4th, 2009 at 19:03

  

  Personally, I would have loved to see Airbus tell the EU to go after “foreign” subsidies. It would have been a laugh riot to see the EU file a case against itself for the Italian stuff. It would also have been great to see the EU file against Japan, and never sell another aircraft into Japan EVER. LOL. In the words of Braer Rabbit, “Pweeese, don’ t’row me in dat briar patch”.

• 55. JMBEE  |  December 4th, 2009 at 19:34

  

  Ikkeman

  “The USAF uses it’s tankers for cargo only 1% of the time becuase their current hardware is just not fit for the job - not because they are unwilling to use them.”

  While I would agree the KC-135 is unsuited for cargo, the USAF does have the KC-10, which unlike the current KC-X contest was envisioned as a multi-role cargo/tanker from the outset. In fact the KC-10 was originally called the “Advance Tanker Cargo Aircraft” during it’s development phase. I would agree using the KC-135 is not necessarily a good measure, but the KC-10 was developed from the DC-10-30CF as a cargo carrier from the outset.

  The fact that the USAF does not utilize the KC-10 very extensively to carry cargo is a very good measure of the utility of a combination cargo/tanker in USAF service. If the KC-10 was being heavily taxed in it’s cargo role the USAF I would 1) agree that cargo is a valuable metric; and 2) the USAF would have a strong case to make that cargo capacity should be given a higher priority in the KC-X contest. However, given that the KC-10 does not play a significant role in cargo transport the USAF would find it almost impossible to justify giving NG extra credit for cargo even if they did feel that down the road they wanted to increase the cargo utilization of their fleet. If they aren’t using what they have right now there is no way they can justify asking for more in a politically charged contest like this one.

• 56. Sal  |  December 5th, 2009 at 16:10

  

  Excellent points JMBEE, facts the those looking to push the KC-30 down the throats of the American taxpayer overlook.
  Another claim being made by that camp, Dave_BC as an example, is that the C-17 is “at the end of its line”. Well, not exactly… The C-17 production run will be extended by at least USAF 10 aircraft, if the Senate gets it’s way this fiscal year, the RAF is considering another and there are rumors that a large order will be forthcoming from a Middle Eastern customer.
  I would not be surprised to see the U.S. Air Force fleet alone to surpass 250 befor any serious discussion of a production end happens. I wold hope that this Administration takes a long term view of the consequences of both buying the KC-30 and ending the C-17 line.

• 57. Dave_BC  |  December 6th, 2009 at 16:48

  

  “The fact that the USAF does not utilize the KC-10 very extensively to carry cargo is a very good measure of the utility of a combination cargo/tanker in USAF service” etc.

  No, it is not a “good measure”. One cannot just take this old Douglas aircraft and equate it with the Northrop-Grumman KC-45. The argument that the USAF apparently doesn’t find it worthwhile to reconfigure the KC-10 for transport duties is not applicable to the KC-45. For one thing, the KC-10 is very good indeed at refueling just one aircraft at a time. This resultant low throughput necessitates maximum continuous use in the refueling role to make it cost-effective in that primary role. To further exacerbate its relative inflexibility (compared to KC-45), in order to be able to carry out its refueling mission, KC-10 suffers from a similar handicap as the both the KC-135 (and also the proposed KC-767) – namely a large portion of the fuselage volume is taken up with auxiliary fuel tanks (because, like the KC-135 and KC-767, the KC-10’s wings are too small to contain all the fuel needed for the refueling mission).
  The KC-45 on the other hand, has no such constraint. Not only does it offer multi-point refueling, but all the fuel tankage is contained in the wings so a ‘reconfiguration’ into any other support role isn’t necessary.

• 58. ikkeman  |  December 6th, 2009 at 17:54

  

  55. JMBEE | December 4th, 2009 at 19:34
  what makes you think the KC-10 is well suited for pax/freight hauling?

  It carries a max of 27 pallets or a combination of 17 pallets and 75 pax…
  KC-45 offers either 32 pallets, 226 troops or a combination of both at an MTOW (and OEW) about half that of the KC-10.

• 59. Edd  |  December 8th, 2009 at 10:10

  

  It would appear that the reasons for NG’s pullout have been released.

  Relates mainly to the fact that the USAF appears to have adopted many of the Boeing complaints that the GAO rejected, and made the complaints upheld by boeing as mandatory (as opposed to the other option of non mandatory).

• 60. Dave_BC  |  January 8th, 2010 at 11:15

  

  Mike M, to see you in your ‘holier than thou’ mode and castigate B380 with his supposed “racist” comment, is a bit rich coming from somebody who never ceases to delight in attempting to ridicule posters here, with terms like “Euroboy”, and not to mention your liberal use of four letter words on this forum.

  B380’s light hearted and humourous reference was certainly not racist. The only reason you focused on that, is to divert attention away from his reasonal points including those about the troubled 747-8 programme.

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