KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS

[alexsa]

Just for accuracy, the KC-45 will use the GE CF6-80E1A4B which has a 72,000 lb thrust per engine.

The PW4062 selected by Boeing to power the KC-767 has a 62,000 lb thrust per engine.

So the "a bit" is defined as a 16% difference in thrust.

No argument but the "bit" comment related to fuel burn as opposed to max power. The comparision was trying to look at airframe drag compared to max economica speed and the standard airdraft figures suggest the A330 airframe will not have the drag penalty Rimaz is trying to suggest hence the comment about bit in respect of ruel burn.

Lets face it his exmaple had the aircraft burning 15 tonnes more fuel on the same mission profile.

 

[rjmaz1]

Lets face it his exmaple had the aircraft burning 15 tonnes more fuel on the same mission profile.

It was only an estimate but i dont think its that realistic.

The KC-30 has a maximum takeoff weight 24% higher than the KC-767. If both aircraft had the same aerodynamics the KC-30 would consume 24% more fuel over the same distance.

Now the KC-30 has 111 tonnes of fuel without the auxilary tanks. Thats 26,600 kg extra fuel that the KC-30 had to burn to reach the max range of the aircraft when compared to the KC-767.

Now the KC-30 is more fuel effecient so my estimate of 15 tonnes wouldn't be far off reality. If its a short mission then of course it will be considerably less than 15 tonnes.

 

[guppy]

It was only an estimate but i dont think its that realistic.

The KC-30 has a maximum takeoff weight 24% higher than the KC-767. If both aircraft had the same aerodynamics the KC-30 would consume 24% more fuel over the same distance.

Now the KC-30 has 111 tonnes of fuel without the auxilary tanks. Thats 26,600 kg extra fuel that the KC-30 had to burn to reach the max range of the aircraft when compared to the KC-767.

Now the KC-30 is more fuel effecient so my estimate of 15 tonnes wouldn't be far off reality. If its a short mission then of course it will be considerably less than 15 tonnes.

rjmax,

excuse me pls as I don't quite follow the logic of your post. The A330 airframe is more fuel efficient and can carry more fuel to offload to receivers. Thus the end result is that it can probably fly further and provide more fuel to more receivers. It does not really matter if it takes XX tonnes more fuel to fly a certain distance. The logic is very simple. If the jet needs to fly YYYY nm without refuelling, the pilots would compute fuel requirements (including reserves for alternate airfields etc) and then ask for that certain amount of fuel to be pumped into the jet. This minimizes AUW (all up weight), resulting in greater fuel economy. This is practiced by airlines as well. In a max AUW configuration, if you compare both solutions, the A330 will arrive with more fuel to give receivers. If there aren't that many receivers or for certain missions, the A330 would be able to loiter for a longer period to provide contingency AAR etc if necessary.

I think you have also misunderstood my point about numbers do matter. Just look at the B-2 fleet. The recent crash meant a loss of more than 1 billion USD, plus at least a 5% loss (1/20) of B-2 capability. The same goes for maintenance matters.

The USAF has justified to congress X tankers to meet a certain operational requirement. They cannot now ask for more tankers just because it is cheaper. The acquisitions process in most westernized countries are as follows:

Some operatoonal need/requirement articulated clearly. e.g. we need tankers to do xxx, yyy, zzz

Translated to specific ops requirements, technical specs etc e.g. tanker must be able to do xxx, yyy, zzz, and based on scenario A2431a, we would need 123 tankers.

Look for potential solutions, OTS(off the market) or develop/R&D etc

Narrow down the list of potential solutions that meets all needs.

Then choose the cheapest solution.

Thus based on this process, the USAF will not get more tankers. They will just get it cheaper.

cheers

guppy

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[guppy]

....Based on my reading of the GAO report, I don't think the AF even conducted any cost-benefit analysis of this basic requirement.

Neither do I think so. But I would think it is quite obvious for them based on current day needs.

cheers

guppy

 

[superhornet]

it's all about money. if USAF has unlimited budget, this controversial arguement will never happen. Congress wants a cheap tanker built by domestic manufacturer, but air force is inclined to choose expensive one. however, Congress controls money... at the same time, air crews are still desperately waiting for next-generation tank to replace its aging KC135

 

[Sea Toby]

Reality is that it is somewhere in between...how much, nobody really knows.

Based on my reading of the GAO report, I don't think the AF even conducted any cost-benefit analysis of this basic requirement.

How can they know for sure exactly until both aircraft are delivered and flown? Anticipated numbers are not necessarily exact are they?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[radiosilence]

Still, the AF has chosen to go ahead with a new tender. I suspect the tight deadline of a Dec selection is to prevent Boeing from preparing a proposal for the B777. My reading is that the ultimate selection is already decided in favour of the KC-30. This new tender will merely correct the offending details.

.

I was watching Gates press briefing yesterday and the impression i got is that the december deadline is not set in stone so to speak.




Quote from the press briefing.

Q Is Boeing welcome to submit a different aircraft? It has said that it was not fully aware that the Air Force wanted an aircraft that was perhaps larger than the 767 that it bid. If it does, will you still be able to meet your December goal for source selection?

MR. YOUNG: I want to be clear. You know, the December time frame is a goal, and it's -- we have a timeline that would have us take a number of steps to try to do that, including independently looking at the RFP, independently looking at -- you know, another oversight team observing the source selection evaluation process. So I think we have measured time to do it.

If significant things change -- for example, if there is a lot of dialogue about the RFP -- the schedule will gradually slip. I mean, it's a day-for-day schedule. That is the best case, to make the source selection decision by the end of the year.

You know, I'm using the acquisition term of art, and that is, they get to submit modified proposals. But legally, modified proposals mean they can totally change their proposal, and that would include features of what they originally proposed or features -- or a totally new product, if you will. So I believe they will have full license to totally change their proposals in the modification process.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4260

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[ColdWarrior]

Trivia Pursuit: Which US Air to Air fighter is falling apart in the sky?

I rest my case, cos I am getting too biased. No offence to anyone.

cheers

guppy

While I do agree with the sentiment, Boeing can't really be held accountable for the fighter falling apart in the sky. The recipient of those honors would have to go to the defunct McDonnell Douglas corporation who built it (the same who built the AH-64). Boeing just assimilated the company.

But I too am completely biased based upon personal dealings with buyers from Boeing.

 

[guppy]

Cold Warrior,

You do have a point but I don't see why maintenance was unable to foresee the structural fatigue. Structural fatigue was a problem on the F-16 as well, but you don't see them falling out of the skies the way the F-15 did. Do remember that this is not exactly the first such incident. There was a speed limit imposed after an incident with the vertical stabilizers of the Eagle. Also don't forget that the F-16s were hauling a lot of iron, slapping on a lot of systems, targeting pods, HTS etc etc. The eagles were just carrying tanks and missiles.

How does one explain the situation?
(1) Boeing is incompetent and is unable to insure the quality and safety of its aircraft
(2) The company lacks the will and commitment to insure the safety of the aircraft it builds or
(3) a combination of both.

None of the above speaks very well of the company. Won't even talk about the dishonesty issues.

Cheers

Guppy

 

[ColdWarrior]

You do have a point but I don't see why maintenance was unable to foresee the structural fatigue.

Because it would have required the complete disassembly of the forward fuselage to spot the metal fatigue from my understanding of the failure. That is a major maintenance inspection which is performed during a rework, or total overhaul of the airframe. So if the structural member fails before a milestone event is reached requiring a rework, the member fails and an airframe is lost. At that point Boeing and the Air Force revise the maintenance and inspection schedule to monitor the affected components more closely after inspecting the fleet.

Do remember that this is not exactly the first such incident. There was a speed limit imposed after an incident with the vertical stabilizers of the Eagle.

The prior problem was associated with the vertical stabs as you pointed out; not the main structural member which was the attachment point for the forward fuselage and the main fuselage.

It is logical in hindsight that Boeing AND the Air Force should have grounded the fleet and performed some serious inspections on the airframes, but they didn't. Cost and operational requirements might have been a factor in the decision.

How does one explain the situation?
(1) Boeing is incompetent and is unable to insure the quality and safety of its aircraft
(2) The company lacks the will and commitment to insure the safety of the aircraft it builds or
(3) a combination of both.

I'm not defending Boeing's actions or lack thereof, but Boeing isn't the sole guilty party here. The Air Force shares the blame as well for their own lack of inspections which should have been performed. The older an airframe the more inspections you need to be performing, especially on high performance aircraft. Airframe failure is not a question of if. It's a question of when.

 

[guppy]

....

It is logical in hindsight that Boeing AND the Air Force should have grounded the fleet and performed some serious inspections on the airframes, but they didn't. Cost and operational requirements might have been a factor in the decision.

Yes, cost might have been an issue. Ops rqt, perhaps. But why? USAF air sup has been unopposed for years. The extra inspections could have been reworked into phased servicing.

I'm not defending Boeing's actions or lack thereof, but Boeing isn't the sole guilty party here. The Air Force shares the blame as well for their own lack of inspections which should have been performed. The older an airframe the more inspections you need to be performing, especially on high performance aircraft. Airframe failure is not a question of if. It's a question of when.

Yes, the USAF should be faulted for trusting Boeing, for trusting their maintenance manuals and recommended maintenance routines. They should have approached the problem with Boeing with mistrust and apprehension that one usually accords to a car salesman, and implemented extremely intensive (and expensive) maintenance programs well and above recommended by Boeing. I think the USAF has learnt their lesson well and have applied it to the KC-X program but of course it is not politically correct

I wonder if Boeing inherited the same shoddy worksmanship and quality of McDonnel Douglas.

 

[ColdWarrior]

Yes, the USAF should be faulted for trusting Boeing, for trusting their maintenance manuals and recommended maintenance routines. They should have approached the problem with Boeing with mistrust and apprehension that one usually accords to a car salesman, and implemented extremely intensive (and expensive) maintenance programs well and above recommended by Boeing. I think the USAF has learnt their lesson well and have applied it to the KC-X program but of course it is not politically correct

I wonder if Boeing inherited the same shoddy worksmanship and quality of McDonnel Douglas.

You are allowing your personal dislike of the company to cloud your reasoning. You "want" Boeing to be responsible when in fact, the problem was a result of some issues created by McDonnell Douglas.

As advanced as manufacturing processes are today, not all problems can be foreseen until a few thousand flight hours down the pike when a catastrophic failure highlights an issue, or some keen eyed maintainer spots the problem. This was human error. But to imply that Boeing knew of the problem and ignored it is completely illogical. That would amount to corporate suicide.

 

[guppy]

You are allowing your personal dislike of the company to cloud your reasoning. You "want" Boeing to be responsible when in fact, the problem was a result of some issues created by McDonnell Douglas.

As advanced as manufacturing processes are today, not all problems can be foreseen until a few thousand flight hours down the pike when a catastrophic failure highlights an issue, or some keen eyed maintainer spots the problem. This was human error. But to imply that Boeing knew of the problem and ignored it is completely illogical. That would amount to corporate suicide.

Oh well, I certainly don't deny that I don't have much liking for Boeing. I am certainly human. But it does not detract from some facts:

1. Dishonesty in the initial award of the KC-X program
2. Structural failures resulting in ppl getting hurt.

Never did imply that Boeing knew about the problem beforehand. Implied that they were not committed and were more interested in other things. Only Boeing themselves know how much committment they have in the program.

Personal experience: Even the front end ppl are not as motivated as other US companies in understanding user requirements. I will certainly not name examples, but I get the standard "we are the biggest and the best so you should buy from us" attitude from them and not the "what should we be doing to serve your needs best?" attitude.

Right from the beginning, I have already admitted that I am biased.

cheers

guppy

 

[shrike]

Pentagon cancels KC-X tanker competiton

Pentagon Cancels Tanker Competition

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122105210879619199.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

and the confirmation:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809101004DOWJONESDJONLINE000588_FORTUNE5.htm

I`m aware of the difficulties and stakes and stakeholders involved, but this is getting ridiculous. The competitions (at first a possible lease) are going on since at least 2003. We are talking here about the replacement of one of the oldest air fleets in the world. Crucial for the support of logistics, long ange flights and providing persistent presence in the air

 

[ColdWarrior]

I`m aware of the difficulties and stakes and stakeholders involved, but this is getting ridiculous. The competitions (at first a possible lease) are going on since at least 2003. We are talking here about the replacement of one of the oldest air fleets in the world. Crucial for the support of logistics, long ange flights and providing persistent presence in the air

Instead of looking at what is good for the service, it has become yet another political grab-fest. The fleet is in need of a replacement and DoD doesn't have the clout to tell Boeing tough stuff, you lost the competition; deal with it.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[ColdWarrior]

Gates said he’s been assured that the current KC-135 fleet can be adequately maintained to satisfy Air Force missions for the near future, and sufficient funds will be recommended in the fiscal 2009 and follow-on budgets to maintain the KC-135 at high mission-capable rates./QUOTE]

I don't doubt that at all Weasel. Of course it would be more economical to spend the money on new aircraft that are more fuel efficient and less of a maintenance headache. Of course the money they are spending isn't a big deal. It's not like it comes out of THEIR pockets after all...