KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS

[kato]

Can't blame Boeing for wanting to keep American jobs.

Airbus, as part of the contract, performs:
- final assembly in Alabama
- mission equipment installation in Alabama
- refueling equipment construction in West Virginia

Northrop claims to create 25,000 jobs in the US due to this.

 

[swerve]

Can't blame Boeing for wanting to keep American jobs....

Boeing doesn't give a toss about American jobs. Look at the 787.

The Airbus is certainly better except for the range, cost, comparison to fuel load requirements, fuel consumption, short field take-off, maintenance cost, ..., less experience at tanker ops, lower top speed, etc... Very obvious indeed.....

Odd that all the professionals who've evaluated the two aircraft, including those who'll be using them, disagree with you on the relative merits of the two aircraft.

Can anyone guarantee that Airbus will do it on time and on budget? Considering that the budget risk is definitely higher with a higher cost plane (parts will be more exp for a ferrari than a ford)......

Look at their relative performance on recent tanker contracts. Boeing is 3 years late, due to technical problems, the problems being more severe on the aircraft which most closely resembles that offered to the USAF. Biggest delay for Airbus is less than a year, due to changed customer requirements, having had a very smooth development. Which would you bet on to get the next one right?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Grand Danois]

Let's have a look at which jet is the most fuel efficient...

From http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/FuelConsReport.pdf

First the assumptions:

• The Airbus 330-200 consumes about 24% more fuel than the B 767-200ER. This results in the A 330-200 consuming 2.24 billion gallons more fuel for the projected fleet of 179 aircraft over a 40 year service life at 750 hours per year

...further

Total Fuel Cost (179 Aircraft) -- $ Billion
Oil B 767-200 A 330-200 Difference
$/Barrel with A 330-200
- 750 Hrs/Yr & 40 Yrs $ 100 $103.0 $128.0 $ 25.0
- 750 Hrs/Yr & 40 Yrs $ 125 $122.7 $152.5 $ 29.8

...and...

Total Fuel Consumption (750 Hrs/Yr & 40 Years)B 767-200ER A 330-202
Average per Hour 1,722 Gallon 2,139 Gallon
Total 750 Hours/Yr 1,291,135 1,604,344
Difference per Year 313,210
Total 40 Years 51,645,390 64,173,774
Difference for 40 Years (1 Aircraft) 12,528,384
Difference for 40 Years (179 Aircraft) 2,242,580,721


This analysis assumed that both fly similar commercial mission profiles, both fly 750 hoursper year and both are operated at their maximum take-off gross weight at the start of eachmission profile and/or their maximum landing weight at the conclusion of each mission profile.

However, what is left out is that the Airbus carries 32 pallets vs the 19 of the Boeing. In other words fuel efficiency has to be normalised to fuel/distance/cargo to get a comparable metric.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/kcx tanker2.jpg

Pallets is the right measure, as the jet will bulk out before it reaches MTOW.

(19 pallets/32 pallets) x 1.24* = 74%

* The extra fuel used qua the Airbus being bigger.

In other words, the Airbus uses 3/4 the fuel per pallet carried on the same mission profile. Or 26% less fuel.

The Boeing report alledges:

Oil at $125 per Barrel
Budget Summary (40 Yr) B 767-200ER A 330-200
Fuel Budget (40 Years) $685,712,408 $852,055,780
Difference (One Aircraft) $166,343,372
Difference (179 Aircraft) $ 29,775,463,505

However, if only carrying pallets on the mission profile used in the Boeing report, and the total number of pallets to be carried are fixed, the USAF only need use 3/4 the fuel used if they went with the Boeing. Or they can carry a thord more pallets for the same fuel.

Savings on fuel by chosing the Airbus: (1-74%) x 29.8 bn USD = 7.8 bn USD.

 

[Magoo]

The point being that Boeing despite 3 years late has started delivery of the same aircraft that offered to the USAF to its current customers. Isn't that the basis that Boeing offered the -767? That it represented the least risk?

But it's not the same aircraft. The KC-767 for the USAF uses -200F fuselage, -300ER wings and fin, -400 undercarriage and trailing edge - a combination that is yet to be built let alone tested. The A330MRTT/KC-30 is further along its development path than the USAF KC-767.

I don't know the relative merits of the two aircraft well enough to comment on whether or not the USAF made the right decision, however it's blatantly obvious that on a 1v1 comparison, the 330 is a more capable aircraft than the 767. But was this a criteria for its selection? I guess that's what the GAO will decide in about 93 days.

Magoo

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Grand Danois]

That's science fiction math.

To put it simply. You're assuming that the airbus will need all 32 pallets at anyone time whereas the B767 will need 1.5 flight.

If the Airbus carries only 5 pallets on a flight flight, the fuel consumption will not be 1/6. It will still be the amount of fuel burn for the entire flight.

In the REAL world, such flights will never be full and fuel will never be fully carried all the time. The Air Force is not looking for a cargo plane. Its looking for a tanker.

On an average sortie, the B767 will burn less fuel than the A330. Not surprising.

You'll notice I corrected a calc error in my prev post. Nope not science fiction. It is as simple and crude as the Boeing report !!! So if mine is crude, then so is the Boeing report.

The mission profile in the Boeing assumptions are used in my calc. Either they are valid or they are not.

Agreed that cargo space is mostly not utilised fully, however, as the tanker replacement will relieve the C-17 for carrying inter-theatre cargo, I think it has been a MAJOR factor in chosing the Airbus.

If you want to carry 5 pallets - buy aircraft for that, not a 767 or 330.

If the volume work is to carry lots of cargo overseas, the Airbus seem to fit the req the best. Instead of having expensive C-17's doing it.

 

[Sea Toby]

Stop the press. I hate to inform the citizens of Washington state, but Mobile where the Airbus will be assembled is in the state of Alabama, oh...... in the United States of America. Go Bama!

If any company based from the United States of America is the biggest, most multi-national, it is Boeing. Boeing has done more off shoring than just about any other company. Boeing isn't attempting to sell us an all American built airplane.

 

[swerve]

.Oh, you mean the airbus has

(i) a longer range,
(ii) lower cost,
(iii) fits fuel load requirements better,
(iv) better fuel consumption,
(v) better short field take-off,
(vi) lower maintenance cost,
(vii) EADS has more experience at tanker ops than Boeing=
(viii) higher top speed?

Is that what the DOD said that won Airbus the order? Link please.

(i) For any given fuel offload, yes - it can offload that amount at a greater distance from base.
(ii) I don't know. But since the A330 MRTT has been on the market, it's won every competition (i.e. 5 out of 5) with the 767. I think it may have lower cost per ton of fuel delivered.
(iii) The USAF thinks it fits their requirements.
(iv) Per ton of fuel delivered, yes.
(v) Maybe not at max T/O weight. But with a given fuel load? And there seems to be no dispute about its shorter landing run. Published evaluations show that it can use shorter runways than the 767.
(vi) I'd bet on this one. It's a much newer design, & everyone has been designing for lower maintenance.
(vii) Point to Boeings recent (i.e. those by the people who will build any new tankers ordered) successes, not those by people who have died or retired.
(viii) The commercial A330 is marginally faster than the 767. The Italian KC-767s have been speed-limited to well below the A330 MRTTs speed by flutter problems caused by the wing refuelling points.

.
The point being that Boeing despite 3 years late has started delivery of the same aircraft that offered to the USAF to its current customers. Isn't that the basis that Boeing offered the -767? That it represented the least risk?

Boeing has begun delivery of aircraft which are not the same. The Japanese aircraft which are now being delivered have a boom, but no hose pods. The Italian aircraft with wing pods are still being worked on for the previously-mentioned flutter problem (note that the USAF wants wing hose pods). And then there are all the differences noted by Magoo, which I believe mean Boeing will have to start all over again with the wing pods, since IIRC the Italian aircraft have different wings.

.
The Air Force is not looking for a cargo plane. Its looking for a tanker.

Not what the USAF says. It says it wants it to do both, and carry passengers as well.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The point being that Boeing despite 3 years late has started delivery of the same aircraft that offered to the USAF to its current customers. Isn't that the basis that Boeing offered the -767? That it represented the least risk?

That's what Boeing are trying to argue, but they are trying to gloss over the fact by presenting their aircraft as an "off the shelf" aircraft, when in fact it's a never produced before variant incorporating design features from a range of OTHER 767 variants...

The A330 is the only "off the shelf" aircraft in this competition.

I notice Boeing is also trying to argue that if USAF wanted a bigger aircraft than the 767 they should have put that in their requirements and Boeing could have offered a bigger aircraft.

What a pathetic argument. So COULD Airbus...

 

[swerve]

...
The A330 is the only "off the shelf" aircraft in this competition. ...

I believe it's not quite off the shelf, but the KC-45A offered to the USAF is much closer to the Australian A330 MRTT than the 767 version on offer is to any existing 767.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Grand Danois]

Let me put it in even simpler terms. Its like saying the F-15 has a better fuel consumption than the F-16 because it is a heavier jet using ~slightly more fuel. Can't argue with the logic but only get laughed at.

Tot I put it even easier. Ferrari vs Ford. Ferrari is heavier but fuel consumption on per lb basis is lower than Ford. So Ferrari has better fuel consumption according to you whereas Ferrari actually uses more fuel per km/nm driven compared to the Ford (which is what Boeing is saying and I'm agreeing).

Uhm no. That's not my argument. My argument doesn't care which one is the heaviest or carries the most fuel. It only cares about which jet uses the least fuel to do a specific task (the fuel cost of a "pallet mile"). In this case the 330 will break even at 24 pallets no matter what config of the 767. Because it is a van compared to a sedan. the van may use more fuel, but also carries more. This is left out of your car/fighter jet analogy.

If the USAF is looking into the future and expects the typical load will be greater than 24 pallets, then the 330 should win this parameter (per the assumptions of this thread, since it may break even a lot earlier than that).

It is crude and ballparkish, but to me it seems that the USAF has a need to carry lots of cargo economically.

Sorry, in your case, its not even per lb. Its per pallet. So because the F-15 carries more fuel tanks, hence its fuel consumption is even lower. That's the logic I am supposed to agree to...

You are contending that a transport jet carrying pallets will reach MTOW before it bulks out when loaded?

The "pallet mile".

 

[Sea Toby]

A 787 has 70% foreign parts. From what I have been able to find on the world wide web, the 767 has at least 15% foreign parts. Therefore, who knows what percentage of parts would be foreign if Boeing won the contract. At least 15% and possibly up to 70%. It all depends upon who Boeing buys the parts from. One thing is known, Boeing has been looking more overseas lately for parts. Read link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,540438,00.html

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted