weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS
- Thread starter Magoo
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I'm talking the use of the tanker as a cargo aircraft. The multirole in MRTT...
Commercial operators look at cost per passenger mile. Why should the USAF not look at pallet and passenger mileage?
I don't know why you try to divert into the tanker part.
You are letting x and y jet travel from a to b, then comparing them discounting what work has actually been done. This does not reflect the true cost per amount of work.
Underlining the importance of the cargo aspect and that the KC-45 is probably cheaper per pallet mile.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I have not contended that the cargo role made up for ½ or a 1/3 or whatever, but I do have the observation that the cargo role is currently done by C-17 and C-5. And that is an inefficient way of transporting palletized cargo.
So perhaps it is more important in the mission complex relative to the tanker mission, than the "KC" prefix suggests.
You are contending that a transport jet carrying pallets will reach MTOW before it bulks out when loaded - is this so? That would be the premise for what you claim.
I agree we cannot know precisely what the USAF wants from the aircraft. But the USAF knows and made their choice.
Actually I see a lot of advantages of the KC-45 over the KC-767. Where they differ a lot is in the passenger/transport part, just as more fuel is carried further with less consumption of fuel per lb mile.
What caused me to respond is that the Boeing paper on fuel consumption is every bit as "pseudo" (and perhaps even selective?) as the way I lay out things here, that I see no problem with my "pseudo math". Because it is on the same qualitative level. Actually mine provide a more accurate description, as I look at cost of the work carried out, rather than looking at the fuel consumption of two jets flying from A to B. That it is not perfect evaluation, well... but it is closer to reality. If it is just A to B without taking into account what has been accomplished by doing so, then a Cessna is even cheaper.
It has to be viewed in terms of the work done. What has been accomplished...
Lastly wrt to MRTT,
It seems the MRTT part is very important in context of the current and future overall USAF structure. Best value in contrast to the cheapest solution that makes the requirement.
Last edited:
Nope, it's buying a MRTT, to replace existing MRTTs. The current KC-135s & KC-10s transport cargo as well as acting as tankers. The USAF wants aircraft which can carry cargo & passengers as well as refuelling, and says so, to anyone who'll listen. Transport capability is defined as a secondary need, but it's in the System Requirement Document.
Gen. Norton Schwartz, Commander U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) testified to the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on April 4th 2006 that "What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane to go wherever we need to take it....if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive. But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25 years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission airplane to me makes sense"
And in this statement dated 27-09-2007 he said "The KC-X must be a dual-mission aircraft capable of multi-point refueling, have significant cargo and passenger carrying capability, and be equipped with appropriate defensive systems. The KC-X will not only fulfill its primary refueling role, but also provide an array of enhanced mobility solutions. A tailored cargo and passenger carrying capability will multiply our transportation options and mitigate wear on the C-17 and C-5."
He said exactly the same in this statement on 21-03-2007
In view of the consistent statements by the officer in charge, & the existence of a formal requirement for the KC-X to be multi-role, perhaps you will reconsider your suggestion that it's "suddenly" become a MRTT.
BTW, both NG/Airbus & Boeing complained during the evaluation that the cargo/passenger requirement statement was too vague, so it was hard for them to know exactly what to offer. It looks as if betting on it being more rather than less significant was the right call. Perhaps NG/Airbus were paying more attention than Boeing to what the USAF was saying about what it wanted.
Last edited:
I'm getting tired of this. You supply some evidence, & so will I. You made the first claim about top speed: back it up. You made the first claim about runway length: back it up. You made the first claim about range: back it up (and remember that absolute range is irrelevant in this context - it has to be range at which useful amounts of fuel can be offloaded). Etc. You can't make unsubstantiated claims then demand that others disprove them, & call what they say "Absolute rubbish" until they do.
So far, I've provided infinitely more evidence than you, because I've provided some. Put up or shut up.
Oh, and I don't need to provide any links to prove that every professional evaluation of the two aircraft has favoured the A330. The evidence is staring you in the face. As I said - 5 evaluations, 5 selections of the A330. What more proof could you ask for?
There's none so blind as he that will not see.
QUOTE:weasel
Do you prefer traditional tanker to multi-mission tanker. If there is project
to make, choosing between short-range transmission t.ex. from
Danmark to Belgium, which one you'd thought to be better suited to
fulfill this mission requirement.
Organizational tier up to supporting role, relative conclusions, your mission
relevance is peg to these capabilities you do consider as importance.
Do you prefer traditional tanker to multi-mission tanker. If there is project
to make, choosing between short-range transmission t.ex. from
Danmark to Belgium, which one you'd thought to be better suited to
fulfill this mission requirement.
Organizational tier up to supporting role, relative conclusions, your mission
relevance is peg to these capabilities you do consider as importance.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
You mean the KC-45 and not he KC-767, right? 
I hope for the USAF that the decision is not overturned. I think either tanker would have worked out. I don't really care about the jobs that might be lost, because America, being the biggest economy in the world, has always been able to cope. Neither do I care about the politics. What I am concerned is that when the warfighter needs some gas, he gets it. Getting the decision blocked and redoing the tender will only do one thing => increase the probability that the guys are not going to get the gas when they need it.
cheers
guppy
cheers
guppy
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Ah ok. I thought it was because USAF apparently had understimated KC-45 opreational cost.
superhornet
New Member
cheer for USAF
USAF choose a right plane. i really admire USAF which can hold a clean competition and make the best chosse. i like USAF rather than china air force. no tanker , no awacs, no jammer, forget it. it has been reported china has been developing tanker, while i don't see any trail. Is IL-76 is a good platform for a tanker?
as for KC-30, its main contractor is Northrop Grumman, which has lost three major bid . it can't bear another failure. so why USAF choose Northrop Grumman, i think in a large sense, it want to break the monopoly of boeing in tanker and cargo plane. if N G lose the contract, probably it will quit the avion market. this will enhance the lookheed Martin's leading position in plane manufacture.
USAF choose a right plane. i really admire USAF which can hold a clean competition and make the best chosse. i like USAF rather than china air force. no tanker , no awacs, no jammer, forget it. it has been reported china has been developing tanker, while i don't see any trail. Is IL-76 is a good platform for a tanker?
as for KC-30, its main contractor is Northrop Grumman, which has lost three major bid . it can't bear another failure. so why USAF choose Northrop Grumman, i think in a large sense, it want to break the monopoly of boeing in tanker and cargo plane. if N G lose the contract, probably it will quit the avion market. this will enhance the lookheed Martin's leading position in plane manufacture.
radiosilence
jints
Boeing wins tanker protest, but drama is far from over
Looks like its back to square one.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008004116_webboeing18.html
Looks like its back to square one.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Perhaps. Funnily enough, USAF doesn't have to agree with this and can plough on ahead anyway...
Non of this detracts however from the fact that the KC-30B IS a better air to air refueller than the KC-767.
Boeing's bid based a large proportion of it's "risk management" on the fact that it has built KC-767's and nominally had them in-service with current air arms around the world (Italy in particular).
It will not be able to claim even this marginal advantage with a KC-777, which IS why it was never provided to USAF in the Boeing proposal and won't be even if the competition is opened again for a 3rd time...
Last edited by a moderator:
radiosilence
jints
I don't think the AF will ignore the GAO recommendations because ultimately congress controls the funding. Also, this deal has become a big political issue.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
"Where the GAO comes from" is whether the process was followed correctly. In this case, it appears not. It looks as if the USAF may have decided which aircraft it wanted, then used the evaluation to justify its decision, not the other way round.
Unlike last time, where Boeing & the procurement office were so deep in its others pockets Boeing may as well have been running the whole thing, nothing has emerged to suggest any dirty tricks by EADS or NG.
Fuel capacity is only one of the measures the KC-45A (not KC-30B - that's an Australian designation) scored higher on, BTW.
What should be done is not to re-open the whole process, but to evaluate the points where the USAF did not follow the process correctly, & decide whether they made enough difference to affect the result. Probably not, IMO.
Personally, I think Boeings complaints should be treated with contempt. Remember, this is the firm that last time had no credible competitor, & would have walked away with a fat contract for 767 tankers, if it had played it straight. But it couldn't resist cheating.