Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Why is it so hard to figure out a new tanker aircraft to use?

I mean seriously.

What is the difficulty in making a KC-777? This seems like something that should have been done already.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/200 ... /index.php

F-16.net Sponsor

What's taking so long? The DoD's in the loop...any more questions? Wink

It takes 'em four years to decide how to ask for a sand bucket!

The AF didn't ask for the kind of fuel and cargo lift a 777 offers. For a 777 tanker, there's R&D that needs to be done and paid for on top of basing requirements and restrictions (min/max runway lengths, ramp footprints), environmental impact studies, crew training, ancillary support gear (cargo pallets, loading/unloading gear) etc. etc.. Has Boeing done in-house studies on it? Dunno. But the KC-767 (based on the -200 version) has been proven and is in service for Italy for starters. It wouldn't be that hard to make a US version on the -300 (stretch) frame, IMO. I'd much rather see that chosen than the Airbus candidate. I don't care how much Lockheed says there won't be support problems, when Airbus is involved, problems are a given. And where supporting the warfighter is concerned, the fewer problems, the better.

The KC-767 was a huge political scandal. Several people lost their jobs, and I believe a couple are breaking rocks at Fort Leavenworth right now. Rumsfeld cancelled the contract due to the scandal.

That being said, it looks like it would be a great asset to the tanker fleet, and I would rather see Boeing get the contract for a new tanker over Airbus. As you said Link, Italy already flies the KC-767, so really all of the pieces are in place. Production has already started, so it would be much easier to draw up a new contract for the AF. The proposal from Airbus is still on the drawing board.

Slightly off topic.... re: the 777.. I would love to see a small handful ( maybe a USAF reserve squadron? ) of 777-200LRs set up for general cargo and pax... and have a refuel receptacle. In that by it's very long range ( up to 18 hours endurance ) many times it wouldn't need to suck up tanker resources if used well. And could be used for a variety of general use fetch and carry stuff.

I saw Boeings traveling roadshow tanker demo ( a walk in sim in a 18 wheeler ) a few months ago. Kinda neat. The dump truck ( 200 series Laughing

) if it gets in to USAF service will have a 400 series controls ( 767-400s are very much like a 777 controls )... ( Italian has standard 200/300 series cockpit and I guess the Japanese would too? { don't know } )

What`s wrong with Airbus A-330-200? It can haul much more fuel than a 767, apparently.

Or am I opening a huge ......

777 would fill the role better... Its larger, but not much larger.

snypa777 wrote:

What`s wrong with Airbus A-330-200? It can haul much more fuel than a 767, apparently...

The decision won't be based solely on fuel off-load capacity. If it were, the A330 would've been chosen by now. What's it gonna cost to set up an entirely new infrastructure and logistics train to support a jet of foreign design? Again, Airbus claims there won't be the support headaches one might expect with a project like this. And they all but guaranteed that, in the event the US does somethin' of a foreign policy nature that the EU doesn't care for, the spare parts chain will remain unembargoed.

Sorry....but I'm not willin' to risk our warfighter support based on unproven promises. You wanna win me over? Prove to me that the American team member and its suppliers can build and maintain the support chain for the "KC-330" (or whatever it's called) entirely independent of any EU/Airbus input. That means component and airframe manufacture and overhaul, training, cost controls, upgradeability, etc. etc.

Until you do that to my (i.e. the taxpayer's) satisfaction, my money is still with Boeing.

(BTW....nice can o'worms!) Wink

Northrop Grumman as you know was going to manage KC-30 with production in Alabama ( can you hear the sound of more political pork? Laughing

) A330 is a fine aircraft. However we are dead broke. KC-30 some are saying would have come in almost 40mil more per airframe compared to the KC-767s 120 mil per airframe. Part of that would be I am sure creating a whole new plant in Alabama etc. U.S. workshare for both products would be about the same ( Boeing ain't all U.S. components and Airbus has some U.S. components already in them ). Add to that NG thinks they can't meet USAF requirements for the contract. ( Too much tanker capability per airframe )... they tried some PR of tail ( vendor ) wagging the dog ( customer ), but USAF isn't going to budge on the requirement. Which is strange as if price were such an issue why not a tanker variant of the A300/600F which is still in production for customers like FedEx etc. ( yes we know there is a tanker variant of the A310 also ).... Hmmm.... I am sure if NG pulls out, this will really be a huge mess. Boeing "winning" by default won't make some congressmen happy. Especially if they come from Alabama or their name is John McCain. Laughing

Guys, cost is always the main driver, the UK is still tossing and turning over tankers for the RAF. At this rate, we will end up with one A-400M which will do air refueling-cargo transport-airborne assault drops AND ferry VIPS around.!

What numbers of tankers are we talking about in the USAF fleet? A large order will almost certainly be "Made in the USA". It`s almost a no brainer.

elp wrote:

Northrop Grumman as you know was going to manage KC-30 with production in Alabama ( can you hear the sound of more political pork? Laughing

) A330 is a fine aircraft. However we are dead broke. KC-30 some are saying would have come in almost 40mil more per airframe compared to the KC-767s 120 mil per airframe. Part of that would be I am sure creating a whole new plant in Alabama etc. U.S. workshare for both products would be about the same ( Boeing ain't all U.S. components and Airbus has some U.S. components already in them ). Add to that NG thinks they can't meet USAF requirements for the contract. ( Too much tanker capability per airframe )... they tried some PR of tail ( vendor ) wagging the dog ( customer ), but USAF isn't going to budge on the requirement. Which is strange as if price were such an issue why not a tanker variant of the A300/600F which is still in production for customers like FedEx etc. ( yes we know there is a tanker variant of the A310 also ).... Hmmm.... I am sure if NG pulls out, this will really be a huge mess. Boeing "winning" by default won't make some congressmen happy. Especially if they come from Alabama or their name is John McCain. Laughing

So basically, the USAF wants the KC-767 due to it's size and capabilities being equal or slightly better than the KC-135, even though it's fuel weight is limited by it's takeoff performance. They can't get the KC-767 without a competition of some kind and the only competitor that stepped forward was the KC-30. But now NG possibly won't tender the KC-30 because they think the USAF won't take into account it's advantages over the KC-767 into the final decision. The KC-30 has the disadvantges of being a foreign, more expensive aircraft with possible tarmac weight and size issues with the existing infrastructure. If the USAF DOES take the KC-30's advantages into the final tally, then Boeing will tender the KC-777 again one upping the KC-30. It's problem is it's the solution for the question nobody has asked yet.

The outcomes would likely be:

KC-767 loses because NG doesn't submit a competitor.
KC-767 loses because the USAF takes into account the KC-30's advantages.
KC-767 and KC-30 lose because Boeing tenders the KC-777 to trump the KC-30.

So any way this turns out the USAF doesn't get it's preferred choice.

Well, from a certain point of view, the USAF will get a preferred choice, which is ultimately to have a replacement for the 135.

As for what airframe is chosen? I still think it will come down to either drawing up a new contract for the 767, or going with the 777. Why? Boeing's experience in the tanker biz, and they already have the production lines/infastructure in place.

The problem I could foresee with the 777, is that I don't believe we'd be able to buy as many, as we could the 767. Boeing makes a great jet, and the AF knows this. The AF will likely stick with what they know. Had the "Bomber Generals" still been running the show, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

TC wrote:

Had the "Bomber Generals" still been running the show, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Sure we would, but it would probably be a what if situation and take place after the first 100 aircraft had entered service 2 years ago. They would have needed them for the 200+B-2's and upcoming next gen bomber. Funding wouldn't be a problem since the F-22 and 35 wouldn't be in production. Hopefully by then we would have found a way to drill through the radioactive glass parking lot in Iraq to reach the oil there. Twisted Evil

elp wrote:

....why not a tanker variant of the A300/600F which is still in production for customers like FedEx etc. ( yes we know there is a tanker variant of the A310 also )....

In case nobody's heard, Airbus will shut down the A300/310 line sometime soon (perhaps 2009) to concentrate on A320 and later models. However I haven't seen a concrete date yet.

Well, whatever they choose, they'd better make up their mind fast - or else...

Sucks the McDonnel Douglas is no more.., those KC-10s are supposedly really awesome.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

A new tanker aircraft...