Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Quote:

I am demanding nothing, of anybody. Neither is any Euro` government.

I will remember that next time technology transfer and work share are discussed.

Quote:

No. All you are interested in is made in the USA. It`s that simple. Everything else is just bluster.

Bluster has nothing to do with it. Unless it is significantly more expensive or it cannot be made here it should be sourced here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to keep as much national wealth , jobs and expertise at home as possible. Do you have any problem with that?

Quote:

They are two huge contracts involving jobs share, transfer of technology, remember, a UK company is actually making the fueling system. Some comparisons are perfectly valid. It is extremely naive, nay foolish, to believe that NG won`t require access to EADS systems.

You keep getting confused. The A-330 is a commercial jetliner. FBW is nothing new. There is no economic or technical benefit from having access to the plans, source code or anything else. Hell half the stuff in there was invented here anyway. You cannot say the same thing for the JSF, it’s weapons, sensors or anything else. There is a very big difference between it and a common passenger jet. As for the refueling system please don’t make me laugh. It’s been done already over here.

Quote:

There is a newer system being offered and you bought it.

I bought nothing and it remains to be seen what the USAF will buy.

Quote:

Fact is, the DoD and the USAF are stating that the A-330 was the better choice

Again, it is irrelevant. Both choices met or exceeded requirements. In fact you should read Elliboom’s comments. His is not the minority view of the boom operators. Once the requirements are met after that it’s all about money and jobs.

Quote:

I find it ludicrous that anyone can attack EADS or the Euro` defence industry for offering a product, getting a buyer and sealing a deal. My God

I agree. I just reread my posts and I cannot see where you came to that conclusion. My problem is with my government. I am merely illustrating to you why we should not be buying the EADS product. Nothing against EADS, it's just business.

F-16.net Sponsor

Thumper3181 wrote:

Bluster has nothing to do with it. Unless it is significantly more expensive or it cannot be made here it should be sourced here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to keep as much national wealth , jobs and expertise at home as possible. Do you have any problem with that?

There goes free enterprise!!!! I understand you wanting to keep jobs solely in the US, Unfortunately the Global market place doesn`t allow that any more. There is a huge cross flow of parts and technology now.
US firms will do just fine out of the deal. I agree that a Boeing deal would have provided more work in the US, but somebody in your government doesn`t like Boeing very much it seems.

Thumper3181 wrote:

You keep getting confused. The A-330 is a commercial jetliner. FBW is nothing new. There is no economic or technical benefit from having access to the plans, source code or anything else. Hell half the stuff in there was invented here anyway. You cannot say the same thing for the JSF, it’s weapons, sensors or anything else. There is a very big difference between it and a common passenger jet. As for the refueling system please don’t make me laugh. It’s been done already over here.

No confusion here. There are parallels between the deals in certain aspects. It IS about an economic and technical aspect, it would be illogical to replicate EADS owns systems with US ones just to pacify some congressmen, unless the EADS tech` is inferior or doesn`t meet mission requirements. On the refueling system, of course the US has the technology, but you are NOT using it on the A-330. NG WILL require access to it`s subsystems. What about the FLCS? Read up on it.
Of course this program and it`s details are not identical, I never said they were, just similar in some aspects, making a comparison fair.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Quote:

Fact is, the DoD and the USAF are stating that the A-330 was the better choice

Thumper3181 wrote:

Again, it is irrelevant. Both choices met or exceeded requirements. In fact you should read Elliboom’s comments. His is not the minority view of the boom operators. Once the requirements are met after that it’s all about money and jobs.

Not at all, the DoD, USAF and your goverment have made that call. It will be even more relevant when the A-330 gets to the wings....

Thumper3181 wrote:

I agree. I just reread my posts and I cannot see where you came to that conclusion. My problem is with my government. I am merely illustrating to you why we should not be buying the EADS product. Nothing against EADS, it's just business.

Thumper, your posts have been full of attacks against Europe and our firms, I am not going to re-post them, they are hardly transparent. If you meant what you said in your last paragraph, then great.

Some reassurance about the hardware...

EADS Completes Successfully 1st Flight Test phase A330 MRTT Aircraft

News Category: [Defence-Air] (Madrid, February 14, 2008) -- The first A330 MRTT prototype MSN747 has landed today at EADS MTAD facilities in Getafe, Madrid at 12:15h local time after completing Phase 1 of the flight testing that has been primarily devoted to civil certification. EADS MTAD has officially announced the conclusion of a key Australian A330 MRTT programme milestone.

Flight Test Phase 1 has been conducted in just 3 months logging up a total of 63 flights and 202 flight hours.

During this phase, the A330 MRTT has proven to be extremely reliable fulfilling the flight test programme in accordance to the flight test schedule. The A330 MRTT has behaved as expected, showing that the modifications introduced to the MRTT configuration (including refuelling pods and boom) had no significant effect on the aircraft's performance. The flight test programme has met all defined test objectives. The flight test campaign was oriented to analyze the behaviour of the aircraft with regard to the following disciplines: anemometry & clinometry, handling qualities, buffet, flutter, loads, performance, flight controls (new tanker and receiver adapted control laws), new autopilot mode (bank angle) and the antenna re-location.

The results of loads, performance and handling qualities measured during flight test have shown full consistency with the data calculated by design. Also, it has been verified that the aircraft is Buffet-free and Flutter-free in the whole flight envelope until maximum design speed (MD/VD) after the military modification.

During this flight test phase, the full flight envelope has been validated and no limitations or restrictions have been found.

In addition to the above disciplines involved in the civil certification, the following military development tests have also been performed: Hose deployment and stability, proximity flights in receiver mode (A310 Boom demo acting as tanker) and proximity flights in tanker mode (F18 acting as receiver).

The flight control laws that have been successfully tested and will provide the aircraft superior handling qualities characteristics in the new roles of the aircraft as tanker and receiver. To enhance the capabilities of the aircraft an electronic tail bumper has also been incorporated to minimize the possibility of a tail-strike at take-off.

The Flight Test Phase 1 has been conducted at Getafe and Toulouse depending on the requirements of the flight test program, involving EADS MTAD and Airbus Flight Test organizations. In addition, the RAAF crew has also participated in some of the flight test activities.Additionally, the Phase 1 Flight Test Programme has also included formal certification flights with the participation of the civil European Authority (EASA).

The reliability of the modified A330 MRTT and its state-of-the-art flight test instrumentation has been outstanding: Not a single flight has been delayed or cancelled due to a technical failure. This is a good example of the excellent capabilities this aircraft will provide to the RAAF

Some words from another forum....

Boeing has stated the 777 was unsuitable for the tanking role.

The 787 is way too big.

Out of 5 major tests, the A-330 won 4 of them, drawing the 5th.

The 767 cannot take off with the maximum fuel load from a 10,000ft runway whilst the A-330 can. The A-330 has a better short field performance.

The 767 tanker the Italians are now using came 5 years after they signed the deal and it was plagued with technical issues, including an extensive redesign of it`s refueling systems.

The 767 is NOT an all American aircraft, major parts are built in Japan and Italy.http://www.custac.buffalo.edu/docs/OccasionalPaper30.pdf

Boeing says "there will be no layoffs, personnel will transfer to other lines and areas", like B-787, ICAV, etc. There might be fewer replacements for retiring/voluntarily-leaving workers, but no layoffs. If Boeing had won the KC-X, they had planned on hiring up to 9,000 more workers over the next few years, however.

Apparently, some sources claim there are enough remaining B-767 orders to keep the line open until ~2012 at the current, reduced production rate.

Experts from the US Lexington Institute said that the A-330 deal over the Boeing proposal was a rout.

If the Pentagon "LIED" to Boeing about the requirements for a new tanker, they would actually have broken US law.

Just some things to chew on folks, what do you think?
I don`t know enough about the deal and the technicalities to give all my own views fairly, that is why I chose quite a well informed forum and it`s members for the quotes...

Oh, and it seems the USAF will have little trouble explaining the decision on the technical and economic aspects.

I know it is not over, the smelly stuff has indeed hit the rotating impeller politically, the problem then, is that the USAF doesn`t get it`s much needed tankers for a long time....

snypa777 wrote:

Oh, and it seems the USAF will have little trouble explaining the decision on the technical and economic aspects.

I know it is not over, the smelly stuff has indeed hit the rotating impeller politically, the problem then, is that the USAF doesn`t get it`s much needed tankers for a long time....

You're absolutely right. The problem is the politicos have to explain to their relatively ignorant constituents back home why the hated Frenchies are building the correct aircraft the USAF needs as opposed to the "home" team's aircraft which was as far as anybody with any understanding of the military & aerospace industry knows was inferior. I had hopes the A330 would win, but like 99% of the world (outside of the reporters for the Malaysian Sun- who knew then, huh?) my cynicism wouldn't let me believe it would ever happen. Now that it has, it's now up to self servers in DC to try to tear it apart.

Heaven help them if we have a spate of -135 crashes while this is help up in their BS.

snypa777 wrote:

Oh, and it seems the USAF will have little trouble explaining the decision on the technical and economic aspects.
I know it is not over, the smelly stuff has indeed hit the rotating impeller politically, the problem then, is that the USAF doesn`t get it`s much needed tankers for a long time....

Lightndattic wrote:

You're absolutely right. The problem is the politicos have to explain to their relatively ignorant constituents back home why the hated Frenchies are building the correct aircraft the USAF needs as opposed to the "home" team's aircraft which was as far as anybody with any understanding of the military & aerospace industry knows was inferior. I had hopes the A330 would win, but like 99% of the world (outside of the reporters for the Malaysian Sun- who knew then, huh?) my cynicism wouldn't let me believe it would ever happen. Now that it has, it's now up to self servers in DC to try to tear it apart.

Heaven help them if we have a spate of -135 crashes while this is help up in their BS.

Many people are saying that this is a wake up call to Boeing. Boeing "assumed", like so many others, that they would be handed the contract just because, well, it is the done thing. Did Boeing work hard enough to best the NG/EADS bid? Were Boeing complacent? Only Boeing will know this.

This is a view I have seen put forward summarizing the implications of the deal, there may well be far more.
This may well push up the bar for US defence contractors selling to their own government. That can only benefit the US military and the tax payer, forcing contractors to deliver the best product for the best price, including foreign competition, instead of being a three way divvy up between LM, Boeing and NG. This is what competition does, it is a pillar of the marketplace.

snypa777 wrote:

Oh, and it seems the USAF will have little trouble explaining the decision on the technical and economic aspects.
I know it is not over, the smelly stuff has indeed hit the rotating impeller politically, the problem then, is that the USAF doesn`t get it`s much needed tankers for a long time....

Lightndattic wrote:

You're absolutely right. The problem is the politicos have to explain to their relatively ignorant constituents back home why the hated Frenchies are building the correct aircraft the USAF needs as opposed to the "home" team's aircraft which was as far as anybody with any understanding of the military & aerospace industry knows was inferior. I had hopes the A330 would win, but like 99% of the world (outside of the reporters for the Malaysian Sun- who knew then, huh?) my cynicism wouldn't let me believe it would ever happen. Now that it has, it's now up to self servers in DC to try to tear it apart.

Heaven help them if we have a spate of -135 crashes while this is help up in their BS.

Many people are saying that this is a wake up call to Boeing. Boeing "assumed", like so many others, that they would be handed the contract just because, well, it is the done thing. Did Boeing work hard enough to best the NG/EADS bid? Were Boeing complacent? Only Boeing will know this.

This is a view I have seen put forward summarizing the implications of the deal, there may well be far more.
This may well push up the bar for US defence contractors selling to their own government. That can only benefit the US military and the tax payer, forcing contractors to deliver the best product for the best price, including foreign competition, instead of being a three way divvy up between LM, Boeing and NG. This is what competition does, it is a pillar of the marketplace.

I also hope that this helps reduce the growing incidents of absurdly low bids to win a contract, then not surprisingly HUGE contract price increases 2-3 years into it with MASSIVE penalties for canceling the contract. Basically, the company promises the world for X dollars and when they can't deliver, they want X * 2 to cancel the initial waste of money (See A-12, VH-71, etc.).

Quote:

Some words from another forum....

Boeing has stated the 777 was unsuitable for the tanking role.

The 787 is way too big.

Quote:

I agree. I just reread my posts and I cannot see where you came to that conclusion. My problem is with my government. I am merely illustrating to you why we should not be buying the EADS product. Nothing against EADS, it's just business.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Quote:

The 787 is way too big.

Wow, that's a genius observation from wherever that came from. If the 787 is too big then why did the A330, which has a MTOW 70,000kg greater, win? Rolling Eyes

That may have been a typo, with 777 being the intent.

Guysmiley wrote:

Quote:

The 787 is way too big.

Wow, that's a genius observation from wherever that came from. If the 787 is too big then why did the A330, which has a MTOW 70,000kg greater, win? Rolling Eyes

May have been a typo... Shrug

Typo. Yeah guys, you got me. JW nailed that one. Apologies. I figure the poster was talking about the largest 777-300ER, which is bigger than the A-330. I suppose it depends on version?

Boeing has said the triple 7 is unsuitable anyway, AND the 787 doesn`t have the structural margins to make it a suitable tanker, according to Boeing. Please correct me on the figures, I have taken them literally.

BTW, the A-330 has a MTOW of around 230 tonnes. The largest projected 787 will haul 245 tonnes off the deck. The smallest around 165 tonnes. As said, Boeing have ruled it out anyway, another poster commented on 787 "bendy wings", whatever that means! People bend the facts to make a case on forums, that is why I put them before the excellent people on F-16.net to cast your eyes over and pull them apart, if required, or seconded.

Some of those posters may be off the mark, thats why I put those in for discussion.

John, I also read that the 767 and 777 produce some of the strongest wake vortices and turbulence of any commercial jet. Compared to the relative calm behind an A-330. They were obviously exaggerating to make a case but what do you make of it?

Quote:

Boeing has stated the 777 was unsuitable for the tanking role.

They never said that about the 777. In fact they asked the air force which airframe they would prefer and the Air Force said 767 due to the fact that they would have to perform major infrastructure upgrades at many airbases to accommodate the extra weight and wingspan. The situation is the same for the A330.

Don't believe me, read it here.
Executives wanted to convey their sense that the company was misled by the Air Force. If Boeing had known the Air Force was seeking a plane with more fuel-carrying capacity and cargo space, say company insiders and a congressional source, it would have based its proposal on the larger Boeing 777 instead of the 767. The statement by Mark McGraw, Boeing's vice-president for 767 tanker programs, sidestepped some of the details but got to the point: "There may well have been factors beyond those stated in the [Air Force request for proposal], or weighted differently than we understood they would be, used to make the decision."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... =rss_daily

Quote:

The 787 is way too big.

Actually Boeing said that the 787 may be unsuitable because there is at this time no way to integrate the extra fuel tanks. The 787 is about the same size as a 767. MTOW for 767-300 is 412,000lbs, 787- 3 is 364,000lbs, A330MRTT is around 460,000lbs.

Quote:

Experts from the US Lexington Institute said that the A-330 deal over the Boeing proposal was a rout.

1. How would they know? No one has gotten the debrief and so far no one that knows is talking.
2. What we do know is that the requirements where changed as late as last year in order to get EADS to bid.

Quote:

Oh, and it seems the USAF will have little trouble explaining the decision on the technical and economic aspects.

Eh, really? How do you know that?

Quote:

is that the USAF doesn`t get it`s much needed tankers for a long time....

Maybe you are getting your information from the wrong forums.

“Most experts agree that the R-model and T-model will continue to operate economically well into the new century. The R-models maintenance capability and reliability rates are among the highest of any weapon system AMC operates, and its operating cost is the lowest.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... r-life.htm

According to the Air Force, the Mission Capable Rate for KC-135 tankers is 81 percent-the highest in the Air Force inventory. For comparison purposes, the KC-10 fleet is entirely in the active component, and the 59 KC-10s had an average mission capable rate during the same period of 81.2 percent.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... c-135e.htm

The Boeing 767 leasing proposal was intended to allow the rapid retirement and replacement of the KC-135Es. Audits have shown it would cost about 15 times more to lease a modified 767 than to re-engine a KC-135E.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... c-135e.htm

In fact re-engineering and repairing the struts to bring the KC135E up to R standard is by far cheaper than buying new.

Quote:

The problem is the politicos have to explain to their relatively ignorant constituents

Excuse me. Ignorant, I don’t think so. Perhaps you would like to back up with the facts why? In fact there is much more going on here than meets the eye. Do a bit of research. The Air Force is playing games, not Congress. The tankers are not falling out of the air and they are not going to stop flying anytime soon.

Quote:

The 767 is NOT an all American aircraft, major parts are built in Japan and Italy.

No one ever said it was. Depending on type US content is anywhere between 74 and 90 percent.
(Global Competitiveness of U. S. Advanced-Technology Manufacturing Industries)
http://books.google.com/books?id=iMN_GH ... 0gU8&hl=en

Far better than 58 percent don’t you think? Lets also keep in mind we are not comparing like products. The 58 percent number EADS trots out is when they take militarize the airframe and the addition of all the systems that will make an A330 into a KC-45. The 74/90 percent number for the 767 is for the civilian airliner alone. Add in all the military stuff and the US content goes up even further.

It really once again comes down to first does the Air Force really need a new tanker now or would upgrading the KC-135Es do for now. Second given the tight budgets and all the other pressing DOD needs should additional money be spent on a tanker with additional capabilities or should money be saved to spend on other items by buying the tanker that meets the needs but may not exceed them. Third, if we are going to be spending so much money why are we spending it offshore when we can get something that does the job at home.

The Air Force is the one playing games here, not Congress. Rather than request the money to modernize the KC-135Es they tried to retire them. Congress told them they could not do that (they are ANG planes) without a suitable replacement. They tried to lease 100 KC-767s and McCain scuttled that deal. The Air Force is now being cute and selecting the “best” tanker that will cost the most and will be least likely to be approved by Congress. In the generals eyes they cannot lose. They either get a new tanker with additional capabilities and a ton of money to upgrade ANG bases around the country or at worst they get what they originally wanted, KC-767s.

snypa777 said:

Quote:

John, I also read that the 767 and 777 produce some of the strongest wake vortices and turbulence of any commercial jet. Compared to the relative calm behind an A-330. They were obviously exaggerating to make a case but what do you make of it?

Generally wake turbulence is related to gross weight, so I'd be surprised if the 330 has less than the 767. Tip winglets may affect wake turbulence, so maybe the 330 winglets help.

However, the turbulence is mostly at the wing tips, so shouldn't seriously affect an airplane being re-fueled by a boom. The same cannot be said for probe refueling near the tips.

As far as "bendy" wings go, what's the problem? Thinner wings bend more, but can be just as strong as stiff wings. Boeing has evidently made the 787 wings thinner for reduced drag.

Last edited by LMAggie on Mar 07, 2008 - 07:08 AM; edited 1 time in total

johnwill wrote:

Generally wake turbulence is related to gross weight, so I'd be surprised if the 330 has less than the 767. Tip winglets may affect wake turbulence, so maybe the 330 winglets help.

However, the turbulence is mostly at the wing tips, so shouldn't seriously affect an airplane being re-fueled by a boom. The same cannot be said for probe refueling near the tips.

As far as "bendy" wings go, what's the problem? Thinner wings bend more, but can be just as strong as stiff wings. Boeing has evidently made the 787 wings thinner for reduced drag.

The purpose of winglets is to reduce the induced drag due to wing vortices. So they should make a significant difference in wake turbulence. As far as the implications of wake turbulence, I can only speculate. I would agree that during fuel transfer, wake turbulence wouldn't be an issue. But during your approach to the tanker, maybe? Then again, if the KC-10 is doing just fine w/o winglets, this is probably a moot point. On flexible wings, john is right, theres nothing wrong with it. But during refuel ops (and this is extreme speculation) a flexible wing might abruptly move the drogue during refueling given some strange scenario. But probably another moot point.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

KC-X: And the winner is......