The Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team is clearly happy to have something new to talk about with regard to its Airbus A330-based tanker. The team made the first dry contact with the new EADS-designed boom during a Dec. 10 flight test.
The first photo (both of which are from EADS) below shows the F-16 aircraft in receiver position lining up behind the A310 test platform. And, the second photo shows a close up of the contact.
Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 vice president, says the purpose of the test was to validate the design of the boom and its hoist and control system. Operators also used the remote workstation onboard the aircraft to control the boom. The hoist caused some earlier problems for the team.
Yet, the team is mum on future milestones. A date to pass fuel in midair through the boom on the A310 to a receiver hasn’t been announced (fuel has been passed on the ground). Nor has a target date been acknowledged for passing gas through the A330-based Australian Multi-Role Tanker Transport to a receiver aircraft. Those are to come.
One thing Meyer isn’t quiet about is his apparent frustration with the Air Force’s decision for a winner-take-all downselect instead of a split buy between the Airbus– and Boeing 767-based designs. He had a handful of reasons why the split-buy strategy makes sense.
There’s industrial base, for one. Meyer says that the relationship between Northrop Grumman and EADS North America isn’t going to hold to the next competition; USAF plans to conduct a competition for a KC-10 replacement, called KC-Y, in 2018. “We are not going to sit here and hold on this current arrangement with EADS for 10 years for the hope that there might be an acquisition program when there isn’t one as a program of record today.”
Furthermore, Meyer says the talk among senior Air Force leaders about ramping up a potential KC-X buy — now between 12–18 aircraft per year up to a total purchase of 179 aircraft — is “confusing.” Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and others are pushing for the White House and Congress to boost the Air Force’s topline procurement budget by about $20 billion per year, mostly to buy higher quantities of F-22s, F-35s and tankers sooner and to retire the legacy airframes more quickly.
“The RFP is 15 per year, plus or minus three. There have been general officers who have made statements that we’d like to accelerate and increase the annual buy to buy out the whole fleet,” Meyer says. “You can’t say that and say there is a KC-Y as well, can you? The statements don’t logically match up.”
Keep up to date on the USAF tanker deal from our Aviation Week friends at Miliary.com.
– Christian
“There’s industrial base, for one.”, has to be the most craven justification on the planet. It is another way of saying, “my product is inferior but you should buy from me anyway, so that you can continue to have the option of purchasing my inferior products.” Why should we spend money for the primary purpose of benefiting the shareholders of Northrop Grumman/EADS?
The services where confused about what to buy in the 90’s when Clinton cut their budgets, too few dollars chasing unknowable future threats. Now with a gusher of dollars they still don’t know what they want for relatively knowable threats(COIN + China and China proxies).
They need to get their act together.
I’ve seen comparisons where the EADS product looks vastly superior on paper.
However, WHY? I mean from an engineering sense, why? The basic airframe and engines aren’t some quantum leap better than the Boeing product. In fact if the US AF wanted the same engines on each contestant, they could just say so. What of the internal equipment? If the EADS stuff is better, simply mandate that it goes into the boeing airframe if that’s more politically palatable.
If the easds product is superior, buy it. They’ll bend over backwards to make a good deal. But I don’t understand the paper comparisons.
> I’ve seen comparisons where the EADS product looks vastly superior on paper.
>
> However, WHY? I mean from an engineering sense, why? The basic airframe and engines aren’t some quantum leap better than the Boeing product.
1. it is the bigger plane which gives it the lead in measurables like range and payload (and leads to the boeing ‘rightsize’ argument)
2. it is the newer plane. The A-330 was designed several years after the 767 so it is a more modern design and has stuff like fly-by-wire and just the advantage of being able to learn from its predecessor’s mistakes
The notional Airbus KC-30 has a few ‘large numbers’ on its paper specification, since the airframe’s larger than the 767. I’m not sure how much this worth, though. Should it be built and work as per the spec, it would carry more fuel for a longer range, but at the cost of requiring longer airfields and larger hangers.
An argument can be made for larger and larger tankers, in which case a KC-747 would make even more sense. But has anyone made a case for very large tankers and the infrastructure to support them?
Please note, the Boeing team has actually built the KC-767, sold it, and is testing production airframes right now. They also have a track record of actually building tankers. So the comparison isn’t apples-to-apples, or even apples-to-oranges. It’s apples-to-I-wanna-grow-oranges. Color me unimpressed.
I will personally kick in $500 of my personal funds against my congressperson if they betray me by voting to procure an EADS tanker. I do not work in the aerospace industry but the thought of the USAF flying foreign tankers sticks in my craw. And no, I do not see the boeing product as inferior. The USAF can order 787 if they need larger planes.
> but at the cost of requiring longer airfields and larger hangers.
the longer airfields actually isn’t clear, there is some talk about the KC-30 being able to use SHORTER runways because of braking requirements when aborting a takeoff at MTOW and some such stuff
as far as hangars, i haven’t seen any definitive info on how many hangars would actually have to be modified. We already have planes with longer wingspans (B-52, C-17, C-5) and planes usually stay outside anyways except perhaps for major maintenance. And besides, accepting a less capable fleet for the next 60 years because of 40 year old hangars? come on, that’s about as lame an excuse as it gets
> An argument can be made for larger and larger tankers, in which case a KC-747 would make even more sense.
except that they would cost more and therefore the USAF would be have to buy less of them which gets to the whole ‘booms in the sky’ argument
many people have argued that if the KC-30 is better because it’s bigger, well Boeing could just offer the KC-777 and blow it out of the water
the key point they don’t realize is that the 777 (and 747) are much, much more expensive than the 767 and they could never meet AF cost requirements with them.
Airbus on the other hand is able to offer the larger (more capable) A330 for THE SAME PRICE OR LESS than the 767. If Boeing could offer the KC-777 for the same price as the KC-767, I would be all over that as it would be a tremendous capability boost. Unfortunately they can’t, and thus i feel the KC-30 is the best choice
> Please note, the Boeing team has actually built the KC-767, sold it, and is testing production airframes right now.
the plane they are flying right now has very little relationship to what they are proposing
if they win the contract, they will design a new model of the 767 called the LRF (long range freighter) which is an amalgamation of at least 3 other 767 models plus some more tweaks
if airbus wins, they will base it off the 330F freighter, which they have already completed design of and have almost finished production of a prototype
airbus is closer to having their proposal flying at this point than boeing does
> They also have a track record of actually building tankers.
before the KC-767 for Japan and Italy, the last tanker they built was over 40 years ago. That just doesn’t carry a lot of meaning in the present
airbus has actually delivered more tankers in the last 10 years than boeing has
as far as Boeing’s trackrecord with the KC-767, it has been far from impressive. They took over 2 years to solve various issues including aerodynamic issues with the refuelling pods. And part of the ‘solution’ was limiting the plane’s top speed.
> And no, I do not see the boeing product as inferior.
why’s that?
> The USAF can order 787 if they need larger planes.
not if they still want to buy 179 of them, they would be too expensive
also not if they wanted substantial deliveries any time soon as the 787 production line is fully booked well into the future
> the longer airfields actually isn’t clear, there is some talk about the KC-30 being able to use SHORTER runways because of braking requirements when aborting a takeoff at MTOW and some such stuff
I here this sort of thing put out there, but I havent seen anything backing it up. If true it is a significant factor.
> We already have planes with longer wingspans (B-52, C-17, C-5)
Yes, but those planes are usually at different basess than the refuelers. In the cases where they are collocated, the bigger hangers wont have the spare capacity to handle bigger tankers.
> And besides, accepting a less capable fleet for the next 60 years because of 40 year old hangars? come on, that’s about as lame an excuse as it gets
But you have to look at the bigger picture, If the AF goes with Airbus, but then has to spend significant amount of money on infrastructure, then they arent really up very much.
> the plane they are flying right now has very
> little relationship to what they are proposing
Yes, but hasnt NG/EADS said that they will switch their airframe as well??
> before the KC-767 for Japan and Italy, the last
> tanker they built was over 40 years ago. That
> just doesn’t carry a lot of meaning in the present
I would suggest that you are very wrong on this. The current and former bomber/recce/tanker flight crewmen that I know are very much in favor of the K-767 because they knoe how good of plane Boeing makes. I wouldnt discount that feeling.
> > And besides, accepting a less capable fleet for the next 60 years because of 40 year old hangars? come on, that’s about as lame an excuse as it gets
>
> But you have to look at the bigger picture, If the AF goes with Airbus, but then has to spend significant amount of money on infrastructure, then they arent really up very much.
having a more capable asset for the next 60 years isn’t being ‘up very much’?
if building new hangars added say 30% to the total contract cost, then yes that would be a problem. But i just don’t see that being the case
744 B-52s were built, less than 100 exist today, there’s got to be some spare hangar capacity around somewhere
(besides i haven’t seen any firm figures about how many current hangars WON’T accomodate the KC-30, who knows, perhaps most of them are large enough as is)
» the plane they are flying right now has very
» little relationship to what they are proposing
>
> Yes, but hasnt NG/EADS said that they will switch their airframe as well??
not that i know of
last i heard they were basing it off the A330F and already had production of a representative prototype well under way
» before the KC-767 for Japan and Italy, the last
» tanker they built was over 40 years ago. That
» just doesn’t carry a lot of meaning in the present
> I would suggest that you are very wrong on this.
> The current and former bomber/recce/tanker flight
> crewmen that I know are very much in favor of the
> K-767 because they knoe how good of plane Boeing
makes. I wouldnt discount that feeling.
they know how good of a plane one particular model is that was designed almost 50 years ago
The A330 has a plenty long commercial record, i trust the KC-X evaluation team to make the appropriate investigations to determine the quality of each prospective airframe
Here is part of a flightglobal article on NG switching airframes.
Northrop Grumman believes its KC-30 proposal will “inevitably” switch airframes to the Airbus A330-200F model if its team wins the $40 billion KC-X tanker contract for the US Air Force.
The switch to the freighter model may have the secondary effect of giving KC-30 team member General Electric Aviation a fresh opportunity to become the third engine supplier for the commercial A330-200F fleet.
“I think [the switch to the freighter model] is inevitable, but right now it’s not in our proposal,” says Paul Meyer, Northrop’s vice-president and general manager for the KC-30 programme. The Northrop/EADS North America team is basing its bid on a passenger A330-200 converted to a freighter, which adds a cargo door and localised strengthening to the upper floor.
That model was chosen because Northrop’s proposal was developed before the A330-200F had received a launch customer, and because the more expensive freighter version would have increased the cost of the original bid, says Meyer. However, now that the A330-200F has a solid customer base and is further along its development path, Northrop believes the dedicated freighter could more prove a attractive candidate to the air force.
LINK: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/09/25/216894/northrop-says-it-will-switch-to-airbus-a330-200f-if-it-wins-usaf-contract.html
Regarding 744 B-52’s built and the resulting hangers. The vast majority of SAC bases that housed the BUFF have been closed. In the current enviroment hanger space is at a premium. I do not know the number of hangers that need to be replaced. It would be interesting to see the number and the cost. Maybe it is significant,maybe it is not.
> Here is part of a flightglobal article on NG switching airframes.
good call, i remember that now
for some reason i was thinking they had already switched everything over to the 330F, obviously not
nevertheless, the 330F is in active development and has real orders
the LRF is a not-fully-developed concept, so i would still say airbus would be able to start production sooner than boeing
The Airbus MRTT is far behind the KC-767 in the production line, and isn’t cheaper.
When the RAAF announced they’d selected the KC-30B over the KC-767A, they stated the acquisition cost for the MRTT was higher. The deciding factors were the larger cargo capacity and 20% higher fuel offload ability. That 20% is a huge issue when you’re talking about buying a total of five refueling aircraft. Those five aircraft cost $1.5Bn, for a unit cost of $300M. The KC-767 is $225M per copy, or less depending on configuration. Please note, the lease-to-purchase deal that got shot down few years back had a final price of $178.7M per airframe, with $40M of that being the purchase price at the end of the lease. I’m glad they saved us from saving $122M per aircraft. For those of you playing along at home, that means that IF we can still get the sweetheart deal we threw away four years ago, we could get a spare squadron of F-22s for each of 10 AEFs with the money we’d save selecting the –767 over the –30.
As for the Airbus aircraft being closer to production, the KC-767 is already in production for Japan and Italy. It’s first dry hookup was to a B-52 in January of this year, and it first transferred fuel in March. The first green MRTT just got airborne, and is further behind on the test regimes.
Don’t get me wrong, the KC-30B is a very nice tanker. It’s just that it’s more expensive, with more expensive infrastructure, and all that money goes to support aerospace manufacturing and design in other countries rather than locally. I say there really has to be a compelling case to discard the old ‘buy American’ principle, and an equally compelling case made if we choose a more expensive aircraft.
The KC-767 lease program had more than a few things wrong with it, but it’s not surprising that delaying a purchase and introducing a lengthy competition would end up adding cost. Back when the lease was proposed, Boeing was hurting for sales and the commercial airline market was pretty unpleasant following 9/11. That’s not the case anymore. In the meantime, replacement of the KC-135 has been delayed even further. The tanker competition could easily be a case where the right decision was made for the wrong reasons.
> is that you Darleen Druyun?
> i don’t think anyone else could call that lease scam a ‘sweetheart deal’
I dont know what to call it, but if it would save 40 — 50 million per plane it sounds good to me. Yes, I know we dont know how much they will cost and that they are slightly different, but it appears that as flawed as that deal was, it might have been better. Of cousre we will have to wait and see the particulers of the current deal to make a true judgement.
irtusk– you have said this.
> Airbus on the other hand is able to offer the
> larger (more capable) A330 for THE SAME PRICE
> OR LESS than the 767.
What is this based on? and you continue to say that we dont know the price of the KC-767. Its my understanding that the KC-767’s will be at leat $50 million less than the KC-30.
> I dont know what to call it, but if it would save 40 — 50 million per plane it sounds good to me.
where are you getting this $40–50 million figure?
neither side has released what their bid is
» Airbus on the other hand is able to offer the
» larger (more capable) A330 for THE SAME PRICE
» OR LESS than the 767.
> What is this based on? and you continue
> to say that we dont know the price of
> the KC-767.
we don’t KNOW, but various aviation figures with wide experience in the industry CAN make educated guesses
– Loren Thompson predicts KC-30 will be offered for same price as KC-767 because Boeing is capitalist while Airbus is beholden to the European governments and will receive subsidies
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1054.shtml
(hey if the europeans want to subsidize our military, more power to them)
– “Long forgotten is the fact that Airbus parent EADS in 2001–2002 offered the KC-330 for a price that was less than Boeing offered the KC-767″
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn020607.doc Why would this time be any different?
> Its my understanding that the KC-767’s will be at leat $50 million less than the KC-30.
1. it’s ‘only’ $40 million
2. that’s the list price, which has no basis in reality. No one buys for the list price. Both companies offer substantial discounts from the list price, it is just that Airbus tends to artificially jack their list price even higher so they can seem to be giving even bigger discounts
> As an addition, relying on foreign products will still weaken local firms. With less sales of local industries, there will be less R&D and will bakrupt local firms.
less R&D? for what? practically every component except perhaps the boom is off the shelf
and the KC-30 will use many, many local suppliers
http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/march_29_2007.htm
GE — engines
Sargent Fletcher — wing pods and drouges
Honeywell — radio management system, mission avionics suite and mechanical systems
Smiths Aerospace — flight management system
AAR Cargo Systems — cargo loading system
Telephonics — intercommunication system
> we don’t KNOW, but various aviation figures
> with wide experience in the industry CAN make
> educated guesses.
YES I UNDERSTAND THAT. The numbers that I am quoting are also speculation from aviation sources. I dont know who’s are better, and at this point it doesnt matter, because it is after all speculation.
> The numbers that I am quoting are also
> speculation from aviation sources. I dont know
> who’s are better, and at this point it doesnt
> matter, because it is after all speculation.
i would still be curious to see who said that
if you happen to have a link i would be much obliged
I originally saw the $200 — $250 million number from GlobalSecurity. I have seen it as well as some lower numbers offered up in the last year or so from other sites as well. It is obviously not anywhere difinative at this point, and we wont know until everything is said and done.
thanks for pointing me to globalsecurity, interesting article
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-767.htm
> According to a December 2001 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimate, the lease plan would cost $26 billion, nearly three times the cost of simply purchasing the planes.
also of interest
> This leasing program also will require between $600 million and $1.2 billion in military construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are too small for the new 767 aircraft.
it sounds like new hangars are going to have to be built no matter what
> it sounds like new hangars are going to have to be built no matter what
SOme might, but the 767 wingspan is only ~25 ft larger than the 135, I would bet that many hanger would just need some minor modifications. Whereas the KC-30’s wing span is ~65 feet wider than the 135.
Interestingly enough the KC-30 is also bigger than the KC-10, but carries much less gas.