Comments on: Winner –Take-All Tanker Deal Criticized

By: NTV

NTV — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:40:21 +0000

> 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.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:09:19 +0000

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

By: NTV

NTV — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:22:55 +0000

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.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:20:13 +0000

> 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

By: NTV

NTV — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:51:46 +0000

> 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.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:15:12 +0000

> 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

By: NTV

NTV — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:16:47 +0000

> 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.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:00:43 +0000

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.

By: AhzeeDahak

AhzeeDahak — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:15:19 +0000

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.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:01:45 +0000

> 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