And this from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell…some interesting tidbits (edited for brevity):
There has been absolutely no change in this building’s position on that contract. As the secretary has said time and time again, this is the number-one acquisition priority of the Air Force. It has to be. It is 10 years overdue.
The average age of this fleet is 47 years old. These plans desperately need to be replaced, not yesterday, not the year before, but 10 years ago. Any further delay would be a real problem.
And we believe that the acquisition and the contracting process that eventually produced Northrop Grumman and EADS as the winner of this deal was a fair and transparent one. It was very deliberate.
And we believe it provided the American taxpayer with — we believe it provided our warfighters with the most capable aircraft and the taxpayer the most cost-effective solution to this very real need of replacing the tanker fleet.
Nothing really new here. Of course the Pentagon is going to back their service’s decision. But what I think is interesting in Morrell’s comment is the idea that the decision was the “most capable” aircraft and the “most cost effective” one. That’s more than just a stock endorsement. It’s a value decision.
Then it got really interesting…
I think our people felt very secure about the contracting process. Obviously, the eyes of the world were upon the Air Force, as they were pursuing this contract, and in light of what had happened with the previous attempt to award this contract.
Precisely. It’s hard to argue any underhandedness here and that somehow the wool was pulled over Boeing’s eyes for this very reason.
More:
You know, I know there’s been a lot of concern in Congress about this and the impact that this contract may have on the loss of jobs in particular states. And the secretary has told Congress time and again that the only factors that they are allowed to consider when letting these contracts is cost and capability.
And that if they wish to change the contracting criteria to include the impact on jobs, they should be aware of the potential impact that would have on U.S. military companies, because they do an awful lot of business overseas. And you run the risk of opening the door to retaliatory trade restrictions that would ultimately have a far greater impact on domestic jobs than perhaps this one contract will.
Kudos to Colin for recognizing this aspect in yesterday’s post. And clearly the Pentagon is worried about the health of the defense sector and its ability to sell systems worldwide.
– Christian
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
“And you run the risk of opening the door to retaliatory trade restrictions that would ultimately have a far greater impact on domestic jobs than perhaps this one contract will.”
That is laughable. The Fear of Man in the name of Political Correctness. The US should have a spine instead of playing to the fear of man. To borrow a DT poster’s idea, shall we as a nation sleep with the devil just to have two more coins to rub together?
When will you moros realize that the PRIME contractor is Northrop Grumman an AMERICAN company! They are going to build the assembly plant in ALABAMA not france! As a matter of fact EADS said it would build their military cargo planes in ALABAMA, that doesn’t sound like losing jobs overseas. Yes 40% of the airplane will be made in Europe but Boeings tanker would have parts made in Italy and Japan is there a double standard here?
Where were Geoff Morrell’s comments about the desperate need for new tankers in 2004? When there was NO debate over which was the RIGHT tanker for the USAF only over which was the best way to get them.
Mr. Morrell can BELIEVE anything he wants about “most capable” aircraft and the “most cost effective” one but the FACTS say he is full of s..t if he believes that aircraft is the KC-30.
It really is pathetic to chose a VITAL US military platform BECAUSE it originates overseas & our so-called ‘allies’ will be upset if we chose a BETTER homemade platform instead. What will be the next contract that “has” to come from overseas so that somebody won’t be upset?
Chris Barreno,
No double standard. Just some people (unlike you) understanding the difference between a FINAL ASSEMBLY plant & a MANUFACTURING plant. The basic airframe, wing, refueling boom, et cetera (basically all the major STRUCTURE) of the KC-30 would be MANUFACTURTED in Europe, flown to the US & ASSEMBLED in Mobile AL.
Yes parts of the KC-767 will be manufactured in Japan & Italy et cetera but VAST MAJORITY of it will be MANUFACTURED & ASSEMBLED in the US. Based on the claimed content %, the KC-767AT would put ~$30 billion of a $35 billion contract (come on, we all know full well it will end up more than $35 billion) into the US economy & the KC-30 would put ~$20 billion into the US economy. So in effect, chosing the KC-30 over the KC-767AT results in a net LOSS of ~$10 billion to the US ecomomy. I guarantee that some of that ~$10 billion would be lost jobs.
DO NOT be fooled into thinking that since NG is billed as the primary contractor that the KC-30 IS NOT still primarily a European aircraft.
Please note that this is only a minor issue for me compared to the MUCH more important fact that the Boeing 767 is the RIGHT platform for the KC-X & the Airbus A330 is the WRONG platform for the KC-X based on the USAF tanker requirements & operational experience.
It seems far too many people have yet to realize (or are incapable of/unwilling to) the implications of replacing KC-135s with a tanker that is larger (both length & wingspan) & heavier (operational empty weight, not max take-off weight) than the KC-10, C-17 & B-52! Yes the KC-30 poseses good take-off performance but just because an aifield has a runway long enough for a KC-30 to take-off DOES NOT mean that the KC-30 can realistically operate from said airfield &/or in viable numbers. AND just because the KC-30 CAN carry more fuel &/or cargo than the KC-767AT DOES NOT mean that in real operational situations that it WILL!
> It really is pathetic to chose a VITAL US military platform BECAUSE it originates overseas & our so-called ‘allies’ will be upset if we chose a BETTER homemade platform instead.
um, you have it exactly reversed
they would be upset because we chose a platform solely because it is the domestic solution over the BETTER overseas solution
> Chris, there is absolutely no protection against interference from either the Russians or Europe.
you don’t understand how these contracts work
research this issue and then come back when you’re more informed
> The Russians bought 5% of EADS
and then EADS instituted caps on foreign ownership and Russia sold their stake
> Especially when base infrastructures around the world cannot support the huge size of the A330.
it can’t handle the 767 either, which is why the original lease deal included a substantial chunk of change to upgrade facilities around the world
facilities will have to be upgraded regardless of which plane is chosen
> but the Air Force rejected the KC-777 proposal because it was declared as “too big”
don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument . . .
the airforce didn’t reject the KC-777 because Boeing never proposed the KC-777
> The 767 works with current infrastructure and requires little upgrade to worldwide base infrastructure
again you are incorrect on this point
> So in effect, chosing the KC-30 over the KC-767AT results in a net LOSS of ~$10 billion to the US ecomomy.
1. and you continue to ignore the other benefits that having an airbus assembly plant here provides. They have already committed to assemble all A330Fs here if they get the contract and it is very likely that they would move other types too
2. we owe it to our men and women in uniform to give them the BEST, which in this case is the KC-30
> MUCH more important fact that the Boeing 767 is the RIGHT platform for the KC-X & the Airbus A330 is the WRONG platform for the KC-X based on the USAF tanker requirements & operational experience.
that’s funny, the AF seems to disagree with you on that point
> AND just because the KC-30 CAN carry more fuel &/or cargo than the KC-767AT DOES NOT mean that in real operational situations that it WILL!
obviously it won’t in every situation, but when you need it, you really need it
> the implications of replacing KC-135s with a tanker that is larger (both length & wingspan)
are practically nonexistent
the KC-30 has greater range so it gives more basing flexibility
the KC-30 has greater capability so it doesn’t need as many to fulfill the same job as the KC-767
tarmac space isn’t that difficult to add
> & heavier (operational empty weight, not max take-off weight)
and the KC-30 includes an extra midline gear from the A340 to help with the weight distribution (which is what really counts) so that there isn’t that much of a difference between the two
Will there be a compromise with EADS and Boeing sharing the pie with both manufacture the new tanker?
irtusk,
YOU are the one who has it backwords. IF the KC-767 was chosen or going to be chosen solely because it is the domestic solution then there would NEVER have ANY competition in the 1st place (which there have now been TWO – the 1st not being much of a competition since REALITY ruled over “fairness” & the 2nd was a debacle since “fairness” to one particular competitor [which was otherwise noncompetative] ruled over reality)!
Note that prior to all the MAJOR political pressure it was a “no brainer” that the Boeing 767 was the right platform (note that the USAF began looking into the KC-135 replacement in 1996) & that the Airbus A330-200 was a “non-started” because it was too big & too heavy.
I do agree however that these doomsdayers claiming that chosing the KC-30 will beholden the US to foreign powers in order to use them is nonsense.
Yes the USAF DID reject the KC-777 when Boeing asked if it prefered a KC-767 or a KC-777. Boeing never officially proposed a KC-777 BECAUSE the USAF told them they did not want it.
MUCH of the current infrastructure CAN operate the KC-767. Yes some infrastructure improvement is warranted for its full capabilities to be utilized & such improvements were included in the KC-767 lease deal. BUT the KC-30 REQUIRES A LOT more infrastructure improvement than the KC-767 & the KC-X selection conveniently left that out…Quite significant now that the USAF admits that the KC-767AT is in fact less costly then the KC-30 (funny how the VERY small % cost difference was sooo significant when it was in the KC-30′s favor but now that it is KNOWN to actually be in the KC-767′s favor it is insignificant).
How about you weigh the benefits of the Mobile Alabama ASSEMBLY plant vs those of keeping the 767 MANUFACTURING up & running…Don’t forget that with all that the airline & other industries which utilize airliners & airliner-based freighters are going thought COULD in fact revert the market BACK to 767-sized aircraft (not saying it will but it COULD). ;)
The very small % of the situations were the KC-30′s greater CAPACITY would be utilized is almost inconsequential compared to the VAST MAJORITY of the situations where it would be left UNUTILIZED. Hell much (dare I say most…) of the situations will not even require the full capacity of the KC-767AT (…yes I dare since most of the time even the KC-135′s full capacity is unutilized). AND when ever you “need” the additional fuel capacity you have the KC-10 with more than TWICE again more fuel capacity over the KC-30 than the KC-30 has over the KC-767AT (~110,000 lbs vs ~44,000 lbs) [THIS really is the death nell for the KC-30, despite its size & weight its fuel capacity is ONLY ~22% or ~44,000 lbs greater than the KC-767 & the VAST majority of the time much of said capacity is either REQUIRED due to having to operate from more bases farther away or unutilized YET even though LARGER than the KC-10 it carries 110,000 lbs LESS fuel than the KC-10 - the KC-30 is simply too big & heavy to be a realistic KC-135 replacement & lack the fuel capacity to be a realistic KC-10 replacement]. If/when you “need” the additional cargo capacitly you really should be using a dedicated cargo transport rather than a tanker anyway. :)
The implications of replacing KC-135s with a tanker that is larger (both length & wingspan) & heavier (operational empty weight, not max take-off weight) than the KC-10, C-17 & B-52 are HUGE! And the amount of infrastucture improvement REQUIRED to alleviate much of those implications runs 11 figures (that’s more than $10 billion).
The KC-30 DOES NOT have greater basing flexibility. It REQUIRES that it operate from MORE bases farther away because it CAN NOT operate at some bases that the KC-767AT can & even those that it can it can only operate in FEWER numbers & at some with LESS payload in order to keep its take-off weight down. And of course the KC-767AT EXCEEDED the fuel offload requirement by some 20% so it is in NO way lacking in that capability based on the stated requirement.
You are confusing CAPACITY with CAPABILITY. Capacity is only one factor of capability & greater capacity DOES NOT necessarily translate into greater capability once you put other factors into account. :)
Adding Tarmac space IS more difficult & more expensive that you wish it were. Yes it can be done but unfortunately the KC-X program did not include this in their evaluation so one must either assmume KNOW infrastructure improvement or that it was deliberately left out KNOWING that it would make the KC-30 uncompetative (& we couldn’t have that now could we).
I think your (& many others) biggest problem is that you are just looking at the “numbers” & not realizing/knowing what those numbers REALLY mean in the REAL WORLD & how they relate to each other in the “big picture”.
>> and then EADS instituted caps on foreign ownership and Russia sold their stake
That is wrong and you know it. The state-owned bank VTB sold their shares to United Aircraft Corporation, again another state-owned corporation. Then it sold it off to VEB, again, another state-owned corporation after EADS bought 10% interest in UAC. Guess when that happened, December 2007. Putin has direct influence into VEB because he’s been controlling it to handle the debt and other interest of Russia.
>> it can’t handle the 767 either, which is why the original lease deal included a substantial chunk of change to upgrade facilities around the world
That’s actually wrong. The size of the KC-767 hardly a change to the size of the KC-135. The AF does not have the capabilities to upgrade immediate infrastructure to suit the KC-45 that already can host the C-17, a smaller plane.
>> the airforce didn’t reject the KC-777 because Boeing never proposed the KC-777
Wrong again, Boeing did pitch the idea of the KC-777 which was based on the concept of the 777-200ER. But the USAF told them they were not interested so it was not introduced into the official competition for the KC-X contract.
>> again you are incorrect on this point
Prove it then. The increase from a KC-135 to KC-767 is 11 to 26 feet increase. Whereas the KC-135 to KC-45 is 67ft for the wingspan, 56ft for the length, and 16ft for the height. Especially when they are designated for bases like Kadena AB which needs to upgrade the entire base infrastructure to replace the entire refueling fleet stationed there. You’re talking about a plane that is bigger than the C-17 that was required to meet the capabilities of all bases across the US. The C-5 Galaxy cannot go to all bases around the world that the C-17 can do. They are limited to international airports & big transport bases like Moron AB, Dover, McChord, and several others.
>> and then EADS instituted caps on foreign ownership and Russia sold their stake
>
> That is wrong and you know it.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5fc7f6a2-ebbb-11dc-9493-0000779fd2ac.html
the long and short of it no foreign power will gain a controlling interest in EADS
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060915/ai_n1673948
EADS will never give Russia a seat on the board
this is such a non-issue it’s not even funny
>> it can’t handle the 767 either, which is why the original lease deal included a substantial chunk of change to upgrade facilities around the world
>
>That’s actually wrong.
you’re saying the original deal didn’t include money to upgrade facilities to handle the 767?
i just want to make sure that’s really what you’re saying before i blow your claim out of the water
> The size of the KC-767 hardly a change to the size of the KC-135.
and yet it is bigger
if it doesn’t fit, it doesn’t fit and work must be done
>> the airforce didn’t reject the KC-777 because Boeing never proposed the KC-777
>
>Wrong again
see why i’m right again in my previous response
>>> The 767 works with current infrastructure and requires little upgrade to worldwide base infrastructure
>>
>> again you are incorrect on this point
>
>Prove it then
just want to clarify what you would accept as proof
if i showed that the original lease deal included a substantial sum for infrastructure improvements to support the KC-767 would you admit you were wrong?
if not, what would it take?
ok let me admit i was wrong about something:
the air forces life-cycle costs apparently did not include infrastructure improvements after all
nevertheless, let me put this issue to bed once and for all
here is the boeing press release:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2008_April_15/ai_n25155752/pg_1
> Military Construction: The larger KC-30 would
> require approximately $2 billion to build or
> upgrade hangars, ramps, access roads and other
> facilities at tanker bases
so Boeing (no friend of EADS) claims the infrastructure upgrade cost for the KC-30 will ONLY be $2 billion
only $2 billion you say? that’s still a hefty chunk of money
well let us examine how much it would cost to upgrade the facilities for the 767
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-724R
> Because the 767 aircraft is larger than
> the KC-135, there will be some infrastructure
> improvement costs, such as for building or
> modifying hangars, taxiways, and runway aprons.
> Additional costs would likely include simulators
> and project management. The only available
> estimate of such costs, provided by the Office
> of Management and Budget in December 2001,
> involved one-time costs estimated at about $1.7
> billion. In Air Force Tanker Leasing
> recent discussions, Air Force officials told us
> that the December estimate was outdated and
> probably overstated but that they could not
> provide more recent estimates. They said these
> costs will largely depend on where the new
> aircraft would be based and the condition of
> those facilities. Basing decisions have
> not yet been made.
so there you have it
1. the 767 will require substantial infrastructure improvements
2. that number was estimated at slightly less than $1.7 billion (let’s say $1.5 billion) 6 years ago for only 100 tankers vs 178 tankers
and if you’ve followed construction prices recently, you know how they’ve skyrocketed in the last few years
so frankly, i’m not seeing the big difference in the two planes in regards to infrastructure costs
> And the amount of infrastucture improvement
> REQUIRED to alleviate much of those implications
> runs 11 figures (that’s more than $10 billion).
even Boeing is only claiming $2 billion
you need to make sure you get your playbook straight
It’s the same with the auto companies here in Detroit. But you know what, it’s there own damn fault and the same applies here. If Boeing wants the contract build the better plane.
>As a matter of fact EADS said it would build their military cargo planes in ALABAMA, that
>doesn’t sound like losing jobs overseas.
When you start foreign firms to sell products, EVEN the factory lines are in US, you still weaken R&D capabilities of local firms. Workers get their money, but the money gets into the pockets of foreign firms. That goes to their own R&D budget, and not American firms. Well, Nothrop may get part of the pie, but its still not the entire pie. If you think foreign firms should continue to be involved, why not go say China and Russia should do so too? When that happens, those countries have the decisions to make whatever happens to equipments, just as US made for F-16 fuss about Venezuela. IF the government of Germany and France says they don’t support America’s war, which they will not permit the use of EADS tankers, what are you going to say about that?
Antonio Gil Morales on UPI to discuss the lobby of EADS behind the scene of the tanker deal. Could there have been some bribery, or such scandal that resulted in an unfair competition by EADS? Dirty tricks by EADS, and those in congress responsible to be discussed on part 2. Coming soon…
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EADS_Tanker_Woes_Part_One_999.html
I was working in the Prince Sultan Air Base CAOC during both air campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. For Operation ANACONDA, the 10th Mountain Division gave us their mobility requirements 6 days before D-Day/H-Hour. Subsequently, Bagram ran out of gas on Day Two of operations. Brig Gen Skip Scott came to us and asked how we could fix this problem. Smokey and my team of planners came up with an unusual way of keeping Bagram fuel farm full. We took a C-17 from Doha, and brought it down to a refueling track just southwest of the ANACONDA Op area. We would refuel the C-17 to its max landing weight. The C-17 would land at Bagram and offload fuel from its internal tanks, a four hour event in some cases. The C-17 would elevator up to the KC-10 refueling anchor and we had force extended the KC-10. The C-17 would land back at Bagram and drain its tanks again. The C-17 did three revolutions of this event in a single day for about two weeks. This is where capacity, fuel efficiency and air refuelable tankers were invaluable.
The secret no one talks about concerning the opening night of “Shock and Awe” was this; we were 42 equivalent tanker sorties short when the tanker cell got the Air Tasking Order from the MAAP Cell 72 hours out from execution (Wednesday night). We had to delete strike sorties and back the ATO into the gas in order to make it work. We flew the Shock and Awe ATO 17 tanker sorties short because we knew Sir Murphy (Murphy’s Law) and “fog and friction” would show its ugly head SOMEWHERE and there would be some extra gas. The night we rescued Pvt. Jessica Lynch there was no airborne fuel reserve if something had gone wrong. The Spec Ops folks are good at their trade so we did not expect problems and we took the risk. We flew everything we could that night. If there was a problem we would just send strike sorties home and take their gas. We took a lot of risks we normally would not take in similar situations. Leap-frogging the tanker refueling airspace anchors on Night Four into Iraqi airspace was a big risk but the CFACC told us 19 year old kids are getting shot at near An Najaf so the tankers have to take some of the risks to support troops in contact. We came up with an ingenious plan to keep the Triple A and SAM shooters heads down and the area under the Iraqi anchor refueling areas became known as
> When you start foreign firms to sell products, EVEN the factory lines are in US, you still weaken R&D capabilities of local firms.
what R&D capabilities are you supporting by keeping the obsolete 767 line on lifesupport for a few more years?
all the R&D goes into the militarization, which is done by NG
EADS is only the supplying the airframe, the engines are coming from GE (US), the avionics are coming from Sargent-Fletcher (US), etc, etc
all the high-end, R&D intensive items are sourced from the US
> . IF the government of Germany and France says they don’t support America’s war, which they will not permit the use of EADS tankers, what are you going to say about that?
i would say you are sadly misinformed
1. contractually they can’t do that
2. EADS isn’t stupid enough to pull a stunt like that as it would result in them being permanently barred from the lucrative US defense market
3. the US requires all plans and source code so if the original manufacturer fails, we can make any parts we need
4. it’s not technically feasible. The only thing EADS could embargo would be the airframe as just about everything else (engines, avionics, etc) is sourced from the US
the problem is that there it is impossible to embargo A330 parts as it is used worldwide, including by US airlines. There will always be parts available
in short, it’s not possible legally, technically or practically
> Antonio Gil Morales on UPI to discuss the lobby of EADS
and you keep reposting this tired old pack of LIES even though i’ve debunked practically the entire propaganda piece
Irtusk,
Kudos! Admirable job keeping to the facts.
Mark,
Great insight on Ops. I’m forwarding this thread to a buddy of mine who was a KC-10 Maintenance Officer in-theater during Desert Storm. He’ll be pleased to hear that innovation is still the hallmark in the tanker world.
I have little reason to question the A330 was the better aircraft choice, although I do question how Boeing failed to recognize the USAF would choose larger capacity and passenger space and didn’t propose something like a 777 or even 787 based aircraft.
I do however have concerns with a US taxpayer funded project providing EADS/Airbus a better foothold in the US commercial aircraft business by setting up what is essentially a A330 assembly line in the US. I believe this project will be a substantial enabler for Airbus in the US, which will weaken Boeing – our only commercial aircraft manufacturer.
EADS IS WHY FRANCE WANTS TO COME BACK TO NATO ISN’T IT
Just a few words to say
B-47 Boeing 20+ years service
B-52 Boeing 50+ years service
KC-135 Boeing 50+years service
irtusk,
But the KC-767 DID win the 1st competition & it WAS outside political pressure which FORCED the USAF to alter its criterea (& reality itself) in order to be “fair” to the KC-30…
The 1st competition WAS NOT cooked it was just that the correct platform was SOOO obvious & the potetial for Cogress to do a 180 at any time & decide NOT to go out of ITS way to provide the funding to aquire new tankers. The USAF had been looking at a replacement for the KC-135 since 1996 & by 2001 had already all but concluded that a KC-767 was the OBVIOUS correct choice. Then 9/11 happend & what would have normally taken a decade was compacted into a couple years.
Anyone & everyone who knew jack about USAF tanker needs/oiperations KNEW the KC-30 would be too big.
The the KC-30 REQUIRES $billions more infrastructure improvement than the KC-767AT. And no it was NOT included as part of the total life cycle costs, that is one of the things the USAF had recently admitted was wrong with their cost estimates.
YES NG/EADS DID make a BIG deal about their proposal SUPPOSEDLY (we now know it wans’t) being less (ready the anouncements by EADS when the KC-30 was chosen) but now they say the difference is inconsequential.
The A330 is ONLY more efficient at hauling stuff than the 767 when it is carrying more stuff than the 767 can carry. Sorry you haven’t hear how BAD things are for airlines right now & it could end up end up DECLINING if the current energy crisis is not fixed FAST. The 767 is “dying” because the market had grown to where greater capacity was needed, now that capacity may in fact DECREASE, the market COULD “revert” back to where the 767 has the right capacity. It isn’t profitable to fly A330-200s with less then 200 passengers most every flight…
Funny isn’t one of the agruments of the KC-30/NG/EADS croud that all of Boeing’s best are ALREADY on other projects leaving the KC-767 with “2nd (or even 3rd) stringers”?
The tanker fleet as a whole is being flown into the ground just doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing & that ids refueling aircraft in the air. The whole reason why replaceing the KC-135s is such a high priority is because of this NOT because they are lacking capacilty! The KC-30 ISN”T too capable (the KC-767AT is more capable in the REAL WORLD) it is TOO BIG & HEAVY.
Basing flexibility is the ability to put enough booms in the air as close to the refueling points as possible & to be able to relatively quickly & easily reposition said booms to different areas to adjust to changing situations. Deal all you want about the KC-30′s greater capacity but the reality is that the KC-767AT put more booms closer to where they need to be & has MORE than enough capacity.
Who gives a rats ass about the KC-30′s turning radius when it is too big &/or heavy to taxi from the parking pad to the runway?
I think you need to go back & see what ALL the experts were saying prior to 2006…& what many experts ARE STILL SAYING TODAY.
I mind does not have to be open to falsehoods & ‘tricks’ when it is aware of the truths. :)
> The the KC-30 REQUIRES $billions more infrastructure improvement than the KC-767AT.
billionS would mean at least 2 billion more
which is provably false
even Boeing only claims the TOTAL infrastructure cost for the KC-30 is $2 billion
and if they exaggerate that the way they exaggerate their jobs data . . .
and then you consider the initial lease deal included $600 million for infrastructure improvements for 100 planes vs 179 planes 6 years ago, you see there isn’t much of a gap between the 2 in even the worst case scenario
> The 767 is “dying” because the market had grown to where greater capacity was needed, now that capacity may in fact DECREASE, the market COULD “revert” back to where the 767 has the right capacity.
your ignorance of the airline market is stunning
regional jets are being grounded because they are TOO SMALL to be effective
bigger jets are more efficient per passenger/ton mile
FACT
the fuel crisis will lead to increase in large and superjumbo jets and a reduction in small jets
this will of course hurt communities that don’t have the traffic to support large jets, but that’s the way it is
> The tanker fleet as a whole is being flown into the ground
um, not really
the hours/year is fairly flow
they have tons of airframe hours left
the main problem is actual age with corrosion and whatnot
> Funny isn’t one of the agruments of the KC-30/NG/EADS croud that all of Boeing’s best are ALREADY on other projects leaving the KC-767 with “2nd (or even 3rd) stringers”?
yup, but even 2nd and 3rd stringers are better than nothing
> The KC-30 ISN”T too capable (the KC-767AT is more capable in the REAL WORLD)
keep saying that and you might even start to believe it eventually
> but the reality is that the KC-767AT put more booms closer to where they need to be & has MORE than enough capacity.
the reality is that the KC-30 can operate from all bases we use tankers from
> experts ARE STILL SAYING TODAY
where by ‘experts’ you mean ‘paid Boeing cheerleaders’
irtusk,
It REALLLy is sad how you seem to only be able to recognize ONE mostly unsupported article about the previous tanker least & completely ignore most everything else.
But I will ask the same questions AGAIN…
What were the 26 requirements? What were the 19 which were supposedly eliminated? And I best you don’t evn realize (although I have already informed you of it) that additional requirements were to be added/fulfilled with later batches of tankers, the initial batch of the tanker lease was simply to fulfill the most important requirements. Similar to the later KC-X/KC-Y/KC-Z plan is/was to FIRST & FORMOST get a “basic A-spec MEDIUM tanker” & add/fulfill more capabilities/requirements through later batches of tankers.
OBVIOUSLY you don’t realize that EVERYTHING that happend during tanker lease was done HASTILY in order to get it done while Congress was working WITH everyone to get it done. A process that normally would take a decade “had” to be trunkated in into just a coule yeaars. There was NO TIME for a AoA & the USAF had alread spent 5 years looking for the best replacement for the KC-135 & had already all-but concluded that the 767 was the right platform.
Why would the USAF “allow” Boeing to write the requirements if it was not already confident that the 767 was the right platform to meet it initial & most pressing requirements?
And don’t DARE try & pull that BS that the KC-767AT offer for the KC-X isn’t any better than the “basic” KC-767 that were to begin delivery in 2006 (in fact the 4 to be delivered in 2006 were to be CONVERTED from already existing airframes). In fact the KC-767AT meet more KC-X requirements than the KC-30!
Boeing says that the KC-30 require $2 billion MORE than the KC-767 in infrastucture improvements, not $2 billion total. And it is not just higher infrastucture improvement cost but higher fuel & operational (maintenance) costs as well. According to Boeing (yeah I know that mean you automatically believe it is propaganda) it all adds up to nearly $50 billion dollars OVER the KC-767AT! In case you missed it, the UK is leasing JUST 14 tankers for $26 billion dollars.
Sorry but the KC-30 CAN NOT operate from all bases we use tankers from. If it could, it would not require $billions in infrastucture improvement.
another article detailing the shenanigans Boeing engaged in to push the lease deal
it was never about what the USAF needed or wanted, it was always about what Boeing wanted
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_27/b3840095.htm
irtusk,
LOL…
Your ability to twist the truth & automatically believe ANYTHING anti-Boeing is truly laughable.
Specifically to your new link…There is NOTHING there indicating it was EVER about what Boeing wanted, the USAF & the DOD were working WITH Boeing the WHOLE time. And there is NOTHING there indicating that the 767 isn’t the right platform to replace the KC-135. There are too many half-truths & outright falsehoods there to even begin to correct.
Just a couple little tidbits…I do not have the time to properly debunk every single one of your BS statements.
Boeing did not “eliminate” 19 out of 26 requirements. ALL 26 where to eventually be met. What Boeing did (WITH THE USAF) was determine those requirements which HAD to be met with the initial batch of tankers (which were to be rebuilds of already existing airframes & delivered in 2006). Think of it this way, the timetable to get these tankers delivered was so hasty that the USAF was to aquire (through lease) 4 prototype/developemental KC-767 just 3 years after the lease deal was approved by the Pentagon!
The USAF started (in 1996) looking at a replacement for its KC-135 fleet but events after 9/11/01 truncated the whole timetable from the 1st tanker to be delivered ~2012 (don’t recall the exact year) to the 1st tanker to be delivered in 2006! It did not matter what a previous study (which was based on projected airframe life – note that later corrosion was determined to be a more pressing matter than airframe life) said about when the tankers NEEDED to be replaced, CONGRESS was actively helping to get them ASAP.
Notice on your link about cost differences that alfter Military Construction ($2 billion dollars) there is ANOTHER bullet item Additional Infrastructure Costs. ;) Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
Your ignorance concerning airfield limitations is PATHETIC. Runway length is not usually the limiting factor & NEITHER IS hanger sizes. I NEVER EVER said ANYTHING about hangers. MOST of the time the limiting factors are related to size & weight (more specifically the limits of the parking pads & taxiways).
“The idea of converting 767s into tankers SURFACED FORMALLY in February 2001.” The USAF & Boeing had been looking at the 767 as the platform to replace the KC-135 BEFORE that…
Even though the tanker lease did not REQUIRE the KC-767 to match or exceed the capabilities of the KC-135 IT DID! Just a EDUCATED guess but that requirement being left for later most likely is specificly related to (at the time) it not being decided/known if the 1st batch of KC-767 would have an auxiliary fuel tank to bring total fuel capacity up from the ~160,000 lbs/24,000 gal of the commercial 767-200ER to over 200,000 lbs/30,000 gal (by the way, I don’t know if there is anything available on the internet but I do recall seeing/reading somehting that indicated that the KC-767 auxiliary fuel tank could bring fuel capacity up to the 209,000-210,000 range – not how Boeing HASN’T said specifically how much it is).
I have already provided the proof that later batches of tankers would fill additional requirements not meet by the 1st batch (or are you SO ignorant to actually think that the 100 KC-767 were to replace ALL 500+ KC-135). Note also (as I said before) even the KC-X/KC-Y/KC-Z plan was to follow a similar idea of getting a “basic A-spec medium tanker” 1st with the KC-X with additional capabilities/requirements to be filled by the later KC-Y/KC-Z.
The timetable was shortened because the higher post-9/11/01 operations tempo (& the fact that no additiona funds would have to be provided to the USAF procurement budget) convinced CONGRESS to actively help get them ASAP!
> Even though the tanker lease did not REQUIRE the KC-767 to match or exceed the capabilities of the KC-135 IT DID!
so you’re saying it met the requirements
> Just a EDUCATED guess but that requirement being left for later
so you’re saying it didn’t meet the requireements
if the 767 met the requirement, why did Boeing ask to have it waived?
> I have already provided the proof that later batches of tankers would fill additional requirements
are you talking later batches within the 100 or later batches after the 100?
> The timetable was shortened because the higher post-9/11/01 operations tempo
nice try, but the tankers had and still have over half their airframe life remaining
the only limiting issue is STILL corrosion, and corrosion moves at pretty much the same speed no matter what you’re doing
(in fact basing them in the desert might actually help reduce corrosion, hmmm)
The crux of the problem seems to me to be who gets what portion of the pie…I think,as a former airman,I can say frankly that no-one really cares who the manufacturer is as long as they meet the USAF criterial for operational capability,and that they do so at the best possible pricee. Whether the plane is manufactured in the U.S. or Europe is largely irrelevant as long as the USAF is happy with the final choice. As they are the ultimate end-user all else should take a back seat. Sure jobs and industry all count and count a lot but in the end the mission is to get the Air Force the aircraft they need and want. I just wonder if anything being offered out there is going to, in the end, be as long-lived and successful as the KC-135. I would hope that whatever is chosen dos not require billions of dollars in ramp space, taxiways, runways and maintenance infrastructure that do not contribute to the mission of getting the fuel to the aircraft in the air where it’s needed. Maybe I’m just dumb and can’t be called politically astute but isn’t that what the mission is after all?