KC-777 (again) and LPAT

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 2 months

Posts: 1,006

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGf5lNftSK44

. . . plans to pitch tankers based on both the 777 and smaller 767 to the Pentagon when the contest begins in a few weeks

“The 777 solves the technology and additional cargo capability questions, but it increases cost and it might be too much plane for the requirement” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. “On the other hand, if there is a split between Boeing and the Airbus A330 platform the two planes complement each other nicely.”

THIS

In my view, this is preparation for a split. The KC-767 and KC-30 are too similar to make a split worthwhile. But a KC-777 and a KC-30 are different enough to offer complementary capabilities. (Although I would still prefer a split between KC-30 and KC-747-8 ;))

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a50f8243d-4e15-48c6-b75a-5374d51cee4c

Tanker Wars II - You Thought Round One Was Dirty: Will this dispute go global? EADS is already firing warning shots, indicating that it will not quietly accept LPAT - "lowest price, acceptable technology" - a procurement rule that could be set to tip the contest towards the smaller Boeing KC-767. "It works for pencils and tablets, but with regard to operational forces it's a flawed concept, particularly when you start with platforms whose capabilities are well known," EADS North America CEO Ralph Crosby remarked this weekend.

The cynic would suggest that 'AT' is defined by the capabilities of the KC-767, and thus EADS' problem immediately becomes apparent.

Original post

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 4,674

That would be like KC-X and KC-Y rolled into one, but the wrong way round.

Member for

17 years 2 months

Posts: 708

The 777 solves the technology and additional cargo capability questions, but it increases cost and it might be too much plane for the requirement”

Calling PFCEM.:diablo:

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,210

I see a different use for the 777 use in USAF colors. That of a combi-freight 777-200LR. (no tanking ability)

Reason? A squadron of these aircraft would get high priority cargo and personnel too and from the states and a theater hub without using any tanker resources. It of course would not be used for everything, just the kinds of cargo and personnel that had to get to and from a theater hub in one go asap.

Not a lot of these, but just a handful. And I think you would find they would show their worth.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,450

Eric,

Not sure World Airways would be thrilled, though..

Plus... it makes too much sense to be viable ;)

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 4,674

I see a different use for the 777 use in USAF colors. That of a combi-freight 777-200LR. (no tanking ability)

Reason? A squadron of these aircraft would get high priority cargo and personnel too and from the states and a theater hub without using any tanker resources. It of course would not be used for everything, just the kinds of cargo and personnel that had to get to and from a theater hub in one go asap.

Not a lot of these, but just a handful. And I think you would find they would show their worth.

Yip, agree. Very useful to unite personnel with their PrePos toys. One squadron on each coast.

Pitching the KC-777 against the KC-330 would kill the tactical AAR mission.
They should rather look into a small 767 version (as KC-X)and a large 777 version (as KC-Y).

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,210

Hi Frank !!

Well, the big porky tankers may be needed. Figure that when a F-35 pulls up behind you it is going to take twice as much gas as an F-16. In a large coalition that is F-35 centric; based on an Allied Force-like bully bombing op, when a flight of these pigs pulls up behind you, you better have some gas to hand over....

Plus that extra gas so the jet can heat sink the electronics proper on the way back to base.... ;)

Might even need a big tanker over an Amphib gator flat-deck. The heat-sink issue, bringback to the boat etc might mean they need extra top offs for USMC ops. Just the USMC jet carries 7 tons of gas, and it needs to recover with enough gas for heat-sink issues.

Ditto for CV carrier ops... Maverick is in a really long Marshall hold and needs another 4k of gas just to keep the heat sink bitchin' betty audible from bugging him.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,450

Nah, on the way back, you don't care about stealth. Let them just open one or two additional air intakes, and cool it all the good old way ;)

Wouldn't make a change from the SH, though. That one just needs it because of drag.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,202

A split buy of KC-767 and CK-777 would be perfect. (the CK not being an error)

Member for

19 years 6 months

Posts: 1,518

A split buy of KC-767 and CK-777 would be perfect. (the CK not being an error)

Apart from the KC-330 being even better :diablo:

So will there even be a competition this time or will the US just go for home-grown aircraft? This, I wouldn't mind, but to declare a competition, and and then for all this fiasco to erupt is ridiculous.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 242

i think Obama administration is very keen on following Buy American principle.
So if it takes smtime for Boeing to come in with the KC777 they will probably wait for it

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 1,577

Hi Frank !!

Well, the big porky tankers may be needed. Figure that when a F-35 pulls up behind you it is going to take twice as much gas as an F-16. In a large coalition that is F-35 centric; based on an Allied Force-like bully bombing op, when a flight of these pigs pulls up behind you, you better have some gas to hand over....

Plus that extra gas so the jet can heat sink the electronics proper on the way back to base.... ;)

Might even need a big tanker over an Amphib gator flat-deck. The heat-sink issue, bringback to the boat etc might mean they need extra top offs for USMC ops. Just the USMC jet carries 7 tons of gas, and it needs to recover with enough gas for heat-sink issues.

Ditto for CV carrier ops... Maverick is in a really long Marshall hold and needs another 4k of gas just to keep the heat sink bitchin' betty audible from bugging him.

why not cool the fuel in the tanker to -30 deg. or something before hand it over? does the system evaporate the fuel och just heat(evaporation energi is gives far more cooling than just heating) it, before burning?

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

PLLLEEEAASSEEE lay off the whole "It's going to cook itself" krap.

The F-35 has meet, barely, it's thermal management specs. The one area it had a problem was in ground operation in a hot environment. The redesign of the F-35 (weight reduction phase) resulted in a fan placement change that fixed that. Once in the air, the AC is cooled via skin conduction and the heat exchangers.

Try doing a Google search (#1 result) and stop embarrassing yourself when you do not know the facts.

You seem to conveniently forget that the warm fuel is continuously cycled through heat exchangers to vent the heat out of the aircraft. It never just stays in the AC.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,426


The 777 solves the technology and additional cargo capability questions, but it increases cost and it might be too much plane for the requirement”

Calling PFCEM.:diablo:


The KC-30 is too much plane for the stated requirement (in fact an argument can be made that the KC-767AT is as well, it did after all exceed the key fuel offload requirements by 25,000+ lbs/500+nm, but at least it is not bigger & heavier than the KC-10 and fits existing infrastucture) so obviously the still larger/heavier KC-777 would be as well.

***


I see a different use for the 777 use in USAF colors. That of a combi-freight 777-200LR. (no tanking ability)

Reason? A squadron of these aircraft would get high priority cargo and personnel too and from the states and a theater hub without using any tanker resources. It of course would not be used for everything, just the kinds of cargo and personnel that had to get to and from a theater hub in one go asap.

Not a lot of these, but just a handful. And I think you would find they would show their worth.


That is what CRAF is for...

***


Pitching the KC-777 against the KC-330 would kill the tactical AAR mission.
They should rather look into a small 767 version (as KC-X)and a large 777 version (as KC-Y).

There is lies the problem...

There has to be a competition but the only 'competitor' [KC-30] is too much (big/heavy) for KC-X [KC-767] and too little (although quite large/heavy lacks competative capacity/capability) for KC-Y [KC-777].

***


Well, the big porky tankers may be needed. Figure that when a F-35 pulls up behind you it is going to take twice as much gas as an F-16. In a large coalition that is F-35 centric; based on an Allied Force-like bully bombing op, when a flight of these pigs pulls up behind you, you better have some gas to hand over....

Your logic is flawed. The F-35 does not require twice as much fuel to perform the same misison as the F-16...

***



A split buy of KC-767 and CK-777 would be perfect. (the CK not being an error)

Apart from the KC-330 being even better :diablo:

Quite the opposite, the 330 compares poorly vs the 767 in the "KC" role and compares poorly vs the 777 in the "CK" role...

With that being said, if you are not the USAF (i.e. not operating hundreds of tankers) & can only realistically operate one tanker type (as opposed to the US's medium/large mix) the KC-330 might have value. :)


So will there even be a competition this time or will the US just go for home-grown aircraft? This, I wouldn't mind, but to declare a competition, and and then for all this fiasco to erupt is symbolical.

There has to be a competition...

Member for

17 years 2 months

Posts: 708

The KC-30 is too much plane for the stated requirement (in fact an argument can be made that the KC-767AT is as well, it did after all exceed the key fuel offload requirements by 25,000+ lbs/500+nm, but at least it is not bigger & heavier than the KC-10 and fits existing infrastucture) so obviously the still larger/heavier KC-777 would be as well.

***

That is what CRAF is for...

***

There is lies the problem...

There has to be a competition but the only 'competitor' [KC-30] is too much (big/heavy) for KC-X [KC-767] and too little (although quite large/heavy lacks competative capacity/capability) for KC-Y [KC-777].

***

Your logic is flawed. The F-35 does not require twice as much fuel to perform the same misison as the F-16...

***

Quite the opposite, the 330 compares poorly vs the 767 in the "KC" role and compares poorly vs the 777 in the "CK" role...

With that being said, if you are not the USAF (i.e. not operating hundreds of tankers) & can only realistically operate one tanker type (as opposed to the US's medium/large mix) the KC-330 might have value. :)

There has to be a competition...


When you finally catch your tail, what are you going to do with it?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

So will there even be a competition this time or will the US just go for home-grown aircraft?

Just like the last time the EADS NG bid was rejected right???

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

I really don't like the safety aspect of a twin-engine heavily fuel-laden tanker. The KC-10A, with its third engine, is not such a bad compromise. But after this last crash of the Brazilian airliner it makes me cringe to think people trust a twin-engine airplane to be ultimately reliable. Three engines should be the minimum requirement.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 242

I really don't like the safety aspect of a twin-engine heavily fuel-laden tanker. The KC-10A, with its third engine, is not such a bad compromise. But after this last crash of the Brazilian airliner it makes me cringe to think people trust a twin-engine airplane to be ultimately reliable. Three engines should be the minimum requirement.

Madrat i think we must wait for the reasons of the crash before making assumptions.I think there have been less incidents regarding 330 or 777 than dc-10/md-11.
After all 777 seems to be controlled more by pilot with less FBW input.
However you have a point and 747-8 could be a great tanker :cool::)

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 384

So is the KC-x requirement replacing the KC-10 aswell as KC-135? I thought it was just replacing the 707 airframes?

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 421

I think the crash that happened off Brazil by the Air France aeroplane was an A340 which has 4 engines. I've not heard anything about the Black boxes so far and i think the signal they put out starts to fade after 30 days. I think they are about 3 weeks into the search so we may never find the Black Boxes.

Hopefully we see a tanker decision soon i hate all this waiting around. The whole Made in America Boeing stuff is rubbish anyway. The difference between the A330 and the 767 parts and construction content that is done in America is really small. I think we are talking under 5% difference maybe in favour of Boeing. But when you add in the a whole new factory would be built with the Northrop bid the A330 would create more jobs since the 767 line would be switching to the 787 anyway.

The 777 is too big for this portion of the tanker contract. That's not to say it won't be good for KC-10 replacement part of the tanker contract.

The A330 does appear to be the better plane for the first part of the contract (KC-X) over the 767 and 777 and here a few points of why i think this:
It can take off and land in less distance. (Very important)

It carries more fuel/cargo/people but has a lighter footprint on the tarmac. (very important)

It brings new jobs to America and will probably guarantee Airbus will be in America for the next 50+ years. This is great for creating jobs and bringing in money. (important)

It will be in service with airlines for longer than 767 which is good for spares + upgrades. (Important)

It can fly further and offload more fuel without needing to be a HUGE plane like the 777. (Important)

The A330 will be supplied faster than the 767 and will give the airforce more planes by set delivery times. (very Important)

The A330 has been picked by a lot more countries for their Tanker/Transportation requirements than the Boeing. There must be reason for this and it ain't bribery.
I am not anti Boeing and i wish people would think of it as Northrop Grumman versus Boeing because when you put it like that it takes the argument right out of this Made in America rubbish. The difference is tiny. The same amount of jobs will be created which ever plane is picked If not slightly in NG favour.