USAF Tanker Competiton - EADS vs. Boeing

[smokejumper]

Something else comes to mind in discussing the tanker competition. Normally, a procuring agency will draw up a requirements specification defining the qualities they are looking for. IN the case of the KC-X tanker procurement, they defined a need of a fuel efficient aircraft with about the same of a little more capability as the KC-135. Normally, bidders will design and propose a product that meets these requirements (less gets you eliminated and more gets you no credit).

In the 1990’s The Boeing 767 was the only known potential tanker (at the time) that could meet these requirements. When the A-330 entered the picture, it was larger and in a normal procurement, would have been penalized as it would have been too big for the need and cost too much (to own and operate). But this was not a normal procurement in that, two dissimilar products were competing against the same requirement. The computer evaluation model was juggled to allow both aircraft to compete and, at the insistence of the Alabama congressional delegation, no extra costs were to be evaluated. It is interesting to note that both Alabama Senators (Shelby and Sessions) are fiscal and ideological conservatives who constantly call for less Federal spending (but support higher costs for a product that brings jobs to Alabama) – politicians have the same color stripes regardless of nation!

In summary, the evaluation was changed to reflect the political demands of politicians so both could participate rather than the products be designed by the manufacturers to fit the specified need.

[earthman]

I somehow have the feeling that if the USAF had not focused on the 767 originally, but actually demanded a new design, they would have been flying their first tankers by now, which would probably cost less, and have the exact capability that they wanted in the first place.

[smokejumper]

Hello earthman - I agree that in a perfect world, a clean sheet design is preferable, but since the USAF only needs about 500 tankers, it might be more expensive to them ultimately to pay for a new airframe design and development program, plus a separate manufacturing/production chain.

The belief (right or wrong) is that by piggy-backing onto an existing airframe with the necessary capabilities, it might be cheaper. Certainly, this miserable procurement of a new tanker over the past decade has not resulted in lower costs.

[regi]

I somehow have the feeling that if the USAF had not focused on the 767 originally, but actually demanded a new design, they would have been flying their first tankers by now, which would probably cost less, and have the exact capability that they wanted in the first place.

Didn't I say this as well some months ago? Even disredarding the vast quantity of 500 same design airframes. ( I thought that the original number was about 150 airplanes )
There are very few large body airplanes that have reached this number.
So a specific design made 15-20 years ago could have solved many problems now. And one problem that is not very much openly discussed: the fact that the existing capabilities of tankers is way too low because of age, old design, fuel consumption, large crews, high maintenance, range,...
Smokejumper replied on this already months ago.
But the world is stuck with reality.

[RC20]

Well I wouldn't say the A330 is state of the art, the design is quite old now and the bird is much heavier than what a modern State of the Art Aircraft would be. But the 767 is most undoubtedly obsolete junk.

Man whatever you are smoking I want some. Check the sales figures for 767's and A-330's. No operator (Civil or Military) would order 767's in favour of A-330's unless they either had a Political Motive to do (as in this case) or they only need a handful of Aircraft and preserving Fleet Commonality is more beneficial than gaining more efficient Aircraft (see LA's recent order).

Its been some time so I will weighed in.

Actually the A330 is the older aircraft. It started out as the A300/310 in 1972. It did not start out as fly by wire, that came with the A330 model.

The Boeing 767 blew the doors off the A300/310 and Airbus moved to get it out of that categroy. They succeeded brilliantly.

The 767 has sold over 1000. Extremely successful. A300/310/330/340 totall has not reached that yet despite the major success of the A330 (if Boeing had not screwed up the 787, it would be in extremely low rate production now).

The KC135 is truly obsolete (100+ are stored under the euphemism of reserve, i.e. engines are old and they use way too much fuel and poor takeoff performance). They still are flying 500 or so up engined models of them just fine. Funny how if someone wants to keep a bird in the air (B52) they can. Old yes, obsolete only if it can't do what its supposed to.

US A330 Production: We woudl have been an assemlber. Commericla airlines can do what they want, but the reality is that WTO ruled that Aibus got 20 billion plus in subsides and Boeing got 5 (half was remedied when the US finaly changed the export law).

And if you have kept up with the news, Boeing and FedEx are talking about a 767-400F (fills in the production gap until the tanker is produced). FedEx does not buy junk.

Maybe lastly, the A330 line is delicate with the tail that snaps off and its computer that does strange things even in normal commercial operations (total loss of control not to mention AF447). Not a good choice in combat. Good solid bullet proof old fashioned Boeing product (and keep in mind the 737 while old stuff, is far more economical than the newer A320 fly by wire).

The Air Force has repeatably provided statistics that say the KC135 brings back 2/3 of its fuel. Vast majority of the time the KC330 would be a major waste.

The cargo capability is only good for initial deployment. In the Theater its wasted. You can be a tanker or a cargo carrier, you cannot be both (it works for some nations, but they also have the US to fuel them).

And lastly I have no sympathy for Europe. They close their system to us on major contracts (Typhoon, Rafael (F18 would have fit the bill sweetly and vaslty more capable) A400 and most major armaments contract. Then cry and whine when we don't give them what they want

[RC20]

I somehow have the feeling that if the USAF had not focused on the 767 originally, but actually demanded a new design, they would have been flying their first tankers by now, which would probably cost less, and have the exact capability that they wanted in the first place.

C5: Ugly mess, bad wings.

C17, way over cost and a miserably entry into service history (ironed out and fantastic now). Cost a lot to get there.

F22: 120 million a copy, vastly over production and a maintenance nightmare

F35: Dittos, even worse.

You can convert existing airframe far cheaper than make one. You have mass production of 1000+ in the case of the 767 to spread costs over.

KC135: Still going strong after.........

[smokejumper]

And, as previously noted ..... B-52 - 1949 first flight (61 years ago) - will still be in service in 2040!

The "obsolescent" DC-3 - 1935 first flight (76 years ago) - nothing can replace it (hundreds still in service)!

[RC20]

I really the talk about a dedicated tanker.

It would be an insane waste. All they do is fly around and pump fuel. As I recall Boeing did it first (at least in any scale) with the Stratocruiser, then the 707. DC10 and then the Airbus A300 (0r 310) has done it as well as the Brits with ????? Upshot is that it is hugely more economical to convert a commercial airframe to that mission as it is simply done with a commercial aircraft.

The A330 will eventually also do it very successfully in all its version (they are still getting there). 767 will as well.

We don't need to spend 400 million a copy for something we can buy for 150 million a copy (and that does not reflect the excess maintenance costs a unique design would get you).

And a note, we have a lovely KC135 with CFM engine sitting on our ramp. Just waiting for a mission, yep shes old, but looks like a millions dollars (or billions saved). Lets here it for the old birds.

[smokejumper]

One real advantage of using a commercial airframe is parts availability. If you need (say) a hydraulic actuator or a flap part, you can get one at many major airports around the world. The 767 will be in service around the world for another 2+ decades and parts will be manufactured and available.

[Desert Rat]

Amen...

[earthman]

One real advantage of using a commercial airframe is parts availability. If you need (say) a hydraulic actuator or a flap part, you can get one at many major airports around the world. The 767 will be in service around the world for another 2+ decades and parts will be manufactured and available.

Assuming they don't use too many custom parts on it, or that the miliatry don't require special military-certified spare parts (which are otherwise identical to stock ones).

[sn26567]

Boeing has won the competition, with the help of a powerful home hobby. But it might cost them dearly!

Boeing’s Tanker Cost Overruns Exceed $1 Billion

Boeing is, once again, taking a charge on its books to keep the U.S. Air Force’s KC-46 aerial refueler programme on track. The after-tax charge is $536 million; that is $835 million before taxes. The lion’s share - $513 million – comes from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, which is providing the 767 baseline platform, while Boeing Military Aircraft, a division of Boeing Defense Space and Security, is paying $322 million.

https://www.aviation24.be/manufacturers/bo ... d-quarter/