If Northrop Grumann wins the KC-X contract for USAF
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -kc-x.html
The other option would be the the KC-762LRF.
Again an A vs B battle.
Airbus needs this order...
KC-30 to take new A332F's instead of converting pax version
Moderator: Latest news team
-
FLY4HOURS.BE
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
KC-30 to take new A332F's instead of converting pax version
Last edited by FLY4HOURS.BE on 21 Sep 2007, 06:41, edited 1 time in total.
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
The USAF needs to replace about 500 KC-135 tankers to fulfill its worldwide requirements.
The A-330-200 is larger than the B-767-200 and can certainly carry greater (fuel and cargo) loads. This is an advantage.
USAF tanker's primary mission is to carry and transfer fuel; cargo is a distant second role (the C-5 and C-17's are the primary transports), so a greater cargo capacity is not too important. Carrying more fuel is certainly attractive, but the Air Force does need a large number of tankers to re-fuel fighters, bombers and transports flying simultaneously in many parts of the world.
If Northrop/Airbus can offer the KC-30 (KC-330) at a lower price than Boeing offers the KC-767, they will certainly be ahead of the game. Since the Air Force has a fixed budget for this procurement and a need for a large number of tankers, I beleive that the manufacturer who can meet both numbers (total cost and number of planes delivered) will win.
The A-330-200 is larger than the B-767-200 and can certainly carry greater (fuel and cargo) loads. This is an advantage.
USAF tanker's primary mission is to carry and transfer fuel; cargo is a distant second role (the C-5 and C-17's are the primary transports), so a greater cargo capacity is not too important. Carrying more fuel is certainly attractive, but the Air Force does need a large number of tankers to re-fuel fighters, bombers and transports flying simultaneously in many parts of the world.
If Northrop/Airbus can offer the KC-30 (KC-330) at a lower price than Boeing offers the KC-767, they will certainly be ahead of the game. Since the Air Force has a fixed budget for this procurement and a need for a large number of tankers, I beleive that the manufacturer who can meet both numbers (total cost and number of planes delivered) will win.
-
FLY4HOURS.BE
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
The decision is to be announced in early October.
October is gonna be an interesting month with BA order pending 8)
The KC-30 also has the advantage of being able to refuel two aircraft at the same time.
Though the KC-30 will have a higher pricing, the direct operating costs will be lower than the KC767. It's gonna be an interesting competition.
October is gonna be an interesting month with BA order pending 8)
The KC-30 also has the advantage of being able to refuel two aircraft at the same time.
Though the KC-30 will have a higher pricing, the direct operating costs will be lower than the KC767. It's gonna be an interesting competition.
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Yes, this is the procurement with the "dodgy shennanigans" attached to it. It was originally structured as a long term lease to reduce the initial costs, although it would have cost more in the long run. A former Air Force official (Darleen Drunan) steered the contract to Boeing and she and several Boeing officials went to prison once the scheme was revealed.chunk wrote:I reckon this is going one way only.....just can't see the A330 being used by the USAF.
Is this not the deal that has the dodgy shennanigans attached to it a while back?
It's a different story now. there is a lot of scrutiny and oversight of the program now. It is slated to be a fair competition; well, at least as fair as any big buck procurement can be.