Logistics Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics
KC-767 Wins Two Out Of Three
   Next Article → NBC WEAPONS: Syria Still At It
March 1, 2011: Once more, the competition between the American KC-767 and European KC-330, to replace the aging U.S. Air Force KC-135 aerial tankers, was won by Boeing's KC-767 (as the KC-46A). Three years ago, the air force selected the KC-330, but lawyers and politics upset that award, and the selection process had to be repeated. Nine years ago, KC-767 won the competition, but corruption tainted that award, and the order was cancelled. The latest award may be challenged in court again. After all, it's a big sale. The initial order is for 18 aircraft (at about $150 million each), to be delivered in the next six years. That initial order also comes with about a billion dollars for development work. The air force might order over a hundred KC-46As, but the exact number depends on what kind of future aircraft the air force will be using. If there are a lot of unmanned aircraft (UAVs), fewer tankers will be needed (because UAVs are smaller, and need less fuel). There is, however, a lot of resistance in the air force and Congress to any further squabbling over who should build the replacement for the KC-135.

The KC-330 carries 20 percent more fuel than the KC-767, plus more cargo pallets (26 versus 19) and passengers. But this apparently worked against the KC-330, as the KC-767 is closer in size to the KC-135, and thus will not require as many new maintenance facilities. The KC-767 is also considered easier and cheaper to maintain. The KC-45A was to have cost about $175 million each (17 percent more than the KC-46A).

The KC-767 is based on the Boeing 767-200 airliner, which sells for about $120 million. The 767 has been in service since 1982, and over 800 have been manufactured so far. Boeing developed the KC-767, at a cost of nearly a billion dollars, on its own. Boeing also developed the original KC-135 tanker in the 1950s, and has since built over 2,000 of these.

The two engine KC-330 (KC-45A) is based on the AirBus 330 (which costs about $160 each). About 750 330s have been produced since the aircraft entered service in 1994. Both candidates are replacing the four engine KC-135. This older aircraft carries 90 tons of fuel and can transfer up to 68 tons. Typically, aerial tankers have to service B-52s, which carry over 140 tons of jet fuel, and fighters like the F-15 (over five tons). The KC-135 has long made itself useful carrying cargo and passengers, as well as fuel, and both the KC-767 and KC-30 have more capacity for this.

The KC-767 was developed partly because it is about the same size as the KC-135 (wingspan is 50.3 meters/156 feet, 6.8 percent larger than the KC-135). Thus the 767 could use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135. In the meantime, Japan and Italy have ordered eight KC-767s. So far, 28 KC-330s have been sold to Australia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Britain.

 

 Next Article → NBC WEAPONS: Syria Still At It
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Popski       3/1/2011 1:20:24 PM
It can carry less fuel over a shorter distance, where's  the 'win'  in  that?
 
Quote    Reply

Dave_in_Pa       3/1/2011 2:17:59 PM
Here's the win:
 
1.  "...as the KC-767 is closer in size to the KC-135, and thus will not require as many new maintenance facilities"
2.  "...Thus the 767 could use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135."
3.  "...The KC-767 is also considered easier and cheaper to maintain."
4.  "The KC-45A [Airbus A330] was to have cost about $175 million each (17 percent more than the KC-46A[Boeing KC-767])."

Firstly, about $25 million in initial purchase price per aircraft less. Assuming an eventual total purchase of, say, 200 aircraft, that totals $5 BILLION in just the total purchase price savings.  Probably, billions saved in the Boeing KC-767 not requiring a network of new maintenance facilities and infrastructure, as would the Airbus KC-330.  A very significant savings (referenced but undefined in this article) in maintenance costs over the lifetime of the aircraft. That'd be a huge number of man-hours of ground tech. work avoided with the Boeing aircraft. Less airmen needed translates into lower personnel expense for the Air Force. Plus maybe, a lot of replacement hardware expense avoided, over the lifetime of the aircraft.
 
A huge win there, for the Air Force AND for the American taxpayer.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       3/1/2011 2:20:05 PM
Nine years ago, KC-767 won the competition, but corruption tainted that award, and the order was cancelled
 
Maybe because it was the only entrant.
 
Quote    Reply

shep854       3/1/2011 6:27:15 PM
There is an ANG tanker unit here at the Birmingham, AL airport (KBHM), and the word I get is that they favor the Boeing, both for performing their missions, and as an aircraft.  Several pilots also fly Airbus planes, so they have basis for comparison.
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       3/1/2011 9:54:01 PM
I hope that Boeing might offer some of the U.S. partners to the Airbus contender some contract work, instead of sending that work overseas to China, as an act of good sportsmanship.  As far as the choice is concerned, however, I totally agree with using the Boeing over the Airbus.  I think that the Airbus, while larger, is less maneuverable and consequently less survivable in a combat environment, where tankers are valuable targets.  I was also concerned about the tendency of Airbus planes to suffer from instability around the tail, where excessive bouncing while passing fuel could be problematic.  I have been on Airbus's, and was surprised how, whenever I walked aft of the wing, how bouncy they were, while, if I walked forward of the wing, no bouncing at all.  The Airbus that crashed in New Jersey in 2001 (An A300) was brought down by turbulence from the plane in front of it, resulting in the vertical tail falling off.  The problem was eventually linked to the overuse of the rudder to counter wake-turbulence.  Military planes frequently fly in close formation, so turbulence is common, so even if the plane is not actually brought down, a lot more money will be spent in replacing structural components around the tail as they wear out prematurely.  Maybe the A330 has that problem kicked, but I would wager that the Boeing will still fly a lot longer than the Airbus.  It pays to stay with a winner.
 
Quote    Reply

W3    time will tell   3/1/2011 11:43:28 PM
Let us see what happens. EADS has some up in the air doing the work now. How long will it take Boeing to get a one ready?
We will see the hours on each when Boeing gets something off the ground.
 
Quote    Reply

Dave_in_Pa       3/2/2011 1:44:39 AM

Let us see what happens. EADS has some up in the air doing the work now. How long will it take Boeing to get a one ready?

We will see the hours on each when Boeing gets something off the ground.

Boeing has had the KC-767 flying since 2003.  Boeing made a gutsy move and developed this tanker with $1 billion of entirely Boeing money, before they even had any orders.  Both the Italian and Japanese Air Forces have KC-767 tankers. The ones for the USAF will have the benefit of this operational experience and be based on the 200ER version of the 767 airliner, with some more recent electronics.
 
(It's EADS that has the big problem with getting an aircraft actually flying.  Their A-400M transport is years behind schedule and many billions over budget. Even basing the A-400M fuselage, wings and tail design on the now-mothballed Lockheed C-141, while saving them years of development time, hasn't alleviated all the other major engineering, organizational, financial and resultant big political problems. (See all the images at the above links and the copycat design is obvious.  For whatever political reasons, neither Lockheed nor the US Govt have chosen to make an issue of the EADS flagrant industrial copying of this aircraft.)
 
Quote    Reply

tobiathan       3/2/2011 2:54:29 AM
It's understandable the EADS would want to make the submission but the good sportsmanship was already shown in simply considering the Airbus. Aside from Sweden(somewhat surprisingly) and France(very surprising sort of) European aircraft design has fallen nearly a full generation behind American. Mostly it seems to be due to inconsistent funding and noncommittal governments over the last decade combined with the concurrent exponential acceleration of American designs. Even the Swedish and French aircraft, while impressive in aerodynamic quality, are lacking in the most advanced avionics and weapons systems. Overall it is through no fault of the designers or of any lack of intellectual capacity of those nations; just that their wishy-washy governments have neglected their air forces for most of the last three decades.
 
Love us or hate us, American build bad-ass machines. Especially the killin' kind....
 
Quote    Reply

RtWingCon       3/4/2011 12:51:36 AM

Here's the win:

 


1.  "...as the KC-767 is closer in size to the KC-135, and thus will not require as many new maintenance facilities"

2.  "...Thus the 767 could use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135."


3.  "...The KC-767 is also considered easier and cheaper to maintain."


4.  "The KC-45A [Airbus A330] was to have cost about $175 million each (17 percent more than the KC-46A[Boeing KC-767])."




Firstly, about $25 million in initial purchase price per aircraft less. Assuming an eventual total purchase of, say, 200 aircraft, that totals $5 BILLION in just the total purchase price savings.  Probably, billions saved in the Boeing KC-767 not requiring a network of new maintenance facilities and infrastructure, as would the Airbus KC-330.  A very significant savings (referenced but undefined in this article) in maintenance costs over the lifetime of the aircraft. That'd be a huge number of man-hours of ground tech. work avoided with the Boeing aircraft. Less airmen needed translates into lower personnel expense for the Air Force. Plus maybe, a lot of replacement hardware expense avoided, over the lifetime of the aircraft.


 

A huge win there, for the Air Force AND for the American taxpayer.







I highlight #3 because the Congressman for Washington(i forget who) successfully lobbied the USAF to reconsider the lifespan of the aircraft from 25yrs to a more realistic 40yrs. The USAF agreed and found significant savings over the life of the aircraft on the KC-767 vs. KC-330.  A great deal of the savings was in the form of fuel used, it amounted to billions over 40yrs. I believe this was the final tipping point for the USAF decision. The article was on foxnews or yahoo, sorry i couldn't find it again to link.
 
Quote    Reply

davidhughes       3/5/2011 5:07:23 PM
I am not exactly sue what Tobiathon was referring to in claiming that European design was a 'generation behind' the US. Obviously it was not in the case of civilian aircraft where Airbus is certainly comparable in all respects to Boeing; also in fighter aircraft the only US plane comparable to the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon is the now out of production F-22. I exclude the F-35 as there is nothing comparable on paper and its chracteristics are uncertain (eg total cost factors) and the value of its stealth uncertain (hence the equivocation of the USN) Also Europe no longer makes planes designed primarily as bomber/attack aircraft as is the F-35.
 
He is on firmer ground with radar, until the two competing European designs are melded or selected.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2