Comments on: US Air Force selects KC-30 Tanker http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/ The Aviation Blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:56:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: grump http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-21798 grump Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:26:24 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-21798 Who wrote this story?? The KC-135/KC-135B is essentially based on the B707 (4 engines) not the B767 (a big twin), so comparing engine thrust ratings, payloads and capacities is meaningless. This is like comparing apples and oranges. The CF6-80s used on the later models of the B767 and the A330/KC-45 are in the same thrust class. Who wrote this story?? The KC-135/KC-135B is essentially based on the B707 (4 engines) not the B767 (a big twin), so comparing engine thrust ratings, payloads and capacities is meaningless. This is like comparing apples and oranges. The CF6-80s used on the later models of the B767 and the A330/KC-45 are in the same thrust class.

]]> By: Michael http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-21804 Michael Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:17:00 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-21804 The facts are based on a comparison on the Northrop Grumman website. The "767" was a typo, sorry. The facts are based on a comparison on the Northrop Grumman website.
The “767″ was a typo, sorry.

]]> By: Hotrod http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-21939 Hotrod Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:45:10 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-21939 I never saw that coming!! European aircraft seem to be in vogue with the US Armed Forces with the KC-45A, C-27 Spartan and the UH-72 Lakota. I wonder whether they'll replace the F-16 with Typhoon? Lol I would have sworn that the USAF would have selected the KC-767, given the view on Capitol Hill that the A330 MRTT was a "French" aircraft, and the fact that Italy and Japan have bought the 767. I never saw that coming!! European aircraft seem to be in vogue with the US Armed Forces with the KC-45A, C-27 Spartan and the UH-72 Lakota. I wonder whether they’ll replace the F-16 with Typhoon? Lol I would have sworn that the USAF would have selected the KC-767, given the view on Capitol Hill that the A330 MRTT was a “French” aircraft, and the fact that Italy and Japan have bought the 767.

]]> By: F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22350 F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:37:18 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22350 excuse me, grump, what typo? Michael wrote "Compared to the Boeing KC-135 (based on the 707), the EADS KC-45 (based on the A330) has 25% more fuel...", there is no typo involving "767" you can Ctrl F and look for yourself. Michael, don't apologize, you made no mistake. as to Hotrod, no, the F-16 will never be replaced by an aircraft with half the maneuverability and greater age than the Viper. the Tornado in all its forms may be incredibly advanced and versatile, but then again so is the Falcon, so no, it will never happen. i'm gonna assume you were joking... otherwise, very true, Boeing was favored to win, that scandal earlier might have played a part in their defeat. does this mean an A-330 will compete with the E-767? excuse me, grump, what typo? Michael wrote “Compared to the Boeing KC-135 (based on the 707), the EADS KC-45 (based on the A330) has 25% more fuel…”, there is no typo involving “767″ you can Ctrl F and look for yourself. Michael, don’t apologize, you made no mistake.

as to Hotrod, no, the F-16 will never be replaced by an aircraft with half the maneuverability and greater age than the Viper. the Tornado in all its forms may be incredibly advanced and versatile, but then again so is the Falcon, so no, it will never happen. i’m gonna assume you were joking… otherwise, very true, Boeing was favored to win, that scandal earlier might have played a part in their defeat. does this mean an A-330 will compete with the E-767?

]]> By: GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22377 GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:49:27 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22377 a330 vs B767 The a330 does not use clad aluminum. This will lead to corrosion problems once these airframes accumulate hours and cycles. Cladding is the last line of defense against corrosion. Chemcial conversion, primer and paint are easily replaced. I know some A&P's who have done "C" and "D" checks on airbuses. When panels are pulled on mid to high time aircraft, aluminum corrsion product is found. So with the dollar being down versus the euro, maintnenace costs will go much higher than the Air Force has let on. Not to mention the fact that the acquisition cost will go up. B767 Proven airframe. It is also much more flexible in the modern theatre. It can go more places which makes it available to the commander in the field. I have already contacted my Senators and requested that Assistant Secretary Peyton be relieved of her post for dereliction of duty. For F-14D Rocks: Without the venerable KA-6D for many years, the Tomcat didn't go anywhere. I did 3 tours in the A6 in my 20 years(1973-1993) in Naval Aviation. Old Retired First Class Petty Officer a330 vs B767
The a330 does not use clad aluminum. This will lead to corrosion problems once these airframes accumulate hours and cycles. Cladding is the last line of defense against corrosion. Chemcial conversion, primer and paint are easily replaced. I know some A&P’s who have done “C” and “D” checks on airbuses. When panels are pulled on mid to high time aircraft, aluminum corrsion product is found.
So with the dollar being down versus the euro, maintnenace costs will go much higher than the Air Force has let on. Not to mention the fact that the acquisition cost will go up.
B767
Proven airframe. It is also much more flexible in the modern theatre. It can go more places which makes it available to the commander in the field.
I have already contacted my Senators and requested that Assistant Secretary Peyton be relieved of her post for dereliction of duty.
For F-14D Rocks: Without the venerable KA-6D for many years, the Tomcat didn’t go anywhere.
I did 3 tours in the A6 in my 20 years(1973-1993) in Naval Aviation.
Old Retired First Class Petty Officer

]]> By: F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22560 F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:56:01 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22560 well, at least someone is using their full privileges as a citizen, contacting senators. I truly commend that, too many people nowadays take all that (including voting) for granted. and of course the Tomcat needed the KA-6D, every single naval aircraft did. there are so many things wrong right now with naval aviation, i dont want to go into it right now, you can check out my posts on the "Video - F-22 Raptor VS SU-37 VS SU-30 VS Eurofighter Typhoon" or my blog, just click the link well, at least someone is using their full privileges as a citizen, contacting senators. I truly commend that, too many people nowadays take all that (including voting) for granted.

and of course the Tomcat needed the KA-6D, every single naval aircraft did. there are so many things wrong right now with naval aviation, i dont want to go into it right now, you can check out my posts on the “Video - F-22 Raptor VS SU-37 VS SU-30 VS Eurofighter Typhoon” or my blog, just click the link

]]> By: George http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22900 George Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:51:16 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22900 Boeing lost and now thousands of people are out of work. You seem to praise the decision and then proudly note that EADS will create 25,000 jobs in the US to build the tanker. But what about the 20,000 that won't get work because the decision. That's right Boeing's tanker was going to produce 44,000 jobs. Boeing lost and now thousands of people are out of work. You seem to praise the decision and then proudly note that EADS will create 25,000 jobs in the US to build the tanker. But what about the 20,000 that won’t get work because the decision. That’s right Boeing’s tanker was going to produce 44,000 jobs.

]]> By: Michael http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22907 Michael Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:49:07 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-22907 Yes, you're right, I praise this decision. I'm European and proud the better airplane has won and the type was not chosen just because of some political reasons. Yes, you’re right, I praise this decision. I’m European and proud the better airplane has won and the type was not chosen just because of some political reasons.

]]> By: Hotrod http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23100 Hotrod Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:22:14 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23100 I said TYPHOON, F-14s Rock. LOL It was meant to be a joke and I never mentioned Tornado! Apart from that, I was just ruminating on the troubles with the CSAR-X program, as that was fraught with difficulty too. I wonder who decided that the KC-X program was more important, as the US Armed Forces are really beginning to see problems with the Black Hawk fleet. Admittedly, even with the KC-45 selected, it's going to take a few years (decades, even!) to replace the KC-135 fleet. It is possible that some of the KC-135R airframes currently in service may reach their century! I said TYPHOON, F-14s Rock. LOL It was meant to be a joke and I never mentioned Tornado! Apart from that, I was just ruminating on the troubles with the CSAR-X program, as that was fraught with difficulty too. I wonder who decided that the KC-X program was more important, as the US Armed Forces are really beginning to see problems with the Black Hawk fleet.

Admittedly, even with the KC-45 selected, it’s going to take a few years (decades, even!) to replace the KC-135 fleet. It is possible that some of the KC-135R airframes currently in service may reach their century!

]]> By: Boeing files protest against US Air Force Tanker selection at Flightstory.net - Aviation Blog http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23573 Boeing files protest against US Air Force Tanker selection at Flightstory.net - Aviation Blog Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:45:37 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23573 [...] contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace current aerial refueling tankers with KC-45A tankers. “Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the [...] […] contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace current aerial refueling tankers with KC-45A tankers. “Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the […]

]]> By: F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23791 F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:14:05 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23791 sorry, hotrod, my mistake, but the point stands, the F-16 will never be replaced by the EF-2000. as to the importance of KC-X, the way the air force sees it is: they lose their tankers, and automatically 2/3 of their long-range strike capability is gone. however, you do need strike aircraft with which to deliver the weapons and tank from the new tankers, and right now the F-15s are falling apart; only a matter of time before the Falcons follw suit, and then we only have around 200 Raptors. as to Michael, are we sure it's the better airplane? sorry, hotrod, my mistake, but the point stands, the F-16 will never be replaced by the EF-2000.

as to the importance of KC-X, the way the air force sees it is: they lose their tankers, and automatically 2/3 of their long-range strike capability is gone. however, you do need strike aircraft with which to deliver the weapons and tank from the new tankers, and right now the F-15s are falling apart; only a matter of time before the Falcons follw suit, and then we only have around 200 Raptors.

as to Michael, are we sure it’s the better airplane?

]]> By: Michael http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23796 Michael Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:04:02 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-23796 >as to Michael, are we sure it’s the better airplane? Would the Air Force have selected an "Airbus", if it wouldn't have some reasonable advantage over KC-767? :) At least the KC-30 has a higher fuel capacity and can hold more passengers and cargo. <a href="http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf</a> <a href="http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/data/KC30_QuadFold.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/data/KC30_QuadFold.pdf</a> >as to Michael, are we sure it’s the better airplane?

Would the Air Force have selected an “Airbus”, if it wouldn’t have some reasonable advantage over KC-767? :) At least the KC-30 has a higher fuel capacity and can hold more passengers and cargo.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/data/KC30_QuadFold.pdf

]]> By: F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24107 F-14Ds Rock! Anytime, Baby! Remember the Tomcat! Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:54:01 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24107 i'm just saying that Boeing claimed that since their bird was smaller, you could fit more on the tarmac and have more airframes around; would you rather have a single KC-A330 or four KC-767s? among other things. not sure if that totally justifies Boeing's case, but... i’m just saying that Boeing claimed that since their bird was smaller, you could fit more on the tarmac and have more airframes around; would you rather have a single KC-A330 or four KC-767s? among other things. not sure if that totally justifies Boeing’s case, but…

]]> By: Jer http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24450 Jer Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:06:48 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24450 25% extra fuel capacity than the KC-135R does not mean much if it burns the fuel 25% or more faster than the KC-135R. The amount of fuel a tanker burns per hour is where it makes it's money, not on total fuel capacity. The tanker has to burn the same gas that it offloads. I will be interested to see how much larger the fuel burn per hour is due to the larger takeoff gross weights of the A-330. I would venture to guess they burn almost 50% more gas than a KC-135R per hour, effectively making it a waste of time as a tanker. Before you ask, 4 engines does not mean a larger fuel burn. The KC-135R sips gas compared to most large aircraft. My guess is the cargo numbers impressed someone and they forgot to check what it could really do as a tanker. But, I could be wrong. It might burn less, but I kind of doubt it. You have to have a lot of power to get 500K pounds of aircraft off the deck. 25% extra fuel capacity than the KC-135R does not mean much if it burns the fuel 25% or more faster than the KC-135R. The amount of fuel a tanker burns per hour is where it makes it’s money, not on total fuel capacity. The tanker has to burn the same gas that it offloads. I will be interested to see how much larger the fuel burn per hour is due to the larger takeoff gross weights of the A-330. I would venture to guess they burn almost 50% more gas than a KC-135R per hour, effectively making it a waste of time as a tanker. Before you ask, 4 engines does not mean a larger fuel burn. The KC-135R sips gas compared to most large aircraft.

My guess is the cargo numbers impressed someone and they forgot to check what it could really do as a tanker. But, I could be wrong. It might burn less, but I kind of doubt it. You have to have a lot of power to get 500K pounds of aircraft off the deck.

]]> By: Michael http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24488 Michael Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:25:11 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24488 Did you read the PDF? The KC-30 has a better fuel efficiency compared to KC-767 & KC-135R. Sure, the fuel burn is higher, but that's no surprise for a larger plane with higher payload. At the end, after 1000NM, the KC-30 can offload more fuel than KC-767 or KC-135. (KC-30: 130k lbs, KC-767: 117k lbs, KC-135R: 100k lbs) (Source: NG) Fuel burn: KC-130R: 6000 lb/hr KC-30: 5000 lb/hr (rounded up - allegedly it's somewhere around 20% more than KC-767) KC-767: 4000 lb/hr Did you read the PDF? The KC-30 has a better fuel efficiency compared to KC-767 & KC-135R. Sure, the fuel burn is higher, but that’s no surprise for a larger plane with higher payload. At the end, after 1000NM, the KC-30 can offload more fuel than KC-767 or KC-135. (KC-30: 130k lbs, KC-767: 117k lbs, KC-135R: 100k lbs) (Source: NG)

Fuel burn:
KC-130R: 6000 lb/hr
KC-30: 5000 lb/hr (rounded up - allegedly it’s somewhere around 20% more than KC-767)
KC-767: 4000 lb/hr

]]> By: Jer http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24553 Jer Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:35:21 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24553 Sorry Micheal, I missed the PDF. Is it in the article or on another post somewhere else? However, the quoted fuel burn numbers are misleading. The KC-135R only burns 6000 lb/hr when it is very light. I have a hard time believing that the 330 and 767 numbers quoted are not the same way. I'm guessing the numbers for both aircraft are at least double if not more for a fully grossed out jet. Plus, the 1000NM is misleading too. Most jets fly around at 400 KTAS (ball park) or even faster if they are able to get higher with favorable winds. That being said, 1000NM is only a 2.5 to 3 hour mission depending on winds. The available offload should be much higher on a 3 hour sortie (assuming a maximum gross weight). I would have to read the PDF you reference to better understand how they are arriving at these numbers. Don't get me wrong, I think Airbus makes a great aircraft. Some of the numbers just don't make sense. Sorry Micheal, I missed the PDF. Is it in the article or on another post somewhere else?

However, the quoted fuel burn numbers are misleading. The KC-135R only burns 6000 lb/hr when it is very light. I have a hard time believing that the 330 and 767 numbers quoted are not the same way. I’m guessing the numbers for both aircraft are at least double if not more for a fully grossed out jet.

Plus, the 1000NM is misleading too. Most jets fly around at 400 KTAS (ball park) or even faster if they are able to get higher with favorable winds. That being said, 1000NM is only a 2.5 to 3 hour mission depending on winds. The available offload should be much higher on a 3 hour sortie (assuming a maximum gross weight). I would have to read the PDF you reference to better understand how they are arriving at these numbers.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Airbus makes a great aircraft. Some of the numbers just don’t make sense.

]]> By: Michael http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24639 Michael Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:11:18 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-24639 It's hard to find any correct numbers for fuel burn. Depending on the source, the numbers can vary a lot. For the KC-30: Some sources state it's 9% more than KC-767, Boeing even states it's 23%-25% more. To be honest, you can't believe both. So I just rounded it up. For the KC-130R: I just used the number stated in this article: <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-130.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-130.htm</a> For the KC-767: I can't find the source anymore, stating 4000. Sorry. :( Generally, any manufacturer states their product to be "the best and most fuel efficient" and is trying to bash on the competitor, but I couldn't find any official specification containing some definite numbers for fuel burn. The PDF I was talking about was: <a href="http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/data/KC30_QuadFold.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/data/KC30_QuadFold.pdf</a> (Page 2) <a href="http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf</a> (Page 2)<br /> It’s hard to find any correct numbers for fuel burn. Depending on the source, the numbers can vary a lot.
For the KC-30: Some sources state it’s 9% more than KC-767, Boeing even states it’s 23%-25% more. To be honest, you can’t believe both. So I just rounded it up.

For the KC-130R: I just used the number stated in this article: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-130.htm

For the KC-767: I can’t find the source anymore, stating 4000. Sorry. :(

Generally, any manufacturer states their product to be “the best and most fuel efficient” and is trying to bash on the competitor, but I couldn’t find any official specification containing some definite numbers for fuel burn.

The PDF I was talking about was:

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/media_center/data/KC30_QuadFold.pdf (Page 2)
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf (Page 2)

]]> By: KC-135 Pilot http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-27890 KC-135 Pilot Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:39:50 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-27890 There's one number that all three planes have in common that often invalidates many of the other stats, and that is: Number of booms - 1 None of those 'better' numbers will help an 8-ship of F-16's get their 3k apiece any quicker, what you need is a second tanker. And when there's no ramp space left at the deployed location suddenly that 'fuel offlad at 1000 NM' stat is important again, because that's how far the Airbus will have to fly to get there. Yes, it's a more capable aircraft, but unless they add another boom, you have to ask - what's the cost of that extra 'capability'. There’s one number that all three planes have in common that often invalidates many of the other stats, and that is:

Number of booms - 1

None of those ‘better’ numbers will help an 8-ship of F-16’s get their 3k apiece any quicker, what you need is a second tanker. And when there’s no ramp space left at the deployed location suddenly that ‘fuel offlad at 1000 NM’ stat is important again, because that’s how far the Airbus will have to fly to get there. Yes, it’s a more capable aircraft, but unless they add another boom, you have to ask - what’s the cost of that extra ‘capability’.

]]> By: prettyflyforatankerboy http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-43867 prettyflyforatankerboy Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:25:26 +0000 http://blog.flightstory.net/633/us-air-force-selects-kc-30-tanker/#comment-43867 Great whatever just get us a new airplane mmkay thx bye Great whatever just get us a new airplane mmkay thx bye

]]>