Interesting that the spider diagram has very little to do with the day-to-day mission. I would be more interested in the data for a typical A/R mission with a half-capacity offload and no cargo on an AR track within 300 miles, launched from an old SAC base (What's with the 7000 ft runway requirement?). I'd like for someone to show how the KC-45 could do it cheaper than the KC-767 with the same fuel load...it can't.
Cargo and PAX...isn't this why we have brand-spanking new C-17's and the soon to be re-engined and 85% mission capable C-5? How about the 59 KC-10's?
As far as Maximum capability, I agree the A330 is the choice, but I doubt that they will be used this way. The efficient choice is the 767, unless data comes out that shows otherwise.
There arent enough C17s to carry all the cargo the DOD wants. Why buy and AC that can ONLY refuel? I think they made damn good decision to get one that can carry cargo and refuel. I bet you will see the 330 carry more cargo than you are thinking it will.....
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
the A330-200 Freighter carries roughly 246,000 lbs of gas and has a max structural payload of approx 152,000 lbs. At max zero fuel weight, the max fuel the A330 can take on is 133,000 lbs.
in all seriousness those numbers are impressive and better than the 767. I will stop being Pro-Boeing and concede this one to Airbus. hail Europe.
There arent enough C17s to carry all the cargo the DOD wants. Why buy and AC that can ONLY refuel? I think they made damn good decision to get one that can carry cargo and refuel. I bet you will see the 330 carry more cargo than you are thinking it will.....
There's no argument on that...maybe they should change its designator to "CK-45"
My main point is there is a such thing as too much airplane, I just wonder on how many occasions will this airplane actually be tasked with more pallets than a 767 could carry and would it justify the higher operating cost.
Haydo, I tried man. I tried to defend Boeing and all i got was negativity. Its a lost cause everyone wants the 330. So im going to give up and let them take the win on this one.
btw we're partying in vegas June 6-8 can you be there?
There is a myriad of things to argue about this issue, but it all boils down to the question if this is supposed to be a "KC-135 Replacement" or a "Tanker Acquisition." The two are NOT synonymous. We have PLENTY of gas in the AOR. The issue is booms. If there is a lack of gas, then why do we WASTE tens of millions of pounds a month? If it is an airlift issue, then bad on the AF for buying the C-17 to replace the C-5.
In watching the Defense Appropriations Sub-Committee's "hearing" on the decision, all I can say is W-O-W! I know that the AF's reps were in the hot seat and that's not a comfortable place to be, but they sounded like they had little idea what they were saying. They used both aforementioned phrases interchangably. And to add insult to injury, they often said "KC-135E" instead of "KC-135R." The exact quote came from when the program manager was explaining what was used as a baseline. He used the "E" and "R" interchangably.
I know the Boeing messed up the process. Bad on them. In a post Halliburton world, there will never again be a single bid contract awarded again (at least not one this big...). But the 767 was the perfect option for the ORIGINAL request from the AF. AirBus complained about it because they had nothing to offer that would/could compare to it. SOOOOOO... the request was revised to accommodate EADS. When this happened, the new request pretty much explained the 330 as it existed on paper. Boeing could have proposed a larger (777 perhaps) airframe to suffice the REVISED request, but thought they knew best. I know there have already been personnel changes over at Boeing as a result.
As to the "hearing," what a waste. Congressman Tiahrt was the only one actually asking the questions that needed to be asked. Everyone keeps saying that the Airbus is more bang for the buck. All such questions were avoided and subsequent answers were not made available to the public. For example, Boeing had to factor in the cost of employee HealthCare into their "fixed costs." (AirBus did not as they have socialized health care...) The R&D that Boeing paid to develop the plane was also included (as opposed to the AirBus, where the money was subsidized by member countries). There is nothing in the original contract that requires AirBus to make any specified number of the airplanes in the United States!! The first handfull will be made in Toulouse, and AirBus can move the manufacturing to the US at their discretion. I know we get into the weeds here as to what a congressman will fight--whether they have a "free trade" stance, "military" stance, or national pride, etc.
So where do we go from here? I don't see why this is becoming such a polarizing debate. Air Force made a decision. Right, Wrong or Indifferent (take your pick). But CONGRESS is the one who has to appropriate the money!!!!! There is nothing automatic in this process.
It'll be interesting. Boeing makes a helluva plane. But it's not like I'm gonna be alive to fly this thing if it ever comes on line...
There arent enough C17s to carry all the cargo the DOD wants. Why buy and AC that can ONLY refuel? I think they made damn good decision to get one that can carry cargo and refuel. I bet you will see the 330 carry more cargo than you are thinking it will.....
if there's a shortage of long haul transports, then why do we fly out/back empty?
There is a myriad of things to argue about this issue, but it all boils down to the question if this is supposed to be a "KC-135 Replacement" or a "Tanker Acquisition." The two are NOT synonymous. We have PLENTY of gas in the AOR. The issue is booms. If there is a lack of gas, then why do we WASTE tens of millions of pounds a month? If it is an airlift issue, then bad on the AF for buying the C-17 to replace the C-5.
In watching the Defense Appropriations Sub-Committee's "hearing" on the decision, all I can say is W-O-W! I know that the AF's reps were in the hot seat and that's not a comfortable place to be, but they sounded like they had little idea what they were saying. They used both aforementioned phrases interchangably. And to add insult to injury, they often said "KC-135E" instead of "KC-135R." The exact quote came from when the program manager was explaining what was used as a baseline. He used the "E" and "R" interchangably.
I know the Boeing messed up the process. Bad on them. In a post Halliburton world, there will never again be a single bid contract awarded again (at least not one this big...). But the 767 was the perfect option for the ORIGINAL request from the AF. AirBus complained about it because they had nothing to offer that would/could compare to it. SOOOOOO... the request was revised to accommodate EADS. When this happened, the new request pretty much explained the 330 as it existed on paper. Boeing could have proposed a larger (777 perhaps) airframe to suffice the REVISED request, but thought they knew best. I know there have already been personnel changes over at Boeing as a result.
As to the "hearing," what a waste. Congressman Tiahrt was the only one actually asking the questions that needed to be asked. Everyone keeps saying that the Airbus is more bang for the buck. All such questions were avoided and subsequent answers were not made available to the public. For example, Boeing had to factor in the cost of employee HealthCare into their "fixed costs." (AirBus did not as they have socialized health care...) The R&D that Boeing paid to develop the plane was also included (as opposed to the AirBus, where the money was subsidized by member countries). There is nothing in the original contract that requires AirBus to make any specified number of the airplanes in the United States!! The first handfull will be made in Toulouse, and AirBus can move the manufacturing to the US at their discretion. I know we get into the weeds here as to what a congressman will fight--whether they have a "free trade" stance, "military" stance, or national pride, etc.
So where do we go from here? I don't see why this is becoming such a polarizing debate. Air Force made a decision. Right, Wrong or Indifferent (take your pick). But CONGRESS is the one who has to appropriate the money!!!!! There is nothing automatic in this process.
It'll be interesting. Boeing makes a helluva plane. But it's not like I'm gonna be alive to fly this thing if it ever comes on line...
I agree. Just remember that the C-17 replaced the C-141 not the C-5. C-5's are about to be re-engined (and become infinitely more usefull).
I agree. Just remember that the C-17 replaced the C-141 not the C-5. C-5's are about to be re-engined (and become infinitely more usefull).
The re-engined C-5 has been flying more frequently of late. It is not uncommon to see it every few days loafing around. The engines sound very different from the old ones.. much quieter. The big orange pitot helps easily identify it.
__________________
Simple solutions are seldom either.
Similar Threads
from a 135R/T perspective...
Linear Mode
