Ta Da! Boeing Unveils Its KC-X

DoD Buzz ^ | 03/04/2010 | Colin Clark

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Boeing unveiled the plane it will offer for the KC-X competition today, including a little movie and a press release.

There was no mention of a 777 tanker, just the long-xpected 767. One of the more intriguing adds to the new bid was the news that the new tanker will boast “a digital flight deck featuring electronic displays” taken from the 787, Boeing’s most advanced civilian plane. It will “show all flight attitude, navigation, engine indication and crew-alerting information on screens 75 percent larger than on a commercial Airbus A330.” One can almost hear the Boeing folks crying: Take that EADS!

Boeing said in its release that the new tanker “will meet all of the Air Force’s 372 requirements” and will rely on “a low-risk approach to manufacturing.” For members of Congress and their staff, as well as lobbyists everywhere, the release notes that it will be built in Washington and Kansas, as well as by “suppliers throughout the nation.”

And in a finally flurry of blows against Northrop Grumman and its partner EADS, the release claims the Boeing plane will be “more cost-effective to own and operate than the larger, heavier Airbus airplane” and will “save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel.” Not only that, but the Boeing program “will support substantially more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe.”

OK, we won’t go into just who relies more on foreign suppliers or who will generate more jobs. After all, it’s not clear yet whether Northrop plans to bid on the tanker and risk the substantial costs

[Yo-Yo]

The Airbus tanker will require longer run ways.

No, the Airbus will require shorter runways. It will require more rampspace, but it can operate out of shorter fields than the Boeing tanker when carrying the same amount of fuel as the Boeing tanker.

[Paleo Conservative]

No, the Airbus will require shorter runways. It will require more rampspace, but it can operate out of shorter fields than the Boeing tanker when carrying the same amount of fuel as the Boeing tanker.

That's because it's a bigger plane with bigger wings and engines. It also has to burn more fuel to lift and carry the same load.

The 767 can fit in the same ramp space as the KC-135's it's replacing. It carries a little more fuel than the KC-135R and has better runway performance than the KC-135R. Considering our existing bases were designed for the KC-135, the 767 minimizes the costs of modifying the infrastructure already in place.

[Paleo Conservative]

No, the Airbus will require shorter runways. It will require more rampspace, but it can operate out of shorter fields than the Boeing tanker when carrying the same amount of fuel as the Boeing tanker.

So existing airbases will be able to supply less fuel to aircraft, because they can park fewer A330-200's than 767-200's.

[Paleo Conservative]

No, the Airbus will require shorter runways. It will require more rampspace, but it can operate out of shorter fields than the Boeing tanker when carrying the same amount of fuel as the Boeing tanker.

So existing airbases will be able to supply less fuel to aircraft, because they can park fewer A330-200's than 767-200's.

[darkwing104]

Northrop Grumman most likely will not place to bid. They knew the fix was in at the rebid. Boeing will win by default in this Blue vs. Red State battle.

The big winner will be the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

[Yo-Yo]

The burn rate isn’t that dramatically different with equal loads. Why do you think the A330 decimated civil 767 sales? Because it has a lower seat-mile cost. Fly both of the aircraft empty, and sure the Boeing costs less. Fly them both at 200,000 lbs of fuel, and they’re close enough to being equal. Fly them both with 240,000 lbs of fuel, and - oh wait, the Boeing can’t hold 240,000 lbs of fuel.

Yes, there is no getting around the fact that the A330 would take more ramp space and larger hanger space than the 767.

However, in forward airbases, the A330 can operate out of shorter fields while delivering the same amount of fuel as the 767. When operating in a combat environment, the A330 can carry and deliver more fuel, and stay on station longer, so fewer sorties will be required to deliver the same amount of fuel, an overall savings in time and number of aircraft required for the mission.

There are tradeoffs in all decisions.

[Redleg Duke]

"I blame the DoD for making a mess of this."

Yes, it goes back to the Government's freakin' affirmative action program that put a corrupt woman in charge who took a big bribe from Boeing to queer the initial competition.

We, in the defense industry, keep being warned about being debarred from competition for corruption, but Boeing just got a wrist slapped, and is wallowing back at the trough.

The big losers are our warfighters who are denied modern and efficient aerial tankers because of a corrupt broad and an equally corrupt American aircraft company.

[darkwing104]

We, in the defense industry, keep being warned about being debarred from competition for corruption, but Boeing just got a wrist slapped, and is wallowing back at the trough.

We must work for the same company. I get those warnings at least once a month.

[Kansas58]

I think you are wrong on this point.

Very wrong!

The Airbus design will require far more updating, of existing Air Force facilities, including run ways.

[Kansas58]

Congressman Todd Tiahrt, of Wichita, has done a GREAT job for Boeing, and American workers, and American taxpayers, on this issue!

[CAluvdubya]

Ditto to your comment...

Northrop got screwed by politics and a lot of folks will lose their jobs because of it.

Ya don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[Non-Sequitur]

I’ll still stick with my prediction that when the dust settles Congress will require the Air Force to buy both Boeing and EADS, resulting in fewer aircraft for more money. It’s just the way they do things.

[PAR35]

I’ll see your Air France and match with a Lauda, and raise you an Air China. You Boeing propagandists really want to start counting bodies?

Airbus 330

type registration operator fat. location pic cat
30-JUN-1994 Airbus A330-321 F-WWKH Airbus Industrie 7 Toulouse-Bla... A1
15-MAR-2000 Airbus A330-322 9M-MKB Malaysia Airlines 0 Kuala Lumpur... A1
24-JUL-2001 Airbus A330-243 4R-ALE SriLankan Airlines 0 Colombo-Band... C1
24-JUL-2001 Airbus A330-243 4R-ALF SriLankan Airlines 0 Colombo-Band... C1
01-JUN-2009 Airbus A330-203 F-GZCP Air France 228 near São Pedro an...

Boeing 767 (leaving out the 9/11 events)

??-FEB-1991 Boeing 767-269 9K-AIB Kuwait Airways 0 Mosul Airpor... C1
??-FEB-1991 Boeing 767-269 9K-AIC Kuwait Airways 0 Mosul Airpor... C1
26-MAY-1991 Boeing 767-3Z9ER OE-LAV Lauda Air 223 near Phu Toey A1
06-APR-1993 Boeing 767-2S1ER N767TA TACA 0 Guatemala Ci... A1
23-NOV-1996 Boeing 767-260ER ET-AIZ Ethiopian Airlines 125 near Grande Comore H1
31-OCT-1999 Boeing 767-366ER SU-GAP EgyptAir 217 near Nantucket Is... A1
22-SEP-2000 Boeing 767-2B7ER N654US US Airways 0 Philadelphia...

15-APR-2002 Boeing 767-2J6ER B-2552 Air China 129 near Pusan-Kimhae... A1
26-JUN-2002 Boeing 767-281 JA8254 All Nippon 0 Shimojishima...

[A.A. Cunningham]

The Airbus tanker will require new hangers. (sic)

hangar

hanger

[Yo-Yo]

I try to deal in facts. My facts show that the A330, carrying the equivalent of a 767s full fuel load, can operate out of a shorter runway than the 767. The USAF requirement is to operate from a 10,000' runway at Maximum Takeoff Weight, which both aircraft can accomplish. Where do you get the longer runway data from?

Regardless, it's a moot point, because the way the KC-X RFP is now written, the award will go to Boeing, and NG-EADS may not even bother bidding.

Interesting tidbit: Boeing has never, in it's history, won a tanker competition with the USAF. The KB-29, KB-50, KC-97 and KC-135 were sole sourced to Boeing. McDonnell Douglas' KC-10 beat Boeing's KC-747 offering in the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft competition, and the KC-767AT lost to NG-EADS' KC-30. in the last KC-X competition.

Looks like Boeing will win through a de facto sole source contract yet again. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. I like Boeing. But I do think the larger capacity and greater range of the A330 is going to come in handy in any future conflict in the Pacific against our Walmart supplier.

[El Gran Salseron]

“MORE ESPENSIVE”

Geez! You have an accent just like Ricky Ricardo! :-) JUst funnin’. Don’t get your feelings hurt.

[appeal2]

Which configuration 767 are you talking about. They now have the 767-300er outfitted with winglets. If they are using that configuration on the tanker it should be able to take-off on fairly short runways. The ER was originally developed to allow flights to California to take off from NY Laguardia’s 6000 foot runways, fully loaded with fuel. I don’t believe that Airbus 330’s can takeoff from LGA.

[DesScorp]

"Tell that to the hundreds of NGC s/w engineers in Florida, to the thousands of assemblers in Alabama and the many thousands of parts suppliers scattered across the US, who would have worked on the NGC tanker."

OK, to the engineers and assemblers in Alabama and everywhere else... you're assembling a re-badged Airbus. There. Oh, and I live in Alabama. I'm well aware of what the program would involve. It's basically just an airplane maquiladora... a place to cheaply assemble parts fabricated in Europe. In the end, it's still an Airbus.

[FreeReign]

OK, to the engineers and assemblers in Alabama and everywhere else... you're assembling a re-badged Airbus. There. Oh, and I live in Alabama. I'm well aware of what the program would involve.

You have no idea what the NGC engineers in Melbourne Fla. would do. Hint: they don't assemble things.

And you don't have any idea what the "program" would involve. "Oh", and I do more than live near what would be the NGC Tanker program.

[UNGN]

So Hijackings and Terrorist attacks = Massive structural failure and breaking up in flight?

I used to love A330's, but now I won't fly on them.

Sure the odds of being on a A330 that breaks up in flight are low, BUT IT ISN'T Zero.

As far as Lauda air goes, Airbus 330's have more thrust reverser problems than 767's do today.

My prediction is the A330 is going to be the DC-10 of the new millennium.