Tugger From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1169 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 17099 times:
Per the Seattle PI: Next tanker contest starts Wednesday
Quote: The Pentagon announced Tuesday that it will issue a new draft request for proposals on Wednesday to Boeing and Northrop Grumman to provide 179 tankers for the Air Force.
The Pentagon scheduled a press conference for noon PDT Wednesday to explain the proposal.
Quote: Advanced Aerial Refueling Boom for Northrop Grumman's KC-45 Tanker Concludes Testing Phase
Advanced aerial refueling system demonstrates its capabilities and maturity, achieving all test objectives
KC-45 Tanker has completed its testing and validation phase. Over the final two-day flight test period, the ARBS conducted more than 20 contacts with an F-16 fighter aircraft and, thereby, successfully achieved all remaining test objectives.
Completion of the boom test program confirmed the capabilities and maturity of the ARBS, which is a key element of the KC-45 Tanker. The ARBS also is incorporated on the similar KC-30B Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) for Australia -- the first of which will be delivered next year to the Royal Australian Air Force.
......
The ARBS test program spanned several years and included developmental testing, which began in the EADS System Integration Laboratory before moving to the ARBS Ground Test Rig. Activities then shifted to the flight phase in March 2006 with flights conducted on board the EADS A310 Boom Demonstrator aircraft.
......
Over the 40-month flight test phase, the ARBS successfully refueled numerous aircraft to include F-16 fighter aircraft, NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, and proximity testing with the Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B MRTT. In total the ARBS accomplished 80 contacts and logged more than 146 flight hours during 122 sorties. Numerous wet and dry contacts were made at various altitudes and airspeeds, confirming both the ease of operation and the high nominal fuel flow rate. The large ARBS in-flight refueling envelope was fully explored, validated, and shown to be significantly larger in all axes than the KC-135's envelope.
......
The all-electric ARBS provides highly accurate, reliable in-flight refueling, with a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute -- 33% more than more than the KC-135 whose rate is 900 gallons per minute. Modern fly-by-wire technology incorporated in the ARBS provides enhanced controllability and includes an automatic load alleviation system that greatly aids the boom operator -- as well as the receiver aircraft's pilot -- during refueling operations.
I see the fuel rate is noted as having "a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute -- 33% more than more than the KC-135 whose rate is 900 gallons per minute. " but that can't be right because I researched a bit for Boeing Adv Boom capability and it showed: "A fuel transfer rate of 600 gallons per minute minimizes refueling time." ( http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/boom.html ) Which would be less than the KC-135, so something is screwed up.
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 1949 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 16999 times:
Based on Sue Payton's comments in the Bloomberg quote I'm anticipating that the AF will do what it takes to ensure Airbus gets the order.
"Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sue Payton said the bid strategy and process won't change "drastically" from that which led to the Northrop Grumman award.
Of "90-some" complaints filed by Boeing, GAO upheld eight, said Payton, who oversaw the process that led to Northrop's choice.
"We had some judgments that were viewed to be unreasonable," she said in an interview last week, her first public remarks on the GAO decision. "These are very easily correctable areas," she said.
"We'll want to clarify the record and we had a few areas that we are going to make corrective actions on," Payton said."
So it seems that the AF considers only 8 complaints upheld on a single contract isn't that big a deal. Guess that over 50% of the complaints would have had to have been upheld before the AF took notice.
Tugger From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 16975 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5): Based on Sue Payton's comments in the Bloomberg quote I'm anticipating that the AF will do what it takes to ensure Airbus gets the order.
Now, now, no one is trying to "ensure" that anyone gets it or anything. The problem has always been that based on how the bid is written, one plane or the other is likely to win. And based on the fact that the "KC-30" bid won the first time and barring significant changes in the request or significant price changes by the bidders, the outcome is likely to be similar.
The key thing is that the process has to be up front, requirements clearly delineated, and fairly communicated.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Wedgetail737 From United States, joined Aug 2003, 3300 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16952 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5): Based on Sue Payton's comments in the Bloomberg quote I'm anticipating that the AF will do what it takes to ensure Airbus gets the order.
"Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Sue Payton said the bid strategy and process won't change "drastically" from that which led to the Northrop Grumman award.
The new bids are no longer being handled by the USAF. They are being handled by the DoD directly.
Tugger From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 16922 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 4): It depends on the temperature, but it's somewhere around 6.7lbs/gal. So 8000lbs/min works out to 1194gal/min.
And I forgot to say: Thanks!
OK, so that's the 1,200 gal they were saying. Now I am wondering what Boeing rate is. Their own site says 600 gal/min, the news release says that the KC-135's rate is 900 gal and the boom on the KC-767 will be their new "Advanced Boom" so it can't be less than the 135's. Add onto that, if Boeing's site is correct then the KC-30 can fuel a plane at twice the rate (depending on its ability to receive of course). Now that would definitely clear up how the KC-30 can fuel the same number planes with fewer aircraft but I still say something is wrong.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Rwessel From United States, joined Jan 2007, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16905 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 8): Now I am wondering what Boeing rate is. Their own site says 600 gal/min, the news release says that the KC-135's rate is 900 gal and the boom on the KC-767 will be their new "Advanced Boom" so it can't be less than the 135's. Add onto that, if Boeing's site is correct then the KC-30 can fuel a plane at twice the rate (depending on its ability to receive of course). Now that would definitely clear up how the KC-30 can fuel the same number planes with fewer aircraft but I still say something is wrong.
The 600gpm is for the centerline drogue-and-probe system, not the boom. Boeing lists the boom as 900gpm plus, and the wing pod drogues as 400gpm:
As I understand it, most smaller aircraft are unable to take fuel any faster than a KC-135 can deliver it, so increasing the rate won't help in many cases. OTOH, there was likely some amount of chicken-and-egg here, and future aircraft might well be designed to handle faster rates if there were tankers capable of supplying such.
Scbriml From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8416 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16828 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 9): OTOH, there was likely some amount of chicken-and-egg here, and future aircraft might well be designed to handle faster rates if there were tankers capable of supplying such.
Why restrict yourself to the refuelling rate of a 1950s designed tanker? With a new tanker able to deliver fuel more quickly, why wouldn't you build that capability in to new planes coming online over the next 50 years?
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5533 posts, RR: 36 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16651 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 1): I think the KC30 is much to capable for the USAF.
If all you need is a pick-up truck, why buy an 18 wheeler?
Quoting F4N (Reply 2): I expect a split order to eliminate another protest to GAO, minimize political interference and maximize the benefits offered by the contenders.
That won't happen.
Quoting Tugger (Reply 3): Over the 40-month flight test phase, the ARBS successfully refueled numerous aircraft to include F-16 fighter aircraft, NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, and proximity testing with the Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B MRTT. In total the ARBS accomplished 80 contacts and logged more than 146 flight hours during 122 sorties. Numerous wet and dry contacts were made at various altitudes and airspeeds, confirming both the ease of operation and the high nominal fuel flow rate. The large ARBS in-flight refueling envelope was fully explored, validated, and shown to be significantly larger in all axes than the KC-135's envelope.
The envelope is larger because the EADS Boom is longer, not for any other reason. But, the test numbers don't add up, only 80 contacts in 146 hours on 122 sorties? So, what is wrong with the design?
Quoting Tugger (Reply 3): I see the fuel rate is noted as having "a maximum nominal fuel flow rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute -- 33% more than more than the KC-135 whose rate is 900 gallons per minute. " but that can't be right because I researched a bit for Boeing Adv Boom capability and it showed: "A fuel transfer rate of 600 gallons per minute minimizes refueling time." ( http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/boom.html ) Which would be less than the KC-135, so something is screwed up.
Since there is no USAF aircraft that can on-load fuel at the rate the KC-45 can pump (including the KC-45 itself, it can only on-load at 900 gallons/minute), why do we need that "extra" capability? On-load rates are receiver restrictions, not a tanker benifit.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5): "We had some judgments that were viewed to be unreasonable," she said in an interview last week, her first public remarks on the GAO decision. "These are very easily correctable areas," she said.
"Some judgements that were viewed unreasonable"? This is not "Joe Sixpack" buying a Chevy over a Ford, lady. This is about evaluating equipment for the troops fairly and equilly. You, and your co-horts didn't do that. What Sue and her "associates" did may have been illegal. That part of the investigation is still going on.
Quoting Tugger (Reply 8): OK, so that's the 1,200 gal they were saying. Now I am wondering what Boeing rate is. Their own site says 600 gal/min, the news release says that the KC-135's rate is 900 gal and the boom on the KC-767 will be their new "Advanced Boom" so it can't be less than the 135's. Add onto that, if Boeing's site is correct then the KC-30 can fuel a plane at twice the rate (depending on its ability to receive of course). Now that would definitely clear up how the KC-30 can fuel the same number planes with fewer aircraft but I still say something is wrong.
Good general numbers are the KC-135/KC-10 can offload at a maximum rate of 6600-7000lbs, the KC-45 can do it at 8,000-9,000lbs. The problem is, no receiver in the world today can onload at that rate.
BTW, it seems both the KC-135 and KC-30B can dump fuel at about the same rate of over 12,000lbs/minute.
NicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 544 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16639 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): Since there is no USAF aircraft that can on-load fuel at the rate the KC-45 can pump (including the KC-45 itself, it can only on-load at 900 gallons/minute), why do we need that "extra" capability? On-load rates are receiver restrictions, not a tanker benifit.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): Good general numbers are the KC-135/KC-10 can offload at a maximum rate of 6600-7000lbs, the KC-45 can do it at 8,000-9,000lbs. The problem is, no receiver in the world today can onload at that rate.
So why didn't you take the post of scrimbl and Rwessel in consideration, being posted hours before yours?
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 9): OTOH, there was likely some amount of chicken-and-egg here, and future aircraft might well be designed to handle faster rates if there were tankers capable of supplying such.
Why restrict yourself to the refuelling rate of a 1950s designed tanker? With a new tanker able to deliver fuel more quickly, why wouldn't you build that capability in to new planes coming online over the next 50 years?
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 612 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16634 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 6): The key thing is that the process has to be up front, requirements clearly delineated, and fairly communicated.
The only thing that has been clearly communicated is that Congress is only going to fund a program that includes an airplane made by Boeing. If a split buy isn't in the cards, none of this matters anyway.
YWG747 From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16584 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 10): Why restrict yourself to the refuelling rate of a 1950s designed tanker? With a new tanker able to deliver fuel more quickly, why wouldn't you build that capability in to new planes coming online over the next 50 years?
That would constitute future planing.
Which, lets face it, most governments don't do such a thing.
DL767captain From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1296 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16542 times:
Is there a reason a split order won't happen? Both aircraft seem to be different enough that a split order could actually be good for the AF. The 767 for the smaller end and the A330 for the larger. It would give them more versatility.
Another option is both Boeing and Airbus give one of their tankers to the AF and let them actually test the aircraft in the wild. Tests would be identical, even flying next to each other to assure maximum comparability. Let the AF test each one for about a month in all the different areas it needs to be tested then they can make their decision. Either a split order, or choose one.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2006, 1169 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8250 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8416 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 544 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 206 posts,