And you have to carry that weight all the time and additionally it will have an impact on runway performance. Plus t volume limited max fuel requires min MTOW of t. With the current max MTOW t you already have room for heavier put more efficient engines for more loitering time and more fuel offload … maybe snitching some more available fuel volume in the wings is possible? Engine efficiency me seemeth is at the core of tuning offload capabilities.
The fact of the matter is that the Aneo is getting an engine that is more powerful than the current engines on the Aceo. In fact, without the centre gear deployed, the weights at which the A can operate at are more or less those of an A with a MTOW of tonnes. MTOW between and metric tonnes , could be outfitted with the same 19, litre rear centre fuel tank as that of the A I thought a simple comparison of OEWs would give a hint on extra weights like the center gear.
And the A seems to leverage some more nooks and crannies for tankage than the A Like-for like, the engine dry weight for a Trent engine is kg, while the dry weight for a CFMC engine is kg. NB: Nacelle, fluids and aircraft build items will be added to the engine to result in a powerplant weight. Design strength required was apparently only one percent higher for the A wing than what was required for the A wing. The use case is irrelevant.
U.S. Congressional Documents | HeinOnline
First I want to thank Bjorn for his time as well as the information he presented. I appreciate the graphic though I would like a comparison on range and loiter time as well. Does it have longevity issues as a tanker Boeing does not? I would be interested in some analysis of that. It still get to be some value judgments. As noted, if you need a Mach 2 fighter and a Mach 4 is offered at a higher price, cost more to operate and does the mission no better is that Mach 2 worth it? Obviously the baseline was the KC So maybe falling below the k fuel limit was needed so that you did not get someone with a lesser capability as I recall there was a wild Russian based aircraft thrown into the mix.
Congress for better or worse enabled the program based on replacing the KC, not the KC Please note, the AF also took the C27 away from the Army, committed to buy and support it and then killed it, the C supposedly was superior. Trying to make a competition between an AMRT and a much closer to the KC baseline virtually makes it impossible for one or the other to compete with each other. One reason the thing was overturned on the next to the last round was the AF listed footprint specs spacing and then gave AMRT no penalty for being larger when the contract specifically said there would be a penalty.
- Bjorn’s Corner: USAF Tanker program - Leeham News and Analysis;
- Essential Carers Guide: Second Edition?
- Found Causes for The Distressed!
I assume the spacing is a safety of operation issue full tankers and lots of fuel as well as war zone collateral damage. Regardless if you are going to waive it then its not a spec. In the end it really boils down to does the US need a lot of tankers at as low a cost as possible or does it need larger ones at higher costs?
One thing to think about is the US with its Civilian Reserve fleet program has a third option. That option is required a minimum amount of use or the participants are not required to provide that capability. You have to wonder if that is used and is more cost effective, does the KC30 add any advantage? Use it more and use it up sooner when a number of comments were made by the same general about keeping airframe hours down.
I can see small air forcec wanting to maxiumize what they have.
However, most of those are coalition air forces and they can use the US tankers as needed. UK case in point where they used their Voyagers to haul people and freight to and from Afghanistan. Freight hauling is not a unique capability. Tankers are. Hauling freight and pax means it is not doing its unique mission.
You can hire that out or buy a cheaper freighter. Australia at least boomed theirs. So if anyone can draw a single conclusions that crosses all the pros, cons and in some cases silly boom receptacle on fighters then good luck. The fact that Boeing is doing badly is costing Boeing a lot of money. Contract was written to reflect that it would not cost the taxpayers well then there re those pesky write offs and not paying taxes but…….
In the end Boeing will solve the problems.
There is nothing unique about any of them, not cutting edge, not a game changer. It probably says a lot more about how far Boeing has fallen that Airbus can get a tanker project going and successfully without all the issue Boeing has had than anything. The AMRT in its various versions will continue to sell, Boeing is fooling itself it will sell any s to other than Japan.
Korea a case in point, a country that does not deploy, has very short range local needs, pax and freighter not a factor and choose the AMRT. Probably as much as anything they wanted their tanker as soon as possible, not 10 years from now Boeing having to fully commit to USAF and not meeting that schedule. The boom problems were significant, resulting in a quasi-operational state that only recently has been upgraded.
No, the KC will not have the cockpit. I take it the last part of your comment was meant for TransWorld and not me because I was quoting him. Getting there, however, was not without some serious problems and people making comparisons between programs would do well to remember that. I know for certain that NG had the proper experience. But the point is that the KC is working very well now.source url
In fact, developmental delays and problems seems to be pretty normal in military programmes. In contrast, Boeing has an enormous experience with tankers and booms — from two legacy companies. About 30 of those requirements necessitate handling of sensitive U. The company may complement its expertise in the area with U. The RFP is structured so that any tanker meeting minimal conditions is a contender, after which it becomes mainly a question of price.
Yet EADS officials believe that expense will be compensated by lower development costs, because the A tanker for the Air Force will be very similar to the airplane, already certified in Europe, that has won tanker contracts in Australia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Great Britain. The Pentagon, eager to have a competition that ensures value for the taxpayer, must be tempted to let that scenario play out. EADS has already demonstrated success as a prime contractor to the U. Army on its Light Utility Helicopter program, he said. And it has built up its U.
The experience of the performers always plays a part. Not really. More than 50 percent of the tanker had to be US sourced — BTW, which other country in the world has those sort of requirements? France does, apparently. Norm Dicks, D-Wash.
- First time here? Create your account;
- Customer Service: How To Do It Right!.
- Secondary Navigation.
As reports swirl that L-3, seen as the likeliest partner for an EADS tanker bid, may drop the idea of working with the European defense giant, Rep. By miner I mean solvable, lack of understanding for what they were doing and the learning curve. As the Aussies showed, you can get through it with a lot of work. Major would be an airframe that doe snot hold up, creates too much turbulence to tanker aircraft etc. Reading over the full GAO report, the KC was seriously deficient in several key areas that the USAF improperly glossed over that would have serious impacts on flight safety and refueling capability.
In other words, the USAF was going to ignore several safety and performance parameters that are written and codified in order to select the KC, violating their own directives and training guidelines. But the KC met all of them.
Our Man From Boeing
They made the right choice in the 3rd go-round, unless the USAF was going to rewrite the book on air refueling, and force Airbus to make significant changes which would require a re-certification of the aircraft. Obviously the Aussie KC falls short of what the Airforce requested. In this case, the US chose low cost compliant. Fair enough. Where the role of the purchase is less clear, then buying best overall value probably makes sense.
In this particular case, it might be entirely logical for the US Air Force, based on its equipment capability to purchase lowest compliant, but have other smaller countries happy to offer bonus points and thus pay a bit more for the increased breadth of capability of the Airbus product. They may well both be right, given their differing circumstances. And Boeing would, of course, have to develop a tanker version of the How much would that cost?
What I believe they could want would be something akin to the KC, which has the systems the USAF wants, but unfortunately does not exist yet. It might cost more to develop a F based tanker, but it will still cost a significant amount to develop something like the KC Excuse me if I take your walk in the park cost figure with a grain of salt.
Respectfully, what should happen next? Kcy and z. What about a combo platform to replace c17 as well as kc10? I suspect the AF is in the mode of have to see and how much issue keeping the KC10 going now that its a sole fleet FedEx dumping theirs. I wonder how it went?