http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/24/boeing-shocks-with-landmark-tanker-win/

2/24/2011 5:40:34 PM

You need new tankers because the ones in the sky right now are Eisenhower era aircraft. The problem with this is that as aircraft get older, the cost of maintenance goes up per flight hour. Unless you want to completely dismantle the American ability to project air power overseas, you need to start phasing in new tankers.

2/24/2011 6:04:07 PM

Quote :

"The problem with this is that as aircraft get older, the cost of maintenance goes up per flight hour."

So we have to spend 35 billion (originally slated at 20 billion earlier in the decade) for a new design at ~200 million per aircraft when the generation before it does the job just fine at 40 million per?

2/24/2011 6:11:22 PM

This contract should have been awarded to Airbus/EADS ten years ago.

2/24/2011 6:27:41 PM

Two problems with this logic. $40 million is the unit cost after moving way down the production curve and does not include the the development costs of the aircraft. Also, aircraft from that era are not nearly as sophisticated, and modern aircraft, whether Boeing or EADS, is going to include a lot more in terms of things like modern avionics, electronic warfare, etc. The $40 million you're quoting does not include the numerous changes that upgraded the aircraft over the years. Besides, if you don't buy new tankers and decide to just keep flying the KC-135's, you're going to have to pay hundreds of millions if not billions in upgrades to refurbish the airframe (assuming that's even possible any more at this point).

Also, to put the cost into perspective, the price of a commercial 767 is about $140-$160 million per aircraft. The list price for an A330 is $200 million. The costs of upgrading the aircraft to military standards is relatively reasonable.

The $40 million is probably irrelevant anyways as there's no way to go back and buy KC-135's anymore as the main assembly line and the supply chain disappeared fifty years ago.

2/24/2011 6:32:25 PM

Think of it as stimulus chance, does that help?

I agree it does seem like a TON of money.

But defense is the job of the Fed. Your retirement and ED pills are not.

2/24/2011 6:34:55 PM

Quote :

"This contract should have been awarded to Airbus/EADS ten years ago."

Obviously, this isn't about getting the best value for the "taxpayer" (and by that, I mean anyone holding FRNs), it's about protectionism and American corporate interests. Nothing else, in this climate, should have been expected.

2/24/2011 6:37:05 PM

My prediction is this: the USAF awarded this to Boeing because they intend to replace the KC-10's with the EADS aircraft. This isn't the last time you've seen the EADS tanker.

2/24/2011 6:40:23 PM

Quote :

"But defense is the job of the Fed."

Of course it is. Oh, so we can go deep deep deep into debt so long as we are building death machines?

2/24/2011 6:40:34 PM

Quote :

"You need new tankers because the ones in the sky right now are Eisenhower era aircraft. The problem with this is that as aircraft get older, the cost of maintenance goes up per flight hour. Unless you want to completely dismantle the American ability to project air power overseas, you need to start phasing in new tankers."

Thats pretty true. My plane, the P-3, is constantly breaking and in need of maintenance and repair. I cant tell you how many flights we have canceled due to random things on the plane breaking during pre-flight. Its still going to be probably like 2 more years before the P-8 is phased in, which is a militarized version of a 737.

2/24/2011 6:40:37 PM

Why can't they just put the KC-130 back into production with updated engines and electronics?

2/24/2011 6:41:14 PM

Quote :

"Of course it is. Oh, so we can go deep deep deep into debt so long as we are building death machines?"

If the military industry was dismantled tomorrow, what do you think our adjusted GDP would look like? Perpetual warfare is a key component of maintaining "economic prosperity" on paper.

2/24/2011 6:42:17 PM

LOL.. I was waiting for the P-3 reference.... KC-135's make UDIII look LEGIT!!, I'm just saying. The Tanker community needs updating worse than the MPRA guys.

2/24/2011 6:52:06 PM

Because when someone (China/Russia) declares war on the US and employs the use of nuclear weapons, the tankers will refuel the strategic aircraft we have in the air.

2/24/2011 7:30:43 PM

Quote :

"Why can't they just put the KC-130 back into production with updated engines and electronics?"

The cost of restarting a dead production line is not cost effective; you might as well design a new aircraft line. The tooling would have to be completely rebuilt for one thing. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the parts used are long gone; you'd have to find new substitute parts and then redo all the engineering drawings to incorporate them. In short, you'd have to completely redo the blueprints, and the cost will probably be equal to a modern aircraft.

You're much more cost effective taking an existing aircraft, like both Boeing and EADS did, and modifying them.

2/24/2011 7:39:18 PM

I just hope this damned thing can refuel via either boom or drogue without having to land and have the aircraft reconfigured.

It sucks to be out on a mission and need gas to do your job, and for there to be numerous tankers running around, but none of them equipped to give drogue gas (for Navy and USMC receivers).

^ Also, the Herc is way too slow, both in terms of getting itself expeditiously from one place to another, and in terms of even being able to fly fast enough to refuel jet fighters and attack aircraft (it's tough for us to even slow down enough to refuel from a Herc. I've only done it once or twice, and it's a bit of an ordeal, involving partially lowering the flaps to a technically unknown configuration. I don't think the Navy Prowler guys are even willing to do it).

Additionally, the Herc can't carry nearly as much fuel around, and it can't refuel aircraft designed to be refueled from a boom (most USAF aircraft). The KC-130's utility as a tanker is mostly for the USMC--we can land it on a dirt road somewhere in early stages of a conflict and refuel trucks, tanks, and helicopters on the ground, in the field. It's also good for refueling stuff like CH-53 helos and Ospreys in the air. It is completely incapable of being a primary tanker asset.

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 8:02 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2011 7:54:56 PM

Quote :

" The tooling would have to be completely rebuilt for one thing."

So it is more expensive to rebuild tooling from a proven reference than to design a new reference and then go build tooling for that?

Quote :

"you'd have to find new substitute parts and then redo all the engineering drawings to incorporate them."

How is this any different than designing, selecting, procuring new parts for the new design? Worst case, this is 1:1 cost of old versus new, and I think it's safe to say that not every single component would need a brand new replacement. The CFM56 is still in production, you could take the time to upgrade the avionics, and the rest is just details. Hell, Chile just took deliver of a 135 in Feb '10.

I want to know why the 135 isn't letting us get the mission done? Why in this time of budget problems are we attacking teachers and the unemployed but we're ready to dump 35 billion (which will no doubt balloon after Boeing fails at some bullshit over and over again and demands more money) on something that is simply replacing something that is doing the job.

^ Cool, I was looking for your input, actually. So, if it seems to be completely lacking in certain aspects as you've pointed out, how have we dominated the fuck out of every type of mission we've need to perform in the past 2 decades with it?

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2011 8:10:10 PM

Overwhelming air superiority in every way, shape, and form. The fact that we have by far the most advanced air force on the planet doesn't mean that there aren't aspects of it that are outdated or severely hamper portions of our capability.

2/24/2011 8:26:20 PM

I was replying to the comment about the KC-130, not the KC-135.

Although...Navy and USMC guys hate the -135, too. It has this boom-drogue adapter thing that we unaffectionally call the "Iron Maiden" or "wrecking ball". Instead of a flexible, "soft" refueling basket like the KC-10 has, the -135 is generally equipped (when sent to refuel Navy/USMC aircraft) with the Maiden. It's a solid steel basket...I think it weighs a couple hundred pounds, and is totally inflexible. It's much more difficult to tank with, and it can fuck your jet up if you mess up and let it hit you (as opposed to the soft basket on the -10, which is both easier and unlikely to damage your jet even if you do screw up). Particularly unpopular at night and in bad weather...and I know the new ICAP 3 Prowlers have a bunch of sensors in the nose that get knocked all out of whack if you hit the nose radome with the Maiden.

Oh, and AV-8 Harriers aren't allowed to refuel off the Maiden, due to their probe being located right beside the canopy. If they mess up, the Maiden can easily smash the canopy class right beside the pilot.

The other option for refueling Navy/USMC birds with the -135 is MPRS pods on the wings. They have soft baskets, but the vortices coming off the wings make your jet want to roll into the -135 while you're tanking, beyond what the pilot can trim out...so the pilot has to hold significant side pressure on the stick to fight this tendency while trying to fly the refueling probe into a few-inch wide target.

In short, the -135 works, but it's not a favorite of the Navy/USMC crowd. It also can't carry as much gas as the KC-10 (although it's probably more fuel efficient). Is the KC-X meant to replace only the -135, or both the -135 and the -10?

2/24/2011 8:29:35 PM

Thanks for the answer.

This thread reminded me of my favorite scene in Dr. Strangelove. The sex joke flew right over my head(if you'll excuse the pun) the first time I saw it. Probably because I didn't immediately associate the music with sex, unlike audiences at the time. I remember even staring at the first shot of the boom thinking, "Hmm, that's an unusual camera angle.", totally oblivious to it being a giant mechanical penis. Heh, it might even be the only "true" love scene Kubrick ever filmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23Vsg6JsA

2/24/2011 8:31:55 PM

You'll like the Navy/USMC style of tanking too, then...only in our case, we're the ones with the big steel phallus.

...and yeah, tanking ops are rife with double entendre on the radio, especially if the tanker has a hot sounding chick on the radio.


Here's a Hornet trying to tank on the Maiden. At about 0:45, you can see him "lip" the basket, which is generally how it hits and damages your jet.

Oh, and the musical choice is no accident. "Satisfied" is the brevity word you use on the radio to tell the tanker that you don't need any more fuel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-RcBAZ5bx4frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
Here's a Hornet trying to tank on the Maiden. At about 0:45, you can see him "lip" the basket, which is generally how it hits and damages your jet.

Oh, and the musical choice is no accident. "Satisfied" is the brevity word you use on the radio to tell the tanker that you don't need any more fuel.

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 8:47 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2011 8:43:57 PM

Also, with older planes, the airframes obviously get weaker over time due to stress and wear and tear. They can be reinforced, but that is really just buying time and prolonging the life until a newer platform can be introduced.

2/24/2011 8:57:04 PM

^^ Haha, real pilots just stand up in their seat and grab the hose.



Or just grab a jerry can and stop messing about with the finicky hose altogether.


[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2011 9:37:01 PM

Quote :

"In short, the -135 works, but it's not a favorite of the Navy/USMC crowd. It also can't carry as much gas as the KC-10 (although it's probably more fuel efficient). Is the KC-X meant to replace only the -135, or both the -135 and the -10?"

The plan is for the KC-X competition to replace the KC-135's, and they'll hold a separate competition for the KC-10 replacement. Not sure when that one will kick off though.

Quote :

"So it is more expensive to rebuild tooling from a proven reference than to design a new reference and then go build tooling for that?"

The difference is that you already have live assembly lines for both the Boeing 767 and the Airbus 330, and thus, all the tooling is in place. Both aircraft are also far down the production curve as well. While the Boeing 707 that the KC-135 is based on is a proven design, the fact is that this particular production line has been dead for 45 years (and the 707 line for 32 years). You're building a new production line and supply chain from scratch, and wouldn't it make more sense to simply leverage an existing line?

Quote :

"How is this any different than designing, selecting, procuring new parts for the new design?"

If you're going to spend hundreds of millions to completely redo engineering drawings for an ancient airframe, why not just spend the money to modify an existing, modern aircraft that both companies have already modified at least once for a tanker?

As for refurbishment, USAF has already been doing that aggressively for the fleet, but the O&M cost of the aircraft even with the retrofits is getting to the point where maintaining the current fleet is not realistic anymore. The cost for the maintenance is going to grow heavily over the next several years; just a quick Wiki shows that O&M annual costs are more than doubling from $2.2 billion in 2003 through to $5.1 billion in 2017 even with all the upgrades. The increasing costs for the O&M more than justify the cost for just buying a new plane; the growing O&M dollars between 2003 to 2017 probably would have paid for at least a third of the cost of a new fleet of replacement tankers.

I would also note that USAF isn't scrapping the entire fleet tomorrow. The KC-135's are still going to be in the air at least another decade or two. Nor is the government cutting a check for $35 billion to Boeing tomorrow. Those payments are going to be made over the next ten-fifteen years with the delivery of the aircraft. So it's not like this is adding a $35 billion hole in the 2012 budget.

Boeing or EADS, it doesn't matter: assuming that you agree with the need to maintain a tanker fleet, you need to start replacing the KC-135's at very least because the costs for maintaining them are going to be greater than procuring new planes.

2/24/2011 9:46:11 PM

WHY AREN'T WE USING HYBRID JETS???

2/24/2011 10:26:01 PM

They add too much weight and the replacement batteries cost too much

2/24/2011 10:36:22 PM

^^

2/25/2011 12:26:29 AM