(click to view full)
A couple of days ago, DID noted the contractor issues surrounding the USA's KC-X proposal, which aims to restock America's 40-50 year old aerial tanker fleet before unpredictable age or fatigue issues ground a substantial slice of the USA's airpower. This contract will cover the first 175 production aircraft and 4 test platforms, with 2 other contracts to follow in order to replace almost 500 KC-135s (Boeing 707s). The cost for this phase alone could conceivably reach $30 billion.
Now come the contractor decisions, and responses. What will Boeing propose? The KC-767, the KC-777, or both? Will Northrop and EADS elect to play, bringing their Airbus KC-30/A330 MRTT, or bow out in advance and cry foul in Congress? A couple of days ago, DID noted the contractor issues surrounding this competition. The core issue is that Airbus' A330 MRTT is larger, claiming 40% more cargo capacity than Boeing's 767 and 2x the refueling capacity after 1,000 miles. If the USAF decides it really needs the marginal cargo capacity, or wants to emphasize the long distances of the Pacific theater, that could sell it on the KC-30. If the conclusion is that they need more refueling points in the air, however, the 767's cheaper airframe (about $120 million vs. $160 million for an A330 before modifications) will make it hard for Airbus & Northrop Grumman to compete.
For broader coverage, "US Debating Aerial Tanker Types, Mix" offers in-depth analysis of the entire lead-up to this RFP, explaining many of the military & policy issues in play as the USA contemplates its choices, and discussing a key RAND study.
(click to view full)
Air Mobility Command has been involved in the process at some level, and the USAF's current releases say that "...the Air Force also intends to take full advantage of the other capabilities inherent in the platform, and make it an integral part of the Defense Transportation System." Translation: the tankers will also be able to carry cargo pallets or troops. How much? How many? How valued is that ability? USAF articles also take pains to emphasize that "the department has gone through a rigorous review process for KC-X and has validated that the RFP accurately reflects the requirements as laid out by the warfighter... The RFP includes specific factors for assessing the capability contribution of each offeror" along a set of 9 weighted performance parameters. Their case, and spin, is clear: we've taken great pains to make this fair. Now it's up to the contractors to decide whether to invest the $40-50 million required for a serious bid.
Will Northrop/EADS look at these documents and be willing to bet $40-50 million on their more expensive, but larger, KC-30 against Boeing's KC-767? The rhetoric is already flying - but you don't have to take anybody's word for anything; just read Defense Industry Daily, which summarizes the RFP and offers direct links to the documents themselves....
Clarification: KC-135s are not B-707s. They're cousins (or even brothers), both derived from a common ancestor, the Dash 7.
Joe,
A thing missed by most observers is the replacement of the early model KC-135’s means that the B-52 fleet will have to bear the entire support cost of the 1950’s era JT7 (?) turbojet engine.
This will make the B-52’s operating costs per hour surge to match or surpass that of the B-2 stealth bombers.
Carefully note any USAF move to retire B-52’s. It is directly related to this reality.
Good point, Trent. There has been talk of re-engining the B-52 fleet for some time now, and if maintenance and fuel cost problems escalate, that may be pushed up the list. But the B-52 is already an orphan re: engines.
The KC-135Es are the least modernized tankers; 160 were modernized with refurbished TF33-PW-102 engines taken from used, commercial 707 airliners. Over 400 of the KC-135 aircraft still in service are re-engined KC-135R models, with an early version of the CFM56 turbofan - now the most common passenger jet turbofan, which powers 737s, A319-321s, and more. This program has been ongoing since 1984, and is just about complete.
My sense is that the USAF brass are hoping to keep the B-52s going more or less as is until 2018-2020, when their new bomber (type and peformance parameters undefined so far) arrives and begins replacing them. They hope.
Rand... Dash 7s are turboprops made by DeHavilland, and invented after the 707 jet airliner (first flight 1975). In broader terms, however, you are correct.
That first Boeing Jet was called the Dash 80. You are correct that The Model 717 (C-135) differs primarily from the Model 707 by having a smaller-diameter fuselage, deletion of cabin windows, and reduced size and weight... but it's easier to simply refer to them as 707s here to highlight their commonality, and a not-uncommon practice in the industry.
OK, Dash Seven, Dash Eighty, it's all good. Chalk it up to senile dementia...
My point was that they weren't the same airplane, and were derived from a common ancestor.
Shoo-in; of course the USAF will go for the less efficient, more expensive option. That's what government organisations do.
Ian:
In this case, reading what I wrote, more efficient equals more expensive. So your theory, while often useful as a rule of thumb, breaks down.
The other thing to consider is that militaries aren't always about most efficient - because sometimes, that isn't the most effective. Points for efficiency don't help when you're dead or incapacitated.
140 KC-30s? Or 180 KC-767s? Since tankers can't be in 2 places at once, a larger, smaller fleet that can use shorter runways might be the better choice. Or, the focus might be on more cargo space + bolstering the Pacific theater, and those benefits might justify crimping effectiveness with a lower number of tankers.
Back to efficiency now, it's more efficient to have single types for a job (vid. Southwest's famous all-737 fleet), because of the savings in maintenance, training, pool of skilled technicians, etc. Which means the choice in a 3-stage buy like this may be between 280-420 KC-30s, or 360-540 KC-767s.
The lower figure would be used if the US decides to make one of the phases a replacement for the larger KC-10/DC-10 tankers, almost certainly buying KC-777s or even KC-787s. You can see the extent of the potential difference in numbers more clearly when it's put that way.
>The KC-135Es are the least modernized tankers; 160
>were modernized with refurbished TF33-PW-102 engines
>taken from used, commercial 707 airliners.
Ah Ha! I had not heard about that engine refit.
Between the skyrocketing JT7 support costs and the retirement of the 50 something plus experianced at the USAF air logistics centers, the B-52 is facing rapid support cost extinction.
Look for the USAF to bring back those early model B-1s to compensate when they can't get a new bomber program off the ground.