

  (Source: Northrop Grumman)















Comments     Threshold


RE: That's not quite how it works...
By Amiga500 on 6/19/2008 1:38:52 PM , Rating: 3
The Boeing 767 should be significantly less expensive platform than the Airbus 330. Why? Because its -smaller-. That part never made sense to me, and the GAO found numerous errors that inflated the cost of the Boeing 767 proposal. (Note, some of them, like using Boeing 707 Tanker maintaince data rather than almost 30 years of 767 service History make no sense)

The A330 can carry more. It can thus service more planes. Require less cycles to do the same job, and can provide a useful airlift capacity.

In contrast a greater number of 767s are required to service the same aircraft, and a bespoke airlift fleet is required.

With regards the parts. The 767 for the USAF is a new variant. One that will have very little in common with commercial fleets.

The commercial line is on the brink of shutting down. Higher fuel prices will result in the 767 being phased out, leaving the USAF as the sole (or main) operator. Guess what that means = higher parts cost.

The 707 maintenance prices were included for that reason.

The Biggest thing in my mind, the Boeing 767 is significantly more fuel efficient as a platform than the Airbus 330.

Because it is smaller.

Now, when talking about fuel load and load factor, then the A330 absolutely destroys the B767.

At a time when most air refueling missions (the primary purpose of a tanker) do not require 100% fuel offload from Boeing 707, it doesn't appear to me that the larger capacity of the Airbus 330 makes a significant difference.

Except when range and airlift capacity are considered. You say air refuelling is the primary purpose of a tanker now, and indeed it is - because the current breed do not have the capacity to provide meaningful airlifts. The B767 will continue with that, while the A330 will change it.

I'll also point you to this link (lifted from the Air Force Journal of Logistics No.1 2002:

and I quote:

During the deployment phase of operations, fuel available for offload is the critical measure of effectiveness because CONUS-based fighting forces require large fuel onloads to fly nonstop to distant theaters of operation. Figure 2 shows AMC's current and forecast air-refueling capability as a function of fuel offload available.

The tanker fleet must be able to support the requirements for both fuel offload and aircraft availability. According to a June 2000 GAO report on military readiness, the KC-135 fleet falls below the required mission capability (MICAP) rates for ensuring execution of wartime plans. In fact, the GAO's findings state KC-135s maintained a 67-percent MICAP rate for execution of wartime plans as opposed to the 85-percent MICAP requirement.

Your spreading FUD... and a lot of it at that.

The 767 is almost as effective an airlifter, carrying almost as much cargo wieght using less fuel to a similar range as the A330.

Rubbish. Absolute utter rubbish.

Your pretty much saying the B767 is nearly as good as an A330 there... which of course explains why the A330 absolutely trounced the B767 in the commercial arena.

Oh, and Boeing already has the capacity to building the booms and hose systems to refuel all American planes.

But hasn't actually built the new boom as is required by the KC-767. NG has for the KC-45.

Airbus are supplying the A330 MRTT to other countries. For you to suggest they cannot supply the USAF for capacity reasons is disingenuous.

By DeathSniper on 6/19/2008 1:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Thank god for someone who actually understands the purpose of a fuel tanker.

"Smaller and ligher..." I still laugh at the people who bring these points up - so THAT'S how they're going to be used to 'force multiply', more tankers! :p

