You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

Odd that the stock hasn't done much today.

GQfluffy wrote:

JLAmber wrote:The first batch of 18 KC-767s won't be available until 2017, so we should see KC-135s in service well beyond 2020. What plans there are to account for the lesser numbers is anybody's guess.

There are only 50 airframes to be built (before this order), and we have to wait another 5 years?

Just curious, could EADS have started delivery prior to 2017, and if so, how many??

GQfluffy wrote:

JLAmber wrote:The first batch of 18 KC-767s won't be available until 2017, so we should see KC-135s in service well beyond 2020. What plans there are to account for the lesser numbers is anybody's guess.

There are only 50 airframes to be built (before this order), and we have to wait another 5 years?

According to the link in Today's Daily the maiden flight is scheduled for 2015, so the reports of deliveries commencing early 2017 would seem to be on the money. Flat out the 767 line can run at 4 frames per month so (if we take the 18 government funded-build aircraft as the total that will be delivered by the end of 2017), the rest of the build could be completed by late 2021/early 2022, if so required. Looking through a few magazine articles on the KC-135, there are many mentions of the escalating cost of maintenance on the type and the fact each frame will essentially need to be rebuilt and re-skinned from 2018. I guess this would be the time when large scale retirements will begin, so the timing of the project would seem to fit rather better than the constant delays suggest.

Fumanchewd wrote:Yeah, you're right. Its good that Boeing won. European Government Paid EADS didn''t want the 35$B USD contract anway!

You totally misunderstood what I was saying. Of course the top brass at EADS wanted the contract (as much for the prestige as the money), what I was pointing out is that the company as a whole will be better off without the hassle involved. Government projects always require relentless micro-managing of every little detail, rather than civil customers who tend to be more trusting and less bureaucratic towards their suppliers. To give you an example, during my first stint at Airbus, we had an airline executive come to tour the site after hammering out the final details of a large single-aisle order. His exact words were "This is what I want, this is when I want it, this is how much we agreed to pay. Make sure there's a progress update on my desk on the first working day of each month, let me know immediately if there's any problems. Now off you go and build me some planes" (I never did establish whether he was related to ANCFlyer ). Meanwhile, the EFA material guys at the same site were all away being given a lecture on managing a material supply chain that they has successfully kept ahead of schedule on without said lecture, but the MOD insisted that they were taught how to do the jobs they were already doing to a greater than expected standard anyway. Such is the way when dealing with civil servants.

The other point I was making is that the 767 line (50 orders outstanding, likelihood of a few of those being converted to 787?) will be kept in work for that bit longer by this order, whereas the A330 line (351 orders outstanding, more on the horizon) would just be busier and would probably have to look at a major build-rate adjustment. With supply chains already strained by single aisle production running at record rates, and the impending commencement of the A350 line proper, it would be difficult for Airbus to force the extra numbers through the system and they may well have seen delayed deliveries. It wouldn't surprise me if this was also a consideration when awarding the contract.

ShyFlyer wrote:I expect EADS to protest this, just as I would have expected Boeing to protest had the contract gone to EADS.

There is a ten day period where EADS will be allowed to appeal before the deal is finally rubber-stamped. Noises coming from the French union that represents EADS workers over there suggest they have already been told an appeal won't happen. There are also some rumours from oft-reliable sources at Airbus UK that this is the case.

It's interesting to note that the UK, though officially disappointed by the decision, was probably no worse off for Boeing winning the contract - Boeing's airborne refuelling systems are built here by Cobham Aerospace:- http://www.cobham.com/media/247963/370%20kc_46a.pdf

JLAmber wrote:There is a ten day period where EADS will be allowed to appeal before the deal is finally rubber-stamped. Noises coming from the French union that represents EADS workers over there suggest they have already been told an appeal won't happen. There are also some rumours from oft-reliable sources at Airbus UK that this is the case.

I heard the same here. After all, this deal was "only" about 50 airframes, and there will be more to be ordered in the future. Appealing the current decision would certainly not earn EADS any credits for future contests.

Zak wrote:

JLAmber wrote:There is a ten day period where EADS will be allowed to appeal before the deal is finally rubber-stamped. Noises coming from the French union that represents EADS workers over there suggest they have already been told an appeal won't happen. There are also some rumours from oft-reliable sources at Airbus UK that this is the case.

I heard the same here. After all, this deal was "only" about 50 airframes, and there will be more to be ordered in the future. Appealing the current decision would certainly not earn EADS any credits for future contests.

The initial pricing was based on 50 units (and their subsequent running costs) but it seems that the award is for the entire 179 aircraft contract. $35bn is a hell of a price for 50 762s

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/busin ... ?src=twrhp

Boeing would build 179 tankers in all for about $35 billion.

I was going to ask why the type was based on the 762 and not the (in theory, more versatile) 763, but it appears halls has answered that:-

halls120 wrote:Ny nephew is a boom operator on a KC-10, and he says they almost never leave close to max takeoff weight because they don't need the extra fuel.

I guess there's only so much fuel you can viably haul around before you reach the point where you're better off landing and picking up more fuel than flying around with tons to spare.

JLAmber wrote:I guess there's only so much fuel you can viably haul around before you reach the point where you're better off landing and picking up more fuel than flying around with tons to spare.

It's also partially explained in that the KC-10 gets used extensively to tow tactical aircraft across the Atlantic and Pacific so they only upload the amount of fuel planned to get to their destination. The -135s tend to operate more in the gas station in the sky in theater roll where you would see a tanker take up a full load.

JLAmber wrote:The initial pricing was based on 50 units (and their subsequent running costs) but it seems that the award is for the entire 179 aircraft contract. $35bn is a hell of a price for 50 762s

Friday afternoon brain fart - of course, you are correct.

Anyway, I read that the USAF has to replace 534 tankers and freighters in total, and that deals being worth another $65bn may enter the market still in this decade. So it may be wise for EADS to grin and bear it for the moment (even though I still don't expect them to win any US military deals anytime soon).

JLAmber wrote:
You totally misunderstood what I was saying. Of course the top brass at EADS wanted the contract (as much for the prestige as the money), what I was pointing out is that the company as a whole will be better off without the hassle involved. Government projects always require relentless micro-managing of every little detail, rather than civil customers who tend to be more trusting and less bureaucratic towards their suppliers. To give you an example, during my first stint at Airbus, we had an airline executive come to tour the site after hammering out the final details of a large single-aisle order. His exact words were "This is what I want, this is when I want it, this is how much we agreed to pay. Make sure there's a progress update on my desk on the first working day of each month, let me know immediately if there's any problems. Now off you go and build me some planes" (I never did establish whether he was related to ANCFlyer ). Meanwhile, the EFA material guys at the same site were all away being given a lecture on managing a material supply chain that they has successfully kept ahead of schedule on without said lecture, but the MOD insisted that they were taught how to do the jobs they were already doing to a greater than expected standard anyway. Such is the way when dealing with civil servants.

The other point I was making is that the 767 line (50 orders outstanding, likelihood of a few of those being converted to 787?) will be kept in work for that bit longer by this order, whereas the A330 line (351 orders outstanding, more on the horizon) would just be busier and would probably have to look at a major build-rate adjustment. With supply chains already strained by single aisle production running at record rates, and the impending commencement of the A350 line proper, it would be difficult for Airbus to force the extra numbers through the system and they may well have seen delayed deliveries. It wouldn't surprise me if this was also a consideration when awarding the contract.

I understand this quasi BS, "we wanted it but it's good we didn't get it" mentality that I am sure A.net is rife with right now.....BUT they did want it and they DID go for it.

Its kind of like saying that you are glad you're wife became pregnant by another man, because now when you divorce her, she will be at fault. Duh.. no shit. But you didn't want her knocking boots with another man in the first place.

Airbus wanted the contract in the first place.

Fumanchewd wrote:

JLAmber wrote:
You totally misunderstood what I was saying. Of course the top brass at EADS wanted the contract (as much for the prestige as the money), what I was pointing out is that the company as a whole will be better off without the hassle involved. Government projects always require relentless micro-managing of every little detail, rather than civil customers who tend to be more trusting and less bureaucratic towards their suppliers. To give you an example, during my first stint at Airbus, we had an airline executive come to tour the site after hammering out the final details of a large single-aisle order. His exact words were "This is what I want, this is when I want it, this is how much we agreed to pay. Make sure there's a progress update on my desk on the first working day of each month, let me know immediately if there's any problems. Now off you go and build me some planes" (I never did establish whether he was related to ANCFlyer ). Meanwhile, the EFA material guys at the same site were all away being given a lecture on managing a material supply chain that they has successfully kept ahead of schedule on without said lecture, but the MOD insisted that they were taught how to do the jobs they were already doing to a greater than expected standard anyway. Such is the way when dealing with civil servants.

The other point I was making is that the 767 line (50 orders outstanding, likelihood of a few of those being converted to 787?) will be kept in work for that bit longer by this order, whereas the A330 line (351 orders outstanding, more on the horizon) would just be busier and would probably have to look at a major build-rate adjustment. With supply chains already strained by single aisle production running at record rates, and the impending commencement of the A350 line proper, it would be difficult for Airbus to force the extra numbers through the system and they may well have seen delayed deliveries. It wouldn't surprise me if this was also a consideration when awarding the contract.

I understand this quasi BS, "we wanted it but it's good we didn't get it" mentality that I am sure A.net is rife with right now.....BUT they did want it and they DID go for it.

Its kind of like saying that you are glad you're wife became pregnant by another man, because now when you divorce her, she will be at fault. Duh.. no shit. But you didn't want her knocking boots with another man in the first place.

Airbus wanted the contract in the first place.

Which is where you misjudge the nature of the Airbus consortium. Though presented as a single entity under the umbrella of EADS, the consortium is actually portions of several aerospace corporations spread over a number of nations, all of whom spend great amounts of time and effort trying to guarantee the lion's share/most profitable portions of each aircraft type for their nation's interests. Sure, Airbus UK has missed out on some work, but the UK aerospace industry as a whole probably hasn't - there are three major contracts (at least) coming to the UK as a result of Boeing using a number of our suppliers.

It's the Frenchman's wife who is pregnant by another mine, ours is in the kitchen cooking dinner for our US guests

JLAmber wrote:It's the Frenchman's wife who is pregnant by another mine, ours is in the kitchen cooking dinner for our US guests

Given your stories of your wife's track record when it comes to meal preparation...

The KC-10s will need to be replaced sometime in the near future. The A330 will probably be a better fit than the 762 for that replacement.

Of course, there always is the 777.

GQfluffy wrote:The KC-10s will need to be replaced sometime in the near future. The A330 will probably be a better fit than the 762 for that replacement.

Of course, there always is the 777.

From what has been said here and elsewhere the capacity of a larger wide-body KC simply isn't required. If it was, the 763 or maybe even the 764, would have been offered. It would be interesting to see where the optimum point for refuelling ops lies, eg. is it more economical to do 3 runs in a KC767 than do 2 in a KC-10 to provide the same fuel load. I'm sure there's a formula out there somewhere for this kind of thing.

JLAmber wrote:It would be interesting to see where the optimum point for refuelling ops lies, eg. is it more economical to do 3 runs in a KC767 than do 2 in a KC-10 to provide the same fuel load. I'm sure there's a formula out there somewhere for this kind of thing.

Given the moving target that constantly is/was the tanker competition, I wouldn't bet on it. Differing mission profiles means there is no one "perfect" tanker at any given time. A KC-46 would not be the most desirable machine for refueling a helo, a KC-130 wouldn't be the best machine to refuel a strike force of B-52's, and a "KC-747" wouldn't carry as much roll-on cargo as a C-17. As in all things concerning flying, it's a compromise. And when questions of funding become involved, it stretches that compromise almost to the breaking point.

UPDATE: EADS officially tosses in the towel - Won't appeal contract awarded to Boeing

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... fight.html

BCA wrote:UPDATE: EADS officially tosses in the towel - Won't appeal contract awarded to Boeing

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... fight.html

No surprise at all. It was a badly-kept secret even before the winner was announced that EADS wouldn't chase the order any further if they lost. It's good for the project that Boeing are now free to progress with getting their house in order in time to satisfy the delivery schedule, and no doubt the FedEX 764ERF 'filler-order' will now see a decisive announcement in the near future.