Home » Air » EADS Mum On Tanker Debrief

EADS Mum On Tanker Debrief

By Colin Clark Monday, February 28th, 2011 1:33 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

The tanker competition did not change much publicly this morning after EADS NA received its briefing from the Air Force on just why Boeing won the $35 billion program.

“The EADS North America team has met with the Air Force, received a debriefing and is evaluating the information presented to us. Our objective has always been that the U.S. warfighter receive the most capable tanker, following a fair and transparent competition. That remains our position today,” said company spokesman Guy Hicks.

Put this together with comments made when the Boeing win was announced by EADS Chairman Ralph Crosby, saying in a statement that the Air Force had picked “a high-risk concept aircraft over the proven, more capable KC-45…” and you have a hungry company moving very cautiously. EADS NA has other major programs at stake and must be weighing every opportunity before it starts to publicly lean one way or another in deciding to file a bid protest. Crosby also made clear the company might not say much more for a while given the program’s complexity.

Richard Aboulafia, one of the aerospace world’s best informed analysts, offered this summary of the competition in his monthly newsletter, which came out today:

“Fuel. This is the biggest issue, because it’s the biggest thing that’s changed over the past few years since the last KC-X contract. We’ve all known the terms of the competitive equation between the KC-30 and KC-767. The former plane ismore capable, but it costsmore to buy and burnsmore fuel.

The added capability stayed constant. The higher price tag was reduced with a very aggressive EADS bid. But fuel is the one thing EADS could do nothing about.

Let’s look at the numbers. According to the authoritative Airline Monitor (November 2010), the average 767-300ER inUS airline service burns about 1,550 gallons per block hour (Boeing’s tanker uses a smaller airframe, but more equipment, so we don’t know it’s exact burn rate). The average A330 in US airline service (-200s and –300s; the FAA doesn’t break them out, but the KC-30 too would carry more equipment) burns about 1,900 gallons per block hour. If fuel is $50/bbl, that fuel burn difference isn’t the end of theworld. If you star twith a base year assumption of $100/bbl, and then add the usual US Government fuel cost inflation factor for a 30 year life span, multiply it times
X hundreds of flight hours per year times 179 aircraft, you get a fuel-related operating cost difference wide enough to drive a truck through. The EADS up-front price discount would have been dwarfed by this huge fuel cost divergence.”

Join the Conversation

	Robert February 28th, 2011 at 2:13 pm Based on the fuel analysis, I don’t think we’ll see a protest from EADS. We are within a $100/bbl now. Good bye EADS. Congratulations Boeing — USA.
	don zweifel February 28th, 2011 at 6:21 pm Let us take a moment to fall back and punt for a bit.… The KC-767’s fuel carrying capacity is only 202,000 lbs or 6.84x200,000= 29,532 gals of Jet A. The KC-30/A330’s is 250,000 lbs = 36,550 gals So the EADS AC holds 7,018 gals more than her competitor… well when the balloon goes up wouldn’t we want a platform which handles more juice for each sortie? And don’t you think that the jet-jockey’s would pray for one more refuel instead of having her high-tail it back for home? You know the answer, chaps.… Think about it, though… that to yours truly should equate to a vastly more important calculus… n’est ce-pas? I know I was for all for Boeing up until fairly recently but this old curmudgeon has had an epiphany of sorts.… Why can’t it be a win-win scenario for both companies? They’re obviously both outstanding airframe packages. But what is everyone else’s take on this proposal?
	Vince February 28th, 2011 at 6:46 pm Be realistic. The contract represents U.S. taxpayer money. Three is no doubt that whoever gets the contract will make a profit. I suggest that profit should remain in the U. S. Besides, this is a combat aircraft. Do we want to depend on a foregn country for a combat aircraft? What if we were to go to war with them?
	retired462 February 28th, 2011 at 7:05 pm Vince; not a very good reason you give for not buying a combat aircraft from a foreign country! They already sell a lot of equipment to us, AND we sell a lot of military equipment to them! EADS would have put almost as many people to work in Alabama, as Boeing is going to hire for their contract. I just worry about Boeing producing in a timely manner. They are way behind delivery schedule with the “787”.
	Moose February 28th, 2011 at 9:10 pm Look at the program over it’s whole lifetime. If the fuel burn advantage allows USAF to ultimately buy more KC-46s, or fly them more often, the extra 7,000 gallons looks pretty small next to the extra 30,000 gallons represented by another plane.
	Kevin February 28th, 2011 at 9:16 pm the smaller plane has always been the better plane. Refueling is a very specific mission and in the 6 years that I have done it, there are 1000 times more missions where training and qualifying takes place and your flying tfor two or three hours and you only end up offloading about 5000 lbs of gas, On our live refueling missions your offload is anywhere from 1000 to 120000 lbs of gas, so the boeing 220000 lb capacity is perfect, what we really needed was the ability to supplement (NOT replace or supplant) the cargo and aeromed missions. The 135 is a horrible aeromed platform.… we need more space and more power. The A330 is massive and while it can do alot, it cant do it in as many places and its just too much for a plane whos mission is to primarily refuel and supplement the cargo and aeromed missions. not to mention the maintenance involved, I bet you my left butt cheek that the A330 would require far more man hours per flight hour than the 767.….Thats a crew chiefs 2-cents worth.….…
	Dustin February 28th, 2011 at 11:37 pm Living in Mobile for a few years I can tell you that Northrop Grumman would have brought that city back from the mire. Mobile used to be the location from which all aircraft deployed to Europe during WWII. Then, they shut it down. This would have brought it all back, I believe. And, a combat plane? It refuels. It’s not exactly stealth technology — which the Chinese already stole anyway. The cost analysis thing is bogus. It’s just how you spin the numbers as others have pointed out above. I really don’t like how the politics played so heavily in this.
	Cole March 1st, 2011 at 12:05 am The flaw in the USAF methodology is to assume all 179 aircraft would fly an identical number of hours whether a 767 or 330. There are plenty of missions where with good planning, you could send: * three 330s burning 5700 gals/hour (3x1900) and carrying 750,000 lbs of fuel or * four 767s burning 6200 gals/hour (3x1550) and carrying 808,000 lbs of fuel Kevin’s argument about lower average fuel offloads would indicate that the gap between 750,000 and 808,000 lbs of fuel is inconsequential. The 500 fewer gals per hour consumed by one less aircraft over 10 hours of flight is not inconsequential. And obviously if you send three 330s to do the work of four 767s on a regular basis, you are not flying all 179 aircraft an equal number of hours over 40 years of aircraft life. My argument is that if you buy both aircraft types, you can mix and match types and be even more efficient. We will never buy 500 new replacements for KC-135R and KC-10. A mix of medium and larger aircraft purchased now eliminates the need for a gas guzzler KC-Y…that still will need larger hangars.
	Cole March 1st, 2011 at 12:08 am Sorry, meant to type (4 x 1550 gals/hour) for the 767 = 6200 gals per hour
	Curt March 1st, 2011 at 3:34 am I would disagree with your analysis. – KC-46 can operate from a 7000ft runway with full load, the KC-45 can’t. Wouldn’t you want a tanker that gives you the best basing options. – KC-46 can refuel a V-22, KC-45 can’t. Wouldn’t you like a tanker that could refuel as many aircraft as possible? – KC-46 can fit in most hangers sized for a KC-135. A KC-45 usually can’t. Same for ramp space. Wouldn’t you like a plane that doesn’t come with a multi-billion dollar infrastructure cost? – a KC-46 carries a pretty substantial load of cargo and passengers, just not as many as a KC-45. – You can fit more KC-46s on a given air field and fit on more fields, wouldn’t you want as many booms as close to the fight as possible? When you only have a handfull of tankers, you probably want a big one. When you have a lot, a mix of tankers is better. So the US has big tankers KC-10/KC-Y, medium tankers KC-135R/KC-46A, and small MC-130/KC-130J. You can send what bests fits the mission,
	Curt March 1st, 2011 at 3:54 am What scenario requires 750,000lbs of fuel that doesn’t benefit greater from more booms (and hence faster refueling and greater redundancy) or couldn’t be flown using a KC-10 (which we already have)? Why exactly would a KC-Y be a gas hog when a KC-45 isn’t? Why not delay buying another gas hog until your existing heavy tanker fleet needs to be replaced, perhaps with a 787 or A350 based tanker that isn’t such a gas hog?
	momomimamo March 1st, 2011 at 6:40 am First step: build this plane sec. step: prove all “advantages” was real, and not give just for win the contract
	Cole March 1st, 2011 at 8:24 am As you know, a KC-10 or 777 burns far more fuel than the 330 which isn’t that far off the 767. The USAF makes a big deal about hangars and ramps.…but will need to build new ones for the KC-Y if it ever gets built. In a Pacific scenario where multiple aircraft carrying lots of fuel must support a few routes between Hawaii/Guam and Guam/Taiwan, the 767 burns too much fuel just getting to its anchor/track point. Use the KC-10 and MULTIPLE KC-330s to fly the longer routes topping off the station 767s after helping refuel more than a few aircraft on their own with ample fuel remaining. Not sure why you would believe a 787 or A350 could replace a KC-10…but lots of A330s could now and eliminate the nightmare of more of these arguments for KC-Y and KC-Z.
	Pete Sheppard March 1st, 2011 at 8:46 am To second Kevin’s comment: I live near an ANG tanker unit, and the word is they favor the Boeing; especially the pilots who have flown Airbus planes. Just a bit of user’s perspective.
	Phantom Chief March 1st, 2011 at 8:55 am Your math is great, Well, you rmath is OK. 3x1550 does NOT = 6200. But yes, you eventually got it right. What is wrong is your scenario. So OK Three 330s woul burn less fuel than four 767s. DUH!!!!! But most KC-135s return home with lots of extra fuel any way. Try sending your Three 330s in four directions and your scenatio falls flat. So try comparing apples to apples. YOUR math shows that the same number of 330s burns more fuel than the same number of 767s. THAT’s THE WHOLE POINT. That is why Boeing won the protest and won the contract. NO ONE designed a new plane. Each offeror selected a jet from their inventory. Neither jet is perfect. No one disagrees that the 330 is a bigger, more capable aircraft. But bigger is NOT better, just bigger. The Air Force does not need bigge, it needs more efficient. If you multiply fuel burn times average number of flight hours times 40 years,the 767 will win every time.
	L Berry March 1st, 2011 at 10:10 am The idea of flying fewer A/C on big deployments isn’t all of the equation. More booms means greater relialibity that the booms will be available. Take the EADS recent loss of the boom as an example. More fuel on board without a boom means no fuel available. Booms can lose the tip if angle of attachment goes beyong contact angle. Tips have been flown back on receiving A/C before. The EADS lost most of boom, not just tip. So everyone can define missions where the EADS is a winner, but those were not part of the mission requirements. That was the issue with last competition. They allowed “extra” points for more capability. But they also look at cost of operations and EADS was too big for the requirements. The winner was the Boeing 767 which meet all requirements and at a lower Total Cost of Ownership. Those rules were clearly stated and followed in Source Selection. So coulda, woulda all day long. Let teh build begin.
	Curt March 1st, 2011 at 10:20 am - Bigger aircraft burn more fuel, no challenge there. A A330 is bigger and weighs about 33% more than a 767 and, remarkably, burns about 33% more fuel as well as delivering roughly 33% more fuel. The ratio pretty much holds for the 777 as well. And while the USAF will have to build better infrastructure for the KC-Y (possibly), why should we do it now? I have to buy a new car someday, that doesn’t mean today or anytime in the next couple of decades. .
	Curt March 1st, 2011 at 10:36 am Ah, the mythical Pacific sceanrio. OK, since a KC-10 has about the same footprint as a A330, and has more give at any range (although it does burn more fuel doing it), why not just use the KC-10 force for the long range parts. Your MOG isn’t going to support more than 40–50 KC-10s anyway. And even discounting the KC-10s, 4 KC-46s are superior to 3 KC-45s in your scenario (more fuel give, more booms, more planes) and petty much fit in the same spot, and you are going to be MOG limited. So, what is the benefit of having a KC-45?
	Curt March 1st, 2011 at 10:42 am An 787 or A350 based tanker might be good for KC-Y because they offer the potential for significantly better fuel burn than the 767/A330 generation of aircraft (and yes, they are in the same generation of aircraft, the A330 is just bigger, just as a 777 is bigger than a A330). Other factors perhaps make them not as attractive. It would all depend on the RFP which is what you are really arguing against anyway. Boeing offered the best plane for the RFP, they should win. Changing the RFP selection criteria is why the last round was thrown-out (NG/EADS did not win and neither did Boeing)
	the dude March 1st, 2011 at 11:15 am I think both are worthy to serve in our armed forces. As much as I don’t agree with union greed I would rather keep the money here rather than send it to Europe. No offense to Europe but American dollars should be spent on America.
	Tanker Chief March 1st, 2011 at 12:10 pm Largely unmentioned and little considered in the public debate: the enormous infrastucture requirements differences between the tow ariframes. Just the costs of modifying/rebuilding/replacing existing base hangars & docks to fit the larger airframe is an untenable acquisition cost not (not included in the flyaway costs) with the current DoD financial situation.
	Josh March 1st, 2011 at 12:10 pm Interesting. You claim to hate the politics of it, yet you lament the fact EADS won’t be dumping a ton of money into Mobile. Not sure about your stealth technology rant… or the Chinese claim. The cost analysis is also correct, AND based on the manufacturers own numbers. Probably why an EADS protest wasn’t handed in right at the debrief.
	Tanker Chief March 1st, 2011 at 12:14 pm You also MUST take into account that bigger is not better for a military mission, as it is for a commercial mission. Suitable airfields for the larger airframe must be considered. Take a look at the restrictions the KC-10 fleet faces reguarly in forward basing requirements (just the KC-10 center gear alone causes basing headaches and has caused serious damage to runway crowns in the past).
	Josh March 1st, 2011 at 12:15 pm The logistics of unnecessarily supporting two similar aircraft would be a benefit to nobody except the losing bidder. The A330 isn’t as capable as the DC-10 we already have in service, buying one marginally bigger than the 767 but significantly smaller than the DC-10 makes little sense. As someone who works in the industry at the engineering level I wouldn’t want to have to maintain an A330 in any sort of remote location anyway…
	Curt March 1st, 2011 at 2:40 pm Sorry, this should have been a response to don zweifel’s post on max fuel transfer being the most important thing.
	Vince March 1st, 2011 at 4:38 pm No comparison between “military equipment” and a $35 billion contact for tankers. Also, how can EADS possibly provide the same number of jobs as Boeing? The airplanes will be built in Europe and assembled here. Many jobs and agreat deal of profit have to be in Europe.
	KC-767AT March 1st, 2011 at 6:34 pm @Cole, but 3 A330 can only refuel 3 aircrafts at the same time, while 4 767 can refuel 4 airplanes. F-22 raptors only has 18,000 lbs fuel capacity. So you need 10 refueling to use A330’s capacity. By the time you use up the capacity, the first F-22 would need more fuel, or your last aircraft would’ve run out of fuel. Besides, the AF has KC-10 for larger airplanes.
	Cole March 1st, 2011 at 8:10 pm Well guys, let’s say you want to fly 2 hours (1000nm), stay on station 4 hours at slower speed, and return 2 hours and have 2 hours of fuel reserve. From my SWAG figures, the FOUR 767s have about 411,000 gals available to offload those four hours. The THREE A330 have about 387,000 gals available.…a virtual wash. Sounds like enough in either refueling group to fuel 12 F-22s going and coming with 16,000 lbs of fuel each way…little waiting with either refueler group when you stagger F-22 pairs. What is not a wash is that if you have 179 of either aircraft but only 144 are avalable due to maintenance, the 144 A330s can support 24 three-ship mission between Hawaii and Guam, and another 24 between Guam and Taiwan. Essentially, a group of three on both routes can launch every hour to provide support. The four 767s? Sorry boys, only 18 four-ship groups are available for each route.
	Cole March 1st, 2011 at 8:15 pm One correction: should have said 411,000 LBS for the four 767 and 387,000 lbs for the three A330…not gallons as mistakenly written. Likewise, the offload to F-22s is 16,000 LBS each way…not gallons.
	Curt March 2nd, 2011 at 3:50 am OK, back to reality. 1. Where are you basing 144 KC-45s? MOG, MOG, MOG! Certainly not on Andersen or in Hawaii, not with everything else you have. Of course, once the aircraft are in the Pacific area, you don’t need an air bridge, you need booms. 2. What about KC-10s. If more is better, more is better. 3. You only need to fuel the aircraft when they are scheduled to arrive. Why not send a KC-46 to meet a F-22 flight, refuel them, and then go back to refuel to do it again. Launch the next one to do the same thing. Drilling holes in the sky doesn’t do any good. After all, with MOG you have more KC-46s. 4. Do the math. 24 stations, 4 aircraft per flight, 96 aircraft. We’re out of F-22s in a day, F-15s in a week! MOG at destination? How many used a Northern Route to Korea or Japan. You have a point between Guam and Taiwan, but when you include MOG, I get more KC-46s. More booms are better!
	Mike H March 2nd, 2011 at 7:39 am What a blow it would have been to the US citizens and the Obama administration if EADS had won this contract. The US is already selling it’s sole in the name of freedom for all. On the other hand, our own people can be so bent on saving a dime that they would buy the cheaper product even if it means putting their own neighbor out of work. This was a huge victory for Americans and American workers and technology.
	Mike H March 2nd, 2011 at 7:41 am One question that looms in my mind, why didn’t the US get a shot at the A400 program?
	Cole March 2nd, 2011 at 7:51 am Curt, I knew someone would mention MOG. Problem is that for any group of eight 767 that can fit a given ramp space, you can fit six 330s that can do the same job. You also can rotate crews for surge periods flying two crews on the same aircraft for 16 hours and maintaining it for 8 hours a day. So for every 12 aircraft you field in a given MOG, you can support four daily major missions (eight with dual crews) with A330 versus just three with 767 (six with dual crews). Also would dispute that you cannot fit lots of tankers in Hawaii. You could also put many in Alaska, Australia, the Phillipines, etc, still well outside most TBM range. Don’t forget all the F-35s that will be arriving from the U.S. as the conflict progresses and aircraft are shot down. You don’t fly 1500 miles each way to support one or two small groups of F-22 and F-35s. That is the past inefficiency that led to the need for 500 aircraft and associated crews, logistics, and infrastructure. Plus we will have fewer future fighters needing refuelers…except for that pesky Pacific scenario.
	Curt March 2nd, 2011 at 8:18 am Good try on MOG but crews are not limited by MOG and we already have more pilots than planes. So anything a KC-45 can do with double crews a KC-46 can do as well, only with 33% more booms and aircraft. As to flying to support small groups, that is what we do now because it is the best use of your asset, as opposed to droning in circles hoping someone needs gas where you are. The only place where circling waiting for business makes sense is if you are supporting something like CAP stations that could suddenly very rapidly change fuel burn rates and need tanking. And in that scenario, more booms is better, And of course, your analysis ignores the fact that KC-46s can operate from more airfields, refuel more aircraft types (specifically the V-22s), fit more on the runway, and for the 99.9% of the time they are not using their full capicity are dramatically cheaper to operate. Look, both aircraft are good enough, but the 767 has the benefit of being both good enough and cheaper. In most any scenario you can name, the KC-45 does not enhance the tanker mix beyond the KC-46 in any meaningful way and in every sceanario costs more money,
	Guest March 2nd, 2011 at 11:25 am Mobile needs a lot more than a few hundred people installing parts on an aircraft that flies in from France. It’s kind of like thinking a new Best Buy will revitalize the city with the car industry by installing car stereos (after they said they would be buildind (assembling???) new Chevrolets in Mobile).
	cruiser741 March 2nd, 2011 at 12:03 pm One comment about a foreign supplier. During the 1986 Lybia operation, all European countries with the exception of Britian didn’t allow over flight of their airspace. When it comes to military hardware, we shouldn’t be dependant from any foreign country.
	Howard March 2nd, 2011 at 2:37 pm Don, Your comment “well when the balloon goes up wouldn’t we want a platform which handles more juice for each sortie?” The answer is NO! We don’t. We want more booms in the air to refuel more planes. One large tanker is still limited by the fact it only has ONE Boom. Many smaller tankers, means many booms in the air, meaning more planes refueled, meaning more sorties, and more ordinance on the bad guys.
	Mike March 2nd, 2011 at 5:59 pm EADS thought they had the contract in their back pocket because of Obama; but the economy is tight and the US can’t afford to give $35B to a foreign company. And if EADS is annoyed, they should look at the C-17 as everyone knows this is a great jet and no one is willing to buy the C-17 in necessary numbers because they don’t want to give the entire market to the US; the Europeans even got together and had Airbus develop the A400M so that they wouldn’t need to buy the C-17 or C-130.
	Vincent March 2nd, 2011 at 7:04 pm My fundamental thoughts is this. one it will cost less because of fuel, second US Military should always have there aircraft naval vessels and land vehicles built right here in good ol USA. We dont have foreign countries building equipment for our military. We make the best stuff thats why other countries and allies buy our military equipment because its the best.
	Steven March 3rd, 2011 at 8:10 am Another thought on this. The KC-45 carries an extra 48,000lbs of fuel, but it does so at the cost of an airplane that weighs almost a third more than the KC-46, and uses significantly more fuel in the air (around 400pph). A bigger, heavier, thirstier, and more expensive airplane for an extra 48,000lbs? Especially when most tankers come home with fuel still on board, the Air Force made a no-brainer decision here.
	cover72 March 4th, 2011 at 2:23 am There is yet another perspective, that being aircraft’s FCS. Airbus’s philosophy is that “computer knows better than pilot what he needs”. Computer has the last word — and if it wants to crash the airplane, there is NOTHING the pilot could do about that. Boeing, on the other side, allows pilot to override computer’s wishes. Now, think about Chinese cyber-warriors and whether you want a plane, controlled by a virus-infected computer which couldn’t be overridden.
	Airmech March 4th, 2011 at 10:40 am A330 is grossly underpowered, and in the industry we call airbus a throw away plane because after twenty years they are too beat up to fix. Boeings will last far longer than any airbus
	DOTK March 5th, 2011 at 6:22 pm In 12 years of flying (KC-10), fighting, and planning the air war it was always, and will always be…”# of booms in the sky!” Unless you are looking to force project a large number of strategic bombers (ie b-52’s in the 60s) the limiting factor has always been boom numbers and the corresponding cycle time to clear a combat package across the boom for ingress or recovery. Add in the amount of MILCON required to support the 330 (ramps. hydrant systems, hangars etc), and the MOG issues with parking and maneuvering a deployed group of 10–20 tankers and the smaller airframe with multiple capabilities will always win. Shoot, BA should have maybe looked at a 737 tanker…the NG could have easily supported a 4 hour mission and a 40-50k offload with belly tanks from the BBJ. As an added bonus, I know where to get a bunch of almost new CFM56s to hang on the 73s…in the AMARC after they park each 135…4 good engines from each one and already paid for!
	Oblat March 5th, 2011 at 10:55 pm What really counts isn’t booms in the air it’s congressmen in your pocket. For many missions over the pacific they will have to send 2 767s instead of one 330. No matter how you cut it 2 767s burn more fuel than a single 330. The joke going around the industry is that the KC-46 is a “Chinese force multiplier”. Airlines have a very similar job — moving large amounts of cargo and passengers long distances at the cheapest price, any airline chief that buys 767s these days would be ousted for incompetence. Shareholders would be outraged that they were buying obsolete aircraft just to keep an obsolete production line in business. On a positive note Boeing has promised to deliver and certify the new all paper boom concept idea in 18 months. Looks like an integral part of their promise anything — screw them later — delivery policy. Anyone think they can deliver on price and schedule put you hand up so we can all have a good laugh at you.
	Oblat March 5th, 2011 at 11:01 pm Wong on all accounts. The 330 would have lead to greater investment in American aerospace industry to everyone’s benefit but Boeing’s. The C17 is a unreliable overpriced design that is why nobody is buying them not even the USAF. The A400 is in the operational sweet spot between the C130 and C17 and looks like eating the lunch of both. Of course we are stuck with congressional mandated pork contracts for second rate aircraft to keep people employed but then second or third best for the warfighter is our future. Keep on pushing for that pork !

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

EADS Mum On Tanker Debrief

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments