The KC-767 Advanced Tanker developed by Boeing was sized to meet the aerial refueling requirements of the U.S. Air Force’s mission and exceeded performance requirements to replace the aging, yet storied fleet of KC-135 medium tankers.
Despite the fact that the stated parameters for evaluating the aircraft said no extra credit would be assigned for exceeding certain requirement objectives, the Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) team received such credit. As a result, the oversized Airbus A330-based KC-30 was selected. Boeing has protested the decision to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
According to the Statement of Objectives for the KC-X program, the primary mission of the new tanker would be aerial refueling rather than hauling cargo or transporting passengers. In order to meet the documented mission requirements, Boeing offered the KC-767, which efficiently fulfills the vital mission of a mid-sized aerial refueling fleet while also exceeding the highest requirements for airlift, passenger and aeromedical evacuation capabilities.
“Tanker flight crews are asked to bring the right amount of fuel to the fight in the most efficient, reliable manner, and the KC-767 meets that fundamental requirement,” said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. “Asking these aircrews to fly longer missions in larger, less survivable planes with more fuel capacity than needed and vast amounts of unused cargo and passenger space just doesn’t add up.
“The Boeing KC-767 exceeded the requirements in a manner that still kept the plane right-sized and efficient,” McGraw said. “Our competition likes to talk about offering more, more, more — but in reality, the KC-30 will cost more to operate, more to maintain, and more to house, with the U.S. taxpayer footing the bill.”
A larger plane — like the KC-30 tanker offered by Northrop Grumman and EADS — simply results in wasted capacity, wasted efficiency and wasted taxpayer dollars.
The contrasts between the KC-767 and the KC-30 are notable and worth considering in determining the appropriate tanker for the mission:
Fuel Capacity — The historical average offload on a tanker mission is 60,000 to 70,000 pounds of fuel. The Air Force fuel offload requirement was set at 94,000 pounds of fuel at 1,000 nautical miles, comfortably above the historical average. The KC-767 exceeded the 94,000-pound requirement by 20 percent while remaining within the optimum size for medium tanker operations. The KC-30 fuel capacity exceeded that requirement by 50 percent — meaning more than half of its fuel load would be unused during an average mission. The result: a large tanker that burns more fuel and requires significantly higher costs in maintenance and support. Cargo/Passenger Capacity — In 2006, the Air Force moved less than 1 percent of its cargo and passengers in tankers. The KC-767 does offer significantly more cargo and passenger capacity than the KC-135, but not at the expense of airplane size or efficiency. Again, the KC-30 carries more passengers and slightly more cargo based on weight, but with a bigger, less survivable and more costly plane. Aeromedical Evacuation — The Air Force Request for Proposals set an objective requirement of being able to carry 24 litters and 26 ambulatory patients. The KC-767 carries 30 litters and 67 ambulatory patients, far exceeding the highest requirement. The Air Force praised the KC-767’s superior aeromedical crew stations, its ability to generate oxygen onboard, and the power provided for aeromedical crew systems. The KC-30 again offered more quantity with less quality and less survivability.
Atom
Comments (7)
based on our survey here in calapan 96% of the interviewed people picked the kc-767 as better than the kc-30
Posted on May 8, 2008 21:13
Great we have a giant Tanker that far exceeds the required fuel load and a reduced number of fighters. So do we need to spend the money on excess capacity when the end using aircraft will be limited in number? Seems the $49B would be better spent on the F-22 or JSF. Think of this way to you need a Dodge Caravan if you only have a family of three?
Posted on May 8, 2008 22:54
Years ago, when Boeing chose the 767 as a tanker platform, did they also study the 757 as an option? I see that the 757F can lift about 88,000 pounds, which is in the neighborhood of 94,000 plus the weight of the boom.
Posted on May 9, 2008 08:50
Just want to say the purchasing agent{mr. Young} should take another look at the facts. What he said yesterday is totally wrong.
Posted on June 6, 2008 09:32
"It's now three months ago that the Air Force
shocked the world by awarding the contract to
Northrop Grumman and Airbus".
There are approx. 200 countries in the world. Are
you really sure that they were shocked just because Boeing didn't win this against Airbus?
Posted on June 14, 2008 03:04
From the Boeing tanker facts as posted in the accompanying article the choice of the 767 of Boeing becomes a no brainer.
As an Alabama native and current resident I was thrilled to think that Mobile, Alabama would get the job opportunity boost with the Grumman-EADS contract.
Now the situation is thrown into a cocked hat and all pertinent validated facts by careful scrutiny is needed for the rightful and equitable award of such magnitude.
Posted on June 14, 2008 22:09
Sized right for the fight as presented by Boeing for the KC-767 Refueling Tanker compelled me to add another thought to my earlier submitted note.
My brother Major William A. Channell USAF accumulated within the neighborhood of 5000 flight hours in the Reconnaisance Navigator Bombardier seat of SACS Boeing B-52, through out the Cold War ERA and concluding in the VietNam Conflict, and he truly loved the Boeing Platform.
The most telling issue which should swing the pendulum to the right choice should hinge upon the truth tellers of the Logistics tail for support of the aircraft. The Logistics tail has two edges one is Infrastructure support the other is the long term Maintenance of the craft.
Assume both aircraft as proposed will perform the mission now everything is even steven now lets really slice and dice this Logistics beast to prove the best for the buck.
Posted on June 14, 2008 22:36
We welcome your comments. However all comments are moderated and may not post immediately. Offensive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not treat any comments you submit as confidential information. Please do not submit comments that contain any confidential information belonging to anyone else.
By submitting a comment to Tanker Facts, you agree to our site terms and privacy policy, and to having your name displayed with your comment. All or part of your comment may be posted or cited in the blog. Your name and personal information will not be used for any other purpose, and we will not publish your e-mail address.