| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Northrop, citing Kyrgyz action, touts its tanker |
| 2009-02-20 |
| Northrop Grumman Corp said on Thursday that mounting headaches related to supplying U.S. forces in Afghanistan argued for buying its aerial-refueling aircraft, not a smaller 767 built by rival Boeing Co. About 20 percent fewer Northrop KC-45 tankers, to be built in partnership with Airbus parent EADS would be needed than Boeing's KC-767s if midair-refueling operation were based in the United Arab Emirates or elsewhere in the Gulf, Northrop said. A new competition between Boeing and Northrop to supply an initial 179 tankers to the U.S. Air Force is due to get under way in coming months. Boeing offered a version of its 767-200 in a competition it lost to Northrop's modified Airbus A330 last year. The U.S. Defense Department decided to rerun the contest at the urging of the Government Accountability Office, which upheld a Boeing protest that the selection process was flawed. Northrop noted that Kyrgyzstan's parliament voted earlier in the day to evict U.S. forces from Manas Air Base, a key transit point for U.S. forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan, in central Asia, has played an important role in U.S. refueling operations over Afghanistan. "With the closure of Manas Air Base, long-range tankers providing greater fuel-offload and time-on-station capabilities are needed now more than ever," it said in an emailed newsletter. "That tanker is the Northrop Grumman KC-45." If political constraints forced refueling operations further afield to Diego Garcia, about 30 percent fewer KC-45 tankers would meet refueling requirements over Afghanistan than if using Boeing KC-767s, Northrop added. "As the distance between the air bases and Afghanistan increases, the Northrop Grumman KC-45's greater capabilities compared to the KC-767 prove more valuable," it said. Dan Beck, a Boeing spokesman, suggested Northrop's premise was flawed because specifications for the new tanker have not yet been published and Boeing has not yet specified which aircraft it might offer this time. "Large tanker? Medium tanker? Long-range or able to operate out of a larger number of forward bases?" he said in an email. "The Boeing KC-767 offering in the first competition had a distinct advantage in base denial situations like this because the medium sized tanker was more versatile in its ability to operate out of a mix of forward bases, many of which might not be able to ... accommodate a larger plane," Beck said. The Northrop tanker is based on the Airbus A330, which entered commercial service in 1993, more than a decade after Boeing's smaller 767. A year ago, the Northrop-EADS team had won a potential $35 billion U.S. Air Force contract for an initial 179 tankers with a plan to assemble the KC-45s at a new plant in Mobile, Alabama. Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to launch a new competition this year with a contract to be awarded in early 2010. The U.S. tanker fleet's average age is nearly 50 years old. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #8 Jim, you're stupid. We KNOW aerial tankers are targets, that's why we keep them WELL BACK - which is why loiter time and range are very important. ANd we also have AWACs to keep an eye you. This isnt WW2 you poor ignorant fool. Here, gain some education: Forward deployed tankers are at risk. First off they are nearer the combat area, and thus vulnerable to missile strikes from theater based MRBM. And thats the BASE that's getting hit, not the aircraft. Forward basing puts them at risk since the BASE becomes a reachable target. Longer legs avoid that problem. They can fly from the US, and the larger capacity and better airframe gives greater loiter time - meaning they can stay aloft to fuel strike packages on the way in, and on the way out. Secondly the major disadvantage to your soltion of lots of little aircraft is that 1) little aircraft are simply less capable. There are economies of scale that come into play when sizing cargo aircraft. The larger they get, the greater the percentage of weight that is cargo. Meaning with smaller aircraft you burn more fuel per pound of cargo due to the higher percentage of the weight being the aircraft itself. Larger aircraft the ac weight percentage becomes smaller comparted to the cargo. 2) the numbers of little aircraft to perform the multirole duty of one of the 45's is pretty large since the tanker can also carry cargo and personnel. They are not flying bags of fuel as you stupidly assume. 3) the several smaller aircraft have to sortie several times to equal just ONE sortie by a bigger 45. So the smaller aircraft actually wear out quicker. 4) the cost of maintaining so many more small aircraft is huge - where do you propose coming up with more pilots, more maint guys, more parts, and the logistics tail? And how do you propose to move ALL those people and base them when an operation is laid in? Had enough? Maybe you should read before you bray. You armchair generals really piss me off with your ignorance and stupidity some days. Lagom may be a Euro, but on this he makes valid points. You on the other hand seem to be a jingoistic idiot that would saddle our forces with a less effective, more expensive, hung of junk just because its "American"? If the USAF needed a med range short-field tanker, they could have simply had a C-17 conversion done. These things need to replace the old 707 based airframes and the KC-10 that used to be SAC property. Unlike you, I want the most *effective* Aircraft available, and that is the 45. If Boeing comes out with a 777 based tanker, then I will probably be fully behind it because that will likely be even more effective than the Northrop and EADS tanker. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-02-20 23:01 |
| #7 It seems to me hat any war one of the prime directives would be to destroy supply lines. Fuel tankers rate high on my list, floating or airborne. No fuel, no fighters aloft, and tankers CANNOT dodge. |
| Posted by: Rednek Jim 2009-02-20 18:01 |
| #6 Jim, you are incorrect. The operational cost and efficiency are far less with many smaller tankers. Will you be able to support all the extra spare parts, men and equipment that it takes to fly far more tankers at combat sortie support rates? Tankers such as these do not operate directly in combat areas, so losses are not an issue. I did not consider overflight. That is a good point. Overflight is an issue for the mid-range tankers because they have to operate in that area due to lesser on station time and shorter range. An example is the start of the Iraq war, where US was denied access to Turkish approaches. Forward based tankers would have been far less useful than a larger capacity longer range aircraft. So that is yet another point for Northrop-EADS. Boeing should stop being so stubborn and make a 777 based tanker. It would surely be the best aircraft. In its absence I can see where the US Air Force may have no choice but to go with the Northrop-EADS aircraft that will be built in Alabama. Since EADS is involved, I wonder if there are other sales perhaps to NATO for this aircraft? |
| Posted by: Lagom 2009-02-20 15:37 |
| #5 More fuel carried, bigger mid air BOOM. Smaller tanker fleet means one lost has a bigger impact, I'm all for smaller faster tankers, and more of them over several lumbering barges barely able to lift off full. |
| Posted by: Rednek Jim 2009-02-20 12:45 |
| #4 Tankers are nice and all, but don't we need overflight rights to use any of 'em? Is Kyrgyzstan or any of its neighbors going to allow overflights if we're not paying rent on one of their flyspeck airbases? |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-02-20 11:49 |
| #3 Boeing seems to be flailing about. Northrop-EADS has the more capable aircraft at this time. I am not as experienced as many here, but does not the longer range have more strategic value? Does not the forward base incur many personnel and security risk to secure those forward bases? How does the fuel get to forward bases when the threat is high? Why does Boeing insist on using the 767, that is an old design? Why does it not go to the 777 for a modern design? Surely that is a more capable aircraft. If such a tanker as Boeing describes is needed, then why not make a tanker version of the C-17? This would seem to be the most economical and practical solution. Boeing seems to want to dictate how the US Air Force operates by forcing this aircraft and its operational limits into acceptance. These arguments seem to be more about political issues than supplying the most capable aircraft to the armed forces. |
| Posted by: Lagom 2009-02-20 11:20 |
| #2 Compare the KC-45 to the KC-777, and we'll see ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-02-20 11:11 |
| #1 Or, howsa bout we abandon the hole in the ground, and we don't need your toy. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2009-02-20 10:52 |