KC-30B Refuels

[Guest Boom]

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsse...px?ItemID=20741

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsse...px?ItemID=20742

EADS Casa's development of a key technology for the Airbus A330-based KC-30 on offer to meet the US Air Force's KC-X tanker requirement has passed another milestone, with the company's air refuelling boom system (ARBS) having made its first dry contact with another aircraft.

Pictured while connecting with a Portuguese air force Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter at an altitude of 27,000ft (8,230m) earlier this month, the success came during the 60th flight test of a company-owned A310 demonstrator carrying the 17m-long ARBS.

[Clayton Bigsby]

Note that it's the A310 demonstrator plane...not an A330...so it's not really the KC-30 doing a refuel just yet. Just their boom demonstrator aircraft.

Kind of funny that it's progressing this slow - there is an Australian A330 flying now with the boom and drogues installed, and yet they're still sticking with the A310 testbed for this stuff, while Boeing is flying its actual KC-767s (not technology demonstrators, but the real deal) almost daily...

[Guest Boom]

Note that it's the A310 demonstrator plane...not an A330...so it's not really the KC-30 doing a refuel just yet. Just their boom demonstrator aircraft.

Kind of funny that it's progressing this slow - there is an Australian A330 flying now with the boom and drogues installed, and yet they're still sticking with the A310 testbed for this stuff, while Boeing is flying its actual KC-767s (not technology demonstrators, but the real deal) almost daily...

We're training the Aussie Booms up here for mission qual right now.

[JarheadBoom]

We're training the Aussie Booms up here for mission qual right now.

FlightSafety and the FTU here get the Italian Booms for initial qual.

[Guest regularjoe]

Boom -

How is the EADS boom different from Boeings ? Or are they more or less the same idea?

Is this a big deal because of the plane being used in inflight refueling or because of the boom being used?

Thanks

[Guest Boom]

Boom -

How is the EADS boom different from Boeings ? Or are they more or less the same idea?

Is this a big deal because of the plane being used in inflight refueling or because of the boom being used?

Thanks

I don't know. Never seen any of the specs of the EADS Boom. However the KC-767'd Boom is like a FR-135 Boom (from the Boeing guys at the KC-767 sim/mockup at the ATA). I think the KC-30B holds more fuel and cargo, however is less fuel efficient than the KC-767 (which holds more cargo obviously than the -135, but doesn't hold that much more fuel and is less fuel efficient than the -135).

[Guest egovolo]

The French might invade Alabama, I sure as hell hope not:

Airbus Adds Incentive In Bid For Air Force Contract

The European firm pledges to build commercial jets in the U.S. if it receives the $40-billion Pentagon award.

By Peter Pae, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

The competition for the Pentagon's biggest contract in years intensified Monday as European aircraft maker Airbus said it would assemble commercial jets in the U.S. if it won the $40 -billion award to build aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force.

The announcement marks the latest effort by Airbus and its partner Century City-based Northrop Grumman Corp. to upset rival Boeing Co. to build the planes that would be used to refuel fighters and bombers in midair.

Boeing, based in Chicago, is considered the favorite after having won the initial contract that was overturned in the aftermath of a Pentagon procurement scandal several years ago that led to jail for an Air Force official and a Boeing executive.

The latest contract calls for building 179 tanker jets for $40 billion, but the potential value could rise to at least $100 billion with prospects for additional orders.

With so much at stake, the Airbus pledge to build not only tankers but also commercial planes in the U.S. is likely to raise the political stakes in what has already been one of the more hard-fought Pentagon contract competitions.

"This is really about Congress and the political fight that is coming regardless of who wins," said Scott Hamilton, an aviation consultant in Issaquah, Wash.

A winner could be picked as early as Jan. 31, but analysts anticipate a protracted battle in Congress, which could withhold funds to buy the planes if the majority is not happy with the selection.

The competition has already split Congress along regional lines, with Southern politicians pushing the Northrop-Airbus bid and politicians in the Northwest calling for a Boeing win.

The Northrop-Airbus plane would be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and Boeing's jet would be built in Everett, Wash.

Airbus has proposed a modified version of its A330 passenger jet for the tanker, and Boeing is offering a modified 767 aircraft.

Airbus said that if it won the contract, it would assemble its commercial cargo version of the A330 on the same line as the tanker, an economic boon for Alabama and the surrounding region. It would mark the first time that the Toulouse, France-based aircraft maker would assemble planes outside Europe.

Winning the contract could have a bigger effect on Airbus than on Boeing, Hamilton said. Airbus, hit by costly delays with its marquee A380 super jumbo jet and other financial woes, needs the cash flow from the tanker deal to fund development of other commercial planes such as the A350 to compete with Boeing, Hamilton said.

In addition to helping gain political support in the U.S., the move to assemble commercial planes in Alabama could help alleviate the company's monetary woes with the weakening dollar. Though based in Europe, Airbus sells planes in U.S. dollars but pays for parts and wages with the stronger euro.

Airbus, a subsidiary of European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., said it would hire 1,000 workers in Alabama to build the tanker. It would add 300 more to the factory line to build the commercial cargo planes.

In all, Northrop and Airbus said about 25,000 people in 49 states would be involved in building the tanker, and Boeing said its program would support 44,000 jobs, most of them employed by subcontractors.

[LJ Driver]

Anyone else think that boom looks humongous on top of the viper?

[Steve Davies]

The French might invade Alabama, I sure as hell hope not:

<snip>

Airbus, a subsidiary of European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., said it would hire 1,000 workers in Alabama to build the tanker. It would add 300 more to the factory line to build the commercial cargo planes.

Assuming they went with the EADS offering, you don't think that creating 1,300 additional jobs in Alabama would be a good thing? From the visits I've made there, it seemed to me that it could do with all the help it can get.

[Herk Driver]

This may be too little, too late to have any impact. At A/TA, I seem to remember something along the lines of a decision was going to be announced shortly after the New Year. I'm surprised that something hasn't been announced yet, as a matter of fact. It was almost like they were just crossing the T's and dotting the I's so they could "protest-proof" the announcement. Because, we all know that whoever loses already has the protest ready to go.

[brickhistory]

Assuming they went with the EADS offering, you don't think that creating 1,300 additional jobs in Alabama would be a good thing? From the visits I've made there, it seemed to me that it could do with all the help it can get.

My $.02: yep, bringing jobs and manufacturing capability into anywhere has got to be a good thing. A couple of differences here are those jobs going to Alabama will most likely mean the same number of jobs lost in Washington State.

Also, helping EADS get a foothold in the US military market both undercuts the US owned manufacturing base (what if we have a beef with France in the future and the Frogs don't support what we do/want?) and points a long-range gun at Boeing's head.

I don't see Boeing getting a shot at such a deal in Europe, why should we give EADS a shot here? And then when the order is filled, would that plant capacity be put to making various flavors of the 'A'bus here to further compete with Boeing products?

My money is on Boeing winning the contract. And I hope they do.

[Guest Boom]

I don't see Boeing getting a shot at such a deal in Europe, why should we give EADS a shot here?

Italy bought some KC-767's.

[JarheadBoom]

Anyone else think that boom looks humongous on top of the viper?

Yep.

[Steve Davies]

My $.02: yep, bringing jobs and manufacturing capability into anywhere has got to be a good thing. A couple of differences here are those jobs going to Alabama will most likely mean the same number of jobs lost in Washington State.

Also, helping EADS get a foothold in the US military market both undercuts the US owned manufacturing base (what if we have a beef with France in the future and the Frogs don't support what we do/want?) and points a long-range gun at Boeing's head.

I don't see Boeing getting a shot at such a deal in Europe, why should we give EADS a shot here? And then when the order is filled, would that plant capacity be put to making various flavors of the 'A'bus here to further compete with Boeing products?

My money is on Boeing winning the contract. And I hope they do.

Brick

I would view EADS competing with Boeing as a good thing for the US military, not as a bad thing. The fact of the matter is that Boeing and Lockmart have what amounts to a shared monopoly over US Defence business, and that's not healthy for the war fighter for a number of very obvious reasons.

Regarding the potential to fall out, I would counter that France owns only 22.5 per cent of EADS. Germany is an equal share holder, and Italy (or Spain, can't recall off the top of my head) owns another 5 per cent. The rest of the company is publicly owned by shareholders around the world. So, my view is that the argument that France could hold you to ransom is both over simplistic and unlikely, especially if the supporting contracts specifically forbade political interference.

As for what opportunities Boeing has been offered in Europe, this part of the world has bought tens of billions of Dollars' worth of arms and aircraft from US companies over the decades, so America has prospered just fine, even if Boeing doesn't have a plant here. What I just don't understand through, is why you would even care? Looking at the posts on this board, I see a lot of war fighters wishing for better equipment and tools with which to get the job done, but not once have I seen anyone add any caveats about who makes it or where it comes from.

What would EADS do with the factory once the order was complete? Good question.

[brickhistory]

Italy bought some KC-767's.

I meant a Boeing manufacturing plant in Europe not Boeing hardware there.

[brickhistory]

Steve, I agree with your point about competition being a good thing. When there were at least half a dozen players - North American, Convair, Martin, Boeing, McDonnell, Douglas, et al, there was much more innovation and, I believe, probably a better deal for Uncle Sam. Not to mention the industrial capacity should another war occur. Now, not so much. Same applied over your way prior to BAeS/BAE/etc, etc. Some good hardware until the conglomeration into one mega-company.

However, letting EADS in is the nose under the tent. Something in my gut says it's a bad idea. Good info regarding the major stakeholders of EADS. Since roughly 50% of them are governments, a) why should Uncle Sam help their balance sheets at the expense of a US company and b) all are members of the EU. Should a tiff develop, I still think the EU wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug on the project in some fashion we wouldn't like.

I think most guys just want something that moves gas and isn't a maintanance pig. Either would do it and given a choice between a US company reaping the benefits and a EU partnership, I'm sticking with the US commercial company.

But, I don't get an input into the process, so we'll see.

[Steve Davies]

Since roughly 50% of them are governments, a) why should Uncle Sam help their balance sheets at the expense of a US company

Brick

I think that's a valid concern, but I think that you answer your own question with your first paragraph: if the likes of Boeing and Lockmart know that the US Government is willing to source a product from an foreign nation, then it might help increase their competitiveness, pricing and innovation. Of course, that does not help those American men and women who may lose their jobs, but perhaps that is a small price to pay for the nation as a whole? I am just playing Devil's advocate, you understand.

Al are members of the EU. Should a tiff develop, I still think the EU wouldn't hesitate to pull the plug on the project in some fashion we wouldn't like.

Again, i think that this is a valid question. But don't forget that Britain is a member of the EU and makes the wings and other components for Airbus, and since we are 'closer' to America than we are either France or Germany, I just don't think we would allow that situation to develop to a stage where the plug was pulled. I am no political analyst, so I could be talking out of my arse, but that's my instinct (FWIW).

I think most guys just want something that moves gas and isn't a maintanance pig. Either would do it and given a choice between a US company reaping the benefits and a EU partnership, I'm sticking with the US commercial company.

Fair enough!

[ClearedHot]

Brick

I would view EADS competing with Boeing as a good thing for the US military, not as a bad thing. The fact of the matter is that Boeing and Lockmart have what amounts to a shared monopoly over US Defence business, and that's not healthy for the war fighter for a number of very obvious reasons.

Regarding the potential to fall out, I would counter that France owns only 22.5 per cent of EADS. Germany is an equal share holder, and Italy (or Spain, can't recall off the top of my head) owns another 5 per cent. The rest of the company is publicly owned by shareholders around the world. So, my view is that the argument that France could hold you to ransom is both over simplistic and unlikely, especially if the supporting contracts specifically forbade political interference.

As for what opportunities Boeing has been offered in Europe, this part of the world has bought tens of billions of Dollars' worth of arms and aircraft from US companies over the decades, so America has prospered just fine, even if Boeing doesn't have a plant here. What I just don't understand through, is why you would even care? Looking at the posts on this board, I see a lot of war fighters wishing for better equipment and tools with which to get the job done, but not once have I seen anyone add any caveats about who makes it or where it comes from.

What would EADS do with the factory once the order was complete? Good question.

Steve,

I have to disagree.

EADs getting a foothold is NOT a good thing for the U.S. Defense Industry. The job discussion Brick mentioned is a large portion of the argument, and I don't mean raw jobs, I mean skilled workers. One of the primary reasons the F-22 buy was stretched out was to allow the line to remain open until F-35 production could begin and thus save those skilled and very knowledgeable workers. A move to Alabama would certainly lose a large portion of workers who would not be willing to move to the south. Additionally, Alabama has sold it's soul to get this contract. Tax incentives, environmental waivers, and god knows what has happened behind the scenes.

As for the distribution of ownership in EADS, I get your point, but I think it is does not answer bigger question. While France and Germany are not the majority, they do wield considerable power and will be able to influence production and pricing. Form a nationalistic perspective, if there was a large scale conflict, Boeing would have an incentive and could even be ordered to produce for the U.S. Military. As EADs is European, they could slow leak or set false price caps or any number of combinations that European politics would allow to affect foreign influence over U.S. Defense capability. Not acceptable in my book.

I am not banging the nationalistic drum and reasserting our right to unilateral action, the oblivious sieeffects will plague our image an economy for years, but we MUST have control over our own destiny when it comes to defense.

[Steve Davies]

We MUST have control over our own destiny when it comes to defense.

All valid points, and several new ones for me to think about.

But I suppose that final sentence is what it all boils down to, just as it should.

Cheers

Steve

[brickhistory]

While we're at it; get your Vulcan and Bucc lines cranked up again!

[Steve Davies]

While we're at it; get your Vulcan and Bucc lines cranked up again!

Now there's a thought:

[Guest regularjoe]

A330 with boom installed now flying in RAAF colors