All eyes seem focused on Boeing's next move. Do they want to delay the tanker RFP to switch to the KC-767-400ER? Or perhaps even the KC-777F?
Another interesting question is what will the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team do to respond?
The KC-30B is based on the A330-200 passenger
airliner, which, thanks to the tanker proposal process, has now been modified
to serve as a freighter.But Airbus launched the pure freighter version of the A330-200 almost two years after the Northrop/EADS team formed. Designed to be a superior freighter than a modified passenger aircraft, the first A330-200F is scheduled for delivery in late 2009.
Will the team sweeten their offer in the second round of bidding by switching to the A330-200F?
There's yet another possibility, and one that has huge ramifications for the commercial cargo market.
Airbus has been mulling the launch of an A330-300F freighter for a few years, but hasn't yet made a decision. It would compare well against the Boeing 777F on the cargo market.
If Boeing succeeds in winning a delay in order to offer a KC-777F, will that prompt Airbus to respond by using the KC-X tanker competition to officially launch the A330-300F?
These changes also have potentially major consequences for the industry teams supporting each bid, and, thus, potentially on the political landscape as well.
For example, General Electric is currently aligned with the Northrop bid and Pratt & Whitney is on the Boeing team.
But GE is the sole-source supplier for the 777 with the
famous GE90. Will the
P&W, meanwhile, is the sole US-based engine supplier for
the A330-200F and would be likely to compete with Rolls-Royce for a similar
role on the A330-300F. So does
on August 25, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply
Here we go again...
Let’s deviate from the spec and offer more. (Let me preface the following; I hope I’m wrong.)
The original project goal slowly spirals out sight and the costs rapidly escalate out of sight. 15 years later we will still have the KC-135 because the project will have been cancelled due to cost over runs.
Although until now, I have never been able to watch the politics at play.
(Not even 50 and I have become a defense curmudgeon!)
on August 25, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply
You think that's curmudgeonly? I think that's almost a best case!
on August 26, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply
Two years ago GE was proposing the GENX for future A330 freighter and tanker applications, as reported by flightglobal.
The A330F has more engine ground clearance then the A330.
Long term this would probably be the best solution instead of the moderately outdated CF6 and PW4000 offerings.
The 15%-20% better fuel efficiency of the GEnx-2B against the CF6-80E1 makes adiiference hard to ignore..
on August 26, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply
That's the problem when you allow extra credit for exceeding requirements. We now have an arms race that if unchecked we will end up with a KC-747F vs a KC-380F contest to replace a 60 YO KC-135 fleet.
on August 27, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply
This is so typical of the Air Farce. Always going for bigger until as previous commentaors have noted things go wildly out control both in size and cost. They never learn and should have been turfed out after this last smelly French tanker deal.