Gen Arthur Lichte, chief of Air Mobility Command, probably put it best. When I asked Lichte two weeks ago if the US Air Force would change its "more is better" philosophy on fuel offload for the KC-X contract winner, Lichte replied: "Certainly, when you are talking about replacing a tanker, fuel is important."
The draft request for proposals establishes requirements for minimum fuel offloads at five mission radius ranges: 500nm, 1,000nm, 1,500nm, 2,000nm and 2,500nm. Exceeding the minimum thresholds is not mandatory. But the USAF has establishing a scheme to award between 4-10 bonus points, depending on how much extra fuel is offloaded.
It is possible to compare the three aircraft based on fuel offload estimates provided in Boeing's latest public KC-X presentation. If Northrop Grumman/EADS North America disputes any of Boeing's data about the KC-30, I'm sure we'll hear about it. But here's how the three potential competitors -- KC-767, KC-30 and KC-777 -- compare against each other on fuel offload performance at a 1,000nm mission radius.
Minimum threshold: 94,000lb
KC-767 offload: 97,000lb
4 Bonus points: 106,000lb
6 Bonus points: 120,500lb
8 Bonus points: 130,000lb143,500lb
10 Bonus points: 147,000lb
KC-30 offload: 153,000lb
KC-777 offload: 199,000lb
If Boeing's data is accurate about the KC-30, the Northrop proposal would enjoy a 10pt advantage over the KC-767 if the USAF awards credit for non-mandatory fuel offload performance, and faces no penalty against KC-777 despite a roughly 30% disadvantage for offload capacity.
[UPDATE: I need to make a correction. KC-767 offload listed above is based on takeoff from a 7,000ft runway, while the KC-30 and KC-777 statistics are based on 10,000ft runway. I'll post a corrected figure for KC-767 based on offload at 1,000nm radius after takeoff from a 7,000ft runway as soon as possible.]
The draft request for proposals establishes requirements for minimum fuel offloads at five mission radius ranges: 500nm, 1,000nm, 1,500nm, 2,000nm and 2,500nm. Exceeding the minimum thresholds is not mandatory. But the USAF has establishing a scheme to award between 4-10 bonus points, depending on how much extra fuel is offloaded.
It is possible to compare the three aircraft based on fuel offload estimates provided in Boeing's latest public KC-X presentation. If Northrop Grumman/EADS North America disputes any of Boeing's data about the KC-30, I'm sure we'll hear about it. But here's how the three potential competitors -- KC-767, KC-30 and KC-777 -- compare against each other on fuel offload performance at a 1,000nm mission radius.
Minimum threshold: 94,000lb
KC-767 offload: 97,000lb
4 Bonus points: 106,000lb
6 Bonus points: 120,500lb
8 Bonus points: 130,000lb
10 Bonus points: 147,000lb
KC-30 offload: 153,000lb
KC-777 offload: 199,000lb
If Boeing's data is accurate about the KC-30, the Northrop proposal would enjoy a 10pt advantage over the KC-767 if the USAF awards credit for non-mandatory fuel offload performance, and faces no penalty against KC-777 despite a roughly 30% disadvantage for offload capacity.
[UPDATE: I need to make a correction. KC-767 offload listed above is based on takeoff from a 7,000ft runway, while the KC-30 and KC-777 statistics are based on 10,000ft runway. I'll post a corrected figure for KC-767 based on offload at 1,000nm radius after takeoff from a 7,000ft runway as soon as possible.]
Recent Comments