Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win  
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 22688 times:

Boeing aims to refresh 767 line with tanker win

Quote:
Boeing has unveiled new hopes to revive and refresh the 767 production line for extended commercial and military sales, as it seeks to win the US Air Force's KC-X tanker competition.

The airframer says success in this evaluation will act as a springboard for continued 767-based freighter and tanker orders, keeping the commercial line alive well beyond the current order backlog for 58 aircraft



Quote:
Unlike the 767 tanker sold to Italy and Japan and which is based on the standard airframe, Boeing is proposing to base the KC-767 on a new civil configuration called the 767-200 Long Range Freighter (LRF). This combines the fuselage of the -200 with elements of the -300, -300F and -400ER.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...resh-767-line-with-tanker-win.html

It looks like they will be changing the configuration of the 767 line to a similar set up to that of the 777, provided they win the tanker contract. Is the launch of the 767-200LRF also dependant on the contract?

311 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 22675 times:

From the article:

Quote:

The USAF will provide funding to certificate the 767-200LRF, which will receive modifications for the tanker role in Wichita, Kansas.

Why would the USAF be providing funding for this? The wording seems to indicate that this is seperate from the KC-X contract competition.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 22478 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 1):
From the article:

Quote:

The USAF will provide funding to certificate the 767-200LRF, which will receive modifications for the tanker role in Wichita, Kansas.


Why would the USAF be providing funding for this? The wording seems to indicate that this is seperate from the KC-X contract competition.

Does that depend on Boeing winning the tanker order first? Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?

[Edited 2007-08-13 14:13:36]

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 22321 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 1):

Why would the USAF be providing funding for this?

USAF has a requirement that the tanker be FAA certified. The 767-200LRF doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, and won't exist unless Boeing gets the KC-767 contract.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?

I think the A330-200F will already be FAA certified so I don't think there's be any need to pay for that. I'm pretty sure EADS is paying the upfront cash for the KC-30, although they've already sold several of them so I assume that the prototype cost is rolled into the purchase price.

Tom


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1922 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 22203 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
USAF has a requirement that the tanker be FAA certified. The 767-200LRF doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, and won't exist unless Boeing gets the KC-767 contract.

Then why need the USAF to fund it? Boeing choose to offer the B767-200LRF and they knew that one requirement was that the plane needs to be FAA certified. If that means that this still needs to happen, they need to pay that themselves and calculate this in the list price for the USAF. Why have the USAF pay for that?

Nice case for the WTO dispute.

Cheers!  wave 



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 22093 times:

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 4):
Then why need the USAF to fund it? Boeing choose to offer the B767-200LRF and they knew that one requirement was that the plane needs to be FAA certified. If that means that this still needs to happen, they need to pay that themselves and calculate this in the list price for the USAF. Why have the USAF pay for that?

Nice case for the WTO dispute.

It was a poorly worded article WRT this statement.

Boeing will not bother with certifing it unless the USAF orders the tanker. Part of the requirements of the USAF is that the tanker be cetified. This is a competitive bid process, so what ever elements Boeing uses in establishing their price is moot WRT the WTO and "subsidies". This is just an additional cost that Boeing will have to cover in their price that Airbus will not. If anything, it is an advantage for Airbus.

In other words, the winning bid is based on cost and performance only, so there is no reason to try to start another trans-atlantic pot stirring contest.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 22066 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?

I think the A330-200F will already be FAA certified

How could it be, if it has not flown at the time of the awarding?

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
. I'm pretty sure EADS is paying the upfront cash for the KC-30, although they've already sold several of them so I assume that the prototype cost is rolled into the purchase price.

They have received orders for the A330-MRTT, but not the KC-30. The KC-30 is not an identical design to the A330MRTT, just like the USAF KC-767 is not quite the same as the tanker that Italy and Japan have ordered. This is probably why a separate prototype is being built as we speak.

What I'm wondering is whether or not the funds apparently coming from the USAF towards the 767-200LRF are built into Boeings tender price for the tanker contract, or if its a separate issue. And if so, how legitimate is such a senario?


User currently offlineBillReid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21938 times:

Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.
I think not.



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21908 times:

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.

A deliverable product?


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21884 times:

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.

With this information regarding the -200LRF in this article, it would seem that both competitors offerings are in the same boat - neither are deliverable today as a final product.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6923 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21851 times:

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product. I think not.

So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along... Well, doesn't that amount to a financial handout to the home team? And if Boeing leverage some further civil sales off this:

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
The airframer says success in this evaluation will act as a springboard for continued 767-based freighter and tanker orders, keeping the commercial line alive well beyond the current order backlog

Well, isn't that the kind of thing Airbus are taking to the WTO?

Not - I hurry to add - that I necessarily have much problem with the USAF and the US Congress throwing their home team a bone but why the indignation when Europe points it out?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can only assume with the arguments going on before the WTO, Boeing is not going to do something that is untoward...

So I am guessing that since the USAF would prefer the tanker be based on the 767-200LR instead of the currently-built (and, I am guessing, certified) KC-767 based on the 767-200ER, they are willing to pay for the certification of the new model.

As to the KC-30 being offered by EADS and NG, it is already defined and being built and I am guessing the costs to certify it will be paid for by EADS/NG. If the USAF decided they wanted a different variant (say based on the original A350 design), they would probably pick up the certification tab for that, as well.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 21659 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along...

How would Boeing change the price now? The bids have been in for months. Changing the price would restart the entire contract evaluation process.

Tom.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 21606 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along... Well, doesn't that amount to a financial handout to the home team? And if Boeing leverage some further civil sales off this:

Military sales, research and development and other expenditures are specifically excluded from WTO regulation. If the USAF decided to run Airbus through hoops for 10 years, let them expend billions on the bid and then award it to Boeing without a contest and pick up all of the R&D cost no one would have any recourse.

If the Airforce decides it is willing to pay for civilian certification then no one can say much.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21464 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Does that depend on Boeing winning the tanker order first? Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
I think the A330-200F will already be FAA certified so I don't think there's be any need to pay for that.



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 5):
This is just an additional cost that Boeing will have to cover in their price that Airbus will not. If anything, it is an advantage for Airbus.

Exactly. Airbus can point to the A330F as an already viable platform, and if chosen, can charge some of the costs of the program against the contract.

Boeing has to offer up "we will certify it if we win" instead.

So it's an advantage to Airbus.

What's interesting is that with all the talk of the 777F being the right platform, Boeing seems to feel (for good reason?) that the SMALLER 762F platform is the one the USA wants to use, which undercuts the A332F size as well.

Thus that may be Boeing regains the advantage.

Both Airbus and Boeing can offer a currently certified F right now: A332F and 763F.

But the USA may want a SMALLER frame with the same lift. Only Boeing can offer that in the 762F proposal. Even an A310F-NG would be larger...

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21401 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along... Well, doesn't that amount to a financial handout to the home team? And if Boeing leverage some further civil sales off this:

Being a Government contract, the profit is a fixed percentage, so if Boeing bumped the price by 5% they would have to be able to document this was not just an extra 5% because there was no other choice.

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
Well, isn't that the kind of thing Airbus are taking to the WTO?

If Boeing wins the tanker deal, they will use their own money to enhance the 767 freighter line for commercial sales. It should be noted that the tankers all start off as civilian airframes and are then modified at Witchita. Hence if the USAF want the KC-x it will start as a civilian airframe (767-200LRF).

The USAF is providing funding for certification, but it doesn't say it's providing all the funding, nor does the article say such funding is exclusive to Boeing. I suppose it depends on the Airbus offering - is it a civilian aircraft that will be modified in Alabama (or elsewhere Stateside) by Northrop Grumman? After all, one idea to sweeten the pot for Airbus was to have this joint venture so it wasn't a US versus "foreign" competition.

"Northrop says it decided to proceed with assembly of the aircraft, designated SDD-1, ahead of a downselect to underline the benefits of basing its tanker proposal on a commercial production line and supply chain."

"Arguing that Boeing is proposing changes to the KC-767 that will make it different to the commercial 767, Northrop says its decision to base the KC-30 on a standard A330-200 provides a “low-risk, time-certain approach” to KC-X.

Aircraft SDD-1 is expected to fly in October and, if the KC-30 is selected for KC-X, will be flown to Northrop’s Melbourne, Florida facility in November for modification to a tanker.

Some or all of the four development aircraft will be completed in Melbourne before work transitions to Mobile, Alabama, where EADS North America will perform final assembly and Northrop will complete the modifications."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-a330-for-usaf-kc-x-programme.html


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
What's interesting is that with all the talk of the 777F being the right platform, Boeing seems to feel (for good reason?) that the SMALLER 762F platform is the one the USA wants to use, which undercuts the A332F size as well.

The 767 has a smaller tarmac footprint then the A330 or 777 and better integrates with the existing KC-135 infrastructure at USAF facilities. However, if Boeing goes with the larger 764ER wing, this negates that advantage to an extent.

[Edited 2007-08-13 17:52:11]

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21347 times:

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
Boeing aims to refresh 767 line with tanker win

Wow, thats news - from the 90s, if I remember right.  old 

But seriously, why would the USAF, avantgarde in the mid-50s when they ordered the C-135, now prove to be the very opposite, a backward-looking organisation, by ordering the soon obsolete 767? The USAF will most likely operate the next tanker generation until past 2050, so the 767 seems ridiculously antiquated to me to fulfill such a role.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21331 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Both Airbus and Boeing can offer a currently certified F right now: A332F and 763F.

Are you sure the A332F is already FAA certified? It has not even flown yet. Boeing say that the 767-200 is 'right sized', if so why are Airbus not developing an A300-600 'Advanced' tanker? Much of the features of such an aircraft already exist on the A310MRTT.

I think the 'right sized' argument is being given more profile by Boeing than comparing the actual abilities of the two competing aircraft.

There are some myths being put out about regarding the KC-30 and I have yet to see a grain of evidence to back them up, such as:

  • It wont fit into the KC-135 hangers (I have checked myself this and the hangar doors ARE wider)
  • Ramp space / Wingspan (is this argument assuming that the USAF will replace the KC-135's on a one-to-one basis - is so, why?)
  • The KC-767 is the most 'advanced' tanker (But Boeing wont tell us what exactly what's advanced about it when compared to the KC-30)

User currently offlineKbdude From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21311 times:

In the article:

"The airframer says success in this evaluation will act as a springboard for continued 767-based freighter and tanker orders, keeping the commercial line alive well beyond the current order backlog for 58 aircraft"

and....

"We'll continue selling the airplane commercially as long as there is demand - and there's still demand," says Scott Carson, president and chief executive for Boeing Commercial Airplanes"


Still demand....? I thought the 767 was "dead" and the only reason why they sold the UPS frieghters & a few 1-off passenger / freighter planes is that they were giving 767's away to keep the production line "busy" until the USAF KC-X decision.

Who could want the 767-200LRF? How does it (762LRF) compare to its competition, the A330-220F... in the civil market?


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21289 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 17):
But seriously, why would the USAF, avantgarde in the mid-50s when they ordered the C-135, now prove to be the very opposite, a backward-looking organisation, by ordering the soon obsolete 767? The USAF will most likely operate the next tanker generation until past 2050, so the 767 seems ridiculously antiquated to me to fulfill such a role.

Because there were no older frames to choose from, the KC-135 was the first available jet powered tanker!

Now it is a situation where they can replace 50 year old tech with 20 year old tech that will fufill all their requirements with massive spares availability.

Apples and octopusses.....

P.S. The term obsolete does not apply here, as the plane will fufil all the needs of the USAF, therefore it by definition cannot be considered obsolete, just like the B-52 and KC-135.

[Edited 2007-08-13 18:04:10]


Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21267 times:

Quoting Kbdude (Reply 19):
Still demand....? I thought the 767 was "dead" and the only reason why they sold the UPS frieghters & a few 1-off passenger / freighter planes is that they were giving 767's away to keep the production line "busy" until the USAF KC-X decision.

Percentage wise, it is selling roughly as well as the A-330 is against the 787, and better than the A-340 against the 777.

The "only reason" they are selllng them is because airlines WANT them and Boeing is making money off of them.

[Edited 2007-08-13 18:07:17]


Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21200 times:

Quoting Kbdude (Reply 19):
I thought the 767 was "dead" and the only reason why they sold the UPS frieghters & a few 1-off passenger / freighter planes is that they were giving 767's away to keep the production line "busy" until the USAF KC-X decision.

He's hardly going to say something like that!


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21186 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
The 767 has a smaller tarmac footprint then the A330 or 777 and better integrates with the existing KC-135 infrastructure at USAF facilities. However, if Boeing goes with the larger 764ER wing, this negates that advantage to an extent.

To an extent but there are tons of facilities sized for the B-52 that would fit a 764ER wing but might or might not fit an A330 wing.

Wingspans
764- 170 Feet
A330- 197 Feet
B-52- 185 Feet

Many Air Force facilities are sized for the B-52. It entered service prior to the KC-135 and was the biggest plane in the arsenal for a good number of years in terms of wingspan until the C-5 came along, unless you count the U-2 which I would not. There have been basically two planes in the USAF inventory ever that have a wing span of more than 185 feet, the C-5 and the B-36.

I am not saying that it could not be done or worked around. What I am saying is that there are lots of B-52 capable facilities out there that could handle on airframe and might or might not have been built big enough for the other.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 21136 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
It wont fit into the KC-135 hangers (I have checked myself this and the hangar doors ARE wider)

Which hangers, where are they located and how many of them are there? Hangers are different sizes all over the place and are usually sized based on the largest aircraft located on the base.


25 Khobar : What, exactly, is obsolete on the 767 versus the A330, and why does it make a difference to the role the aircraft is designed for?
26 Post contains images Ikramerica : Boeing could offer a folding wing or one with APB winglets instead of raked wingtips. For military use, folding wings aren't as much of a hassle as c
27 DL767captain : Why wouldn't they go for a 763 or even the 764 so they could carry more fuel and cargo? the 762 seems a little small. and does this mean airlines coul
28 BigJKU : Because fuel is a pretty dense cargo so you probably could carry more with a 763 or 764 because it would run out of lift and thrust before it ran out
29 NA : If planning up to 50 years ahead you better look at whats makes sense in the future, and that more than just 5 or 10 years. The political responsibili
30 United787 : Does this mean the United still has an opportunity to order 3-5 763ERs to allow for a minor international expansion...
31 BigJKU : Say what? The military forces will be exempted from any such rules because otherwise no one will sign it. They are exempted from everything else from
32 Ikramerica : That all sounds great. But I would also assume, just a guess, that you resent the USA and the US Military anyway, so in your world, the USA wouldn't
33 EI321 : It was refered to a KC135 hanger. Could have been smaller or larger than the average one. Dont forget that these planes can be re-engined. The 767F i
34 KC135TopBoom : USAF will pay to certify the tanker version of either airplane. Under the contract, the USAF will pay for the FAA certification of the KC-767, not the
35 EBJ1248650 : Seems it would be in Boeing's best interest to certify the 767-200LRF and take advantage of civil freighter sales. The company seems to believe there
36 Catdaddy63 : Something to keep in mind here, the KC135 fleet carries a large amount of cargo around as well. It's replacement needs to be able to carry enough fuel
37 DeltaDC9 : Are you sure about that?
38 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Yes...the fuel is in tanks where the civilian cargo hold would be. The 'passenger' deck can be configured for many uses, including cargo. http://www.t
39 Post contains images RedFlyer : If the 767 is "ridiculously antiquated", what does that make the A330, which is a design only 10 years younger, just plain old "antiquated"? What you
40 Beech19 : Don't beleive everything you read from a hobbyist site... C-135's i would agree completely they carry cargo, but as many KC-135's and specialized ver
41 Post contains images WAH64D : Nor do I. The USAF will choose a B767 variant for their tanker requirement and rightfully so. IMHO as long as your own country is building a broadly
42 NA : Please read, what I also wrote, and don´t respond to half of my post. To quote only part of a statement is Yellow-Press-style. I´m not lobbying the
43 DeltaDC9 : Never disputed that, my Tahoe can be configured to carry 7 people with the third row installed, but it never IS installed so that capability is un us
44 Stitch : It is to the advantage of the USAF (as well as the Aeronautica Militare and the JSDF) of using the 767 frame is it is well-tested and well-known - "tr
45 Post contains images RedFlyer : Umm...excuse me. Please read what I wrote -- it was responsive to your Reply #17, not Reply #29, which you posted much later. I responded to the enti
46 Post contains images Glideslope : Abolish the WTO already. Last one standing wins. I'm ready.
47 AFGMEL : If anyone other than Boeing win this, I for one will eat my (a small piece of) hat.
48 SPREE34 : Neither of the two products are much more deliverable than the other right now.
49 OB1504 : To be fair, though, didn't the USAF go with an unproven aircraft in the '50s when they chose the KC-135? I would say that they're choosing between th
50 RedFlyer : There wasn't much choice in 1958 when they went with the KC-135. What, if any, were the alternatives that they could've chosen from?
51 Catdaddy63 : Neither a 787 or A350 based tanker would be available for at least 6-7 years. Boeing has all it can handle with the 787 order backlog, barring a sudd
52 Revelation : So the USAF should wait for A350/B787 or perhaps a BWB?
53 ADent : I think Boeing is pushing the 767-200 LRF for the sales case. It can carry all the weight of the 767-300 ERF but be smaller - and Boeing is pushing "S
54 Khobar : I wonder what the "trip cost" of a 767 tanker would be for a typical mission currently served by the KC-135 and how this would compare to the same mis
55 Post contains links Zeke : Have a look at reply 90 in Airbus Rolls Out First A330 For Usaf (KC-X) (by WINGS Aug 1 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
56 Revelation : None that I can think of. They wanted a jet tanker that could maintain the speed and altitude of the B-52. Boeing had the Dash-80 prototype up and ru
57 Stitch : Bingo. The KC-97 was dangerously slow to refuel the new jet strategic and regional bombers and Comet wasn't an option, so it was the KC-135 or wait f
58 Buckeye : I don't understand the arguments being printed in the papers. You would think that the decision rests in the hands of Congress or public opinion. The
59 Hoya : Remember that Congress supplies the funding, so public opinion and opinion of congressional members matters a lot here. Senators from states where Bo
60 Post contains images Halls120 : Wow. I love it when I see there are still people in the world who believe that Santa Claus is real, the tooth fairy visits good children at night, an
61 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...Congress yes... ..... ..add to that the "earth is flat" and the "mood is made from cheese"...
62 Baron95 : I never understood why people make the claim that the 777 is the right platform. First, a tanker is usually weigth restricted, not volume restricted.
63 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I meant "moon" and not "mood"
64 Buckeye : I believe you are wrong on this detail. The RFP does require that the aircraft have cargo lift capability. How heavily this is weighted is open for d
65 AirRyan : Which is the real reason as to why Boeing didn't offer the KC-787 and all of its foreign content. Which is the reason why if Boeing doesn't get the b
66 Max Q : I don't think they are planning on using the 764 wing. They are planning on using it's engines and cockpit.
67 Baron95 : Thanks for that piece of info - I did not know that the RFP called for a dual role. Do you have any specifics on the cargo requirements? I'm sure it
68 JoeCanuck : As for the flight deck thing, that's probably neither here nor there...the belly cargo is also a wash...that's where the refuelling tanks go.
69 Khobar : Thanks, but that's comparing "capability", not a direct 1 to 1 comparison for exactly the same mission. The A330 is a bigger plane, so the "spider we
70 Scbriml : Isn't all the KC-30s fuel held in the existing A330's tanks? I thought it didn't need any additional tanks, hence the much larger LD pallet capacity.
71 ADent : The 767-200 LRF will use the 767-300 ERF wing (size) with -400 flaps, not the larger 400 wing. See my quote in reply 53.
72 Tdscanuck : Why does the military care about the commercial viability of the 767? 777 and 330 are certified to the same engine-out requirements. Why do you think
73 EI321 : Boeing are NOT proposing the 767-400 wing. And troop carrying ability. The real reason is that there's no commercial sense in offering the 787. The K
74 WAH64D : Thats what they want you to think. Speaking as an insider albeit on the other side of the pond, the best interests of the USAF will always come a clo
75 EI321 : PS, they are also NOT proposing the 764 engines AFAIK. In fact, large wings (one of the most important attributes as you say) are what Boeing are sin
76 Stitch : If that was truly the case, the 777 never would have been certified for commercial service. The USAF is not going to load a KC-777 beyond her rated M
77 Tdscanuck : Can't blame the senator for that one...if Boeing had managed to extract themselves from their own rear long enough to realize that hiring Darleen Dru
78 DeltaDC9 : What about the 3 years or so of production for the orders still pending? And there will be more orders. It will fizzle out just like the A-300 if the
79 PC12Fan : Tell that to the next B-52 you see. You know, I hadn't thought of that either. Interesting.
80 Zeke : The 777 is the best aircraft that Boeing could offer at the moment, IMHO however they will not offer it as it will disrupt their ability to sell addi
81 EI321 : Different kettle of fish. The B52 is not an adoptation of a civilian airliner, and there is no suitable replacement for its heavy bombing abilities,
82 PC12Fan : But were are still talking about fish.
83 OB1504 : The 767 can hold two LD containers side-by-side... they're just LD2 containers. Although this could be an argument for the KC-30, since it can hold m
84 ContnlEliteCMH : Now, see, you're analyzing the situation again, a skill that requires numbers and comparison. The tanker won't just fly less than it's commercial cou
85 Tdscanuck : Of the three options (A330, 767, or 777) the 777 is the worst fit for what the USAF wants. Why would Boeing offer that? You don't make sales by pushi
86 KC135TopBoom : In 1955, when the KC-135 was selected, there were 3 airplan4es competing for the SAC Jet tanker Program, the B-367-80 (KC-135), the DC-8 design, and
87 RedFlyer : And that claim is based on what? A comparison against the KC-30? Sure. But compared against the RFP requirements I think Boeing has the best product
88 DeltaDC9 : Not completely true. The B1-B can carry 48,000 pounds of bombs, the B-52 60-70,000. The B-2 carries 40,000. The B1B and B2 combine to deliver the maj
89 Khobar : The A330 is a derivative of a 1970's (1960's?) design right down to the kink in the floor. Sure, there are significant refreshments, but it still is
90 Post contains links and images Zeke : Ask UPS what they paid for the 767Fs, and you will get your answer. The RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters, where does the B767 w
91 Tdscanuck : If they're going to create a whole new line (not my understanding) then it would cost *way* more to militarize. The duplicate tooling along would be
92 EA772LR : Really?? I can't imagine how much fuel a 748F could carry. Geez, one of those could refuel an entire arsenal. I highly doubt the USAF would even cons
93 Jacobin777 : ...with the plane being paid off for more than enough times and with the entire manufacturing system in place for decades....even selling at a low pr
94 EI321 : Its LD3's that the A330 can carry and the 767 cant. But do militarys even carry LD3's? I would have thought pallets are the standard ones for varying
95 RedFlyer : " target=_blank>http://blog.al.com/pr/documents/ How convenient that you use the famous "spider web" that was the result of a study commissioned by th
96 DeltaDC9 : Because they are paid for and replacements cost 200-300 million per copy. The fighter mafia still controls what is purchased, and it aint gonna be bo
97 RedFlyer : Bombing missions have also become increasingly tactical in nature, which is why all three of those fighters can be configured for bombing missions. M
98 Flighty : It is worth noting that a 767-200 LR heavy tanker could almost certainly beat the 767-200ER as a troop carrier in terms of range. Unladen, such a craf
99 Stitch : Ask UPS what they paid for the 767Fs, and you will get your answer. $2.2 billion for 27 frames, so about $81.5 million per frame. I've heard through
100 EI321 : Is it at maximum capacity? Not even close. Its currently at 6 or 7 per month. And from what I can see the 777 uses a more efficient production line t
101 JTR : The number of booms the military can purchase is more important than the cargo carrying capacity of a tanker/transport. The USAF will get more 767s th
102 Post contains links AirRyan : Nice pit sure, but it's still not quite as modern as the Airbus flight deck, especially in terms of ergonomics like the sidestick and center pullout
103 Post contains images RedFlyer : And your point is what? I did not offer up a Boeing sponsored study. I was simply pointing out that a one-sided study is not going to win an argument
104 Rwessel : There are 94 active B-52s, and 67 active B-1Bs, plus another 24 B-1Bs in storage for a total of 91. The B-1s in storage are being use for parts - a c
105 AirRyan : Actually, the B-1B can carry just as much if not more than than the B-52 (75,000lbs) with the addition of it's externals and their max takeoff weight
106 RedFlyer : Using that criteria then the best aircraft for the mission would be the A380. By far the most capable airplane as I'm sure it could beat any airplane
107 Flighty : I think this makes some sense. Boeing certainly is using sleazy politics (the history of the KC-767 makes this totally undeniable). However, to me (n
108 Tdscanuck : Even the KC-30 can't be in two places at once. The KC-30 costs more than the KC-767, so USAF has to choose between more KC-767's or less (but more ca
109 Post contains images F27Friendship : so, according to your analogy the B767 is a derivative of a 1940's (B-47) airplane? This is the biggest bullcrap I've read so far in this discussion.
110 EI321 : In fairness, the A330 has as much in common with the original A300 as todays 737NG has with the 737-200. Apart from the fuselage section, thats not a
111 Post contains images DeltaDC9 : Also, it probably solidified Boeings spot as the number 2 military contractor for a long time to come, if not indefinitely. Excellent post. I dont kn
112 F27Friendship : I'm sorry, but it really not true. The A330 is a derivative of the 4 engined A340, which is a much bigger airplane than the A300/A310. The 737NG is t
113 Post contains links Zeke : Airbus does not have a proposal in the system, Northrop Grumman does, see http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/index.html Yes the KC-30 will be assemb
114 CygnusChicago : And despite arguing that the KC-30 is not more capable with respect to the RFP, you still haven't back up that claim. What price are the KC-30s being
115 JoeCanuck : How would it be possible for the kc-30 to meet the price of the kc-767? The retail price of the 767 is less than the 330, and that's without taking in
116 EI321 : Which would be a great thing, IMO. I would even like them to examine the possibility of transferring the entire A330F line to Alabama once the passen
117 EI321 : The same way it might be possible for the A332F to meet the price of the B763F? And apparently, there is the cost of the 767-200LRF to add to the cos
118 DeltaDC9 : Even your clip mentions the GAO criticism of this aspect. The Pentagon , some believe, is using cargo as a pile on justification for new tankers, whi
119 Post contains images Stitch : Which seems silly since the B-1B is also a Boeing plane (since they have acquired Rockwell). So what's new? Heck, when McD was trying to sell the USA
120 Tdscanuck : That's not a question that can be proved. All of the RFP requirements are binary (you either meet them or you don't). Both the KC-30 and the KC-767 m
121 F27Friendship : that's what the UK is doing with some additional tankers they will get (was posted in another thread on the military forum)
122 Post contains images RedFlyer : " target=_blank>http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/....html Riiiiiight. As if EADS/Airbus has no say in or is not directing what's going on. If you b
123 F27Friendship : It's also more efficient, easier to fly, newer, has lower operating costs, will have more logistical support and spare parts during it's lifetime.. A
124 BigJKU : More efficient/lower operating cost- A toss up depending on mission Eaiser to fly- For those trained to use side-stick controlers. Of course everyone
125 RedFlyer : How so? How so? You're right on that one. I think the jury is still out on that one when it comes to a military role and the mission profiles it will
126 F27Friendship : ok, I can agree with most of you are saying here. However I still think there is a big difference. For example the F-22 can be called the ultimate fi
127 Post contains images RedFlyer : I know your above post was directed at someone else, but it goes to the heart of who's blowing smoke or pulling things out of thin air, which is what
128 BigJKU : I am sorry but this is just showing complete ignorance of the facts. F-111 was a joint program started under Secretary McNamara. He basically forced
129 F27Friendship : I will dig up my sources (it was a paper source and my piles of paper are kind of big), and get back to you on this one.
130 F27Friendship : ok, found it, and you are right about the chain of events, it was indeed a joint effort from the beginning: this only supports my point, that a good f
131 AirRyan : Show us where in the RFP they stipulate a certain wingspan or fuselage length? It's no fallacy - contrary to Boeing's propoganda there ARE times when
132 Khobar : A KC-30 can move a squadron in half the time than the KC-767 will be able to? How is that accomplished?
133 Trex8 : probably by having to make fewer trips to carry all the stuff which needs to be moved.
134 AirRyan : Okay I just pulled that number outta my butt but from NG's KC-30 brochure these are their stats:
135 Post contains links Rwessel : From the 2007 USAF Almanac: http://www.afa.org/magazine/may2007/0507structure.pdf There are an additional nine operational B-52s in the AF Reserve. W
136 Post contains images WingedMigrator : This procurement is so enormous that the Air Force should split it right down the middle. It's not like the Air Force is realizing economies of scale,
137 RedFlyer : That's my whole point. Based on your (and the Airbus supporter's) claims, if bigger is better then the USAF should just order up a bunch of A380's an
138 Ikramerica : That's against the current fleet, not the KC767. At least that's how I read it. Then why bid at all? Just let Boeing and NGEs ask for any price they
139 Tdscanuck : Small internal weapons load is a bit misleading...a stealth plane has to have internal weapons, whether it's an attack aircraft or a fighter. The F-2
140 Post contains links F27Friendship : Check here, you can see the internal weapons bay of the F-22 is dimensioned around the AMRAAM and not capable of carrying 2,000 lbs munitions, making
141 Tdscanuck : Source on the structure was Boeing and Airbus's websites, respectively. For manufacturer's spec 3-class configuration and operating empty weight, the
142 F27Friendship : Allright, I see what you mean, it's difficult to make a statement concerning the structure comparing these 2 types. What about manufacturing? I belie
143 Tdscanuck : Don't have a clue. Airbus is generally farther ahead than Boeing in automated riveting, although Boeing is learning fast. There are certainly lots of
144 Post contains links and images Zeke : Part of the site selection included the need to for a deep water port, if that gives you a further indication. The A320 line is also near a port. It
145 EI321 : I was always under the impression that the KC-30 is to be flown over green and then fitted out in AL? Exactly how much of a KC-767 and KC-30 are Amer
146 EI321 : What exactly can the KC-767 do that the KC-30 cant?
147 Post contains images Khobar : Alcola???? Has Rev. Sharpton opened a line of soft drinks? As far as I know, Boeing isn't offering 707 tankers against the A330. In any case, the que
148 Post contains links Trex8 : http://www.nasvf.org/cdfa/press.nsf/...607af8625703f00771af8?OpenDocument
149 Post contains links and images Zeke : Yes, well spotted, Alcoa No doubt there will be some for creating thousands of jobs. On the 787 project it is estimated that the State of Washington
150 RedFlyer : It is a Northrup-Grumman bid only because EADS/Airbus shopped for an American contractor to give their proposal a more palatable appearance to the po
151 Post contains links Stitch : CDFA says $600 million over 20 years - http://www.nasvf.org/cdfa/press.nsf/...607af8625703f00771af8?OpenDocument AL also gave EADS $120 million for a
152 RedFlyer : What is your point? My comment about where the KC-30 would be constructed was in reference to Zeke's erroneous statement that could lead a reader to
153 Post contains links Trex8 : The issue of whether the USAF wants the KCX to carry cargo , medevac litters etc is not debatable. I can't find a URL to link with right now but being
154 Trex8 : and a company which has a history of unethical and illegal activity in its dealings with the DoD should not try to drape the Stars and Stripes around
155 RedFlyer : You know about Airbus' past ethical problems, right?
156 Trex8 : but are they trying be patriotic to get public opinion and the politicians on their side in this contest by being more American than the competition
157 Stitch : Oh I am quite sure they have, as well. It's been endemic to the military-industrial complex since the creation of the military-industrial complex. Ik
158 DeltaDC9 : Who is "they"? I will tell you who "they" is. "They" is simply a single employee, or small group pf employees who feel their job or standing is in je
159 Post contains links Zeke : No, parts are TRANSPORTED now to the production line in TLS from all over the world. They will build a NEW production line in the USA with the same t
160 DeltaDC9 : Win the competition. What is laughable is to imply that the operational logistics of the RAAF in any way shape or form resemble the operation logisti
161 Zeke : Please tell us how you KNOW this.... Australian tankers are refuelling US, Australian, and other aircraft in the middle east and central asia at the
162 DeltaDC9 : Experience Not relevant Thanks for prooving my point. A small air force must combine missions because of limited budgets and limited size. The USAF h
163 Trex8 : BS, the company wanted a leasing deal with figures which would grossly inflate their profit beyond what anyone would consider reasonable and to ram i
164 Viscount724 : I believe the KC-767's smaller size was important due to hangar and ramp space issues. Wingspan is about 42 ft. less and overall length 34 ft. less t
165 Post contains links and images RedFlyer : They are being no more patriotic than a foreign owned entity teaming up with a U.S. contractor to make their proposal seem American -- or, depending
166 Halls120 : Zeke, a question. If my assumption is correct, you aren't a US taxpayer or US Air Force pilot. Why do you care so passionately about Airbus winning t
167 Post contains links and images AirRyan : You're awful thick for such a self-proclaimed Messiah on the subject - injecting a little reality obviously there is a small too size and a size too
168 JoeCanuck : What are the odds that A.Nutters will be the ones to decide the contract...? Seems like there are a lot of insults over something nobody in here has a
169 RedFlyer : I'm going to ignore all of your comments. You're off the deep-end. And just to satisfy your ego, I'll agree with everything you say: Airbus is great.
170 RedFlyer : Sorry...I decided to comment on your "issues" even though you're coming across as unstable. Perhaps it's the in-bred "Corps" factor we both possess. P
171 Khobar : But what is EADS/Airbus/NG doing? Telling everyone that the A330 is more American than apple pie. The latest is that if they get the contract, they'l
172 Trex8 : so you know the exact US sourced content of both products do you? please let us all in on this. no doubt you think a GM car is always All American bu
173 Buckeye : I'm not an economist but it makes sense to me that money spent inside the US circulates through the US economy longer thus generating more revenues fo
174 AirRyan : Oh what's the matter there Captain Devil Dog, you can dish it out but you can't handle being wrong, is that how it works? You sound you were commissi
175 Post contains images Zeke : The parts will be shipped direct to the USA from the point of origin, not via TLS. Why would GE for example send engines form the US to TLS just to b
176 Trex8 : when 35% of the 787 airframe is Japanese, 12.5% Italian, add in some Rolls engines, not even including other 'foreign sourced " parts and you have so
177 Khobar : Actually, we do. KC767 - 85% US sourced. KC-30 - 52% US sourced. Indications I've found show the KC767 has the better field performance and the bette
178 Halls120 : You accuse others of trying to mislead, but you can't answer a simple question. You aren't a US taxpayer, or a US air force pilot. Why do you care wh
179 Zeke : You could use that same argument against any person with order speculation/comments about any operator. Thats is like saying I don't work for BA or o
180 AirRyan : I'd love to take your bet on that one, but I already know the answer and it really wouldn't be very sporting to just take your money. Half the 733's
181 Post contains images RedFlyer : Good grief, Zeke. So what does that mean for the fact that the "parts", which in this case are major sub-assemblies, have been assembled (not fabrica
182 Tdscanuck : That's easy...the 767 uses less fuel per mission, less runway per mission, less ramp space, costs less, and has a better spares pool. I'm not saying
183 F27Friendship : No sub-assemblies are built out of parts in Toulouse. The major sub-assemblies like barrel sections, wings and empenage are assembled at other places
184 Tdscanuck : They've been considered illegal for decades. The law often goes unenforced, but that's a different problem. Tom.
185 F27Friendship : let's not go OT too much here, but in the past these actions were often politically beneficial and thus supported by governments
186 Halls120 : Sorry, but you cannot compare the acquisition decisions made by a for profit, privately owned airline with a government purchase for government servi
187 EI321 : This is another one I would like to see broke down. That implys that each KC-30 will burn nearly $8,000 dollars in extra fuel over a KC-767ADV per da
188 Post contains links F27Friendship : Yes, the Royal Netherlands Navy has Dutch ships and submarines, simply because they are the best designs for their tasks. check There's more to find
189 Halls120 : I'm not saying the RNN doesn't know best what they need in the way of ship design and construction, but if you don't think there would be a storm of
190 Post contains images DeltaDC9 : That was not my quote, I suspect this happens when a post is deleted between the quote and the response. PLEASE! Do little green men play into this a
191 F27Friendship : Politics here are rather different than in the US. Politicians are hardly influenced by companies in my country. In fact, sadly our government couldn
192 Pygmalion : And that 35% Japanese content is produced with nearly 100% US materials and US fasteners, so even the 35% is not all Japanese. Similar applies to Ita
193 Halls120 : No, that was the conclusion you reached. I asked the question because I am trying to find out if Zeke's concerns are that the US taxpayer isn't going
194 Reltney : Na from Germany is incorrect .The 767 is 8 years ahead of the A330. Remember the 330 is just a streched A300 with a different wing from 1972. In fact
195 Post contains images F27Friendship : HAHA! Was that a serious remark?
196 Post contains links Zeke : I have not seen all the data for the new 767 being offered, granted the earlier 767-200 had better field performance (being lighter, less fuel, and l
197 RedFlyer : Zeke, your original rebuttal statement was clear and false. You said the KC-30 would be rolling off of an identical line as the commercial version in
198 Post contains images Halls120 : Well, then I recommend developing a thicker skin. I still maintain it was a legitimate question - a question you haven't answered, by the way. What "
199 Post contains links and images Zeke : They will have an identical assembly line to that of the A330 in TLS built in Mobile, they are planning on making duplicate tooling as they have in T
200 Bringiton : Regarding the Sidestick Claim - It is completely irrelevant for a tanker . A tanker isnt a Fighter aircraft and it aint gonna be manuvering at 9G's so
201 EI321 : This thread really is transcending into a farce. Honestly, what is more important? That the USAF gets the best tanker, or that they order the one tha
202 Post contains images Halls120 : "political interference" is a fact of life when it comes to government procurement of government aircraft. I think it is hilarious how you cloak your
203 Post contains images EI321 : I guess its the jobs then You sound as if the decision has already been made.
204 Buckeye : The aspect of the contract that has always bothered me is the use of the tankers as cargo aircraft. I see no reason for the Air Force to have a cargo
205 EI321 : $. Aircraft like the C17 and C5 are very expensive. They use commercial carriers because they dont have enough suitable aircraft themselves to do it.
206 Halls120 : I have no idea. I doubt that it has been made, and I suspect that it is going to be an exceedingly close call between the competing aircraft. But the
207 Tdscanuck : Wet leasing is an expensive way to run an airline...it's a really cheap way to move stuff when you only have a periodic need. The overhead for the US
208 Post contains links and images EI321 : Since this thread is about a tanker/transport, guess what tanker & transport aircraft the Armée de l'Air use View Large View MediumPhoto © Phil
209 EI321 : All the more reason to use your tankers as troop and freight transports aswell. Rather than have a fleet of 180 tankers, plus light cargo (small arms
210 Post contains images Lumberton : Well said, Halls120. At the end of the day, any day, political considerations will be the deciding vote on any military procurement--anywhere in the
211 Tdscanuck : In the corner when you're doing a deployment between established airfields, this would be an option. However, how much of a tanker's life is spent in
212 EI321 : Well at least consider how many flights would be required to put in the number of troops. Iraquai Freedom required an initial force of 100000. That i
213 RedFlyer : Thank you for admitting that (finally). It only took you 199 replies to do it. Sure, 25,000 people when you consider all of the parts that go into th
214 RedFlyer : The majority of troops during a major deployment in a conflict are transported using leased civilian aircraft. The U.S. Government has lease agreemen
215 TeamAmerica : This is a gross over-simplification. You could not move 100,000 troops AND THEIR EQUIPMENT in 48 hours, and using the tankers as transports removes t
216 Post contains images Lumberton : Well said. SQ may abuse their A380s, but the USAF would be loathe to abuse their tankers in this role.
217 AirRyan : You forget that fact that going to a sidestick removes the center yoke from the pilots lap creating for less restriction in movement of their legs, a
218 Post contains links TeamAmerica : You are referring to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet [CRAF]. There's a concise summary here: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=173 CRAF is mu
219 Post contains images RedFlyer : I never said smaller is better. "Conversely", the Airbus pom-pom team (of which you're a proud member) claims that bigger is better. Glad you finally
220 Post contains images Zeke : I have been consistent ever since you said the KC-30 will "roll off" the line in TLS....read it and weap, you were WAY wrong with this, like you are
221 EI321 : Er, what?
222 Post contains links and images Zeke : Apparently two Ilyushin Il-78 Midas tankers are on the on the US register in readiness for a USN contract, they are owned by NATA (North American Tac
223 Post contains images TeamAmerica : That's misleading at best. The IL-76 is not being considered for the KC-X, so why mention it in this context? An excellent post...spoiled by this non
224 RedFlyer : So what you're saying then is that the KC-30 will employ more people in the U.S. than the KC-767 will? Zeke, pull your head out of your polyanna dark
225 KrisYUL : I don't know, TeamAmerica. Being Canadian myself, I would tend to agree with Zeke on this one. Moreover, in a democracy - something the US ostensibly
226 Post contains links AirRyan : Per the RFP cargo capability is a requirement and since the KC-30 has more cargo capability it's only logical to conclude that "more is better - with
227 Post contains links and images Zeke : I never said it was, what I said was very clear in my initial statement, and the backup post, it is being considered for a US DoD contract that shoul
228 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I remain profoundly doubtful. I wonder if most Canadians give a flip one way or the other about Americans. With certainty most Americans have no part
229 KrisYUL : I always root for the underdog. Plus, I mean c'mon, they're friggen cool looking planes! One day I'll take an IL-62 to visit the DPRK...one day I tel
230 TeamAmerica : We cross-posted. I was composing my post while you made the backup post, clarifying the point (thanks for that). This gets right to my point, though!
231 KrisYUL : I'm sorry - but I simply can't agree. I don't want to hijack this threat anymore than I have, so perhaps we should leave it at that. I will say, thoug
232 Post contains links RedFlyer : Which means you're biases run in lock-step with Zeke's... ...Which means your finding is not surprising. As a purported jurist, you know well that bi
233 Post contains links KrisYUL : Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 232): Quoting Zeke (Reply 227): You are telling me Americans putting Canadian flags on their backpack is now a sanctioned secu
234 KrisYUL : RedFlyer, If the EU tabled a resolution banning the purchase of American- made planes on the ground that Europeans should be put to work, your reactio
235 RedFlyer : So he claims. I have my doubts. If he really is a pilot for CX, then my impression of CX as a world class airline has been considerably diminished. (
236 RedFlyer : Not sure the relevance of that question to this thread. But I'll amuse you and answer your question. I believe in free markets so I would think that
237 KrisYUL : ONLY 20%? That is nearly a 1/4 more fuel - you don't think 1/4 is significant? Are you saying that an airframe that has proven efficient in a fierce
238 Post contains images RedFlyer : Don't you think that significance is neutralized to a great extent when you're also hauling around almost 40% more weight? Do you understand anything
239 Post contains images Zeke : Also known as, "anyone who disagrees with me is instantly bias" Hmmmmm.... First you hit me with labels, come up with baseless opinion about me, and
240 KrisYUL : Oh, please, Mr. Cessna pilot, teach me, teach me! The fact that the KC-30 can do multiple tasks well is what differentiates it from the competition an
241 Post contains links RedFlyer : Ummm...I think you're referencing list price. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument, Zeke. (And please don't say if list is $100
242 Tdscanuck : There isn't a sidestick in the world with a greater travel arc than a yoke. It's essentially impossible. With good electronics you can get the same e
243 JoeCanuck : Speak for yourself, mate. When you've gotten around to asking most Canadians, (or most people), their opinion on the matter, then maybe you can speak
244 Buckeye : When this firm order comes in will it be counted in the commercial orders lists because it uses an aircraft produced on the same line as commercial fr
245 EI321 : Do you mean the airliners.net '2007 orders' list, or the list of the manufacturers? I doubt the manufacturers would include regard this as a commerci
246 Post contains images Zeke : The tanker equipment instillation was estimated by Boeing to be equal to approximately 30% of the airframe cost for the 767, one would assume similar
247 Tdscanuck : That doesn't quite make sense...the refueling equipment would be same on either airframe, so the cost should stay constant in $'s, not % of airframe
248 Post contains links Zeke : Incorrect, the boom one uses on the 767 is not the same as a KC-10, KC-135, KC-30, or the 747, it is sized for the airframe, same with wing pods, you
249 KrisYUL : Zeke, pardon my ignorance, but could you confirm or deny the following for me please? The KC-30 is a heavier than the 767, but is also larger and a mo
250 Post contains links Khobar : And yet http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/767AdvProdCard.pdf quotes the max fuel capacity in excess of 200,000lbs. BTW, your specs a
251 Post contains images Zeke : No that is not always true. In an example Boeing has used in the past, if you wanted to transport 3 injured soldiers you would burn more fuel per sea
252 AirRyan : This is what irks me about the Boeing campaign for the KC-767 - the only reason the USAF uses tankers for cargo less than 1% of the time is because t
253 Pygmalion : Zeke's informed opinion??? he is a commercial A340 pilot. How is this experience relevant to a discussion about military tanker operations and govern
254 Post contains images RedFlyer : The 99 million dollar question, and what I've been waiting for after 250+ threads, is how is the KC-30 the "right size" for the payload that the USAF
255 Post contains links Khobar : I guess the question is why were you using KC-767A figures to argue against the KC-767Adv? (or why did Boeing choose to name them where confusion cou
256 RedFlyer : Hey, AirRyan. I really do like you (assuming you're not BS'ing me about being a former Marine, like you're BS'ing me about everything else). Here's so
257 Post contains links and images AirRyan : You really like to beat a dead horse, don't you? Now you're just talking yourself out of a corner and beating the brutally obvious! Do you have any f
258 Post contains images RedFlyer : Ummm...I have. In a Cirrus. Go look it up. Great little airplanes. I liked the sidestick. And it does not use FBW. But I'll take my Cessna's yoke any
259 Post contains images RedFlyer : It did on the commercial side. But commercial airline requirements and ops are very different from military ops and requirements. By the way, I think
260 Iwok : It appears that both the K767ADV and the KC30 have the same fuel uplift, so the arguement that the smaller more efficienct aircraft is a better choice
261 Zeke : How do you know I do not have experience in those very areas ? I did not morph into my present position overnight...You have no idea what my backgrou
262 RedFlyer : Yes, I know it does not mean "the same as only specfies a KC-135 capability. Conversely, it does NOT mean "the same as only specfies a KC-30 capabili
263 Khobar : How does it not help you? The fuel spec is 200,000lbs+. What the 763 or 764 could do is completely irrelevant given they are larger, heavier, differe
264 Post contains links Tdscanuck : The 767 is a supercritical airfoil as well: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/a...hnology/Facts/TF-2004-13-DFRC.html Better Cl has nothing to do wit
265 Post contains links Zeke : I have tended to say the KC-30 is more capable, which I firmly believe it is. However as I said said above it is not up to me to determine if that ad
266 Post contains images FighterPilot : And you found this information where? Oh when you polled 100 random Canadians, thats right. I being one of the 32,983,500 Canadians can say that I do
267 Post contains images EI321 : In fairness I think his point was tongue in cheek. Like saying that the Irish hate the British, or the British hate the Germans.
268 JoeCanuck : I have a question; is this going to be decided by A.Netters or the usaf...? Are there bets involved...? I think if so many people are so confident of
269 KrisYUL : please delete filler filler[Edited 2007-08-24 21:21:43]
270 JoeCanuck : My point being that the general population of most countries think that where they live is the greatest place ever. You've picked a poll where it's th
271 NEMA : Agreed
272 KrisYUL : If I might, I think it is fair to conclude that: If the USAF want only to replace the KC-135, with relatively modest improvements, they will select th
273 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Nope - it's a very complex question and can't be reduced like that. The USAF can value "multi" and find that at a given cost, they would get more "mu
274 DeltaDC9 : So you think a KC-767 is only a "modest improvement" over a KC-135? Cant agree with that at all. From the USAF's perspective I think it cans be said
275 Lumberton : The USAF recently asked for fixed pricing on the first 80. That is a very significant change. Both bidders are free to change their prices.
276 Post contains images Zeke : Both the 767 and KC-30 are significant improvements over the KC-135, they could be seen more like mini KC-10s capabilities with all the digital commu
277 TeamAmerica : I haven't been paying attention lately, but the original bid package was for an initial tranche of aircraft with others to follow. The USAF was not g
278 Post contains links Lumberton : Those are nice slides. Could you post a link? I listened to a podcast featuring Mr. Bill Barksdale, from the Boeing media relations dept (sorry, IAG
279 Post contains links KrisYUL : Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 274): So you think a KC-767 is only a "modest improvement" over a KC-135? Cant agree with that at all. Bad choice of words - I
280 Post contains links and images AirRyan : I still adamently believe that the KC-30 is a superior aircraft to the KC-767. Like I've said before, I'm actually a huge Boeing fan and I do otherwi
281 Halls120 : I first want to apologize to Anetters for resuscitating this dormant thread, but reading it after I returned from a short business trip, I just could
282 D328 : I sure hope the USAF will not order Airbus. Why would they do something like that...Keep it Boeing.
283 AirRyan : And that shouldn't be the case - the better product should always reign superior. I was hoping someone was going to bump - tell me how the KC-767 is
284 Post contains links Khobar : " target=_blank>http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Scotts...1.pdf The wingspan was always 156' where the KC767 was concerned. There was/is some talk about
285 BillReid : US labour vs foreign. Seattle vs Toulouse? Boeing vs Airbus. Funding for A350XWB through selling an A product. If you were a citizen in Washington st
286 DEVILFISH : And specialised aircraft like tankers are also very expensive. All the less reason to buy a much bigger platform since the U.S. Air Force and Army al
287 Halls120 : When you are talking purchasing aircraft for private or commercial use, I agree completely. When you are talking about purchasing anything with gover
288 DeltaDC9 : Dedicated resources are far easier to manage than multipurpose resources logistically. Its just a fact. In an oversimplified example, you have all yo
289 Khobar : I thought that would be a given. When I first read what Boeing was saying, I chuckled - it seemed like barrel bottom scraping of the worst kind. That
290 Scbriml : Did I miss something? Isn't the USAF specifying how many aircraft they're purchasing? I'm not aware that they're asking Airbus and Boeing "How many t
291 Halls120 : They may very well be the same price at the end. In fact, if I were EADS, I'd be selling them at cost in order to secure the contract. But if the KC-
292 JoeCanuck : As far as I'm aware, the WTO and other economic treaties and alliances probably forbid selling products at cost as being uncompetitive. There are, amo
293 Post contains links NorCal : Quoting Scbriml (Reply 290): Is the USAF specifying how many planes they want, or how much money they have to spend on tankers? The costs of the compe
294 Lumberton : I have read that the operating costs of the KC-30 are higher. Sorry I don't have the link handy, but can anyone confirm (or refute)?
295 Post contains links Lumberton : Found the link: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...1267ca-3999-4766-a8c1-cebecad05ffb
296 Tdscanuck : I believe the specified the initial buy (80 airframes) with options. Their intention is to replace the oldest KC-135's, so you that gives you a targe
297 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think the KC767 hitting serious turbulence with the Japanese & Italian Airforces is becoming harder and harder to deny / ignore. Boeing proposing a
298 AirRyan : That's exactly why the USAF will select the KC-30 - because they will be getting more aircraft for the same amount of money. THe latest KC-30 ad in t
299 D328 : KC30 fall apart in 10 years! haha. Boeing around 25 years! Sorry look at the Airbus's being put away already, and the Boeing are going strong! Now if
300 Tdscanuck : Both tankers have brand new booms. What's more modern or "powerful" (not sure what that means in a boom context) about the KC-30 equipment? That's no
301 D328 : But the American company Boeing designed it...And it's Boeing (A lot more more American than that Airbus). If USAF went to Airbus that would be unAme
302 Keesje : Better offload capasity for high volume fuel transfers. Or the KC-380-800R. Non sense. The KC-30 is a little bigger, but offers vastly superior capab
303 Tdscanuck : Which, if any, transfers are limited by the tankers' capacity? I would have though the receiving aircraft is the limiter. Tom.
304 Keesje : This includes the assumption there won´t any receiving capasity increase in the next 40-60 yrs..
305 Tdscanuck : Fair enough, but don't think it's a bit of a stretch to list "more powerful boom" as an advantage for today's RFP when there is no performance differ
306 EI321 : Its not using the 767-400 wing. What a load of crap. This is no place for false pride. Not a single A330 has ever been scrapped. How many 767's are s
307 Revelation : The "battle of the budget" has its perils. If there is any hint of any impropriety, or dare I say scandal, the Congress will drop the whole idea like
308 DeltaDC9 : There is no way Airbus would not take their profits off shore, no way. The labor is simply an part of the cost of goods sold. NG will get some of the
309 AirRyan : It's the best bang for the buck while still meeting the criteria of the USAF's RFP. The bids are actually still being tweaked: the USAF asked for pri
310 AirRyan : Some good fuel for the fire...
311 Eraugrad02 : Could Boeing use the Aviation Partners style winglet instead to keep the wingspan argument? That many planes would warrant Aviation Partners to develo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
With The 7E7, Will Boeing Close The 767 Line Soon? posted Sun May 23 2004 03:29:56 by A380900
Boeing 767 Line To Close? posted Fri May 14 2004 13:56:01 by Joni
Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 21:45:28 by Tangowhisky
Mulally: 767 Line To Remain Open posted Tue Jul 18 2006 16:31:50 by Leelaw
Boeing To End 767 Production In 2007 posted Wed May 3 2006 01:21:29 by American 767
Boeing 767 Line "Still Open For Business" posted Mon Mar 13 2006 19:24:45 by Leelaw
Boeing Pushing To Win EK's B772LR Order posted Tue Jun 14 2005 13:39:17 by EK156
Boeing May Shut Down Its 767 Line posted Thu Mar 10 2005 09:15:34 by A380900
Was The 767 Boeing Answer To The L1011 And DC10 posted Sat Feb 26 2005 20:58:25 by 747400sp
Boeing 767 Line - Why Still Open? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 12:03:36 by Rwylie77