Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31012 posts, RR: 86
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quote:
The White House has given the Pentagon guidance to delay procurement of aerial refueling tankers by five years and cancel plans for a new long-range bomber, according to three sources close to the discussions.

No final decisions have been made, and the recommendations are part of negotiations between the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department over possible budget trade-offs this year, the sources said. The guidance represents two of the offset options that OMB gave the Pentagon last month regarding the fiscal 2010 Defense budget request.

Air power advocates and military officials contend that the moves, if enacted, would hurt U.S. strategic might and put at risk missions that depend on the aging tanker and bomber fleets.

Article Link

If true, it looks like the KC-135R program will go forward for the interim.

A five year delay could be a benefit to NG/EADS since by then the A330MRTT and KC-30B programs should be in service with the RAF and the RAAF which would give EADS actual in-service data to compare against the in-service data from the JASDF and AM KC-767s.

It would also be a benefit to Boeing by allowing them five years to either make the KC-767 Advanced a more capable plane or be in a position to possibly offer a KC-787 model.

86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4334 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8161 times:

The LR Bomber I can see being delayed for a few years. I don't see how KC-X can be delayed any further, unless they decide to convert the remaining E's to R's. Besides the political muscle behind KC-X, there's considerable military muscle behind it as well. I think the Obama administration needs to tread carefully on this issue as it might be the flashpoint that will poison their working relationship with the military.


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3603 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8159 times:

Will they keep the tools and the manufacturing line 5 more years for the KC-767? To me this seems very doubtful, I guess they will then go ahead with a 787 development.

User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8151 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
It would also be a benefit to Boeing by allowing them five years to either make the KC-767 Advanced a more capable plane or be in a position to possibly offer a KC-787 model.

If (IF) the 787 lives up to its capabilities as promised to airlines, and IF this article holds true, then Boeing would be extremely stupid not to offer this model five years from now.

What bugs me about all of this is people complain about most of the US inventory (aircraft, tanks, etc) is using 70s/80s technology yet people bitch about the costs of maintaining/upgrading the military. Which is it people?



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8147 times:

If this report proves to be correct and the Obama administration decides to defer the tanker procurement there is one other avenue for the Air Force: it could lobby the Hill. Congress, could add funds for a new tanker, just like they did for the C-17 after the last administration did not request more in the budget. Any bets what plane that favors? (Hint: if you bet on the airbus, try again.)


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31012 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8145 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Will they keep the tools and the manufacturing line 5 more years for the KC-767?

The current commercial 767 backlog is good for around four years, I believe. The existing 767 line in PAE would be reconfigured to become ITAR-compliant to build the KC-767 Advanced as a complete package, as opposed to the JASDF/AM birds which were built as green planes and sent to Boeing IDS Wichita for outfitting as tankers.

If no additional commercial 767 sales materialize and the backlog is delivered around 2013, Boeing could then use the time to convert the line for the KC-767 Advanced if they have been awarded the contract and Congress has approved funding for production.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7240 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8143 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
It would also be a benefit to Boeing by allowing them five years to either make the KC-767 Advanced a more capable plane or be in a position to possibly offer a KC-787 model.

More capable that the current a/c or the proposed KC-30? Argument started  Smile
If they need a tanker simply do a single source and go for it, if more C-17's are procured, the more capable need of the tanker takes a hit, it would then boil down to refuelling capabilities only, pax and cargo issues take the hit.

Similar issue for the new bomber, state clearly your requirements then solicit bids for that and nothing else, some one somewhere has to try to keep the process simple, at least thats the hope. Based on the current environment, by the time a new bomber gets into production, it will be 10 years late with obsolete technology.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8124 times:

Hopefully what these statements are saying is that programs not yet in production will be delayed, hopefully that bodes well for programs in productions;

C-17s, V-22s, F-22s, F-35s



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7615 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8114 times:

Stitch

Your estimate of 4 years backlog, what rate of production are you assuming?


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8116 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):

No spending will mean no spending. Some form of the V-22 and F-35 programs will probably make the cut. The C-17 line will have to depend on foreign sales, but the F-22 production is dead.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8078 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 9):
but the F-22 production is dead.

I doubt it's "dead".
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/10/tacair-budget-intel-f-22-below-40/

Quote:
Word is that PR 9, the latest version of the budget from the White House, would keep the F-22 production line going for one more year and would fund at least 20 planes, and perhaps as many as 40 more aircraft.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31012 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8057 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 8):
Your estimate of 4 years backlog, what rate of production are you assuming?

The 767 currently has 68 unfulfilled orders. As of 2007, production was one per month so that would be 68 months - five and a half years.


User currently offline60mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8053 times:

Well, I don't know much about the continuance of these programs, the c-17 and maybe KC-x seem safe and may receive more support from the current administration. If you go to the President's web site (www. whitehouse.gov) under Defense the "C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft" are "essential systems". Policies and preferences may change in light of current financial trouble but this is from the President's own agenda.

User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8029 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 10):
I doubt it's "dead".

The F-22 is an expensive one trick pony. While more are needed, in today's climate it is "trumped" by the multi-role F-35. In addition the some form of the F-35 will be exportable which means more jobs. (Note, I am not saying the F-35 can do air-to-air in the same class as the F-22. Rather, the civilian "experts" in Washington will see it that way.)

Quoting 60mech (Reply 12):
Well, I don't know much about the continuance of these programs, the c-17 and maybe KC-x seem safe and may receive more support from the current administration. If you go to the President's web site (www. whitehouse.gov) under Defense the "C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft" are "essential systems". Policies and preferences may change in light of current financial trouble but this is from the President's own agenda.

Since the only campaign promises that the current administration has kept are those that have weakened the security of the US, I would not count on any promise that would provide increased security or new equipment.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7998 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 13):
The F-22 is an expensive one trick pony

So was the F-117A. IIRC, it was somewhat useful. Frankly, you could make that criticism of FBM submarines as well.

Whatever the case may be, I think the F-22 is a long way from being "dead". Perhaps in a year, perhaps not, but it certainly has not expired as I write this.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7996 times:

I wonder if the Kansas and Washington congressional delegations will put in a KC-135E to R amendment to the next spending bill to sneak it through. Some of those jets have been sitting around for about 4 years now just having calender inspections and tire rotations performed on them.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7997 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
Air power advocates and military officials contend that the moves, if enacted, would hurt U.S. strategic might and put at risk missions

The overreaction begins.

Note that the USAF itself was saying the KC135s were good till 2035 or so, before the idea of them getting new 767s came to light after 9/11.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1):
Besides the political muscle behind KC-X, there's considerable military muscle behind it as well. I think the Obama administration needs to tread carefully on this issue as it might be the flashpoint that will poison their working relationship with the military.

Really? They'll draw the line in the sand over the tankers? I doubt it, there will be other battles more worthy of them.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
The existing 767 line in PAE would be reconfigured to become ITAR-compliant to build the KC-767 Advanced as a complete package, as opposed to the JASDF/AM birds which were built as green planes and sent to Boeing IDS Wichita for outfitting as tankers.

Presuming they get the contract.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
Hopefully what these statements are saying is that programs not yet in production will be delayed, hopefully that bodes well for programs in productions;

C-17s, V-22s, F-22s, F-35s

I think the tanker and the bomber are being thrown under the bus in favor of the currently running programs.

If so, good choice.

It's a terrible time to be buying tankers.

We'd be buying 767s/A330s at the end of their life cycle.

Why not re-engine the 135s and wait to see if we can't get a modern plane (787/A350) a few years down the line instead?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31012 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Presuming they get the contract.

If they don't, then they wind down 767 production and use it for storage or other uses. If they pitch and win the KC-787, then they can build them there.

Maybe they can sub-let it to NG/EADS to build the KC-30A if it wins, saving the expense of building a facility in MOB.  rotfl 


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1867 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7942 times:

Is it likely that Boeing would keep the 767 line open just for tankers?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7937 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Will they keep the tools and the manufacturing line 5 more years for the KC-767? To me this seems very doubtful, I guess they will then go ahead with a 787 development.

Good question and a good point. In 5 years the 767 is definitely going to be old news and, frankly, I don't believe the 767 production line will be open then, unless something very unusual happens. A 787 tanker? From the looks of things, that's becoming more of a possibility all the time.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4334 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7917 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1):
Besides the political muscle behind KC-X, there's considerable military muscle behind it as well. I think the Obama administration needs to tread carefully on this issue as it might be the flashpoint that will poison their working relationship with the military.

Really? They'll draw the line in the sand over the tankers? I doubt it, there will be other battles more worthy of them.

I agree no one will draw a line in the sand, but some brass may come to view this event as a "dis", much as the brass viewed Clinton's meddling with gays-in-the-military as a "dis", or Carter and some of his axing of various military programs.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
I think the tanker and the bomber are being thrown under the bus in favor of the currently running programs.

If so, good choice.

A good choice as long as something is done about the tanker requirements. If they indeed convert the remaining E's then they buy time. (I'm not even sure the remaining E's can be converted.) But if they allow this issue to just languish for 5 more years, it won't do anyone any good.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
It's a terrible time to be buying tankers.

We'd be buying 767s/A330s at the end of their life cycle.

That may be true, but 767s and A330s at the end of their life cycle are still a 30 year advance over the existing fleet.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
Why not re-engine the 135s and wait to see if we can't get a modern plane (787/A350) a few years down the line instead?

A good option...if they do it. Don't forget, Rev, they are talking about starting the procurement process over in 5 years. That means it will be a few more years beyond that 5 years that any new equipment starts entering the inventory in any appreciable numbers. Realistically, we're looking at the prospect of the new tankers coming on line in force in about 10 years' time. So what will be the stopgap until then considering everyone (USAF brass, DoD personnel, military experts, and us armchair A.net warriors) is saying that the USAF desperately needs about 100 or so new tankers to maintain current and future commitments?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7893 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 20):
That may be true, but 767s and A330s at the end of their life cycle are still a 30 year advance over the existing fleet.

Yes, but with the KC-135s we got absolute state of the art, and look how good that's worked for us.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 20):
A good option...if they do it. Don't forget, Rev, they are talking about starting the procurement process over in 5 years. That means it will be a few more years beyond that 5 years that any new equipment starts entering the inventory in any appreciable numbers. Realistically, we're looking at the prospect of the new tankers coming on line in force in about 10 years' time. So what will be the stopgap until then considering everyone (USAF brass, DoD personnel, military experts, and us armchair A.net warriors) is saying that the USAF desperately needs about 100 or so new tankers to maintain current and future commitments?

I think they are overselling their position.

I see we have around 500 KC-135s active now, and who knows how many able to be re-activated.

I see we will have a declining expeditionary military profile in the next several years.

I see we will be maintaining E-3 Sentry, E-8 Joint Stars and the EC/RC-135 family for a long time to come.

In 5 years, the 787-8 and A350-9 will be in full production.

It's much better to see what purchasing them will be like instead of going for A330s/767s.

If there is a gap to breach, I'd rather see us re-engine KC-135Rs and/or convert DC-10Fs to KC-10s in the short term.

All these are known quantities with known outcomes (let's hope, unlike RERP'd C-5s).



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7522 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):

Very good points and probably will be close to what happens. However, if, the deferral actually comes to pass there will still be a reason for discussion on a.net  Cool :

* It would probably be discussed with each new Congress - 2010 and 2012. As a shift back to Republican control takes place, national defense issues will begin to rise again.

* The A v B issue will shift from the 767/A330 to the 787/A350. However, this will not help either manufacturer. Freighter versions of the 787 will not be flying even in 5 years, and the A350 will barely be flying if flying at all.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7506 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
The A v B issue will shift from the 767/A330 to the 787/A350. However, this will not help either manufacturer. Freighter versions of the 787 will not be flying even in 5 years, and the A350 will barely be flying if flying at all.

The prospect of a 100 plane order which could grow to a 500 plane order, all at military profit margins, can make a lot of things happen in a short period of time.

I could easily see the enhancements being done for the 787-10 being used on the shorter 787-8 fuselage to support a tanker.

A350 is scheduled to EIS in 2013, so it'll be mature enough to bid five years from now.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4334 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7480 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
However, this will not help either manufacturer. Freighter versions of the 787 will not be flying even in 5 years, and the A350 will barely be flying if flying at all.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
A350 is scheduled to EIS in 2013, so it'll be mature enough to bid five years from now.

 checkmark 
If this news comes to pass, the bidding process will start in 5 years. By the time the contract is awarded, appealed, re-bid, re-awarded, appealed, etc., and the first military frames start rolling off the assembly line we will be closer to 8+ years out. By then both manufacturers will have had their birds in the air with plenty of data to support their respective bids. Also, the militarized version of these planes will be mods of existing models. Both manufacturers have been known to make mods in order to squeeze several dozen more orders out of their civilian planes. We're talking a mod that will result in a net 100 orders, for a government contract (read no cancellations and guaranteed profits), with the likelihood of a few hundred more orders in the future. That's a modification well worth implementing.

Back to the topic, I will still be surprised if the KC-X RFP is delayed for a full 5 years.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
25 KC135TopBoom : I didn't know the F-35 entered production, yet. Actually, if we re-engine the KC-135Es, there will not be a need for a new tanker in 8-12 years. Ther
26 MD-90 : I think a 777LR-based tanker would be far more likely to ever be ordered than a 748-based tanker. Does a 747 make strategic or tactical sense?
27 DfwRevolution : The difficulty isn't keeping the tools and manufacturing line intact. The 767 line is just one of many at the Everett facility, so there's very littl
28 Oroka : If the new AF1 ends up being a 748i and the ABL continues to go ahead and builds (12 AL-1 IIRC) based on 748fs... that will be 15 748s in the USAF in
29 DfwRevolution : I was unable to edit, but let me add that Boeing still has orders for 68 767s. At current production rates (I believe 10-12 a year), that will keep th
30 TexL1649 : IF bidding does start in 5 years, expect the process to be over 3 years long. The 767 is ridiculously old as-is (when viewed in the context of a putat
31 Nomadd22 : They've been studying going to 2 767s a month for a while now. But, that might be on the back burner with the sales dropoff.
32 RedFlyer : Ok, that answered the question I had as I recalled there was some issue with the engine struts on the E's and couldn't remember if it was cost-effect
33 Ken777 : The delay on the tanker is no surprise - the real surprise is if there were funds available for the USAF to go forward. By the time funds can logicall
34 Post contains links Osiris30 : Key U.S. lawmaker urges split tanker buy http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1141822520090311 and
35 Venus6971 : Remember, the JT-8d-219 engines and most importantly the struts will bolt right up to existing A and E models in AMARC if they piggy back on the E-8C
36 Rwessel : Why would you need tanker support for humanitarian missions? Where might you want to fly one where there aren't going to be some airfields enroute to
37 Osiris30 : Far easier to use tankers and mid-air refueling for security and wear and tear purposes.
38 Rwessel : While security might be an issue, again, it's a humanitarian mission - you only need a semi-friendly airfield within a thousand miles or two of the d
39 Tugger : The F-22 will become a "leader platform", hosting and coordinating a group of linked UAV's. Similar to what the P-8 is looking to do with augmenting
40 Osiris30 : While I don't disagree with you, sometimes those airfield can be difficult to get to, and (much bigger issue) add time to the mission. It all depends
41 Rwessel : And I don't disagree that situation that need a tanker are possible - I was responding to the assertion that it was/is-going-to-be a common requireme
42 Revelation : Well then surely there wasn't enough reliability data to justify buying KC-135s, right? The Dash 80 was just a prototype after all. And if they are j
43 Revelation : That's a throw-away statement. It may be their top acquisition priority, but it isn't their top budgetary priority. Clearly they aren't suggesting th
44 Flighty : Yeah, the A330 is 15 years old now, and the 767 is 25 years old. Conservatively, in both cases. Were they buying 1945 tech aircraft in 1970? No, that
45 CX747 : If the AF was to begin re-engining some of the 135E birds left in the inventory, how many birds would they come up with? The tanker fleet (both -135 a
46 Moose135 : But prior to that, they had relatively low hours - for years, they sat alert for months at time (I think alert birds were rotated out every 90 days),
47 Tommytoyz : Yep, this is a no-brainer. If the service life on those KC-135 tankers is good for another 30-40 years, why not keep modernizing them? "The Boeing 76
48 JoeCanuck : Wow...That's a heck of an improvement. Is that with the CFM's or the Jt8's? I can't see it happening, though...it makes way too much sense.
49 Par13del : To make sure I understand this correctly. 1. The US Air Force was not considering the B-777 a/c because it was too large. 2. Airbus is building the A3
50 Stitch : Well a 787-8 is about the same size as an A330-200, though it does offer a bit more underfloor cargo volume. If they fit it with the 787-3's upturned
51 Osiris30 : Don't shoot the messenger who was merely posting a link and pointing out the jucier (regardless of liklihood) parts of it
52 KC135TopBoom : Tugg, I live down the street from the Fort Worth LM plant (next to NAS Ft. Worth JRB). The avionic test B-737-300 is still flying a lot, and the LRIP
53 Venus6971 : Always a trade off, if we go with the CFM's we get the 60% fuel savings but also the costly construction of new nacelles and wing fabrication also th
54 Tugger : Thanks for the info KC! I know people who are neck deep buying and building material for LRIP's 1, 2, & 3 under contracts from LMA. I thought this me
55 Post contains links JoeCanuck : I did some digging and unearthed this; http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Re-engining-the-E-8-JSTARS-04891/ The CFM-56 has provided the KC-135's with
56 Revelation : Sorry I came off the wrong way. The articles were very interesting, and my comments certainly weren't directed at you, they were expressing my frustr
57 Revelation : Thanks. I also found the following line interesting: It's interesting how the USAF talks out of both sides of its face at the same time. KC-135s are
58 Post contains images Keesje : What about 4 Pratt GTF's for the KC-135s. They seem right sized. Would mean a range / enviromenrtal boost over CFM56 powered variants. They would beco
59 Stitch : I read an article that noted the 707s used for the E-8 program were literally rebuilt from the keel up so they are effectively new-build frames so I
60 AirRyan : Boeing needs to offer the KC-787 or nothing. The KC-30 is the best aerial tanker presently available. The audacity of Obama to try and ask the USAF to
61 MD-90 : 1. Expensive to purchase (although a 777LR wouldn't be that much less) 2. More expensive to operate than the 777LR 3. The 748 has a huge wingspan and
62 Lumberton : Has this aircraft actually transferred fuel yet?
63 Venus6971 : So am I but I still have a few good years left in me.
64 Tommytoyz : KC-135s have a structural average life expectancy of 70,000 hours. The average KC-135 has 15,000 - 20,00 hours. There is plenty of life left in them,
65 Post contains links RedFlyer : In the latest developments of this on-going saga, SoD Gates again states he opposes splitting the deal: And, apparently, the RFP is still on track for
66 Gsosbee : I think everyone agrees that a dual buy is not desired. However, declaring a winner and having that decision stick (after years in the courts) is als
67 RedFlyer : I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If the 767 is at a disadvantage because it doesn't provide the best value for the taxpayer or the warfighter then
68 Gsosbee : We agree. My point was unless Boeing puts up the T7F or 748, they do not have an airplane that the DoD wants. However, in the current political clima
69 Post contains links and images Lumberton :       Then this general is just running his mouth here? http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...tilitiesNews/idUSN0351555620080903 [Edited 2009-03-
70 Stitch : Given a choice, I think the USAF would prefer the KC-30A since they did choose it at first, and there are implications they were willing to "cook the
71 Gsosbee : Show me any rated general who doesn't want a new toy every year or so. Thus when presented with a situation where the preferred airplane was not goin
72 Post contains links Lumberton : This isn't just "any rated general". He commands AMC and has flown tankers. http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6196 The comment you made was: Incor
73 Gsosbee : If the DoD wanted the 767, they would be building them now. All rated generals are the same. The ACC CO wants more F-22's; SOCOM wants smaller and be
74 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : A split buy is about the dumbest thing the DOD could ever do. It increases maintenance, crew training, and logistics costs. You are wrong that "no on
75 Ken777 : The ironic situation today is that the military (and all other departments) are facing budgeting restrictions that the most effective approach for acq
76 Tommytoyz : Your analysis misses that leasing is like putting things on a credit card. Since it is more expensive, in the end, the DOD will get less hardware for
77 Stitch : Leasing military hardware is more expensive because in the end, usually the lessor actually ends up buying the hardware. Unlike cars, Boeing doesn't l
78 KC135TopBoom : Actually, Stich, there just may be a market in FMS for used KC-767ATs or KC-30As should the USAF ever lease them. There are still several countries ou
79 Gsosbee : How do the crews know they want the 767? They have as many hours in the 767 as the 330 - zero. The crews, like the rated generals, just want somethin
80 Ken777 : I clearly don't know the numbers of any acquisition program of capital military equipment. I also know that a lease/purchase is more expensive that a
81 KC135TopBoom : Actually it comes down to two different factors as to why the KC-135 crews prefer one type over the other. 1.) The crews have a lot of time flying in
82 Gsosbee : All understandable, but the preference is a new airplane. No one is going to walk away from either the Airus or Boeing airplane! The choice is actual
83 Blackknight : I have over the last few years said that the 787 is what the USAF wants. The truth is that the world has changed. The second cold war has begun. The r
84 KC135TopBoom : But the DOD does not control the USAF (or any oter military service) budget. Congress approreates the funds directly to the USAF, not through the DOD
85 Gsosbee : Not so sure about that. I see a DoD portion in the budget, but I could not find an Air Force portion. Yes each service is vetted separately, but the
86 Blackknight : Yes it does, and the next question is : 1- Does the air-force ever retire the R/T platform even with new planes due to the need for network link ups?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf Has Fund To Fight KC-45 Protest posted Fri Feb 22 2008 05:34:10 by KC135TopBoom
A Tribute To The KC-135 posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:41:49 by 747400sp
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
What Happened To This KC-135!?!? posted Sat Jun 14 2003 04:12:14 by SWA TPA
Obama Flies Usmc Osprey From Iraq To Jordan posted Tue Jul 22 2008 08:58:53 by STT757
KC-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
Source: Usaf Made Late Change To KC-X Criteria posted Thu Feb 28 2008 17:35:21 by AirRyan
Usaf Invites KC-X Tanker Bidders To The Table posted Wed Nov 21 2007 06:19:13 by Zeke
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
Pratt & Whitney Selected To Supply Engines KC-767 posted Tue Mar 13 2007 22:12:56 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format