Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17224 times:

Boeing announced that it will offer up a version of the 777 for the USAF tanker. This offering won't exclude the KC-767 being offered as well. Of course, the USAF has yet to issue an RFP so we really don't know the full requirement yet. However, its not too early to revise that spider chart.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGf5lNftSK44

Quote:
The company plans to pitch tankers based on both the 777 and smaller 767 to the Pentagon when the contest begins in a few weeks, Jim Albaugh, its defense chief, said today in a briefing at the Paris Air Show. The larger aircraft would offer maximum fuel capacity and the 767’s selling point is its flexibility, he said.

Boeing, the U.S. Air Force’s tanker supplier for more than half a century, lost out to a Northrop design based on the Airbus SAS A330 when the $35 billion tanker order was awarded in February 2008. The Chicago-based company derailed that decision a year ago this week with a successful protest to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
176 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17226 times:

And yet another round in the tanker debate.  box 


If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well it is a nice way to deflect the "bigger is better" argument because the 777-based tanker (be it a 77E or 77L) would pants the KC-30A in range and payload and fuel volume offloading. So if the USAF really is infatuated with size, the 777 would be the way to go.

I still prefer the dual-buy with an initial 200 KC-767ADVs and 100 KC-30As to allow the KC-135E and KC-10A fleets to be sent to the boneyard and start augmenting the KC-135R fleet.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17195 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I still prefer the dual-buy

I want a dual buy as well. Specifically, 50 KC-777s and 100 KC-767s.  Wink



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17181 times:

Here's another report from DOD Buzz. Speculation abounds! I found this particularly interesting.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/15/boeing-almost-picks-777-tanker/

Quote:
But there are rumors that Northrop is weighing its commitment to the tanker program, which has cost the company financially and politically. Two sources have told me that Ron Sugar, the company’s CEO, will walk away from the competition should the new RFP appear weighted too heavily in Boeing’s favor. This could, of course, be part of the company’s gaming efforts to ensure that the Air Force does include analysis such as best value as it makes its choice.




"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17127 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
I want a dual buy as well. Specifically, 50 KC-777s and 100 KC-767s

 bigthumbsup 

The comments from the Northrop CEO sound an awful lot like the thing that got us in the mess in the first (second?) place - the RFP for the latest round was seen to favor Boeing, and NG/EADS reportedly threatened to drop out of the bidding unless they received extra credit that wasn't specified in the RFP.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17054 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 5):
The comments from the Northrop CEO sound an awful lot like the thing that got us in the mess in the first (second?) place

 checkmark  I think he's trying to swing things his way. Problem is, this time around I think we have an administration that would care less if they were to take a long walk off a short pier here.

There are some good comments here. I think he beat Bloomberg to the story on the possible KC-777....
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/kc-777-ready-to-go/



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17039 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Dumb question perhaps but could the 777 proposal be tied with the discussion of a re-winged version of the 777? If the Air Force is wanting something bigger than the 767 but with the field performance of the 330 then perhaps you achieve both with a new wing?

Just throwing out a thought.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16831 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 5):
The comments from the Northrop CEO sound an awful lot like the thing that got us in the mess in the first (second?) place - the RFP for the latest round was seen to favor Boeing, and NG/EADS reportedly threatened to drop out of the bidding unless they received extra credit that wasn't specified in the RFP.

Correct, NG cried about that back in 2006/2007. The USAF caved in and gave NG "extra credit" that it shouldn't have.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/15/boeing-almost-picks-777-tanker/
"As one observer here put it, the 777 is “totally untested and unproven” as a tanker"

Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

I now agree with a duel tanker buy for the USAF, the KC-767AT and KC-777F.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16817 times:

The KC-767 and KC-30 meet the 7.000 ft runway requirement. That is important to use all the runways currently in use all over the world. A B777LRF based KC-777 would need 11.000 feet. Don't if that's an issue. I think so.

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16800 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

I agree with this! Let the games begin! Boeing is offering TWO options compared to Airbus' one option.

In the end, I think Boeing will win regardless of the type, although I would LOVE to see the 777 in a tanker version. That would be so cool to see.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16776 times:

Depending on the RFP, Boeing could offer a "mix" of 777s and 767s. IMO, this would constitute a strong "best value" proposal. Isn't this what Ron Sugar of Northrop Grumman wants--selection on best value? It would mirror the mix of KC-10s and KC-135Rs that have served us well to date.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Don't if that's an issue. I think so.

Depends on the RFP.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

IMO, it IS an issue and goes to risk, although I suspect that a fuel transfer or two will mitigate the concerns it won't eliminate them entirely until the MRTT enters service. In light of the GAO report, we know for sure that the Air Force's risk assessment of the two contenders was flawed. Then, there is that "breakaway" issue that the GAO noted in their report. I hope the RFP will adequately address all the concerns that the GAO had.

[Edited 2009-06-15 16:42:09]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16745 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
The KC-767 and KC-30 meet the 7.000 ft runway requirement.

How often is the aircraft operating from 7,000 foot runways? If not that often, does it really need full capability on shorter strips?

According to Boeing, the 777F can depart a 7,000 foot runway in ISA conditions at around 660,000 pounds in accordance with Part 121 requirements. I'm not sure how the military op specs would impact this performance when compared to the airlines.

Using these numbers, the 777F can still uplift 342,000 pounds off a 7000 foot strip, considerably more than either the A330 or 767.

Ultimately, the USAF will need to weigh this when developing the new RFP... given the tendency of the USAF to inch towards bigger and more expensive aircraft as time goes on, I think it is certainly possible the 777 will be a strong contender.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16713 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 11):
Depends on the RFP.

 Yeah sure  Yeah sure  Yeah sure

It _should_ depend on what will best serve American combat operations! The best legalistic answer is not the greater purpose here (despite what some say).


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 16582 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 7):
Dumb question perhaps but could the 777 proposal be tied with the discussion of a re-winged version of the 777? If the Air Force is wanting something bigger than the 767 but with the field performance of the 330 then perhaps you achieve both with a new wing?

Not dumb at all.. and you can bet Boeing would *love* to do the 777 rewing on the government's dime as it were.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 16547 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

IMO, it IS an issue and goes to risk, although I suspect that a fuel transfer or two will mitigate the concerns it won't eliminate them entirely until the MRTT enters service.

If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/FrenchKC135AustralianA330MRRT.jpg?t=1245140645

The boom has been tested on A310 MRTT, receiving has been tested and the combination soon. Don't worry.

I think it will take strong metal flexibility to start aguing the KC-30 is just too small, after 7 years of arguing it's to big. No doubt it can be done here.  Wink


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 16506 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?

Too early to start that nonsense, keesje. The KC-777 announcement has likely thrown the EADS team into a panic. Now, they no longer have the "biggest" that carries the "mostest".

Anyway, let's see if NG's threat to "walk away" again will garner them any love this time around.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16469 times:

years are invested in telling congress, DOD, USAF and the press the KC-30 is just oversized, to expensive, to much aircraft & inflexible. If there is any truth in this ..



 Yeah sure

the tanker marketing and lobby teams will have to retreat to a quiet place somewhere in a nature lodge with some expensive creativity and inspirational coaches, a lot of wine, brainstorm and chill out sessions to get the new message right.

"Boeing proved right about the KC-30 and remains committed to provide best value to the fighting men and women of the US Air Force.

Times are changing, both economically in the USA and in our global environment.

New operational realities lead to new requirements, .." etc etc.

You know the craptalk. May I suggest :



User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16448 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 17):
You know the craptalk.

Isn't that the language of defense procurement? Big grin

Seems to me that the money wasted on the Power Point bidding process could have been better spent by having both parties build prototypes and have a fly-off. That would require both bidders to put up or shut and give the USAF a chance to have a hands-on evaluation not only for flight and refueling characteristics but also see how each aircraft works within the existing infrastructure.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16450 times:

When can the 777 tanker be delivered and what would be a credible ramp-up?

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 16432 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 18):
Seems to me that the money wasted on the Power Point bidding process could have been better spent by having both parties build prototypes and have a fly-off. That would require both bidders to put up or shut and give the USAF a chance to have a hands-on evaluation not only for flight and refueling characteristics but also see how each aircraft works within the existing infrastructure.

That's not neccessary. The USAF had all the data on both aircraft and all airfield and ran a pile of operational scenarios. The KC30 clearly won & the stuff hit the fan. Boeing hired an army of lawyers to go through mountains of paper and suggested hundreds of procedural irregularities and a few were upheld by GAO.

The evaluation will take a lot of time again as both Boeing and Airbus will submit new proposals with new aircraft. My guess is NG/EADS will offer a A330-200F based tanker maybe with GENX engines. The A330F was scheduled to be build in the US anyway.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 16410 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
My guess is NG/EADS will offer a A330-200F based tanker maybe with GENX engines. The A330F was scheduled to be build in the US anyway.

EADS/NG said they would not base the tanker on the A330-200F. They say it is "too costly and too heavy".

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...peads-rules-out-a330-200f-for.html

Quote:
According to Airbus, the pure A330-200F is at least 8-10t heavier than the baseline passenger model. That extra weight would require a corresponding decrease in fuel load, Meyer says.

Moreover, "the freighter didn't find itself being necessary," Meyer adds, because the USAF requirements shifted away from employing the tanker as a supplementary airlifter.

But "the biggest driver was the cost", Meyer says.

The split buy option, i.e., KC-777 and KC-767, is looking better and better.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7709 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 16401 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
That's not neccessary. The USAF had all the data on both aircraft and all airfield and ran a pile of operational scenarios

I think you are missing one key element in this whole drama.
1. The US Air Force decided that they wanted an off the shelf a/c, how could they write requirements when both OEM's only comparable a/c were the B737 and A320??, hence the whole drama of EADS first stating thet the RFP did not favour their a/c, then having it changed to favour their a/c, then etc. etc. we all know the rest of the story.

By proposing a split buy of B767 / B777, Boeing can now reduce the cost of its 767 variant by dropping all the upsize adjustments made to make the a/c comparable to the 330, use the base frame and forget all about the ADV stuff, let the 777 version take on the upper market. If they approach the project from this standpoint, the spec that the Air Force now have for a 767 tanker variant goes out the windows, unless they dust off the original specs for the 100 lease option which is the variant I think they should use, only a/c to a true 135 replacement.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 16392 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

IMO, it IS an issue and goes to risk, although I suspect that a fuel transfer or two will mitigate the concerns it won't eliminate them entirely until the MRTT enters service.

If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
The boom has been tested on A310 MRTT, receiving has been tested and the combination soon. Don't worry.

The issue is that EADS still doesn't have the KC-30 right. It has Boom problems, and cannot do the primary mission of a tanker for the USAF, that is refueling through the Boom. As a receiver, it only did that once, and has not repeated those tests. Why? There appears to be many other questions, too.

The bottom line is there are now 3 KC-767Js operational (although one was damaged during cargo loading, the damage was repaired) and no KC-30s operational, 6 months after the scheduled delivery date. Yes, the RAAF has agreed to not take delivery. Why? What is wrong with the KC-30?

Why can't EADS/Airbus get the weight down on the A-330-200F?

A KC-777 developement will benifit from work already done on the KC-767A/J/AT. So, I expect Boeing to be able to "spool up" very quickly for a KC-777F.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 16354 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
The issue is that EADS still doesn't have the KC-30 right. It has Boom problems, and cannot do the primary mission of a tanker for the USAF, that is refueling through the Boom. As a receiver, it only did that once, and has not repeated those tests. Why? There appears to be many other questions, too.

The boom has been tested extensively on a A310

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
The bottom line is there are now 3 KC-767Js operational (although one was damaged during cargo loading, the damage was repaired) and no KC-30s operational, 6 months after the scheduled delivery date. Yes, the RAAF has agreed to not take delivery. Why? What is wrong with the KC-30?

Nothing, unfortunately.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
A KC-777 developement will benifit from work already done on the KC-767A/J/AT. So, I expect Boeing to be able to "spool up" very quickly for a KC-777F.

The Boom that Boeing proposes for the KC767 is not the same as the wildly succesfull Japanese and Italian tankers.

How is the new USAF KC-767 fly-by-wire advanced boom doing. Is certificated already ? I don't hear much about it lately. Does it mean we must assume something is wrong ?  Yeah sure http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070308b_nr.html

I don't see any reason Boeing will be able to spool up very quickly for a KC-777F. The recent track record (KC767, 737EAW, 787, 747-8i) lacks some punch I guess.


25 Post contains links Lumberton : Scott Hamilton provides a succint and informative summary of the Boeing IDS briefing at Paris on the KC-7A7. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009...-k
26 Post contains links VirginFlyer : Boeing have put the KC-7A7 presentation up on their website for those who are interested: http://www.boeing.com/paris2009/medi...ations/june16/Paris_0
27 Jonathan-l : I am pretty sure they meant that the available payload was 8-10t heavier on the freighter than on the pax model, not the empty weight.
28 PolymerPlane : Another A.net myth. According to Boeing and Airbus document, B772LR at MTOW ISA sea level needs about 11,000 ft of runway, while the A330-200 needs a
29 Keesje : Always like to read Scott's opinions, he's knowledgeable and punches both sides. I think by offering the KC767 and KC777 Boeing finally admits the KC
30 Lumberton : How so? A split KC-777/KC-767 buy would offer enormous tactical flexibility IMO. Did you read all of Scott's comments? If so, did you ponder this? I
31 Tugger : Well, there are rules to how things are charged so they won't be able to charge much of it to the government directly as it is primarily commercial i
32 Post contains links Keesje : The dramatic change in tone comes after USAF officials briefed Boeing on what things the company should change about its approach to the competition,
33 Par13del : I think that argument was about the larger KC-30 option, remember a lot of ramps were built / modified to take / handle the KC-135, of the competing
34 Bennett123 : Boeing said that the A330 was too big, now they propose the B777? How about an A330/A380 mix?.
35 ANZUS340 : This will go entirely to Boeing. This is entirely political. If Airbus think they are going to win or get the "lion's share" of this they are crazy. T
36 Lumberton : I believed they based that opinion on their assessment of the last RFP. Since the USAF was "wowed" by the size of the A330, they are offering the cus
37 Post contains links Lumberton : Here's another report on Boeing considering the GENx. I noted Scott Hamilton's piece earlier. This is from Steve Trimble at Flight Global, who presuma
38 Flighty : Well that makes two of us in that lonely camp. I agree with you. Okay but what if they simply take the money but don't deploy any airplanes? Once Boe
39 Par13del : Well NG/EADS did lobby successfully to have the RFP changed, so none is better than the other. Exactly, the VH-71 had an American and a European part
40 Post contains links Lumberton : How was the tanking contest won by the KC-30? To date, it hasn't delivered a drop of fuel--a year an a half after it supposedly "won". How was it dec
41 Ken777 : There should not be an officer left in the USAF that would put out a RFP that doesn't. If the last FUBAR didn't clear out the ones that screwed up th
42 Flighty : I know, and the marionette strings were hardly visible at all! The USAF is not full of Princeton trained lawyers. They did the very best they could.
43 Scbriml : I can see Boeing offering the KC-767 OR KC-777 but wouldn't offering the KC-767 AND KC-777 make it a split buy which the DoD has said they're not inte
44 Astuteman : But you and I both know that this will be completely irrelevant... No subsidy argument there then....... Yup those dumb f**ks wouldn't be able to see
45 Beta : And Boeing is headquartered in Chicago. Coincident? Hmm... Of course it is irrelevant. Why let something as trivial as selecting the best equipment f
46 Jonathan-l : Sorry for quoting myself but amid alot of flag-waving and speculating, I would be grateful if someone could provide at least an opinion on the followi
47 Revelation : Yes, and out of millions of sperm only a few get through to the egg, but the end result is still a pregnancy.
48 Revelation : Come now, it's well known that for every one at the 'sharp end of the stick' there are dozens behind him/her. The Pentagon building is one of the lar
49 KC135TopBoom : It is not. Only the tanker airframes and engines need FAA certification, not the sub structures like Booms or WARPS. The EADS Boom is not "certified"
50 Stitch : I imagine they could have it ready within a few years. Boeing has plenty of experience with creating tankers and they could probably apply some knowl
51 KC135TopBoom : Lets assume, for a moment the KC-777F version get selected in this next KC-X program round. The contract will specify when the 4 SDD tankers are to b
52 Jonathan-l : The A330-200F features 2 modes: -Range mode: MTOW=514 klb (233 t) / MZFW=381 klb (173 t) -Payload mode: MTOW=500 klb (227 t) / MZFW=392 klb (178 t) T
53 Rheinwaldner : Yes we can just copy paste all the threads of the past. The Boeing promoters simply have to reverse each argument. There has never been a event where
54 KC135TopBoom : Thanks for the correct numbers. Mine were slightly off. I didn't mean to imply the A-330-200F was over weight. You said it much better than I did.
55 PolymerPlane : It doesn't matter. You trade payload with fuel. Just because you can haul 8 tonnes more cargo, doesn't mean you have to. You can use the extra 8 tonn
56 Jonathan-l : Thanks for your input. I agree the ramp-up won't be an issue as Boeing scales down the 777 civilian deliveries. But in terms of engineering, it's alm
57 Osiris30 : Let's be honest; if they are going to do it and get the government to buy enough 777 tankers to protect the investment why the hell wouldn't they? I'
58 RedFlyer : The term 'subsidy' implies a direct handout just for the asking. For Boeing, even if they used a KC-X tanker to improve upon their civilian line, the
59 PolymerPlane : I thought the RFP is for off the shelf Airliner. Boeing can't really put the wing development cost on the contract can it? If boeing decides to devel
60 Flighty : I just had a thought. Why not make the bids public? It is the people's money, after all. Then Airbus will get a fairer hearing, since everybody will b
61 Stitch : Actually, as per the latest GAO figures, the KC-30A would cost $10 million more per frame to acquire than the KC-767, so perhaps NG and EADS should o
62 Trex8 : by that reasoning any NG offer with CF6s is a shoo in so?? you could argue Obama needs to shore up support in red states like AL, not increase suppor
63 Lumberton : No, not really. Alabama for the democrats? Not in my lifetime; probably not yours.
64 Mandala499 : OK... going to throw some humour into this... Well, we have the A332/A380 idea, or the A332/A346 idea. Both are crazy but I wonder about the feasibili
65 Par13del : The US govt. is going to spend its citizens money to buy a tanker for its all volunteer force, why exactly do they have to bid and why do they have t
66 Trex8 : well if you really are as old as your profile says you are it has happened before in our lifetime, will it happen again in our lifetime, maybe not! h
67 WESTERN737800 : Good move by Boeing. I think a split 767/777 order would be the way to go. They could use the 767s for the KC-135 - type missions and the 777s for an
68 Moose135 : We have no idea. For the last RFP, the argument was the B767 was an appropriate size to meet the specifications, and the A330 was overkill. Until the
69 Tugger : Good point but still the KC-30 won over the military brass (yes, we know, not all of them) and the bean counters looking at it. There were absolutely
70 ThePointblank : Depends on what way of bid evaluation is used. Three main types are out there: 1. points-price ratio. All bidders must meet all mandatory specificati
71 Post contains links Jonathan-l : I was referring to the below: Proposal risk. This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did
72 Post contains images Lumberton : Umm...that's the idea in dealing with representatives from all 50 states isn't it?   No, I don't. It is a safe bet the USAF probably won't take it s
73 KC135TopBoom : Even the GAO sited in their agreement with Boeing that the EADS Boom has some problems, and did not work, at the time the report was written. The RAA
74 PolymerPlane : That is a completely different case. The KC-767 ADV was designed around an aircraft that hasn't been built yet. It uses -200 fuselage, -400 wing and
75 Jonathan-l : Fair enough. Kind of a Frankentanker!! Indeed. I was thinking at max payload.
76 KC135TopBoom : I have never liked that term. No matter how you look at it, all of the choices will be a "Frankentanker" as all are conversions. BTW, Boeing is still
77 Par13del : Exactly the point, Boeing tried, why do people continue to state this as if they actually did, they tried and some how the fumbling bumbling govt. wa
78 Revelation : As was A400M, till they could no longer hide the budget and schedule overruns.
79 Post contains links Trex8 : I will admit I have not read the whole report but AFAIK when the GAO report came out last year the EADS boom was still undergoing test and validation
80 USAir1489 : I've been thinking about this KC-X contest and Boeing's offerings in the mix. I know the A330 is the larger of two aircraft, but here's what's been go
81 Moose135 : Looking at the aircraft data here on A.net (and assuming the tanker versions would be the same), the basic -200 is 155' long (nose to end of fuselage
82 Post contains images Zeke : It is not the first time, this is the 2006 glossy Boeing gave the USAF prior to the last RFP. The last RFP was written in such a way Boeing could hav
83 Par13del : Was there not some back door communication where Boeing was told that the 777 was too large, I remember somthing about that whether it was a a.net ru
84 Zeke : That was the mantra on a.net and from Boeing, the 767 was "right size", no one from the USAF came forward to say that that the A330 or 777 was too bi
85 Par13del : Thanks Zeke, another rumour down in flames. Cheers
86 Post contains links Trex8 : only thing I could find on anticipated delivery date "The planned in-service date - comprising delivery of two aircraft, completion of qualification t
87 RedFlyer : The A.Net armchair experts' opinion (yourself and the rest of us included) can be discarded out of hand. But if Boeing were saying that then there ha
88 Post contains links Zeke : Which is what the Australian DoD is saying "The new KC-30A is scheduled to enter service end 2009, following completion of testing in Australia and m
89 Flighty : I dunno KC, I kind of doubt Boeing is be willing to build an LRF for anybody today. It is a phantom product that designed to make it look like Boeing
90 KC135TopBoom : Part of that is correct, but please see below as Trex8 wrote it better than I have. Agreed At this point in time, I doubt EADS or Boeing would refuse
91 Post contains links TropicBird : You are technically correct. The RAND AoA for the KC-135 replacement discusses the approved aircraft sizes. They range from 300,000 - 1,000,000 lbs M
92 Post contains links Zeke : That article conflicts with the Australian DoD annual report page 28, under "AIR 5402 %u2013 ADF Air Refuelling Capability" from http://www.defence.g
93 KC135TopBoom : No, according to the Rand study, the "medium sized" tanker was all airplanes between 300,000 lbs and 850,000 lbs (B-767, B-777, B-787, A-330, A-340,
94 Zeke : No, Boeing told the GAO that the KC-30 could not fly faster than M0.83, and submitted the FAA TCDS as evidence. Should be easy for someone to dig up
95 Post contains links TropicBird : If you look at page 8 of the RAND study it says this: Medium 300,000 - 550,000 MTOW Large 550,000 - 1,000,000 MTOW Also take a look at page 12 under
96 Revelation : Yes, and that "category" from smallest to largest increases by a factor of 2.5. I've always wondered why anyone would lump a 300,000 lb aircraft in t
97 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : He was part of the Gen. McPeak (Former USAF COS) fighter mafia. Tankers, bombers, recces, and trash haulers are not his strong suit, even though he d
98 TropicBird : I have no problem converting the KC-135E's. In its study RAND even considered buying used aircraft and converting them but the Congress and USAF wante
99 TropicBird : Corrected statement by me: A retired military officer who worked for a Senator on defense appropriations told us Congress did NOT want to once again
100 Moose135 : Sorry, you don't pin on 4 stars and reach Chief of Staff of the Air Force without being at least a little bit of a politician. Hell, you don't get to
101 Lumberton : However, every now and then, the USAF lets one sneak through, but its extremely rare, as in BG Robin Olds.
102 XT6Wagon : It was Boeings FIRST protest in its history. Should say something Zeke and others keep trying to forget is that NG INTENTIONALY failed a requirement.
103 Zeke : I was of the understanding the protested something before (non USAF), this was from my understanding the first USAF protest. And what REQUIREMENT wou
104 Post contains links Lumberton : There were several pages of discussion, but here is the conclusion: A remarkable omission on the Air Force's part. No one wants to mention it, but th
105 Zeke : That is what I remember reading, so the problem was "the record", not if in fact the aircraft had the capability. If they reopened discussions, "the
106 KC135TopBoom : Zeke, you may recall the USAF was looking at the re-bid, last October, when the DOD took the KC-X compitition away from the USAF. You may also recall
107 Astuteman : The best way to guarantee we haven't heard the last I guess. I can't see any way that it was a good idea to try and link these 2 subjects on this for
108 KC135TopBoom : At the moment, I agree with you, Astuteman. It will on become an issue IF there is somthing wrong with the basic design, that cannot be economicly fi
109 Zeke : I have not seen that written anywhere, so I do not know what context it was said, that is if it was said at all. As you know the highest optimum alti
110 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The B-777F has a MTOW of 766,000 lbs while the B-77W has a MTOW of 775,000 lbs The difference in the engine thrust (about 5,000 lbs per engine) is a s
111 SEPilot : This, to me, is a red herring. The simple fact is that all three aircraft under current consideration will make excellent tankers, and I doubt that a
112 Flighty : Disagree completely. The A330 is a very safe airplane. Whatever caused AF 447 (if anything aircraft related did cause it), they will fix. A freak acc
113 KC135TopBoom : Flighty is correct, let's wait to see what caused the loss of AF-447 before we blame anything on the A-330 airframe.
114 Lumberton : I did not intend to troll when I posted that link as I thought it was fairly obvious that given the toxic nature of this whole subject, it will be ra
115 Zeke : A330s every day fly higher and faster than 767s, it goes beyond any form of logic to try and suggest the KC-30 could not do something the KC-767 coul
116 KC135TopBoom : That could be true. But, if it is, wouldn't NG/EADS-NA have some fault for loosing the GAO findings, based on the paper trail they submitted to the U
117 Zeke : Of course, we saw numerous indications from Boeing that they were thinking about protesting the decision before the RFP decision was made, they shoul
118 SEPilot : I think any reasonable person would concede that all three aircraft under consideration can do the job adequately. If Airbus muffed their presentation
119 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The intervenor (NG), as well as the USAF were allowed to submit documentation and evidence. Of course the protester (Boeing) was also allowed to subm
120 Zeke : Boeing, in their protest provided the GAO with documentation from third parties (like the FAA) about the NG RFP submission which the GAO used in the
121 KC135TopBoom : That would be the only way to fairly decide each protest.
122 Osiris30 : If that is true, then isn't some of the burden of the GAO's findings on the shoulders of NG/EADS for not making sure they dotted their I's and crosse
123 Zeke : Very much so, they only have themselves to blame. The USAF gave them "countless" opportunities to clarify the RFP requirements, they could have made
124 KC135TopBoom : Maybe NG should have had all those lawyers they used during the GAO investigation, to double check their submittal to the USAF for the RFP? Mostly tr
125 Post contains links RedFlyer : I didn't say Boeing said it was 'Fact'. I said Boeing believed it based on their own expertise and having worked for the USAF for the better part of
126 Post contains links Zeke : Incorrect, and this is where I think Boeing got it wrong. They were not looking for a KC-135 replacement, the were looking for a new tanker. The KC-1
127 Osiris30 : And that's the reason I object to people objecting to the appeal/GAO findings. At the end of the day there are set rules to play by. As far as I can
128 Zeke : Yes and no. I think the GAO genuinely wanted a result, and wanted the USAF to reopen discussions to finalize the tender. By throwing it back in the p
129 Osiris30 : Zeke: I should have been clearer.. Boeing won *that* round, but not allowing NG to win... Much in the same way NG won one of the opening bouts by thr
130 Post contains links Keesje : I seems a split might be on the table again. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090624/BLOG01/906249989/0/BIZ
131 Post contains links Lumberton : Here's more on the "split buy" option. http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=43026&dcn=e_gvet
132 KC135TopBoom : Zeke, there is no one looking at replacing the current KC-135R/T fleet, only the now simi retired KC-135E fleet (I believe ony about 20 KC-135Es have
133 RedFlyer : As has been pointed out already, the KC-X was/is intended to replace the handful of 135Es that were not upgraded to R models. As for the same size, w
134 SEPilot : The problem is that there are now three very distinct aircraft vying for the prize. Unless the RFP writers can be imported from Mars they will be ver
135 KC135TopBoom : SEPilot, I agree. The USAF needs to write in more mission specific requirements (XX K lbs fuel offload at XXXX nm, with XX hours/minutes holding time,
136 Zeke : C-17s were sized around the M1, nothing really to do with the C-141. The C-141 was sized around a payload mass. C-130 is a C-130, like saying the F-1
137 RedFlyer : Wouldn't that add risk to their proposal since GEnX hasn't turned under the wing of a 332F (never mind the fact that the 332F itself hasn't even flow
138 Trex8 : seems doutbful to me that EADS will force NG to take a particular version when the prime doesn't think its the right one. I thought NGs problem with
139 Par13del : Unfortunately, these numbers can also be set to exclude certain a/c, the capabilities of all 3 a/c are reasonably known or pretty good estimates can
140 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : There is no fuel stored in the WARPS, except the fuel in the hose. The WARPS used on the B-707 and KC-135 are built by Flight Refuelling Limited/ Cob
141 Revelation : Maybe I'm a babe in the woods, but I thought the USAF had some sort of analytical model that knows where all the bases they can use are, just plug in
142 SEPilot : Isn't that usually what happens when politicians are in charge?
143 KC135TopBoom : So, who is the new tanker suppose to be for? The warfighter or the OEMs?
144 Post contains links Zeke : Yes, however, that would be the 4th engine type for the airframe. So they have the history of that development. Plus they have the previous relations
145 TropicBird : I believe the USAF has never operated a 'twin' as an air tanker. I wonder if they will have to change operations to allow for this? Does the USAF alwa
146 SEPilot : Simply because the only time they bought a new tanker in 50 years they wanted a bigger one, and no twin was available to meet the requirements.
147 KC135TopBoom : Still heavier than Harpoons. I was being fascist. Me bad for not making that clear. For most peacetime missions any engine loss is an abort of the mi
148 Post contains links TropicBird : New rumor from Seattle PI online (link below). "Novel tanker idea: Pentagon to shake up the whole thing? http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/
149 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Let me see.......retire perfectly good KC-10As and KC-135R/Ts from the USAF inventory just so we can assure that we do not get another protest filed w
150 Par13del : To me this shows that regardless of which side of the debate you are on, the procurement process from vendor to user to bill payor does at times func
151 KC135TopBoom : I agree. The government should not be concerned that this next selection will also result in a GAO investigation by either OEM. What they should be c
152 ZANL188 : Top, your facts are "unusual"...... Cargo Compartment Volumes: C-17 = 20899.11 cu/ft C-141 = 8630 cu/ft
153 Stitch : It would be interesting to see how a 777-200ER with Trent XWBs would perform vis-a-vis the A330-200 with GEnx in terms of being a tanker/freighter.
154 Par13del : Private companies have such contractual stipulations for key personell for a year or two after leaving their employ, the US military is all volunteer
155 KC135TopBoom : I agree, but if you look at this hole feasco for buying new tankers, the 2002 lease deal, congressional opposition to it, the KC-X selection process
156 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The cost evaluations error conclusion, other cost issues, and final conclusions and recommendations from the GAO investigation in 2008. http://www.ga
157 Ken777 : NG/Airbus can probably submit that option after they start delivering the 380F. Unfortunately the battle for the KC-X contract might still be going o
158 SEPilot : I suspect that McCain would have tried to stay impartial; his objection to the original deal was that the taxpayers were getting raped (which they we
159 Lumberton : Or more precisely, the unions will use their influence to swing this Boeing's way? I can't argue with that. As for "kicking the can" there is a way t
160 Revelation : Well, if the unions do control the President like a puppet on a string, Boeing won't get it, because Boeing is scheming to open up a 2nd 787 assembly
161 KC135TopBoom : That is still the cheapest, and best option. Obama can see the reengine work goes to a union shop. Boeing took over Vought because they couldn't keep
162 XT6Wagon : yah, no. McCain hates Boeing. No one has said why but its there. Whats even more sad is the "expensive" lease deal he is so proud of blocking would h
163 Lumberton : Can't argue either for or against the "cheaper" part, but it is virtually certain that the USAF would have new tankers by now.
164 Post contains links Revelation : Pretty doubtful. 1) Boeing has sold the MD-11 production line space to developers, the only thing left in Long Beach is the C-17 line 2) Boeing is mo
165 ThePointblank : The lease deal was found to be padded with an additional $3 billion dollars as a 'gift' to Boeing.
166 KC135TopBoom : What happened to the B-717 (MD-95) line in Long Beach?
167 Stitch : Closed, plowed under, and now a mix of residential and commercial properties, I believe.
168 KC135TopBoom : I guess I missed that. I knew Boeing sold a lot of property around their Long Beach Plant, but I didn't know how much, or which facilities.
169 MSNDC9 : Adn it may be that the Air Force woudl like the option of additional cargo capability well over and above anything the 767 or 330 can offer.
170 Post contains links Lumberton : I think someone maybe reading my posts here. Language from the House Appropriations Committee on Defense after yesterday's mark up session: http://www
171 Keesje : We aren't quietly trying to move from "single platform" to "single source" aren't we ? It would delete the costs advantage push to slect a single pla
172 Post contains links Lumberton : You seem to be quite concerned here to try to deflect this. However, in the interests of accuracy. . . Here's a table that lists the foreign holders,
173 Stitch : Personally, I think this language now gives the USAF the cover they need to dual-source the 767 and the A330 as a long-term KC-135 and KC-10 replacem
174 Trex8 : given Airbus are cutting back from the previously planned 10 A330/340 production rate ! suspect the suppliers were all ready to meet that rate. with
175 Lumberton : I recollect an interview in which either Gallois or Enders commented at the Paris Air Show that a split buy would not be enough inducement for them t
176 KC135TopBoom : Actually they do. The Boeing proposal of the KC-767AT in 2007 included the B-777 flight deck. Actually, the KC-X program was always going to be singl
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version
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...
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Eads Offers To Split US Tanker Program W/ Boeing posted Fri Dec 3 2004 20:24:14 by F4N
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 3 2008 18:04:39 by EBJ1248650
AF To Seek New Tanker Bids Per Outgoing Boss posted Sat Jun 21 2008 00:10:58 by Ken777
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
PR: Boeing Requests Debriefing Over Tanker Deal posted Wed Mar 5 2008 01:56:15 by MrBrightSide
Boeing Delays Japan Aerial Tanker Delivery Again posted Tue Jan 29 2008 19:28:27 by Zeke
Delta TechOps To Support 767 Tanker Fleet posted Sun Sep 23 2007 09:42:21 by Flynavy
Boeing, Lawmakers Reject Splitting Tanker Order posted Tue Aug 7 2007 10:59:17 by Keesje
Boeing To End C-17 Production posted Fri Mar 2 2007 21:19:41 by Slz396

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format