Starrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1143 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3993 times:
In all probability the 767 will be the platform the Airforce uses for all it's 707 platform variants - IE AWACS, Joint STARS, tankers (100 leased already and hundreds more needed) Boeing could be looking at 500 767's over the next 10 years.
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
Well a sale is always a sale!!! About the 767 tanker version I really don't think USAF will need the 500 in the next few years. I believe that USAF will not replace the C-135 family in a one-to-one basis. We can't forget that the C-135 came when the air forces looked to numbers to be the most powerfull ones, things changed, look for example for the B-2 builted, not a lot but at the same time very efficient. So I think more than the 100 767's will not be built, probably a dozen more, or in the best two dozens.
Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3757 times:
There is a very simple reason why the 764 has not been more sucesful. It cannot carry 2 LD3 cargo containers side by side. Also I am not sure if a 764ER has ever been launched, but I know that the lack on range on the 764 has hurt it as well.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17240 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3644 times:
"I really don't think USAF will need the 500 in the next few years. I believe that USAF will not replace the C-135 family in a one-to-one basis." "So I think more than the 100 767's will not be built, probably a dozen more, or in the best two dozens."
That's correct (sort of), the current USAF inventory for KC-135 tankers stands at about 550. However some of these are used as spares etc, also the KC-767 will offer more payload capability than the current KC-135s.
The outgoing head of the Defense Departments procurement recently stated in an interview that the Air Force will not require 550 KC767s, although "several hundred" more KC-767s will be ordered after the initial 100 KC-767 order.
I read somewhere (I'll try to find it if anyone's interested) a breakdown of the KC-135 replacement plan, I think the target for KC-767 procurement is about 400-440 aircraft. Fewer than the current 550 KC-135 fleet but with greater payloads and with younger air frames more refueling capacity will be able to be deployed with shorter notice than what is currently available with the older KC-135 fleet.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3197 times:
Also I am not sure if a 764ER has ever been launched, but I know that the lack on range on the 764 has hurt it as well
Actually, all existing 764s are -ERs.... a longer-ranged model, the 764ERX [764LR], was cancelled in 2001 along with the 747X. They would have shared the same engine.
As stated before; the biggest "flaw" in the 767 family, relative to the A332, is that they cannot carry two LD3s side by side. Limited range is another factor.... and also why the 764ER has never won a realistic battle against the A332.
Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3198 times:
And despite this, some of our American members whine like JT9D's in full throttle over Airbus receiving subsidies!
Boeing is also being subsidised by these military contracts. Lets not forget! The 767 "lease" deal for example is blatant example of how taxpayers money is used to fund some companies. Pathetic indeed!
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4491 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3184 times:
Hello, this is not a subsidy. A subsidy is when Airbus is given money by its controlling governments to design aircraft. Money lent at below market rates or just given to the conglomerate. Your lack of understanding exactly what is going on here is pathetic. Boeing has an aircraft that the U.S.A.F. wants, it is now purchasing said aircraft. The U.S.A.F. didn't pay for the development of the 767. Unfortunately, every current Airbus design has EU taxpayer written all over it.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower