Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold  
User currently offlineL1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

The USAF has delayed the lease/purchase of 100 767 Tankers due to the scandal at Boeing.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031202/D7V6EUNG1.html

[Edited 2003-12-02 21:15:13]

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3994 times:

Well, we have good old Phil Condit to thank for this one. I was really looking forward to seeing those 767's bangin' around. This just gives McCain more grounds and time to create some more yellow shit storms about the acquisition of these aircraft.


Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3977 times:

DeltaMD11

Once you're done being a "full-time high school student" and get out into the real world, you'll realize McCain's "yellow shit storms" are an attempt to SAVE money. Money which comes from TAXPAYERS. Would you rather have your share of billions of dollars, or just let corporate and government greed have it?


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13702 posts, RR: 61
Reply 3, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Flyf15-

Um, you're not much older, pal. I'd advise caution when slamming someone if you're no more an authority on the subject yourself.

So, can you please tell me how having keeping aging KC-135 and KC-10s together with duct tape is more cost effective in the long run than slowly replacing them with KC-767 equipment? I mean, since you say this is "corporate and government greed," you must have run the numbers, right?  Insane



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

FlyF15,
I pay taxes as well, and know what it's like to have your hard-earned money taken away from you. Instead of having to read it over again, read EA CO AS's post above because I couldn't have said it better myself.




Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Maybe Linda Daschle, wife of Sen. Tom Daschle will get involved. For those who do not know, she is Boeing's No. 1 lobbyist in Washington. I wonder why no one considers that a conflict of interest, especially when her husband originally wanted the lease deal.

User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Hopefully that means we'll now see some US Air Force A330 tankers! Big grin

Andy


User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

And the A330 is the last thing I'd like to see as one of our tankers. Don't get me wrong, I love the 330 and have enjoyed flying on them immensely so this isn't an A vs. B thing. This is purely because I think that the 767 is a more-appropriate aircraft for the job in terms of economics as well as this means the assured continuance of the 767 for years to come-not to mention helping to stimulate our own economy which is currently on the rebound.


Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3843 times:

As a US tax payer we get screwed twice. We bail the airlines out and allow them to park numerous 767's in the desert. Then we bail Boeing out by buying 100 new 767's to keep it in production. Why don't we do as we have offered the RAF and convert the 767's stored to tankers. Boeing get to keep people employed, the USAF get aircraft sooner and the airlines get cash to keep them afloat. Buying 7E7 tankers will probably be more cost effective than buying an aircraft whose production days are numbered.

User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

Any talks about an B7E7 tanker?


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

Guys, I'm not saying we shouldn't get the tankers. If you'll read my post again, you'll see that I didn't even mention it.

Personally, I am definately for getting new tankers, the Air Force needs them (and much more than 100, I might add) as soon as possible. BUT I am definately also for not having my, and everyone else's, money wasted in the process.

There is significant evidence that the price the government would be paying includes a lot of waste. Any delays in the program are the government's own fault -- if they really are including as much pork as it may seem, every single American should be happy that people aren't just looking the other way.

But then again, if the idea of brand new tankers now no matter what the cost is makes you tingle inside, I'd much rather you just take your wallet with you over to the Boeing Company and give them your share of the pork included -- leaving my money and I out of it.


EA CO AS
I don't know what world you live in. As a voting American citizen who has to worry about bills and taxes (and often wonders where all this money is really going), I have every right to express my views on the subject.

DeltaMD11
I meant no harm with my previous post, but you can't really expect someone to take you seriously when you use the phrase "yellow shit storms."


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13702 posts, RR: 61
Reply 11, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As a voting American citizen who has to worry about bills and taxes (and often wonders where all this money is really going), I have every right to express my views on the subject.

Flyf15-

My comments weren't based on the fact that you expressed an opinion (you're certainly entitled to it), but the fact that you belittled someone and dismissed their opinions based solely on their age. It's especially unfortunate to see this from you, as you're only a few years older than the person you slammed.

I've respected your views and opinions in the past, even when they've differed from mine...but to talk down to someone in the way you did was wrong.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

EA CO AS....I suppose its just a touchy subject. I'm very careful with my money and expect my government to be very careful with it aswell.

DeltaMD11...I appologize if I offended you at all, I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions based solely on your age.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

Hopefully that means we'll now see some US Air Force A330 tankers!

Of course, the livery would have to consist of cartoon pigs (a la Pokemon Jets)  Big grin


User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

FlyF15--You are far from offending me (trust me, I would've come at you if you had), and I thank EA CO AS for pointing out your shortcomings in your above posts. I admire your opinions and that is what makes our country great-a wealth of ideas that are able to be expressed freely without fear of reprisal.

I, just as much as you, want our government to appropriate money wisely. I am an advocate of the KC-767 program. Let's start phasing out some of our oldest equipment and save costs in the long run. Sure it's a shot in the wallet off of the bat---but 20 years from now you will see that this is a wise decision. The KC-135's have relatively high operating costs (and they will only increase), and as they age more and more maintenence is necessary for the general upkeep of the aircraft--the costs will add up. You, certainly as a math major, would be able to relate to this idea.








Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

I definately agree with you that we need these KC767s. I wish they would've ordered them years ago...and many more than 100.

My only problem with it is I don't feel that the government is getting (or even trying to get) the best deal they can -- that there is a lot of pork involved. Say without the waste, the deal would only be $10b instead of $20b. Thats about $70 for every single person in the US saved. OR it means we could get 200 KC767s instead of 100 for the $20b. Sounds like a win-win to me for everyone except some senior Boeing execs and politicans.  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

**Hopefully that means we'll now see some US Air Force A330 tankers!**

I sure as hell hope not!!!


A330s look good in commercial colors and other people's Airforces, but not the USAirforce.

I don't want my tax dollars going to another country's economy and buying military equipment from a country that doesn't support our military.

I'd rather see a KC-767-400 than the 200 series, but then again it is replacing the 135s


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Flyf15:

One has to wonder if Senator McCain would be raising such a stink if the 767 production line were in Tucson.


User currently offlineContact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 years 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 3272 times:

The only way the USAF is going to get the best AC available, is if the best AC happens to bee made in the Good Old US of A......  Nuts
And I don't see a A330 production line stateside any time soon!  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (10 years 12 months 14 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Nah, just retire all of ACC and fit longrange tanks and refueling pods to half the C-17 fleet and there's no need for tankers at all.


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13240 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (10 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

It won't happen of course, but if the USAF did take A330s, the wings would be from the UK, tail from Spain, two nations that ARE supporting the US military, not that France is not, when did the US last have a war with France? You owe your independence to them.

Hopefully the RAF will get new A330s, nothing against the 767 and the BA ones will be well maintained, but a new aircraft is needed, plus the better cargo capacity of the 330 will be useful for the RAF.
A decision on who wins the RAF contract is expected too, only in the UK could BAE be teamed with Boeing to offer an aircraft that competes with their own stake in Airbus where they make the wings. As a UK taxpayer I object to that!
Boeing's CEO is not the only aerospace boss who needs to go, and any replacement mend fences with his nations military procurement arm.


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5422 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (10 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

Umm...retire ACC? As in the actual "teeth" of the Air Force? Jeroen, did you just come back from an Amsterdam coffee house again?  Smokin cool


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13240 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (10 years 12 months 11 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

I cannot see a AAR pod being added to a C-17 as a useful way to operate such a valuable transport asset.
The USAF does not the 767s, silly to have got embroiled in all this leasing business, just buy some year on year like all other aircraft.
But only as a KC-135E replacement, LM have produced interesting designs for a tanker/transport, with two flying booms.
This could replace KC-135R and eventually, KC-10s.
Doubt it will happen though.
So eventually you'll probably see more than 100 KC-767s, based on the -200, already the 767-400 is being touted as a multi-mission sensor platform. A future growth version for tanking perhaps?


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5422 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (10 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

If I remember, the C-17 is unsuitable for tanking because it kicks out hellacious wake turbulence, worse than a C-141. I remember reading in "The State" newspaper soon after Charleston AFB transitioned from the Starlifter to the Globemaster III that paratroop operations would require much more spacing. Could be that the C-17's wake turbulence is such that tanking would be too taxing on the pilot of a smaller aircraft.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (10 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Why on earth would the 767-400 be a future growth version for a takner? it's only major difference between a -200 is all that extra airframe to carry around.

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
25 Post contains links AvObserver : Here's the AvWeek article... http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/tur12033.xml My 2 cents. They'll do their
26 Saintsman : As a pure tanker, the A330 is probably not as suitable as a B767. The B767 must have additional tanks in the fuselage to carry the extra fuel whereas
27 Keesje : I don't want my tax dollars going to another country's economy and buying military equipment from a country that doesn't support our military. Well le
28 Covert : At our fine unit, we religiously care for and operate 21 KC-135E's. They are built like horses. I can say I am in love with them, and I would marry on
29 Keesje : Covert, very confronting speaking to folks from 1985 working on aircraft ... man, time is flying ... Are your Kc135s reengined with cfm56 ?
30 Covert : Nope, those are the R's, ours have Pratts. :-( covert
31 L-188 : Here is a question. How much of a pain in the Arse is it going to be to harden the electronic FBW gear on the Airbuses? I assume there is some hardeni
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold
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 Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:48:04 by Lumberton
Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22... posted Fri Apr 7 2006 04:49:04 by AirRyan
Should Usaf Start A A-10 Follow-on Program? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 14:59:16 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing Says In Talks With UAE On 767 Tankers Sale posted Tue Feb 15 2005 10:01:00 by Keesje
Usaf Tankers...MD11s? posted Tue Aug 10 2004 17:40:09 by Miamiair
When Will The Usaf Order The 767 Tankers? posted Sat Oct 26 2002 21:22:04 by CX747
Why So Many Random Schemes On Usaf 707s? posted Tue Jul 23 2002 12:02:30 by Na
Huge Usaf Cargo Proptransports posted Fri Nov 24 2006 17:43:23 by Reedyreed
Space A Travel On Uscg Aircraft posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:40:00 by Reedyreed
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format