Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement  
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5574 times:

What would be alternative solutions for the USAF tanker requirement ?

Is modifying / reengining a few hundred more kc135's an option or

a dedicated modification/standardization line for used 767-200/300's powered by CF6-80's, more then 500 will become available in the next 10 yrs.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/03/01/daily45.html

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5485 times:

It's too expensive to use upgrades for 40+ years
Time to get a new airframe. The KC-135 should win the award for most served a/c in US history. I Love it!
But, it's time for a more efficient, cheaper to maintain airframe, thus, te 767!
However, the air force would want to consider a 777-200LR converted to a tanker, for those extra extra long refueling hours!



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

KEESJE:

You must really want the 767 line to close before the 7E& starts production. That's the impression I get when reading your posts regarding the 767 Tanker Program.

"Upgrading" the KC-135 is not the answer. The airframe is already in the 30-40 year age range. Say you upgrade the avionics and cockpit so you can have a two man flight deck crew. Your basic systems and airframe are still in the 30-40 year age range. The aircraft is still going to need more maintenance and money to operate than a new-build airframe. Having an "upgraded" 60 year old aircraft is not the answer.

If for some reason the 767 Tanker is scrapped converting ex-passenger 767's is a better option than "upgrading" KC-135's. However that would not be without it's own pitfalls. I think you are a bit over optimistic about having five hundred 767 becoming available in the next ten years. The biggest 767 operators are AA, UAL and DAL. Considering the financial condition of these airlines I doubt that they are going to be getting rid of them in the next ten years. Then there's the fact that operators might not want to sell their old 767 to the DOD. They might want to sell them at a higher price on the open market for conversion to freighters.

Now lets say for the sake of argument that five hundred 767's do become available in the next ten years. Not all of them are going to be CF6 equipped. Unless you are willing to spend the money on converting PW4000 767 over to the CF6 that means an entire batch of 767 you cannot use. Of those that are available you will have to take into account the number of cycles and hours on the airframes. Some of these aircraft will be up there in the number of cycles/hours they have on them. Do you want to buy aircraft that are already up there in age? Then you have to take into consideration all the minor little differences that these aircraft will have.

Considering that most of your 767 are of the -300 model and the -200 that are out there are older you are going to probable have a mixed fleet. Once again it's going to be the small differences that are going to drive up your costs. The -200 has a different dash model of the CF6 than the -300. In addition the thrust reversers on the -200 are hydraulically operated while the ones on the -300 are pneumatically operated. In other words you are going to have maintain spares for both dash models, i.e. higher costs.

So as you can see it's not as simple as "upgrading" KC-135 or buying used 767's.


User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

I still wouldn't write off an Airbus option. With all the conversion work carried out in the US, it doesn't become too far fetched and that way the Military are not reliant on Boeing (current fleet all retiring of course).

User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5399 times:

I really don't see The US Airforce buying Airbus any time soon. I am kind of curious though why they aren't going with the 777. I think you'll see the 767 get the go ahead soon.


"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5391 times:

Best guess on why the 777 was not picked was that it's to big and to expensive for the USAF at this time. It's possible that when time comes for the KC-10 to be replaced the 777 could be a contender.

User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5383 times:

Ahh good point I had forgotten about the KC10 for some reason. It actually makes more sense now.


"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5380 times:

This weeks Flight International reports that the USAF has picked PW engines engines for the 767s, assuming the deal goes ahead.
A surprise as 767s for the Japanese and Italian AF's have GE, as well as USAF seemingly previously preferring GE for their 747s.


User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

Very interesting with the engine choice.

The USAF uses the CF-6 on the VC-25 and KC-10 fleets already. What do they use on the E-4 and ABL-1?

Would the Pratts on the 767 have any commonality with those used on the C-17 or C-32?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5404 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

No idea what they use on the YAL-1, but I know the E-4 uses CF-6s.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5305 times:

KEESJE is our Airbus high priest.
He indeed wants the 767 line closed, but more than that he wants Boeing to go out of operations...

In his worldview once there's only Airbus airliners will be perfect and cheap for everyone I guess, as the huge amounts of money needed to compete with Boeing will all go into product development and reducing prices.
-- yeah right --



I wish I were flying
User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5267 times:

Ahh I see. Yes giving someone a monopoly is always good for pricing -rolls eyes-.


"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

You know I was just trying to figure out what non-airburst aircraft could perform this mission in the case the 767 becomes politically unfeasable.

About the only new-build option would be the IL-96-300.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anthony Cheng
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © K.L.YIM




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Falk
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alan Lebeda




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © K.L.YIM
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



It will never happen, but you would get the short body and 4 motors, a lot of the technology from the -400 could be used to "westernize" it.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

An IL-96 in USAF colors, now that would be interesting to see. Maybe somone on that "other" site will "make" a USAF IL-96T.  Smile

User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Hey they could use it to re fuel their new fleet of Mig 29s  Big grin

Would be interesting to see though



"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5229 times:

Just noticed something. Other than his thread starter KEESJE has stayed away from this discussion. Curious as to why that is.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5208 times:

LPM737 ; busy.
Jwenting : well ... brilliant addition

On the subject, radical decisions such as Cheney holding his approval on the deal often leads to creative solutions. People involved are forced to find a different solution quickly. Sometimes bright better ideas come up.

Curious to what will happen..


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

KEESJE:

Any comments of the impracticality of "upgrading" the KC-135 or buying second hand 767's?

Would you happen to have a link to Cheneys involvement in the tanker deal?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

LMP737, the problem is that we are already on the 3rd or 4th KC-135 upgrade at this point.

Aluminum does wear out over time.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5180 times:

Its too bad the C-17 can't be used as the new tanker...

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5172 times:

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus does win the new tanker order after all. Remember, the A330 uses about 40% American-sourced parts, and Airbus could have an offset program where the final outfitting of the plane could be done at Palmdale airport, where there are plentiful unused production line facilities to do such work.  Smile I believe that Lockheed-Martin is involved with the Airbus A330-200 tanker proposal to the USAF.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

If AB wins the contract the US will have given away their independence and be reliant on France to set their foreign policy...

I doubt that will happen (though if the traitor Kerry makes the White House, who knows... France supported his friend Ho Chi Minh...).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

if the traitor Kerry makes the White House, who knows... France supported his friend Ho Chi Minh...).
hmmm ... this puts a completely new perspective on the deal..

About the tanker requirement :

While supported by some officials within the Air Force—including Air Force Secretary James Roche—Boeing’s plan was undermined by studies carried out by the Air Force itself that found a large-scale purchase of new tankers was unnecessary. A study in 2001 found that no new tankers would be needed for another 10 years.

Nevertheless, billions of dollars were at stake, and Boeing and its allies in the government were determined to push through the deal. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Boeing was confronted with both a new crisis—airplane purchases by commercial airlines plummeted—and a new opportunity to justify the tanker plan by framing its as part of the “war on terrorism.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/boeg-d17.shtml

Perhaps Boeing is in deeper trouble then just hiring Darleen Druyun ..


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5157 times:

Or maybe you shouldn't get your information from the "World Socialist Web Site."

They definitely have an interest in a particular point of view.

Jwenting does bring up a good point. The US could have problems with procuring spares from France in the advent of another US-France disagreement.

Don't believe it, look at the trouble Argentina had with keeping their two British type 42 (Hope that's right, same class as the ill fated Sheffield) operational after 1982.

Look at the US, JDAM bomb production was threatened last year because some damm computer chip came from Switzerland as was threatened to be cut off because of the war in Iraq.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5156 times:

Of subject but ..

All this USA vs France talk is BS IMO

Historically, culturally & democratically France is one of the USAs strongest Alleys when it really matter, as is Germany .

US & French marines and intellogence are working together in Tahiti, Afghanistan and other troubled placed around the world.

"You are either with us or against us" Bush and his neo-cons irritated a lot of people during the last few yrs but long term business is as usual (deeply ideological / culturally linked)

Other worldwide opportunistic new friendships and "New Euroupe" buddy's are less relevant when the sh.t really hits the fan. (to come back to the aviation area..)

US Germany and France are no friends, they are family.



25 LMP737 : KEESJE: You have got to be kidding me. Do you expect anyone to take seriously anything coming a far left wing organization such as the World Socialist
26 LMP737 : KEESJE: Any "study" done prior to 9-11 is now irrelevant. With US forces deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and other hotspots the utilization rate of the
27 Spacepope : In recent years, most of the old 707/720 airframes that the USAF bought to keep the *C-137, *C-137, E-3, TC-18, E-6, E-8, etc.. fleets going have been
28 Jwenting : They were broken up and all usable parts removed to climate controlled warehouses for cataloguing into the spares supply. The hulks were then sold for
29 LMP737 : Fly15: Somewhere I read about the C-17 being a possible tanker. Where exactly I cannot remember. The main obstacle for the C-17T would be the cost. Th
30 Post contains images Greaser : KESSJE, please stop posting dumbass posts.. are you Leahy's son or nephew??? Or maybe his pet?? Stop spreading Anti-Boeing rubbish n your left-wing vi
31 Jwenting : Let me guess. After reading the posts on the thread you started you have come to the realization that upgrading the KC-135 or buying used 767 is not t
32 Post contains links KEESJE : About the KC135 & 767. The KC135 fleet was produced & delivered in a few yrs ending in the early sixties. It was state of the art and became valuable
33 727200er : Actually I would tend to agree that a 7E7 based tanker would be a better idea. It would also be a great stepping stone for freighter version of the 7E
34 LMP737 : KEESJE: At least this time you didn't post a link to the World Socialist Web Site. At the present moment Boeing has unfilled orders for twenty five 76
35 LMP737 : KEESJE: If the 767 is "past it's maturity" the KC135 is way past it's maturity. All the more reason to replace them. Does being "past it's maturity" a
36 KEESJE : About the "World Socialist Web Site" link, I try read opinions and news from a wide variety of sources, and will continue to do so unlike some other m
37 LMP737 : I to have read the World Socialist Web Site before, gives me a good chuckle. However I also know that the people who run this site are rather biased i
38 Post contains links KEESJE : Monday, March 22, 2004 12:13 AM ET European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., the parent of Airbus, will be ready to build aerial tankers for the U.S.
39 Post contains links LMP737 : Unless someone has proof that Boeing bribed the Secretary of Defense and Senator Warner it looks like this deal is going to go through. Bribing public
40 Post contains images Jwenting : Bribing public officials. Who would do such a thing? Airbus, Air France, the French government, Aerospatialle, I see a pattern emerging
41 LMP737 : Everyone reading this thread probably has a good idea on where I stand on the 767 Tanker issue. If the DOD can manage to fix some of the problems faci
42 Post contains links Keesje : Or the German Army buying the M1A2 MBT as a replacement for the Leopard No need for that I guess .. http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm but I´v
43 LMP737 : "the Abrams stands at the head of the ranking in terms of combat performance." The only ranking that really counts in the end.
44 Keesje : the Abrams’ already formidable proven fighting ability. Indeed, based on its superior performance during the Persian Gulf War, the Abrams stands at
45 Post contains images LMP737 : To make the analogy between the M1A2 and MIG-21 is sort of silly don't you think. Besides, I'm preety sure if you did some more digging you could find
46 Chdmcmanus : What amazes me the most about this entire issue, is the replacements that are being considered for the KC-135 only meet/slightly exceed it's current c
47 MD-90 : Chdmcmanus, this isn't the 1960's. You don't have radically different KC-135s replacing KC-97s in just 10 years of service (or less). Basically they'r
48 Post contains links KEESJE : For those who still feel the 767 is simply the best choice : ... WASHINGTON - The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official sp
49 Chdmcmanus : MD-90, that is exactly the point, in 40 years since the '135 only the KC-10 has far exceeded its capability, and in the 20 years since the KC-10, no o
50 Cloudy : Actually I would tend to agree that a 7E7 based tanker would be a better idea. ---- AVweek quotes Boeing as saying that the 7E7 will be permanently un
51 LMP737 : Guess I didn't get my point across to KEESJE about political non-starters. If he thinks there's a bit of controversy in D.C. over the tanker deal it p
52 AFROTC : i do hope that the kc767 deal goes through, for the airforce is in desperate need for a replacement. I was in MacDill AFB last weekend to check out th
53 Scbriml : Actually I would tend to agree that a 7E7 based tanker would be a better idea. But, if part of the argument against the A330T is that it's foreign (ev
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement
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...
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021
Usaf Tanker Wildcard...MD-11 posted Tue Aug 10 2004 14:17:54 by Miamiair
Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement posted Mon Mar 8 2004 14:37:01 by KEESJE
Usaf Tanker Replacement Low Cost Option? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 11:38:27 by Keesje
Updated: USAF's Next Tanker posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:05:32 by AislepathLight
NYTimes: Usaf Wants Alternative To Oil-based Fuel posted Sat May 13 2006 22:26:36 by Pmg1704
USAF Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:48:04 by Lumberton
Another Usaf New Tanker Thread..... posted Thu Mar 16 2006 11:35:52 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format