Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5644 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!
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4731 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5600 times:
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.
Saintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5567 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).
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13376 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5539 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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5464 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 --
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5367 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.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5331 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. I believe that Lockheed-Martin is involved with the Airbus A330-200 tanker proposal to the USAF.
KEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5319 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 ..