Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5139 times:

Lockheed Martin Corp. quietly proposed an all-new aerial refueling tanker in 2002 before the U.S. Air Force instead pursued a now-stalled $23.5 billion deal with Boeing Co. based on the 767 airliner, Lockheed acknowledged on Friday.

The Pentagon's largest supplier, Lockheed is leaving open the possibility of reviving its pitch if the military calls for a new contest, which could further complicate Boeing's hopes to lease and sell 100 modified 767s.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/05/21/rtr1380632.html



Well if the 767 will not be selected, Airbus remains "not from here" Lockheed might take a chance.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5067 times:

Still weighted heavily in Boeing favor though. Check out this quote from the article that AvObserver posted today:

"Dicks said Congress would require an analysis of alternatives and a panel to review the contracts. He said buying the aircraft "off the shelf" would be less expensive than developing a new aircraft, which could cost $15 billion to $18 billion and take years.

"We don't want to buy from Airbus," Dicks said, referring to Boeing Co.'s major foreign competitor. "

In an nutshel, we don't want the new (Lockheed) or foreign (Airbus) tankers at all. At least someone came out and said it instead of making a lame attempt at a cover up (Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Wash.)).




The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5062 times:

I think the EC countries and WTO should ask for confirmation of the congress position on Airbus and ask the administration on their policy.

If simply not buying Airbus is the official line, EC should revaluate it´s JSF plans IMO.



User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

Keep in mind that the congressman that said this was from Washigton, where Boeing's factorys are.

And as for the EC retaliation... are they really going to try to force people into buying their products from now on? Pretty soon the're going to put an embargo on me because i bought a Saturn instead of a VW.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5032 times:

I think most people are intelligent enough to figure out that what one congressman form Washington state says is not official US government policy.

User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5929 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4967 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It would be political suicide for any US Congressman or Senator to authorize Airbus over Boeing. It has nothing to do with real capabilities.

If there is retaliation, then it could lead to a major trade war. The EU could ban further purchase of any US-made aircraft. And Airbus would be banned from selling airplanes to the US.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

the WTO has NOTHING to do with your Airbus love, loverboy.

The 330 tanker is not suited to US needs for both technical and political reasons, the choice has nothing to do with you thinking it looks better...

The US (unlike most of Europe) doesn't want to have their foreign policy dictated in Paris which is what would happen if they decided to go with Airbus.
We may be handing the Boche our country on a silver platter signing over our independence and becoming a French colony, the US doesn't want to do that.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

Jwenting

 Laugh out loud

 Laugh out loud

 Nuts


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4828 times:

If, and this is a very big IF, Lockheed were to ever build this aircraft I see one modification they would have to make right off the bat. They would have to stretch out the nose section so they could accommodate a cargo door. Yes they a cargo door could be located mid-fuselage. However this location posses some problems. One, it would take longer to load and unload the aircraft since you would have to maneuver handling equipment around the lower wing and refueling boom. Second it would only be a matter of time before someone hit the wing or the refueling boom. Then you have an aircraft out of service.

User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4819 times:

I think they would have to move the cargo door to the front, like the C-5, remove the aft cargo door, streamline the aft section of the fuselage, and put "the" boom there. Having one on each wingtip is not the smartest thing in the world. Apart from the fact that refueling a heavy receiver would be a nightmare (asymetry) for the autopilot, I seriously doubt a heavy receiver would be able to stay on the boom because of vortices and what not, you'd have to have a seperate refueling freq for each wing, two boomers, hydraulics would also be a pain in the *ss. It goes on and on. Not worth the risk in the current config. And oh yeah, the AF will probably never allow lockheed to build another heavy. Too much negative experience with the FRED

User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5404 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

Duce - what about having a flying boom at the aft section of teh fuselage and then a drogue setup on each wing to refuel European/USN aircraft?


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Garnetpalmetto,

That would still work. Alot of countries do that already, and it's a very good setup. Fighters never have a bow wave problem (14 drivers might say something different when it comes to the basket though) so the asymetry is N/A. The workload for the boomer is low enough so that one boomer can monitor both refuelings at the same time. The KC-10 and 135s sometimes use this system, we call them Wing Air Refueling Pods (WARPs) and 135s call them something else, but it's pretty much the same system. As long as we take the Brits example and have the pods powered by hydraulic pressure rather than fuel pressure, we'll be golden.

BTW, nice signature. I DEFINITELY don't agree with it, but it's good to bust other people's balls like that. Good on you. Just remember who holds the White house and Congress.  Smile


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

Well, of course with this system they can refuel 2 aircraft using the US standard system or 2 aircraft using hose and drogue.
The systems can even be fitted at the same time (rather than on the KC-10 and KC-135 where it's either one or the other and then only one aircraft at a time).

The idea looks sound, and might even fly if money is allocated.
That is however extremely unlikely in these budget-deprived days.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4790 times:

Jwenting,

The KC-10 can refuel boom or drogue aircraft on the same flight (C/L boom, C/L drogue) and can refuel two probe equipped fighters at the same time with our WARPs when we carry them. The KC-135 can refuel either a boom aircraft or a drogue aircraft, but not both. Unless they're carrying their WARP equivalent.

centerline boom and the centerline drogue on the KC-10


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Parks
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Parks





User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4751 times:

The problem with the Lockheed entry is that the USAF needs the tankers ASAP. If they still had a descent transport aircraft design, and facilities available, they might be competitive, but at this moment they don't stand a chance.

Airbus is a political problem, tankers are a major military asset more important than most other aircraft in the USAF fleet. So buying a foreign produced tanker just won't fly with either congress or the military. We can't take the risk that one of the Airbus countries not agreeing with our actions (as France has more than once) cutting off the supply of spare parts (as France has done more than once to other countries). Combine that with the non-political problems like the aircraft is much larger than what the USAF can fit in some of it's bases, and other issues, Airbus is starting way behind the curve.

Having EU countries boycott the US would be a bad idea, there are few aircraft readily available that can meet the mission standards as the US. Besides what does France have to lose the French Government haven't purchased significant amounts of US made aircraft in years. And the US purchases quite a few foreign made aircraft and systems, just none are in a critical role nor as costly as the USAF tanker contract.

Now the details of the contract are up for debate personally I think that letting Boeing handle all of the heavy maintenance is a good idea. Under the U-2/TR-1 program it has shown that manufacture maintenance personal are much more efficient because they have an in depth understanding of the aircraft that is rarely attained with the average enlisted man.

No disrespect to the enlisted men, but it's hard to accumulated the knowledge that man of the aircraft manufacture employees have gained over the years of maintaining the aircraft itself and similar aircraft.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 4738 times:

Along with time issues another there are several other factors working against the Lockheed tanker. One is the cost. Since this is an entirely new aircraft there would be the associated development costs along with the tooling required to build the aircraft. Then there's the fact that LM has a full plate right now with the F-22, JSF and C-130J. If the project were ever to get the go ahead LM would more than likely have to go half and half with another company like Boeing or Northrup.

With that said I would love to see this aircraft built. If cost and time factors were not an issue it would be a no brainier that this would be the aircraft to pick.


User currently offlinePU151 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 4726 times:

As far as I see it, the problem from the EU side is about fair trade. Should the statements from that senator be right, it would mean that the US government rejects a product only on the basis of nationality, and that would go against free trade policies, I think (I'm not a WTO lawyer, so help me out here if I'm wrong).

On THAT basis, the EU could -though, again, I'm not sure- file a complaint in WTO. Now, let's clarify things, I don't think for a second that that congressman is mandated to determine the US Admin's policies on the subject  Nuts.

And, Wedgetail, I think that total boycott is a little extreme you know... I live in Europe, and all we have heard during the past 3 years is comments about the impending commercial apocalypse between EU and USA over every possible issue (bananas, steel, GMOs, and even beef), but so far no major problems.I don't think that those tankers going to Boeing is THAT bad.

P.S.: Hey, that Lockheed design looks kinda familiar... it's a romulan bird of prey! Star Trek rules!  Nuts


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

didn't know the hose and drogue on the -10 can be removed in flight from the boom.
Looks from the outside like it replaces the regular equipment.

Or do you mean the -10 can do both when fitting pods under the wing?



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

Actually there would be a great twist of irony here if Lockheed did bring this concept to production.

1950's tanker contest

Lockheed wins, Boeing gets an "interm" order. Lockheed never produces a single tanker, the "interm" tanker we call the KC-135.

50 years later

Boeing wins, never produces a single tanker. Lockheed's tanker quickly enters production



I don't see that scenario happening but it would be a great peice of irony.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

hmm, wasn't the KC-10 (now a Boeing product) an interim solution as well until a suitable replacement for the interim KC-135 could be produced in volume?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4689 times:

Yeah, but I think calling it a Boeing product is a travesty.

Knowing Boeing, I am actually surprised that they didn't put out an AD to replace the wheel covers on all those DC-10's that where made with a stamped "MDC" on them with ones that where stamped "Boeing".




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4688 times:

I think the Loockheed design was designed as nothing but a tanker, without cargo/personnel capasity.

A superefficient purpose made design, diameter of the airframe about 72/73/757 size I think.

The twin boom high speed outlets would be a strong sellingpoint IMO for refilling USAF fighters/Transports.

I wonder what the tail is about..



User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4672 times:

You're wrong that it's meant as only a tanker.

Lockheed launched this proposal years ago as a replacement for the entire line of aircraft based on the C-135 and C-137 platforms, and to be modular.
The tail area has a loading ramp for modular podded equipment to be loaded, and can also be used for loading regular cargo of course.

Other proposed versions included AEW, ESM, ASW/MPA, ECM, strategic airlift, and possibly a cruise missile carrier.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4572 times:

I've seen a simliar design to this as a proposal for a carrier based tanker. It was much, much smaller, of course, and the engines were in conventional pods on the aft fuselage. It didn't look quite as streamlined or slick.

That was as least 5 years ago.


And Keesje, I see it as the European countries that are participating in the JSF program are simply hoping to get the most for their money. Otherwise they'd buy Gripens, more Eurofighters, or even Rafales.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

jwenting,

On the KC-10 they are fitted with both on the centerline. It's not like the hose attachment for the KC-135 it has an actual pod in the aft fuselage.

Here is a photo from the USAF website that shows the position of the hose pod:
http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/971017-N-9547F-210.jpg



At worst, you screw up and die.
25 Jwenting : cheers. I thought they used the same system of a clipon hose and drogue that can't be used in concert with the boom. Could be that's the way the Dutch
26 PPGMD : Jwenting, That might be where you saw it. The KDC-10 has a different refueling system than the KC-10. In fact their system is similar to the system th
27 Post contains links and images Ulfinator : Lockheed isn't the only one with a different concept for a tanker sitting around. Boeing has been working on the Blended-Wing Concept for some years n
28 PPGMD : Ulfinator, As Lockheed learned from the F-16 competition, there is difference between pitching what the USAF asks for and what it needs. For the F-16
29 KC10Boom : I am totally amazed with the concept that if we need a tanker, we just pick a convenient Boeing model and slap and boom on it.(and if the Navy is luck
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767
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...
Eads Offers To Split US Tanker Program W/ Boeing posted Fri Dec 3 2004 20:24:14 by F4N
Boeing 767-Tanker Press Release posted Wed May 5 2004 01:31:54 by DfwRevolution
Reuters: New US F-35 Fighter Dubbed "Lightning II" posted Fri Jul 7 2006 21:02:21 by N328KF
Boeing 767 Refuelers posted Sun May 14 2006 23:33:16 by Ehgearbox
Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision posted Thu Feb 10 2005 09:13:57 by Leelaw
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021
Airbus Fantasy - the US Tanker deal posted Wed Jan 12 2005 20:44:24 by Dayflyer
Airbus Want US Tanker Contract posted Sun Oct 17 2004 16:18:59 by KL911
New US Navy Thrill Ride posted Tue Apr 27 2004 01:08:39 by Maiznblu_757
The US Tanker Deal Again posted Sat Dec 13 2003 10:28:57 by Racko

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format