Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11588 times:
Just a think tank here guys but what about this. There have been a lot of discussions about selections other than the KC-767. MD-11, 747. But what about the 777 with the folding wing? From what I understand, there always was the option for airlines, but no one was interested in it. My thinking is that the folding wings would decrease the ramp "footprint" of the aircraft. Yet would have more capacity than the 767.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2457 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11463 times:
The folding option was offered early on, however it has never been installed since no one has ever ordered it. Would this require further certification to the 777 airframe? And would this make the 777 take up less ramp space than an A330?
RaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 356 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11448 times:
I'm not sure exactly what versions of the 767 are being considered for tanker conversion/manufacture, but take a look at the price difference below. Those numbers are from Boeing's web site.
Even if the 764 is the 7-6 candidate, it's still a minimum of $15 million cheaper than the 777-200. (I understand that the prices could change dramatically when in military form) If the USAF were to buy 200 airframes, that's at least $3 billion more dollars.
I realize that they could get by with fewer 777's than 767's. However, one 777 cannot be in two places at once. The idea of reducing the massive number of tankers (currently 500+ KC-135 counting AF, ANG, and AFRes) is great, but taking it to the extream of a small number of 777's may be a bit overboard.
In that respect, my tanker vote sticks with the 767. I think it's the right size for the job.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 4963 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11432 times:
RaginMav - the KC-767 will be based on the 762.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
KC10Boom From United States of America, joined May 2004, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11306 times:
I agree with RaginMav that the same tanker cannot be in two places at once, however the concept of a tanker only aircraft has to go out the window. The USAF is doing more with less today and in the near future. The cargo missions are constantly getting bigger and their primary haulers are getting fewer. C-141's are going to be a piece of history by the end of 2005 and a portion of the C-5's are already starting to be prepped to go to DM AFB. Barney (C-17) has less capacity than the C-5 and the fleet of 17's is going to have to take the burden of mobility as the remaining C-5's continue dealing with their miserable maintenance record while they age. The KC-135 is awesome for what it was designed for, a tanker. The 767 and its puny cargo capacity after you place the necessary fuel tanks on it will not be much of a help to the already dwindling fleet. Lets compare numbers: KC-135 Maximum Takeoff Weight(MTOW): 322,500 Lbs KC-767 MTOW: 450,000Lbs, MD-11 MTOW:630,000, KC-10 MTOW: 590,000. B-777 MTOW: 660,000. From these numbers which aircraft do you think will give the best bang for the buck? Remember these aircraft are needed to do only 2 things, A/R and haul stuff. RaginMav has a great point but why would we need to have two 767 tankers to take a flight of F-15's across the Pacific when 1 MD-11 / 777/ could do it and haul all of their support equipment. History has already proven the cost effectiveness of a tanker/cargo hybrid with massive capacity (KC-10). We shouldn't let Boeing convince us that their "off the shelf" tanker is the way to go.
Robert
Why is it my best contacts are when no one else is looking!
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2457 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11279 times:
Again there is a bit of comparing apples to oranges here. The example of requiring 2 767s to escort F-15s to Japan is a red herring, as the 767 is not intended to, and will not be used to replace the KC-10, whch already does the job that you propose the MD-11/777 tanker to do.
Now compare it to what KC-135s normally do... You end up with much more unused (wasteful) capacity in an MD-11/777/A330 tanker. The 767 is intended as a 1:1 replacement, offering a similar footprint, increased offload, cargo, and personnel transport (can you actually fit 6 across in a -135? it is narrower than a 707/C-137). The 767 already has a cargo door available for both the -200 and -300. As an added bonus, the military is already equipped with a 767-200 medevac interior kit, where the KC-767 can pick up the slack for the loss of C-141 and C-9 medevac. A C-40 fleet would probably be ideal, however I do not see 25-40 of these coming online in the next 20 years. The KC-767 would also have a degree of commonality with the E-10 (764) fleet, the purchase of the first of which has already been approved.
Lastly there is an extensive inexpensive spares pool developing. If the USAF does what it did to the civilian 707 fleet, (and what it soon may do to the DC-10 fleet) which is buy up retired widebodies, Airbus and Boeing will reap huge benefits in the drop in supplies of used aircraft on the market.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2457 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11247 times:
Well, the current order is for 100, and is intended to be an initial order with follow-ons later on. Even though a huge number of KC-135s have been produced, many have already been scrapped, written off, or retired. Combine this with KC-135s that are never used in a tanking role (RC- and EC-varients) and others that have been relegated to testing work, and there ends up being quite a few less to worry about replacing.
KC10Boom From United States of America, joined May 2004, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11247 times:
Spacepope, I believe you have misunderstood what today's tankers are used for and what their missions are. My example of dragging fighters over great distances is a common task assigned to tankers (135's and 10's). Getting aircraft to their destination is what the tanker is designed for. Why use double the aircraft, and crews to do the same job therefore reducing the cost effectiveness of the tanker program. I presented neither a fallacy or an extraneous issue in my argument. I must ask what it is you think a KC-135 does? I mean no insult by that question, because you bring up some good points. However the only significant argument I have seen on this topic is the problem of ramp space.
The Air Force only bought 60 KC-10's after budget cuts, we need more. These aircraft work alongside their smaller brother in every combat theater in the world, they transfer more fuel, and do it with fewer airframes. The need to have massive numbers of tankers is a thing of the past. The wars of today and the future are not going to involve fleets of B-52's needing gas to get to their nuclear target. A multi-role high capacity aircraft is what is needed for today's Air Mobility Command tanker fleet.
Why is it my best contacts are when no one else is looking!
RaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 356 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 11241 times:
In researching for this post I find myself changing a previous position.
Active duty, 253; Air National Guard, 222; Air Force Reserve, 70
(total 545)
Those are the inventory numbers of the KC-135 from http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=110, and do not include numbers of EC-, RC-, or WC- models. Any way you slice it, that is a hell of a lot of tankers.
Lets do some statistical analysis:
175,762,500 lbs - the MTOW of the KC-135 fleet
If we were to meet that number with KC-767-200's we would need 444 of
them costing $40 - $50 billion (assuming current civil version prices
from boeing.com)
If we were to meet that need with KC-767-300's we would need 427 of them
costing $49 - $54 billion
If we were to meet that number with KC-767-400 we would need 391 of them
costing $50 - $54 billion
If we were to meet that number with KC-777-200's, we would need 323 of
them costing $50 - $55 billion
If we were to meet that number with KC-777-200ER's we would need 268 of
them costing $44 - $49 billion
If we were to meet that number with KC-777-200LR's we would need 230
of them costing $43 - $49 billion
If we were to meet that nnumber with KC-777-300's we would need 266 of
them costing $47 - $53 billion
The real need that needs to be met is off-loadable fuel, followed closely by cargo capacity. Since we can't get off-loadable fuel stats for the 777, I think we can make due by comparing MTOW numbers.
With price the main (but not only) consideration, the 777-200LR (MTOW 766,000 lbs) is the best choice. It's damn close to being the cheapest, and its' selection would greatly reduce the number of tankers in the inventory. At the same time, it undoubtebly supplies a better cargo platform than the 767, as it is larger in every respect.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2457 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11221 times:
KC-10Boom:
No offence taken. However, unit for unit, KC-767s would be much better for dragging fighters across the pacific than KC-135s. No doubt the KC-10 is better for the task, but I just don't think that the KC-767 would be used as a KC-10 replacement. And as for supplying gas, the KC-767, if equipped like the KC-10 to conduct both boom and drogue refuelling, will be a much more capable refueller in places like Afghanistan, instead of using KC-135 boomers and VC-10s for the Navy birds.
I do think the 777-200 would be a decent supplement to the KC-10 fleet, the large tanker fleet is much too small to consider replacing any of the KC-10s. And when comparing the A330-300 to the 777-200, when the objective is offloading the most fuel instead of replacing a midsized tanker, he 777 is clearly the most capable.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10935 times:
First of all, I want to comend all of you for such professional responses. Well done.
The 767 is intended as a 1:1 replacement,
Correct me if i'm wrong, but this is not the greatest move if the military is in a downsizing mode, right? That's why I thought of the 777 folding wing design. Relatively the same "footprint" as the 767. And as RaginMav pointed out, nearly the same cost. This is something that the Pentagon should seriously consider.
And a commercial "fallout" could occured with the lauching of the 777-200LRF.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28885 posts, RR: 67 Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10896 times:
Capacity isn't everything, if so we would only be talking about 747-400 tankers.
I found a great white paper that came out of the Aussie MOD one time extolling the bennifits of buying surplus B747-300 and converting them over to tanker configuration.
The engineering had allready been done for those Iranian 747 tankers. Iraqi Airlines had Boeing develop an palletloader that could self unload from their 747 freighters. The 0300 would allow about 60 troop seats upstairs and a completely free cargo deck. And the aft headroom was enough to accomdate the LAV's they operated.
I can't find the original which had the great photos of the gear but this link summs it up pretty nicely.
Dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11345 posts, RR: 89 Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10855 times:
Remember that the planned first order for KC767 is to replace the Air Force inventory of remaining KC-135E models. These are the oldest KC's in inventory and all still use the older TF-33 engines. The newer ones with PACER CRAG updates and new CFM-56 engines will soldier on for some time to come. KC-767 will have a good bit of improvement not just in fuel load, passenger usefulness, and cargo, but it will require significantly less maintenance than the current fleet of 40 year old KC-135E's.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8180 posts, RR: 16 Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10796 times:
But what about both training missions and mission supporting active flying in a region (not travelling across oceans to get there)?
In those cases, the smaller 767 would be a better, cheaper option, wouldn't it?
(example from L-188's link - Medium tankers look better only in the training role, and low intensity operations, where their lower fuel burn reduces operating costs.)
It's interesting that the Australian report makes the MD-11 sound attractive as a tanker, since it can utilize already developed KC-10 systems, but it is apparently ruled out since no Australian airline flies them.
A self-unloading 747 would be an interesting thing to see.
JMChladek From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 331 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10732 times:
Well concerning cargo capability, it isn't just the military haulers that transport stuff anymore as there is also the CRAF fleet with whatever they have in terms of pure freighters and combis (747s, A310s, MD-11s etc). Desert Shield, Desert Storm and I believe Iraqi Freedom both utilized them. Granted, CRAF fleet aircraft can't transport heavy equipment like a C-5 or C-17 can (or a C-130), but once the heavy equipment is offloaded in the theater of operations, it seems to be more a matter of logistical support with smaller cargos anyway, such as food, equipment, ammunition, parcels from home etc.. For that, you don't necessarily need C-5/C-17 transport capability (although it can be good to have). A lot of equipment is also shipped by sea anyway, depending on how long a buildup operation there is before hostilities commence. But it does limit how quick a redeployment can be done if the need arises.
In terms of a new KC bird, the Air Force wants something that can deliver fuel more then something that can deliver fuel and cargo since cargo capacity doesn't seem to be a problem these days. As such, the KC-767 seems to be the perfect choice. Another benefit of retiring some of the older KC-135s is it would provide a potential spare parts source to keep the remaining KC/RC-135 fleet operating for years to come.
KEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10713 times:
“the Air Force wants something that can deliver fuel more then something that can deliver fuel and cargo since cargo capacity doesn't seem to be a problem these days. As such, the KC-767 seems to be the perfect choice”
JMChladek, you must have mixed up things. The A330 can take more fuel further with lower costs.
On top of that it can carry more cargo & passengers. That’s why many people have been/are dancing on red hot coals and talking with that distant look in their eyes on the kc767.
RaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 356 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10705 times:
the Air Force wants something that can deliver fuel more then something that can deliver fuel and cargo since cargo capacity doesn't seem to be a problem these days.
USTRANSCOM relies heavily on the commercial transportation industry - sea, air, and land - to move troops, equipment, and supplies world wide in support of our Nation's defense. Historically, 93 percent of our troops and 41 percent of our long-range air cargo are moved by chartered commercial aircraft
I'm looking at these allocation letters for the CRAF fleet, and I haven't found a 767 in the cargo section yet. Evidently they don't deem it suitable.
While I haven't seen a 777 in the cargo section either, bigger plane = more cargo, right?
No matter how you slice it, the tanker replacement program is going to be massively expensive, so why not get a plane that can haul some serious cargo, lots of fuel, and do it over tremendous distances?
Dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11345 posts, RR: 89 Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10617 times:
The reasons that the Brits and AUssies went with the A330 AirTanker involved not just aircraft quals. Both nations have limited tanking resources to begin with, and are used to only having to be in a few places at once, but having to go longer distances with single tankers as well, i.e. when the Brits go to Canada or the AUssies go to Nellis. The UK has the additional motivation of being a partner in EADS/AIrbus, and a number of factory workers who keep their jobs longer with A-330 orders.
Yes, The A330 does have better range that the 762 as well as more pallet space. What it also has is a rather higher cost figure. This will mean less if you plan on buying only a few, or if you have a legitimate plan to share the costs throught the UK's lease-share program, but neither of those two countries are planning on buying 100's of airplanes, and neither of those two countries require tankers in as many different areas as we do. The 762 provides the capabilities we need, and is affordable enough that it can be procured in sufficient numbers to be in more places at once. It is better to have redundancy in numbers than a higher cost/value asset that will cost you more if you lose it. If we can have 6x762's on an op and we lose one to a mechanical, the mission is in better shape than if we have 4xA330's and we lose one to a mechanical. The idea is to replace a well used asset with something more capable as well as less maintenance intensive. The KC-767 tanker meets those needs as well as our own political need to buy our own product. More airplanes for the dollar is the word on this one.
KEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10590 times:
The KC-767 tanker meets those needs as well as our own political need to buy our own product
I think this last statement should be the first because it seems to be the overruling one.
The cost of aircraft are determined by many things, the most important one being the engines. Kc767 & A330 use basicly the same ones. Furthermore the 330 is a more modern, efficient airframe.
Introducing the cost of additional crews, maintenance etc. of extra required KC767s to create the same capasity would make costs levels explode ...
If the USAF had KC330s now, they would probably be making massive hours carrying out large troops transports (293 staff /ac), cargo (superior LD3 capasity) and fuel all over the world. Doing TransPacifics, 1 stop California-Afghanistan/Iraq trips and C5/C17 fill ups that will never be possible with the KC767.
Most people know this and much of the rational behind the KC767 is in many cases rather artificial and far-fetched because as you say the "political need to buy our own product" that got Boeing & Pentagon into legal problems.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2457 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10548 times:
I still disagree with some of Keesje's above comments.
Re engines.. Provided the 767 goes with CF-6 powerplants, it will already have commonality with the KC-10, VC-25 and C5 9if that ever goes through) fleet.
I'm not sure that the USAF really cares if the belly hold of a plane can hold more LD3s side by side or not. Many of the above comments seem to downplay the cargo hauling role of a tanker, and the A-330 couldn't handle large items anyway... the photo you provide shows no Side Cargo Door.
Lastly, the way you propose to use the A-330, "Doing TransPacifics, 1 stop California-Afghanistan/Iraq trips and C5/C17 fill ups that will never be possible with the KC767.", is a bit of a red herring. Currently, no KC-135s do this either, and it seems you're advocating this more as a KC-10 replacement. I acknowledge that the A-330 would be better in that respect, but we're slipping back into the tendency to compare apples to bowling balls again. If you want to trump the 767 this way, then why shouldn't we trump the A-330 with a 747 or 777 tanker?
KEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10551 times:
no KC-135s do this either ..
- The KC-135 was superior to it prop predecessors
- The JSF is supposed to be superior to the F16
- The F22 better be superior to the F15
- The C17 is superior to the C141
IMO the A330 being "too capable" to replace the KC135 is exactly the kind of artificial and far-fetched stuff that has Boeing & the Pentagon now running on ice for committees that just don't buy it.
Dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11345 posts, RR: 89 Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10501 times:
Yeah, but do not ignore the point KEESJE...the airplanes you mentioned are all more capable that their predecessors, and the KC-767 will be (it is already ordered for Italy and Japan) superior to the KC-135. We are looking for the replacement to that aircraft. If we wanted to replace the KC-10 you may be in a better position to argue. The 330 is more expensive and has no commonality with anything flown by the US military, whereas the 757 and 767 are in the inventory (or will soon be) and this too makes a difference.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
25 WhiteHatter: There's another factor to consider, the KC-330 could be TOO advanced. How would a FBW aircraft fare in a nuclear exchange? An EMP would potentially kn
26 Garnetpalmetto: WhiteHatter - don't think that's as much of a consideration. Consider that the USAF and USN operate several FBW aircraft that could operate in a nucle
27 WhiteHatter: The A330 is a big bird though, and hardening its systems against EMP would be a major undertaking. Not to mention potentially heavy! The 767 looks to
28 DfwRevolution: The 767 looks to be a better bet just from the standpoint of being less computer-dependent While I completly agree with your argument, I believe the a
29 WhiteHatter: The 767 looks to be a better bet just from the standpoint of being less computer-dependent While I completly agree with your argument, I believe the a
30 Klaus: I don´t see the big difference between the A330 and a FADEC-equipped 767. You´d have to "harden" both of them to a large degree. The FBW flight comp
31 WhiteHatter: Besides that, the FBW models are all already hardened against intense electromagnetic interference. It should only be a matter of cost to further impr
32 Klaus: WhiteHatter: There is something of a difference between a passenger's cellphone and a nuclear detonation. Cellphones are the smallest problem. Big com
33 Captoveur: In the 767/A330 Tanker debate cargo/fuel capacity does not really matter, ability to haul more troops further does not matter. One thing matters. In A
34 Klaus: Even elected senators need to justify big decisions. And there´s not only the "at least it´s our product!" camp; There´s also the "it´s our tax do
35 Vzlet: Does anyone have any firm numbers regarding fuel offload capacity of the KC-767 vs. the 135R in typical scenarios? I don't recall the figures I've see
36 WhiteHatter: Klaus Gross over-simplification. The VC-25 is NOT fly-by-wire. It may have hardened comms and other systems, but these systems aren't Airbus FBW. Repl
37 MD-90: YF23 was far superior to the YF22 Superior, yes (I'm not sure just how far more it was), but one of the big reasons why the contract went to Lockheed-
38 Klaus: WhiteHatter: The VC-25 is NOT fly-by-wire. It may have hardened comms and other systems, but these systems aren't Airbus FBW. Digital servo controls a
39 Boeing nut: YF23 was far superior to the YF22 Not to mention better looking.
40 Captoveur: Even elected senators need to justify big decisions. And there´s not only the "at least it´s our product!" camp; There´s also the "it´s our tax do
41 KC10Boom: For those of you inerested here is a report on the KC- 767 / 135 / DC10 conversion issues and what the Air Force is looking for. http://www.taxpayer.n
42 Kellmark: I believe that the A330 is a great aircraft, but it is too big and too expensive to meet the USAF requirements, plus Boeing has an excellent experienc
43 Spacepope: Some interesting info here: http://www.airlinerlist.com has added the KC-135 production list to the end of the 707/720 production list. I think all of
44 Tasha: I still think that the USAF would be better served with going to the deserts and picking up B747's and MD11's that don't have terrible amounts of time
45 Duce50boom: With all the BS the AF is going through on the E-8 program, there is no way they'll ever buy a bunch of second hand mothballed airliners again. Apart
46 Klaus: Duce50boom: Can't be too expensive these days to start up and build another 707 line When some or most of the tools have been destroyed and most worke
47 Duce50boom: I´m not so sure this could be cost-effective... But leasing 100 767s for 20-25 billion clams is? Come on, the 767 is the horse waiting for the pistol
48 Captoveur: The KC-767 deal may be to fill a temporary hole. The wings are getting ready to fall off some of the KC-135s and I keep hearing rumblings about a KC-7
49 PPGMD: Duce50boom, The thing about the KC-767 is that the 767 is still in production. The jigs and tooling are available for nearly exclusive USAF production
50 Duce50boom: Captoveur, Regarding standardization, I was talking about the used aircraft the USAF would buy. Having the same config, loadout, engines, etc. The E-8
51 Klaus: Duce50boom: But leasing 100 767s for 20-25 billion clams is? Come on, the 767 is the horse waiting for the pistol. Absolutely... I´d rather look at t
52 PPGMD: 767 I'd much prefer it to be new. Far fewer problems in the short and long term The air frame itself is going to be new, they are going to be built ex
53 Boeing nut: Now here's another interesting idea. As far as one for one replacement, (this is all mute since production is ending) but why not consider the 757 as
54 PPGMD: The KC-767 has more room to expand within the air frame than the 757 would.
55 Boeing nut: I suppose you're right. It's just the ole grey matter at work.
56 N328KF: Why not? It'd be a great dual-purpose aircraft. It's not overly large, either, but certainly could haul enough fuel (given extra tankage) to perform t
57 Tasha: Okay... maybe I'm missing it... Just a quick question, what is the expected lifetime of the B767 airframe? I thought that these aircraft are continual
58 C5Drvr: The USAF has considered used a/c. It is just that used aircraft of the type desired (767-200) are not available in enough numbers and in similar confi
59 L-188: Add to the fact that ordering new aircraft means that there will only be one manual for the fleet, since every one will be speced out to the same stan
60 Scbriml: I keep hearing rumblings about a KC-7e7 I dread to think where those rumblings might be coming from, but Boeing has publicly stated that the 7E7 is no
61 PPGMD: I dread to think where those rumblings might be coming from, but Boeing has publicly stated that the 7E7 is not suited to military conversion, it's to
62 Boeing nut: but Boeing has publicly stated that the 7E7 is not suited to military conversion, it's too optimised for civilian application. KC-135, KC-10, MMA.....
63 KEESJE: The youngest KC135’s will be in service for more then 50 when replaced. It was a brand new design when entered service & all were delivered
64 N328KF: Yes, I'm sure airliners.net members have far better data than the parties involved.
65 Duce50boom: Kessje is correct. The 767 has only marginally better performance in all areas (worse in some) than the KC-135 it's meant to replace. The KC-10 was ne
66 PPGMD: We have already gone over this, the KC-767 is meant to be an almost direct KC-135 replacement. So a KC-777 is out of the question, and the KC-10 would
67 KEESJE: It's not the age of the design, it's the age of the air frame, how many cycles are put on it. All of the KC-767's are going to new build aircraft. IMO
68 PPGMD: In 50 years that tends to happen, but the USAF isn't replacing the KC-135's because of increased maintenance costs (they purchases tons of spare parts
69 Captoveur: I dread to think where those rumblings might be coming from, but Boeing has publicly stated that the 7E7 is not suited to military conversion, it's to
70 KEESJE: the KC-135's because of increased maintenance costs (they purchases tons of spare parts when the 707 were retired), but because the air frames are sta
71 PPGMD: KEESJE, "only complete re-manufacture of the aircraft can eliminate corrosion, and that airframe corrosion in the KC-135E is"significant, pervasive, a
72 KEESJE: However, KC-767 lease opponents may point out that the increases in KC-135 maintenance costs correspond with significant improvements to the speed wi
73 PPGMD: Re-engining the E models would not stop the corrosion problem, complete re-manufacture would be required. Complete manufacture itself is another costl
74 Flynavy: If reference to the original post, what possible reason would the USAF need a KC-777's wings to fold? Are we parking her on a carrier's flight deck? I
75 Boeing nut: The ramp footprint of, say, a 747 would be much too big. Seeing that the military has had experience with folding wing aircraft, folding wings on a "K
76 PPGMD: Boeing nut, The problem with fewer larger tankers (which the USAF can only afford a lesser amount of) is that ultimately, they only have one boom, and
77 KEESJE: So lets wait for a smaller 2 boom tanker with limited wing span & lots of range. Well, the lockheed type then in 8 yrs & a stop gab 330/767 fleet... h
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2457 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
