Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bill Shields Boeing Tanker  
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5613 times:

There you have it:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...05-05-20_23-43-08_n20202887_newsml

[Edited 2005-05-21 03:28:04]

90 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3085 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Wierd how the USA wants the world's militarries to buy it's products and weapons...yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...


GS

Counting on how long it will take thos to become and A vs B thread



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Tough to run a competition with only one entrant.

The real question is will the Air Force

1. Even aquire a tanker- Right now the situation for procurement seems to be focusing on other areas. Our military is in dire straits with the situation in Iraq and Afganistan. We need to re-stock the supplies that were used and refit or replace a lot of the ground equipment.

2. Act before the 767 line is shut down- Boeing has a ton of orders to build for the 787. The 737 and 777 lines are also booming. Is there enough profit to be made to drag out the 767 line long enough for the military -who are notoriously slow on procurement- to make up their minds? And to keep the line open especially if the rate of production is low?



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineN317AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5505 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...

When you have the best, why shop elsewhere?


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 2):
1. Even aquire a tanker- Right now the situation for procurement seems to be focusing on other areas. Our military is in dire straits with the situation in Iraq and Afganistan. We need to re-stock the supplies that were used and refit or replace a lot of the ground equipment.

The money situation is a potential BIG problem! But, so far, it is not affecting other procurement programs too much (F/A-22, C-130J) - but the future is shaky at best for them both. The thing is, the need for a new tanker was hyped up last time around. The only KC-135's that need attention right now are the KC-135E's - many of them are grounded due to an engine strut problem that can be repaired, but will be costly. Side note, the KC-135E's are not older than the KC-135R's, that's not true - all KC-135's were procured between 1955 and 1964 - all came off the line as KC-135A's. Some went to R, some went to E back in the 80's-90's. The bulk of the fleet are R models and, trust me, they are extremely reliable airplanes for being nearly 50 years old. With all the modifications, they also have modern engines and avionics now - being among the first airplanes in the world to receive GATM modifications.


Quoting Starrion (Reply 2):
Act before the 767 line is shut down

Last I heard they would consider reopening it if the order was substantial enough. Of course right now Boeing says that won't happen "act now, before it's too late!!" But if they get the chance for the 767 to become the tanker of the future, they'll reopen the line - I don't doubt that at all.

However, the most recent word from DC is that other airplanes are being looked at. Even if Airbus can't compete, the 767 is not set in stone. Other options: Modify old airliners (bad idea, you would think they'd learn), 777 (I like this one personally, but it might be too big and heavy), and 737 (or so it said, though I can't imagine.)

[Edited 2005-05-21 04:35:25]

User currently offlineZoom1018 From Taiwan, joined May 2005, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

Well, I think they had better go with 767 or .... 787 hehehe

User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5428 times:

Both the 737 and the 777 don't seem to fit the build. The -37 is too small. Not enough lift to make a good tanker.


The 777 is too big. It's even bigger than the A330 which is why the USAF (supposedly) doesn't want it. The best one for one or one for two replacement would be the 767.

Modifying old airliners sounds like a really bad idea. Why replace high-time quads with really high time twins?

Buying up old 767's and parking them at AMARC seems like a good idea for providing a ready supply of spare parts but not for use.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3390 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5376 times:

Quoting N317AS (Reply 3):
Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...

When you have the best, why shop elsewhere?

True when talking about something like the F-22, which is undoubtedly the best.

In the case of the KC-135 replacement, neither the A330 nor the B767 is so much better that the other does not merit consideration.


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4149 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5345 times:

Who's Bill Shields?

 Silly


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5278 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 6):
Both the 737 and the 777 don't seem to fit the build. The -37 is too small. Not enough lift to make a good tanker.

Agreed, but it was in a DoD news release stating they would both be looked at. Also, I forgot to mention, they will also consider the 787 - which might actually be the way to go, why not get the newest technology?

Quoting Starrion (Reply 6):
Why replace high-time quads with really high time twins?

The high time quads you refer to, obviously the KC-135, are surprisingly not high time at all. Would you believe that despite approaching 50 years in age, most of the planes are right around (plus or minus a few thousand) 20,000 hours? It's true - The cold war and subsequent years of sitting alert on bases, just in case, spared them a lot of usage in their early years.


User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5252 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 9):
The high time quads you refer to, obviously the KC-135, are surprisingly not high time at all. Would you believe that despite approaching 50 years in age, most of the planes are right around (plus or minus a few thousand) 20,000 hours? It's true - The cold war and subsequent years of sitting alert on bases, just in case, spared them a lot of usage in their early years.

I believe it, but even if the usage isn't as high as an airliner, age alone can require a lot of maintenance. My cessna just required a huge annual because of corrosion and engine issues even thouigh we don't fly it a lot.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 10):
I believe it, but even if the usage isn't as high as an airliner, age alone can require a lot of maintenance. My cessna just required a huge annual because of corrosion and engine issues even thouigh we don't fly it a lot.

But these planes have been so modified, the only time they really show their age is in the area of corrosion. As that is slowly being fixed (replacement of first skin, now ribs and skin during major maintenance), they will likely last until the predicted retirement year of 2040. Daily flying, not counting excessive downtime during major maintenance due to corrosion repair, we used to maintain around a 98% MC rate, which is good, really good, for an Air Force large airplane. Even now they still hover in the low 90% area, a lot of that seems to be related to teething with the new avionics.


User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

What's your opinion then? Should the Air Force forego the KC767 and just convert the 135E's to 135R's?

If the -135 fleet can do the job, should we be spending the money to replace them?



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5193 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 12):
If the -135 fleet can do the job, should we be spending the money to replace them?

That depends - I heard the cost to repair the engine struts (as some have been done already) on the KC-135E is easily in the millions per airplane - even when that is done, they are still stuck with those old, less reliable TF33 engines. So the question becomes, long term is it worthwhile to fix the E's? If the R model, which makes up the bulk of the fleet, can be flown until 2040 then there is no need to replace them yet. The next question I would ask is this: Would it be a huge loss to lose the E models without them being replaced by anything? It's possible, if they consolidate bases instead of having them so spread out at so many guard and reserve bases, we could survive with the current fleet of R's and with that other tanker, that is sort of a tanker - the KC-10. Wink That becomes the question, can we retire the E's and still be OK? If not, then there are several options, IMO:

#1: Add a new tanker to the fleet - as they had planned with the KC-767. Problem is, now you have 3 tanker types in the USAF - how efficient is that?

#2: Repair the E model and keep flying it - or, perhaps even better, instead of beefing up the current engine struts, while it's all torn apart - re-engine it with CFM56's and then the whole fleet will be R models - it might not be all that cost prohibitive and has to be cheaper than buying new airplanes.

#3: AFAIK, there are still a good number of DC-10's out there on the secondhand market - why not modify some of them into KC-10's to expand that fleet and help augment the KC-135 fleet if it loses those E-models.

Overall, IMO, we don't need the KC-767 now, as nice as it would be. If anything, give the 787 time to mature and look at it as a replacement a few years down the road. As far as I can tell, the KC-767 was corporate welfare for Boeing, meant only to drum up a false need for the airplane in order to keep the line open. I could tell the need was created by the rhetoric - they said all sorts of things about the KC-135 that were not true.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12801 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5173 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quote:
The House panel said it was deeply concerned with the skyrocketing cost of weapons systems

So we'll let Boeing rape us with the 767 by not letting EADS compete.  scratchchin 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5164 times:

How does that bill comply with free market economy - one of the main building blocks of america's crest for more world-demoracy !!!
Just three days ago Condoleeza announced the set up of a "task force" to teach the rest of the world how democracy works - well that's a great lesson !

[Edited 2005-05-21 08:27:31]


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3870 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

So we'll let Boeing rape us with the 767 by not letting EADS compete

You can't rape a willing soul.  Wink



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5156 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 14):
So we'll let Boeing rape us with the 767 by not letting EADS compete.

Be fair Scbriml - that was the actions of a couple of unethical people. They will let EADS compete - notice the Senate version of the same bill does not have this, it's political posturing and I doubt it will make it to the final version when all is said and done. Remember both parts of congress must agree on the final bill, BS like this comes out in the House, but gets removed by the more moderate and cool-headed (well they used to be) Senate. That being said, I personally suspect the USAF will never fly the KC-330.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5146 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 15):
How does that bill comply with free market economy - one of the main building blocks of america's crest for more world-demoracy !!!
Just three days ago Condoleeza announced the set up of a "task force" to teach the rest of the world how democracy works - well that's a great lesson !

Yeah well, we also tell other countries not to have nukes, while being the only country in history that has used them against another. We're not perfect, nor is Europe, nor is the Middle East, etc.....

Besides, as I stated above, I really doubt something like this will make it to the final bill, passed by both halves of congress (important because when they work out their opposing versions, it will likely be dropped).


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12801 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5108 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135R (Reply 17):
Remember both parts of congress must agree on the final bill, BS like this comes out in the House, but gets removed by the more moderate and cool-headed (well they used to be) Senate.

OK, my knowledge of the system didn't include this. Let's see how this progresses.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 17):
That being said, I personally suspect the USAF will never fly the KC-330.

Highly likely you're right. But if I was a US taxpayer I'd like to see Boeing pushed to offer the best deal through competition. The company I work for requires competitive bidding on all purchases over a certain value. However, we don't have to accept the lowest bid.  wink 

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 16):
You can't rape a willing soul.

So, presumably, as a US tax payer, you'd have been happy to pay Boeing way over the odds for KC767s the first time round?  crazy 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5088 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 19):
Highly likely you're right. But if I was a US taxpayer I'd like to see Boeing pushed to offer the best deal through competition. The company I work for requires competitive bidding on all purchases over a certain value. However, we don't have to accept the lowest bid.

As a US taxpayer, I would like to see the best deal. As an USAF aircraft maintainer, I definitely want the best airplane for the job - whatever that may be. I'll do some digging, but if I remember correctly the DoD has to allow for competitive bidding. Darleen Druyun was only part of the KC-767 debacle, John McCain was also intent on allowing competitors to bid so the US taxpayer does get the best value. Unless this provision somehow makes it in the final bill,which I doubt it will - and based on what I believe at this point in time - the DoD will have to have open bidding when and if this contract opens up again. While I still don't plan on maintaining a KC-330, I know competitive bidding, if allowed, will force Boeing to lower their price on whatever they end up offering when the time comes.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5031 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 15):
How does that bill comply with free market economy - one of the main building blocks of america's crest for more world-demoracy !!!

Oh, give it a rest. No serious official or politician has ever advocated that defense spending and contracts be free market in nature here and abroad. US defense companies exports are heavily regulated by the federal government as a result. Defense equipment purchases are highly political in nature here and abroad, and US defense exports to other countries have very often involved industrial offsets and other non-free marketish features to help foreign governments justify purchases of US made/designed military equipment.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 13):
#2: Repair the E model and keep flying it - or, perhaps even better, instead of beefing up the current engine struts, while it's all torn apart - re-engine it with CFM56's and then the whole fleet will be R models - it might not be all that cost prohibitive and has to be cheaper than buying new airplanes.

If they can fix the E models at the 15-20% of the cost of a new build plane and keep them flying for another 35 years, I would think that would be the way to go.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4935 times:

All trouble started when it became clear the KC330 a more capable option for the USAF.

A historic circus began to adjust all specs & conditions to make the KC767 came out as winner. Congress didn´t buy it & punished the Pentagon & Boeing.

The Pentagon was forced to start the process all over. Problem is the KC330 still seems the best offer & EADS is starting to make friends in the site selection process.

Time for decisive action.

Hopefully Lockheed won´t be the loosing party when EC states start reconsidering the hundreds of JSF ordered.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4919 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
All trouble started when it became clear the KC330 a more capable option for the USAF.

And the 777 is an even more capable option. Capable doesn't mean it fits all the criteria for a tanker selection for the USAF. I haven't seen any evidence that the KC-330 would be the best suited tanker for the USAF.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Hopefully Lockheed won´t be the loosing party when EC states start reconsidering the hundreds of JSF ordered.

Uh huh, and all the EC states that would most benefit from the winning the KC-330 are all going to order the JSF... For some reason I just don't see France and Germany ordering them...

[Edited 2005-05-21 13:51:33]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePANAM_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4211 posts, RR: 89
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4875 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Hopefully Lockheed won´t be the loosing party when EC states start reconsidering the hundreds of JSF ordered.

Without straying too far OT. Just how many EC Sates have ordered firm the JSF ?

Yet another unsubstantiated fact thrown about to suit the needs of the rose tinted spectacle brigade in Euroland

 Yeah sure



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
25 OHLHD : I can hardly imagine a KC330 flying for the USAF,etc as a Tanker. Why would the military choose a rather old model,with the 767? Choosing the 787 woul
26 Ricci767 : Harrier? Also I think the US also has some BAe Hawks but they call them something differrent.
27 Post contains links and images Keesje : Exactly Boeing told us the technolgy used for the 787 makes it unsuitable for militairy adjustments. McCain exposed the specs were rewritten by Boein
28 F4N : Keesje: And the above "hundreds" were ordered by which nations? And what kind of leverage do you believe that translates into for the KC330? Regards,
29 WhiteHatter : Simple. And that's the answer. The 767 has proven technology, which isn't overly complex for the job at hand. For the same reason NASA uses old Intel
30 Amy : The A300 line is still open, would this make a suitable base?
31 Wingman : Hey Keesje: remember the engine selection process on the A400M? We learned from the best brother. I would also remind you that the United States has t
32 Theredbaron : I am surprised that the most important thing is missing here: The US has promoted the freeworld, Freetrade and "Democracy to the world", but ONLY if i
33 WhiteHatter : Insufficient range. Although technology levels for the A306 and 762 are broadly comparable.
34 RODNAWACS : WhiteHatter, reply 29 is right on the mark. The USAF is going to go proven and keep it simple, the 767 would fit the bill perfectly. As a member of th
35 Flybyguy : I would presume this is for security reasons. The last thing we need is foriegn sabotage of our armed forces. I don't mean that the British, French,
36 AirRyan : That's great - our capitalistic government overwhelmingly approves a bill to eliminate competition to ensure the best product available for our milita
37 KC135R : I have not seen any info that the KC-330 would be more capable than the KC-767. Looking at studies and analysis of it in the past, the KC-330 is like
38 KC135R : And yet, the Bin Laden family built a base in Saudi for us where we spent 10+ years until the Iraq war. It was so odd waking up every day, while ther
39 Post contains links Keesje : The USAF let Boeing rewrite the Tanker specifications. http://scoop.agonist.org/archives/014760.html Stories like the hangars are to small (other USA
40 Byrdluvs747 : Funny how we can blow through billions of dollars to drop bombs on families in Iraq, but stand around nickel & diiming about the 767 tanker?
41 ConcordeBoy : ...you're speaking about from day one, right?
42 Post contains links KC135R : Ok, in fairness I withdraw my statement that you need to learn to check facts, since you have a source, but this story is fishy at best. First of all
43 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : If Airbus was an American Company, they would be out of business. They could never afford to pay back all those government "loans" for every single a
44 Post contains images F4N : Keesje: I'm still waiting to hear about those "hundreds" of F35 orders that the EU states may hold hostage if the KC330 isn't given its' due. Keesje?
45 KennyK : Typical arrogance of the Yanks, and the US government has the audacity to scream and shout about Airbus. Even the French aren't this narrow minded.
46 Post contains images KC135R : ...and judging by your comments you are anything but narrow minded right? "typical arrogance" "French...narrow minded". So what, only fellow Brits ma
47 Boeing7E7 : #1 reason right there that it will never fly.
48 YBCS : Hi all, This is only my second post so be gentle. I didn't read all the posts previous to this one, so if this has been covered then I'm just adding m
49 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Wasn't it another Boeing product that helped save your butt 50-53 years ago? Long live the B-17 I won't even discuss how we helped save those "narrow
50 KC135TopBoom : Very well said, YBCS. BTW, shouldn't this be on the Military Aviation & Space Forum?
51 KL911 : Which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.......... Thanks Boeing.. The B-17 didn't play any positive role in that war, so I don't get
52 Skymileman : Just out of curiousity, which model of the 767 do they intend to use for the tanker? I figure it will be the -300 since it is the middle size, but I a
53 F4N : KL911: And who exactly were the "we" that were going to win the wwII w/o the US? Perhaps you should be thankful that the Russians didn't "liberate" y
54 KC135R : 767-200ER
55 KL911 : I hated the guy. Just meant to say that we all liberated Europe, not only the US. In case of the casualties, 350.000 Americans vs 23 million Russian
56 F9Widebody : Everyone knows this is irrelevant anyway. The USAF was never going to buy from EADS anyway. The same way that Air Force 1 will not be an Airbus plane.
57 KL911 : So why does half europe fly the F16? Business is business. Europe can buy USplanes, but the US can't buy European stuff? What a BS... KL911
58 TVCFlyer : OK, call me stupid but... Instead, it voted to bar the acquisition of a major weapons system from any foreign company that gets what the United States
59 Post contains links KC135R : That should hold true...which might explain this debate: http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1116631089.html
60 F4N : KL911: Let's see...USMC flies Harriers; an English design. The USCG flies French helicopters and has ordered Spanish patrol planes. The next presiden
61 AirFrnt : Given how we pay for Canada and Europe's defense, not really. Of, you mean you want us to give you money for the club you hit us over the head with?
62 Keesje : Seems reasonable .. Seems driven by fear, French parts allover the tanker fleet for ages, e.g. in the KC135R´s & Awacs CFM56 engines.. Airforces of
63 Post contains images KennyK : Appears I ruffled a few feathers earlier The European military aircraft scene has seen many changes. Take a general look at Western Europe and you wou
64 KC135TopBoom : You need to read up on your histroy. But, to answer your question, yes, France couldn't win the war without the US and UK. France was on both sides t
65 Echster : All this talk here will be for naught! This is simply an amendment tacked on to a bill by the author of the "Buy US" provision from years past. The US
66 Atmx2000 : And it should be noted that at least some of the industrial partners will be getting a share of revenue from the sales to the US military, plus they
67 Post contains images Contact_tower : Who helped the soon to be US in a little debacle with Brits a long time ago? This tanker/pissing contest is getting boring. It will never be decided
68 Atmx2000 : Of course the non-democratic Kingdom of France had their reasons for doing that, and had only just some time before been engaged in war against Briti
69 Columba : What about the Tornado ECR ? The USAF wanted it because they thought it would be the best aircraft around but they took F-16s with Haarm missles ....
70 Bennett123 : KC135R When did the US use nukes?. Are any figures available on the cost of converting KC135E to KC135R's?. YBCS The problem in this context is that t
71 KC135R : Atomic bomb - WWII - Japan. According to globalsecurity.org: The Air Force conducted a life-cycle cost analysis to determine the economic payback poi
72 Atmx2000 : Neither of these countries are buying large numbers of tankers or transport planes, so buying aircraft to fill both roles makes more sense. The US on
73 Post contains images KC135R : Actually large tankers do not make sense - well they don't make sense as a tanker and transport at the same time. Consider: (BTW, as you might guess
74 KC135TopBoom : The fact is the USAF doesn't need a new tanker. KC135R is correct, the cheapest and best airplane are the same airplane, the KC-135. At a cost of $24M
75 WhiteHatter : Except many of the fleet are suffering from severe metal fatigue. You are talking about hanging new motors on an aircraft which is well past the age
76 AirRyan : I'd like to see the total costs when weighing into the factor of fuel burn and the cost of JET-A: You have to factor in fuel consumption as well when
77 Post contains images KC135R : Years - yes, hours - no. The average airframe time for a KC-135 is in the 20,000 hour neighborhood - not that old at all. Also, part of the R model u
78 10boomer : Whatever jet they choose I hope they scrap the RARO (Remote Air Refueling Operator Station). Yea, I know the Dutch and the Israelis use it. The Dutch
79 Post contains images KC135R : Really? That's not what I hear from fellow maintainers who have to work on it - rumors I hear say it's a bit of a pain in the butt. The KC-767 was su
80 10boomer : Having been an instructor and evaluator in the -135 I feel confident that I can make the assertion that the 10 boom system is superior. Here are just
81 KC135R : Well, opinions aside - and yours and mine, that's all they are - the proof is in what Boeing does. Since the -135 boom belongs to them, and since the
82 Post contains images Scbriml : Oh please, not the old "You'd all be speaking German..." line. I believe the Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane may have had a minor influence in the
83 KC135TopBoom : This is the old "I like Fords and you like Chevys" argument. When the USAF selected the DC-10-30 over the B-747-200 under the ATCA (Advanced Tanker C
84 10boomer : All things being equal that might be a apt analogy. However things are far from equal. The KC-10 boom represented a significant technological leap fo
85 Post contains links and images Keesje : It seems the usaf reduced the tanker war fighting requirements to match to kc767 capabilities. It also criticized the Air Force for "tailoring" — me
86 KC135TopBoom : The answer is 2 KC-135Rs. That is true. But the first KC-10A was bought more than 15 years after the last KC-135 was delivered. Things changed in tha
87 Post contains links and images DeltaGuy : Not that this has anything to do with boom refueling, but when I flew with the Omega Tanker, it just had two hose/drogue reels in the aft cargo bin,
88 AirRyan : The only reason the Air Force has the drouge and chute is for the heavies and bombers that are only designed for this type of refueling. I don't think
89 10boomer : We were all on the same C2 freqs. They were FMC jets that were not otherwise tasked. The -135 requested this from AWACS, I guess I should blame C2 fo
90 KC135R : 40 - still not a lot, but that's what has been MPRS modified. Some of those may be Singapore and French tankers though.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Bill Shields Boeing Tanker
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...
Alternative Boeing Tanker Proposal ... posted Thu Aug 26 2004 10:52:51 by KEESJE
The Boeing 777 Tanker posted Thu Sep 28 2006 00:35:18 by NWDC10
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition posted Sat Jan 28 2006 07:41:17 by Jacobin777
Boeing Willing To Use 787 As Tanker posted Wed Sep 14 2005 16:10:29 by N328KF
767 Tanker Deal: Bailout For Boeing posted Fri Jun 10 2005 07:52:13 by Scotron11
Eads Offers To Split US Tanker Program W/ Boeing posted Fri Dec 3 2004 20:24:14 by F4N
Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal posted Sun Oct 10 2004 19:15:33 by Philsquares
Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767 posted Fri May 21 2004 23:09:47 by Keesje
Boeing 767-Tanker Press Release posted Wed May 5 2004 01:31:54 by DfwRevolution

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format