Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Willing To Use 787 As Tanker  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8017 times:

Courtesy of The Chicago Tribune:

For several years, Boeing Co. has been consistent on one point: The best aircraft to replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet is a modified version of its 767 commercial jet.

On Tuesday, however, Chicago-based Boeing said it was ready to build a new tanker based on any of its airframes, including the next-generation, fuel-efficient 787 Dreamliner.

"We have a full family of aircraft, and if the Air Force and the Department of Defense determine a new aircraft is the best solution for replacing the KC 135 tanker, we think we can ensure their requirements are met," said Brian Ames, a Boeing spokesman.

[...]


See article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...128468.story?coll=chi-business-hed


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7990 times:

Read that too. Has the tanker competition been formally re-opened? Wouldn't the RFP have to be modified?

Honestly, I don't see the USAF as pushing a tanker replacement too hard at this point. F-22 & JSF are clearly the funding priorities. I'm not even sure they'll ask to extend C-17 production at this point. The bills for the last 4 years of "war on terror" are coming due.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7949 times:

Wow - about frickin' time, Boeing! Okay, now we can all but formally award Boeing with the KC-787 tanker because Airbus has nothing to compete with that platform. I was really having to lean towards the KC-330 over the KC-767 but now, no need. No way the USAF could pass up the 787 here.

Good job Boeing - it will work out in the long run better for all: the taxpayers, the USAF, and Boeing selling another 100+ 787's!

Okay, somebody quick draw up the USAF KC-787 and make it hi-rez for my desktop!  Smile

[Edited 2005-09-14 18:39:15]

User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7913 times:

I knew it!!! This is after Boeing has stated that the 787 platform is not well adapted for a tanker role. HA!!  liar   liar  Pants on fire!!!!

User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7833 times:

I think Boeing should use the 767, but that is only my opinion.  Cool


I Love HNL.............
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7771 times:

If this turns out to be how the New Tanker bid go's then Airbus might have a better chance, as Boeing will not likely offer the sweetheart deal with the low price fixing that were going to happen with the 767.


My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7761 times:

I doubt the 2005 USAF will buy an airplane like that having never seen its civilian version fly.

40 or 50 years ago we would not be having this discussion, the KC-767s would already be flying overhead.


User currently offlineSidishus From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 519 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7760 times:

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 6):
I doubt the 2005 USAF will buy an airplane like that having never seen its civilian version fly.

40 or 50 years ago we would not be having this discussion, the KC-767s would already be flying overhead.

50 years ago Boeing brought forth (on their own dime) an aircraft optimized for the military mission of the day and didn't grab a less than optimum civil design to stretch fit into the role...
They called that aircraft the KC-135.

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/dash80.html
The Boeing Company had invested $16 million (two-thirds of the company's net profits from the post-war years) to build this prototype for a long-range jet aircraft. It was developed in secrecy and designated Model 367-80 to disguise it as merely an improved version of the Stratofreighter. It was subsequently nicknamed the "Dash 80," had jet engines and swept wings and was very different from the straight-wing, propeller-powered Stratofreighter. When the Dash 80 was almost finished, the company gambled again — by tooling and gearing up for a production aircraft, although neither the Air Force, nor any airline, had placed a single order.

Because the prototype was constructed to sell first as a military-tanker transport, it had few windows and no seats, but had two large cargo doors. A week after its first flight, the Air Force ordered 29 tanker versions, the KC-135.


FWIW that 16 million in 2005 dollars works out to $111,360,085.06 to field the first prototype.

[Edited 2005-09-15 08:58:56]


the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7727 times:

The crowd that for years argued the A330 was too big and advanced will no doubt smoothly rewrite the storyline (& history if neccesary).

The Search button will be their biggest opposite..


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7684 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
Read that too. Has the tanker competition been formally re-opened? Wouldn't the RFP have to be modified?

Honestly, I don't see the USAF as pushing a tanker replacement too hard at this point. F-22 & JSF are clearly the funding priorities. I'm not even sure they'll ask to extend C-17 production at this point. The bills for the last 4 years of "war on terror" are coming due.

This article in today's Seattle Times sheds more light.

(Quote)
The Air Force said earlier this year that it set aside $552 million between fiscal 2007 and 2011 for research and $8.58 billion to start buying the tankers. The start date for the bidding hasn't been set because review of an analysis of alternatives done by the Rand Corp. won't be completed until later this year, the Air Force has said. (Unquote)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/240722_tanker15.html



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

Quoting Sidishus (Reply 7):
Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 6):
I doubt the 2005 USAF will buy an airplane like that having never seen its civilian version fly.

40 or 50 years ago we would not be having this discussion, the KC-767s would already be flying overhead.

50 years ago Boeing brought forth (on their own dime) an aircraft optimized for the military mission of the day and didn't grab a less than optimum civil design to stretch fit into the role...
They called that aircraft the KC-135.

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/dash80.html
The Boeing Company had invested $16 million (two-thirds of the company's net profits from the post-war years) to build this prototype for a long-range jet aircraft. It was developed in secrecy and designated Model 367-80 to disguise it as merely an improved version of the Stratofreighter. It was subsequently nicknamed the "Dash 80," had jet engines and swept wings and was very different from the straight-wing, propeller-powered Stratofreighter. When the Dash 80 was almost finished, the company gambled again — by tooling and gearing up for a production aircraft, although neither the Air Force, nor any airline, had placed a single order.

Because the prototype was constructed to sell first as a military-tanker transport, it had few windows and no seats, but had two large cargo doors. A week after its first flight, the Air Force ordered 29 tanker versions, the KC-135.

FWIW that 16 million in 2005 dollars works out to $111,360,085.06 to field the first prototype.

Exactly - the USAF buying a KC-767 in 2005 would be like they instead of the KC-135's they bought at the time buying KC-17's based off a B-17! Since the USAF will likely keep this new KC platform for next 40-50 years easy, the KC-787 and it's composite fuselage will be the more logical choice for numerous reasons.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7641 times:

With estimates coming in for the Katrina recovery efforts I have a feeling that it will be a while before we see any new tankers in the USAF inventory.

User currently offlineDc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7326 times:

Assuming the Air Force buys the KC-787, it will be at least a decade until they receive one unless Boeing opens up two lines of production. The commercial carriers who have already optioned to buy have first dibs.

-Pat


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7324 times:

About time, I think the B767 destiny is sealed.

User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7291 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 11):
With estimates coming in for the Katrina recovery efforts I have a feeling that it will be a while before we see any new tankers in the USAF inventory.

Apples... Oranges


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7266 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
The crowd that for years argued the A330 was too big and advanced will no doubt smoothly rewrite the storyline (& history if neccesary).

While a 787 will be more advanced, it is still likely that it will be shorter than the A332.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7260 times:

>> While a 787 will be more advanced, it is still likely that it will be shorter than the A332.

Wingspan is the issue... the 787-8 and the A332 have simmilar wingspan. Unless Boeing does some wierd 788 gross weight with 783 chopped wing.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7220 times:

Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 12):
Assuming the Air Force buys the KC-787, it will be at least a decade until they receive one unless Boeing opens up two lines of production. The commercial carriers who have already optioned to buy have first dibs.

Why would that be strange? Boeing is doing just that for the 737 line. Anyhow, with potential sales of between 100 and 600 units, I wouldn't be at all surprised at Boeing opening an additional line for military production. There is already speculation on that subject just for the civil version.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7108 times:

Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 12):
Assuming the Air Force buys the KC-787, it will be at least a decade until they receive one unless Boeing opens up two lines of production. The commercial carriers who have already optioned to buy have first dibs.

Boeing is already exploring the possibility of a second 787 line.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
Wingspan is the issue... the 787-8 and the A332 have simmilar wingspan. Unless Boeing does some wierd 788 gross weight with 783 chopped wing.

The wingspan argument is relative non-issue and was more a reason why not to consider the KC-330 than anything else. Boeing designed a 777 with a wing that folded up for ramp space and I'm sure they could do so on the KC-787 if it reall yneeded to be.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7135 times:

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 14):
Apples... Oranges

No, a simple fact. Given the current budget deficit and with the projected cost of the Katrina recovery we might just see certain programs either delayed or cancelled all together.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Willing To Use 787 As 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...
Boeing Plans To Double US Air Force Tanker Deal posted Fri Oct 3 2003 14:31:52 by Kl911
Boeing Looks To Acquisitions To Boost UK Profile posted Tue Oct 3 2006 00:40:22 by Osiris30
WSJ: Congress Wants KC-777, Boeing Likely To Bid posted Mon Dec 5 2005 15:39:09 by N328KF
Boeing, Lockheed To Build Rockets ... Together posted Tue May 3 2005 19:51:01 by AKelley728
777 As A Tanker? posted Mon Feb 14 2005 19:27:07 by ZRH
Boeing Hoping To Beat Lockheed For Navy Contract posted Mon Jan 5 2004 14:13:32 by Keesje
MacDill AFB To Get 767 Super Tanker posted Sat Jun 14 2003 18:56:11 by SWA TPA
Boeing Offer To Portugal. posted Fri Jun 13 2003 19:55:20 by CV990
Boeing May Use Antonov An-72 As Platform For FCA B posted Fri Jan 20 2006 20:48:53 by Atmx2000
Eads Offers To Split US Tanker Program W/ Boeing posted Fri Dec 3 2004 20:24:14 by F4N

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format