Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8237 times:

Saw an ad today for a KC-30, the proposed EADS A330 tanker for the USAF. So anyways, I had read where Boeing said they were open to considering the 787 and needless to say, after browsing the Airbus website about the A-350 earlier, why wouldn't EADS call Boeing's bluff and put together an KC-50? Hard to beat that one unless Boeing went with the 787 and nevertheless, EADS would have a platform ready for sale down the road for years to offer somebody else.

I can't beleive India just announced a plan to acquire six more IL-78 tankers, they have to be far behind a modern tanker of today.

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8210 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
why wouldn't EADS call Boeing's bluff and put together an KC-50? Hard to beat that one unless Boeing went with the 787 and nevertheless, EADS would have a platform ready for sale down the road for years to offer somebody else.

From all that we've seen, it seems like the AF isn't so interested in unflown/untested/unproven aircraft for their new tanker, they're more after platforms that are "off the shelf". The 787 and 350 are too far down the road for them to be a viable option, IMHO.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I can't beleive India just announced a plan to acquire six more IL-78 tankers, they have to be far behind a modern tanker of today.

Beautiful purchase  Wink That's India for ya.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8184 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I can't beleive India just announced a plan to acquire six more IL-78 tankers, they have to be far behind a modern tanker of today.



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1):
Beautiful purchase   That's India for ya.

Are they based upon the Il-76MF? That model is considerably updated, isn't it?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 8132 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
Are they based upon the Il-76MF? That model is considerably updated, isn't it?

Yes, the IL-76 tanker also works well with thier mostly russian fighter fleet.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8076 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):

Are they based upon the Il-76MF? That model is considerably updated, isn't it?

It also has newer Progress engines, so it's got better endurance and payload abilities as well as being quieter. If that is the version India is looking at.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 8000 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1):
The 787 and 350 are too far down the road for them to be a viable option, IMHO.

Not really, since the USAF doesn't have to begin ordering a KC-135 replacement until 2040-2045, for delivery beginning in 2050-2060. So, by then both the B-787 and the A-350 should be long out of production.


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7925 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1):
From all that we've seen, it seems like the AF isn't so interested in unflown/untested/unproven aircraft for their new tanker, they're more after platforms that are "off the shelf".

 banghead  Since when is the A330 an "unflown/untested/unproven" aircraft?! "God" forbid we fly tankers designed by the French!  sarcastic 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson



User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7895 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1):
From all that we've seen, it seems like the AF isn't so interested in unflown/untested/unproven aircraft for their new tanker, they're more after platforms that are "off the shelf"

This is crap. Especially for the tanker role. The 135 was created and designed specifically for the Air Force. Off the shelf my eye.


User currently offlineSphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7878 times:

I don't think the real concerns/positions are being aired (ha ha) in public, but one point that Boeing has made makes sense to me: they have a lot of confidence in the 787 as a passenger aircraft, where it will remain externally unmodified throughout its lifetime. But when one looks at the x-135, most of the airframe have undergone substantial external modification during their service (there was a mosiac showing this on a thread about 6 months ago, which I cannot find). Boeing is NOT confident _at this time_ that it can modify the 787 as easily as it can an aluminum aircraft. If it turns out that mods are not easy to do, they could be backing the Air Force into a corner with a KC-787.

sPh


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50
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...
KC-767 Testing At IAB Wichita-McConnell posted Sat Apr 17 2010 10:23:33 by cfmitch56
What If The Usaf Needed A Smaller Tanker? KC-767? posted Mon Mar 31 2008 14:36:41 by Jackonicko
KC-45 Vs KC-10 posted Sun Mar 30 2008 00:13:31 by Tugger
KC-767 Picture Question posted Wed Jan 23 2008 23:25:26 by Gjsint172
KC-767 And Utah Economy posted Mon Oct 22 2007 09:28:48 by EBJ1248650
KC-767 Newspaper Ad? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 00:55:15 by FlyUSCG
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
Pratt & Whitney Selected To Supply Engines KC-767 posted Tue Mar 13 2007 22:12:56 by Keesje
Kc 767 posted Thu Feb 15 2007 03:38:48 by Patches
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format