USAF336TFS From United States, joined Apr 2005, 1202 posts, RR: 54 Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 22062 times:
Boeing has offered an advanced version of the 767-200 Freighter for the United States Air Force KC-X competition.
Excerpts from Boeing:
ST. LOUIS, Feb. 12, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that it will offer the KC-767 Advanced Tanker for the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition.
"The Air Force has made it clear -- the mission is refueling aircraft, often in tight, hostile locations. The Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker is made for this mission," said Ron Marcotte, vice president and general manager of Boeing Global Mobility Systems. "It is the ideal fit for the requirements set forth in the Air Force's Request for Proposals. Highly energy efficient, agile and with exceptional takeoff performance, the KC-767 puts more fuel closer to the fight -- with access to more than 1,000 additional bases worldwide than the KC-135."
The tanker will be an advanced derivative of the future 767-200 Long Range Freighter and will be produced at Boeing's facilities in Everett, Wash., on the existing commercial line where more than 950 highly reliable and maintainable 767s have been built. Installation of military refueling systems and flight test activities will take place at the company's finishing center in Wichita, Kan.
Boeing's Global Tanker Team producing the KC-767 Advanced Tanker includes Smiths Aerospace, Rockwell Collins, Vought Aircraft Industries, Honeywell and the newest member -- Spirit AeroSystems. The team has proven expertise in aerial refueling systems, network centric operations, integrated avionics solutions and lean manufacturing concepts.
"This KC-767 Advanced Tanker will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs.
With more than $1 billion already invested in the KC-767, Boeing will blend the latest commercial and military capabilities into the world's most technologically advanced tanker. Innovations include an advanced fly-by-wire boom, new wing refueling pods, a centerline hose drum refueling unit, the most advanced 777 commercial digital flight deck and a third-generation remote vision refueling system. This is a tanker with flexibility to meet other airlift missions; whether it's delivering three times more pallets and passengers than the KC-135 or five times as many patients and medical crewmembers.
Boeing has been designing, building, modifying and supporting tankers for nearly 75 years. The company is flying KC-767s and has more than 220 flights and 660 hours on the tanker platform.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
Venus6971 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 1085 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 22034 times:
If they get the contract Everett is going to be a busy place, I wonder if they would move some production to another facilty.
With the 787 and 747-800 and 777 being built and UPS just ordering 20+ 767F's I wonder if they bit off more than they can chew. http://ups.com/pressroom/us/press_re.../press_release/0,1088,4858,00.html
got this link from the civil aviation side
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21826 times:
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 1): If they get the contract Everett is going to be a busy place, I wonder if they would move some production to another facilty.
With the 787 and 747-800 and 777 being built and UPS just ordering 20+ 767F's I wonder if they bit off more than they can chew.
Perhaps they are really thinking of the KC-X production, and the UPS B-767-300ERF production in Long Beach?
Venus6971 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 1085 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 21764 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): Perhaps they are really thinking of the KC-X production, and the UPS B-767-300ERF production in Long Beach?
That might be a good idea if you consider just getting production numbers up but as I have said in other threads I am sure that Boeing wants to get out of California just because that place is just nuts to try to run a business there. Maybe the facilites they have left in Wichita might pick up of the military work instead of just modification work. Or the fix is in with Mobile Alabama Northrup Grumman /Airbus getting to be a subcontractor to Boeing. Here at TIK Boeing has the contract for the new TCAS for the E-3's and the upcoming 40/45 mod and they have L3 subcontracted for everything. If the 767 is selected Boeing Wichita will probably have the workload to mod the green 767s flying in from Everett to the KC military standard.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15932 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 21681 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): Perhaps they are really thinking of the KC-X production, and the UPS B-767-300ERF production in Long Beach?
The Renton unions killed Boeing's plans to send 737C and 737Military work to Long Beach, so the Everett unions will never let that work shift to Long Beach, either.
I'm quite confident that all KC-767 frames will be built in Everett and flown to Wichita for final outfitting no matter how few or how many Boeing sells.
USAF336TFS From United States, joined Apr 2005, 1202 posts, RR: 54 Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 21656 times:
Assuming that the Air Force chooses the KC-767, which is very likely, I believe that, although not directly related, they'll also seriously consider increasing the size of the C-17 fleet. In either case, it just seems to me that the Long Beach facility will be humming along for the next few years. And yes given the enormous overhead doing business in that state has, having a skilled workforce is still a major advantage.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
KevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 21617 times:
I asked this question in a similar forum. What do you think about Boeing having other companies build their birds? Their production capacity of is going to be stretched to the limits here soon. It would be kind of like GM making aircraft during WWII. Yes I know that was during a time of war and GM pretty much had no choice.
I'm sure that there is some auto maker out there that is having poor enough sales to consider such a venture.
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1532 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 21478 times:
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7): I believe that, although not directly related, they'll also seriously consider increasing the size of the C-17 fleet.
Why do you believe the Air Force will consider expanding the C-17 fleet? True, the AF seems to be focused on using the KC767 primarily as a tanker, but you can be sure its cargo carrying capabilities will be much utilized as well. I really can't imagine the AF using the airplane strictly as a tanker. The public outcry would be quite loud if they found out the AF wasn't getting maximum utilization out of the airplanes.
If you've got access take a look at the TDY stats. The C-17 is one of the most deployed aircraft right now. They are flying the hell out of them. They need more C-17 to save the rest of fleet from an early retirement.
Echster From United States, joined Sep 2004, 394 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 21442 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10): Why do you believe the Air Force will consider expanding the C-17 fleet?
To echo reply 11, the USAF is using up the C-17s at a very advanced rate. Airframes calculated to fly a couple hundred hours a year for 30 years have seen them come out of LGB , straight to their units, and straight into the battle. These airframes have tallied up thousands of hours versus the planned hundreds.
I'll also add the USAF and Boeing are now going back to Congress and repeating their request to put the C-5As into the graveyard at DMA. I posted this in another thread yesterday. The RERP/AMP project is not going as planned and costs have increased 50%+. Not only is it more expensive, but tests are showing the upgrades are not working as well as initially thought. The plan is to RERP/AMP the C-5Bs and 2 x C-5Cs and buy the additional 32 x C-17s to get to 222 airframes. The big part of this equation, and how it relates to a tanker, is if Congress goes along with this, there won't really be a need for a new tanker that does much else than tank. A fleet of 222 x C-17s and the remaining C-5Bs will be enough heavy lift to cover the needs of the DOD.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 21386 times:
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 5): If the 767 is selected Boeing Wichita will probably have the workload to mod the green 767s flying in from Everett to the KC military standard.
That is what they have done with the Italian anf Japanese KC-767s.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): The Renton unions killed Boeing's plans to send 737C and 737Military work to Long Beach, so the Everett unions will never let that work shift to Long Beach, either.
The unions may not have much say, if different Congressional State deligations stick their fingers into this (they have done this before). If the California Delagation says to the USAF, if you want our approval of this contract (and the money), you will contract these tankers to be built in Long Beach.
Quoting Echster (Reply 12): A fleet of 222 x C-17s and the remaining C-5Bs will be enough heavy lift to cover the needs of the DOD.
No, that will not be enough heavy lift capability. There are only 47 remaining C-5Bs (last years hull loss was a "B" model), and 2 C-5Cs. That puts all 75 C-5As in the bone yard (IIRC 13 are there now). If this plan were to be put into practice, the tanker buy would have to switch to buying 80 KC-44s (B-747-800F), 10 squadrons. and complete the 222 C-17s (total) buy.
Spacepope From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Dec 1999, 1936 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 21361 times:
Quoting Echster (Reply 12): The big part of this equation, and how it relates to a tanker, is if Congress goes along with this, there won't really be a need for a new tanker that does much else than tank.
The question is now, is the USAF properly utilizing its lift capabilities, and could a 767 tanker improve this?
One of the reported uses of C-17s lately is flying the Bagdad to Landstuhl route with stretcher cases. Is a C-17 actually required for this mission? The US DoD has developed and used a medevac cabin for the 767-200 (installed from time to time on US Airways 762s as part of CRAF exercises). Could this cabin be used on the takner, and could the tanker be used on these shuttle missions, freeing the C-17s to do something that better uses their oversize load capabilites. And in the end, which would be cheaper?
Venus6971 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 1085 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21340 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): No, that will not be enough heavy lift capability. There are only 47 remaining C-5Bs (last years hull loss was a "B" model), and 2 C-5Cs. That puts all 75 C-5As in the bone yard (IIRC 13 are there now). If this plan were to be put into practice, the tanker buy would have to switch to buying 80 KC-44s (B-747-800F), 10 squadrons. and complete the 222 C-17s (total) buy.
Its funny how some things keep coming back around, I remember back in the 80's when the bids were in fore new heavylift acft and Boeing put the 747 up. Back then we were all hoping the 747 would have been picked instead of the C-5B, plus the KC-44 showing up again instead of the KC-10. Eventually maybe the USAF will have some type of cargo tanker 747. I still have some wide ties and bell bottoms somewhere.
USAF336TFS From United States, joined Apr 2005, 1202 posts, RR: 54 Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21339 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10): Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
I believe that, although not directly related, they'll also seriously consider increasing the size of the C-17 fleet.
Why do you believe the Air Force will consider expanding the C-17 fleet?
They already are. And there's a growing majority in Congress that supports a minimum C-17 fleet size of 222. Within the next few years, I would not be shocked to see that number increased. The C-17 is proving to be one of the best, if not the best, strategic lifters in the world. As was pointed out in one of these threads, and forgive me for not immediately knowing which one, less then 1% of all sorties preformed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift.
The Air Force has made it clear the winning offering will be a tanker.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7515 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 21217 times:
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 15): I still have some wide ties and bell bottoms somewhere.
I do too, They are hanging in my closet next to me leasur suit, LOL.
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 16): The C-17 is proving to be one of the best, if not the best, strategic lifters in the world. As was pointed out in one of these threads, and forgive me for not immediately knowing which one, less then 1% of all sorties preformed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift.
The Air Force has made it clear the winning offering will be a tanker.
That is true. Even though the KC-135 can carry up to 83,000lbs of cargo, transatlantic, it really was not built to be a cargo aircraft. SAC never saw the need to modernize the cargo handling equipment, and it has a cargo floor made of 3/8" plywood. All cargo was tied directly to floor fittings (5,000lb and 10,000lb fittings) and most cargo had to be shored up with additional 3/4" plywood sheets (the basic floor strenght was only 200lbs per square foot, IIRC). It had no roller system to handle pallets (cargo bins were set up), and was hand loaded and unloaded. AMC did not want to invest the money, in the 1990s, as it would then compete with the C-17 program. Even though AMC was scheduling the KC-135 to supplement the (then) aging C-141B fleet.
Venus6971 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 1085 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21174 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): That is true. Even though the KC-135 can carry up to 83,000lbs of cargo, transatlantic, it really was not built to be a cargo aircraft. SAC never saw the need to modernize the cargo handling equipment, and it has a cargo floor made of 3/8" plywood. All cargo was tied directly to floor fittings (5,000lb and 10,000lb fittings) and most cargo had to be shored up with additional 3/4" plywood sheets (the basic floor strenght was only 200lbs per square foot, IIRC). It had no roller system to handle pallets (cargo bins were set up), and was hand loaded and unloaded. AMC did not want to invest the money, in the 1990s, as it would then compete with the C-17 program. Even though AMC was scheduling the KC-135 to supplement the (then) aging C-141B fleet.
3/8 marine grade plywood to be exact, spent many days when jet was in ISO with a router and saw making new floor panels. Mid to late 90's R models were being set up with removable rollers to handle pallets for what they called channel missions. Do not know if they still doing it. It wasn't going to make anybody forget an 747-400F but it was faster than a C-130, I believe 4- to 5 pallets was the max if the galley was removed, I think it was. BTW Reserve 135 unit at ADW has a setup for air evac that ARINC here in OKC built for them that they are using now, it is all palletized. It has its own O2 system for patients. I believe that C-135B's that came off the assembly line for MATS were originally set up for litters, I think all those B models are either RC-135's or retired.
USAF336TFS From United States, joined Apr 2005, 1202 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 20981 times:
I'm wondering if this will actually be considered the KC-767D model. According to the release, this will be significantly different from not only the first KC-767s the Air Force selected, but also different from those being delivered to Japan and Italy.
[Edited 2007-02-17 15:53:33]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
TeamAmerica From United States, joined Sep 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 18 Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 20953 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10): I really can't imagine the AF using the airplane strictly as a tanker. The public outcry would be quite loud if they found out the AF wasn't getting maximum utilization out of the airplanes.
The KC-135's have been primarily used as tankers throughout their service life, and I don't recall any public outcry. Tankers tank; the cargo (and passenger) capabilities are gravy.
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2908 posts, RR: 18 Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 20869 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20): The KC-135's have been primarily used as tankers throughout their service life, and I don't recall any public outcry. Tankers tank; the cargo (and passenger) capabilities are gravy.
that was in a long gone time when the AF could pretty much buy lots of the toys they wanted when they wanted. ain't happening in the 21st century, if it was there'd be 600+ F22 s planned still!
TeamAmerica From United States, joined Sep 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 18 Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 20780 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 21): that was in a long gone time when the AF could pretty much buy lots of the toys they wanted when they wanted. ain't happening in the 21st century, if it was there'd be 600+ F22 s planned still!
I stand by what I wrote. The whole idea that the USAF needs tankers only part of the time, leaving the aircraft available for use hauling cargo the rest of the time is a fallacy. Read the KC-X System Requirements Document and note that the USAF is asking for a tanker first and foremost, and considers the transport mission to be secondary. Note also that the transport requirements are easily met by the KC-767...the USAF is not asking for more, which tells us that they don't want more.
Keep in mind that this round of purchases only replaces about a third of the tanker force. Requirements for the next batch could be different, but the initial buy is directed at obtaining tankers to be used as tankers.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 20774 times:
Well than as much as I hate admit a Boeing inferioirity, the KC-30 is the better aircraft and offers more bang for the buck. KC-787 or KC-777 and it's Boeing all the way but this is like buying an "advanced" KB-29 over the KC-135 back in the 50's - the A330 airframe is simply superior to that of the 767 and that's not nescessarily a knock on Boeing, it's a sheer matter of 10+ years newer and more advanced technology on behalf of the A330. We have no problem allowing our borders to be infiltrated by illegals and we are not shy to buy all sorts of other foreign made equipment from Japanese and European autos, so what's the patriotic banter on this argument all about? Hell, I know plenty of yuppies in the Dallas area who scoff at my Chevrolet and swear they will only drive a European sedan - really, how is the KC-30 not in the best interest for the taxpayer as well as the USAF? Frankly, I'm dissapointed in Boeing here - they choose (incorrectly) to invest $1b in the KC-767 about 10 years too late - they should have begun a KC-11 off of the MD-11 back when they first thought about a KC-767.
If this contest will be any bit transparent and subject to merit, here is the USAF tanker for the future, we may as well get used to it!
Don't fret too much, the A330's flight deck is every bit and perhaps even more so than even the latest 777...
And don't push them too far, I'm sure EADS could offer an "advanced" flight deck using A380 tech...
TeamAmerica From United States, joined Sep 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 18 Reply 25, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 20764 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24): the KC-30 is the better aircraft and offers more bang for the buck
One more time: this is not a head-to-head competition between the two aircraft. This is a program buy with a fixed budget. The number of aircraft that can be purchased under that budget is key to the decision, and the KC-767 is much cheaper both to buy and to adapt to existing infrastructure. The bottom line is that the KC-767 meets the criteria detailed in the KC-X System Requirements Document, and the USAF can buy more of them with the available money.
It is entirely possible that the USAF gets "more bang for the buck" with the "inferior" aircraft.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
26 BigJKU: The civilian public really does not care if a tanker is just a tanker and does not haul cargo. They do not even know the difference. Well I would sta
27 KevinSmith: I agree with the two previous replies and then some. The KC-30 doesn't fit into the KC-135 hangers and it costs more. Just because you've got the mon
28 KC135TopBoom: That is correct. Additionally, Boeing has been working on a KC-767 since 1990, back then it was a B-767-300ER, but even Boeing saw the reason USAF co
29 JayinKitsap: I would think that offering the GEnX on the KC-767 as an option could really extend either the range/refueling capacity of this bird. The CF-6 was us
30 KC135TopBoom: Good point, but right now I don't know enough of Boeings KC-767ADV version to know what engine powers it.
31 DEVILFISH: Boeing is staying mum on the latest modifications for their KC-767 Advanced Tanker proposal. This Flightglobal report gives some snippets..... http://
32 Halls120: while the KC-30 might be a "better aircraft", that doesn't mean it is more responsive to the AF's requirements, and it is simply more expensive than
33 Spacepope: Originally the USAF committed to the PW 4000 series engine. This is still a possibility, as it is the highest thrust engine currently available for t
34 Atmx2000: It depends on the final purchase price of the tanker variants. But if the absolute difference in $ pricing remains, another way to put it is that for
35 TropicBird: Please do not assume the 767 will be the least expensive...if you read the article in the link below, you will understand why I say this. http://www.l
36 KevinSmith: An acquaintance of mine had this to say. I used to do a lot of work for civilian contractors for the military. I can assure you Boeing is pointing out
37 Keesje: With the C-5 reengining stalling and USAF asking for more C-17s I get a little confused about your first statement. I think in general a lot of words
38 Halls120: Here's what you don't understand. Or choose to ignore. 28 billion buys 175 KC-30's or 215 KC-767's. The Air Force needs more tankers more than they n
39 Keesje: USAF wants more from tank The US Air Force has made it clear that it expects more tactical and strategic capability from its KC-135 replacement than s
40 BigJKU: You continually cite other nations buying the A330 tanker when everyone has admitted for a limited buy its a better tanker. Again, the USAF is not th
41 KevinSmith: As I said that was a acquaintance of mine. However what I think he was trying to say is that the Air Force has plenty of dedicated cargo hauling type
42 KevinSmith: Please give me an example of this. I would counter your claim that it isn't smart to buy a dedicated tanker. To the contrary, the Air Force needs a w
43 N328KF: What ever, man. You're still living in a pipe dream. You have no counter to the size argument, or the fact that the Air Force would lose a lot of boo
44 JayinKitsap: I would think that there is a lot of extra weight and lost space with the hold tanks, piping, pumps, controls, boom, operating station. Also this equ
45 KevinSmith: Agreed. After re-reading my post I can what you are saying. I was trying to say that if you don't build a dedicated tanker you'll end up with a pseud
46 Keesje: Maybe because it was a dedicated tanker and a lousy cargo / passenger transporter (wooden cargo floors, hand loading, limited capasity, high trip cos
48 KevinSmith: When was that? Was it the same KC-30 that they are offering now? Respectfully, you don't have much experience then do you? C-17 can operate almost an
49 Halls120: Perhaps. But you still haven't addressed the fundamental flaw in the KC-30 offering - the Air Force will be able to buy significantly more KC-767's t
50 Keesje: Nobody knows the prices & conditions so theseumbers are nothing more then assumptions (admitedly they start to live there own live on a.net already)
51 TeamAmerica: There's nothing in this article that says the USAF want more than a tanker! They say they want a more capable tanker, which is quite different. The d
52 N328KF: Whatever. The prices have been mentioned in this thread and the other accompanying MilAv threads. You have named airframes of significantly different
53 Keesje: If they have the range to get there, in max tanker configuartion the KC30 needs less runway too.. I do have a view on the maintenance part and know 7
54 KevinSmith: All you did is prove N328KFs point!!!!!!!!!! Yes it may be able to do that but at the cost of sacrificing the tanking mission. The whole point of get
55 KC135TopBoom: Ummm, what is "less capable" in the KC-767 than the KC-30, as the USAF needs it? Again, what do you know about the USAF needs? Any smaller Air Force
56 KC135TopBoom: Yes you can, but just ONCE. Airbus is not going to give A0330s to the USAF at $70M each like they did for Thai (part of the A-380 conpensation). The
58 BigJKU: This is absurd. The tankers are not going where you need troops. The tankers are going to a rear area air base along with the other support craft. Ab
60 TropicBird: I think the point of having an aircraft that can act as a dedicated tanker one day and then on the next transport cargo or passengers has been missed
61 BigJKU: The impression I get is they would like this capability but have not really thought it through. There are very few instances where this ability is us
62 TropicBird: Maybe 75 KC-X will tanker for 60 days while another 75 are used as a transport for 60 days. If they were all tankers then the other 75 might sit aroun
63 Arluna: You are ignoring the fact that the transfer rate doesn't depend on the tanker but on the receiver. As I stated before in another thread, smaller airc
64 Arluna: Tankers don't sit around, they aren't even deployed to a combat zone unless they are needed to provide refueling services to combat aircraft! That wo
65 BigJKU: It would be far more efficient to contract out the service to the CRAF for extended pallet cargo hauling. Off the top of my head I know Fed Ex and UP
66 Galaxy5007: Yeah, I see a KC-X doing a combat drop over baghdad, LOL. I think that the USAF wants something like the KC-10 for cargo handling, but be smaller in s
67 KC135TopBoom: No, it will be a tanker everyday. The only troop/cargo missions will be on the initial deployment to the foreward base so that tanker can set up the
68 Venus6971: IMHO I think when the KC-X comes in line in numbers you will start to see some KC-135's withdrawn en masse. Being here a TIK alot of my friends work o
69 Keesje: Most of its KC-135Rs have only amassed around 16,000 hours each in their forty-odd years of service, that is about 18 hours a week on average. Modern
70 N328KF: The RAF has significantly different requirements. Why are you ignoring the constant refutations of your incorrect assertions?
71 KevinSmith: The RAF is NOT The United States Air Force.
72 KC135TopBoom: Keesje, do you have a clue as to what you are talking about? True the KC-135 fleet has low hours and cycles, compared to the B-707. But the B-707 did
73 KevinSmith: TopBoom if you weren't already in my respected list you would be now.
74 Keesje: I think it is unlikely the KC-X will not do more then 20.000 hours in the next 20 yrs resulting in billions of expensive capasity sitting on the platf
75 KevinSmith: Keesje please. My heart bleeds for you and Airbus. You have been presented with logical arguments as to why the KC-767 is the better choice for the A
76 N328KF: I think we should all give it up. Keesje just can't let it go. To do what? Tell them what they need? "You'll use what we deem politically acceptable o
78 KevinSmith: Why don't we bring in a auto mechanic to do heart surgery?
79 Arluna: Up until now your statements haven't been totally unreasonable but the above shows that you're not really very aware of the tanker needs of the USAF.
80 Keesje: On having outside people take a look, Xcuse me, they already did, the famous Rand report after the previous debacle) http://www.defensenews.com/story.
81 KevinSmith: " target=_blank>http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...irwar Then why did you post a call to get an outside source to weigh in on the subject if it ha
82 USAF336TFS: You're such a strong proponent of "more capable" aircraft for the KC-X program, then why are you not singing the praises of the most capable (By your
83 Halls120: You have GOT to be kidding! Keesje can't give it a rest. He's either a paid shill for Airbus or an employee.
84 Lumberton: Won't matter. And just to complicate matters, look who just came back in the news: Putin Wants Eads Help, Or Else.... (by Lumberton Feb 22 2007 in Ci
85 KC135TopBoom: The KC-767 still getts selected, because it is still smaller and able to use the KC-135 infaststructure, so it is still cheaper, too. " target=_blank
86 Galaxy5007: One thing for sure, The USAF certainly doesn't need 510 KC-Xs to replace the 510 KC-135s. Half of the 135s sit around and do nothing, while the other
87 Echster: Thought I'd kick in 2 stories I read today: Four AFBs Vie To Be KC-X Home Grand Forks, MacDill, McConnell, Fairchild http://www.airforcetimes.com/news
88 AirRyan: That was part of my displeasure in the KC-767, that Boeing announced an exclusive agreement with P&W soon after the dust settled on the last attempt
89 N328KF: "Mixed" could mean anything. Multiple vendors, multiple sizes, multiple generations, etc.
90 KevinSmith: I disagree completely. However I will humor you and ask who is not a fallacy with?
91 BigJKU: I would really love to hear an the reasoning behind putting cargo hauling hours on USAF tanker airframes when it could for the most part just be cont
92 KC135TopBoom: From what I understand, the latest RFP was put together by people who actually know the tanker business within the USAF. But you are correct, it will
93 Keesje: I think the KC-767 is 10 ft higher and has a span 25ft bigger then the kc-135, however nobody seems to take issue..
94 Lumberton: Well, now Gen Mosley (USAF Chief of Staff) is really muddying the waters! "Leaving the door open to a mixed fleet".... http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070221/
95 Keesje: What prevents Putin from buying some Boeing stock, it's a privat company and it's a free market.[Edited 2007-02-22 13:14:43]
96 N328KF: Boeing's overlay of the 767 over the KC-135 was quite illustrative in this respect. It showed that the 767 and KC-135 were very closely sized, and in
97 KevinSmith: What TopBoom meant by "smaller" is the KC-767 is smaller than the KC-30. 767 may be a little bigger than the 135 but not so big as not to fit into th
98 USAF336TFS: The shape of things to come for the United States Air Force, much to the chagrin of a few here. Here's a question, with Airbus supplying A330s to man
99 Keesje: Oh no, is there some government control over a privat owned company? This all is getting confusing.. Yes, I'm afraid so. http://www.northropgrumman.c
100 N328KF: It's a defense contractor and a strategic national asset, and therefore comes with many strings attached, as do all U.S. defense contractors. The onl
101 USAF336TFS: " target=_blank>http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/...7.pdf Oh no need to fear Keesje... The question wasn't asked sarcastically and I do appreciate
102 KevinSmith: THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! N328KF you are now a friend of mine.
103 Keesje: Yes and a lot more EADS (Eurocopter), Thales (navy, B2), Stork (Apache) Termal and strings of others from all over the world. Gen. Michael Moseley :
104 USAF336TFS: This statement means little. It could be interpreted as providing some cover for the first tranche choice, the KC-767, and providing a peek into the
106 Keesje: That the assumption endorsed by you that "The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Au
107 KevinSmith: No Keesje. What I was endorsing was the fact the Boeing is not free to sell shares to Putin due to US regulations.
108 Atmx2000: Boeing doesn't sell shares. Shares are traded on markets and anyone can buy them. Putin can certainly buy shares. The catch is that for significant p
109 KC135TopBoom: You do know the size difference between the B-767-200 and A-330-200 is much greater than that, don't you? A KC-767 can still use hardstands, hangers,
110 Par13del: I admit to being confused on some points raised in this thread, been away from MilAv for a while. Early posters mention the cost saving of the 767 ver
111 BigJKU: f I think you have the C-130 mixed up with the C-17. The AF wants lots of C-17's. The USAF does not want more C-130 except to upgrade the fleet. For
112 Par13del: BigJKU I know about the C-130H or J I believe, I also remember Boeing advising the US Air Force and Congress that if follow on orders were not placed
113 KevinSmith: Thank you for putting it in much clearer terms than I could. ( I'm being serious). I knew how it worked just not how to explain it.
114 BigJKU: Its actually a common tactic in the process. If you have a very important product built by someone important to many states its just a lot simpler to
115 Keesje: In that case they better turn a blind eye on the KC-767 and 737 EAW. The KC767 for the Italian air force should have been all delivered right now, st
116 KC135TopBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/....html The KC-767 delivery schedule is not late. Italy wants the first one delivered in 2007, th
117 Lumberton: Thank you for answering. I get tired reading all the same old, same old again and it's getting bothersome to reply....
118 Keesje: Short research on the web revealed many hangers aren´t dedicated for KC135´s (couldn´t find a single one), many can/ do /did handle B52, KC10, C14
119 KevinSmith: No offense here Keesje, but I think TopBoom might know better than you if the KC-30 would fit into the hangars. He does has a go-zillion hours in the
120 Arluna: Back this picture up with a location where it was taken and what the circumstances are with the A/C in it. It looks like the -135s in that photo are
121 KC135TopBoom: Nice picture of a naked KC-135R. Keesje, if you look at your picture, you can count at least 6 KC-135s, and 2 KC-10s. This picture was taken at a dep
122 TropicBird: A reason to ask congress for the money to build some new (and bigger) hangers now will be the eventual need to house the follow-on tankers to the KC-X
123 BigJKU: Possibly but what you will see will likely be a large buy of smaller tankers with a smaller buy, like 100 frames or so, of larger deployment tankers
124 Venus6971: Just to make a point, most facillities that are being used for KC-135's tankers also had the duel use for a much larger B-52 and maybe B-36's dependin
125 KC135TopBoom: Most of the SAC bases that had both B-52s and KC-135s are closed now. The KC-135s are sitting on AMC ramps and ANGBs now. Good idea, but it will not
126 Venus6971: I will concede the point of Tankers sitting on ANG ramps but the super tanker bases of Fairchild ,Grand Forks, McConnell are old SAC bases that had b
127 USAF336TFS: I find it astonishing that there are those who continue picking and choosing small, sometimes irrelevant, facts to argue with KC135TopBoom when his f
128 LMP737: The hanger in the picture is a depot level hanger. They tend to be a bit bigger than squadron level hangers.
129 Venus6971: The main hanger here at Ktik 3001 was originally was built for C-47 assembly and one of the drawbacks of this hanger 135's can't be in there with ver
130 KC135TopBoom: That is true. But many of these ANGBs have changed over the years. Yes, and Yessssssssss Thank you sir. You made me blush.
132 Keesje: I will argue with topboom about anything anytime. He´s been on my RU list for years. Never let facts get washed away by the authority of individuels
133 XT6Wagon: El Oh El You do realise that the KC767 is a massive increase in capability outside refueling over the KC-135, so much so that the KC-30 seems like a
134 Halls120: What is really astonishing is the number of refutations of your arguments posted on this thread that you simply ignore. To you, the KC-30 has no shor
135 Keesje: Yes I noticed the new sales line; avoid any direct kc767/KC30 comparisons Introduce the 50 yrs KC135 & not existing KC777 to distract. Smart sales mo
136 USAF336TFS: He's earned that distinction from many of us. And your knowledge has earned you the respect from many others. Point noted and we agree wholeheartedly
137 BigJKU: Yeah....you want to put as few hours as possible on strategic assets like tankers because that makes them last longer. Its not about being efficient
138 XT6Wagon: Yup, more so since at the end of the day you don't have a care in the world. You got your cargo hauled and you don't have to find a place to park you
139 Halls120: Total contract cost is still a factor. If the KC-30 costs more per frame than the KC-767, it will be a factor. If I were the Air Force Chief of Staff
141 KC135TopBoom: The satatement was removed because on missions of 4000nm, or more, the KC-135R beats all competitors for the amount of fuel availabele to offload. ke
142 Fridgmus: I once gave a ride to a C-17 flight crew here on our base in Northern Iraq and I brought up the subject of the KC-767/KC-30 debate and that I also hun
143 Venus6971: Not going to happen IMHO, you still have an acft that is still over 50 years old that has the problem of corrision and a logistics tail that has stop
144 KC135TopBoom: That is true. Even though I think upgrading the KC-135Es is the cheapest solution, it may not be the best one in the long run.
145 USAF336TFS: That's true. The airframes have already paid for themselves many times over. The more I read about this subject, the more I'm convinced that the KC-7
146 Venus6971: Shhh, John McCain might be listening. Even though a new tanker is a given fact with Boeing or Airbus they will still be working along side the old KC
147 KC135TopBoom: He's to busy trying to find money for his failing Presidential Campaign this year.
148 USAF336TFS: Fair Use from Boeing Boeing KC-767 Tanker Completes First Fuel Offload to Receiver Thursday March 8, 8:30 am ET ST. LOUIS, March 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCa
149 Venus6971: I wonder if history will repeat itself, back when the USAF was looking for a all jet replacment of the KC-97 the bids went out and Lockheed actually
150 KC135TopBoom: That is not likely in this case, as both Boeing and Airbus have current tankers in production. BTW, Gen. LeMay's initial order for the KC-135A was fo
151 USAF336TFS: Boeing News Release, March 09, 2007 Boeing KC-767 Tanker Offloads Fuel to F-15E ST. LOUIS, March 09, 2007 -- A Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-767 Tanker aircrew
152 KC135TopBoom: Wow, Boeing is really accellerating the boom flight test program. I guess they really want the KC-X contract. They can then tell the USAF, "our boom
153 KevinSmith: Yep. They really don't have many other military projects. C-17 production is ending, SuperBugs are gonna end soon, as are the 15Es. They needs this t
154 KC135TopBoom: Where are they on the EF-18G Growler, the replacement for the EA-6B?
155 Zeke: Is it still 1/3 the delivery rate of the airbus boom like the KC135 ?
156 Lumberton: Interesting question, Zeke. According to EADS, the delivery rate of the Airbus boom is a maximum 1200 gal/min. http://www.eadsnorthamerica.com/1024..
157 KevinSmith: Ahhh thank you TopBoom!!! I forgot about that one. The Growler is due to come into the fleet FY08. The prototype is currently flying. Looks like Boei
158 KC135TopBoom: I don't know where Airbus is going with a 1200 gallon per minute transfer rate. I don't know any current receiver that can take fuel that fast, unles
159 XT6Wagon: I could possibly see future proofing, but lets face it, 1,200g/min is insane. thats FOUR TONS a min. I don't see any aircraft other than possibly a t
160 Venus6971: Just to put this in terms novices can appreciate, a 747-400F with 2 fuel hoses hooked up to its 2 SPRS (single point refueling receptacle) in the rig
161 TropicBird: What I am hearing here is that both the KC-767 and KC-30 will easily meet the SRD "threshold" standards for fuel offload (900 gal/min) and that both a
162 KC135TopBoom: Yes, both are correct, except for the ground de-fueling. You do not ground de-fuel through the Boom. You do that through the SPR. So, again, the 1200
163 Venus6971: Back in the days of SAC we had a SIOP procedure and a kit that we hook up to the KC-135's SPR go to defuel mode then the SPR on a reciever (B-52) sta
164 KC135TopBoom: That is correct, the KC-135 has that capability. It can refuel almost any airplane on the ground like that, not just the B-52. The KC-10 also can do
165 KevinSmith: CSAF Gen T Michael Mosely's comments on the KC-X http://www.af.mil/library/cscope.asp Click "The New Tanker" I think the best line of the article is w
166 KC135TopBoom: Yes, and the KC-135 will be around for the next 30 + years. That will all be front line service, a very impressive accomplishment for the old gal.
167 USAF336TFS: Boeing News Release If you are unable to see the HTML version of this message, click here: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q2/070411b_nr.html
168 DEVILFISH: It's interesting to see how EADS will counter this.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2005, 1202 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, .gif){kind=small}
From Vatican City State (Holy See), joined Dec 1999, 1936 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
