Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Introduction Of KC767 Into Japan / Italian Service  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Some new technical backgrounds playing a role with the entry into service of the Boeing KC767 with the Japanese and Italian Airforce.


ROME — After two years of engineering and testing, Boeing later this month will flight test a new refueling pod that officials hope will fix a persistent airflow problem on the wing of the 767 tanker that has helped delay deliveries to launch customer Italy.

(...)

Meanwhile, delivery of the first tanker Boeing is converting for Japan has slipped from 2007 into 2008, thanks to additional FAA certification requested by the customer, efforts to improve lighting for night use of the refueling boom and teething problems with the flight deck communications, Boeing said. •


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3053943&C=europe



35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

good news:


The Boeing Co. said its failure to deliver tankers to Japan and Italy on time won't hurt the company's chances to win a U.S. military contract for the plane.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/332993_tanker25.html

Boeing is behind schedule in delivering versions of the KC-767 to both countries, said Mark McGraw, vice president for tanker programs, in a news briefing for reporters today at an Air Force Association conference in Washington, D.C. Boeing plans to start the deliveries in 2008.

The Air Force plans to buy 179 tankers to replace its Boeing-built KC-135 fleet, which has planes that are an average of 44 years old. The contract is valued at about $40 billion.

The Air Force is evaluating proposals from Boeing and a joint venture of Northrop Grumman Corp. and the European Aeronautic, Defense and Space Co. for a December decision. In weighing possible manufacturers, the military includes risk factors that include past performance.



"When we've had warts, we've told you about it, and we've told the Air Force," McGraw said.

"They are going to get all the benefits of those lessons learned. We are going to do things very differently in how we build the airplane."


 eyepopping 


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5236 times:

Quote:
that has helped delay deliveries to launch customer Italy

 Big grin What a wording geek. Airbus or EADS should the author for their press department.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5177 times:

It should be noted that the Italian/Japanese configuration is not a "KC-767" as such — and certainly not a "KC-X." It is more closely related to a normal 767 than the USAF configuration will be.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
It should be noted that the Italian/Japanese configuration is not a "KC-767" as such — and certainly not a "KC-X." It is more closely related to a normal 767 than the USAF configuration will be.

so you're saying the actual KC-767 would be even harder to build and deliver? Boeing can't be in such a winning mood that they think they can afford to be sloppy about it?


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5097 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Some new technical backgrounds playing a role with the entry into service of the Boeing KC767 with the Japanese and Italian Airforce.

Yep, it's been awhile, folks. Time for another 767 tanker-bashing thread from Keesje.



User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
Yep, it's been awhile, folks. Time for another 767 tanker-bashing thread from Keesje.

I'm surprised Zeke hasn't jumped in on this one. His lack of commentary on a 767 thread (actually, any Boeing thread for that matter) is quite unsettling.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 4):
so you're saying the actual KC-767 would be even harder to build and deliver?

Can't be any harder than the KC-30, which will be based on the MRTT and which will make that aircraft even harder to build and deliver than the A330.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5089 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):Yep, it's been awhile, folks. Time for another 767 tanker-bashing thread from Keesje.
I'm surprised Zeke hasn't jumped in on this one. His lack of commentary on a 767 thread (actually, any Boeing thread for that matter) is quite unsettling.

Zeke has a day job. Give him time, I'm sure he'll join in.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5051 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6):
Can't be any harder than the KC-30, which will be based on the MRTT and which will make that aircraft even harder to build and deliver than the A330.

Which is incorrect, but just as a side note. Don't want to get into that again ...


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5007 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):

That must be Mark McGraw  Wink


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4853 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
ROME — After two years of engineering and testing, Boeing later this month will flight test a new refueling pod that officials hope will fix a persistent airflow problem on the wing of the 767 tanker that has helped delay deliveries to launch customer Italy.

They couldn't have found this problem during wind tunnel testing?  Sad



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4747 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 8):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 6):
Can't be any harder than the KC-30, which will be based on the MRTT and which will make that aircraft even harder to build and deliver than the A330.

Which is incorrect, but just as a side note. Don't want to get into that again ...

No PADSpot, it is correct. There has been absolutly ZERO news on the RAAF KC-30B, or an released successful testing of the EADS Advanced Boom flying on the KC-310 test bed aircraft. This sounds to much like the silence from Airbus on their A-380 program, then they were 2 years behind, all of a sudden. Is there any problem with the KC-30B/A-330-200MRTT/TT program? Yes, I did not mention the KC-30A candidate for the USAF KC-X program. the KC-30A is based on the A-330-200F, not the pax version the KC-30B/MRTT/TTs arer based on. We all know the A-330F is still a paper airplane.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10):
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
ROME — After two years of engineering and testing, Boeing later this month will flight test a new refueling pod that officials hope will fix a persistent airflow problem on the wing of the 767 tanker that has helped delay deliveries to launch customer Italy.

They couldn't have found this problem during wind tunnel testing? Sad

No, this type of problem does not show up in scale model wind tunnel testing.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

I want everyone to know the JSDAF did not order wing mounted refueling pods, so the wing flutter problem does not effect their airplanes. Japan ordered the most basic model of the KC-767 offered by Boeing, Italy ordered the (then) most capable model offered.

User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4695 times:

Boeing has been telling just about everyone that they deserve to win the KC-X contract because of their many years in building tankers and commercial aircraft. However, with the delays in the Japanese and Italian contracts and now another 6 months on the 787, it appears they should be a little more humble and realistic.

Along with the above tanker contracts, it appears they have been foolishly optimistic on meeting their commitments on the 787 and that calls into question their judgement and ability to meet commitments which is a "key" component in being awarded a government contract. Its called "past performance" and it has more weight than having the lowest bid. For Boeing to imply that NG/EADS cannot produce a KC-30 tanker on-time or at all, is hypocritical. With the delayed Italian and Japanese contracts, they now admit they did not have enough test aircraft to meet those commitments. It seems to me to be another example of poor planning.


Boeing does make excellent aircraft....eventually.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 4564 times:

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 13):
Boeing has been telling just about everyone that they deserve to win the KC-X contract because of their many years in building tankers and commercial aircraft. However, with the delays in the Japanese and Italian contracts and now another 6 months on the 787, it appears they should be a little more humble and realistic.

What about the 2+ year delay to the A-380 program(since you mentioned the B-787) (and they still don't have a production certificate, yet), or the A-400M?

The delay to the JASDF version was requested by Japan. They want additional equipment certified.

Both the B-767 and A-330 can do the tanker job. The question is which does it best for what the USAF wants? That is very different that the requirements of the IAF, JASDF, RAF, RAAF, and RSAF (which have all ordered different versions of the selected basic aircraft). Each is unique The Italian and Japanese KC-767s are different airplanes from each other. The same is true for the British, Australian, and Saudia A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B.

Boeing is correct, they do have a long and successful history building tankers. But, many of you may not know that Grumman did convert some former airliner B-707s to tankers, too.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9230 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

What about the 2+ year delay to the A-380 program(since you mentioned the B-787) (and they still don't have a production certificate, yet), or the A-400M?

1) The A380 does have a production certificate, it only covers prototype aircraft. (see page 2 of http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repos.../media_object_file_DE.21G.0009.pdf )

2) The A400M airframe is well advanced with its construction, it is schedule for its first flight next year, and first delivery end of 2009. Every contractual milestone so far (the last of the 8 so far being the start of final assembly) has been on time. We will not know until early 2010 if it is delayed.

The only aspect of the program that is behind is the engine, which is partially being held up by the US government paperwork in order for them to export some of the engine technology. But as we know it has been designed, and run on a test stand, the results of those test required some changes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The delay to the JASDF version was requested by Japan. They want additional equipment certified.

That seems like rubbish to me.

Japan wanted the aircraft to meet FAA certification regulations, including ETOPS, which should not be difficult, considering the number of 767s that are already certified. I am not aware of any "additional equipment" that one does not already find of 767s that was cause for the delay. Despite being rolled out over two years ago (05/04/05), Boeing missed the contractual certification date of February 28, 2007, and it still has not been delivered.

The Italian tanker is just as bad, it rolled out on the 02/24/05, and still has not been delivered. Boeing also also well behind on other civil to military conversion on the 737 AEW&C for Australia, Korea, and Turkey.

Boeing claim the reason for the JASDF delay was "air circulation distribution valve, which regulates air flow and pressurization", not "additional equipment". You don't have to be an Einstein to realise that it does not take over 2 years to fix that, it is not like they are the first 767s to be pressurised.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The Italian and Japanese KC-767s are different airplanes from each other.

Italy and Japan ordered the 767 essentially because the USAF did as well at the same time. Given their time over, I am not sure if they would have changed their minds if they knew they were getting unique aircraft that share no commonality with USAF aircraft.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4543 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
We all know the A-330F is still a paper airplane.

90% of what makes the A332F structurally different from the A332 is taken from the A300F/A310F, the remaining 10% being mainly the lengthened frontal landing gear and its cowling.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
EADS Advanced Boom

I am not sure if the KC-30 will see the EADS Advanced Boom, it will probably get an American made boom.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9230 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

Some good news for the Italian tanker program :

"After two years of costly engineering and testing, Boeing has fixed the aerodynamic problems that limited the top speed of its KC-767 aerial tankers for the Italian Air Force, but officials in Rome are skeptical the company will deliver on time after repeatedly missing past deadlines.

The plane, which two years ago was limited to a top speed of .79 Mach, now exceeds the Air Force’s .82 Mach requirement, thanks to changes to the pylons that support the underwing refueling pods and the leading edge wing slats, one Italian official said"

from http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3186432&C=airwar



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4216 times:



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
Yep, it's been awhile, folks. Time for another 767 tanker-bashing thread from Keesje.

Lol, my thoughts exactly!  Big grin



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4150 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 4):
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
It should be noted that the Italian/Japanese configuration is not a "KC-767" as such — and certainly not a "KC-X." It is more closely related to a normal 767 than the USAF configuration will be.

so you're saying the actual KC-767 would be even harder to build and deliver? Boeing can't be in such a winning mood that they think they can afford to be sloppy about it?

That is correct, the Japanese and Italian KC-767s do not have several features the original USAF/KC-767 leased tankers would have had, like body fuel tanks. Today, the KC-X proposed KC-767 is going to be built on a new B-767-200 configuration, called the B-767-200LRF. The USAF KC-767s will also have B-767-400 wings, B-767-300ER landing gear, and B-777 flight instruments, as well as the Boeing refueling operator III station. The Japanese and Italian tankers have none of these, and the refueling operator II station is different, too.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
Zeke has a day job.

Don't we all?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
) The A380 does have a production certificate, it only covers prototype aircraft. (see page 2 of http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repos.../media_object_file_DE.21G.0009.pdf )

Yes, you are correct. But it is the production airplanes where they will make money for the A-380 program. That is where they need the production certificate. Having one for the prototypes doesn't do anything for Airbus, as all of those airplanes have already been built.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
2) The A400M airframe is well advanced with its construction, it is schedule for its first flight next year, and first delivery end of 2009. Every contractual milestone so far (the last of the 8 so far being the start of final assembly) has been on time. We will not know until early 2010 if it is delayed.

Then why did EADS tell the French AF to expect at least a 12 month delay in delivery of their first airplane? The A-400M entered construction in May of 2007, it is, at best 70% complete, even today. The wings and tail assemblies have yet to be attached. Yes, there may be developement problems with the engines, but, you may have noticed, I have stayed away from the engine problems.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
Italy and Japan ordered the 767 essentially because the USAF did as well at the same time. Given their time over, I am not sure if they would have changed their minds if they knew they were getting unique aircraft that share no commonality with USAF aircraft.

Italy and Japan ordered the B-767 tankers in the summer months of 2001, about 8 months before USAF and Boeing started talking about the stupid 100 airplane lease deal.

Remember the USAF, IAF, and JASDF KC-767s are as different from each other, in configurations as the RSAF, RAF, and RAAF A-330 tankers are.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
EADS Advanced Boom

I am not sure if the KC-30 will see the EADS Advanced Boom, it will probably get an American made boom.

Since the only US supplier of air refueling booms is Boeing, I doubt very much EADS will ever get them. EADS has had their own advanced boom flying on a KC-310 test bed tanker for some 18 months now. The French Air Force has provided KC-135FR Boom Operators to the test program, much like the USAF providing KC-135R and KC-10A Boom Operators to Boeing to test their advanced boom on the IAF and JASDF KC-767s. The USAF has also trained Italian and Japanese Boom Operators at Altus AFB, OK, the tanker school house.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The delay to the JASDF version was requested by Japan. They want additional equipment certified.

That seems like rubbish to me.

Japan wanted the aircraft to meet FAA certification regulations, including ETOPS, which should not be difficult, considering the number of 767s that are already certified. I am not aware of any "additional equipment" that one does not already find of 767s that was cause for the delay.

The additional equipment that Japan wants an FAA certification on is the military avionics, rendvous equipment (such as air to air TACAN, and radar beacons), air refueling lighting, and communications equipment. The basic airplanes they selected to convert to tankers (B-767-200ER) was already ETOPS, but the JASDF has to maintane the airplanes at that level.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3053943&C=europe

"Meanwhile, delivery of the first tanker Boeing is converting for Japan has slipped from 2007 into 2008, thanks to additional FAA certification requested by the customer, efforts to improve lighting for night use of the refueling boom and teething problems with the flight deck communications, Boeing said. • "

From the same artical above, but on the Italian tanker, Boeing admits it screwed up by allocating only one test airplane.

“We’re disappointed with progress and we know we have disappointed Italy, but we also know the Italians have confidence in us to turn the corner to deliver in the second quarter of 2008,” Barksdale said.
To make amends, Boeing has covered Italy’s costs of returning to service 707 tankers that the 767s were to replace.
Boeing, which was promising a mid-2007 delivery as late as this spring, before announcing the slip to 2008 this summer, has learned that having just one test aircraft at its Wichita plant — a test aircraft which is also destined to be the first of four Italian tankers on order — had slowed down testing and certification, Barksdale said.
Barksdale said flight testing of the new pylon was delayed one year because it became “wrapped up” in a backlog of other required tests on the single tanker, Barksdale said.
“Having one aircraft as a test aircraft was not the best path forward. The new remote-vision technology and pods made doing everything on one plane difficult,” as did changes to software and switching to fly-by-wire technology, he said.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9230 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4144 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But it is the production airplanes where they will make money for the A380 program. That is where they need the production certificate. Having one for the prototypes doesn't do anything for Airbus, as all of those airplanes have already been built.

All the airplanes to be delivered next year or two will have been built as some stage under that protoype certificate, each one earns money.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The wings and tail assemblies have yet to be attached.

They are not difficult to attach, even on the A380, it only takes a few days to attach them and the engines, all the high time systems/items are in the fuselage.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The additional equipment that Japan wants an FAA certification on is the military avionics, rendvous equipment (such as air to air TACAN, and radar beacons), air refueling lighting, and communications equipment. The basic airplanes they selected to convert to tankers (B767-200ER) was already ETOPS, but the JASDF has to maintane the airplanes at that level.

None of that explains the delay, just about every aircraft has a kind of TACAN, the DME, TACAN is just a UHF VOR/DME, Rockwell have been working on these systems for over 4 years.

My understanding it had to do with system certification, in particular the APU installation and fuel system. Radios would not prevent FAA certification, you can certify an aircraft with no radios at all depending on types of operations you want to do.

Boeing seems to be new to this civil certification of military airframes.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4126 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
Boeing seems to be new to this civil certification of military airframes.

Actually, everyone is new to this military certification stuff, including the FAA. IIRC the only other military airplanes to get a FAA/JAA certification was the USAF KC-10s (MD, at the time), and the RNAF KDC-10s.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9230 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4116 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
IIRC the only other military airplanes to get a FAA/JAA certification was the USAF KC-10s (MD, at the time), and the RNAF KDC-10s

BAC 1-11, Aermacchi s-211, Aermacchi 260, Lockheed Electra, Lockheed C130, EADS C212/235/295, A310 MRTT, EC-135, Boeing Chinook, all those VIP squadron aircraft etc etc



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3986 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 22):
Lockheed Electra, Lockheed C130, EADS C212/235/295, A310 MRTT, EC-135, Boeing Chinook, all those VIP squadron aircraft etc etc

Only the cilivian versions of those airplanes got FAA certifications, not the military varients. The Electra is certified, the P-3 is not, the L-100 (came out after the C-130) is certified, the C-130 is not. The A-310 may be different because it is a converted aircraft, I don't know on that one. Which EC-135 are you talking about, the Boeing B-717-100 (ABCP version of the KC-135)? It is not FAA certified. I believe the copter called the EC-135 is certified, as is the cilivian version of the Chinook (again the military version came out first and is not FAA certified).

Former military aircraft that are still flown, as fire fighters or anything else get individual certifications.

The USAF VIP airplanes (except the VC-135) are certified aircraft because they were manufactured as their cilivian counterparts, then the military equipment and VIP suites are added.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

I thought the USAF wanted to jack the speed up even further to Mach 0.92...

Does this KC-767 Variant have that wing re-contouring? Or will only the final model feature this?


Andrea Kent


25 KC135TopBoom : As I understand it, the USAF does want the ability for the higher speed, perhaps as high as .92 Mach. I don't think it has the re-contouring you ment
26 Blackbird : Mach 0.92 does sound quite impressive for a B-767! At least I'm impressed... Andrea Kent
27 XT6Wagon : likely its a "sprint speed" desire, and as such should be possible for the 767 if you don't mind the fuel burn.
28 Post contains links DEVILFISH : The thing Boeing want sped up the most is the programme completion itself..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...avali-impacts-italy-workshare.ht
29 KC135TopBoom : No, that would have to be a cruise speed. During a fighter drag across, say the Atlantic, you fly the receivers refueling speed the entire route. Yes
30 Post contains links RedFlyer : Not according to this article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/341374_air28.html?source=rss
31 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Maybe some other component work, or they could set up shop in the US. Here is a more detailed report..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...tion
32 KC135TopBoom : B-787?
33 Post contains images DEVILFISH : Does Aeronavali do the same line of work as Vought is doing on the Dreamliner? The way I read the report, the additional order "should be" for the KC
34 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Update: The second KC-767 tanker for Japan flies..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...@H8AAAEAAEBnWPgAAAAA&modele=jdc_34 Boeing Completes First
35 KC135TopBoom : It is good to see the long delayed JASDF KC-767 starting to move again.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Introduction Of KC767 Into Japan / Italian Service
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...
Expect A Lot Of Military Traffic Into ANC posted Sun May 9 2004 15:04:11 by L-188
Status Of Current 707's In World Air Forces. posted Sun Sep 23 2007 12:36:53 by CV990
1st Squadron Of V-22s Quietly Deployed To Iraq posted Thu Sep 20 2007 01:19:15 by CTR
India Rejects Delivery Of Ilyushin Il-38SD posted Mon Sep 17 2007 22:18:45 by Lumberton
National Museum Of The Usaf Behind The Scenes Tour posted Mon Sep 17 2007 16:27:37 by Broke
Soviet Use Of U.S. Aircraft As Aggressors posted Fri Aug 31 2007 04:30:06 by RC135X
Japan Coast Guard Helicopter Seen In France posted Sun Aug 12 2007 21:45:41 by Wolverine
Mission Of The OV-10 Bronco posted Sun Jul 29 2007 02:45:39 by Cancidas
1 777-200ER For Government Of Gabon posted Sat Jul 28 2007 00:02:32 by FCKC
Twin Jet Into Lyneham posted Sat Jul 21 2007 15:55:37 by Bennett123

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format