Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Tanker Expected Date?  
User currently offlineTigerotor77W From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 162 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5920 times:

Out of curiosity... was there ever an expected date or timeframe that the USAF would announce its tanker decision?

106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5884 times:

The contract was going to be awarded December 2003 but was cancelled as a result of an awarding scandal.

The RFP was issued January 2007. The winner was to have been announced this year but was slipped into February 2008. Now it looks like it'll be later after an announcement today. Below is a story:

A senior Air Force official Thursday left open the possibility that the much-anticipated contract award for a fleet of aerial refueling tankers could slip beyond late February. Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the Air Force's senior acquisition officer, acknowledged there is a reasonable chance the Air Force could decide on the high-stakes contract award in March or later.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38899&dcn=todaysnews


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5820 times:

While I'm sure the U.S. Air Force is trying to "protest proof" it's eventual decision, it has to be aware that every delay puts this thing squarely into the political silly season.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineObserver From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5769 times:

The Seattle Times had this reference about the tanker program today in an article:

"One other factor may swing the competition for Boeing. In the first quarter of 2008, it will finally deliver two 767 tankers to the Japanese air force. Two more will go to the Italian air force in the second quarter. Both sets of aircraft are late after technical issues during flight tests that appear on the verge of being solved.

"If, as expected, the first Japanese tanker is delivered next month, in advance of the contract decision, it will be a clear sign to the Air Force that the risk in the Boeing program is reduced."

So maybe the USAF is manipulating the timing to favor Boeing. What a surprise.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5766 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And yet that same Seattle Times article noted:

Quote:
For a tanker based on a bigger and more expensive jet than the 767, their proposal "was apparently a surprisingly low bid," said financial analyst Joe Campbell of Lehman Brothers, who spoke with chief executives on both sides of the competition.

So it looks like Northup-Grumman and EADS are not giving up without a fight by offering more capability at not much more cost.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5740 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 2):
it has to be aware that every delay puts this thing squarely into the political silly season.

Well, in this case the "silly season" may play to Boeing's advantage ... Patriotism sells easier than Reason or Rationality.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5738 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 6):
Patriotism sells easier than Reason or Rationality.

Yes, as we have seen in the rebuff of Spirit Aerospace in the bidding for the Airbus factories in Europe. Frankly, I think EADS did the right thing. What I can't abide is the double standard.

[Edited 2007-12-21 09:13:53]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5715 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
Yes, as we have seen in the rebuff of Spirit Aerospace in the bidding for the Airbus factories in Europe. Frankly, I think EADS did the right thing. What I can't abide is the double standard.

This is still not fixed. You can hit F5 at Google News every hour or so and so will read something different each time. BTW: The now preferred bidder OHB Industries is backed by Cerberus Capital for the deal. Thus it's only superficially a "domestic" solution ...


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5709 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
So it looks like Northup-Grumman and EADS are not giving up without a fight by offering more capability at not much more cost.

Except if they win the contract, there are those "unexpected" cost overruns.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5700 times:



Quoting Michlis (Reply 9):
Except if they win the contract, there are those "unexpected" cost overruns.

Which EADS or NG is not more known for than any other supplier of major defense items ...


User currently offlineObserver From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5669 times:



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 10):


Quoting Michlis (Reply 9):
Except if they win the contract, there are those "unexpected" cost overruns.

Which EADS or NG is not more known for than any other supplier of major defense items ...

Bur remember the USAF wants a fixed-price contract for the first 80 airplanes.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5660 times:



Quoting Observer (Reply 11):

Bur remember the USAF wants a fixed-price contract for the first 80 airplanes.

Do you think if Boeing or Airbus could sell 80 medium wide-bodies to some Airline, they were not able to offer a fixed-price deal? Apart from that the KC-30B will be much closer to a civilian A330 than a KC-767 will be to a civilian B767 and thus I do see the greater financial risk with Boeing in this case. This point does not lend itself as argument for Airbus bashers.


User currently offlineTigerotor77W From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5574 times:

Hmm... thanks for the replies.

I was just curious if it was still to be this year the order was announced -- but apparently government funding takes time to dish out.  Smile


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Michlis (Reply 9):
Except if they win the contract, there are those "unexpected" cost overruns.

The USAF has said they will not award the deal solely on price because of that worry. This is one of the reasons that Boeing actually able to get the first KC-767 into the JASDF's hands because it will help "prove" that Boeing can do it and as such won't need to keep raising the rates.

Of course, the 767-200LR is a different beast from KC-767, so...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5510 times:



Quoting Tigerotor77W (Thread starter):
Out of curiosity... was there ever an expected date or timeframe that the USAF would announce its tanker decision?



Quoting Tigerotor77W (Thread starter):
The RFP was issued January 2007.

That RFP called for a flying prototype by FY-09Q4, that probibly has slipped, because the contract award date has slipped. My guess is now the prototype tanker must fly by FY-10Q3.

Quoting Observer (Reply 4):
So maybe the USAF is manipulating the timing to favor Boeing. What a surprise.

Do you have evidence of that?  Yeah sure

Quoting Echster (Reply 1):
The contract was going to be awarded December 2003 but was cancelled as a result of an awarding scandal.

That was a much different program, under a much different contract. Those people administering that program are gone from the USAF and Boeing, one went to jail. It has nothing to do with the (now named) KC-45A Program (formerly the KC-X Program).

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 12):
Apart from that the KC-30B will be much closer to a civilian A330 than a KC-767 will be to a civilian B767 and thus I do see the greater financial risk with Boeing in this case.

That is partially correct, but, EADS/NG is not offering the KC-30B, which is the RAAF tanker program. EADS/NG is offering what is commonly known as the KC-30A, which the USAF wants based on the A-330-200F airplane, not the A-330-200 (pax) airplane that EADS/NG is pushing.

The greater financial risk will be with the A-330F airplane and it's unknown (for the moment) tanker modifications). The Boeing offer is based on a B-767-200ER platform, that will become the B-767-200LRF, using proven wings from the B-767-400ER, and landing gear of the B-767-300ERF, and the fuselage of the B-767-200ER, but with the below deck cargo holds and doors removed (body fuel tanks will be put there, like in the Italian and Japanese tankers).


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5507 times:



Quoting Echster (Reply 1):
The contract was going to be awarded December 2003 but was cancelled as a result of an awarding scandal.

Mention of the Darleen Druyun scandal is now obligatory when discussing the tanker thread.

Perhaps we should also include the numerous allegations of bribery by Airbus and other European companies (i.e., Siemans), the failed Eurocopter bid in India which collapsed because of allegations of improper payments through agents, the Indian judge recently ordering the investigation into the bribery allegations surrounding the French submarine, the bribery allegations concerning BAE in connection with the Eurofighter sale, etc.

The big difference I can see is that there is accountability on one side, while none on the other.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
Quoting Observer (Reply 4):
So maybe the USAF is manipulating the timing to favor Boeing. What a surprise.
Do you have evidence of that? Yeah sure

I seriously doubt that any evidence will be provided. It's only wishful thinking.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5501 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
EADS/NG is offering what is commonly known as the KC-30A, which the USAF wants based on the A-330-200F airplane, not the A-330-200 (pax) airplane that EADS/NG is pushing.

The greater financial risk will be with the A-330F airplane and it's unknown (for the moment) tanker modifications).

The only "new" thing that is on the KC-30A is the lengthened nose gear. All other other components are not new. The cargo gate is a one-to-one transfer of A310F technology to the A330. No big deal.

I stay with what I said: The KC-767 imposes much more severe modification on the B767 airframe than the Airbus and thus comes with much technological and therewith financial risks. But this is a moot point anyway, because the decision pro or contra NG/Airbus will not be made on these grounds.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5488 times:



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 16):
I stay with what I said: The KC-767 imposes much more severe modification on the B767 airframe than the Airbus and thus comes with much technological and therewith financial risks. But this is a moot point anyway, because the decision pro or contra NG/Airbus will not be made on these grounds.

I think you and I, my friend, can agree that the decision is not made on those grounds.

What really is a shame with tis KC-45A Program, is the two main competitors each offered an outstanding proposal. But, the final selection will be totally political.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
What really is a shame with tis KC-45A Program, is the two main competitors each offered an outstanding proposal. But, the final selection will be totally political.

Most military program decisions around the world are...



In the end, I think it is in the best interests of the US and the EU that two healthy and effective cargo/tanker programs exist. The KC-30/A330MRTT program and KC-767 program can co-exist together, each meeting a particular need.

Sometimes you don't need everything a KC-30/A330MRTT can offer and sometimes you need more then a KC-767 can. Having the option of one or even both in your fleet makes that fleet that much more effective.

Right now, the USAF seems to need the KC-767 to fulfill the KC-45 mission requirements. But the KC-10A will not last forever, and the capabilities it brings to the USAF's portfolio cannot be dismissed. As such, the KC-30/A330MRTT program could very well be a perfect fit for replacing those birds when they start to leave the fleet.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5462 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
As such, the KC-30/A330MRTT program could very well be a perfect fit for replacing those birds when they start to leave the fleet.

If past is prologue, that'll be around 2030!  Wink



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5453 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 19):
If past is prologue, that'll be around 2030!  Wink

Okay. The A350MRTT.  duck 


User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5437 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 15):
Quoting Observer (Reply 4):
So maybe the USAF is manipulating the timing to favor Boeing. What a surprise.
Do you have evidence of that? Yeah sure

I seriously doubt that any evidence will be provided. It's only wishful thinking.

The same thought had occurred to me when I read about the delays in the award. That the USAF is delaying the award in part to see how Boeing clears up the certification problems (pods etc.). Keep in mind that the USAF did not plan to have a fly-off in this competition so the technology needs to work. Also it would look very bad to award the contract to Boeing when they are unable to deliver other similar tankers on-time. Remember Boeing's key sales point to the USAF is that they have 75 years experience in building tankers so being very late in delivering them on time to Japan and Italy sort of deflates that justification.

Ironically, now the USAF may have to wait for NG/EADS to prove their boom technology in the next few months. After all they waited for Boeing.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 21):
Ironically, now the USAF may have to wait for NG/EADS to prove their boom technology in the next few months.

Already done (though using the boom on an A310MRTT testbed) - http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=132760


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5384 times:



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 21):
The same thought had occurred to me when I read about the delays in the award.

I still prefer Occam's razor approach here. The USAF wants to "protest proof" the award as much as possible. No, they can't prevent one; a protest from the loser is inevitable. They want to make sure that it's not "sustainable" and avoid the b.s. they're going through on CSAR-X. You are dealing with government employees, who at the end of the day, do not want to deal with all this crap. That's what political appointees get paid to do!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5382 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 21):
Ironically, now the USAF may have to wait for NG/EADS to prove their boom technology in the next few months.

Already done (though using the boom on an A310MRTT testbed) - http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/p...32760

Even Airbus calls the test bed airplane a KC-310. It is good the ARBS finally got it's first contact, only 20 months behind schedule. Yes, the original schedule called for an August 2006 first contact, using French AF Boom Operators.

So, it appears the A-330MRTT program is behind schedule, too?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
But the KC-10A will not last forever, and the capabilities it brings to the USAF's portfolio cannot be dismissed. As such, the KC-30/A330MRTT program could very well be a perfect fit for replacing those birds when they start to leave the fleet.

Stitch, you may not believe this (and it is ironic), the A-330MRTT is too SMALL to replace the KC-10. BTW, if the A-330MRTT is selected in the current tanker replacement program, it will be called the KC-45A, not the KC-30A.


25 Post contains images Stitch : In raw volume, yes, but with the KC-767 carrying more then the KC-135, the two together would likely "equal out" the lift between a KC-135 and KC-10A
26 KC135TopBoom : I should add (to the confusion?) that only the KC-767ADV, KC-30A, or LM flying box wing tanker proposals would be designated as the KC-45A, under the
27 Bennett123 : Is a KC135 based option still being considered?
28 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : I wonder how the caption in this photo relate to that..... View Large View MediumPhoto © T.Laurent .....as I understand it saying that the aircr
29 KC135TopBoom : That is because Airbus has this A-330-200 set up to be delivered to an airline, if it is not needed as the KC-45A prototype. If EADS/NG is selected,
30 Post contains images PGNCS : This is a thread I have no desire to enter. As a pilot with a lot of time in the 767 (and in the A-320), I would prefer to see the A-330 win as I gen
31 Post contains links WestWing : Jan 3rd 2008: Boeing Submits Final KC-767 Advanced Tanker Proposal to U.S. Air Force In which Boeing says: "Burning 24 percent less fuel than its comp
32 RedFlyer : In what way is it a better aircraft and stronger candidate?
33 Stitch : It should also be noted that the United States Air Force has different needs then United Airlines. So the benefits an A330-200 offers over a 767-200ER
34 Post contains links Stitch : Northrop Grumman Submits KC-X Final Proposal Revision to U.S. Air Force http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/i...l-revision-air-force_423115_6.html
35 KC135TopBoom : Hmmmmmmmmm, Perhaps NG/EADS needs to go back to re-read the USAF RFP for the KC-X. The KC-X program (now the KC-45A program) only replaces 157 KC-135
36 Post contains links and images Zeke : The KC-135E is not mentioned in the final KC-X RFP or SRD. The final KC-X RFP or SRD does not say what aircraft are being replaced. The KC-135R is th
37 Post contains links Michlis : The latest from Aviation Week: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...posals%20To%20USAF&channel=defense
38 RedFlyer : There are a lot of things not mentioned in the RFP, or any RFP for that matter. If a person were to follow USAF and GAO spending reports and analysis
39 KC135TopBoom : Zeke, I know you know better than that. The USAF has anounced the retirement of 157 KC-135E tankers, no KC-135Rs will be retired, except any that are
40 Post contains links TropicBird : Very informative cover story on the KC-X titled "More than Just a Tanker...The Role of the KC-X in Combat Operations" can be found at this site. http:
41 Post contains images Zeke : It was a direct reply to the comment "needs to go back to re-read the USAF RFP for the KC-X", my comments were factual. That is your view, but it not
42 AirRyan : Keep in mind however that the USAF F-15's are not being replaced with F-22's on a 1 for 1 basis and the Joint Suck Figther has a long way to go to ev
43 RedFlyer : Refueling and fighting are not the same animal. You can always reduce the number of fighters you have if the kill ratio for the fighters can be incre
44 RedFlyer : No, it's common sense.
45 KC135TopBoom : Your numbers are correct. But, (for the KC-45) you cannot use all 700 refueling points at the same time. Each tanker, whether KC-10, KC-30, KC-135, o
46 F27Friendship : and on the other hand, it just as well might... With less fighters needed in the air for the same mission (F-22 and F-35 will be much more efficient
47 KC135TopBoom : There will still be the same number of fighters, bombers, recee, AWACS, and support aircraft flying. Neither the F-22 or F-35 will reduce those numbe
48 F27Friendship : you need less F-22's and F-35's to do those things than you need aircraft who that now (F-15, F-16) True of course (good to have someone with a lot o
49 KC135TopBoom : That really depends on who the opponent is. The DOD has come out to supports the USAF need for at least 380 F-22s, as opposed to the 183 that the cur
50 Playloud : I thought the USAF wanted about 1700 F-35As.
51 F27Friendship : indeed, we still need to know what a J-10 is capable of and the new SU-35 and future PAK-FA
52 KC135TopBoom : They do, my mistake, I thought I had wrote 1650, but it looks like I didn't type the "1". Yes, I agree. That is what will really determine the number
53 F27Friendship : very interesting as the Chinese also have a relation between how many J-10's the're gonna built, and the number of F-22's that's going to be built.
54 KC135TopBoom : I suspect the Chinese want to build to a 2:1 advantage, or more.
55 F27Friendship : I recall to have read/heard a number of 8:1 or even 10:1, can't recall where though. With the current number of little under 200 F-22's that's still
56 KC135TopBoom : Maybe we need to keep a few of our broken back F-15s around, or perhaps return some F-14Bs to flying, but as USAF aircraft?
57 Post contains links and images Stitch : I got a chuckle out of this in the morning paper... Opponents call Boeing's plane "Frankentanker" By Dominic Gates, Seattle Times Aerospace Writer htt
58 F27Friendship : I like the name legotanker!
59 Post contains images AirRyan : But the tactics of yesterday are not necessarily going to be those of tommorow - a KC-30 offers new opportunities. Don't forget about the F-22 clone
60 DEVILFISH : Aren't the T-50 and PAK-FA the same?
61 KC135TopBoom : The tanker tactics will remain basicly the same. What new opportunities does the KC-30 offer over the KC-767? KC-135? Or KC-10? None. Carrying more f
62 Post contains images Keesje : Compared to the KC-10, the KC-30 should have 30% lower operating costs. I guess as most tanker aircraft the KC-45 will spend most of its life on the
63 Post contains images Michlis : Did you mean KC-135E? Comparing the logistical needs of the civilian sector to that of the USAF/military is comparing apples to bananas. Why? If they
64 Post contains images F27Friendship : Hey, you are talking sense again, welcome back! jep It offers better global force projection for far less cost while being a more diverse platform ca
65 Post contains images Michlis : That would make a great subtitle for an ad for the KC-30 in Aviation Week.
66 Post contains images F27Friendship : :D if it does, I hope I'll get some nice royalties
67 KC135TopBoom : I guess Keesje still doesn't understand the tanker business. Which of the "current generation of tankers" is unsuitable for cargo operations? No tank
68 Halls120 : You still don't get it. Hauling cargo isn't the primary mission for a tanker. My nephew is a KC-135 boom operator. He gets a good laugh whenever I se
69 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think some people are in for a big surprize if they think nothing will change on the tanker front. The times have changed. The KC-135 (R)s may be g
70 Post contains images Michlis : Or overplayed/spun up to make the KC-30 look better.
71 F27Friendship : you don;t know the prices (it's in the air they made quite a good bid!) You know it flies more fuel longer on station and can haul more cargo. That's
72 TropicBird : There has been a division within the Service over medium vs large with the most senior leadership wanting the medium sized platform. The tanker side o
73 Lumberton : Lest we forget, the KC-767 has more cargo capacity than the C-17. It's not like the only offering that will carry cargo is the KC-30. This mission, as
74 Halls120 : My nephew actually flies missions. You seem to be nothing more than a salesperson pushing your product. Any question who I believe? I have a feeling
75 Zeke : Dont think so, the C17 will lift 170,900 lb, the KC-767ADV will be about 90,000-100,00 lb (OEW 180-000-190,000 lb, MZFW 280,000 lb)
76 Post contains images Halls120 : Imagine that - the Air Force wants their next tanker to be a tanker first, and a cargo hauler second. Haven't they been listening to all the KC-30 bo
77 KC135TopBoom : Then why not just go to the KC-777? The costs to operate a fully loaded KC-135Rs and KC-10As is know, so is the operating costs of a fully loaded A-3
78 Zeke : Did you read the following from the SRD : "1.2.2 Other Associated Aerial refueling Missions" ? "3.2.1.1.1.4 The aircraft shall have a minimum unrefue
79 Scbriml : Because Boeing currently doesn't need help keeping the 777 line open, it's the 767 line that's in more need of life-support. That situation will chan
80 Post contains links Lumberton : The C-17 has, I believe, 16 463L pallet positons--maximum. This link to the study done by the RAAF indicates that the KC-767 has 19. In my experience
81 Michlis : Does a 767 or and A-330 sit low to the ground and have wide rear doors in the back? Can they load Hummers or other vehicles? You probably could put t
82 RedFlyer : Boeing isn't pitching the 767 as the KC-X to keep the line open. It's the other way around: they are keeping the line open in order to pitch the 767
83 Scbriml : Of course they are. There's nothing they would like more than to milk the 767 line for years to come with fat military orders when the civil ones hav
84 F27Friendship : you are talking about DOC, that's that the whole picture
85 Post contains links Venus6971 : http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/01/airforce_tanker_080129w/ Just food for thought, the KC-767 made its first night refueling yesterday.
86 Keesje : Nobody knows but I guess Offering 767 users new upgraded aircraft at a price they can´t refuse would be a logical direction.
87 Post contains links RedFlyer : Why would they? If "bigger is better" is the mantra of success when it comes to tankers, Boeing would be far better off offering the 777 airframe, an
88 TexL1649 : The 767 program would have terminated with the 757 if not for the tanker competition.
89 Post contains images Zeke : Ok I see where you are coming from now, you are correct when considering only a single level. Those pallets have a limit of 10,000 lb per position, t
90 TropicBird : Was this well-known secret by word of mouth or is it in writing somewhere? I know from a WSJ article written after the tanker scandal that Sen. McCai
91 Halls120 : Don't you just love all the posters with "inside information?"
92 Post contains links RedFlyer : I don't believe the 777 was officially offered. They considered offering it but eventually decided against it. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business
93 KC135TopBoom : Yes. Flying 8000nm-9000nm on a delivery flight, with no pax or cargo means nothing. In the tanker world, KC-135Rs and KC-10As fly 10,000nm (or more)
94 Zeke : AFAIK BALS is fairly ineffective on the C130, you are better off building a single pallet to 96" high rather stack two 4' pallets. On the other types
95 RedFlyer : That's very true, but it's nothing to sniff at. When you consider the DoD pays for everything related to a project (e.g., R&D, asset purchases, etc.)
96 F27Friendship : it's not about profit. It's about entering the very lucrative American Defence market. hell, EADS would go for a 5% loss if you ask me
97 Post contains images Stitch : They also flew their first 747-400 10,587 miles from LHR to SYD on her delivery flight. So maybe the USAF should buy the 747-8F? Then again with a 77
98 Glideslope : As it does on your side of the pond as well.
99 RedFlyer : In PADSpot's defense (and I'm sure he can defend himself), the Continent does not view "patriotism" the way Americans do. We tend to view it in the t
100 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Oh yeah, the French tax payers would just love buying airplanes for the USAF. Hmmm, it seems to me that is flying from any airport in the world to an
101 Michlis : Wrong. It's always about profit. That is the sole reason for a corporation's existence. Don't think for a second that EADs isn't think about the bott
102 Zeke : Thats what I was getting at. If a A332 configured for airline ops can do TLS-MEL non-stop, I am fairly sure the empty tanker could as well. But I hav
103 F27Friendship : let me re-phrase: it's not about SHORT-TERM profit. -EADS needs to move a large chunk of it's cost into the dollar zone -they need to enter the Ameri
104 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : According to Boeing, the B-767-200ER carries 23,980 US Gallons of fuel, or 155,600lbs. It has a range of 6590nm, with max pax loads. http://www.boein
105 Zeke : The 762LRF will have the 763ER wing as well as additional weight from other mods, the 763ER fuel capacity is 161,740 lb, to have over 200klb, fuel mu
106 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : This is the latest info I have on the KC-767ADV. It is pretty generalized from Boeing, perhaps they don't want to fully show their hand? KC-767 Speci
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Tanker Expected Date?
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...
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker posted Tue Jun 13 2006 14:45:20 by Lumberton
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan
Usaf Tanker Wildcard...MD-11 posted Tue Aug 10 2004 14:17:54 by Miamiair
Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement posted Mon Mar 8 2004 14:37:01 by KEESJE
Usaf Tanker Replacement Low Cost Option? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 11:38:27 by Keesje
Usaf Invites KC-X Tanker Bidders To The Table posted Wed Nov 21 2007 06:19:13 by Zeke
Usaf $40B Tanker posted Mon Feb 12 2007 20:15:49 by BillReid
Updated: USAF's Next Tanker posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:05:32 by AislepathLight
USAF Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:48:04 by Lumberton
Another Usaf New Tanker Thread..... posted Thu Mar 16 2006 11:35:52 by KC135TopBoom
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan
Usaf Tanker Wildcard...MD-11 posted Tue Aug 10 2004 14:17:54 by Miamiair

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format