L1011Fan
Topic Author
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 12:33 am

Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:14 am

The USAF has delayed the lease/purchase of 100 767 Tankers due to the scandal at Boeing.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031202/D7V6EUNG1.html

[Edited 2003-12-02 21:15:13]
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:19 am

Well, we have good old Phil Condit to thank for this one. I was really looking forward to seeing those 767's bangin' around. This just gives McCain more grounds and time to create some more yellow shit storms about the acquisition of these aircraft.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:22 am

DeltaMD11

Once you're done being a "full-time high school student" and get out into the real world, you'll realize McCain's "yellow shit storms" are an attempt to SAVE money. Money which comes from TAXPAYERS. Would you rather have your share of billions of dollars, or just let corporate and government greed have it?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13646
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:30 am

Flyf15-

Um, you're not much older, pal. I'd advise caution when slamming someone if you're no more an authority on the subject yourself.

So, can you please tell me how having keeping aging KC-135 and KC-10s together with duct tape is more cost effective in the long run than slowly replacing them with KC-767 equipment? I mean, since you say this is "corporate and government greed," you must have run the numbers, right?  Insane
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:36 am

FlyF15,
I pay taxes as well, and know what it's like to have your hard-earned money taken away from you. Instead of having to read it over again, read EA CO AS's post above because I couldn't have said it better myself.

Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
ken4556
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 1999 5:28 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:46 am

Maybe Linda Daschle, wife of Sen. Tom Daschle will get involved. For those who do not know, she is Boeing's No. 1 lobbyist in Washington. I wonder why no one considers that a conflict of interest, especially when her husband originally wanted the lease deal.
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:47 am

Hopefully that means we'll now see some US Air Force A330 tankers! Big grin

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:57 am

And the A330 is the last thing I'd like to see as one of our tankers. Don't get me wrong, I love the 330 and have enjoyed flying on them immensely so this isn't an A vs. B thing. This is purely because I think that the 767 is a more-appropriate aircraft for the job in terms of economics as well as this means the assured continuance of the 767 for years to come-not to mention helping to stimulate our own economy which is currently on the rebound.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
col
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 6:09 am

As a US tax payer we get screwed twice. We bail the airlines out and allow them to park numerous 767's in the desert. Then we bail Boeing out by buying 100 new 767's to keep it in production. Why don't we do as we have offered the RAF and convert the 767's stored to tankers. Boeing get to keep people employed, the USAF get aircraft sooner and the airlines get cash to keep them afloat. Buying 7E7 tankers will probably be more cost effective than buying an aircraft whose production days are numbered.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 6:10 am

Any talks about an B7E7 tanker?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 6:21 am

Guys, I'm not saying we shouldn't get the tankers. If you'll read my post again, you'll see that I didn't even mention it.

Personally, I am definately for getting new tankers, the Air Force needs them (and much more than 100, I might add) as soon as possible. BUT I am definately also for not having my, and everyone else's, money wasted in the process.

There is significant evidence that the price the government would be paying includes a lot of waste. Any delays in the program are the government's own fault -- if they really are including as much pork as it may seem, every single American should be happy that people aren't just looking the other way.

But then again, if the idea of brand new tankers now no matter what the cost is makes you tingle inside, I'd much rather you just take your wallet with you over to the Boeing Company and give them your share of the pork included -- leaving my money and I out of it.


EA CO AS
I don't know what world you live in. As a voting American citizen who has to worry about bills and taxes (and often wonders where all this money is really going), I have every right to express my views on the subject.

DeltaMD11
I meant no harm with my previous post, but you can't really expect someone to take you seriously when you use the phrase "yellow shit storms."
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13646
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:01 am

As a voting American citizen who has to worry about bills and taxes (and often wonders where all this money is really going), I have every right to express my views on the subject.

Flyf15-

My comments weren't based on the fact that you expressed an opinion (you're certainly entitled to it), but the fact that you belittled someone and dismissed their opinions based solely on their age. It's especially unfortunate to see this from you, as you're only a few years older than the person you slammed.

I've respected your views and opinions in the past, even when they've differed from mine...but to talk down to someone in the way you did was wrong.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:37 am

EA CO AS....I suppose its just a touchy subject. I'm very careful with my money and expect my government to be very careful with it aswell.

DeltaMD11...I appologize if I offended you at all, I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions based solely on your age.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:49 am

Hopefully that means we'll now see some US Air Force A330 tankers!

Of course, the livery would have to consist of cartoon pigs (a la Pokemon Jets)  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:51 am

FlyF15--You are far from offending me (trust me, I would've come at you if you had), and I thank EA CO AS for pointing out your shortcomings in your above posts. I admire your opinions and that is what makes our country great-a wealth of ideas that are able to be expressed freely without fear of reprisal.

I, just as much as you, want our government to appropriate money wisely. I am an advocate of the KC-767 program. Let's start phasing out some of our oldest equipment and save costs in the long run. Sure it's a shot in the wallet off of the bat---but 20 years from now you will see that this is a wise decision. The KC-135's have relatively high operating costs (and they will only increase), and as they age more and more maintenence is necessary for the general upkeep of the aircraft--the costs will add up. You, certainly as a math major, would be able to relate to this idea.





Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:01 am

I definately agree with you that we need these KC767s. I wish they would've ordered them years ago...and many more than 100.

My only problem with it is I don't feel that the government is getting (or even trying to get) the best deal they can -- that there is a lot of pork involved. Say without the waste, the deal would only be $10b instead of $20b. Thats about $70 for every single person in the US saved. OR it means we could get 200 KC767s instead of 100 for the $20b. Sounds like a win-win to me for everyone except some senior Boeing execs and politicans.  Big thumbs up
 
HlywdCatft
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:21 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:20 am

**Hopefully that means we'll now see some US Air Force A330 tankers!**

I sure as hell hope not!!!


A330s look good in commercial colors and other people's Airforces, but not the USAirforce.

I don't want my tax dollars going to another country's economy and buying military equipment from a country that doesn't support our military.

I'd rather see a KC-767-400 than the 200 series, but then again it is replacing the 135s
 
LMP737
Posts: 4943
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:17 am

Flyf15:

One has to wonder if Senator McCain would be raising such a stink if the 767 production line were in Tucson.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Contact_tower
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:53 am

The only way the USAF is going to get the best AC available, is if the best AC happens to bee made in the Good Old US of A......  Nuts
And I don't see a A330 production line stateside any time soon!  Big thumbs up
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: What Figher Planes Would Have Been Available?

Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:38 am

Nah, just retire all of ACC and fit longrange tanks and refueling pods to half the C-17 fleet and there's no need for tankers at all.
I wish I were flying
 
GDB
Posts: 12681
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:14 am

It won't happen of course, but if the USAF did take A330s, the wings would be from the UK, tail from Spain, two nations that ARE supporting the US military, not that France is not, when did the US last have a war with France? You owe your independence to them.

Hopefully the RAF will get new A330s, nothing against the 767 and the BA ones will be well maintained, but a new aircraft is needed, plus the better cargo capacity of the 330 will be useful for the RAF.
A decision on who wins the RAF contract is expected too, only in the UK could BAE be teamed with Boeing to offer an aircraft that competes with their own stake in Airbus where they make the wings. As a UK taxpayer I object to that!
Boeing's CEO is not the only aerospace boss who needs to go, and any replacement mend fences with his nations military procurement arm.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:25 am

Umm...retire ACC? As in the actual "teeth" of the Air Force? Jeroen, did you just come back from an Amsterdam coffee house again?  Smokin cool
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
GDB
Posts: 12681
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:03 am

I cannot see a AAR pod being added to a C-17 as a useful way to operate such a valuable transport asset.
The USAF does not the 767s, silly to have got embroiled in all this leasing business, just buy some year on year like all other aircraft.
But only as a KC-135E replacement, LM have produced interesting designs for a tanker/transport, with two flying booms.
This could replace KC-135R and eventually, KC-10s.
Doubt it will happen though.
So eventually you'll probably see more than 100 KC-767s, based on the -200, already the 767-400 is being touted as a multi-mission sensor platform. A future growth version for tanking perhaps?
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:48 am

If I remember, the C-17 is unsuitable for tanking because it kicks out hellacious wake turbulence, worse than a C-141. I remember reading in "The State" newspaper soon after Charleston AFB transitioned from the Starlifter to the Globemaster III that paratroop operations would require much more spacing. Could be that the C-17's wake turbulence is such that tanking would be too taxing on the pilot of a smaller aircraft.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:10 am

Why on earth would the 767-400 be a future growth version for a takner? it's only major difference between a -200 is all that extra airframe to carry around.

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:14 am

Here's the AvWeek article...

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/tur12033.xml

My 2 cents. They'll do their investigation, conclude that the scandal did not affect the rationality of going forward with the lease/buy decision and move on. In the end, I'm sure the KC-767 will enter the USAF inventory in one way or another. I doubt the KC-330 has a chance, no matter how good a deal EADS comes up with. I don't see the U.S. military buying a foreign product when there's a domestic alternative, particularly if the company needs the business (ah, yes, politics), nor do I see U.S. government officials approving a foreign-built tanker for service.
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:25 pm

As a pure tanker, the A330 is probably not as suitable as a B767. The B767 must have additional tanks in the fuselage to carry the extra fuel whereas the A330 doesn't. What this means is that you are not using the A330 to it's full potential. Why fly an 'empty' aircraft around?

This is why the A330 is the most suitable aircraft for the RAF. It has a multi role function and offers best value for money. If the USAF adopt a different policy then perhaps the A330 would be more appropriate for them.

However at the end of the day the decission will be made for political reasons and not military reasons. The only good thing to come out of this mess is that the US taxpayer will get a better deal.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9089
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:11 am

I don't want my tax dollars going to another country's economy and buying military equipment from a country that doesn't support our military.

Well lets hope this view is shared by the europeans, which will mean they ban the JSF, Apaches, C17s, Chinooks, F16s and piles of other equipment and buy European stuff from now on.

- As a pure tanker, the A330 is probably not as suitable as a B767.
- Buying 7E7 tankers will probably be more cost effective


These two statements combined will require some creative arguing knowing 7E7 will have about the same size/payload as the A330.

It took Pentagon/Boeing a lot of energy to convince everybody the A330 was too large, heavy etc. In a few yrs Boeing will no doubt try to switch the tanker production from 767 to KC7E7. A 180 degree turn around in specification and a lot of forgetting will be needed to make the case for the KC7E7 ..

Free market realism is dead, Nationalism & Patriotic thinking is alive and kicking ..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
covert
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 1:02 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:16 am

At our fine unit, we religiously care for and operate 21 KC-135E's. They are built like horses. I can say I am in love with them, and I would marry one if it was only possible.

However I must say, our oldest bird was built in 1959. I was born in 1985. I have only been involved with these aircraft for a few months, but already have seen the amount of TLC involved in keeping 40 year old aircraft running in tip top shape. Every day something new breaks. Sometimes in the course of normal ops, we will have to taxi back to the ramp because something completely unexpected and trivial breaks and take a whole bunch of shit apart. It really pisses with us.

I think that right now, as well as the other maintenance crew in my unit new aircraft would think, because I hear them bitch about it everyday, that some upgrades would be in order.

How much can it cost? You would be suprised how much we spend a quarter in acquisition of parts.

covert
none
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9089
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:34 am

Covert, very confronting speaking to folks from 1985 working on aircraft ... man, time is flying ...

Are your Kc135s reengined with cfm56 ?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
covert
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 1:02 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Fri Dec 05, 2003 10:15 am

Nope, those are the R's, ours have Pratts. :-(

covert
none
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Usaf B767 Tankers On Hold

Fri Dec 05, 2003 2:28 pm

Here is a question.

How much of a pain in the Arse is it going to be to harden the electronic FBW gear on the Airbuses?

I assume there is some hardening but is it enought to survive in an electronic warfare scenario?


The nice thing about the 767's and it's cable controls is that cables generally aren't affected by EMP.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos