keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:37 pm

What would be alternative solutions for the USAF tanker requirement ?

Is modifying / reengining a few hundred more kc135's an option or

a dedicated modification/standardization line for used 767-200/300's powered by CF6-80's, more then 500 will become available in the next 10 yrs.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/03/01/daily45.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:24 pm

It's too expensive to use upgrades for 40+ years
Time to get a new airframe. The KC-135 should win the award for most served a/c in US history. I Love it!
But, it's time for a more efficient, cheaper to maintain airframe, thus, te 767!
However, the air force would want to consider a 777-200LR converted to a tanker, for those extra extra long refueling hours!
Now you're really flying
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:26 am

KEESJE:

You must really want the 767 line to close before the 7E& starts production. That's the impression I get when reading your posts regarding the 767 Tanker Program.

"Upgrading" the KC-135 is not the answer. The airframe is already in the 30-40 year age range. Say you upgrade the avionics and cockpit so you can have a two man flight deck crew. Your basic systems and airframe are still in the 30-40 year age range. The aircraft is still going to need more maintenance and money to operate than a new-build airframe. Having an "upgraded" 60 year old aircraft is not the answer.

If for some reason the 767 Tanker is scrapped converting ex-passenger 767's is a better option than "upgrading" KC-135's. However that would not be without it's own pitfalls. I think you are a bit over optimistic about having five hundred 767 becoming available in the next ten years. The biggest 767 operators are AA, UAL and DAL. Considering the financial condition of these airlines I doubt that they are going to be getting rid of them in the next ten years. Then there's the fact that operators might not want to sell their old 767 to the DOD. They might want to sell them at a higher price on the open market for conversion to freighters.

Now lets say for the sake of argument that five hundred 767's do become available in the next ten years. Not all of them are going to be CF6 equipped. Unless you are willing to spend the money on converting PW4000 767 over to the CF6 that means an entire batch of 767 you cannot use. Of those that are available you will have to take into account the number of cycles and hours on the airframes. Some of these aircraft will be up there in the number of cycles/hours they have on them. Do you want to buy aircraft that are already up there in age? Then you have to take into consideration all the minor little differences that these aircraft will have.

Considering that most of your 767 are of the -300 model and the -200 that are out there are older you are going to probable have a mixed fleet. Once again it's going to be the small differences that are going to drive up your costs. The -200 has a different dash model of the CF6 than the -300. In addition the thrust reversers on the -200 are hydraulically operated while the ones on the -300 are pneumatically operated. In other words you are going to have maintain spares for both dash models, i.e. higher costs.

So as you can see it's not as simple as "upgrading" KC-135 or buying used 767's.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:47 pm

I still wouldn't write off an Airbus option. With all the conversion work carried out in the US, it doesn't become too far fetched and that way the Military are not reliant on Boeing (current fleet all retiring of course).
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:16 pm

I really don't see The US Airforce buying Airbus any time soon. I am kind of curious though why they aren't going with the 777. I think you'll see the 767 get the go ahead soon.
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:58 pm

Best guess on why the 777 was not picked was that it's to big and to expensive for the USAF at this time. It's possible that when time comes for the KC-10 to be replaced the 777 could be a contender.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:51 am

Ahh good point I had forgotten about the KC10 for some reason. It actually makes more sense now.
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:55 am

This weeks Flight International reports that the USAF has picked PW engines engines for the 767s, assuming the deal goes ahead.
A surprise as 767s for the Japanese and Italian AF's have GE, as well as USAF seemingly previously preferring GE for their 747s.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3138
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:17 am

Very interesting with the engine choice.

The USAF uses the CF-6 on the VC-25 and KC-10 fleets already. What do they use on the E-4 and ABL-1?

Would the Pratts on the 767 have any commonality with those used on the C-17 or C-32?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:52 pm

No idea what they use on the YAL-1, but I know the E-4 uses CF-6s.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:49 am

KEESJE is our Airbus high priest.
He indeed wants the 767 line closed, but more than that he wants Boeing to go out of operations...

In his worldview once there's only Airbus airliners will be perfect and cheap for everyone I guess, as the huge amounts of money needed to compete with Boeing will all go into product development and reducing prices.
-- yeah right --
I wish I were flying
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:53 am

Ahh I see. Yes giving someone a monopoly is always good for pricing -rolls eyes-.
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:15 am

You know I was just trying to figure out what non-airburst aircraft could perform this mission in the case the 767 becomes politically unfeasable.

About the only new-build option would be the IL-96-300.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Anthony Cheng
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © K.L.YIM




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Falk
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alan Lebeda




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © K.L.YIM
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



It will never happen, but you would get the short body and 4 motors, a lot of the technology from the -400 could be used to "westernize" it.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:38 am

An IL-96 in USAF colors, now that would be interesting to see. Maybe somone on that "other" site will "make" a USAF IL-96T.  Smile
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:32 pm

Hey they could use it to re fuel their new fleet of Mig 29s  Big grin

Would be interesting to see though
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:55 pm

Just noticed something. Other than his thread starter KEESJE has stayed away from this discussion. Curious as to why that is.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:20 am

LPM737 ; busy.
Jwenting : well ... brilliant addition

On the subject, radical decisions such as Cheney holding his approval on the deal often leads to creative solutions. People involved are forced to find a different solution quickly. Sometimes bright better ideas come up.

Curious to what will happen..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:55 am

KEESJE:

Any comments of the impracticality of "upgrading" the KC-135 or buying second hand 767's?

Would you happen to have a link to Cheneys involvement in the tanker deal?
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:36 pm

LMP737, the problem is that we are already on the 3rd or 4th KC-135 upgrade at this point.

Aluminum does wear out over time.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:58 pm

Its too bad the C-17 can't be used as the new tanker...
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:22 pm

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus does win the new tanker order after all. Remember, the A330 uses about 40% American-sourced parts, and Airbus could have an offset program where the final outfitting of the plane could be done at Palmdale airport, where there are plentiful unused production line facilities to do such work.  Smile I believe that Lockheed-Martin is involved with the Airbus A330-200 tanker proposal to the USAF.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:13 pm

If AB wins the contract the US will have given away their independence and be reliant on France to set their foreign policy...

I doubt that will happen (though if the traitor Kerry makes the White House, who knows... France supported his friend Ho Chi Minh...).
I wish I were flying
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:02 pm

if the traitor Kerry makes the White House, who knows... France supported his friend Ho Chi Minh...).
hmmm ... this puts a completely new perspective on the deal..

About the tanker requirement :

While supported by some officials within the Air Force—including Air Force Secretary James Roche—Boeing’s plan was undermined by studies carried out by the Air Force itself that found a large-scale purchase of new tankers was unnecessary. A study in 2001 found that no new tankers would be needed for another 10 years.

Nevertheless, billions of dollars were at stake, and Boeing and its allies in the government were determined to push through the deal. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Boeing was confronted with both a new crisis—airplane purchases by commercial airlines plummeted—and a new opportunity to justify the tanker plan by framing its as part of the “war on terrorism.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/boeg-d17.shtml

Perhaps Boeing is in deeper trouble then just hiring Darleen Druyun ..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:10 pm

Or maybe you shouldn't get your information from the "World Socialist Web Site."

They definitely have an interest in a particular point of view.

Jwenting does bring up a good point. The US could have problems with procuring spares from France in the advent of another US-France disagreement.

Don't believe it, look at the trouble Argentina had with keeping their two British type 42 (Hope that's right, same class as the ill fated Sheffield) operational after 1982.

Look at the US, JDAM bomb production was threatened last year because some damm computer chip came from Switzerland as was threatened to be cut off because of the war in Iraq.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Of subject but ..

All this USA vs France talk is BS IMO

Historically, culturally & democratically France is one of the USAs strongest Alleys when it really matter, as is Germany .

US & French marines and intellogence are working together in Tahiti, Afghanistan and other troubled placed around the world.

"You are either with us or against us" Bush and his neo-cons irritated a lot of people during the last few yrs but long term business is as usual (deeply ideological / culturally linked)

Other worldwide opportunistic new friendships and "New Euroupe" buddy's are less relevant when the sh.t really hits the fan. (to come back to the aviation area..)

US Germany and France are no friends, they are family.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:36 am

KEESJE:

You have got to be kidding me. Do you expect anyone to take seriously anything coming a far left wing organization such as the World Socialist Web Site? Did it ever occur to you that they might be a bit BIASED in the way they report the news? Next time post a link to a reputable news organization such as the AP, New York Times, BBC, Chicago Tribune, LA Times etc. Or try a publication that knows something about the aerospace industry such as AV Week or FI.

Here's something I have noticed. You seem to take pleasure in Boeing misfortunes, or as the Germans call it, schadenfreude. Now as a former Boeing employee it pains me to see the ethical lapses in which it is currently embroiled. Why is it then that anytime Airbus is involved in any sort of questionalbe ethical practices you are silent?
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:50 am

KEESJE:

Any "study" done prior to 9-11 is now irrelevant. With US forces deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and other hotspots the utilization rate of the USAF tanker fleet has increased dramatically. Much faster than any "study" could have foreseen. Can the USAF keep the KC-135 flying for another ten years and delay purchase of a tanker? Yes they can. However the costs of operating those tankers will be much higher than new builds.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3138
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:16 am

In recent years, most of the old 707/720 airframes that the USAF bought to keep the *C-137, *C-137, E-3, TC-18, E-6, E-8, etc.. fleets going have been completely broken up and disposed of. Is this an effort to perhaps push a spares crisis in the fleet, or am I reading too much into this and they were just broken up because all useable parts were salvaged from them already?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:05 am

They were broken up and all usable parts removed to climate controlled warehouses for cataloguing into the spares supply.
The hulks were then sold for scrap to generate income to keep the USAF flying.
I wish I were flying
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:32 am

Fly15:

Somewhere I read about the C-17 being a possible tanker. Where exactly I cannot remember. The main obstacle for the C-17T would be the cost. The basic airframe is much more expensive than the 767-200. Yes, in the long run you would save money in terms of crew training and maintenance. However it's the initial cost that's the deal breaker.

KEESJE:

Let me guess. After reading the posts on the thread you started you have come to the realization that upgrading the KC-135 or buying used 767 is not the way to go.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:17 pm

KESSJE, please stop posting dumbass posts..
are you Leahy's son or nephew??? Or maybe his pet?? Stop spreading Anti-Boeing rubbish n your left-wing views. The only way Airbus gets a single order is when Kerry is the president and when Americans betray our country.
I would love to see your face when Boeing/Lockheed/Bombardier take over the skies n there is only one Airbus plane in the sky.(sooner than you think)

 Pissed  Smokin cool
Now you're really flying
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:28 pm

Let me guess. After reading the posts on the thread you started you have come to the realization that upgrading the KC-135 or buying used 767 is not the way to go.

He never thought it was. I'm waiting for him to suggest A310 tankers...
I wish I were flying
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:48 pm

About the KC135 & 767. The KC135 fleet was produced & delivered in a few yrs ending in the early sixties. It was state of the art and became valuable asset for 40 yrs.

However the 767 is in production now for more the 20 yrs and 2 aircraft are produced every 3 months at this moment. Not exactly the state of the art/hot aircraft the KC135/707/720 was 40 yrs ago. The B767 product life cycle is past its maturity.

Continuing the production of this airframe for just USAF sake for another 20 yrs is something to be questioned.

Introducing an interim fleet of used aircraft as tankers for the next 10-15 yrs, parking / breaking up the oldest KC135 to keep flying the (CFM powered) rest and go for a new better standard platform such as a "KC7E7" or so in the 2012-2020 period seems a good option IMO.


About the KC767 : does it meet requirements or were requirements adjusted to it ?

The inspector general backed up one persistent charge of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Senate's most vocal critic of the tanker deal — that the documents spelling out the tanker's war-fighting capability were crafted more to what Boeing could deliver quickly than what the Air Force, Navy and Marines required for aerial refueling.

"The primary operational implication of this concern is that it raises the question as to whether the KC-767A is indeed the right aircraft for the job," McCain wrote Schmitz on Friday.

McCain said these concerns might be a compelling reason not to proceed with the deal.

The inspector general concluded that the Air Force tailored its initial-requirements document "to correlate closely with the tanker that Boeing was producing for the Italian government," the audit says.

"As a result, the first 100 KC-767A tankers will not meet the requirements" for operating with the Navy and Marine aircraft or military requirements such as carrying passengers and performing medical-evacuation missions, the draft says.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/03/01/daily45.html

P.S
Folks (not lmp737) constantly bashing about anti-Boeing / pro-Airbus and left/right wing preferences better do a good search on my civil aviation post on 7E7, 747adv, 737NG etc. Please don't become too pre-occupied & predictable. I think we should try to maintain a minimum level of quality of this forum based on content with additional value for the readers.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:25 pm

Actually I would tend to agree that a 7E7 based tanker would be a better idea. It would also be a great stepping stone for freighter version of the 7E7. Win win situation I would think. The big problem I would see with it would be further delay, though I guess the old girls have been around this long....
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:55 am

KEESJE:

At least this time you didn't post a link to the World Socialist Web Site.

At the present moment Boeing has unfilled orders for twenty five 767's. At the current production rate and assuming no more commercial 767's are ordered the last order will be filled late 2006. The original plan for the 767 Tanker was to start taking delivery in 2005 and end production in 2011. If the current situation means that the program is pushed back a year that means the last delivery will occur in 2012. This means of course that production will last another eight years, not twenty. And only six of those years will the line remain open because of the Tanker program.

When exactly did Senator McCain actually say the things your post mentioned? The link you provided does not even refer to the senator. Last year when the USAF finally inked a deal for the purchase of eighty and the lease of twenty Senator McCain called the deal "a good compromise." As for the KC767 not meeting USN or USMC requirements I find this somewhat puzzling. The artist renderings I've seen show the Tanker with wing-tip mounted hose-and-drouge pods. In fact the Italian tanker they refer to will operate with wing tip pods and a centerline hose-and-drouge. Seems to be quite compatible with USN and USMC aircraft.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:19 am

KEESJE:

If the 767 is "past it's maturity" the KC135 is way past it's maturity. All the more reason to replace them. Does being "past it's maturity" and not being the "hot/state of the art" mean that it won't be an effective tanker? Chances are no.

Like you I would love to see a KC7E7. However what would the costs on that program be and how long would it take for them to come on line? You also have to realize that Boeing might not want to give up that many production slots in the early years of the 7E7 program. Then you have to look at how cost effective would it be to buy used aircraft as an interim fix until the KC7E7 came into service. It's quite possible at one point you would have four tanker types, KC-135, KC-10, KC767 and KC7E7 in service at once.

Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:41 pm

About the "World Socialist Web Site" link, I try read opinions and news from a wide variety of sources, and will continue to do so unlike some other members ..

"767 end production in 2011" : thats for the first 100..

"Does being "past it's maturity" and not being the "hot/state of the art" mean that it won't be an effective tanker? "
Ask that in 40-50 yrs.. when much 767 technology will then be 60-70 years old....

"cost effective ...KC-135, KC-10, KC767 and KC7E7 in service at once."
I think the last three have the advantage of widely available maintenance support, spares etc.

"realize that Boeing might not want to give up that many production slots in the early years of the 7E7 program"
good point, but i think the heath will be over after 2016 when launch when the 7e7 is in productin for 8 yrs.
Another dedicated assembly line for a few hundred high priced kc7e7 might be feasible, most parts of the aircraft come from abroad anyway ..

However the tanker requirements have to be changed for a KC7E7 since the a330 was seen as to much of an aircraft.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:04 am

I to have read the World Socialist Web Site before, gives me a good chuckle. However I also know that the people who run this site are rather biased in the way they report the news. Especially in the area of aerospace/defense. That's why I don't post links to their web site.

"Ask that in 40-50 yrs..when much 767 technology will then be 60-70 years old"

By then the technology for the 7E7 will be around 40 years and for the A330 50 years old. We can go round and round in this argument.

IMO the best option for the USAF is to acquire 100 new build KC767's. By fiscal year 2013 the USAF can look at buying a KC7E7 as a replacement for the remaining KC135 and KC10's. At this point Boeing would be a little more receptive at allocating production slots for a KC7E7. Boeing learned a valuable lesson in the mid 90's about trying to push out to many airplanes.

Why would you need a dedicated production line for a "high priced KC7E7's"?

Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Airbus Is Set To Supply Tankers To U.S

Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:42 pm


Monday, March 22, 2004 12:13 AM ET

European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., the parent of Airbus, will be ready to build aerial tankers for the U.S. Air Force if the Pentagon reopens a competition for refueling planes, Monday's Wall Street Journal reported, citing the top EADS official in the U.S.

http://www.quicken.com/investments/news_center/story/?story=NewsStory/dowJones/20040322/ON200403220013000009.var&column=P0DFP

Well this will never happen. Boeing is a cornerstone of the defense industry. No way Billions Tax payer will flow to the traitors in Europe. The US are luckily still smart enough to not sell their defense to potentially hostile foreign nations (in this case France). The 767 is just the perfect aircraft for the job. Airbus has to get over it. The USAF cannot rely on France politics. The A330 is simply to much of an aircraft.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:18 pm

Unless someone has proof that Boeing bribed the Secretary of Defense and Senator Warner it looks like this deal is going to go through.

Bribing public officials. Who would do such a thing?


http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/03/15/daily10.html
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:14 am

Bribing public officials. Who would do such a thing?
Airbus, Air France, the French government, Aerospatialle, I see a pattern emerging  Laugh out loud
I wish I were flying
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:04 am

Everyone reading this thread probably has a good idea on where I stand on the 767 Tanker issue. If the DOD can manage to fix some of the problems facing the program at the moment the 767 will prove itself once in service. IMHO it's the right plane for the job.

However lets be honest here. The USAF ordering the KC330 is a political non-starter. Just as the French Air Force ordering the C-17, C-130J or the 767 as a replacement for the KC135. Or P&W Canada being selected as the prime contractor for the A400M powerplant. Or the German Army buying the M1A2 MBT as a replacement for the Leopard. Or the French Navy ordering the F/A-18 as a replacement for the F-8 twenty years ago. Or the Dutch Navy ordering frigates from US shipyards.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:43 am

Or the German Army buying the M1A2 MBT as a replacement for the Leopard

No need for that I guess .. http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm

but I´ve got your point.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:49 am

"the Abrams stands at the head of the ranking in terms of combat performance."

The only ranking that really counts in the end.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:24 am

the Abrams’ already formidable proven fighting ability. Indeed, based on its superior performance during the Persian Gulf War, the Abrams stands at the head of the ranking in terms of combat performance.

A nice twist to soften the pain for some readers.

In this analogy a Mig 21 is superior to a F22 because is has made kills in combat ...

On the 767, it lacks range, fuel load & cargo/passenger capasity available in the market place, it would be an old technology airframe from the start & isn´t even cheap (to come back to the subject)

It´s like giving a new music contract to the Rolling Stones, they are good but how will they do in 25 years ...

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:57 am

To make the analogy between the M1A2 and MIG-21 is sort of silly don't you think. Besides, I'm preety sure if you did some more digging you could find someone else calling the M1A2 the best tank in the world.

On the subject of the 767 see above statement regarding political non-starter.

Stop taking this so personal.  Smile
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
chdmcmanus
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 12:53 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:45 am

What amazes me the most about this entire issue, is the replacements that are being considered for the KC-135 only meet/slightly exceed it's current capability. In 50 years of proud USAF service, this has got to be the first time a new replacement is being sought to just "meet" the current equipments capability. Amazing. No UARRSI, comparable cargo and fuel load, oh, wait it has an APU that works, wow, then lets go with it??????

If they are going to replace a large volume of equipment with fewer, more expensive and newer equipment, shouldn't the new capabilities at least MEET the capability volume of the old ones? With 300 (or so) 135's and 59 -10's in the inventory, we're spending an awfully lot of time deployed. So how much time in the sandbox will there be when there is only 150 KC-767's (or 330s, whatever) and 59 -10's? At least if the DoD considered converting more DC-10's or purchase of a 777 tanker the ops demand would have a chance of being met. I sure hope that new F-35 is really really fuel efficient, or we're going to have airborne gas lines like California in the 70's.

Just my 2c

ChD
"Never trust a clean Crew Chief"
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:44 am

Chdmcmanus, this isn't the 1960's. You don't have radically different KC-135s replacing KC-97s in just 10 years of service (or less).

Basically they're just buying reliability and a future. If it has a comparable fuel and cargo load (and I assume it does), then wouldn't it make sense?

What is UARRSI?
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

The Schmitz Audit Report

Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:46 pm

For those who still feel the 767 is simply the best choice : ...

WASHINGTON - The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100 aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal, according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.

The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.

The Boeing tanker deal has been under investigation since it became public two and a half years ago and has been suspended pending the outcome of the probes.

But the e-mails and other documents show just how intent the Air Force was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were more capable and cost less.


Read the rest of the article ; simply astonishing ..

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/8293469.htm

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
chdmcmanus
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 12:53 am

RE: Alternative Solutions Usaf Tanker Requirement

Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:48 am

MD-90, that is exactly the point, in 40 years since the '135 only the KC-10 has far exceeded its capability, and in the 20 years since the KC-10, no one can produce a tanker to replace the '135 that even meets the KC-10????? It doesn't make sense because although the individual capabilities meet the current '135, the USAF isn't going to buy 350 K-XXX to replace them. Even though less Mx means more tails available, the AF would still have to buy 250 K-XXX to meet the volume capability of the '135.

UARRSI= Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation. The component that makes the USAF Boom able to mate with a receiver acft. The KC-767 is NOT planned to have one, thus they can not take fuel, except via emergency reverse AR.

ChD
"Never trust a clean Crew Chief"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ssteve and 11 guests