keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 6:09 am

Lockheed Martin Corp. quietly proposed an all-new aerial refueling tanker in 2002 before the U.S. Air Force instead pursued a now-stalled $23.5 billion deal with Boeing Co. based on the 767 airliner, Lockheed acknowledged on Friday.

The Pentagon's largest supplier, Lockheed is leaving open the possibility of reviving its pitch if the military calls for a new contest, which could further complicate Boeing's hopes to lease and sell 100 modified 767s.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/05/21/rtr1380632.html



Well if the 767 will not be selected, Airbus remains "not from here" Lockheed might take a chance.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3183
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 6:17 am

Still weighted heavily in Boeing favor though. Check out this quote from the article that AvObserver posted today:

"Dicks said Congress would require an analysis of alternatives and a panel to review the contracts. He said buying the aircraft "off the shelf" would be less expensive than developing a new aircraft, which could cost $15 billion to $18 billion and take years.

"We don't want to buy from Airbus," Dicks said, referring to Boeing Co.'s major foreign competitor. "

In an nutshel, we don't want the new (Lockheed) or foreign (Airbus) tankers at all. At least someone came out and said it instead of making a lame attempt at a cover up (Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Wash.)).

The last of the famous international playboys
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 6:32 am

I think the EC countries and WTO should ask for confirmation of the congress position on Airbus and ask the administration on their policy.

If simply not buying Airbus is the official line, EC should revaluate it´s JSF plans IMO.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3183
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 7:48 am

Keep in mind that the congressman that said this was from Washigton, where Boeing's factorys are.

And as for the EC retaliation... are they really going to try to force people into buying their products from now on? Pretty soon the're going to put an embargo on me because i bought a Saturn instead of a VW.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 7:52 am

I think most people are intelligent enough to figure out that what one congressman form Washington state says is not official US government policy.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 12:15 pm

It would be political suicide for any US Congressman or Senator to authorize Airbus over Boeing. It has nothing to do with real capabilities.

If there is retaliation, then it could lead to a major trade war. The EU could ban further purchase of any US-made aircraft. And Airbus would be banned from selling airplanes to the US.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 4:43 pm

the WTO has NOTHING to do with your Airbus love, loverboy.

The 330 tanker is not suited to US needs for both technical and political reasons, the choice has nothing to do with you thinking it looks better...

The US (unlike most of Europe) doesn't want to have their foreign policy dictated in Paris which is what would happen if they decided to go with Airbus.
We may be handing the Boche our country on a silver platter signing over our independence and becoming a French colony, the US doesn't want to do that.
I wish I were flying
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 8:56 pm

Jwenting

 Laugh out loud

 Laugh out loud

 Nuts
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sat May 22, 2004 11:15 pm

If, and this is a very big IF, Lockheed were to ever build this aircraft I see one modification they would have to make right off the bat. They would have to stretch out the nose section so they could accommodate a cargo door. Yes they a cargo door could be located mid-fuselage. However this location posses some problems. One, it would take longer to load and unload the aircraft since you would have to maneuver handling equipment around the lower wing and refueling boom. Second it would only be a matter of time before someone hit the wing or the refueling boom. Then you have an aircraft out of service.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 12:02 am

I think they would have to move the cargo door to the front, like the C-5, remove the aft cargo door, streamline the aft section of the fuselage, and put "the" boom there. Having one on each wingtip is not the smartest thing in the world. Apart from the fact that refueling a heavy receiver would be a nightmare (asymetry) for the autopilot, I seriously doubt a heavy receiver would be able to stay on the boom because of vortices and what not, you'd have to have a seperate refueling freq for each wing, two boomers, hydraulics would also be a pain in the *ss. It goes on and on. Not worth the risk in the current config. And oh yeah, the AF will probably never allow lockheed to build another heavy. Too much negative experience with the FRED
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 12:32 am

Duce - what about having a flying boom at the aft section of teh fuselage and then a drogue setup on each wing to refuel European/USN aircraft?
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 12:56 am

Garnetpalmetto,

That would still work. Alot of countries do that already, and it's a very good setup. Fighters never have a bow wave problem (14 drivers might say something different when it comes to the basket though) so the asymetry is N/A. The workload for the boomer is low enough so that one boomer can monitor both refuelings at the same time. The KC-10 and 135s sometimes use this system, we call them Wing Air Refueling Pods (WARPs) and 135s call them something else, but it's pretty much the same system. As long as we take the Brits example and have the pods powered by hydraulic pressure rather than fuel pressure, we'll be golden.

BTW, nice signature. I DEFINITELY don't agree with it, but it's good to bust other people's balls like that. Good on you. Just remember who holds the White house and Congress.  Smile
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 2:10 am

Well, of course with this system they can refuel 2 aircraft using the US standard system or 2 aircraft using hose and drogue.
The systems can even be fitted at the same time (rather than on the KC-10 and KC-135 where it's either one or the other and then only one aircraft at a time).

The idea looks sound, and might even fly if money is allocated.
That is however extremely unlikely in these budget-deprived days.
I wish I were flying
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 2:25 am

Jwenting,

The KC-10 can refuel boom or drogue aircraft on the same flight (C/L boom, C/L drogue) and can refuel two probe equipped fighters at the same time with our WARPs when we carry them. The KC-135 can refuel either a boom aircraft or a drogue aircraft, but not both. Unless they're carrying their WARP equivalent.

centerline boom and the centerline drogue on the KC-10


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Parks
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Parks



 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 6:23 am

The problem with the Lockheed entry is that the USAF needs the tankers ASAP. If they still had a descent transport aircraft design, and facilities available, they might be competitive, but at this moment they don't stand a chance.

Airbus is a political problem, tankers are a major military asset more important than most other aircraft in the USAF fleet. So buying a foreign produced tanker just won't fly with either congress or the military. We can't take the risk that one of the Airbus countries not agreeing with our actions (as France has more than once) cutting off the supply of spare parts (as France has done more than once to other countries). Combine that with the non-political problems like the aircraft is much larger than what the USAF can fit in some of it's bases, and other issues, Airbus is starting way behind the curve.

Having EU countries boycott the US would be a bad idea, there are few aircraft readily available that can meet the mission standards as the US. Besides what does France have to lose the French Government haven't purchased significant amounts of US made aircraft in years. And the US purchases quite a few foreign made aircraft and systems, just none are in a critical role nor as costly as the USAF tanker contract.

Now the details of the contract are up for debate personally I think that letting Boeing handle all of the heavy maintenance is a good idea. Under the U-2/TR-1 program it has shown that manufacture maintenance personal are much more efficient because they have an in depth understanding of the aircraft that is rarely attained with the average enlisted man.

No disrespect to the enlisted men, but it's hard to accumulated the knowledge that man of the aircraft manufacture employees have gained over the years of maintaining the aircraft itself and similar aircraft.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 8:39 am

Along with time issues another there are several other factors working against the Lockheed tanker. One is the cost. Since this is an entirely new aircraft there would be the associated development costs along with the tooling required to build the aircraft. Then there's the fact that LM has a full plate right now with the F-22, JSF and C-130J. If the project were ever to get the go ahead LM would more than likely have to go half and half with another company like Boeing or Northrup.

With that said I would love to see this aircraft built. If cost and time factors were not an issue it would be a no brainier that this would be the aircraft to pick.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Guest

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 9:54 am

As far as I see it, the problem from the EU side is about fair trade. Should the statements from that senator be right, it would mean that the US government rejects a product only on the basis of nationality, and that would go against free trade policies, I think (I'm not a WTO lawyer, so help me out here if I'm wrong).

On THAT basis, the EU could -though, again, I'm not sure- file a complaint in WTO. Now, let's clarify things, I don't think for a second that that congressman is mandated to determine the US Admin's policies on the subject  Nuts.

And, Wedgetail, I think that total boycott is a little extreme you know... I live in Europe, and all we have heard during the past 3 years is comments about the impending commercial apocalypse between EU and USA over every possible issue (bananas, steel, GMOs, and even beef), but so far no major problems.I don't think that those tankers going to Boeing is THAT bad.

P.S.: Hey, that Lockheed design looks kinda familiar... it's a romulan bird of prey! Star Trek rules!  Nuts
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 1:47 pm

didn't know the hose and drogue on the -10 can be removed in flight from the boom.
Looks from the outside like it replaces the regular equipment.

Or do you mean the -10 can do both when fitting pods under the wing?
I wish I were flying
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 2:14 pm

Actually there would be a great twist of irony here if Lockheed did bring this concept to production.

1950's tanker contest

Lockheed wins, Boeing gets an "interm" order. Lockheed never produces a single tanker, the "interm" tanker we call the KC-135.

50 years later

Boeing wins, never produces a single tanker. Lockheed's tanker quickly enters production



I don't see that scenario happening but it would be a great peice of irony.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 3:04 pm

hmm, wasn't the KC-10 (now a Boeing product) an interim solution as well until a suitable replacement for the interim KC-135 could be produced in volume?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
I wish I were flying
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 6:10 pm

Yeah, but I think calling it a Boeing product is a travesty.

Knowing Boeing, I am actually surprised that they didn't put out an AD to replace the wheel covers on all those DC-10's that where made with a stamped "MDC" on them with ones that where stamped "Boeing".

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 8:27 pm

I think the Loockheed design was designed as nothing but a tanker, without cargo/personnel capasity.

A superefficient purpose made design, diameter of the airframe about 72/73/757 size I think.

The twin boom high speed outlets would be a strong sellingpoint IMO for refilling USAF fighters/Transports.

I wonder what the tail is about..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Sun May 23, 2004 11:14 pm

You're wrong that it's meant as only a tanker.

Lockheed launched this proposal years ago as a replacement for the entire line of aircraft based on the C-135 and C-137 platforms, and to be modular.
The tail area has a loading ramp for modular podded equipment to be loaded, and can also be used for loading regular cargo of course.

Other proposed versions included AEW, ESM, ASW/MPA, ECM, strategic airlift, and possibly a cruise missile carrier.
I wish I were flying
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Mon May 24, 2004 9:32 pm

I've seen a simliar design to this as a proposal for a carrier based tanker. It was much, much smaller, of course, and the engines were in conventional pods on the aft fuselage. It didn't look quite as streamlined or slick.

That was as least 5 years ago.


And Keesje, I see it as the European countries that are participating in the JSF program are simply hoping to get the most for their money. Otherwise they'd buy Gripens, more Eurofighters, or even Rafales.
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Mon May 24, 2004 11:01 pm

jwenting,

On the KC-10 they are fitted with both on the centerline. It's not like the hose attachment for the KC-135 it has an actual pod in the aft fuselage.

Here is a photo from the USAF website that shows the position of the hose pod:
http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/971017-N-9547F-210.jpg
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Tue May 25, 2004 4:25 am

cheers. I thought they used the same system of a clipon hose and drogue that can't be used in concert with the boom.

Could be that's the way the Dutch KDC-10s do it and that's where I saw it.
I wish I were flying
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Tue May 25, 2004 5:23 am

Jwenting,

That might be where you saw it. The KDC-10 has a different refueling system than the KC-10. In fact their system is similar to the system that will be installed on the KC-767.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
ulfinator
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:35 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Tue May 25, 2004 11:55 pm

Lockheed isn't the only one with a different concept for a tanker sitting around. Boeing has been working on the Blended-Wing Concept for some years now...

Sorry about the text in the picture it is the only one I could find...



"For the past decade, Boeing has been developing an alternative plane known as the Blended Wing Body -- an aircraft that looks like a flying wing. Not only would the plane make a more efficient tanker than the old-line 767, say experts, it could also be used as a bomber or troop transport."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_21/b3884053.htm
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Wed May 26, 2004 12:57 am

Ulfinator,
As Lockheed learned from the F-16 competition, there is difference between pitching what the USAF asks for and what it needs.

For the F-16 competition they asked for an aircraft with such and such gross weight, so many pounds of fuel (about 5,000 lbs). But Ben Rich said that the usefullness of the aircraft would be limited (it was simply a modern F-5) and the USAF would want, a different spec. So he submitted the specs (9,000 lbs, increased gross weight) he thought the USAF would need. Of course they lost to General Dynamics (which they bought later), but the ultimate F-16 design was damn near what Ben Rich pitched to the USAF.

The Blended-Wing concept is not something that the USAF wants, so Boeing didn't pitch it.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
kc10boom
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 5:38 pm

RE: Lockheed Pitched All New US Tanker Vs Boeing 767

Wed May 26, 2004 11:30 am

I am totally amazed with the concept that if we need a tanker, we just pick a convenient Boeing model and slap and boom on it.(and if the Navy is lucky a drogue) The specs of the 767 variant are not much better capacity wise than the KC-135. We (United States) are a GLOBAL mobility force and yet the bureaucrats are clipping our reach with this tiny tanker. (from previous post)In 1979 12 F-15 Eagles, 115 tons of support equipment, and 209 people deployed to Saudi Arabia. The move required 2 days using 16 KC-135's 3 C-141's, 2 C-5's and two overseas bases- Lajes, in the Azores, and Torrejon, in Spain. It is estimated that had KC10's been available only six would have been needed- no C-141's, no C-5's and no forward bases. The mission would have been completed in half the time with a savings of 600,000 gallons(not pounds) of fuel. Now this example does not consider the fuel efficiency of the new 767, however the fact still remains, that the days of a stand alone tanker are over. Why doesn't the Air Force do what it does for its fighter and cargo procurements? Fund the necessary research into a viable tanker/cargo aircraft with the capabilities demanded by today's world wide operations. The bureaucrats need to step up to the plate and tell Boeing "This is what it has to do! Good luck against Airbus, Lockheed, and the rest of bidders." This "lets bail Boeing out" concept has to stop. I love Boeing products! However I feel allowing Boeing to cut and paste a tanker together leads to a mediocre product bred by lack of competition, where the only benefactor is the manufacturer. 430,000 Lbs. (322K for a KC-135) will not suffice for a cargo / tanker aircraft with the way things are going in the world. Reduction of the aging C-5 fleet means more cargo / mobility missions are going to be handed to the tankers, and the C-17 is smaller than the aircraft is replacing (not to mention its short range). A manufacturer needs to throw down against Boeing with a true cargo / tanker variant. Boeing engineers are great at what they do, I just wish someone would tell them what WE need not what they want to give us.

Robert
Why is it my best contacts are when no one else is looking!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests