Boeing7E7
Topic Author
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 10:26 am

 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 10:39 am

Wierd how the USA wants the world's militarries to buy it's products and weapons...yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...


GS

Counting on how long it will take thos to become and A vs B thread
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 10:44 am

Tough to run a competition with only one entrant.

The real question is will the Air Force

1. Even aquire a tanker- Right now the situation for procurement seems to be focusing on other areas. Our military is in dire straits with the situation in Iraq and Afganistan. We need to re-stock the supplies that were used and refit or replace a lot of the ground equipment.

2. Act before the 767 line is shut down- Boeing has a ton of orders to build for the 787. The 737 and 777 lines are also booming. Is there enough profit to be made to drag out the 767 line long enough for the military -who are notoriously slow on procurement- to make up their minds? And to keep the line open especially if the rate of production is low?
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
N317AS
Posts: 941
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 1:25 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 11:06 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...

When you have the best, why shop elsewhere?
Some people are like Slinkies. They bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 11:33 am

Quoting Starrion (Reply 2):
1. Even aquire a tanker- Right now the situation for procurement seems to be focusing on other areas. Our military is in dire straits with the situation in Iraq and Afganistan. We need to re-stock the supplies that were used and refit or replace a lot of the ground equipment.

The money situation is a potential BIG problem! But, so far, it is not affecting other procurement programs too much (F/A-22, C-130J) - but the future is shaky at best for them both. The thing is, the need for a new tanker was hyped up last time around. The only KC-135's that need attention right now are the KC-135E's - many of them are grounded due to an engine strut problem that can be repaired, but will be costly. Side note, the KC-135E's are not older than the KC-135R's, that's not true - all KC-135's were procured between 1955 and 1964 - all came off the line as KC-135A's. Some went to R, some went to E back in the 80's-90's. The bulk of the fleet are R models and, trust me, they are extremely reliable airplanes for being nearly 50 years old. With all the modifications, they also have modern engines and avionics now - being among the first airplanes in the world to receive GATM modifications.


Quoting Starrion (Reply 2):
Act before the 767 line is shut down

Last I heard they would consider reopening it if the order was substantial enough. Of course right now Boeing says that won't happen "act now, before it's too late!!" But if they get the chance for the 767 to become the tanker of the future, they'll reopen the line - I don't doubt that at all.

However, the most recent word from DC is that other airplanes are being looked at. Even if Airbus can't compete, the 767 is not set in stone. Other options: Modify old airliners (bad idea, you would think they'd learn), 777 (I like this one personally, but it might be too big and heavy), and 737 (or so it said, though I can't imagine.)

[Edited 2005-05-21 04:35:25]
 
zoom1018
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 2:59 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 11:38 am

Well, I think they had better go with 767 or .... 787 hehehe
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 11:41 am

Both the 737 and the 777 don't seem to fit the build. The -37 is too small. Not enough lift to make a good tanker.


The 777 is too big. It's even bigger than the A330 which is why the USAF (supposedly) doesn't want it. The best one for one or one for two replacement would be the 767.

Modifying old airliners sounds like a really bad idea. Why replace high-time quads with really high time twins?

Buying up old 767's and parking them at AMARC seems like a good idea for providing a ready supply of spare parts but not for use.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
art
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 12:02 pm

Quoting N317AS (Reply 3):
Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...

When you have the best, why shop elsewhere?

True when talking about something like the F-22, which is undoubtedly the best.

In the case of the KC-135 replacement, neither the A330 nor the B767 is so much better that the other does not merit consideration.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 12:16 pm

Who's Bill Shields?

 Silly
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 1:52 pm

Quoting Starrion (Reply 6):
Both the 737 and the 777 don't seem to fit the build. The -37 is too small. Not enough lift to make a good tanker.

Agreed, but it was in a DoD news release stating they would both be looked at. Also, I forgot to mention, they will also consider the 787 - which might actually be the way to go, why not get the newest technology?

Quoting Starrion (Reply 6):
Why replace high-time quads with really high time twins?

The high time quads you refer to, obviously the KC-135, are surprisingly not high time at all. Would you believe that despite approaching 50 years in age, most of the planes are right around (plus or minus a few thousand) 20,000 hours? It's true - The cold war and subsequent years of sitting alert on bases, just in case, spared them a lot of usage in their early years.
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 2:13 pm

Quoting KC135R (Reply 9):
The high time quads you refer to, obviously the KC-135, are surprisingly not high time at all. Would you believe that despite approaching 50 years in age, most of the planes are right around (plus or minus a few thousand) 20,000 hours? It's true - The cold war and subsequent years of sitting alert on bases, just in case, spared them a lot of usage in their early years.

I believe it, but even if the usage isn't as high as an airliner, age alone can require a lot of maintenance. My cessna just required a huge annual because of corrosion and engine issues even thouigh we don't fly it a lot.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 2:36 pm

Quoting Starrion (Reply 10):
I believe it, but even if the usage isn't as high as an airliner, age alone can require a lot of maintenance. My cessna just required a huge annual because of corrosion and engine issues even thouigh we don't fly it a lot.

But these planes have been so modified, the only time they really show their age is in the area of corrosion. As that is slowly being fixed (replacement of first skin, now ribs and skin during major maintenance), they will likely last until the predicted retirement year of 2040. Daily flying, not counting excessive downtime during major maintenance due to corrosion repair, we used to maintain around a 98% MC rate, which is good, really good, for an Air Force large airplane. Even now they still hover in the low 90% area, a lot of that seems to be related to teething with the new avionics.
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 2:47 pm

What's your opinion then? Should the Air Force forego the KC767 and just convert the 135E's to 135R's?

If the -135 fleet can do the job, should we be spending the money to replace them?
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 3:11 pm

Quoting Starrion (Reply 12):
If the -135 fleet can do the job, should we be spending the money to replace them?

That depends - I heard the cost to repair the engine struts (as some have been done already) on the KC-135E is easily in the millions per airplane - even when that is done, they are still stuck with those old, less reliable TF33 engines. So the question becomes, long term is it worthwhile to fix the E's? If the R model, which makes up the bulk of the fleet, can be flown until 2040 then there is no need to replace them yet. The next question I would ask is this: Would it be a huge loss to lose the E models without them being replaced by anything? It's possible, if they consolidate bases instead of having them so spread out at so many guard and reserve bases, we could survive with the current fleet of R's and with that other tanker, that is sort of a tanker - the KC-10. Wink That becomes the question, can we retire the E's and still be OK? If not, then there are several options, IMO:

#1: Add a new tanker to the fleet - as they had planned with the KC-767. Problem is, now you have 3 tanker types in the USAF - how efficient is that?

#2: Repair the E model and keep flying it - or, perhaps even better, instead of beefing up the current engine struts, while it's all torn apart - re-engine it with CFM56's and then the whole fleet will be R models - it might not be all that cost prohibitive and has to be cheaper than buying new airplanes.

#3: AFAIK, there are still a good number of DC-10's out there on the secondhand market - why not modify some of them into KC-10's to expand that fleet and help augment the KC-135 fleet if it loses those E-models.

Overall, IMO, we don't need the KC-767 now, as nice as it would be. If anything, give the 787 time to mature and look at it as a replacement a few years down the road. As far as I can tell, the KC-767 was corporate welfare for Boeing, meant only to drum up a false need for the airplane in order to keep the line open. I could tell the need was created by the rhetoric - they said all sorts of things about the KC-135 that were not true.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13471
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 3:19 pm

Quote:
The House panel said it was deeply concerned with the skyrocketing cost of weapons systems

So we'll let Boeing rape us with the 767 by not letting EADS compete.  scratchchin 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 3:24 pm

How does that bill comply with free market economy - one of the main building blocks of america's crest for more world-demoracy !!!
Just three days ago Condoleeza announced the set up of a "task force" to teach the rest of the world how democracy works - well that's a great lesson !

[Edited 2005-05-21 08:27:31]
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 3:26 pm

So we'll let Boeing rape us with the 767 by not letting EADS compete

You can't rape a willing soul.  Wink
Ain't I a stinker?
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 3:28 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 14):
So we'll let Boeing rape us with the 767 by not letting EADS compete.

Be fair Scbriml - that was the actions of a couple of unethical people. They will let EADS compete - notice the Senate version of the same bill does not have this, it's political posturing and I doubt it will make it to the final version when all is said and done. Remember both parts of congress must agree on the final bill, BS like this comes out in the House, but gets removed by the more moderate and cool-headed (well they used to be) Senate. That being said, I personally suspect the USAF will never fly the KC-330.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 3:31 pm

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 15):
How does that bill comply with free market economy - one of the main building blocks of america's crest for more world-demoracy !!!
Just three days ago Condoleeza announced the set up of a "task force" to teach the rest of the world how democracy works - well that's a great lesson !

Yeah well, we also tell other countries not to have nukes, while being the only country in history that has used them against another. We're not perfect, nor is Europe, nor is the Middle East, etc.....

Besides, as I stated above, I really doubt something like this will make it to the final bill, passed by both halves of congress (important because when they work out their opposing versions, it will likely be dropped).
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13471
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 4:14 pm

Quoting KC135R (Reply 17):
Remember both parts of congress must agree on the final bill, BS like this comes out in the House, but gets removed by the more moderate and cool-headed (well they used to be) Senate.

OK, my knowledge of the system didn't include this. Let's see how this progresses.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 17):
That being said, I personally suspect the USAF will never fly the KC-330.

Highly likely you're right. But if I was a US taxpayer I'd like to see Boeing pushed to offer the best deal through competition. The company I work for requires competitive bidding on all purchases over a certain value. However, we don't have to accept the lowest bid.  wink 

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 16):
You can't rape a willing soul.

So, presumably, as a US tax payer, you'd have been happy to pay Boeing way over the odds for KC767s the first time round?  crazy 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 4:32 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 19):
Highly likely you're right. But if I was a US taxpayer I'd like to see Boeing pushed to offer the best deal through competition. The company I work for requires competitive bidding on all purchases over a certain value. However, we don't have to accept the lowest bid.

As a US taxpayer, I would like to see the best deal. As an USAF aircraft maintainer, I definitely want the best airplane for the job - whatever that may be. I'll do some digging, but if I remember correctly the DoD has to allow for competitive bidding. Darleen Druyun was only part of the KC-767 debacle, John McCain was also intent on allowing competitors to bid so the US taxpayer does get the best value. Unless this provision somehow makes it in the final bill,which I doubt it will - and based on what I believe at this point in time - the DoD will have to have open bidding when and if this contract opens up again. While I still don't plan on maintaining a KC-330, I know competitive bidding, if allowed, will force Boeing to lower their price on whatever they end up offering when the time comes.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 6:16 pm

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 15):
How does that bill comply with free market economy - one of the main building blocks of america's crest for more world-demoracy !!!

Oh, give it a rest. No serious official or politician has ever advocated that defense spending and contracts be free market in nature here and abroad. US defense companies exports are heavily regulated by the federal government as a result. Defense equipment purchases are highly political in nature here and abroad, and US defense exports to other countries have very often involved industrial offsets and other non-free marketish features to help foreign governments justify purchases of US made/designed military equipment.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 13):
#2: Repair the E model and keep flying it - or, perhaps even better, instead of beefing up the current engine struts, while it's all torn apart - re-engine it with CFM56's and then the whole fleet will be R models - it might not be all that cost prohibitive and has to be cheaper than buying new airplanes.

If they can fix the E models at the 15-20% of the cost of a new build plane and keep them flying for another 35 years, I would think that would be the way to go.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 8:39 pm

All trouble started when it became clear the KC330 a more capable option for the USAF.

A historic circus began to adjust all specs & conditions to make the KC767 came out as winner. Congress didn´t buy it & punished the Pentagon & Boeing.

The Pentagon was forced to start the process all over. Problem is the KC330 still seems the best offer & EADS is starting to make friends in the site selection process.

Time for decisive action.

Hopefully Lockheed won´t be the loosing party when EC states start reconsidering the hundreds of JSF ordered.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 8:50 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
All trouble started when it became clear the KC330 a more capable option for the USAF.

And the 777 is an even more capable option. Capable doesn't mean it fits all the criteria for a tanker selection for the USAF. I haven't seen any evidence that the KC-330 would be the best suited tanker for the USAF.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Hopefully Lockheed won´t be the loosing party when EC states start reconsidering the hundreds of JSF ordered.

Uh huh, and all the EC states that would most benefit from the winning the KC-330 are all going to order the JSF... For some reason I just don't see France and Germany ordering them...

[Edited 2005-05-21 13:51:33]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
PanAm_DC10
Crew
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 7:37 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 9:40 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Hopefully Lockheed won´t be the loosing party when EC states start reconsidering the hundreds of JSF ordered.

Without straying too far OT. Just how many EC Sates have ordered firm the JSF ?

Yet another unsubstantiated fact thrown about to suit the needs of the rose tinted spectacle brigade in Euroland

 Yeah sure
Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 10:41 pm

I can hardly imagine a KC330 flying for the USAF,etc as a Tanker.

Why would the military choose a rather old model,with the 767? Choosing the 787 would make much much more sense, if you only think that they should last at least some 20-25 years in service.

Maybe developing costs are high, but all in all the KC787 would be,IMO, cheaper to operate.
 
Ricci767
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:28 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 10:58 pm

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
Wierd how the USA wants the world's militarries to buy it's products and weapons...yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...

Harrier? Also I think the US also has some BAe Hawks but they call them something differrent.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 11:16 pm

Quoting PANAM_DC10 (Reply 24):
Just how many EC Sates have ordered firm the JSF ?

Exactly  Wink

Quoting OHLHD (Reply 25):
Choosing the 787 would make much much more sense,

Boeing told us the technolgy used for the 787 makes it unsuitable for militairy adjustments.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 23):
Capable doesn't mean it fits all the criteria for a tanker selection for the USAF

McCain exposed the specs were rewritten by Boeing. People got fired/jailed for that. No idea what the real specs are now. "Not too much of an airplane" seems to be out. If Airbus was an American company the first dozen KC330 would probably be operational by now.

Expect Boeing to stay out of these discussions, they are walking on ice at this moment. Story on the KC767 prototype in Seattle, they are considering scrapping or selling it. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2002283128_boeing21.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 11:44 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
Hopefully Lockheed won´t be the loosing party when EC states start reconsidering the hundreds of JSF ordered.

Keesje:

And the above "hundreds" were ordered by which nations? And what kind of leverage do you believe that translates into for the KC330?

Regards,

F4N
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sat May 21, 2005 11:55 pm

Quoting OHLHD (Reply 25):
Why would the military choose a rather old model,with the 767?

Simple.

And that's the answer.

The 767 has proven technology, which isn't overly complex for the job at hand. For the same reason NASA uses old Intel chips (the 486DX) in space applications, they are tried and tested and also simple in their design and construction. Military applications like a tanker aircraft do not require fly-by-wire or computing power to the degree of the A330, just like chips being flown in space don't need MMX or 2GHz processor speeds.

If you keep it simple with proven technology then simple can be efficient and reliable too.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
Amy
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:48 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 12:43 am

The A300 line is still open, would this make a suitable base?
A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
 
wingman
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 1:14 am

Hey Keesje: remember the engine selection process on the A400M? We learned from the best brother. I would also remind you that the United States has the largest fleet of Airbus jets in the world. Furthermore we run a $100B deficit with the EU each and every year. And outside of the UK, where BAe is a primary JSF contractor, I don't think any EADS country is joining the JSF program. France? no, Germany? no, Spain? no. What exactly is your point?
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 1:19 am

I am surprised that the most important thing is missing here:

The US has promoted the freeworld, Freetrade and "Democracy to the world", but ONLY if it fits its interests and their agenda, they dont care about other counties heck, they dont even care about their tax paying citizens.

Coming from Mexico (a very corrupt country and one where we see this kind of things quite often), I am amazed at how this tanker affair has been handled, Boeing was caught, very high level corruption was exposed, some resignations happened, and then 2 slaps on the hand, and LETS KEEP THE BUSSINES as usual GOING!!!

I really dont care about Airbus winning the tanker deal (they seem to be fine without any military money), but it gets me that some A neters are more concerned with Boeing getting the cake than to ensure that the national deficit is not getting any higher and the Washington guys do not get away with buying products from a questionable process (as in bidding by ONE).

Maybe Airbus could sell the old A310 assembly line to Lockheed, and they could give those Washington guys a surprise.....wont happen but nevertheless it would be quite a sight having two "american" bidders in the tanker deal....
Maybe they could buy Ilushin aircrafts (bet they would be cheap as hell) and save face..

As a really good American friend of mine said "America stopped being America a long time ago, but nobody has noticed"

Best Regards
TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 1:19 am

Quoting Amy (Reply 30):
The A300 line is still open, would this make a suitable base?

Insufficient range. Although technology levels for the A306 and 762 are broadly comparable.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
RODNAWACS
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:29 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 1:21 am

WhiteHatter, reply 29 is right on the mark. The USAF is going to go proven and keep it simple, the 767 would fit the bill perfectly. As a member of the USAF the LAST thing right or wrong I willl ever see is a KC330 on the flight-line Im sorry but it will never happen. I know never say never, well, in this case it is NEVER.
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 1:42 am

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
Wierd how the USA wants the world's militarries to buy it's products and weapons...yet they they only want theirs's to buy American only...

I would presume this is for security reasons. The last thing we need is foriegn sabotage of our armed forces. I don't mean that the British, French, or Germans will systematically try to sabotage us, but I'm not sure if their aerospace companies have the same rigid security measures for individual employees like Lockheed Martin.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 1:57 am

That's great - our capitalistic government overwhelmingly approves a bill to eliminate competition to ensure the best product available for our military, yet they want to fight to keep our women on the front lines in combat?

Not even Rome lasted forever; greedy politicians and lawyers are the beginning of the end for the United States as we know it.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 1:59 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
All trouble started when it became clear the KC330 a more capable option for the USAF.

I have not seen any info that the KC-330 would be more capable than the KC-767. Looking at studies and analysis of it in the past, the KC-330 is likely too heavy for what the USAF wants, as is the 777. Besides there are other considerations - for example, when Boeing came to the bases that were going to get the KC-767 and measured hangars and ramps, they found very little modification would have to be made to accommodate the 767 at 135 bases. The main thing was tail doors into the hangar would have to be raised to accommodate the taller 767, but not much else would have to be done. If we buy the KC-330, a much larger airplane, hangars will likely have to be rebuilt instead of modified.

Quoting OHLHD (Reply 25):
Why would the military choose a rather old model,with the 767? Choosing the 787 would make much more sense, if you only think that they should last at least some 20-25 years in service.

The selling point, at the time, was that it is proven technology. Also the 787 was not yet, or just barely, off the ground when this decision was made the first time.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 27):
McCain exposed the specs were rewritten by Boeing. People got fired/jailed for that. No idea what the real specs are now.

You need to learn how to check facts. The problem with the KC-767 deal was that A. the sudden urgency of the deal meant leasing the airplanes would be the way to get them the quickest - but leasing was going to be way more expensive in the long run. There is no urgent need for new tankers right now, maybe an eventual replacement - but this "we need them today or else" BS was all made up. and B. The lease deal was overseen by Druyun, who was giving Boeing sweetheart deals because she had a job lined up with them. This is unethical IMO (I mean having been recruited for a job while still writing contracts), but it happens all the time with many defense companies. What McCain exposed was how expensive the lease was and how we could acquire the airplanes in a reasonable amount of time through a normal buying process, which would be cheaper. During the investigation it came out that Druyun was making sweetheart deals for the company.

Look it was a bad deal, but the airplane makes sense in many ways. The plane wasn't the problem, it was the lease deal.

Quoting Amy (Reply 30):
The A300 line is still open, would this make a suitable base?

The German AF is acquiring A310 tankers, which will also be studied when/if the USAF proceeds with tanker acquisition.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 2:14 am

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 35):
I would presume this is for security reasons. The last thing we need is foriegn sabotage of our armed forces.

And yet, the Bin Laden family built a base in Saudi for us where we spent 10+ years until the Iraq war. It was so odd waking up every day, while there in 2002, to take a shower, seeing "Bin Laden Group" stencilled on the water heater in the bathroom.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
Not even Rome lasted forever; greedy politicians and lawyers are the beginning of the end for the United States as we know it.

True - our greedy politicians make me ill as well. However, I have hope that people will some day catch on and a grass roots effort to have honest, ethical politicians who are able to work outside of partisan lines will take place.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
That's great - our capitalistic government overwhelmingly approves a bill to eliminate competition to ensure the best product available for our military, yet they want to fight to keep our women on the front lines in combat?

First of all, it overwhelmingly passed in a house committee, hence the 61-1 vote (there are 435 members of the full house, if memory serves). There's nothing like this in the Senate bill. I see this as a more of a symbolic move that will likely not be included in the final bill that is passed by both the House and the Senate.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 3:44 am

Quoting KC135R (Reply 37):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 27):
McCain exposed the specs were rewritten by Boeing. People got fired/jailed for that. No idea what the real specs are now.

You need to learn how to check facts...

The USAF let Boeing rewrite the Tanker specifications.
http://scoop.agonist.org/archives/014760.html

Stories like the hangars are to small (other USAF big aircraft??), The airbus is too advanced, too much range etc etc where all dragged to make the case but haven´t been mentioned lately by the Pentagon, USAF...

Now it is tried in a political way to block Airbus.

Any idea how Boeing would look if Airbus suddenly withdraws from competition because it became clear they only were competing for windowdressing & never had any chance.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Byrdluvs747
Posts: 2377
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 4:00 am

Funny how we can blow through billions of dollars to drop bombs on families in Iraq, but stand around nickel & diiming about the 767 tanker?
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 4:02 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
it became clear they only were competing for windowdressing & never had any chance.

...you're speaking about from day one, right?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 4:21 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
Stories like the hangars are to small (other USAF big aircraft??), The airbus is too advanced, too much range etc etc where all dragged to make the case but haven´t been mentioned lately by the Pentagon, USAF...

Ok, in fairness I withdraw my statement that you need to learn to check facts, since you have a source, but this story is fishy at best. First of all, the Italian KC-767, one of which has already been rolled out, has the capability to do multi point refueling. Notice the picture in this story - the wingtip pods http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q1/nr_050224m.html So how can it say the first 100 would not have had that capability? Also it has a boom and pods, so would be able to refuel AF and other services airplanes. Second, when contracts are negotiated there is often give and take, so the fact that there were changes to the original requirement do not surprise me.

BTW, I am not saying that the KC-330 or, for that matter, a KC-777 would not be more capable. What I am saying is that there are more considerations than just capability. For example, more capable might mean more cargo capacity, more range, and things of this nature - but that capability as an airplane might make it less capable as a tanker. Many would argue the KC-10 is a less capable tanker than the KC-135, but the airplane itself is more capable overall, see my point? I saw the EADS sponsored website promoting the KC-330 and there are some interesting points. For example, the claim is that the airplane needs no additional fuel tanks to be a tanker so all the underfloor space can be used for cargo. However, it will not be used at the same time, it won't work - loaded with fuel for a refueling mission will preclude loading it full of cargo - so you are flying a bigger, heavier airplane around (empty) that consumes more of its own fuel. In the end it would become what the KC-10 has, kind of a tanker but more of a cargo airplane overall.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
Stories like the hangars are to small (other USAF big aircraft??),

A tanker base does not have hangars for other airplanes. If the base flies KC-135's, then generally all the hangars are made for KC-135s, they would not accommodate the C-5 for example. They don't build a hangar at every base to accommodate all Air Force airplanes.

The bottom line is this: The Air Force does not need these new tankers right now. Fix the KC-135E's and/or retire them. The KC-135R is supposed to last until 2040, and makes up the bulk of the fleet. Love or hate the KC-767, this deal was a pentagon gift to Boeing to keep the line open. The justification was made up, the urgent need falsified - the sky is not falling, trust me. When all is said and done later this year and the 2 investigations into whether the AF needs new tankers or not are done, it will be determined that a replacement is not needed right now - unless the corporate welfare continues.

BTW, one last thing, yes the KC-767 deal was shady and/or illegal. But sometimes, like in this case, the checks and balances work in the US Government. John McCain (mainly) exposed it for what it was, corporate welfare and a bad deal for the taxpayer. But, under different circumstances, it does not necessarily mean the KC-330 would win a head to head competition. Legally I think EADS will have to be given the chance to bid this contract when it does, eventually, become available - I still don't expect to ever see a KC-330 on the flightline here.



[Edited 2005-05-21 21:40:29]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 5:23 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 27):
If Airbus was an American company the first dozen KC330 would probably be operational by now.

If Airbus was an American Company, they would be out of business. They could never afford to pay back all those government "loans" for every single airplane they developed (and try to bail out other bankrupt airlines).

Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 32):
I really dont care about Airbus winning the tanker deal (they seem to be fine without any military money),

That's because the have all that French, German, Spanish, and British government money.  Wink

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
Any idea how Boeing would look if Airbus suddenly withdraws from competition because it became clear they only were competing for windowdressing & never had any chance.

Yeah, I do. Boeing would look like the only bidder!

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 40):
Funny how we can blow through billions of dollars to drop bombs on families in Iraq, but stand around nickel & diiming about the 767 tanker?

We only target the terrorist families, and those who harbor them. Sometimes we miss

BOMBS AWAY  Wink

I agree with KC135R, we don't need either the KC-767 or the KC-330. The USAF has addressed the ramp parking issue as a major disadvantage to the KC-330. That is why there will not be a KC-777 or a KC-747. Rebuilding the KC-135E to the KC-135R is the best and cheapest solution. There is nothing major wrong with the KC-135 airframe.

Another major disadvantage the KC-330 has is the possibility of the spare parts line being cut by France, Germany, or the EU as a whole, if they don't like the next military operation the US feels it needs to do. Our national interest and national security means more to us than making friends buying someone elses airplanes.

But, if Congress forces a new tanker onto the USAF, it should be a multi-functional airplane. Here there is only two real competitors, and it isn't a KC-767-200F, KC-330-300TT, KC-737-800F, KC-777-200LRF, or even a KC-787 any version. It is only the KC-747-400F or the KC-747-ADV(F). Only with this very big and very heavy aircraft can you get an oversize cargo airplane, troop hauler, and tanker all in one airplane. But, I think USAF thinks it is to big, and heavy as ramp space is still an issue.

No, the A-380-800F will not work. That airplane is nothing more than a big package freighter (PF). It does not have a swing open nose or tail section. Maybe a swing open nose or tail can be built into the A-388PF, but it is going to cost a lot of money.

BTW, didn't Saddam Hussain look good standing in his underwear?  Wink LOL
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 5:46 am

Keesje:

I'm still waiting to hear about those "hundreds"  eyepopping  of F35 orders that the EU states may hold hostage if the KC330 isn't given its' due.

Keesje? Keesje? You out there...? footinmouth 

regards,

F4N
 
KennyK
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:08 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 6:18 am

Typical arrogance of the Yanks, and the US government has the audacity to scream and shout about Airbus. Even the French aren't this narrow minded.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 6:28 am

Quoting KennyK (Reply 45):
Even the French aren't this narrow minded.



Quoting KennyK (Reply 45):
Typical arrogance of the Yanks

...and judging by your comments you are anything but narrow minded right? "typical arrogance" "French...narrow minded". So what, only fellow Brits make sense - in your opinion?   

Yeah, that's not narrow minded at all.   

Let me say it again: I highly doubt this provision in this bill will make it to the final draft. This is a group of people in the house trying to make a point, that's it. McCain and others will never allow it.

[Edited 2005-05-21 23:37:24]
 
Boeing7E7
Topic Author
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 7:09 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):
Another major disadvantage the KC-330 has is the possibility of the spare parts line being cut by France, Germany, or the EU as a whole, if they don't like the next military operation the US feels it needs to do.

#1 reason right there that it will never fly.
 
YBCS
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:05 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 7:14 am

Hi all,

This is only my second post so be gentle. I didn't read all the posts previous to this one, so if this has been covered then I'm just adding my opinion.

What I don't understand is why it is bad for a nation to support its own industry. Here in Australia we have a Buy Australian made campaign. I'm sure most countries have these kinds of policies.
I think this a good policy whether its clothing that we buy from the local shop or governments buying defense products that are manufactured in their own country. Its good for the people (read taxpayers) as they get a multiple benefit from their tax money. This works by employing their own people (read taxpayers), increasing the tax revenue and general welfare of the nation.
To me an elected government that doesn't support it's own industry is doing a disservice to the people that elected it. This is true of Australia, Britain, France or the United States, why should they (the US) be held to a different standard.
Some people might suggest international politics etc. But the government is answerable to its own constituency first.
I'm sure there are some people out there that will disagree with this view and that's fine. I know here it is a commonly held view that you support your own first. Buy Australian Made.

My two cents.
Cheers
YBCS
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Bill Shields Boeing Tanker

Sun May 22, 2005 7:22 am

Quoting KennyK (Reply 45):
Typical arrogance of the Yanks, and the US government has the audacity to scream and shout about Airbus. Even the French aren't this narrow minded.

Wasn't it another Boeing product that helped save your butt 50-53 years ago?

Long live the B-17  Wink

I won't even discuss how we helped save those "narrow minded French", twice.  Wink

Just call me that Ugly American!!!!!!!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: qcpilotxf and 10 guests