NWDC10
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:15 am

The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:35 am

 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:45 am

I actually like the idea of a combined 737 / 777 tanker fleet. Having just one size is too general for requirements. 737s would be perfect for local missions and birds that don't need to take on a lot of gas. They're also good short range cargo/pax aircraft. 777s would be perfect for long range missions, filling up a lot of planes, dragging fighters across the Atlantic, etc. They'd be able to much better fit the requirements of whats needed for the mission. A KC-767 will be total overkill for some missions and just not enough for others. Also, when it comes time to replace the KC-10s, the 777 is a much better replacement than the 767-200.
 
Tan Flyr
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:57 am

seldom does one size fit all and I would think that Boeing should offer a choice of whatever the USAF wanted, 767,777 or even a mini tanker 737. I don't know how they would fit a very large order of those into the 737 line anytime soon.

But a mix of "medium" 767's and heavy 777's seem to the ticket as we now have KC 135 (707) and KC-10 extenders in the fleet. Since the KC -10's are relativley new by Air Force standards, they probably would be around for another 15-20 years considering the 135's are already 40+ years old in most cases.

On missions when only a few fighters would need fuel topped off why have a huge 777 do the job when a 767 can do it more efficiently.

Buy hey, it is the US goverment..never the poster child for logic or clear thinking in procurement.LOL!
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:22 am

Why not 787? Use the USAF to help bring the cost down.

Why 767 at all? Isn't that platform on the way out?

Of course, I think it would be absolutely best for Boeing if the USAF ordered the 777LR refitted tanker. Best for Boeing and Delta too.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5866
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:39 am

I think 777 are the solution, 767 are now a 25 year old design. 100 777 would be a great tanker fleet for our air force.
 
scaledesigns
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:12 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:27 am

Thats strange.He says they think the USAF wants a mixed fleet of
tankers,and that they(Boeing) would like them to be all Boeings.
Then the article continues by saying Boeing will only offer 1 option,not
a shopping list?Huh
F1 Tommy
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2092
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:28 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 5):
I think 777 are the solution, 767 are now a 25 year old design. 100 777 would be a great tanker fleet for our air force.

There is one BIG problem at USAF which prevents them from looking into the 777 tanker. The wingspan. It is far greater that the KC-10 or KC-135. (3 KC-10s can fit into an area 2 777s can fit). Unless Boeing redesigns its folding wing concept, a 777 tanker is out of the question.

Also, the advantage with the 767 tanker: They can get many used frames off the market at low prices and then get Boeing to convert them. This would be alot cheaper than buying new frames.
 
scaledesigns
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:12 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:31 am

Why would that be a problem.Are they planning carrier based 777s.
 Wink Im sure the USAF can handle the wingspan.
F1 Tommy
 
luisca
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:37 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:44 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 7):
There is one BIG problem at USAF which prevents them from looking into the 777 tanker. The wingspan. It is far greater that the KC-10 or KC-135. (3 KC-10s can fit into an area 2 777s can fit). Unless Boeing redesigns its folding wing concept, a 777 tanker is out of the question.

Boeing already has a design for folding wings on the T7, they would just need to dust it off.
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
 
scaledesigns
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:12 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:51 am

Or they could just leave the wings alone and save money.

What I wonder is what they meant by only offering the Air Force 1
option.What airplane are they going to push?Is the 777 offer
just to stop EADS from getting the contract if the Air Force says the 767
is to small.?Im sure all the world partners will be thrilled if the USAF didnt buy the 767 tanker.
F1 Tommy
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:54 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 7):
Also, the advantage with the 767 tanker: They can get many used frames off the market at low prices and then get Boeing to convert them. This would be alot cheaper than buying new frames.

I'm pretty sure Boeing has no interest in offering a conversion package. That would eat into profitability seriously. It also is something the USAF could have pursued with another company. The KC-767 is going to be a new build tanker if it gets made. Given how the USAF is known to fly it's airplanes into the ground (figuratively) this probably isn't a bad thing. Why take 10-15 years off the life of an airplane that is expected to have a 30-50 year useful lifetime?
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:32 am

Quoting Scaledesigns (Reply 6):
Thats strange.He says they think the USAF wants a mixed fleet of
tankers,and that they(Boeing) would like them to be all Boeings.
Then the article continues by saying Boeing will only offer 1 option,not
a shopping list?Huh

Remember that the Air Force will be buying in stages. What he was pointing out was that, at this time, they will probably only be offering the KC-767. The initial draft of the RFP seems to be for 100-160 tankers to replace the earliest KC-135's. That's the job the KC-767 has been designed primarily to do. Eventually, as the article states, the entire (KC-135 & KC-10) fleet will be replaced, in which case the Boeing spokesman is stating he wants them all to be Boeings (KC-767 & KC-777, respectively).

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 7):
(3 KC-10s can fit into an area 2 777s can fit). Unless Boeing redesigns its folding wing concept, a 777 tanker is out of the question.

By that argument, any proposed KC-330 is out as well. Which would leave the KC-767 the de facto winner before the contest has even started. Trust me, if the Air Force decides they want the additional capacity & payload that either the 330 or 777 provides, the wingspan issue will be a small one.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 7):
Also, the advantage with the 767 tanker: They can get many used frames off the market at low prices and then get Boeing to convert them. This would be alot cheaper than buying new frames.

This is not the Royal Air Force. The USAF seem to only be interested in acquiring new-build frames. Hence the reason Boeing is proposing a dedicated tanker line in Everett, and why EADS/Northop Grumman would build a dedicated facility in Mobile, AL.

- BTW, did anyone else read the article today about the state of Alabama paying EADS and N.G. up to $110 million to build that plant? Wonder how that will affect EADS's case at the WTO?

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
scaledesigns
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:12 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:50 am

Thanks Hamlet69,

That explains everything.

The 777 would make a great looking tanker.

As for EADS,I think they will be doing alot of explaining over the next few years!!
F1 Tommy
 
747400sp
Posts: 3855
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:47 am

Now that's what I am talking about! Get a real jet as a tanker, and not these KC-767 or KC-30 we been reading about. A KC-777 is a very good ideal, it could carry a lot of fuel and cargo. You can not miss with an KC-777, it got my vote! Big grin
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:01 pm

BTW - here is the link to that article:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060927/eads_alabama_incentives.html?.v=1

EADS will get $52 million as a cash payout if they build the plant. My question remains, then, how does this affect their WTO argument against the state of Washington's tax breaks for Boeing?

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:14 pm

There is a lot of reasons why the 767 is a choice for the RFP. While we go around a lot about wingspan, actually the wheel loading is as important. The 767 has a lower wheel loading than the 777 and 330. There is a lot of bases that can't handle the higher loading. I won't go into any great detail as its basically boring unless you know what pavement design is all about, but basically, the heavier planes break down the taxiways and runways and consequently aren't allowed there. The AvWeek issue discussing the Italian tanker has a good discussion of this if you're so inclined to read about why the 767 was their choice.
Also, as I have said numerous times, the USAF 767 is not standard 767. It has a lot of upgrades and enhancements, flight deck, modular P&P systems, remote boom station, etc, that help make it a more modern bird. So it will be interesting to see what comes of all this.
I have always been a fan of the mix...but I think it will be the 767 and the 330 that will be the chosen mix.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:44 pm

I think USAF will have a big problem with any twin super tanker, like the KC-30, KC-777, or KC-350. That is engine out performance. For example, let's say the USAF wants to buy the KC-777, with a 400,000lb fuel capacity. Boeing builds it from the B-777-200LRF airframe, and equips it with GE-90-115 engines. The GW of this KC-777 will be around 750,000lbs. Losing one engine (complete loss of thrust) one knot past V1, puts the airplane below the normally except safety margin of 6:1 (6 lbs of airplane per 1 lb of thrust). It is close to 7.25:1, a very dangerous condition. Even the KC-767 with 64,000lb engines is very close to this condition for engine out take offs.

If the USAF does buy a new tanker in 2007, it will only be for the 100-160 airplanes. A later tanker compitition will be between the A-340-500 and the B-747-800F, because of the four engines. Here I think the B-747 has an advantage, because it is a much faster airplane, which means it can refuel more different types. The USAF needs a tanker that can cruise at .90+M for working with some fighters. That is why the KC-135 (.95M) and KC-10 (.90M) are so successful.

I did not include the four engine A-380 because it cannot fly at these speeds, much less cruise at them (.86M max). The A-340-500/-600 can fly at .89M.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:01 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 14):
My question remains, then, how does this affect their WTO argument against the state of Washington's tax breaks for Boeing?

IMO, it weakens the EU case. That said, I'm not sure that in the long run it is in the European company's benefit to bid on this project. The requirement to "disclose" may have gone away for now, but until the final RFP is issued, we won't know for sure. If they do bid and win, the fact that they will accept a similar aid package from the state govenment of Alabama as the state of Washington gives Boeing could neutralize a large portion of their WTO case. An adverse judgement could put in jeapordy their ability to seek (pick one) subsidies, launch aid, repayable launch investment, whatever. Finally, I'm not convinced that an Airbus worker will cheer the opening of a facility in the U.S. (or any "dollar zone" nation). Work that would have stayed in France and Germany will now be farmed out the the U.S. This could likely result in a greater share of the A330F being outsourced to the Alabama facility.

Perhaps EADS should seize on the government aid disclosure requirement as a convenient excuse to express outrage, indignation, and refuse to bid?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:29 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 17):
Perhaps EADS should seize on the government aid disclosure requirement as a convenient excuse to express outrage, indignation, and refuse to bid?

That will only give the tanker contract to Boeing, as the Lockheed proposal is too expensive.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:02 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 6):
They can get many used frames off the market at low prices and then get Boeing to convert them.

I seriously doubt this will be an option. They whole point of this program is to replace old tankers. They won't to acquire "new old" aircraft that would have to be replaced themselves in a very short time.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 6):
There is one BIG problem at USAF which prevents them from looking into the 777 tanker. The wingspan.

I know others have dismissed this option quickly, but I have to believe that if the KC-777 is seriously considered that the plans for the folding wing are being dusted off at least for evaluation. Which makes me wonder, would a new max load test have to be performed for certification?
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:37 pm

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 15):
There is a lot of reasons why the 767 is a choice for the RFP. While we go around a lot about wingspan, actually the wheel loading is as important. The 767 has a lower wheel loading than the 777 and 330. There is a lot of bases that can't handle the higher loading. I won't go into any great detail as its basically boring unless you know what pavement design is all about, but basically, the heavier planes break down the taxiways and runways and consequently aren't allowed there. The AvWeek issue discussing the Italian tanker has a good discussion of this if you're so inclined to read about why the 767 was their choice.

It has been pointed out to the USAF that when you lower the fuel payload/gross weight of a certain larger airframe aircraft (which carries a considerably larger fuel payload than the KC-767) to meet the same wheel loading as the KC-767, its still beats out the KC-767 on max fuel/cargo payload. So the larger aircraft is still more efficient and effective than the KC-767 as it allows mission planners to carry larger loads from these ramps. Also, because of the larger fuel load capability, these aircraft do not have to based so close to the front line and these smaller airfields.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
I think USAF will have a big problem with any twin super tanker, like the KC-30, KC-777, or KC-350. That is engine out performance. For example, let's say the USAF wants to buy the KC-777, with a 400,000lb fuel capacity. Boeing builds it from the B-777-200LRF airframe, and equips it with GE-90-115 engines. The GW of this KC-777 will be around 750,000lbs. Losing one engine (complete loss of thrust) one knot past V1, puts the airplane below the normally except safety margin of 6:1 (6 lbs of airplane per 1 lb of thrust). It is close to 7.25:1, a very dangerous condition. Even the KC-767 with 64,000lb engines is very close to this condition for engine out take offs.

This issue has been posed to the USAF but in a different way. It has to do with the need to complete the refueling mission. With a 4 (or 3) engine aircraft, should one engine need to be shut-down in-flight, it would still be safe to continue with the mission (I suppose it depends on the mission rules such as peacetime vs wartime). However, with a twin, should they have to shut down an engine, they would need to abort the mission and divert to a nearby airfield. To cover this contingency, I suspect the USAF will assign an extra aircraft back-up tanker which would be unnecessary with a 4 engine.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:01 pm

I smell a 767 order for several reasons:

1-777 Wingspan issues

2-767 platform is now proven as a tanker with Japan and Italy about to get theirs

3-Boeing will sell them cheap (by US Gov standards) to keep the line open for a while longer

4-Boeing says a redo of the 777 for a tanker will take 3 years to complete and be very expensive, while the 767 is ready to go now. It can easily be modified to hold seats or frieght or both along with fuel.
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13471
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:08 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
Boeing will sell them cheap (by US Gov standards) to keep the line open for a while longer

Hmm. "Boeing", "defence contract" and "cheap". Words not often found in close proximity. scratchchin 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:42 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 20):
It has been pointed out to the USAF that when you lower the fuel payload/gross weight of a certain larger airframe aircraft (which carries a considerably larger fuel payload than the KC-767) to meet the same wheel loading as the KC-767, its still beats out the KC-767 on max fuel/cargo payload.

so we don't load the aircraft to its full potential load...hmmmm...so it seems to me that the hi/low mix is a better solution...Q.E.D.
 
CF188A
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 12:27 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:17 am

very neat indeed. Would be great to see at an airshow  Smile
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow~ RIP ... LJFM
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:32 am

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 23):
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 20):
It has been pointed out to the USAF that when you lower the fuel payload/gross weight of a certain larger airframe aircraft (which carries a considerably larger fuel payload than the KC-767) to meet the same wheel loading as the KC-767, its still beats out the KC-767 on max fuel/cargo payload.

so we don't load the aircraft to its full potential load...hmmmm...so it seems to me that the hi/low mix is a better solution...Q.E.D

My comment was to point out the "ability" of a large tanker to meet the lower wheel loading in those rare instances where it may be an issue. I personally believe that it will not be a factor in most cases as the larger tanker aircraft will not have a need to be forward based (unlike its smaller competitors). It can fly out of a larger U.S. airbase and ferry a long distance to the conflict area, "offload" more than a 200,000 lbs of fuel and fly back without being air refueled itself (approx. 7,000 NM).

For example, a 747-8 should be able to carry approximately 550,000 lbs of fuel. I do not see a KC-767, KC-30 or even a KC-777 being able to do that.
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 25):
My comment was to point out the "ability" of a large tanker to meet the lower wheel loading in those rare instances where it may be an issue.

Its actually not the rare case, its more the norm. The planners have made this quite clear in their analysis that they need a dedicated bird to operate from forward bases as much s possible. Not trying to be argumentative, just stating what the studies have focused on. They really don't want a mixed option bird as the first choice. They want a true mission dedicated bird. The only cargo that they want is for the maintenance cargo to support the tanker. Anything else is supposed to be the C-5 and whatever the next gen cargo aircraft turns out to be. Again, this is not my opinion, its their stated desires as a result of their analysis. But that can change as Rummy and his co-horts in crime on the hill manipulate this contract.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 6):
There is one BIG problem at USAF which prevents them from looking into the 777 tanker. The wingspan. It is far greater that the KC-10 or KC-135. (3 KC-10s can fit into an area 2 777s can fit). Unless Boeing redesigns its folding wing concept, a 777 tanker is out of the question.

Not necessarily true. Remember you're talking about military airplanes on a broad flightline; not airliners trying to fit into assigned gates at an established airport.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:44 am

Quoting NWDC10 (Thread starter):

The company is now evaluating the draft request for proposals issued Monday by the Air Force to better determine what the military is looking for in its next tanker, a Boeing spokesman said.

The above is from the web site mentioned earlier in this thread. I would caution that a draft request for proposals is just that ... a draft. It suggests that the Air Force is reveiling what it's thinking about but not necessarily what it actually wants because at this stage it may be the Air Force isn't firmly decided.

I remain convinced it's not beyond the realm of possiblity that the A330 based tanker could figure into the final fleet decision, with Boeing producing some tankers and Northrop/EADS producing some here in this country. Boeing has work backlogged for a long time, with the airliner business, but I suspect what the Air Force might be trying to do is keep Northrop/Grumman in the airplane production business as well ... and that's not a bad idea given Northrop's reputation in the industry.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:26 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
That will only give the tanker contract to Boeing, as the Lockheed proposal is too expensive.

Of course that would be the result. The question is: Is it worth the risk in the other areas I've outlined to Airbus' government aid, EU employment, and jeapordizing their defense in the WTO case? In a strategic sense, it may be better for EADS just to walk away from the whole thing.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:56 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Losing one engine (complete loss of thrust) one knot past V1, puts the airplane below the normally except safety margin of 6:1 (6 lbs of airplane per 1 lb of thrust). It is close to 7.25:1, a very dangerous condition.

2 points as someone who is HONESTLY somewhat educated AT BEST.

A) Wouldn't v1 be adjusted higher as a function of the excess weight?
B) Wouldn't a 'balanced field' length enter into the equation?
Knowing the AF has plenty of REALY long runways, I would think the extra room would provide the necessary margin of safety.
This space intentionally left blank
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:09 am

Lets keep this thread about the KC777, and have a discussion in a thread meant for the overall topic. See thread index.
bleepbloop
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:05 pm

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
I smell a 767 order for several reasons:

1-777 Wingspan issues

2-767 platform is now proven as a tanker with Japan and Italy about to get theirs

3-Boeing will sell them cheap (by US Gov standards) to keep the line open for a while longer

4-Boeing says a redo of the 777 for a tanker will take 3 years to complete and be very expensive, while the 767 is ready to go now. It can easily be modified to hold seats or frieght or both along with fuel.

The wingspan of any airplane is less important, the logistics people will have this all worked out. The USAF may be able to get the KC-767 faster and cheaper than other options, except the KC-135 option, but is it really the best option for the money and mission, long term? Boeing is really interested in closing the B-767 line so they can open a second B-787 line, and the USAF isn't really rushing into a wall where they have to have the new tankers next year. Waiting 3-10 years is a possibility.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 25):
For example, a 747-8 should be able to carry approximately 550,000 lbs of fuel. I do not see a KC-767, KC-30 or even a KC-777 being able to do that.

I don't think so. That puts the take off gross weight up to 790,000lbs to 800,000lbs, the B-787-800 weighs 240,000lbs (closer to 250,000lbs for a tanker version), and a current design gross weight of 550,000lbs to 600,000lbs. There will need to be a lot of engineering and strenghting to do that. Any KC-787 will gross out at no more than 600,000lbs to 650,000lbs.

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 26):
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 25):
My comment was to point out the "ability" of a large tanker to meet the lower wheel loading in those rare instances where it may be an issue.

Its actually not the rare case, its more the norm. The planners have made this quite clear in their analysis that they need a dedicated bird to operate from forward bases as much s possible. Not trying to be argumentative, just stating what the studies have focused on. They really don't want a mixed option bird as the first choice. They want a true mission dedicated bird. The only cargo that they want is for the maintenance cargo to support the tanker. Anything else is supposed to be the C-5 and whatever the next gen cargo aircraft turns out to be. Again, this is not my opinion, its their stated desires as a result of their analysis. But that can change as Rummy and his co-horts in crime on the hill manipulate this contract.

The USAF already knows the PCN numbers (runway and ramp strenght/wheel loading) for every capable airport in the world. This is not an issue.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 28):
I remain convinced it's not beyond the realm of possiblity that the A330 based tanker could figure into the final fleet decision, with Boeing producing some tankers and Northrop/EADS producing some here in this country

That will not happen as it doubles your maintenance costs. Only one airplane will be selected for now.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 30):
2 points as someone who is HONESTLY somewhat educated AT BEST.

A) Wouldn't v1 be adjusted higher as a function of the excess weight?
B) Wouldn't a 'balanced field' length enter into the equation?

Yes, V1 and VR will vary based on gross weight, runway available and weather factors. You will always have a V1 and VR, they will be different speeds for different missions, even from the same runway because of weight and weather. My point was generic, for any V1 speed then have your engine failure 1 knot later.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:12 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 6):
(3 KC-10s can fit into an area 2 777s can fit).

And 2 777 (based on LR version) carry also the same amount of fuel
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:25 am

It seems to me we are speculating a little to much here on the KC-777 numbers for fuel capacity and gross weight. I'm beginning to think the numbers we are all guessing at (including me) might be a little to high, giving a KC-777LRF more credit than it can carry.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:38 am

Boeing last week stated their KC-777 may be able to carry to 400,000 lbs of fuel.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:20 am

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:40 pm

For this phase of the tanker deal the 777 doesnt look atractive at all , it has some of the same problems with air feilds , ground pressure etc that apparently boeing says the 30 has yet they are more severe an runway length , hanger size are also issues , this is not the time for the 777.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:42 pm

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 37):
For this phase of the tanker deal the 777 doesnt look atractive at all , it has some of the same problems with air feilds , ground pressure etc that apparently boeing says the 30 has yet they are more severe an runway length , hanger size are also issues , this is not the time for the 777.

The question at hand is this. Concerning the problems mentioned above, were these real operational shortcomings or just made up by Boeing and their military/policitical supporters to kill off the KC-30? When the WTO ploy did not work and was downplayed in the draft RFP, they rolled out the KC-777 the very same day.

That tells me the airfield issues were just a smoke screen or at least not that important, otherwise the 777 would not have been offered as a back-up. The 777 now has a better chance of being selected than the 767 because the 767 is inferior to the KC-30 and Boeing has the home-field advantage.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:06 pm

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 37):
For this phase of the tanker deal the 777 doesnt look atractive at all , it has some of the same problems with air feilds , ground pressure etc that apparently boeing says the 30 has yet they are more severe an runway length , hanger size are also issues , this is not the time for the 777.

Not really. The B-777-200LR has a smaller, lighter airfield footprint than the A-330-200. The weight of the T-7 is spread over 14 tires, as compared to the A-330s 10. The KC-777F could also have a centerline main landing gear, but that is speculation at this point (so could a KC-30F, increasing both by 2 additional tires). The B-777-200LR current has a shorter critical field lenght than the A-330-200, thus has better take-off performance. When I watch the BA, KE, or AA B-777-200ERs depart DFW for London, Paris, Soul, or Tokyo, they use approximately 7,000'-8,000' of runway. When I watch the LH A-330-200 (normally an A-340-300, but occasionally substatuted with the A-330-200) depart DFW for Frankfort, they typically use 9,000'-10,000' of runway. Yes, both are dependent on temp. and pressure altitude. BTW, the much lower powered LH A-340-300 normally uses 11,000'-12,000' of our 13,400' long runways. The distance from DFW to Soul, Tokyo, and Paris is longer than that from DFW to Frankfort.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:23 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 38):
When the WTO ploy did not work and was downplayed in the draft RFP, they rolled out the KC-777 the very same day.

It seems the WTO issue won't go away and would be a major bone of contention. The revised KC-X RFP has language written specific to "treaty compliance" .....
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...-X+tanker+replacement+contest.html
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:30 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 40):
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 38):
When the WTO ploy did not work and was downplayed in the draft RFP, they rolled out the KC-777 the very same day.

It seems the WTO issue won't go away and would be a major bone of contention. The revised KC-X RFP has language written specific to "treaty compliance" .....
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles....html

The Flight Global article is dated June 2006. The USAF has since backed off this issue in the draft RFP. See the article in the link below.

http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/...490.xml?mobileregister?nmet&coll=3
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:02 pm

Northrop to USAF, take the WTO question out of the RFP for the KC-X, or we take our airplane and go home, and you will have to decide on the two (or more) Boeing proposals?  cry 

Yeah, that will so the USAF Northrop/Grumman/Airbus really means business.  banghead 
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:54 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 41):

The Flight Global article is dated June 2006. The USAF has since backed off this issue in the draft RFP. See the article in the link below.

I also thought so at first, but check how Flightglobal's articles are date sequenced on the linked display bar as opposed to that on the article itself. I believe the information in your linked article is essentially the same as those in Reply 36.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:45 pm

It seems the USAF has found a novel way of fulfilling its tanker requirements over the years.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...che+process+to+replace+ageing.html

They're looking at a three-stage X,Y,Z programme commencing with the release of the final KC-X RFP on 15 December for four test and 75 production airframes with contract award in August 2007.

[Edited 2006-11-07 06:47:05]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
TSV
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 12:13 pm

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:35 pm

Boeing would have to be in the box seat for this now :

KC-X = KC-767

KC-Y = KC-777

KC-Z = KC-787
"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:35 pm

Quoting TSV (Reply 45):
Boeing would have to be in the box seat for this now :

KC-X = KC-767

KC-Y = KC-777

KC-Z = KC-787

Hmmm, that assumes the B-767 is still in production in 2009, the B-777 in 2024, and the B-787 in 2036.

In 2036 all of these airplanes could be as common as the B-707, L-1011, or B-727s are today. Still around, but not very many.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:06 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
Hmmm, that assumes the B-767 is still in production in 2009,

Are there still pending 767 and KC-767 orders scheduled for delivery before 2009? If Boeing decides to offer the KC-767 and it wins, an August 2007 contract award could see start of production by early 2008. If they decide to offer the KC-777, it will be a tight schedule.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:52 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 47):
Are there still pending 767 and KC-767 orders scheduled for delivery before 2009?

I believe Boeing still has about 15 B-767 orders to fill, and 6 more KC-767s to build for Italy and Japan. Even if Italy orders 2-4 E-767s, they can still build all those airplanes by mid 2008.

I believe Boeing is getting interested in getting a second B-787 production line going, and the B-767 line could become the second B-787 line once all orders are filled. Timing is just right for such a move.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 47):
If Boeing decides to offer the KC-767 and it wins, an August 2007 contract award could see start of production by early 2008. If they decide to offer the KC-777, it will be a tight schedule.

That is true, but as I said, it really all depends on what Boeing wants to do with the second B-787 line. Of course, they could move a KC-767 line to Long Beach, but they want to close that facility after the C-17 line shuts down. My guess is they will not propose the KC-767 to the USAF, but instead offer the KC-777 deal, then when the KC-Y program kicks in the will offer the KC-747-800F (KC-44A). That would make sense if they can get the production of the YAL-1A airborne laser. That program will, most likely, go into production based on the B-747-800F (making it the ALC-44A), rather than the current B-747-400F (ALC-1A).
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: The Boeing 777 Tanker

Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting TSV (Reply 45):
Boeing would have to be in the box seat for this now :

KC-X = KC-767

KC-Y = KC-777

KC-Z = KC-787

I don't think that's the proper way to look at it. Think of it more like this:

KC-X == KC-767 (all medium) or KC-737+KC-777 (low/high mix) or KC-330
KC-Y == 787 or 1st gen BWB
KC-Z == BWB
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WarRI1 and 11 guests