Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:11 pm

Boeing announced that it will offer up a version of the 777 for the USAF tanker. This offering won't exclude the KC-767 being offered as well. Of course, the USAF has yet to issue an RFP so we really don't know the full requirement yet. However, its not too early to revise that spider chart.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGf5lNftSK44

Quote:
The company plans to pitch tankers based on both the 777 and smaller 767 to the Pentagon when the contest begins in a few weeks, Jim Albaugh, its defense chief, said today in a briefing at the Paris Air Show. The larger aircraft would offer maximum fuel capacity and the 767’s selling point is its flexibility, he said.

Boeing, the U.S. Air Force’s tanker supplier for more than half a century, lost out to a Northrop design based on the Airbus SAS A330 when the $35 billion tanker order was awarded in February 2008. The Chicago-based company derailed that decision a year ago this week with a successful protest to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:13 pm

And yet another round in the tanker debate.  box 
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:37 pm

Well it is a nice way to deflect the "bigger is better" argument because the 777-based tanker (be it a 77E or 77L) would pants the KC-30A in range and payload and fuel volume offloading. So if the USAF really is infatuated with size, the 777 would be the way to go.

I still prefer the dual-buy with an initial 200 KC-767ADVs and 100 KC-30As to allow the KC-135E and KC-10A fleets to be sent to the boneyard and start augmenting the KC-135R fleet.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:41 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I still prefer the dual-buy

I want a dual buy as well. Specifically, 50 KC-777s and 100 KC-767s.  Wink
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:56 pm

Here's another report from DOD Buzz. Speculation abounds! I found this particularly interesting.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/15/boeing-almost-picks-777-tanker/

Quote:
But there are rumors that Northrop is weighing its commitment to the tanker program, which has cost the company financially and politically. Two sources have told me that Ron Sugar, the company’s CEO, will walk away from the competition should the new RFP appear weighted too heavily in Boeing’s favor. This could, of course, be part of the company’s gaming efforts to ensure that the Air Force does include analysis such as best value as it makes its choice.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:43 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
I want a dual buy as well. Specifically, 50 KC-777s and 100 KC-767s

 bigthumbsup 

The comments from the Northrop CEO sound an awful lot like the thing that got us in the mess in the first (second?) place - the RFP for the latest round was seen to favor Boeing, and NG/EADS reportedly threatened to drop out of the bidding unless they received extra credit that wasn't specified in the RFP.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:08 pm



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 5):
The comments from the Northrop CEO sound an awful lot like the thing that got us in the mess in the first (second?) place

 checkmark  I think he's trying to swing things his way. Problem is, this time around I think we have an administration that would care less if they were to take a long walk off a short pier here.

There are some good comments here. I think he beat Bloomberg to the story on the possible KC-777....
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/kc-777-ready-to-go/
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6086
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:21 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Dumb question perhaps but could the 777 proposal be tied with the discussion of a re-winged version of the 777? If the Air Force is wanting something bigger than the 767 but with the field performance of the 330 then perhaps you achieve both with a new wing?

Just throwing out a thought.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:44 pm



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 5):
The comments from the Northrop CEO sound an awful lot like the thing that got us in the mess in the first (second?) place - the RFP for the latest round was seen to favor Boeing, and NG/EADS reportedly threatened to drop out of the bidding unless they received extra credit that wasn't specified in the RFP.

Correct, NG cried about that back in 2006/2007. The USAF caved in and gave NG "extra credit" that it shouldn't have.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/15/boeing-almost-picks-777-tanker/
"As one observer here put it, the 777 is “totally untested and unproven” as a tanker"

Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

I now agree with a duel tanker buy for the USAF, the KC-767AT and KC-777F.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:58 pm

The KC-767 and KC-30 meet the 7.000 ft runway requirement. That is important to use all the runways currently in use all over the world. A B777LRF based KC-777 would need 11.000 feet. Don't if that's an issue. I think so.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:12 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

I agree with this! Let the games begin! Boeing is offering TWO options compared to Airbus' one option.

In the end, I think Boeing will win regardless of the type, although I would LOVE to see the 777 in a tanker version. That would be so cool to see.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:39 pm

Depending on the RFP, Boeing could offer a "mix" of 777s and 767s. IMO, this would constitute a strong "best value" proposal. Isn't this what Ron Sugar of Northrop Grumman wants--selection on best value? It would mirror the mix of KC-10s and KC-135Rs that have served us well to date.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
Don't if that's an issue. I think so.

Depends on the RFP.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

IMO, it IS an issue and goes to risk, although I suspect that a fuel transfer or two will mitigate the concerns it won't eliminate them entirely until the MRTT enters service. In light of the GAO report, we know for sure that the Air Force's risk assessment of the two contenders was flawed. Then, there is that "breakaway" issue that the GAO noted in their report. I hope the RFP will adequately address all the concerns that the GAO had.

[Edited 2009-06-15 16:42:09]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:21 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
The KC-767 and KC-30 meet the 7.000 ft runway requirement.

How often is the aircraft operating from 7,000 foot runways? If not that often, does it really need full capability on shorter strips?

According to Boeing, the 777F can depart a 7,000 foot runway in ISA conditions at around 660,000 pounds in accordance with Part 121 requirements. I'm not sure how the military op specs would impact this performance when compared to the airlines.

Using these numbers, the 777F can still uplift 342,000 pounds off a 7000 foot strip, considerably more than either the A330 or 767.

Ultimately, the USAF will need to weigh this when developing the new RFP... given the tendency of the USAF to inch towards bigger and more expensive aircraft as time goes on, I think it is certainly possible the 777 will be a strong contender.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:13 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 11):
Depends on the RFP.

 Yeah sure  Yeah sure  Yeah sure

It _should_ depend on what will best serve American combat operations! The best legalistic answer is not the greater purpose here (despite what some say).
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:37 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 7):
Dumb question perhaps but could the 777 proposal be tied with the discussion of a re-winged version of the 777? If the Air Force is wanting something bigger than the 767 but with the field performance of the 330 then perhaps you achieve both with a new wing?

Not dumb at all.. and you can bet Boeing would *love* to do the 777 rewing on the government's dime as it were.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:27 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

IMO, it IS an issue and goes to risk, although I suspect that a fuel transfer or two will mitigate the concerns it won't eliminate them entirely until the MRTT enters service.

If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/FrenchKC135AustralianA330MRRT.jpg?t=1245140645

The boom has been tested on A310 MRTT, receiving has been tested and the combination soon. Don't worry.

I think it will take strong metal flexibility to start aguing the KC-30 is just too small, after 7 years of arguing it's to big. No doubt it can be done here.  Wink
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:47 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?

Too early to start that nonsense, keesje. The KC-777 announcement has likely thrown the EADS team into a panic. Now, they no longer have the "biggest" that carries the "mostest".

Anyway, let's see if NG's threat to "walk away" again will garner them any love this time around.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:13 am

years are invested in telling congress, DOD, USAF and the press the KC-30 is just oversized, to expensive, to much aircraft & inflexible. If there is any truth in this ..



 Yeah sure

the tanker marketing and lobby teams will have to retreat to a quiet place somewhere in a nature lodge with some expensive creativity and inspirational coaches, a lot of wine, brainstorm and chill out sessions to get the new message right.

"Boeing proved right about the KC-30 and remains committed to provide best value to the fighting men and women of the US Air Force.

Times are changing, both economically in the USA and in our global environment.

New operational realities lead to new requirements, .." etc etc.

You know the craptalk. May I suggest :

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:33 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 17):
You know the craptalk.

Isn't that the language of defense procurement? Big grin

Seems to me that the money wasted on the Power Point bidding process could have been better spent by having both parties build prototypes and have a fly-off. That would require both bidders to put up or shut and give the USAF a chance to have a hands-on evaluation not only for flight and refueling characteristics but also see how each aircraft works within the existing infrastructure.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:40 am

When can the 777 tanker be delivered and what would be a credible ramp-up?
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:57 am



Quoting Michlis (Reply 18):
Seems to me that the money wasted on the Power Point bidding process could have been better spent by having both parties build prototypes and have a fly-off. That would require both bidders to put up or shut and give the USAF a chance to have a hands-on evaluation not only for flight and refueling characteristics but also see how each aircraft works within the existing infrastructure.

That's not neccessary. The USAF had all the data on both aircraft and all airfield and ran a pile of operational scenarios. The KC30 clearly won & the stuff hit the fan. Boeing hired an army of lawyers to go through mountains of paper and suggested hundreds of procedural irregularities and a few were upheld by GAO.

The evaluation will take a lot of time again as both Boeing and Airbus will submit new proposals with new aircraft. My guess is NG/EADS will offer a A330-200F based tanker maybe with GENX engines. The A330F was scheduled to be build in the US anyway.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:22 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
My guess is NG/EADS will offer a A330-200F based tanker maybe with GENX engines. The A330F was scheduled to be build in the US anyway.

EADS/NG said they would not base the tanker on the A330-200F. They say it is "too costly and too heavy".

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...peads-rules-out-a330-200f-for.html

Quote:
According to Airbus, the pure A330-200F is at least 8-10t heavier than the baseline passenger model. That extra weight would require a corresponding decrease in fuel load, Meyer says.

Moreover, "the freighter didn't find itself being necessary," Meyer adds, because the USAF requirements shifted away from employing the tanker as a supplementary airlifter.

But "the biggest driver was the cost", Meyer says.

The split buy option, i.e., KC-777 and KC-767, is looking better and better.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:36 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
That's not neccessary. The USAF had all the data on both aircraft and all airfield and ran a pile of operational scenarios

I think you are missing one key element in this whole drama.
1. The US Air Force decided that they wanted an off the shelf a/c, how could they write requirements when both OEM's only comparable a/c were the B737 and A320??, hence the whole drama of EADS first stating thet the RFP did not favour their a/c, then having it changed to favour their a/c, then etc. etc. we all know the rest of the story.

By proposing a split buy of B767 / B777, Boeing can now reduce the cost of its 767 variant by dropping all the upsize adjustments made to make the a/c comparable to the 330, use the base frame and forget all about the ADV stuff, let the 777 version take on the upper market. If they approach the project from this standpoint, the spec that the Air Force now have for a 767 tanker variant goes out the windows, unless they dust off the original specs for the 100 lease option which is the variant I think they should use, only a/c to a true 135 replacement.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:09 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Hmmm, seems to me the A-330TT/MRTT/KC-30B are also "untested and unproven" as a tanker. The RAAF KC-30B still has not transferred fuel through its Boom. Is there a problem?

IMO, it IS an issue and goes to risk, although I suspect that a fuel transfer or two will mitigate the concerns it won't eliminate them entirely until the MRTT enters service.

If it IS an issue, you'll agree a KC777 is toast. How long did it take to get the KC767 right again?



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
The boom has been tested on A310 MRTT, receiving has been tested and the combination soon. Don't worry.

The issue is that EADS still doesn't have the KC-30 right. It has Boom problems, and cannot do the primary mission of a tanker for the USAF, that is refueling through the Boom. As a receiver, it only did that once, and has not repeated those tests. Why? There appears to be many other questions, too.

The bottom line is there are now 3 KC-767Js operational (although one was damaged during cargo loading, the damage was repaired) and no KC-30s operational, 6 months after the scheduled delivery date. Yes, the RAAF has agreed to not take delivery. Why? What is wrong with the KC-30?

Why can't EADS/Airbus get the weight down on the A-330-200F?

A KC-777 developement will benifit from work already done on the KC-767A/J/AT. So, I expect Boeing to be able to "spool up" very quickly for a KC-777F.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:09 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
The issue is that EADS still doesn't have the KC-30 right. It has Boom problems, and cannot do the primary mission of a tanker for the USAF, that is refueling through the Boom. As a receiver, it only did that once, and has not repeated those tests. Why? There appears to be many other questions, too.

The boom has been tested extensively on a A310

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
The bottom line is there are now 3 KC-767Js operational (although one was damaged during cargo loading, the damage was repaired) and no KC-30s operational, 6 months after the scheduled delivery date. Yes, the RAAF has agreed to not take delivery. Why? What is wrong with the KC-30?

Nothing, unfortunately.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
A KC-777 developement will benifit from work already done on the KC-767A/J/AT. So, I expect Boeing to be able to "spool up" very quickly for a KC-777F.

The Boom that Boeing proposes for the KC767 is not the same as the wildly succesfull Japanese and Italian tankers.

How is the new USAF KC-767 fly-by-wire advanced boom doing. Is certificated already ? I don't hear much about it lately. Does it mean we must assume something is wrong ?  Yeah sure http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070308b_nr.html

I don't see any reason Boeing will be able to spool up very quickly for a KC-777F. The recent track record (KC767, 737EAW, 787, 747-8i) lacks some punch I guess.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:31 pm

Scott Hamilton provides a succint and informative summary of the Boeing IDS briefing at Paris on the KC-7A7.
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009...-kc-7a7-tanker-briefing/#more-1715

Quote:
He also said that the new-technology GEnx engine could be offered on either the 767 or 777, or either Pratt & Whitney or GE engines on either the 767 or 777s.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
My guess is NG/EADS will offer a A330-200F based tanker maybe with GENX engines.

He seems dismissive of the GENx option.

Quote:
Airbus had previously studied putting the GEnx on the A330 for its first iteration of the A350, but we understand there are engine diameter challenges and perhaps weight/CG issues. Following the success Boeing protest of the USAF award to Northrop, there was speculation that Northrop/EADS/Airbus would offer the GEnx on the A330 in Round 3, but at the time we were told this was unlikely.

In summary:

Quote:
We believe the entire Northrop team now is in the position of playing catch-up to Boeing, which put the last nine months to good use in coming up with a variety of alternatives.

How many of these alternatives may be straw men or infeasible remains to be seen. Boeing may be deliberately ambiguous to keep the competition off-balance, with the intent narrowed already to two potential proposals. Regardless of the true state of affairs right now, we think Boeing has the upper hand in this beginning chess game. Whether the Northrop team can prevail again is the $40bn question.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:02 pm

Boeing have put the KC-7A7 presentation up on their website for those who are interested:

http://www.boeing.com/paris2009/medi...ations/june16/Paris_09_Tankers.pdf

Did the KC-767 proposed to the USAF always have blended winglets, or is that new?

V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:06 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 21):
EADS/NG said they would not base the tanker on the A330-200F. They say it is "too costly and too heavy".



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Why can't EADS/Airbus get the weight down on the A-330-200F?

I am pretty sure they meant that the available payload was 8-10t heavier on the freighter than on the pax model, not the empty weight.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:07 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):
The KC-767 and KC-30 meet the 7.000 ft runway requirement. That is important to use all the runways currently in use all over the world. A B777LRF based KC-777 would need 11.000 feet. Don't if that's an issue. I think so.

Another A.net myth.

According to Boeing and Airbus document, B772LR at MTOW ISA sea level needs about 11,000 ft of runway, while the A330-200 needs about 10,000 ft at KC-30's MTOW. That is according to JAR/FAA take off runway requirement.

at 10,000 ft the 772LR can take off at 750k lbs, mere 17k lbs below MTOW.

We do not know if the military has different set of requirement, but the take off performance of B772LR and A330-200 do not differ significantly.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:32 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 25):
Scott Hamilton provides a succint and informative summary of the Boeing IDS briefing at Paris on the KC-7A7.

Always like to read Scott's opinions, he's knowledgeable and punches both sides.

I think by offering the KC767 and KC777 Boeing finally admits the KC767 might be restricted for the next 30 yrs. That's a depature from the story line we saw for the last 7 yrs.

It gonna be hard to convince people the KC767 and KC777 alright but the KC30 is not without targetting one of their own products.

I think NG / EADS will focus on other realities influencing the decision and let Boeing puzzle around..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:56 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
It gonna be hard to convince people the KC767 and KC777 alright but the KC30 is not without targetting one of their own products.

How so? A split KC-777/KC-767 buy would offer enormous tactical flexibility IMO.

Did you read all of Scott's comments? If so, did you ponder this?

Quote:
As we reported earlier, the flexibility by Boeing to have several offerings, in our view, puts Northrop and EADS/Airbus at a great disadvantage if they stick with the KC-30, which is based on the Airbus A330-200. Theoretically a tanker could be offered on the somewhat larger A340 or the A330-300, but it’s unclear how much, if any, R&D has been done on either concept, and one based on the four-engine A340, regardless of sub-type, will be significantly more costly on fuel than any of the competition.

I wonder what tact airbus and NG will take now? From pleading "we have the most capable plane" to saying what?

"Four for the long haul"? No, that's been taken I think....
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6086
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:03 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
Not dumb at all.. and you can bet Boeing would *love* to do the 777 rewing on the government's dime as it were.

Well, there are rules to how things are charged so they won't be able to charge much of it to the government directly as it is primarily commercial in application.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
Too early to start that nonsense, keesje. The KC-777 announcement has likely thrown the EADS team into a panic. Now, they no longer have the "biggest" that carries the "mostest".

I don't think that was ever the entire issue.When compared to the 767 it is the biggest and carries the mostest but when compared to the RFP it carries the right amount.

By the way, what happened to all the rampspace arguments and facilities improvements that would be required using a larger plane? If the 767 was "the right size" before for the reason of these issues why isn't it now?

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
Anyway, let's see if NG's threat to "walk away" again will garner them any love this time around.

Boeing has made the exact same threat.
In fact that is the entire problem the Air Force and the Pentagon is having, writing a spec that can include both planes yet be only won by one of them.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 30):
How so? A split KC-777/KC-767 buy would offer enormous tactical flexibility IMO.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 30):
I wonder what tact airbus and NG will take now? From pleading "we have the most capable plane" to saying what?

First and foremost we do not not know what the Air Force will request, but if it follows what the pentagon and the defense secretary have been saying all along, they may request a single platform able to best perform a specific set of criteria. If that is the case I suspect that NG will state "we have the best platform to perform the mission being specified. The question then is, what will Boeing do?

Of course as I noted this is all moot discussion as why have no idea how the RFP will be crafted.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:20 pm


The dramatic change in tone comes after USAF officials briefed Boeing on what things the company should change about its approach to the competition, says Dave Bowman, Boeing's vice-president for tanker programmes. "And we listened to what they told us," he adds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...sidering-genx-for-kc-x-tanker.html

That is indeed a dramatic change. Boeing not telling congress and USAF what the USAF must need.

Sharply departing from claims in the previous competition, Bowman says a KC-777 can be developed on a similar timeline and budget as a KC-767.

The 777 option should offer Boeing a size advantage over the smaller A330-200 being proposed by the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team.


Boeing has to change. They know their KC767, the KC30, the USAF requirements and their own track record. Some dramatic changes are required. The USAF / DOD told them. No more "we know what you need" arrogance.

Question is if they really changed or are only performing a dancing act for the occasion.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 30):
Did you read all of Scott's comments? If so, did you ponder this?

He less predictable, usualy has a story behind his opinions and less stars and stripes as guidance for business analyses.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:45 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
By the way, what happened to all the rampspace arguments and facilities improvements that would be required using a larger plane? If the 767 was "the right size" before for the reason of these issues why isn't it now?

I think that argument was about the larger KC-30 option, remember a lot of ramps were built / modified to take / handle the KC-135, of the competing a/c which is closer in size to the KC-135?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
In fact that is the entire problem the Air Force and the Pentagon is having, writing a spec that can include both planes yet be only won by one of them

As stated its the Air Force problem, they decided to select an off the shelf product, problem is that there are not many comparable size a/c to make a fair competiton, one has to play with the numbers, first its was in Boeing's court for the 100 lease option, that was killed then it was again in Boeing's court till NG complained, then it was in NG's court then the Air Force screwed the pooch.

Boeing appears to be proposing that the Air Force commence replacing both its tankers at the same time from one manufacturer, the smaller B-767 for the KC-135 and the B-777 for the KC-10, if they offer volume discounts NG/EADS will have to compete by offering one a/c KC-30 which is larger than one but smaller than the other, essentially a one size fits all. If this option for dual replacement flies, it wil be interesting as the KC-30 camp sort of downplayed the size of their a/c as they did not want to appear to be offering a replacement for the KC-10.

Interesting times ahead.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:35 pm

Boeing said that the A330 was too big, now they propose the B777?  Smile

How about an A330/A380 mix?.
 
ANZUS340
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:30 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:26 pm

This will go entirely to Boeing. This is entirely political. If Airbus think they are going to win or get the "lion's share" of this they are crazy. This is not about the best plane for the price. It is all about Boeing's ability to lobby. Do I have proof of this assertion? No, as this is simply my opinion.
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:20 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 34):
Boeing said that the A330 was too big, now they propose the B777?

I believed they based that opinion on their assessment of the last RFP. Since the USAF was "wowed" by the size of the A330, they are offering the customer something else in the way of size.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
they may request a single platform able to best perform a specific set of criteria. If that is the case I suspect that NG will state "we have the best platform to perform the mission being specified. The question then is, what will Boeing do?

I have to admit its a lot of fun to debate this issue as though it were up to the respective offerings. Cynic that I am, I've been hammering away at the theme since 2005 (it really has been that long, huh?) that the politics will decide this whole issue in the end. So far, I haven't been disappointed.

But by all means, let's debate runway length, survivability, safety, pallets, fuel offloaded per minute, etc.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:35 pm

Here's another report on Boeing considering the GENx. I noted Scott Hamilton's piece earlier. This is from Steve Trimble at Flight Global, who presumably was also at the briefing.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...sidering-genx-for-kc-x-tanker.html


This appears to counter some reports by Bloomberg that Boeing conceded "advantage airbus" on the development time line.

Quote:
Bowman says Boeing's 7A7 tanker concept encompasses all of its aircraft models, but his comments singled out the 767 family and the 777-200ER, in particular.

Sharply departing from claims in the previous competition, Bowman says a KC-777 can be developed on a similar timeline and budget as a KC-767.

The 777 option should offer Boeing a size advantage over the smaller A330-200 being proposed by the Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team.

Bowman notes, however, that if the USAF prefers more flexibility, a 767 model could be the best fit.

"It's an interesting fact that bigger isn't always better," Bowman says.

Meanwhile, GE confirms that GEnx-1B and -2B are in the correct size class for the tanker competition, but adds that there has been no official agreement with a manufacturer.


As an addendum to my recent remarks about the politics, consider who makes the GENx. Who is one of the White House's fiercest advocates in the business world? Who stood foresquare behind the current president during the campaign? Who owns NBC, where nary a critical word is spoken of about the Obama administration? If you answered General Electric & Jeff Immhelt, take a bow.

It seems like Boeing is covering all the bases politically.

[Edited 2009-06-16 15:39:31]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:15 pm



Quoting ANZUS340 (Reply 35):
This will go entirely to Boeing. This is entirely political. If Airbus think they are going to win or get the "lion's share" of this they are crazy. This is not about the best plane for the price. It is all about Boeing's ability to lobby. Do I have proof of this assertion? No, as this is simply my opinion.

Well that makes two of us in that lonely camp. I agree with you.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 30):
How so? A split KC-777/KC-767 buy would offer enormous tactical flexibility IMO.

Okay but what if they simply take the money but don't deploy any airplanes? Once Boeing has an exclusive contract, why not extend the R&D phase out till 2018 or 2021? Boeing simply wants to set up a big inflow of money... they might not care about actually delivering aircraft.

Observe the VH-71 case. These are strange times. This is indeed about lobbying... not about tanking. The tanking contest was already won by the KC-30 and then it was declared irrelevant (by Boeing).
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:58 pm



Quoting ANZUS340 (Reply 35):
It is all about Boeing's ability to lobby. Do I have proof of this assertion? No, as this is simply my opinion.

Well NG/EADS did lobby successfully to have the RFP changed, so none is better than the other.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 38):
Okay but what if they simply take the money but don't deploy any airplanes? Once Boeing has an exclusive contract, why not extend the R&D phase out till 2018 or 2021? Boeing simply wants to set up a big inflow of money... they might not care about actually delivering aircraft.

Observe the VH-71 case.

Exactly, the VH-71 had an American and a European partner, so it ain't only Boeing. There are penalties for failure to deliver, and since we are talking about an off the shelf tanker, how much R&D can they do, the 767 is already flying as a tanker, the A330 is with adjustments needed, so how much can they stall?
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:16 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 38):
The "tanking contest" was already won by the KC-30 and then it was declared irrelevant (by Boeing).

How was the tanking contest won by the KC-30? To date, it hasn't delivered a drop of fuel--a year an a half after it supposedly "won".

How was it declared "irrelevent" by Boeing? The GAO ruled that the USAF's selection was not in accordance with the procurement laws/regulations. Boeing just filed the protest, which is the right of any bidder.

Actually, NG is quite fortunate that DOD managed to avoid having to find NG's bid non-conforming and award this procurement to Boeing by default.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Quote:
ANOTHER WAY OUT?

Mark Werfel, a Virginia-based consultant who spent three decades working on federal acquisition issues, says the Pentagon has another much cheaper way out of the current mess.

Werfel notes that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, in upholding Boeing's protest, concluded that Northrop's proposal was not acceptable because the company failed to commit to helping the Air Force set up its own depot maintenance facility for the new tankers within two years.

As a result, he says, the government could have automatically awarded the contract to Boeing.

Moreover, he argues, the Pentagon should not have to pay Northrop termination fees, a matter still being negotiated, since their bid was not compliant in the first place.

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Platt said the issue was essentially a moot point given that "the department and the Air Force are now in the process of moving forward."

"Tens of millions of dollars that can be saved is not something to be moved from or that can be called moot; and could be used in better ways than ameliorating an arrogant contractor who failed," argues Werfel.

I have a feeling that this issue may come back yet...

Quote:
So far, the issue hasn't received much attention on Capitol Hill, but several lawmakers have expressed interest in learning more about Werfel's argument.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:00 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 11):
I hope the RFP will adequately address all the concerns that the GAO had.

There should not be an officer left in the USAF that would put out a RFP that doesn't. If the last FUBAR didn't clear out the ones that screwed up then the USAF isn't ready to put out another RFP.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
The KC30 clearly won & the stuff hit the fan.

Could it be that the KC-30 didn't clearly win when all the issues were looked at by an independent expert like the GAO? The KC-30 had a sloppy victory that could not stand up to scrutiny,

Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
a few were upheld by GAO.

The ones that were upheld were each a bloody elephant in the room and each was sufficient to deny credibility in the selection.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
I think by offering the KC767 and KC777 Boeing finally admits the KC767 might be restricted for the next 30 yrs. That's a depature from the story line we saw for the last 7 yrs.

And if NG/Airbus was to add the 350 to the mix?
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:55 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 40):
The GAO ruled that the USAF's selection was not in accordance with the procurement laws/regulations. Boeing just filed the protest, which is the right of any bidder.

I know, and the marionette strings were hardly visible at all!  Big grin

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
The KC-30 had a sloppy victory that could not stand up to scrutiny,

The USAF is not full of Princeton trained lawyers. They did the very best they could. They are a military organization. Their expertise is fighting wars. Once lawyers become involved, it becomes a question of what the definition of "is" is, to quote my hero Bill Clinton. Anyway, the paperwork is never perfect, but wars still must be fought. Similarly, we need doctors to perform surgery on us, even though some pinstripe suit-wearing attorney probably may criticize the way he does it.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13475
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:31 am

I can see Boeing offering the KC-767 OR KC-777 but wouldn't offering the KC-767 AND KC-777 make it a split buy which the DoD has said they're not interested in?  scratchchin 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:51 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
It _should_ depend on what will best serve American combat operations

But you and I both know that this will be completely irrelevant...

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
Not dumb at all.. and you can bet Boeing would *love* to do the 777 rewing on the government's dime as it were.

 rotfl 
No subsidy argument there then.......

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
The KC-777 announcement has likely thrown the EADS team into a panic

Yup those dumb f**ks wouldn't be able to see this coming, not like us wiseboys...

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
By the way, what happened to all the rampspace arguments and facilities improvements that would be required using a larger plane? If the 767 was "the right size" before for the reason of these issues why isn't it now?

Ah but that was "Airbus" (NG actually, but who are they anyway  scratchchin  )

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
Boeing has made the exact same threat.

Ah but that was Boeing

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 37):
Here's another report on Boeing considering the GENx

I'm mystified that there's so much glee over the difficulties fitting the GEnx to the A330, and all of a sudden fitting them to the EVEN SMALLER 767 becomes the next great advantage to Boeing....
Perspective. This isn't going to be the thread for it, I suspect...

Rgds
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:17 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 37):
As an addendum to my recent remarks about the politics, consider who makes the GENx. Who is one of the White House's fiercest advocates in the business world? Who stood foresquare behind the current president during the campaign? Who owns NBC, where nary a critical word is spoken of about the Obama administration? If you answered General Electric & Jeff Immhelt, take a bow.

It seems like Boeing is covering all the bases politically.

And Boeing is headquartered in Chicago. Coincident? Hmm...

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
It _should_ depend on what will best serve American combat operations

But you and I both know that this will be completely irrelevant...

Of course it is irrelevant. Why let something as trivial as selecting the best equipment for the men and women in harms way to interfere with throwing a bone to the military industry complex, and political campaign contribution.  sarcastic  As I posted a while back when Stitch posted the report about NG proposal of a dual buy, I knew NG was nervous politically and Boeing is in a stronger position now than before.
For the record I have no problem with the USAF comes out and says "We are going to buy Boeing because it's Boeing and our puppet masters love Boeing. Airbus can go ingratiate themselves for all we care." I'd prefer such honesty over the current charade of bidding contest.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:29 am

Sorry for quoting myself but amid alot of flag-waving and speculating, I would be grateful if someone could provide at least an opinion on the following:

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 19):
When can the 777 tanker be delivered and what would be a credible ramp-up?

I believe it's a relevant question because the USAF has been requesting a replacement solution for the past 10 years now and a 777 tanker is even further away than an A330 tanker or a 767 tanker.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:15 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
The KC30 clearly won & the stuff hit the fan. Boeing hired an army of lawyers to go through mountains of paper and suggested hundreds of procedural irregularities and a few were upheld by GAO.

Yes, and out of millions of sperm only a few get through to the egg, but the end result is still a pregnancy.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:25 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
The USAF is not full of Princeton trained lawyers. They did the very best they could. They are a military organization. Their expertise is fighting wars.

Come now, it's well known that for every one at the 'sharp end of the stick' there are dozens behind him/her. The Pentagon building is one of the largest on Earth and many of the folks in it are in the "beans and bullets" part of the war fighting business.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version

Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:59 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
How is the new USAF KC-767 fly-by-wire advanced boom doing. Is certificated already ?

It is not. Only the tanker airframes and engines need FAA certification, not the sub structures like Booms or WARPS. The EADS Boom is not "certified", either.

BTW, why is it the EADS Boom seemed to work on the KC-310 test airplane, but not on the RAAF KC-30B?

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 27):
I am pretty sure they meant that the available payload was 8-10t heavier on the freighter than on the pax model, not the empty weight.

No, the A-330-200F has the same MTOW as the A-330-200 passenger version, 518K lbs. If the payload weight was different in the two versions, something else must also change, like a 22,000 lbs lighter fuel load.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
Too early to start that nonsense, keesje. The KC-777 announcement has likely thrown the EADS team into a panic. Now, they no longer have the "biggest" that carries the "mostest".

I don't think that was ever the entire issue.When compared to the 767 it is the biggest and carries the mostest but when compared to the RFP it carries the right amount.

Remember, the 2006 RFP only said the new tanker exceed the capabilities of the KC-135R, but use the same amount of infaststructure.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
By the way, what happened to all the rampspace arguments and facilities improvements that would be required using a larger plane? If the 767 was "the right size" before for the reason of these issues why isn't it now?

We don't know that yet. The 2009 RFP may be different from the 2006 RFP.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
I suspect that NG will state "we have the best platform to perform the mission being specified. The question then is, what will Boeing do?

Boeing doesn't have to do anything. Many people disagreed with NG on the capabilities of the KC-30A compared to the KC-767AT.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 34):
How about an A330/A380 mix?.

It won't work. Like the B-747, the A-380 is considered a "large tanker" by the Rand report. But Airbus could offer an A-330-200F and A-340-600 combination.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 43):
I can see Boeing offering the KC-767 OR KC-777 but wouldn't offering the KC-767 AND KC-777 make it a split buy which the DoD has said they're not interested in?

Correct. Boeing could offer both the KC-767 and the KC-777 as seperate proposals, competing against each other and the KC-30. Boeing could also offer two seperate versions of the KC-767, the original B-767-200LRF and/or the B-767-300ERF.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 44):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 37):
Here's another report on Boeing considering the GENx

I'm mystified that there's so much glee over the difficulties fitting the GEnx to the A330, and all of a sudden fitting them to the EVEN SMALLER 767 becomes the next great advantage to Boeing....

Remember the B-767 and B-747 use (essentially) the same engines. Boeing could offer the B-747-8F/I GEnx engine on the KC-767AT.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests