• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:51 pm

Boeing aims to refresh 767 line with tanker win

Quote:
Boeing has unveiled new hopes to revive and refresh the 767 production line for extended commercial and military sales, as it seeks to win the US Air Force's KC-X tanker competition.

The airframer says success in this evaluation will act as a springboard for continued 767-based freighter and tanker orders, keeping the commercial line alive well beyond the current order backlog for 58 aircraft



Quote:
Unlike the 767 tanker sold to Italy and Japan and which is based on the standard airframe, Boeing is proposing to base the KC-767 on a new civil configuration called the 767-200 Long Range Freighter (LRF). This combines the fuselage of the -200 with elements of the -300, -300F and -400ER.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...resh-767-line-with-tanker-win.html

It looks like they will be changing the configuration of the 767 line to a similar set up to that of the 777, provided they win the tanker contract. Is the launch of the 767-200LRF also dependant on the contract?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:55 pm

From the article:

Quote:

The USAF will provide funding to certificate the 767-200LRF, which will receive modifications for the tanker role in Wichita, Kansas.

Why would the USAF be providing funding for this? The wording seems to indicate that this is seperate from the KC-X contract competition.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:52 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 1):
From the article:

Quote:

The USAF will provide funding to certificate the 767-200LRF, which will receive modifications for the tanker role in Wichita, Kansas.


Why would the USAF be providing funding for this? The wording seems to indicate that this is seperate from the KC-X contract competition.

Does that depend on Boeing winning the tanker order first? Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?

[Edited 2007-08-13 14:13:36]
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:34 pm

Quoting Moo (Reply 1):

Why would the USAF be providing funding for this?

USAF has a requirement that the tanker be FAA certified. The 767-200LRF doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, and won't exist unless Boeing gets the KC-767 contract.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?

I think the A330-200F will already be FAA certified so I don't think there's be any need to pay for that. I'm pretty sure EADS is paying the upfront cash for the KC-30, although they've already sold several of them so I assume that the prototype cost is rolled into the purchase price.

Tom
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:53 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
USAF has a requirement that the tanker be FAA certified. The 767-200LRF doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, and won't exist unless Boeing gets the KC-767 contract.

Then why need the USAF to fund it? Boeing choose to offer the B767-200LRF and they knew that one requirement was that the plane needs to be FAA certified. If that means that this still needs to happen, they need to pay that themselves and calculate this in the list price for the USAF. Why have the USAF pay for that?

Nice case for the WTO dispute.

Cheers!  wave 
Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:14 pm

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 4):
Then why need the USAF to fund it? Boeing choose to offer the B767-200LRF and they knew that one requirement was that the plane needs to be FAA certified. If that means that this still needs to happen, they need to pay that themselves and calculate this in the list price for the USAF. Why have the USAF pay for that?

Nice case for the WTO dispute.

It was a poorly worded article WRT this statement.

Boeing will not bother with certifing it unless the USAF orders the tanker. Part of the requirements of the USAF is that the tanker be cetified. This is a competitive bid process, so what ever elements Boeing uses in establishing their price is moot WRT the WTO and "subsidies". This is just an additional cost that Boeing will have to cover in their price that Airbus will not. If anything, it is an advantage for Airbus.

In other words, the winning bid is based on cost and performance only, so there is no reason to try to start another trans-atlantic pot stirring contest.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:21 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?

I think the A330-200F will already be FAA certified

How could it be, if it has not flown at the time of the awarding?

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
. I'm pretty sure EADS is paying the upfront cash for the KC-30, although they've already sold several of them so I assume that the prototype cost is rolled into the purchase price.

They have received orders for the A330-MRTT, but not the KC-30. The KC-30 is not an identical design to the A330MRTT, just like the USAF KC-767 is not quite the same as the tanker that Italy and Japan have ordered. This is probably why a separate prototype is being built as we speak.

What I'm wondering is whether or not the funds apparently coming from the USAF towards the 767-200LRF are built into Boeings tender price for the tanker contract, or if its a separate issue. And if so, how legitimate is such a senario?
 
billreid
Posts: 733
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:54 pm

Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.
I think not.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:59 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.

A deliverable product?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:03 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.

With this information regarding the -200LRF in this article, it would seem that both competitors offerings are in the same boat - neither are deliverable today as a final product.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:07 pm

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product. I think not.

So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along... Well, doesn't that amount to a financial handout to the home team? And if Boeing leverage some further civil sales off this:

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
The airframer says success in this evaluation will act as a springboard for continued 767-based freighter and tanker orders, keeping the commercial line alive well beyond the current order backlog

Well, isn't that the kind of thing Airbus are taking to the WTO?

Not - I hurry to add - that I necessarily have much problem with the USAF and the US Congress throwing their home team a bone but why the indignation when Europe points it out?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22952
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Wi

Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:12 pm

I can only assume with the arguments going on before the WTO, Boeing is not going to do something that is untoward...

So I am guessing that since the USAF would prefer the tanker be based on the 767-200LR instead of the currently-built (and, I am guessing, certified) KC-767 based on the 767-200ER, they are willing to pay for the certification of the new model.

As to the KC-30 being offered by EADS and NG, it is already defined and being built and I am guessing the costs to certify it will be paid for by EADS/NG. If the USAF decided they wanted a different variant (say based on the original A350 design), they would probably pick up the certification tab for that, as well.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along...

How would Boeing change the price now? The bids have been in for months. Changing the price would restart the entire contract evaluation process.

Tom.
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:56 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along... Well, doesn't that amount to a financial handout to the home team? And if Boeing leverage some further civil sales off this:

Military sales, research and development and other expenditures are specifically excluded from WTO regulation. If the USAF decided to run Airbus through hoops for 10 years, let them expend billions on the bid and then award it to Boeing without a contest and pick up all of the R&D cost no one would have any recourse.

If the Airforce decides it is willing to pay for civilian certification then no one can say much.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Does that depend on Boeing winning the tanker order first? Would the USAF provide funding to certificate the A330-200F in comparable circumstances, and who is paying for the KC-30 prototype current being built?



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
I think the A330-200F will already be FAA certified so I don't think there's be any need to pay for that.



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 5):
This is just an additional cost that Boeing will have to cover in their price that Airbus will not. If anything, it is an advantage for Airbus.

Exactly. Airbus can point to the A330F as an already viable platform, and if chosen, can charge some of the costs of the program against the contract.

Boeing has to offer up "we will certify it if we win" instead.

So it's an advantage to Airbus.

What's interesting is that with all the talk of the 777F being the right platform, Boeing seems to feel (for good reason?) that the SMALLER 762F platform is the one the USA wants to use, which undercuts the A332F size as well.

Thus that may be Boeing regains the advantage.

Both Airbus and Boeing can offer a currently certified F right now: A332F and 763F.

But the USA may want a SMALLER frame with the same lift. Only Boeing can offer that in the 762F proposal. Even an A310F-NG would be larger...

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Wi

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:46 am

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
So, if Boeing draw the same conclusion and bump up their price by a modest 5% (or maybe something a little less modest) and the USAF and Congress play along... Well, doesn't that amount to a financial handout to the home team? And if Boeing leverage some further civil sales off this:

Being a Government contract, the profit is a fixed percentage, so if Boeing bumped the price by 5% they would have to be able to document this was not just an extra 5% because there was no other choice.

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
Well, isn't that the kind of thing Airbus are taking to the WTO?

If Boeing wins the tanker deal, they will use their own money to enhance the 767 freighter line for commercial sales. It should be noted that the tankers all start off as civilian airframes and are then modified at Witchita. Hence if the USAF want the KC-x it will start as a civilian airframe (767-200LRF).

The USAF is providing funding for certification, but it doesn't say it's providing all the funding, nor does the article say such funding is exclusive to Boeing. I suppose it depends on the Airbus offering - is it a civilian aircraft that will be modified in Alabama (or elsewhere Stateside) by Northrop Grumman? After all, one idea to sweeten the pot for Airbus was to have this joint venture so it wasn't a US versus "foreign" competition.

"Northrop says it decided to proceed with assembly of the aircraft, designated SDD-1, ahead of a downselect to underline the benefits of basing its tanker proposal on a commercial production line and supply chain."

"Arguing that Boeing is proposing changes to the KC-767 that will make it different to the commercial 767, Northrop says its decision to base the KC-30 on a standard A330-200 provides a “low-risk, time-certain approach” to KC-X.

Aircraft SDD-1 is expected to fly in October and, if the KC-30 is selected for KC-X, will be flown to Northrop’s Melbourne, Florida facility in November for modification to a tanker.

Some or all of the four development aircraft will be completed in Melbourne before work transitions to Mobile, Alabama, where EADS North America will perform final assembly and Northrop will complete the modifications."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-a330-for-usaf-kc-x-programme.html
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22952
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Wi

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:50 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
What's interesting is that with all the talk of the 777F being the right platform, Boeing seems to feel (for good reason?) that the SMALLER 762F platform is the one the USA wants to use, which undercuts the A332F size as well.

The 767 has a smaller tarmac footprint then the A330 or 777 and better integrates with the existing KC-135 infrastructure at USAF facilities. However, if Boeing goes with the larger 764ER wing, this negates that advantage to an extent.

[Edited 2007-08-13 17:52:11]
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:54 am

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
Boeing aims to refresh 767 line with tanker win

Wow, thats news - from the 90s, if I remember right.  old 

But seriously, why would the USAF, avantgarde in the mid-50s when they ordered the C-135, now prove to be the very opposite, a backward-looking organisation, by ordering the soon obsolete 767? The USAF will most likely operate the next tanker generation until past 2050, so the 767 seems ridiculously antiquated to me to fulfill such a role.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Both Airbus and Boeing can offer a currently certified F right now: A332F and 763F.

Are you sure the A332F is already FAA certified? It has not even flown yet. Boeing say that the 767-200 is 'right sized', if so why are Airbus not developing an A300-600 'Advanced' tanker? Much of the features of such an aircraft already exist on the A310MRTT.

I think the 'right sized' argument is being given more profile by Boeing than comparing the actual abilities of the two competing aircraft.

There are some myths being put out about regarding the KC-30 and I have yet to see a grain of evidence to back them up, such as:

  • It wont fit into the KC-135 hangers (I have checked myself this and the hangar doors ARE wider)
  • Ramp space / Wingspan (is this argument assuming that the USAF will replace the KC-135's on a one-to-one basis - is so, why?)
  • The KC-767 is the most 'advanced' tanker (But Boeing wont tell us what exactly what's advanced about it when compared to the KC-30)
 
kbdude
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:03 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:58 am

In the article:

"The airframer says success in this evaluation will act as a springboard for continued 767-based freighter and tanker orders, keeping the commercial line alive well beyond the current order backlog for 58 aircraft"

and....

"We'll continue selling the airplane commercially as long as there is demand - and there's still demand," says Scott Carson, president and chief executive for Boeing Commercial Airplanes"


Still demand....? I thought the 767 was "dead" and the only reason why they sold the UPS frieghters & a few 1-off passenger / freighter planes is that they were giving 767's away to keep the production line "busy" until the USAF KC-X decision.

Who could want the 767-200LRF? How does it (762LRF) compare to its competition, the A330-220F... in the civil market?
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:02 am

Quoting NA (Reply 17):
But seriously, why would the USAF, avantgarde in the mid-50s when they ordered the C-135, now prove to be the very opposite, a backward-looking organisation, by ordering the soon obsolete 767? The USAF will most likely operate the next tanker generation until past 2050, so the 767 seems ridiculously antiquated to me to fulfill such a role.

Because there were no older frames to choose from, the KC-135 was the first available jet powered tanker!

Now it is a situation where they can replace 50 year old tech with 20 year old tech that will fufill all their requirements with massive spares availability.

Apples and octopusses.....

P.S. The term obsolete does not apply here, as the plane will fufil all the needs of the USAF, therefore it by definition cannot be considered obsolete, just like the B-52 and KC-135.

[Edited 2007-08-13 18:04:10]
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting Kbdude (Reply 19):
Still demand....? I thought the 767 was "dead" and the only reason why they sold the UPS frieghters & a few 1-off passenger / freighter planes is that they were giving 767's away to keep the production line "busy" until the USAF KC-X decision.

Percentage wise, it is selling roughly as well as the A-330 is against the 787, and better than the A-340 against the 777.

The "only reason" they are selllng them is because airlines WANT them and Boeing is making money off of them.

[Edited 2007-08-13 18:07:17]
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:15 am

Quoting Kbdude (Reply 19):
I thought the 767 was "dead" and the only reason why they sold the UPS frieghters & a few 1-off passenger / freighter planes is that they were giving 767's away to keep the production line "busy" until the USAF KC-X decision.

He's hardly going to say something like that!
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:17 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
The 767 has a smaller tarmac footprint then the A330 or 777 and better integrates with the existing KC-135 infrastructure at USAF facilities. However, if Boeing goes with the larger 764ER wing, this negates that advantage to an extent.

To an extent but there are tons of facilities sized for the B-52 that would fit a 764ER wing but might or might not fit an A330 wing.

Wingspans
764- 170 Feet
A330- 197 Feet
B-52- 185 Feet

Many Air Force facilities are sized for the B-52. It entered service prior to the KC-135 and was the biggest plane in the arsenal for a good number of years in terms of wingspan until the C-5 came along, unless you count the U-2 which I would not. There have been basically two planes in the USAF inventory ever that have a wing span of more than 185 feet, the C-5 and the B-36.

I am not saying that it could not be done or worked around. What I am saying is that there are lots of B-52 capable facilities out there that could handle on airframe and might or might not have been built big enough for the other.
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:25 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
It wont fit into the KC-135 hangers (I have checked myself this and the hangar doors ARE wider)

Which hangers, where are they located and how many of them are there? Hangers are different sizes all over the place and are usually sized based on the largest aircraft located on the base.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:32 am

Quoting NA (Reply 17):
But seriously, why would the USAF, avantgarde in the mid-50s when they ordered the C-135, now prove to be the very opposite, a backward-looking organisation, by ordering the soon obsolete 767? The USAF will most likely operate the next tanker generation until past 2050, so the 767 seems ridiculously antiquated to me to fulfill such a role.

What, exactly, is obsolete on the 767 versus the A330, and why does it make a difference to the role the aircraft is designed for?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:47 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
However, if Boeing goes with the larger 764ER wing, this negates that advantage to an extent.

Boeing could offer a folding wing or one with APB winglets instead of raked wingtips. For military use, folding wings aren't as much of a hassle as civilian use, as passengers won't freak out...  Wink

Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
Are you sure the A332F is already FAA certified? It has not even flown yet.

What I mean is that the A332F is already offered and ordered as a civilian airliner and has a certification plan in place, so they can offer that "advantage" while the 762LRF would be "behind" the A332F in the process.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:49 am

Why wouldn't they go for a 763 or even the 764 so they could carry more fuel and cargo? the 762 seems a little small. and does this mean airlines could still order the passenger version or only the cargo?
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:51 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 27):
Why wouldn't they go for a 763 or even the 764 so they could carry more fuel and cargo? the 762 seems a little small. and does this mean airlines could still order the passenger version or only the cargo?

Because fuel is a pretty dense cargo so you probably could carry more with a 763 or 764 because it would run out of lift and thrust before it ran out of space and probably by a significant margin. You actually can lift more fuel if you lift less fuselage because you are using the same wings and engine.
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:52 am

If planning up to 50 years ahead you better look at whats makes sense in the future, and that more than just 5 or 10 years.
The political responsibilities and measurements already in the not too distant future in respect to the greenhouse effect, still hardly felt by the somewhat ignorant current US government, will cut short the carreer of a possible 767 tanker order considerably. By the 2030s no one with some responsibility for our planet should use gas-guzzlers from the last millennium. At least the USAF shouldn´t see the 767 as THE tanker of the future, just as an interim measure. A goverment must give a good example, pave the way to new technology, and not do the opposite.
Btw, while the 767 is late 70s/early 80s standard, the A330 is ten years ahead. Not much, but the A330 is still a bit more advanced. No wonder, airlines prefer it to the 767.

I agree though that the technological difference between the A330 and 767 is not big enough to make the point in this USAF project.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2190
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:53 am

Does this mean the United still has an opportunity to order 3-5 763ERs to allow for a minor international expansion...
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:01 am

Quoting NA (Reply 29):
The political responsibilities and measurements already in the not too distant future in respect to the greenhouse effect, still hardly felt by the somewhat ignorant current US government, will cut short the carreer of a possible 767 tanker order considerably.

Say what?

The military forces will be exempted from any such rules because otherwise no one will sign it. They are exempted from everything else from trade rules to labor rules so to expect the emissions of military forces to be included in any system is to ignore everything that has happened up to this point in history.

If Greenhouse emissions were so huge of a deal to the military then why in the world are the French and British governments, presumably they would fall under the catagory of non-ignorant to you, planning to build new carriers the will run off fossil fuel burned inside of what amount to jet engines? Such progressive governments ought to be looking at nuclear power, it would emit less greenhouse gas after all.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting NA (Reply 29):
If planning up to 50 years ahead you better look at whats makes sense in the future, and that more than just 5 or 10 years. The political responsibilities and measurements already in the not too distant future in respect to the greenhouse effect, still hardly felt by the somewhat ignorant current US government, will cut short the carreer of a possible 767 tanker order considerably. By the 2030s no one with some responsibility for our planet should use gas-guzzlers from the last millennium. At least the USAF shouldn´t see the 767 as THE tanker of the future, just as an interim measure. A goverment must give a good example, pave the way to new technology, and not do the opposite.Btw, while the 767 is late 70s/early 80s standard, the A330 is ten years ahead. Not much, but the A330 is still a bit more advanced. No wonder, airlines prefer it to the 767.

That all sounds great. But I would also assume, just a guess, that you resent the USA and the US Military anyway, so in your world, the USA wouldn't be flying ANY military jets in 2030. it would all be the UN...

Anyway, it is not the job of a military to 'set a good environmental example' to anyone. Other government agencies, sure. The military's job is not this. It is to fight and to protect.

I'm not worried about 100 of the most modern 767s killing the planet, considering they don't fly nearly as much as a commercial jet would. The current jets are so bad in that department, that replacing them with the 767 is an amazing improvement already.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:09 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 24):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
It wont fit into the KC-135 hangers (I have checked myself this and the hangar doors ARE wider)

Which hangers, where are they located and how many of them are there? Hangers are different sizes all over the place and are usually sized based on the largest aircraft located on the base.

It was refered to a KC135 hanger. Could have been smaller or larger than the average one.

Quoting NA (Reply 29):
If planning up to 50 years ahead you better look at whats makes sense in the future, and that more than just 5 or 10 years.
The political responsibilities and measurements already in the not too distant future in respect to the greenhouse effect, still hardly felt by the somewhat ignorant current US government, will cut short the carreer of a possible 767 tanker order considerably. By the 2030s no one with some responsibility for our planet should use gas-guzzlers from the last millennium. At least the USAF shouldn´t see the 767 as THE tanker of the future, just as an interim measure.

Dont forget that these planes can be re-engined.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 26):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
Are you sure the A332F is already FAA certified? It has not even flown yet.

What I mean is that the A332F is already offered and ordered as a civilian airliner and has a certification plan in place, so they can offer that "advantage" while the 762LRF would be "behind" the A332F in the process.



Quoting NA (Reply 29):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
Are you sure the A332F is already FAA certified? It has not even flown yet.

What I mean is that the A332F is already offered and ordered as a civilian airliner and has a certification plan in place, so they can offer that "advantage" while the 762LRF would be "behind" the A332F in the process.

The 767F is also already offered and ordered. And its in service. If Boeing feel they need to improve it, thats absolutly fine, but would the same apply if Airbus decided they were going to improve the A330 in the same way, specifically for the USAF tanker contract?

Quoting United787 (Reply 30):
Does this mean the United still has an opportunity to order 3-5 763ERs to allow for a minor international expansion...

Of course, they have always had this opportunity as have all airlines. Boeing have not stopped taking 767 orders.

Quoting NA (Reply 29):
I agree though that the technological difference between the A330 and 767 is not big enough to make the point in this USAF project.

Apart from some differences like FBW and maintance, there wont be much of a technical gap between the KC-30 and the KC-767 'advanced'. The difference is in the two aircrafts abilities and obviously the cost.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:45 am

USAF will pay to certify the tanker version of either airplane. Under the contract, the USAF will pay for the FAA certification of the KC-767, not the basic B-767-200LRF. The same is true if the KC-30, the tanker version will be certified, not the A-330-200F.

The USAF needs the certification so they can share spare parts with the airlines.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:54 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
USAF has a requirement that the tanker be FAA certified. The 767-200LRF doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, and won't exist unless Boeing gets the KC-767 contract.

Seems it would be in Boeing's best interest to certify the 767-200LRF and take advantage of civil freighter sales. The company seems to believe there's potential there, so why not capitalize on it? The 767 is currently a popular freighter so why not go the next mile and produce the longer range model and open up a wider market?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
catdaddy63
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:27 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:15 am

Something to keep in mind here, the KC135 fleet carries a large amount of cargo around as well. It's replacement needs to be able to carry enough fuel to satisfy the refueling mission and also haul a pretty sizeable load. They should also be much cheaper to operate than the C5/C17 on missions that don't need the oversize or rough field capability, taking away some workload from those frames. Either aircraft would be a fine replacement for the old birds.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting Catdaddy63 (Reply 36):
KC135 fleet carries a large amount of cargo around as well.

Are you sure about that?
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:55 am

Yes...the fuel is in tanks where the civilian cargo hold would be. The 'passenger' deck can be configured for many uses, including cargo.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/kc135.asp

<KC-135 can carry up to 83,000 pounds (37,648kg) of cargo or 80 passengers. A crew of four is comprised of two pilots, a navigator and a boom operator.>>
What the...?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:17 am

Quoting NA (Reply 17):
why would the USAF, avantgarde in the mid-50s when they ordered the C-135, now prove to be the very opposite, a backward-looking organisation, by ordering the soon obsolete 767? The USAF will most likely operate the next tanker generation until past 2050, so the 767 seems ridiculously antiquated to me to fulfill such a role.

If the 767 is "ridiculously antiquated", what does that make the A330, which is a design only 10 years younger, just plain old "antiquated"?

What you fail to see is that an airborne tanker is not a combat aircraft requiring the latest in technology, commonly referred to as "gold-plating" in the military. It simply has to do its job efficiently and RELIABLY. Do you think the KC-135, a 50 year old design, is not sufficient for this purpose? Lest you forget, the major reason the USAF is looking to replace them is because their airframes are getting very old, meaning they are spending more and more time in the maintenance hangars. However, and despite that, they perform the function they are intended for quite well. Were it not for the age of the airframes, I doubt the USAF would be in any hurry to replace them.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 20):
Now it is a situation where they can replace 50 year old tech with 20 year old tech that will fufill all their requirements with massive spares availability.

 checkmark 
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:24 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):
Yes...the fuel is in tanks where the civilian cargo hold would be. The 'passenger' deck can be configured for many uses, including cargo.

Don't beleive everything you read from a hobbyist site...

C-135's i would agree completely they carry cargo, but as many KC-135's and specialized versions that i've been around in my life, i've never seen one carrying CARGO in the tradional sense. Other than personel, personal effects and camera equipment or other systems vital to the mission, not pallets of cargo for transport.
KPAE via KBVY
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:43 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.
I think not.

 checkmark 

Nor do I. The USAF will choose a B767 variant for their tanker requirement and rightfully so. IMHO as long as your own country is building a broadly competitive product, you should make your major defence procurements inside your own borders. The USAF "competition" is only in place as a paper justification exercise IMO.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:52 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 39):
If the 767 is "ridiculously antiquated", what does that make the A330, which is a design only 10 years younger, just plain old "antiquated"?

Please read, what I also wrote, and don´t respond to half of my post. To quote only part of a statement is Yellow-Press-style. I´m not lobbying the A330 in favor of the 767 here, I only critisize the 767 in the first place as its a decade older product, commercially way past its heyday, so hardly the right thing to lead into the future.

Quoting NA (Reply 29):
I agree though that the technological difference between the A330 and 767 is not big enough to make the point in this USAF project.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:53 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):
Yes...the fuel is in tanks where the civilian cargo hold would be. The 'passenger' deck can be configured for many uses, including cargo.

Never disputed that, my Tahoe can be configured to carry 7 people with the third row installed, but it never IS installed so that capability is un used because it spends all its time doing the other things I bought it to do.

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 40):
C-135's i would agree completely they carry cargo, but as many KC-135's and specialized versions that i've been around in my life, i've never seen one carrying CARGO in the tradional sense. Other than personel, personal effects and camera equipment or other systems vital to the mission, not pallets of cargo for transport.

Exactly, military and civilian dedicated cargo airlift planes do almost all the air cargo duties for the military, and the refulers almost always refuel.

Logistically it would just not make sense to try to schedule cargo and refueling with the same equipment and risk availability for their primary mission when other planes are better and more available because cargo is their primary mission. You cant use a cargo plane to refuel, so every hour of a KC needs to be doing it primary mission or you are just wasting cycles.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22952
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:23 am

It is to the advantage of the USAF (as well as the Aeronautica Militare and the JSDF) of using the 767 frame is it is well-tested and well-known - "tried and true", so to speak. Same with those countries (Great Britain, Australia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia) that fly the A330 MRTT.

Sure flying a 787 or A350 would be more efficient and kinder to the environment, but those are brand new planes yet to enter service with absolutely no track record behind them. However, the USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the UAE nor Saudi Arabia can afford to have their entire fleet of KC-787s or KC-50s parked on the tarmac because some unforseen issue grounds the entire fleet. So they all have chosen the less efficient and less eco-friendly KC-767, KC-30 and/or A330 MRTT and they will fly them for decades to come, even after the 787 and A350 freighter variants are launched.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:27 am

Quoting NA (Reply 42):
Please read, what I also wrote, and don´t respond to half of my post. To quote only part of a statement is Yellow-Press-style. I



Quoting NA (Reply 42):
Quoting NA (Reply 29):
I agree though that the technological difference between the A330 and 767 is not big enough to make the point in this USAF project.

Umm...excuse me. Please read what I wrote -- it was responsive to your Reply #17, not Reply #29, which you posted much later. I responded to the entirety of your original Reply #17. In your Reply #17, which is what I responded to, you make no mention that the two aircraft are not that technologically different.

But I'm glad you saw the light later on and decided to state as much in your Reply #29.  Smile
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:49 am

Abolish the WTO already. Last one standing wins. I'm ready.  box 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
AFGMEL
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:39 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:33 am

If anyone other than Boeing win this, I for one will eat my (a small piece of) hat.
B 727-44/200 732/3/4/8/9 767-3 742/3/4, 772/3, A319/20/21 332/333 342/3 , DC3/4/10, F28/50/100, ATR72
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:35 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 7):
Lets see. With all the financial difficulties in the market at present is there any chance at all of the USAF ordering the EADS frame when Boeing has a deliverable product.
I think not.

Neither of the two products are much more deliverable than the other right now.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
OB1504
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

RE: Boeing Aims To Refresh 767 Line With Tanker Win

Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:37 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
Sure flying a 787 or A350 would be more efficient and kinder to the environment, but those are brand new planes yet to enter service with absolutely no track record behind them. However, the USAF, the RAF, the RAAF, the UAE nor Saudi Arabia can afford to have their entire fleet of KC-787s or KC-50s parked on the tarmac because some unforseen issue grounds the entire fleet. So they all have chosen the less efficient and less eco-friendly KC-767, KC-30 and/or A330 MRTT and they will fly them for decades to come, even after the 787 and A350 freighter variants are launched.

To be fair, though, didn't the USAF go with an unproven aircraft in the '50s when they chose the KC-135? I would say that they're choosing between the KC-767 and KC-30 as opposed to the KC-787 and KC-50 because the current KC-135 fleet is running out of time fast, and needs to be replaced sooner rather than later.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't the KC-30 be better suited to replacing the larger KC-10?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7