Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 99):
Oh no, is there some government control over a privat owned company? This all is getting confusing..

It's a defense contractor and a strategic national asset, and therefore comes with many strings attached, as do all U.S. defense contractors. The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Australia.

[Edited 2007-02-22 16:08:50]
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:26 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 99):
Yes, I'm afraid so. http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/...7.pdf

Oh no need to fear Keesje... The question wasn't asked sarcastically and I do appreciate the link. From what I gather from that and other articles, the KC-767 seems to be further on in development. That in of itself, means little, although it does give another slight edge to the KC-767.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:32 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 100):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 99):
Oh no, is there some government control over a privat owned company? This all is getting confusing..

It's a defense contractor and a strategic national asset, and therefore comes with many strings attached, as do all U.S. defense contractors. The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Australia.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! N328KF you are now a friend of mine.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:37 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 100):
It's a defense contractor and a strategic national asset, and therefore comes with many strings attached, as do all U.S. defense contractors. The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Australia.

Yes and a lot more EADS (Eurocopter), Thales (navy, B2), Stork (Apache) Termal and strings of others from all over the world.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 94):
The U.S. Air Force likely would seek to buy refueling planes from both Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) and a rival transatlantic team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC - News), the top Air Force general said Wednesday.

Gen. Michael Moseley : "Lifecycle cost has to be as low as we can get it with the most capable airplane we can get"

I would not call it a blow to Boeing, perhaps just a..

 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:47 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 103):
Gen. Michael Moseley : "Lifecycle cost has to be as low as we can get it with the most capable airplane we can get"

I would not call it a blow to Boeing, perhaps just a..

This statement means little. It could be interpreted as providing some cover for the first tranche choice, the KC-767, and providing a peek into the choices of the second phase of the program. In that instance the KC-30 will face off against the KC-777.

It's also directly contradicting a statement earlier by the Air Force's procurement official that there will be only one winner in each tranche of purchases.

[Edited 2007-02-22 17:02:03]
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:46 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 103):
Yes and a lot more EADS (Eurocopter), Thales (navy, B2), Stork (Apache) Termal and strings of others from all over the world.

What are you trying to say here?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:53 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 102):
Quoting N328KF (Reply 100):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 99):
Oh no, is there some government control over a privat owned company? This all is getting confusing..

It's a defense contractor and a strategic national asset, and therefore comes with many strings attached, as do all U.S. defense contractors. The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Australia.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! N328KF you are now a friend of mine.



Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 105):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 103):
Yes and a lot more EADS (Eurocopter), Thales (navy, B2), Stork (Apache) Termal and strings of others from all over the world.

What are you trying to say here?

That the assumption endorsed by you that "The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Australia." is based on something else then facts, a tendency that's building up in this topic IMO.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 106):

That the assumption endorsed by you that "The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Australia." is based on something else then facts, a tendency that's building up in this topic IMO.

No Keesje. What I was endorsing was the fact the Boeing is not free to sell shares to Putin due to US regulations.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:50 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 97):
Little thing called the United States government.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 99):

Oh no, is there some government control over a privat owned company? This all is getting confusing..



Quoting N328KF (Reply 100):
It's a defense contractor and a strategic national asset, and therefore comes with many strings attached, as do all U.S. defense contractors. The only countries that have free reign here is the U.K. (see: BAE, Smiths, etc...) and maybe Canada and Australia.



Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 107):
No Keesje. What I was endorsing was the fact the Boeing is not free to sell shares to Putin due to US regulations.

Boeing doesn't sell shares. Shares are traded on markets and anyone can buy them. Putin can certainly buy shares. The catch is that for significant purchases by foreign entities that lead to controlling stakes or significant influence in companies involved in sensitive areas such as defense, a review process is triggered. If the US government deems that it is not in the interest of the national security of the US for that to be allowed, the purchase can be blocked and other road blocks be put in the way.

By the way, no entity from a foreign country has free reign in the US defense market. They have to hire US citizens and put barriers in place that prevent free flow of information.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 103):

Gen. Michael Moseley : "Lifecycle cost has to be as low as we can get it with the most capable airplane we can get"

I would not call it a blow to Boeing, perhaps just a..



Quoting BigJKU (Reply 91):
I would really love to hear an the reasoning behind putting cargo hauling hours on USAF tanker airframes when it could for the most part just be contracted out for other airframes which has the added bonus of encouraging participation in the CRAF.

A lower lifecycle cost might just be best achieved by putting less hours annually on a more expensive specialized airframe and more stock CRAF aircraft for mundane tasks.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:08 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 93):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
The KC-767 still getts selected, because it is still smaller and able to use the KC-135 infaststructure, so it is still cheaper, too.

I think the KC-767 is 10 ft higher and has a span 25ft bigger then the kc-135,
however nobody seems to take issue..

You do know the size difference between the B-767-200 and A-330-200 is much greater than that, don't you? A KC-767 can still use hardstands, hangers, etc. designed for the KC-135, a KC-30 cannot.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 94):
"I think down the road you'll see us go to a mixed fleet," Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, told a briefing hosted by the State Department's Foreign Press Center in New York and also videoconferenced to reporters in Washington.
This was because there was "some utility" to having larger and smaller tankers, just as the current fleet is made up of bigger KC-10 and smaller KC-135 models, he said.

It looks like what Gen. Moseley is saying here is the KC-X, KC-Y, and KC-Z programs do not have to be the same airplane, which is what most of us thought anyway.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 99):
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 97):
Little thing called the United States government.

Oh no, is there some government control over a privat owned company? This all is getting confusing..

Why is that confusing to someone who lives in the EU?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 99):
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 98):
They are also paying very close attention to the KC-767 flight trails going on as we speak. Is the KC-30 or any of it's derivatives currently being flight tested?

Yes, I'm afraid so. http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/...7.pdf

Wrong, again Keesje. The EADS Advanced Boom is in flight testing right now, aboard a KC-310. That is what the link you provided is all about (I have scene this link recently, too). The RAAF KC-30B will not enter flight testing until October of this year. That will be the first version of an A-330 tanker (KC-30, A-330MRTT, A-330TT) to be tested. By then, both Japan and Italy will each have at least one KC-767 delivered. BTW, the same month the KC-30B enters flight testing is the (currently) programmed month for the USAF to award the KC-X contract.

BTW, did you realize that the KC-30B is based on the A-330-200 pax version? That is because when the RAAF ordered the (then) A-330MRTT, it was not offered from a freighter version. Airbus now has a design for the A-330-200F, but it still needs to be flight certified before it can be delivered. From what I understand of the KC-30A proposal to the USAF, it will be based on the A-330-200F airframe, as the USAF wants a freighter airframe. But, the A-330F will not enter flight testing until late 2009, which is when the USAF RFP requires the KC-X to enter flight testing. How is EADS planning to ship an uncertified (to fly) airplane into the US to be converted into KC-30A, in time to meet the USAF testing dates? How is that going to slip by the FAA or JAA?

Does this mean that NG/EADS hands the KC-X to Boeing, simply because they cannot meet the schedule?

Airbus: "Schedules? We do go by no stinking schedules. Just look at our A-380 program. It has a new motto 'screw the customers'. "

You can bet the USAF will also consider the OEMs ability to meet on time performance in past contracts. They always look at that.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10969
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:34 am

I admit to being confused on some points raised in this thread, been away from MilAv for a while. Early posters mention the cost saving of the 767 versus the 330 being used for additional F-22's, I agree on that one. The US Air Force wants F-22 badly, they are willing to retire F-117's a proven platform to get more. I don't buy the notion that they are going to use high performance fighters for pinpoint bombing missions, it may be more stealthy than the F-117, but at that cost, there are cheaper stealth bombers - F-117 comes to mind.

Regarding using the funds for additional C-17's, I'm lost on that one. The US Air Force approach to the C-17 reminds me of the A-10, a proven a/c that they do not want and will do anything to get rid of. I admit to not having read or heard that the Air Force wanted more C-17's, last I read was that the congress was getting more in spite of the Air Force claims that they had enough, and the funds could be used more productively, like in more F-22's. Like the A-10, the C-17 is performing over and above expectations, but as I said, they want more F-22's so everything has to go.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:41 am

Quoting Par13del (Reply 110):

Regarding using the funds for additional C-17's, I'm lost on that one. The US Air Force approach to the C-17 reminds me of the A-10, a proven a/c that they do not want and will do anything to get rid of. I admit to not having read or heard that the Air Force wanted more C-17's, last I read was that the congress was getting more in spite of the Air Force claims that they had enough, and the funds could be used more productively, like in more F-22's. Like the A-10, the C-17 is performing over and above expectations, but as I said, they want more F-22's so everything has to go.

f

I think you have the C-130 mixed up with the C-17. The AF wants lots of C-17's. The USAF does not want more C-130 except to upgrade the fleet. For years congress continued to order C-130's despite the wishes of the Air Force.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10969
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:10 pm

BigJKU I know about the C-130H or J I believe, I also remember Boeing advising the US Air Force and Congress that if follow on orders were not placed for C-17's by a certain date, they would start notifying vendors of line closure, did the Air Force not pass on the follow on order date and congress mandate an additional 22 or so? If correct, what was the Air Force reason, I thought I read that they stated that they had enough lift. If there has been a change of heart, as I mentioned earlier, I was not aware of it. In all my reading everyone except top Air Force brass seem to be saying that they need more frames.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:23 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 108):
Boeing doesn't sell shares. Shares are traded on markets and anyone can buy them. Putin can certainly buy shares. The catch is that for significant purchases by foreign entities that lead to controlling stakes or significant influence in companies involved in sensitive areas such as defense, a review process is triggered. If the US government deems that it is not in the interest of the national security of the US for that to be allowed, the purchase can be blocked and other road blocks be put in the way.

By the way, no entity from a foreign country has free reign in the US defense market. They have to hire US citizens and put barriers in place that prevent free flow of information.

Thank you for putting it in much clearer terms than I could. ( I'm being serious). I knew how it worked just not how to explain it.  thumbsup 
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:46 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 112):
I thought I read that they stated that they had enough lift. If there has been a change of heart, as I mentioned earlier, I was not aware of it. In all my reading everyone except top Air Force brass seem to be saying that they need more frames.

Its actually a common tactic in the process. If you have a very important product built by someone important to many states its just a lot simpler to let them say that rather than you go argue for more assets. The point the Air Force is trying to get across is that the purchasing stoppages under Clinton mean there are a lot of needs to be filed. Most of the USAF's airframes are 70's designs and 80's built under Regan. They know that congress will keep the C-17 line open but what they really need is to keep the F-22 line open so they put their weight there.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:17 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 109):
You can bet the USAF will also consider the OEMs ability to meet on time performance in past contracts. They always look at that.

In that case they better turn a blind eye on the KC-767 and 737 EAW.

The KC767 for the Italian air force should have been all delivered right now, starting 2005. Somehow nobody here picks up facts like these. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q4/nr_021211m.html
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:44 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 115):
In that case they better turn a blind eye on the KC-767 and 737 EAW.

The KC767 for the Italian air force should have been all delivered right now, starting 2005. Somehow nobody here picks up facts like these. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/....html

The KC-767 delivery schedule is not late. Italy wants the first one delivered in 2007, that will happen. We have been over this before, Keesje. The original 2005 delivery contract was changed by Italy. The Wedgetail is 2 years late for delivery to the RAAF. Yes, USAF will consider that. Considering the new KC-767ADV (based on a new B-767-200ERF design) offering is a different airplane than the KC-767s for Japan and Italy (both are based on the B-767-200CFER), that will be considered, too.

So, when are the French going to open a KC-135 replacement compitition? Are they going to just consider the KC-30, or does the KC-767 have a chance at that contract, too? Will the British upgrade their A-330TT selection to the KC-30, too, or just except an airplane that is less capable than the RAAF/RSAF/UAE A-330MRTT? What about Turkey and Singapore, both fly the KC-135R. Isreal and also needs new tankers to begin replacing their KC-707s as well as Argentina's KC-137s.

Boeing now has at least 3 tankers being offered, the Italian and japanese standards KC-767, the US standards KC-767, and the KC-777. Airbus has 2 versions of the A-330, the TT and the MRTT. It seems their is a tanker for everyone's wants.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:59 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 116):
We have been over this before,

Thank you for answering. I get tired reading all the same old, same old again and it's getting bothersome to reply....
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:08 am



Short research on the web revealed many hangers aren´t dedicated for KC135´s (couldn´t find a single one), many can/ do /did handle B52, KC10, C141 too.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:35 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 118):

Short research on the web revealed many hangers aren´t dedicated for KC135´s (couldn´t find a single one), many can/ do /did handle B52, KC10, C141 too.

No offense here Keesje, but I think TopBoom might know better than you if the KC-30 would fit into the hangars. He does has a go-zillion hours in the 135s. Henceforth he might know a thing two you and I don't.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:48 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 118):
Short research on the web revealed many hangers aren´t dedicated for KC135´s (couldn´t find a single one), many can/ do /did handle B52, KC10, C141 too.

Back this picture up with a location where it was taken and what the circumstances are with the A/C in it.

It looks like the -135s in that photo are in depot maintenance (no paint on the most prominent one) and those hangers are civilian operations, not USAF hangers.

That photo could also be one taken when the -135 was still in production and they might be Boeing's own hangers. There are many possibilities for that photo

J
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:27 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 118):
Short research on the web revealed many hangers aren´t dedicated for KC135´s (couldn´t find a single one), many can/ do /did handle B52, KC10, C141 too.

Nice picture of a naked KC-135R. Keesje, if you look at your picture, you can count at least 6 KC-135s, and 2 KC-10s. This picture was taken at a depot. There would be no naked airplanes at operational bases. Only at a depot where thay have the enviornmential equipment to deal with paint removal. From the looks of it, it could be the Kelly/Boeing Depot in San Antonio.

Here are some KC-135 hangers at Pease ANGB, NH on Google Earth




157th AREFS, NHANG, Pease ANGB, NH

-70.81886124529707
43.09103559382166
4966.104374550247
-0.174134109968949
0.2574157405023712

root://styles#default

-70.81592523055183,43.08866256402445,0


 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:20 am

A reason to ask congress for the money to build some new (and bigger) hangers now will be the eventual need to house the follow-on tankers to the KC-X which are supposed to be bigger then even the KC-30. Also, it may come out that a larger plane would over the long-term, have better efficiencies than the KC-767 which would translate into dollar savings. These savings can in turn, be used to pay for the MILCON. Bottom line is that upgrading the hangers/ramps for larger aircraft now might be money well spent.

I am just offering a different perspective.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:53 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 122):
A reason to ask congress for the money to build some new (and bigger) hangers now will be the eventual need to house the follow-on tankers to the KC-X which are supposed to be bigger then even the KC-30. Also, it may come out that a larger plane would over the long-term, have better efficiencies than the KC-767 which would translate into dollar savings. These savings can in turn, be used to pay for the MILCON. Bottom line is that upgrading the hangers/ramps for larger aircraft now might be money well spent.

Possibly but what you will see will likely be a large buy of smaller tankers with a smaller buy, like 100 frames or so, of larger deployment tankers in the 330/777 size range down the road. The force will essentially use the big tankers for deployment and the smaller tankers in tactical situations once they get there.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:22 pm

Just to make a point, most facillities that are being used for KC-135's tankers also had the duel use for a much larger B-52 and maybe B-36's depending when the hanger was built. The only limiting factor for the 767 is maybe modifiying tail doors and the wrap around doors foor the fusalge for nose docks which most sre now used for storage and office space.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:36 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 124):
Just to make a point, most facillities that are being used for KC-135's tankers also had the duel use for a much larger B-52 and maybe B-36's depending when the hanger was built.

Most of the SAC bases that had both B-52s and KC-135s are closed now. The KC-135s are sitting on AMC ramps and ANGBs now.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 122):
A reason to ask congress for the money to build some new (and bigger) hangers now will be the eventual need to house the follow-on tankers to the KC-X which are supposed to be bigger then even the KC-30. Also, it may come out that a larger plane would over the long-term, have better efficiencies than the KC-767 which would translate into dollar savings. These savings can in turn, be used to pay for the MILCON. Bottom line is that upgrading the hangers/ramps for larger aircraft now might be money well spent.

Good idea, but it will not work. The KC-Y program is 15-20 years away. We have no idea what kind of airplane will be bought for that tanker, or even if it will be bought. So, building the larger aircraft hangers and infastructure now makes no sense.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:02 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):
Most of the SAC bases that had both B-52s and KC-135s are closed now. The KC-135s are sitting on AMC ramps and ANGBs now.

I will concede the point of Tankers sitting on ANG ramps but the super tanker bases of Fairchild ,Grand Forks, McConnell are old SAC bases that had bombers assigned. Minot and Barksdale that are buff bases had 135's assigned in the past or BW (Before slick willy) or BM ( before McPeak). You should also look at the history of alot of guard bases, they were once active duty that belonged to SAC. IE Carswell,Forbes field, Grissom( Bunker Hill), Bangor, Pease . There was once a time when there was SAC then the rest of the USAF. SAC will be back.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:53 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 117):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 116):
We have been over this before,

Thank you for answering. I get tired reading all the same old, same old again and it's getting bothersome to reply....

I find it astonishing that there are those who continue picking and choosing small, sometimes irrelevant, facts to argue with KC135TopBoom when his familiarity with this subject is superior to the vast majority among us.
The man has flown COMBAT missions in the KC-135 within the span of three decades, in the finest aerial tanker flying today. His experience alone, lends a tremendous amount of weight to this discussion.
You can bet that those who will have the final say, are paying attention to people like KC135TopBoom.

Please, save us the advertising dribble.

[Edited 2007-02-24 15:00:47]
 
LMP737
Posts: 6266
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:46 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 93):
I think the KC-767 is 10 ft higher and has a span 25ft bigger then the kc-135,
however nobody seems to take issue..

The hanger in the picture is a depot level hanger. They tend to be a bit bigger than squadron level hangers.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:25 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 128):
The hanger in the picture is a depot level hanger. They tend to be a bit bigger than squadron level hangers.

The main hanger here at Ktik 3001 was originally was built for C-47 assembly and one of the drawbacks of this hanger 135's can't be in there with verticle stab installed, when the 767 or 330 comes KTik will probably will have to have some new bays built to handle the much taller acft.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 126):
I will concede the point of Tankers sitting on ANG ramps but the super tanker bases of Fairchild ,Grand Forks, McConnell are old SAC bases that had bombers assigned. Minot and Barksdale that are buff bases had 135's assigned in the past or BW (Before slick willy) or BM ( before McPeak). You should also look at the history of alot of guard bases, they were once active duty that belonged to SAC. IE Carswell,Forbes field, Grissom( Bunker Hill), Bangor, Pease .

That is true. But many of these ANGBs have changed over the years.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 126):
There was once a time when there was SAC then the rest of the USAF. SAC will be back.

Yes, and Yessssssssss

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 127):
I find it astonishing that there are those who continue picking and choosing small, sometimes irrelevant, facts to argue with KC135TopBoom when his familiarity with this subject is superior to the vast majority among us.
The man has flown COMBAT missions in the KC-135 within the span of three decades, in the finest aerial tanker flying today. His experience alone, lends a tremendous amount of weight to this discussion.
You can bet that those who will have the final say, are paying attention to people like KC135TopBoom.

Thank you sir. You made me blush.
 blush 
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 127):
find it astonishing that there are those who continue picking and choosing small, sometimes irrelevant, facts to argue with KC135TopBoom when his familiarity with this subject is superior to the vast majority among us.
The man has flown COMBAT missions in the KC-135 within the span of three decades, in the finest aerial tanker flying today. His experience alone, lends a tremendous amount of weight to this discussion.
You can bet that those who will have the final say, are paying attention to people like KC135TopBoom.

Well Said!!!!!!!!!!!

J
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:13 pm

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 127):
facts to argue with KC135TopBoom

I will argue with topboom about anything anytime. He´s been on my RU list for years.

Never let facts get washed away by the authority of individuels, that´s how we got stuck in Iraq e.g.

Needless to say I´m from Europe were the status / authority of militairy in general or anyone for that matter are totally different from the US.

Venus6971 has a good trackrecord too concerning KC135 infrastructure..

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 127):
continue picking and choosing small, sometimes irrelevant,

I have the feeling any single spec difference that proves (sources/links) not advanteous to the KC-767 is simply dismissed as not important, whatever, irrelevant . Look through this long topic it´s astonishing. In the last 20 post the infrastructure thing also tends to drift the wrong way & someone pulls an authority card..

FYI some great forums were who probably won´t find to many opposition & militairy background determines authority:

http://military-forums.net/eve/forums/a/frm/f/7461073
http://www.afcrossroads.com much more comfy.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2746
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:01 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
Never let facts get washed away by the authority of individuels, that´s how we got stuck in Iraq e.g.

El Oh El

You do realise that the KC767 is a massive increase in capability outside refueling over the KC-135, so much so that the KC-30 seems like a trivial difference? That the Air force more or less doesn't CARE that the KC-30 can technically haul more fuel on short missions, because they have KC-10's for hauling the heavy loads of fuel. More importantly as stated by nearly everyone and their dog, The USAF does NOT use their current KC-135 fleet to haul freight as a primary mission. Far cheaper to just borrow someone elses civilian plane when it needs hauled, and if it needs hauled ASAP the dedicated USAF freighters already fly those missions.

In short the KC-767 is a sure win almost regardless of cost for very simple reasons

1. The KC-30 offers nothing important over a KC-767 to the USAF
2. The KC-135 is obsolete to the degree that nearly anything will pay for itself over its lifespan
3. The KC-767 is a far lower risk to the USAF with the near on 1K frames already built in case they need to get spares
4. The KC-767 will near replace KC-135 frame for frame with minimal need to upgrade the infrastructure they use.
5. The KC-30 will require vastly more extensive upgrades to existing faculties.

Oh and since Airbus gets more miles out of it than anyone

6. Cockpit commonality. The KC-767 will have a identical flightdeck to the KC-777. The KC-30 will have an identical flight deck to.... uhm... nothing? Airbus long has said that having a similar cockpit is the only way to design aircraft, yet at the end of the day, they still require a decent amount of retraining because they truly are never common across their aircraft. And here is two planes with identical section 41's and identical cockpits within it. So do you see the LESS capable KC-30 replacing KC-10's or the MORE capable KC-777 replacing KC-10's.


Oh and last, anyone know if the KC-30 will have the redneck "power bulge" covering the revised A330F nose landing gear, or will militarys all over the world have to learn to push cargo uphill to get it into the tail.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:11 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
Look through this long topic it´s astonishing.

What is really astonishing is the number of refutations of your arguments posted on this thread that you simply ignore. To you, the KC-30 has no shortcomings. When someone points out where the KC-30 isn't the best choice, or that your assertion (most recently the hangar debate) about something is wrong, you just ignore it.

While I admire your loyalty to Airbus, your loyalty to reasoned debate is less admirable, because it doesn't appear to be a high priority with you.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:42 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
You do realise that the KC767 is a massive increase in capability outside refueling over the KC-135

Yes I noticed the new sales line; avoid any direct kc767/KC30 comparisons Introduce the 50 yrs KC135 & not existing KC777 to distract. Smart sales move. In the previous spec Boeing urged Dod explicitly to remove the statement the KC767 is more capable then the KC135. Don´t know what exactly the KC-135R is better in (range?).
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0328-09.htm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
That the Air force more or less doesn't CARE that the KC-30 can technically haul more fuel on short missions

That seems a key performance indicator sir. It seems impossible you have anything to this up.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
The USAF does NOT use their current KC-135 fleet to haul freight as a primary mission.

Because it´s a dog for hauling cargo. Wooden floors, handloading.. doesn´t mean the successor has to be a dog too, does it?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
Far cheaper to just borrow someone elses civilian plane when it needs hauled

Not being able to use a fleet that averages less then 1000 hours a year & hire commercial capasity? Hows that a smart idea?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
the dedicated USAF freighters already fly those missions.

Then why is everyone begging for the medium range / rough terrain C-17´s?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
the KC-767 is a sure win almost regardless of cost

So it isn´t really important if a KC-767 is a bit cheaper? Fully contradicting all the previous post using booms/money as a critical sales issue..

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
. The KC-30 offers nothing important over a KC-767 to the USAF

Yes when range, capasity, of load capasity, cargo & passenger capasity, flexibiity and state of technology really are unimportant the KC-30 has nothing to offer. Thing is it not what the USAF thinks:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070221/tankers_usa_airforce.html?.v=1

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
3. The KC-767 is a far lower risk to the USAF with the near on 1K frames already built in case they need to get spares

I think it is safe to say the A330 will outlife the 767. It has a strong growing back-log unlike the 767.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
4. The KC-767 will near replace KC-135 frame for frame with minimal need to upgrade the infrastructure they use.
5. The KC-30 will require vastly more extensive upgrades to existing faculties.

I think this story has nothing to back it up. It´s starting to show cracks:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 124):
most facillities that are being used for KC-135's tankers also had the duel use for a much larger B-52 and maybe B-36's depending when the hanger was built



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
6. Cockpit commonality. The KC-767 will have a identical flightdeck to the KC-777. The KC-30 will have an identical flight deck to.... uhm... nothing?

What´s the KC777? A dreamtanker? Reminds me of civil forum. If out of ammo the Y1 and Y3 are pushed into the arena  Smile

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
So do you see the LESS capable KC-30 replacing KC-10's or the MORE capable KC-777 replacing KC-10's.

Well if only the number of booms for the money counts & capability / capasity not...  Wink however no doubt priorities have changed by that time.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
I will argue with topboom about anything anytime. He´s been on my RU list for years.

He's earned that distinction from many of us. And your knowledge has earned you the respect from many others.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
Venus6971 has a good trackrecord too concerning KC135 infrastructure..

Point noted and we agree wholeheartedly.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
Never let facts get washed away by the authority of individuels, that´s how we got stuck in Iraq e.g.

The reasons why the Coalition is in Iraq is complex and will not be decided here. Let's all pray for their success and for peace to return to that country so that all those brave men and women can return to their homes and families. Many would argue "the facts" as you stated were much clearer then.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 132):
Needless to say I´m from Europe were the status / authority of militairy in general or anyone for that matter are totally different from the US.

That's the point. Having served in the U.S. Air Force, the size of America's Air Force alone allows it's leaders to prefer mission specific aircraft. They would rather have many more aerial refuelers and, what I consider to be the finest strategic transport, a bunch more C-17s.
The A-330MRTT may be a good choice as a multi mission aircraft, but the USAF simply doesn't use it's assets that same way as smaller forces do.
Here's another point Keesje my friend, NG isn't going to push an argument about this competition too far. If Boeing gets the contract, NG is bidding on the next generation strategic bomber, which they have allot of money invested in already.
They want to build the next B-2, which in my humble opinion is probably the most sophisticated and technologically advanced aircraft, commercial or military in the skies The Spirits are the most beautiful birds flying, IMHO.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 109):
BTW, did you realize that the KC-30B is based on the A-330-200 pax version? That is because when the RAAF ordered the (then) A-330MRTT, it was not offered from a freighter version. Airbus now has a design for the A-330-200F, but it still needs to be flight certified before it can be delivered. From what I understand of the KC-30A proposal to the USAF, it will be based on the A-330-200F airframe, as the USAF wants a freighter airframe. But, the A-330F will not enter flight testing until late 2009, which is when the USAF RFP requires the KC-X to enter flight testing. How is EADS planning to ship an uncertified (to fly) airplane into the US to be converted into KC-30A, in time to meet the USAF testing dates? How is that going to slip by the FAA or JAA?

Does this mean that NG/EADS hands the KC-X to Boeing, simply because they cannot meet the schedule?

Airbus: "Schedules? We do go by no stinking schedules. Just look at our A-380 program. It has a new motto 'screw the customers'. "

You can bet the USAF will also consider the OEMs ability to meet on time performance in past contracts. They always look at that.

This is an important issue and one that will decide the first round of contract awards. I believe the first 179 will be KC-767Ds. It's the NEXT tranche that's up for grabs... I just hope this will have the effect of increasing the C-17 fleet past 222 airframes.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:53 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):
Not being able to use a fleet that averages less then 1000 hours a year & hire commercial capasity? Hows that a smart idea?

Yeah....you want to put as few hours as possible on strategic assets like tankers because that makes them last longer. Its not about being efficient and making a return on profit. Its about making sure the asset is there when you need it. So yes, hiring commercial capacity is a very good idea. Not only that but the large commercial contracts are what keep the airlines and air cargo companies in line with the CRAF, which would be heavily used in the event of a real war.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2746
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:37 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 137):
Yeah....you want to put as few hours as possible on strategic assets like tankers because that makes them last longer. Its not about being efficient and making a return on profit. Its about making sure the asset is there when you need it. So yes, hiring commercial capacity is a very good idea. Not only that but the large commercial contracts are what keep the airlines and air cargo companies in line with the CRAF, which would be heavily used in the event of a real war.

Yup, more so since at the end of the day you don't have a care in the world. You got your cargo hauled and you don't have to find a place to park your 747, pay the crews, get parts and trained MX people, etc. You just tell them where the bill goes.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):
Then why is everyone begging for the medium range / rough terrain C-17´s?

I think they are asking for it for the very reason I stated. You need your military cargo hauled RIGHT NOW, you use a dedicated air force cargo plane, not a tanker. Tanker cargo capacity has traditionally been used for either support of its own operations when it gets to where its going on a deployment, or "well if you are going anyway" type missions. Does the USAF pull F-15's off the line to haul the president around when he needs to get somewhere quick?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):
Yes when range, capacity, of load capasity, cargo & passenger capasity, flexibiity and state of technology really are unimportant the KC-30 has nothing to offer. Thing is it not what the USAF thinks:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070221/tanke...?.v=1

Ah the hope, so much read into so few words. MIXED FLEET in no way implies mixed airbus/boeing aircraft. For all we know the USAF might have forgotten to talk about a deep burning desire for 737 based tankers for certain missions. Its definitely certain that they are talking about replacing the KC-10 which is far newer, and on a completely separate program for replacement. You are advocating the replacement of two very different fleets with one aircraft. one aircraft I might add that you HAVEN'T shown can compete well in either role the USAF currently has its dual tanker fleets used for.

You seem like a smart man, crank out a chart or table or something showing the KC-135, KC-767, KC-30, KC-10, and KC-777 as far as cargo, fuel load, foot print, and other key variables the USAF will evaluate on.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):
So it isn´t really important if a KC-767 is a bit cheaper? Fully contradicting all the previous post using booms/money as a critical sales issue..

Nope, while the cost a frame will be the giant flag that waves victory for the winner, if all Airbus and Northrup come up with is the SAME cost a frame, the KC-30 will lose. Oh and Keesje, you are not trying to fit one KC-30 in place of one "B-52" in the faculties that handled both, you are trying to park 10 or 15 in place of a much smaller number of B-52s. Its going to be one pissed commander when he is told he has a mission that needs 10 tankers, and only has 8 spots to park them because the new shiny planes are too large. Oh and he has no time/money/space to make more parking. What is he going to do? Planes don't stack well on the flight line, and If you need 10 frames to make the mission work, then you need 10 frames, not a couple of KC-748's with the same total fuel load.

This is where the "more capable" KC-30 argument collapses. You can't have 3/4 of a KC-30 in one place, and 1/4 somewhere else. So regardless a pair of KC767 will do the job better than a pair of KC30 even if the total fuel transferred is LESS than the capacity of a single KC30 and more than the capacity of a single KC-767. So in the end, you really can't have less frames regardless of how much better one frame looks on paper as... you just have to have that minimum number of frames. . Your WHOLE argument basicly boils down to a narrow window of extra capacity that a single mission needs. Then note that its a far smaller window than the USAF has to deal with in planning thier tanker operations between the KC-135 and KC-10. Yet you are asking them to take on non-trivial downsides for something they didn't ask for in the request.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:41 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133): the KC-767 is a sure win almost regardless of cost
So it isn´t really important if a KC-767 is a bit cheaper? Fully contradicting all the previous post using booms/money as a critical sales issue..

Total contract cost is still a factor. If the KC-30 costs more per frame than the KC-767, it will be a factor. If I were the Air Force Chief of Staff, I'd much rather have 215 new airframes than 175 new airframes.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 138):
Its going to be one pissed commander when he is told he has a mission that needs 10 tankers, and only has 8 spots to park them because the new shiny planes are too large. Oh and he has no time/money/space to make more parking. What is he going to do? Planes don't stack well on the flight line, and If you need 10 frames to make the mission work, then you need 10 frames, not a couple of KC-748's with the same total fuel load.

You are beating a dead horse with this line of reasoning.  Wink According to Keesje, we shouldn't be asking the mission commander what he or she needs. Instead, "Maybe it time to bring in some independent non-airforce people."

That has to be one of the most ludicrous statements made in this entire discussion.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 138):
Your WHOLE argument basicly boils down to a narrow window of extra capacity that a single mission needs. Then note that its a far smaller window than the USAF has to deal with in planning thier tanker operations between the KC-135 and KC-10. Yet you are asking them to take on non-trivial downsides for something they didn't ask for in the request.

If the USAF had the mission requirements of the Saudi AF, the Royal AF, or the Australian AF, then a small purchase of the KC-30 would make sense. Keesje's single mission focus is an excellent rationale for the purchases made by just about everyone but the USAF.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2746
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:54 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 139):
If the USAF had the mission requirements of the Saudi AF, the Royal AF, or the Australian AF, then a small purchase of the KC-30 would make sense. Keesje's single mission focus is an excellent rationale for the purchases made by just about everyone but the USAF.

I agree
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):
In the previous spec Boeing urged Dod explicitly to remove the statement the KC767 is more capable then the KC135. Don´t know what exactly the KC-135R is better in (range?).
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0328-09.htm

The satatement was removed because on missions of 4000nm, or more, the KC-135R beats all competitors for the amount of fuel availabele to offload. keep in mind there is one company that wants to bid on the KC-X that is proposing upgrading the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs, with Pacer Craig.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 133):
6. Cockpit commonality. The KC-767 will have a identical flightdeck to the KC-777. The KC-30 will have an identical flight deck to.... uhm... nothing?

What´s the KC777?

The KC-777 is a back-up proposal Boeing said they can kick out the door. It will carry more fuel and cargo than even the KC-30A.

But, this really is a smart sales move for Boeing. If they get the KC-X contract with the KC-767ADV, then the avionics package aboard it could help them push the KC-777 as the KC-Y program selectee.
 
fridgmus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:44 pm

I once gave a ride to a C-17 flight crew here on our base in Northern Iraq and I brought up the subject of the KC-767/KC-30 debate and that I also hung out on Airliners.net. The pilot, a teenage-looking LTC said: "No matter what you hear or read, it's going to be the KC-767."

I smiled and asked if he new something that everyone didn't know. He replied (smiling): "I visit A.net regularly and trust me, it's going to be the Boeing."

I asked him what his username was, he just smiled and wouldn't say anything! And the rest of the crew were all giggling.

I dunno.

Just my  twocents 

Marc
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:20 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 141):
The satatement was removed because on missions of 4000nm, or more, the KC-135R beats all competitors for the amount of fuel availabele to offload. keep in mind there is one company that wants to bid on the KC-X that is proposing upgrading the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs, with Pacer Craig.

Not going to happen IMHO, you still have an acft that is still over 50 years old that has the problem of corrision and a logistics tail that has stop building parts since the middle 60's. Most parts that our failing now and have to be replaced are being milled here at Tinker as needed but that gets expensive. With how the supply system is set up and you buy a lot of parts say over 100 widgets from a supplier. You use 10 of the widgets to fix various different acft and the 90 other widgets sit in their spot in the warehouse. After 90 days those parts are considered surplus and are sent to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing office (DRMO) and sold highest bidder. Now the USAF needs thse widgets again 2 months later and they source them to this bidder. He sells them back to the USAF higher for what they orginally paid for them and sold them combined. And this how the Iranian AF gets parts for its F-14's. So much for just in time logistics.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 143):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 141):
The satatement was removed because on missions of 4000nm, or more, the KC-135R beats all competitors for the amount of fuel availabele to offload. keep in mind there is one company that wants to bid on the KC-X that is proposing upgrading the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs, with Pacer Craig.

Not going to happen IMHO, you still have an acft that is still over 50 years old that has the problem of corrision and a logistics tail that has stop building parts since the middle 60's. Most parts that our failing now and have to be replaced are being milled here at Tinker as needed but that gets expensive.

That is true. Even though I think upgrading the KC-135Es is the cheapest solution, it may not be the best one in the long run.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:42 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
That is true. Even though I think upgrading the KC-135Es is the cheapest solution, it may not be the best one in the long run.

That's true. The airframes have already paid for themselves many times over. The more I read about this subject, the more I'm convinced that the KC-767 will be chosen.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 145):
That's true. The airframes have already paid for themselves many times over. The more I read about this subject, the more I'm convinced that the KC-767 will be chosen

Shhh, John McCain might be listening. Even though a new tanker is a given fact with Boeing or Airbus they will still be working along side the old KC-135 at least 20 years to come. When performing offensive air op's putting iron on the target the Air component CC wants to saturate the refueling traks with as many booms as he can. He hates the walmart scenerio on Saturday where the store is packed and only 3 cashiers working with over 40 cash stalls available. Nothing more frustrating or terrifying when an F-15E mudhen comes in Bingo on fuel hooks up the only tanker in the trak and the boom nozzle signal coil goes kaput or his wingman goes before him and his toggle latches go tango uniform and has to brute force disconnect and make the boom TU. Also Booms make good tow trucks for shot up acft , done it myself dragged an engine out F-4E to keflavik in a past February, making them go swimming would have been a death sentance . All this goes to the arguement over large tanker with duel use cargo, little nation Air force with no Strategic Airlift Capability go that way. Big Nation with large Air Force get as many booms in the air because everybody is thirsty.
Worse case scenario, fighting a country with a professional and compentent Air Force, bad guy commander knows he cant stop incoming wave but can put a serious hurt on them on the way out if he shoots down the only 2 big KC-10's in the refueling trak. DOD calls that economy of force an gets you into trouble Rumfelds way, Powell Way saturate the air with tankers and a substantial MIGCAP to protect tankers screw the accountants.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:40 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 146):
Shhh, John McCain might be listening.

He's to busy trying to find money for his failing Presidential Campaign this year.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:59 am

Fair Use from Boeing

Boeing KC-767 Tanker Completes First Fuel Offload to Receiver
Thursday March 8, 8:30 am ET


ST. LOUIS, March 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-767 Tanker made history March 5 when it successfully extended its fifth generation, fly-by-wire air refueling boom and transferred fuel for the first time to another aircraft.

During a four-hour flight over Southern California, the KC-767 aircrew connected the new tanker's boom to a B-52 73 times and successfully offloaded approximately 10,000 lbs. of fuel to the receiver.

"This is a critical step forward for our KC-767 Tanker," said Lt. Col. Roberto Poni, Italian Air Force Tanker program liaison. "We're looking forward to refueling a variety of receivers and testing the entire system."

The advanced boom builds on the aerodynamic shape and size of previous systems and can transfer 900 gallons (3,400 liters) of fuel per minute, and provides more precise and responsive controls to the operator. With 2,600 fewer parts than previous booms, it also is easier to maintain.

"This is a huge accomplishment for our two international customers as well as future air forces that need to replace their tanker fleets," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "Rather than taking a risk on an unproven technology, they can take advantage of years of hard work and flight test experience and receive the world's most advanced boom technology today."

Boeing has produced nearly 2,000 tankers in its history and currently is building four KC-767 tankers each for Italy and Japan. The first KC-767 for Japan, which recently deployed its boom for the first time, is scheduled to be delivered soon, and the first KC-767 for Italy will be delivered later this year. There have been more than 239 flights and 721 hours logged on the KC-767 during its flight test program.

In addition to flight-testing the KC-767 for international customers, Boeing announced Feb. 12 that it will offer the KC-767 Advanced Tanker for the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32.4 billion business with 72,000 employees worldwide.







Source: The Boeing Company
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:56 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 149):
Boeing KC-767 Tanker Completes First Fuel Offload to Receiver
Thursday March 8, 8:30 am ET


I wonder if history will repeat itself, back when the USAF was looking for a all jet replacment of the KC-97 the bids went out and Lockheed actually won the bid. But they had a paper airplane they won with without even a prototype available . General Lemay decided he needed tankers now and bought 12 KC-135's that Boeing could deliver quick to fill the gap as a interim stop gap. Needless to say Lockheed lost out in the long run and over 600 135 series delivered the rest is history.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos