Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:42 am

Boeing has offered an advanced version of the 767-200 Freighter for the United States Air Force KC-X competition.

Excerpts from Boeing:

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 12, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that it will offer the KC-767 Advanced Tanker for the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition.

"The Air Force has made it clear -- the mission is refueling aircraft, often in tight, hostile locations. The Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker is made for this mission," said Ron Marcotte, vice president and general manager of Boeing Global Mobility Systems. "It is the ideal fit for the requirements set forth in the Air Force's Request for Proposals. Highly energy efficient, agile and with exceptional takeoff performance, the KC-767 puts more fuel closer to the fight -- with access to more than 1,000 additional bases worldwide than the KC-135."

The tanker will be an advanced derivative of the future 767-200 Long Range Freighter and will be produced at Boeing's facilities in Everett, Wash., on the existing commercial line where more than 950 highly reliable and maintainable 767s have been built. Installation of military refueling systems and flight test activities will take place at the company's finishing center in Wichita, Kan.

Boeing's Global Tanker Team producing the KC-767 Advanced Tanker includes Smiths Aerospace, Rockwell Collins, Vought Aircraft Industries, Honeywell and the newest member -- Spirit AeroSystems. The team has proven expertise in aerial refueling systems, network centric operations, integrated avionics solutions and lean manufacturing concepts.

"This KC-767 Advanced Tanker will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs.

With more than $1 billion already invested in the KC-767, Boeing will blend the latest commercial and military capabilities into the world's most technologically advanced tanker. Innovations include an advanced fly-by-wire boom, new wing refueling pods, a centerline hose drum refueling unit, the most advanced 777 commercial digital flight deck and a third-generation remote vision refueling system. This is a tanker with flexibility to meet other airlift missions; whether it's delivering three times more pallets and passengers than the KC-135 or five times as many patients and medical crewmembers.

Boeing has been designing, building, modifying and supporting tankers for nearly 75 years. The company is flying KC-767s and has more than 220 flights and 660 hours on the tanker platform.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

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

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 am

If they get the contract Everett is going to be a busy place, I wonder if they would move some production to another facilty.
With the 787 and 747-800 and 777 being built and UPS just ordering 20+ 767F's I wonder if they bit off more than they can chew.
http://ups.com/pressroom/us/press_re.../press_release/0,1088,4858,00.html
got this link from the civil aviation side

[Edited 2007-02-12 20:09:37]
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

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

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:11 am

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

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

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:52 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 1):
If they get the contract Everett is going to be a busy place, I wonder if they would move some production to another facilty.
With the 787 and 747-800 and 777 being built and UPS just ordering 20+ 767F's I wonder if they bit off more than they can chew.

Perhaps they are really thinking of the KC-X production, and the UPS B-767-300ERF production in Long Beach?
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

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

Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:17 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Perhaps they are really thinking of the KC-X production, and the UPS B-767-300ERF production in Long Beach?

That might be a good idea if you consider just getting production numbers up but as I have said in other threads I am sure that Boeing wants to get out of California just because that place is just nuts to try to run a business there. Maybe the facilites they have left in Wichita might pick up of the military work instead of just modification work. Or the fix is in with Mobile Alabama Northrup Grumman /Airbus getting to be a subcontractor to Boeing. Here at TIK Boeing has the contract for the new TCAS for the E-3's and the upcoming 40/45 mod and they have L3 subcontracted for everything. If the 767 is selected Boeing Wichita will probably have the workload to mod the green 767s flying in from Everett to the KC military standard.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Perhaps they are really thinking of the KC-X production, and the UPS B-767-300ERF production in Long Beach?

The Renton unions killed Boeing's plans to send 737C and 737Military work to Long Beach, so the Everett unions will never let that work shift to Long Beach, either.

I'm quite confident that all KC-767 frames will be built in Everett and flown to Wichita for final outfitting no matter how few or how many Boeing sells.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:14 am

Assuming that the Air Force chooses the KC-767, which is very likely, I believe that, although not directly related, they'll also seriously consider increasing the size of the C-17 fleet. In either case, it just seems to me that the Long Beach facility will be humming along for the next few years. And yes given the enormous overhead doing business in that state has, having a skilled workforce is still a major advantage.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:56 am

I asked this question in a similar forum. What do you think about Boeing having other companies build their birds? Their production capacity of is going to be stretched to the limits here soon. It would be kind of like GM making aircraft during WWII. Yes I know that was during a time of war and GM pretty much had no choice.

I'm sure that there is some auto maker out there that is having poor enough sales to consider such a venture.

[Edited 2007-02-13 21:56:27]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:28 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8):
What do you think about Boeing having other companies build their birds?

I believe the unions would kill that idea as well.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:07 pm

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
I believe that, although not directly related, they'll also seriously consider increasing the size of the C-17 fleet.

Why do you believe the Air Force will consider expanding the C-17 fleet? True, the AF seems to be focused on using the KC767 primarily as a tanker, but you can be sure its cargo carrying capabilities will be much utilized as well. I really can't imagine the AF using the airplane strictly as a tanker. The public outcry would be quite loud if they found out the AF wasn't getting maximum utilization out of the airplanes.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:28 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10):

If you've got access take a look at the TDY stats. The C-17 is one of the most deployed aircraft right now. They are flying the hell out of them. They need more C-17 to save the rest of fleet from an early retirement.
 
echster
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:05 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10):
Why do you believe the Air Force will consider expanding the C-17 fleet?

To echo reply 11, the USAF is using up the C-17s at a very advanced rate. Airframes calculated to fly a couple hundred hours a year for 30 years have seen them come out of LGB , straight to their units, and straight into the battle. These airframes have tallied up thousands of hours versus the planned hundreds.

I'll also add the USAF and Boeing are now going back to Congress and repeating their request to put the C-5As into the graveyard at DMA. I posted this in another thread yesterday. The RERP/AMP project is not going as planned and costs have increased 50%+. Not only is it more expensive, but tests are showing the upgrades are not working as well as initially thought. The plan is to RERP/AMP the C-5Bs and 2 x C-5Cs and buy the additional 32 x C-17s to get to 222 airframes. The big part of this equation, and how it relates to a tanker, is if Congress goes along with this, there won't really be a need for a new tanker that does much else than tank. A fleet of 222 x C-17s and the remaining C-5Bs will be enough heavy lift to cover the needs of the DOD.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:15 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 5):
If the 767 is selected Boeing Wichita will probably have the workload to mod the green 767s flying in from Everett to the KC military standard.

That is what they have done with the Italian anf Japanese KC-767s.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The Renton unions killed Boeing's plans to send 737C and 737Military work to Long Beach, so the Everett unions will never let that work shift to Long Beach, either.

The unions may not have much say, if different Congressional State deligations stick their fingers into this (they have done this before). If the California Delagation says to the USAF, if you want our approval of this contract (and the money), you will contract these tankers to be built in Long Beach.

Quoting Echster (Reply 12):
A fleet of 222 x C-17s and the remaining C-5Bs will be enough heavy lift to cover the needs of the DOD.

No, that will not be enough heavy lift capability. There are only 47 remaining C-5Bs (last years hull loss was a "B" model), and 2 C-5Cs. That puts all 75 C-5As in the bone yard (IIRC 13 are there now). If this plan were to be put into practice, the tanker buy would have to switch to buying 80 KC-44s (B-747-800F), 10 squadrons. and complete the 222 C-17s (total) buy.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5468
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:29 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 12):
The big part of this equation, and how it relates to a tanker, is if Congress goes along with this, there won't really be a need for a new tanker that does much else than tank.

The question is now, is the USAF properly utilizing its lift capabilities, and could a 767 tanker improve this?

One of the reported uses of C-17s lately is flying the Bagdad to Landstuhl route with stretcher cases. Is a C-17 actually required for this mission? The US DoD has developed and used a medevac cabin for the 767-200 (installed from time to time on US Airways 762s as part of CRAF exercises). Could this cabin be used on the takner, and could the tanker be used on these shuttle missions, freeing the C-17s to do something that better uses their oversize load capabilites. And in the end, which would be cheaper?
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:18 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
No, that will not be enough heavy lift capability. There are only 47 remaining C-5Bs (last years hull loss was a "B" model), and 2 C-5Cs. That puts all 75 C-5As in the bone yard (IIRC 13 are there now). If this plan were to be put into practice, the tanker buy would have to switch to buying 80 KC-44s (B-747-800F), 10 squadrons. and complete the 222 C-17s (total) buy.


Its funny how some things keep coming back around, I remember back in the 80's when the bids were in fore new heavylift acft and Boeing put the 747 up. Back then we were all hoping the 747 would have been picked instead of the C-5B, plus the KC-44 showing up again instead of the KC-10. Eventually maybe the USAF will have some type of cargo tanker 747. I still have some wide ties and bell bottoms somewhere.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Topic Author
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

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

Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:29 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10):
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
I believe that, although not directly related, they'll also seriously consider increasing the size of the C-17 fleet.

Why do you believe the Air Force will consider expanding the C-17 fleet?

They already are. And there's a growing majority in Congress that supports a minimum C-17 fleet size of 222. Within the next few years, I would not be shocked to see that number increased. The C-17 is proving to be one of the best, if not the best, strategic lifters in the world. As was pointed out in one of these threads, and forgive me for not immediately knowing which one, less then 1% of all sorties preformed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift.
The Air Force has made it clear the winning offering will be a tanker.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:52 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 15):
I still have some wide ties and bell bottoms somewhere.

I do too, They are hanging in my closet next to me leasur suit, LOL.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 16):
The C-17 is proving to be one of the best, if not the best, strategic lifters in the world. As was pointed out in one of these threads, and forgive me for not immediately knowing which one, less then 1% of all sorties preformed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift.
The Air Force has made it clear the winning offering will be a tanker.

That is true. Even though the KC-135 can carry up to 83,000lbs of cargo, transatlantic, it really was not built to be a cargo aircraft. SAC never saw the need to modernize the cargo handling equipment, and it has a cargo floor made of 3/8" plywood. All cargo was tied directly to floor fittings (5,000lb and 10,000lb fittings) and most cargo had to be shored up with additional 3/4" plywood sheets (the basic floor strenght was only 200lbs per square foot, IIRC). It had no roller system to handle pallets (cargo bins were set up), and was hand loaded and unloaded. AMC did not want to invest the money, in the 1990s, as it would then compete with the C-17 program. Even though AMC was scheduling the KC-135 to supplement the (then) aging C-141B fleet.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

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

Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:04 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
That is true. Even though the KC-135 can carry up to 83,000lbs of cargo, transatlantic, it really was not built to be a cargo aircraft. SAC never saw the need to modernize the cargo handling equipment, and it has a cargo floor made of 3/8" plywood. All cargo was tied directly to floor fittings (5,000lb and 10,000lb fittings) and most cargo had to be shored up with additional 3/4" plywood sheets (the basic floor strenght was only 200lbs per square foot, IIRC). It had no roller system to handle pallets (cargo bins were set up), and was hand loaded and unloaded. AMC did not want to invest the money, in the 1990s, as it would then compete with the C-17 program. Even though AMC was scheduling the KC-135 to supplement the (then) aging C-141B fleet.

3/8 marine grade plywood to be exact, spent many days when jet was in ISO with a router and saw making new floor panels. Mid to late 90's R models were being set up with removable rollers to handle pallets for what they called channel missions. Do not know if they still doing it. It wasn't going to make anybody forget an 747-400F but it was faster than a C-130, I believe 4- to 5 pallets was the max if the galley was removed, I think it was. BTW Reserve 135 unit at ADW has a setup for air evac that ARINC here in OKC built for them that they are using now, it is all palletized. It has its own O2 system for patients. I believe that C-135B's that came off the assembly line for MATS were originally set up for litters, I think all those B models are either RC-135's or retired.
 
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 17, 2007 11:44 pm

I'm wondering if this will actually be considered the KC-767D model. According to the release, this will be significantly different from not only the first KC-767s the Air Force selected, but also different from those being delivered to Japan and Italy.

[Edited 2007-02-17 15:53:33]
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

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

Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10):
I really can't imagine the AF using the airplane strictly as a tanker. The public outcry would be quite loud if they found out the AF wasn't getting maximum utilization out of the airplanes.

The KC-135's have been primarily used as tankers throughout their service life, and I don't recall any public outcry. Tankers tank; the cargo (and passenger) capabilities are gravy. airplane 
 
trex8
Posts: 5699
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:54 pm

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20):
The KC-135's have been primarily used as tankers throughout their service life, and I don't recall any public outcry. Tankers tank; the cargo (and passenger) capabilities are gravy.  

that was in a long gone time when the AF could pretty much buy lots of the toys they wanted when they wanted. ain't happening in the 21st century, if it was there'd be 600+ F22 s planned still!
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

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

Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:10 pm

I hope they come to Long Beach..........
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

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

Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:03 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 21):
that was in a long gone time when the AF could pretty much buy lots of the toys they wanted when they wanted. ain't happening in the 21st century, if it was there'd be 600+ F22 s planned still!

I stand by what I wrote. The whole idea that the USAF needs tankers only part of the time, leaving the aircraft available for use hauling cargo the rest of the time is a fallacy. Read the KC-X System Requirements Document and note that the USAF is asking for a tanker first and foremost, and considers the transport mission to be secondary. Note also that the transport requirements are easily met by the KC-767...the USAF is not asking for more, which tells us that they don't want more.

Keep in mind that this round of purchases only replaces about a third of the tanker force. Requirements for the next batch could be different, but the initial buy is directed at obtaining tankers to be used as tankers. airplane 
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

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

Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:50 am

Well than as much as I hate admit a Boeing inferioirity, the KC-30 is the better aircraft and offers more bang for the buck. KC-787 or KC-777 and it's Boeing all the way but this is like buying an "advanced" KB-29 over the KC-135 back in the 50's - the A330 airframe is simply superior to that of the 767 and that's not nescessarily a knock on Boeing, it's a sheer matter of 10+ years newer and more advanced technology on behalf of the A330. We have no problem allowing our borders to be infiltrated by illegals and we are not shy to buy all sorts of other foreign made equipment from Japanese and European autos, so what's the patriotic banter on this argument all about? Hell, I know plenty of yuppies in the Dallas area who scoff at my Chevrolet and swear they will only drive a European sedan - really, how is the KC-30 not in the best interest for the taxpayer as well as the USAF? Frankly, I'm dissapointed in Boeing here - they choose (incorrectly) to invest $1b in the KC-767 about 10 years too late - they should have begun a KC-11 off of the MD-11 back when they first thought about a KC-767.

If this contest will be any bit transparent and subject to merit, here is the USAF tanker for the future, we may as well get used to it!

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/images/media_center/library/4-12-06/KC30_Wright_Patt1.jpg

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/images/media_center/library/4-12-06/KC30_C17_S_CB_V1.jpg

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/images/media_center/library/4-12-06/KC30_F22_S_CB_V1.jpg

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/images/media_center/library/4-12-06/KC30_F18_F22_V5.jpg

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/images/media_center/library/4-12-06/KC30_B2_S_CB_V4.jpg

Don't fret too much, the A330's flight deck is every bit and perhaps even more so than even the latest 777...


And don't push them too far, I'm sure EADS could offer an "advanced" flight deck using A380 tech...
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

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

Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:09 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
the KC-30 is the better aircraft and offers more bang for the buck

One more time: this is not a head-to-head competition between the two aircraft. This is a program buy with a fixed budget. The number of aircraft that can be purchased under that budget is key to the decision, and the KC-767 is much cheaper both to buy and to adapt to existing infrastructure. The bottom line is that the KC-767 meets the criteria detailed in the KC-X System Requirements Document, and the USAF can buy more of them with the available money.

It is entirely possible that the USAF gets "more bang for the buck" with the "inferior" aircraft. airplane 
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:14 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 21):
that was in a long gone time when the AF could pretty much buy lots of the toys they wanted when they wanted. ain't happening in the 21st century, if it was there'd be 600+ F22 s planned still!

The civilian public really does not care if a tanker is just a tanker and does not haul cargo. They do not even know the difference.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
really, how is the KC-30 not in the best interest for the taxpayer as well as the USAF?

Well I would start by looking at the cost estimates. 120 Million per frame vs 160 million per frame. No multiply the 40 million you save per plan by 200. That 12 Billion dollars in tax payer money saved.

Then you have to see if the extra capability is needed. A 767 tanker can fill up about 8 empty F-15E's which are among the bigger birds in the inventory until you get to bombers. A 330 can get closer to 14. 200 767's can fill up over 1,600 combat aircraft and 200 330's can fill up 2800 combat aircraft. The problem of course is that the USAF active airframes is no where near necessitating as much fuel as the 330 can carry.

That 12 billion would be far better spent fielding more F-22's than it would be on getting extra abilities out of a tanker that they are not going to use.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
If this contest will be any bit transparent and subject to merit, here is the USAF tanker for the future, we may as well get used to it!

Actually considering that the USAF will take a look at what fits best into its overall force structure and budget then they will reach a vastly different decision.

Its simple math, you can have 200 tankers and another wing of F-22's for the same cost as 200 tankers. Its really not as complicated as some are making it.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):

If this contest will be any bit transparent and subject to merit, here is the USAF tanker for the future, we may as well get used to it!

I agree with the two previous replies and then some.

The KC-30 doesn't fit into the KC-135 hangers and it costs more. Just because you've got the money for a SUV doesn't mean you shouldn't buy an economy car for your two person family.

People are serously over estimating the value of the cargo carrying capabilites of the KC-30 to the USAF. Carrying cargo is the job of the C-17s, C-130s, and C-5s. The tankers aren't for cargo they are for gas, cargo is secondary. The Air Force is concenred with getting gas in the air. NKAWOTG.

The Air Force would much rather take the money saved by ordering the KC-767 and put it to use by ordering more C-17s. Right now the C-17s are getting the crap flown out of them. Right now there is some concern that they may not make it to their project service lives.

NO!!! The KC-30 can not suppliment the C-17s in the cargo carrying role. It is either gas or cargo when it comes to tankers. You can't load up a tanker with gas and load it with cargo and expect it to go anywhere. The fact of the matter is that in a cargo mission tankers are just dependent as other cargo aircraft for fuel.

Lastly there is no way the the US will allow the new tanker to be foreign made. Tankers are too strategically important to the US to go "out of house" with tanker procurement.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:46 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
Well than as much as I hate admit a Boeing inferioirity, the KC-30 is the better aircraft and offers more bang for the buck. KC-787 or KC-777 and it's Boeing all the way but this is like buying an "advanced" KB-29 over the KC-135 back in the 50's - the A330 airframe is simply superior to that of the 767 and that's not nescessarily a knock on Boeing, it's a sheer matter of 10+ years newer and more advanced technology on behalf of the A330. We have no problem allowing our borders to be infiltrated by illegals and we are not shy to buy all sorts of other foreign made equipment from Japanese and European autos, so what's the patriotic banter on this argument all about? Hell, I know plenty of yuppies in the Dallas area who scoff at my Chevrolet and swear they will only drive a European sedan - really, how is the KC-30 not in the best interest for the taxpayer as well as the USAF? Frankly, I'm dissapointed in Boeing here - they choose (incorrectly) to invest $1b in the KC-767 about 10 years too late - they should have begun a KC-11 off of the MD-11 back when they first thought about a KC-767.



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 25):
One more time: this is not a head-to-head competition between the two aircraft. This is a program buy with a fixed budget. The number of aircraft that can be purchased under that budget is key to the decision, and the KC-767 is much cheaper both to buy and to adapt to existing infrastructure. The bottom line is that the KC-767 meets the criteria detailed in the KC-X System Requirements Document, and the USAF can buy more of them with the available money.

That is correct.

Additionally, Boeing has been working on a KC-767 since 1990, back then it was a B-767-300ER, but even Boeing saw the reason USAF couldn't take a bigger airplane. The MD-11 could only be a KC-10 replacement, not one for the KC-135. Why is the KC-30 "better" than the KC-767? Neither has proven anything yet in flight testing, unless you count the Italian and Japanese KC-767s now flight testing. You can bet USAF is watching these tests, to reduce the cost and time of their own testing. The newly offered B-767-200ERF airframe now can use even more runways the the A-330-200F.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Additionally, Boeing has been working on a KC-767 since 1990, back then it was a B-767-300ER, but even Boeing saw the reason USAF couldn't take a bigger airplane. The MD-11 could only be a KC-10 replacement, not one for the KC-135. Why is the KC-30 "better" than the KC-767? Neither has proven anything yet in flight testing, unless you count the Italian and Japanese KC-767s now flight testing. You can bet USAF is watching these tests, to reduce the cost and time of their own testing. The newly offered B-767-200ERF airframe now can use even more runways the the A-330-200F.

I would think that offering the GEnX on the KC-767 as an option could really extend either the range/refueling capacity of this bird. The CF-6 was used on both the 767 and 747, and the GEnX allowed the 748 to be created. It also might breath some life into the 767 freighter orders. For production, being able to produce say 12 KC's and 12 freighters a year would probably improve the line efficiency.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:28 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 29):
I would think that offering the GEnX on the KC-767 as an option could really extend either the range/refueling capacity of this bird. The CF-6 was used on both the 767 and 747, and the GEnX allowed the 748 to be created. It also might breath some life into the 767 freighter orders.

Good point, but right now I don't know enough of Boeings KC-767ADV version to know what engine powers it.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7508
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:16 am

Boeing is staying mum on the latest modifications for their KC-767 Advanced Tanker proposal. This Flightglobal report gives some snippets.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-proposal-is-kept-under-wraps.html
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:50 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
Well than as much as I hate admit a Boeing inferioirity, the KC-30 is the better aircraft and offers more bang for the buck.

while the KC-30 might be a "better aircraft", that doesn't mean it is more responsive to the AF's requirements, and it is simply more expensive than the KC-767.

Team America's response below is directly on point.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 25):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):the KC-30 is the better aircraft and offers more bang for the buck
One more time: this is not a head-to-head competition between the two aircraft. This is a program buy with a fixed budget. The number of aircraft that can be purchased under that budget is key to the decision, and the KC-767 is much cheaper both to buy and to adapt to existing infrastructure. The bottom line is that the KC-767 meets the criteria detailed in the KC-X System Requirements Document, and the USAF can buy more of them with the available money.



Quoting BigJKU (Reply 26):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):really, how is the KC-30 not in the best interest for the taxpayer as well as the USAF?
Well I would start by looking at the cost estimates. 120 Million per frame vs 160 million per frame. No multiply the 40 million you save per plan by 200. That 12 Billion dollars in tax payer money saved.

Which means for every 7 KC-30's we can buy, we can buy 10 KC-767's. Or, to put it on a larger scale, for the 28 billion the Air Force wants to spend, they can get roughly 175 KC-30's or 215 KC-767's.

Seems like the KC-767 is clearly in the best interest of the taxpayer AND the air force.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5468
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:50 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
Good point, but right now I don't know enough of Boeings KC-767ADV version to know what engine powers it.

Originally the USAF committed to the PW 4000 series engine. This is still a possibility, as it is the highest thrust engine currently available for the 767, and they need all the thrust they can get for that MTOW increase.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:53 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 32):
Which means for every 7 KC-30's we can buy, we can buy 10 KC-767's. Or, to put it on a larger scale, for the 28 billion the Air Force wants to spend, they can get roughly 175 KC-30's or 215 KC-767's.

It depends on the final purchase price of the tanker variants.

But if the absolute difference in $ pricing remains, another way to put it is that for the prices of 3 x A332F based tankers, 3 x 767 based tankers and one F-22 can be procured. Given a desired tanker fleet acquisition of something around 180 aircraft, about 60 more F-22s could be acquired, substantially increasing the number of F-22s.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:04 am

Please do not assume the 767 will be the least expensive...if you read the article in the link below, you will understand why I say this.


http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn020607.doc
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:55 am

An acquaintance of mine had this to say.



I used to do a lot of work for civilian contractors for the military.
I can assure you Boeing is pointing out the following and the USAF
people have figured it out. Feel free to share this but I am too cheap to
do more than read these forums.


There are a few basic problems with the Lockheed proposal that the USAF
is going to point out. I used to do contract work on procurement,
mostly on the naval side, but the concepts are largely the same.

First we have to assume that the USAF really wants 200 tankers. The
point made earlier about boom saturation is an important one.
Additionally one should not underestimate that there is inherent value in being
able to have 50 more tankers available at any given time. Without any
additional information we have to assume the USAF needs the 200 tankers
rather than 150 tankers of equal capability to 200 cheaper tankers.

Moving ahead from this assumption we come to the following problem.
Given the ballpark figures for each aircraft (120 for a 767 and 160 for
the A330 variant) we come up with a total program cost of 24 Billion for
767's or 32 Billion for A330 assuming a buy of 200 tankers for the KC-X
run.

The above brings us to the first problem that many here have failed to
identify. The USAF and US Armed forces in general make decisions in a
very different manner from European and other associated forces. While
they have comparatively more money to spend the numbers of examples the
USAF needs means that relatively small variations, like 40 Million USD,
plays out to a very large number when played out over an order of 200
airframes.

Where there seems to be disconnect is in assessing the relative cost
and value of these to the various nations involved. When a limited
production run, like 5 tankers for Australia, are being considered the value
difference between getting 5 A330's or 5 KC-767's the choice is
obvious. The production run is so small that the savings by going with the
Boeing might be enough to get you one C-17. In addition the limited size
and budget of your forces means that the additional cargo and fuel that
an A330 can carry is far more valuable as it frees your airlift to do
other things.

The equation for the US is far different. You are looking at a first
run of effectively 200 tankers with a total potential for nearly 600
frames.

The first thing you need to look at is the savings you can achieve by
going with the Boeing and just what force structure that would free you
to purchase. In just the first run of 200 tankers you could save 8
Billion USD. That would allow you at current purchase prices to get your
200 tankers and still purchase 65 F-22's, 40 C-17's or some combination
of the above.

The capability problem is also not as critical for the US. The USAF
has plenty of cargo haulers. This is not really a problem. The main
issue is ability to deploy where needed with enough tankers. While the
A330 carries more fuel, about 122 Tons to 72 Tons for the 767, this
ability does not play out as well as one might suspect. Essentially a 767
has enough fuel to fully gas up about 11 or so large fighters. The A330
can get about 18 of the same. The problem, other than boom saturation,
is there are not enough airframes to justify the A330 anyway.

The current USAF force structure has about 2,000 total fighters, around
200 active bombers and a whole bunch of other planes in various
innumerable categories. Considering that with 200 767's you could tank every
fighter in the USAF inventory, which is far more than the active number
currently in service, the idea that you need more fuel in the air is
really not the reality. Consider that this would leave you with 400
other tankers to handle giving gas to your bombers, transports, electronic
aircraft and what not and you see that the extra gas is not really the
issue.

So if you buy 600 A330's over the long term you spend about 96 Billion
USD, constant to this year, over the next 10-30 years, depending on how
long we drag this program out. If we go with the 767 we spend 72
Billion USD. That leaves us with 24 Billion USD to play with.

That is sufficient savings to get a lot of things done. First lets
recapitalize the fighter force. The USAF currently plans to purchase
about 183 F-22's. Lets go ahead and spend our first half of that 24
Billion USD on that. We get another 104 F-22 bringing the USAF total much
closer to the F-15's it will be replacing with 287. If I want to spend
the whole savings on fighters I can get my total 391 fighters which
would replace the F-15 force and then some.

But say I go with just using half of that money on fighters. I can use
the remaining 12 Billion USD on something else useful, like C-17's. I
can probably get around 50 or so with what remains. That would cover
my lift requirements for a good while and more than make up for any lost
cargo capacity I have in choosing the 787.

There are three things that are against the A330 in this contest. The
first is cost, its just not the economical choice. The second is the
fact that more fuel is just not really necessary with the dwindling
number of airframes currently in the USAF. Finally the USAF does not need
the fringe benefits of the larger aircraft like smaller nations do. It
simply can make up for the loss with other specialized platforms.

The main problem is that the initial KC-X requirement was written by
people who were just trying to figure out what the best tanker for the
USAF would be. I think we can all agree the idea tanker is the biggest,
fastest thing around that can carry the most cargo, fuel and people the
furthest. The problem is that is expensive and it has to be balanced
against other needs. If I can save tens of billions of dollars by
buying just a tanker and in the process get 50 more C-17's (which can move
things the A-330 could not even consider moving)and 100 more F-22's then
the decision becomes easy.

This is why the initial concepts for a product rarely look like they do
in final form. The Army Crusader is a great example of this.
Fantastic gun, fantastic system, but just way too expensive and the capability
was not worth the price. If you really weight the decision between
getting more fighters and transports in the air, and still having plenty
of flying gas for them with a slightly more capable tanker its really a
no brainer.

I see the USAF buying 767's for the first two batches of tankers, then
they might look for something more suited to replace the KC-10 as a
bigger tanker for long range ferry deployments.


--------------------------------------------------

Just his 2 cents I persoanlly think it's a dollar's worth for two cents. Everything he says makes sense.

This whole tanker debate has turned into an A v. B.

-K

[Edited 2007-02-20 03:57:00]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:47 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 36):
The capability problem is also not as critical for the US. The USAF
has plenty of cargo haulers. This is not really a problem



Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 36):
But say I go with just using half of that money on fighters. I can use
the remaining 12 Billion USD on something else useful, like C-17's

With the C-5 reengining stalling and USAF asking for more C-17s I get a little confused about your first statement.

I think in general a lot of words are required to make clear the less capable KC767 is the best choice afterall.

This week the Saudi & Emirates airforces decided to buy the KC30 and I expect a lot will follow.

As I explained in another post i just think historically is not smart to buy a dedicated tanker platform. A more capable (tanker), more modern platform offers more flexiblity for foreseen & unforeseen functions of a large long range twin might get in the future.

I think everybody deep down knows & understands this but hey..

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tems/aircraft/images/e-3-AWACS.jpg
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
As I explained in another post i just think historically is not smart to buy a dedicated tanker platform. A more capable (tanker), more modern platform offers more flexiblity for foreseen & unforeseen functions of a large long range twin might get in the future.

Here's what you don't understand. Or choose to ignore.

28 billion buys 175 KC-30's or 215 KC-767's. The Air Force needs more tankers more than they need tankers that can carry a bit more cargo.

And I wonder - how much total cargo can 175 KC-30's carry, and how much cargo can 215 KC-767's buy?

And does it really matter when, as one other poster noted, less then 1% of all sorties performed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:26 pm

USAF wants more from tank
The US Air Force has made it clear that it expects more tactical and strategic capability from its KC-135 replacement than simply tanking.

USAF Air Mobility Command commander Gen Duncan McNabb says: "We will always think 'tanker' first, but if it is sitting on the ground then it can be used for other things. There will be an expandable net-ready backbone in the aircraft."

Referring to the fact the KC-135 has to stay out of range of potential threats, he says the defensive system "will allow us to put the KC-X over the fight, and reduce the target-to-tanker range. It will have RF threat awareness, LAIRCM etc and will be able to move if a threat comes up."

USAF chief of staff Gen Michael Moseley cautions, however, that tanking remains the main priority. "We want to get iron on the ramp, and set minimum requirements to get the aircraft. We see big things in the future, but not yet, as we don't want to drive up the average unit cost."


from todays Flight International :
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...der-wraps-but-hints-of-unique.html

Interesting point is the engine selection also seems open again. I guess the most practicle engine is the GE CF6-C2, probably the worlds most used big turbo fan. However Pratt really could use a PW4000 boost, enabling them to stay in the big fan game & invest in development.

I think GE & Boeing are to tight at this moment to allow NG/EADS to offer a GEnx-2B on the KC30.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:54 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
This week the Saudi & Emirates airforces decided to buy the KC30 and I expect a lot will follow.

You continually cite other nations buying the A330 tanker when everyone has admitted for a limited buy its a better tanker. Again, the USAF is not the Saudi Air Force. The difference in needs and scale is so vast as the make the comparison useless.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:16 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
I get a little confused about your first statement.

As I said that was a acquaintance of mine. However what I think he was trying to say is that the Air Force has plenty of dedicated cargo hauling types. C-130, C-5, C-17s. Numbers wise they don't have as many as they need. Admittedly it was a little confounding.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:28 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
As I explained in another post i just think historically is not smart to buy a dedicated tanker platform. A more capable (tanker), more modern platform offers more flexiblity for foreseen & unforeseen functions of a large long range twin might get in the future.

I think everybody deep down knows & understands this but hey..

Please give me an example of this. I would counter your claim that it isn't smart to buy a dedicated tanker. To the contrary, the Air Force needs a way to get gas in the air. A dedicated tanker does that the best. Why? Because that is what tankers do. Its capabilities as a tanker aren't diminished by taking in other missions such as cargo airlift.

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

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

Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:00 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):

I think in general a lot of words are required to make clear the less capable KC767 is the best choice afterall.

What ever, man. You're still living in a pipe dream. You have no counter to the size argument, or the fact that the Air Force would lose a lot of booms if the KC-30 were chosen. You simply continue to spout the same party line. "Jawohl! *click* *click*"
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:07 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 42):
Please give me an example of this. I would counter your claim that it isn't smart to buy a dedicated tanker. To the contrary, the Air Force needs a way to get gas in the air. A dedicated tanker does that the best. Why? Because that is what tankers do. Its capabilities as a tanker aren't diminished by taking in other missions such as cargo airlift.

I would think that there is a lot of extra weight and lost space with the hold tanks, piping, pumps, controls, boom, operating station. Also this equipment probably has maintenance that correlates with flight time whether used or not. So a tanker would perform a cargo / airlift operation less efficiently than the same basic frame would do without all the tanker stuff.

Also, isn't the turbulence from a larger plane with increased engine thrust make it more difficult to control the plane being refueled.

Cargo capacity along with fuel would make sense when a group is transiting from one base to another. However, once at a given operating base there is little need for cargo operations.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:44 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 44):
So a tanker would perform a cargo / airlift operation less efficiently than the same basic frame would do without all the tanker stuff.

Agreed. After re-reading my post I can what you are saying.

I was trying to say that if you don't build a dedicated tanker you'll end up with a pseudo jack of all trades and a master of none. The Air Force needs a master at air refueling. Essentially I was trying to say that when you shove cargo in a tanker you negatively affect its tanking capability.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14616
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:50 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
And does it really matter when, as one other poster noted, less then 1% of all sorties performed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift?

Maybe because it was a dedicated tanker and a lousy cargo / passenger transporter (wooden cargo floors, hand loading, limited capasity, high trip costs etc..)?

Quoting N328KF (Reply 43):
You have no counter to the size argument

As far as I have experienced most bases can handle C5, C-17s, KC10 etc.. I have the feeling this old argument is drawn in to distract e.g. the fact the KC-30 is also a significant better tanker.. It takes more fuel further and has a 3630kg/min boom or about 34% better nominal transfer rate than the new KC-767 Boeing boom, able to fill more fighters (endurance/range) faster (ofload advantage).
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Tanker-Gap-Jun-04-P.pdf

Quoting N328KF (Reply 43):
fact that the Air Force would lose a lot of booms if the KC-30 were chosen

based on what prices, do you have them or choose them. Last time EADS offered 100 tankers $10 billion cheaper then Boeing, meeting the specs better and still lost.. thats why Boeing is running on ice now and many politicians to. They can't just say "it aint from here.." publicly..
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:53 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
They can't just say "it aint from here.." publicly..

Sure they can, do, and will. Watch.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

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

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
Last time EADS offered 100 tankers $10 billion cheaper then Boeing, meeting the specs better and still lost.

When was that? Was it the same KC-30 that they are offering now?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
As far as I have experienced most bases can handle C5, C-17s, KC10 etc

Respectfully, you don't have much experience then do you? C-17 can operate almost anywhere I'll give you that. The C-5 an KC-10 are limited in which runways they can use. Length is not always the issue, but runway strength. You can't land a C-5 on a concrete 15,000ft runway that is 3 inches thick.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

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

Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:08 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
And does it really matter when, as one other poster noted, less then 1% of all sorties performed by the KC-135 was cargo/personnel lift?

Maybe because it was a dedicated tanker and a lousy cargo / passenger transporter (wooden cargo floors, hand loading, limited capasity, high trip costs etc..)?

Perhaps. But you still haven't addressed the fundamental flaw in the KC-30 offering - the Air Force will be able to buy significantly more KC-767's than KC-30's. If I have 215 frames at my disposal instead of 175, just how much of an advantage in cargo capability does the KC-30 really have?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 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