http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070212...fp/usaviationmilitary_070212193908

OK, it is looking increasingly likely that the USAF will settle on a 767 derivitive for its new tanker, potentially ordering hundreds of them. UPS has already ordered more 767Fs. The majority of them will be built in Everett. My question is this: How does this heightened activity for the 767 line affect the ability of Boeing to produce 777s and 747s going forward?

And what about the 787s... are they being built in Everett as well?

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter): OK, it is looking increasingly likely that the USAF will settle on a 767 derivitive for its new tanker, potentially ordering hundreds of them. UPS has already ordered more 767Fs. The majority of them will be built in Everett.

All of them will be built at Everett. There are no other 767 assembly lines other than the original line at Everett. Tankers will be produced as "green" hulls, which will be flown to Wichita for tanker conversion.

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter): How does this heightened activity for the 767 line affect the ability of Boeing to produce 777s and 747s going forward?

Each Boeing widebody is built on a unique assembly line. Increasing the pace of the 767 line should not impact the production of the 747 or 777 lines.

But even the UPS order shouldn't require Boeing to accelerate production beyond the 1 unit/month rate, ASAIK.

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter): And what about the 787s... are they being built in Everett as well?

Yes. But keep in mind the 787 components are arriving prefabricated from all over the world, greatly expediting the final assembly process at Everett. Boeing hopes to assemble a 787 in just three days, compared to nearly 2-4 weeks for most widebodies.

Well, that raises another question... if the 767 assembly line is given years of new life with a USAF tanker order, would there be any commercial demand whatsoever for new passenger 767s?

Quoting RobertS975 (Thread starter): it is looking increasingly likely that the USAF will settle on a 767 derivitive for its new tanker

Did I miss something here? I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that the Pentagon will likely choose Boeing and the 767. While it is difficult imagining the US buying EADS aircraft on such a large scale, my own personal perception is not evidence of the Pentagon's intent in this race.

So, what is the evidence that the Pentagon "will settle on a 767 derivative for its new tanker"?

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 2): Well, that raises another question... if the 767 assembly line is given years of new life with a USAF tanker order, would there be any commercial demand whatsoever for new passenger 767s?

There is some demand now. Boeing has sold 26 passenger 767s over the past two years.

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 2): would there be any commercial demand whatsoever for new passenger 767s?

I highly doubt it. The 787 is expected to take over for the 767. Unless there is a Reannaisance of the 767 like the 757 is seeing, I don't think that there will be any need for new 767's. Who knows though, maybe the 767-400 will pick up some random orders, they are really nice planes.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 3): So, what is the evidence that the Pentagon "will settle on a 767 derivative for its new tanker"?

Most media articles describe the 330 tanker as the underdog. Why? Because the Pentagon has signalled interest in having more, cheaper aircraft with a particular fuel capacity and that the ability to carry troops or cargo is secondary (particularly because the Civil Reserve Air Fleet charter carriers and the military's other cargo aircraft do those missions better and cheaper than organic lift based on a tanker would do them). The 767 tanker, based on a refined version of the 762, will need shorter runways and is otherwise more nimble. Accordingly, it seems to meet the needs of the First Phase of tanker replacement better than the 330, which is bigger, heavier, and more expensive than appears to be necessary for what the Air Force wants in this first phase. Apparently, EADS will offer its version way cheap in order to compensate for its disadvantages, but it still will likely be bigger and more expensive than the mission requires. Only if the Air Force decides that the "advantages" of a bigger, heavier, more expensive plane better fit its needs is it likely to choose the 330. But if Boeing thought that that's what the Pentagon wanted, it would likely have offered something based on the 777 rather than the 767.

What the outcome is cannot, of course, be determined by anyone at this point. But it seems like the 767 better fits the bill, given the requirements.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 3): Did I miss something here? I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that the Pentagon will likely choose Boeing and the 767. While it is difficult imagining the US buying EADS aircraft on such a large scale, my own personal perception is not evidence of the Pentagon's intent in this race. So, what is the evidence that the Pentagon "will settle on a 767 derivative for its new tanker"?

First of all, Boeing is already selling the 767 tanker to two other countries, Italy and Japan. Minor point, but the design is proven.

Second, I believe that the comparison between the two competing aircraft falls favorably in the direction of the 767 in terms of efficiency and suitability for the mission.

And thirdly, I cannot see how the politics of the situation would dictate anything other than a Boeing purchase. No matter how big a role EADS gives to Northrup Grumman, it will pale beside the politics of keeping the aerospace jobs in the USA.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1): Each Boeing widebody is built on a unique assembly line.

Actually from what I've heard Boeing has occaisionally sent a 777 down the 767 line when the former is busy and the latter isnt.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 3): So, what is the evidence that the Pentagon "will settle on a 767 derivative for its new tanker"?

I geuss you slept through the dispute between the US and the EU at the world trade organization. The DOJ has submitted that Airbus is a EU subsidized company. The EU argues that Boeing is supported by the US government through militay contracts.

Would you suppose that the DOD would now award the contract to a bid that is 95% A330?

Get a life.

Given the fact that the same DOD has the 75% rule on airline ownership in the US by us nationals would you suppose they would chose Airbus over Boeing and would the public allow this.

Any politition in Washington will support Boeing strictly from a jobs perspective.

Of course you could suggest that the USAF purchase the A330 to bail out the A380 debacle. What a joke.
I have a better chance in winning Powerball 13000 times in a row.

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 2): Well, that raises another question... if the 767 assembly line is given years of new life with a USAF tanker order, would there be any commercial demand whatsoever for new passenger 767s?

It will be similar to the state of the old 707 (KC135) production line (in the 1980's).

Commerical production will wrap up, and the line will solely be for tankers.

However, if a carrier REALLY wanted a 767, I'm sure that Boeing would gladly make a passenger version. But, I am sure that the economics would point the airline in the direction of the 787 (pax).

Quoting Graphic (Reply 8): Actually from what I've heard Boeing has occaisionally sent a 777 down the 767 line when the former is busy and the latter isnt.

Is that possible? I thought that each assembly line had specific tools and machinery that prevented it from manufacturing a different airliner...

From what I under stand the 767 line is actually the most effective line they have.

As most know the 767 line can still produce the -200, -300, -400, and F versions without an issue. Boeing proved this when CO ordered the -200's and they went down the line with the -300 and -400's.

Putting a 777 on the 767 line would be interesting as this are totally different components and sizes. Plus moving the 777 trained mechanics on the 767 line would be interesting.

However, I could be wrong????

Quoting Jj (Reply 11): Is that possible? I thought that each assembly line had specific tools and machinery that prevented it from manufacturing a different airliner...

I was thinking the same. Perhaps Boeing just rolled a partially assembled 777 into the 767 bay for temporary storage while a bottleneck got worked out on the 777 line...? I would be very surprised if Boeing did actual assembly work on a 777 in the 767 bay.

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 10): However, if a carrier REALLY wanted a 767, I'm sure that Boeing would gladly make a passenger version. But, I am sure that the economics would point the airline in the direction of the 787 (pax).

Keep in mind, the 767 is probably the only widebody aircraft with much of anything in terms of open delivery slots. Everything from the 777, 787, A330/A340, to 747 and A380 are sold out through 2010. Unless an airline is willing to pay-up to shuffle delivery slots with someone already in-line, the 767 is the only aircraft available. Might have been an important factor in the recent UPS order.

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 10): It will be similar to the state of the old 707 (KC135) production line (in the 1980's). Commerical production will wrap up, and the line will solely be for tankers.

At some point, that will probably be true. But, until that happens, a couple of points. First, as you probably know, Boeing announced a new freighter based on the 762 today, along with its tanker bid. It appears that they see some life for the 767 in new-build long-range freighters, or at least want to preserve that option by not making the line all-military. Of course, somebody has to order the new 762 freighter to make it viable. But it probably will be an option for at least several years. (OTOH, there will be lots of conversion-suitable 762s rolling around soon, but maybe that actually helps make the market for the long-range 762F. That is, where the longer-range version isn't needed, converted 762s and 763s with the IS&S glass cockpit might form the heart of a fleet, with several of the longer-range versions added where the higher-capital-cost aircraft can be justified by the mission.)

Second, Boeing has basically said that they'll keep building the 767 as long as their customers' actions show that there is still a market for it.

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 2): would there be any commercial demand whatsoever for new passenger 767s?

Quoting ZschocheImages (Reply 5): Who knows though, maybe the 767-400 will pick up some random orders, they are really nice planes

DL could possibly use more 763's and 764's as a stopgap between and if they order the 787 and the actual production of them.

I think its certain that boeing has sketched out the 777 tanker for the US Airforce, even if its not what they send in on the Airforce's contract bid request. The possibility that Boeing and Airbus only communicate to the Airforce with the official documents is... remote. While each will send in only one bid, and one model for thier bid. Boeing however currently has two planes that either are our could be a valid choice for this contract, and so will be pitching both at the airforce to ensure that they express which they would prefer boeing to use for thier bid. This is a HUGE part of why airbus and its american partner in the A330 tanker program are pissed about. They are bracketed on both sides, on the lower side by a model that boeing can sell at minimal profit as it won't displace high margin commercial sales, and on the upper end by a larger and vastly more capible aircraft.

In the end I don't think it will matter what Airbus offers, as the 767 is much closer to what the Airforce was origionaly intending to buy. The A330 being larger has definite attractions, but its very size helps rule it out given that ramp space is a huge concern for the airforce at times. The 777 I see as having the least chance regardless of its mission flexiblity that it offers over the other two. Even with folding wingtips that could be used, it would simply be too large for use in smaller fields and remote locations. The only possiblity I could see is if the airforce picked up a small handful for very long range refueling ops in areas where we do not currently have bases or other means of refuling bombers/spyplanes. The possiblity of this is likely extremely remote given that the US currently views much of the world not near our Allies and own boarders as a S.E.P. Somebody Else's Problem. If N korea was in the far south of the African or South american continent I don't know that they would even get airtime on our press much less a "axis of evil" statement.

So in short I am confidant that the US Airforce will be asking for as MANY tankers they can get on a given dime, that perform a minimum mission profile, likely written around the typical use currently seen from thier existing KC-135's and minimal value placed on extra capiblity.

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 2): Well, that raises another question... if the 767 assembly line is given years of new life with a USAF tanker order, would there be any commercial demand whatsoever for new passenger 767s?

I think there will be, and with the launch of the -200LRF I think even Boeing sees an advantage in offering a freighter that has the range and capacity for those who think a 757F is just too small and an A330F or 777LRF would be an overkill and too heavy. As for new passenger 767s, I think there could be very limited sales only or even 0 from now on, but as a freighter there might just be a greater market, without anything to lose for Boeing. And I suppose they can pump those planes out real cheap (compared to other new builds).

Quoting ZschocheImages (Reply 5): Who knows though, maybe the 767-400 will pick up some random orders, they are really nice planes.

I really don't see any market for the -400s, that is the size category where the 767 is being eaten alive by the A330. As a matter of fact this is the only variant where I see any A330 and 767 comparison viable, and here the 767 loses out on the A330.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 6): The 767 tanker, based on a refined version of the 762, will need shorter runways and is otherwise more nimble. Accordingly, it seems to meet the needs of the First Phase of tanker replacement better than the 330, which is bigger, heavier, and more expensive than appears to be necessary for what the Air Force wants in this first phase. Apparently, EADS will offer its version way cheap in order to compensate for its disadvantages, but it still will likely be bigger and more expensive than the mission requires. Only if the Air Force decides that the "advantages" of a bigger, heavier, more expensive plane better fit its needs is it likely to choose the 330. But if Boeing thought that that's what the Pentagon wanted, it would likely have offered something based on the 777 rather than the 767.

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 7): First of all, Boeing is already selling the 767 tanker to two other countries, Italy and Japan. Minor point, but the design is proven. Second, I believe that the comparison between the two competing aircraft falls favorably in the direction of the 767 in terms of efficiency and suitability for the mission.

   Exactly guys. One thing that many fail to see is that this is not simply a tanker deal, it is to get replacements for all the Kc135s and not the Kc10s. The Kc767 is simply more suitable and efficient for a direct replacement while even opening up new airports where it can operate from and provide more usefull payload to carry around, without suffering the penalties of a much bigger airframe.

However if this was all about replacing the Kc10s, then EADS offering would be in an advantage, but in that case Boeing will be attacking with the KC777. In any case I think Boeing's offering of a dual tanker deal (Kc767 to replace the Kc135 and the Kc777 to replace the Kc10 at a later stage) is more suiteable for the USAF than an interm Kc330 offering, wich is to big for some missions of the Kc135/Kc767, but will not offer the capabilities of the Kc777.

But my basis question has been answered... the 767 apparently has a separate line altogether at Everett. As tight as the 777 and 787 delivery positions are, I wondered whether a huge 767 tanker order would further delay the other lines. But this would not seem to be the case, at least as far as assembly lines are concerned. One would also assume that Boeing would need to do some hiring bigtime to get all the work done!

No way will the USA ever buy a foreign aircraft when a suitable aircraft is built in the USA. It's just not going to happen. Get over it.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 16): I think its certain that boeing has sketched out the 777 tanker for the US Airforce,

Correct. A whole presentation on it, in fact. See http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank.../files/KC-767AnnouncementBrief.pdf

Boeing is hiring all the time anyway. Whether for rate changes or retirements or whatever. Early build tankers will be low rate anyway so should not be much of an impact overall.

The only time I have seen a 777 in the 767 final assy bay is when 1) the line was open due to no 767 in that part of the line at low rates and 2) the 777 needed a place out of the rain to do a last minute mod or test equipement installation for a short cert test. The final assy bays are really nothing more than indoor parking spaces with power and lighting. The dedicated parts of the lines are the jig tooling and the 777 is too wide to fit.

Guys,
Could there ever be a 767-400F?

As far as I can remember,I have not heard anything mentioned about this.

Quoting Spikebe90 (Reply 22): Could there ever be a 767-400F?

There was some talk of it (the 767-400ER was to be the basis for the MC-2A program and a single frame has been ordered for it), but that plane is similar in size to the A332 and therefore is also larger then what the USAF wants in terms of "tarmacprint".

The 767-200 will fit in existing KC-135 parking stands and hangars. The 767-400 and A330-200 would both require larger spaces and structures to be built. Their heavier MTOWs and MDLW also require longer runways (the 767-200LRF was designed to use even less runway then the 767-200ER) and possibly reinforced air fields.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 3): Did I miss something here? I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that the Pentagon will likely choose Boeing and the 767. While it is difficult imagining the US buying EADS aircraft on such a large scale, my own personal perception is not evidence of the Pentagon's intent in this race. So, what is the evidence that the Pentagon "will settle on a 767 derivative for its new tanker"?

Check out Boeing's website. The company recently announced that it will be presenting the US government with plans to replace the KC-135s with the KC-767. Boeing must have decided that they had invested so much money in the program (over $1 Billion if I remember correctly) that it made more sense to offer the 767 to the government as opposed to spending another billion dollars to develope a 777 tanker.

What do you all think pseudo "license building". I'm sure their is a better term for it but it is escaping me. What I mean is why doesn't Boeing hire somebody else to open up a production line? It would be something like GM making aircraft during WWII. Yes I know that that war during a time of war and GM didn't really have a choice, but does anybody see where I'm going with this?

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 2): if the 767 assembly line is given years of new life with a USAF tanker order, would there be any commercial demand whatsoever for new passenger 767s?

There could be limited demand for the 767 with a few carriers who cannot wait until 2011 for a 787; otherwise, no.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 25): What do you all think pseudo "license building". I'm sure their is a better term for it but it is escaping me. What I mean is why doesn't Boeing hire somebody else to open up a production line? It would be something like GM making aircraft during WWII. Yes I know that that war during a time of war and GM didn't really have a choice, but does anybody see where I'm going with this?

For an aircraft of such complexity, I don't think the logistics would work out. Just a guess...

Smaller aircraft yes, 767s probably not.

-IR

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 25): does anybody see where I'm going with this?

I see where you are going but I don't think it will happen. You would either have to box up and move all the capital equipment, jigs and tooling to a new location or re-create it at that new location. Both of which are expensive and time consuming. You would loose all the "tribal knowledge" of all the folks that put it together now for 25 years and would have to hire and train all new employees. The other problem is all the support structure that is already in place at a major Boeing plant would be lost, i.e. rail facilities, test labs, cal cert labs, recieving, part expediting etc that go into supporting a production line. Since there are soon to be 4 lines in the Everett plant, there would be a lot of lost synergy by only pulling out or replicating that 767 support. All the engineering staff is there at Everett too, some of those engineers are shared by the 777 and 747 teams.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 25): What do you all think pseudo "license building".

I am confident the unions would kill that idea, as well.

There is an interesting obstacle to be faced by Boeing to build the 767 tanker for the USAF. The tankers will have to be built in Everett on an ITAR compliant assembly line and there can't be any commercial aircraft mixed in with the tankers on the line, plus access for foreign nationals will be restricted (this is how the P-8 will be built in Renton). Boeing must be praying that the last commercial 767 will be delivered before tanker production starts. Otherwise, there will be two 767 production lines required in Everett!

This also raises the question of how Northrop Grumman will deal with ITAR issues. In theory, they will need to file extensive paperwork for european Airbus employees to even see the assembly line in the US, let alone know any technical data.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 30): There is an interesting obstacle to be faced by Boeing to build the 767 tanker for the USAF. The tankers will have to be built in Everett on an ITAR compliant assembly line and there can't be any commercial aircraft mixed in with the tankers on the line...

Is this, in fact, true?

The current nine KC-767s were built on the current line, and the ninth was to be the original demonstrator for the USAF under the original contract. Japan's tankers are sent to Wichita for outfitting as was Italy's first (their second was evidently sent to Aeronavali in Naples for outfitting).

To my knowledge, Boeing will continue to just build the basic airframes in Everett if they win the USAF RFP. These frames will then be flown to Boeing Wichita for installation of the hardware and avionics/electronics necessary to make them an actual tanker.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31): Is this, in fact, true?

Yes - I figured this out a while back and it was confirmed by an article in the Seattle Times this morning.

The Japanese and Italian aircraft weren't for the USAF. While Boeing had to have ITAR licenses to export them, they didn't have to build them on an ITAR compliant line. I think they got away with building the sole USAF KC-767 airframe on the commercial line as they weren't under contract with the USAF yet. I'm curious about the sole 767-400ER ordered for the now defunct E-10A program. If it was going to be built as Commerial Off The Shelf (COTS), they could get away with it being built on a non-ITAR compliant assembly line. Does anyone know if this airframe got cancelled, or will it be built?

I think the reason Boeing announced the new freighter is that the tanker will be started as an ITAR compliant derivative that will be built on the the open commercial production line that will be sent to Wichita to become a KC767. Boeing commercial will sell a "767ERFT" with all the basic structure etc. for a tanker but no ITAR limited technology to the IDS division to be turned in to a KC767. Keeps the Airforce out of the commercial factory which is a good thing for all concerned.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 32): I'm curious about the sole 767-400ER ordered for the now defunct E-10A program. If it was going to be built as Commerical Off The Shelf (COTS), they could get away with it being built on a non-ITAR compliant assembly line. Does anyone know if this airframe got cancelled, or will it be built?

It evidently has received funding and will start construction shortly, even though the E-10A program itself appears to be cancelled.

no, they will build a basic 767 civilian aircraft with nothing non-compliant with the rules. They will then fly it to a conversion center that will build the tanker out of the basic 767. This is NOT a top-secret fighter or spy plane. the USAF could care less if the "axis of evil" got a hold of info about the 767 as built in the boeing plant. After all they can just BUY ONE on the new/used market if they so desire.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 35): if the "axis of evil" got a hold of info about the 767

You mean like how to fly one into a skyscraper, right?      

Got a question. Please note I'm not in the Aviation Industry!

In regards to a 777 tanker version, could Boeing build a "Short" 777? Something along the lines of a 777-100 maybe? To replace or supplement the KC-10's (if needed that is). Would that take up too much ramp space?

Thanks,

Marc

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 37): In regards to a 777 tanker version, could Boeing build a "Short" 777? Something along the lines of a 777-100 maybe?

It would be extremely expensive as it would require new engineering to design and new parts.

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 37): In regards to a 777 tanker version, could Boeing build a "Short" 777? Something along the lines of a 777-100 maybe? To replace or supplement the KC-10's (if needed that is). Would that take up too much ramp space?

That would still leave wingspan as a major issue. Not to mention, chopping the 777-200 into a 777-100 would be a considerably difficult task with no application in the commercial sector.

In the USAF did want a KC-10 replacement, there would be no need to cut-down the fuselage of the 777F.

Quoting Jj (Reply 11): Is that possible? I thought that each assembly line had specific tools and machinery that prevented it from manufacturing a different airliner...

They do. I seriously doubt Boeing has ever sent a 777 down the 767 line when its own line was "busy". Heck, last time I was in the factory the 777 line was swamped with one nearly-completed airframe on the 767 line next door. Maybe someone with more inside knowledge can shed some light on this, but I really don't think it's possible.

Quoting Aeroman444 (Reply 19): No way will the USA ever buy a foreign aircraft when a suitable aircraft is built in the USA. It's just not going to happen. Get over it.

A number of U.S. airlines other operators would beg to differ. Northrup-Grumman are big military suppliers too, I don't think you can count them out just because they're using an Airbus platform...I can assure you that Boeing is taking their proposal very seriously and doing everything they can to make sure their 767 proposal is competitive.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 33): I think the reason Boeing announced the new freighter is that the tanker will be started as an ITAR compliant derivative that will be built on the the open commercial production line that will be sent to Wichita to become a KC767.

No, this isn't what is going to happen. The US government has become very sticky about ITAR. It doesn't matter if the item is something as innocuous as a transport aircraft. If it has a military use of any kind, ITAR applies. To quote the Seattle Times:

"Boeing would likely do some initial modifications on the Everett assembly line. That would require setting up strict access control to the line, to comply with International Traffic in Arms Regulations that govern the export of defense-related articles."

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...r13&date=20070213&query=767+tanker

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 6): Because the Pentagon has signalled interest in having more, cheaper aircraft with a particular fuel capacity and that the ability to carry troops or cargo is secondary (particularly because the Civil Reserve Air Fleet charter carriers and the military's other cargo aircraft do those missions better and cheaper than organic lift based on a tanker would do them).

I agree. The USAF needs more booms in the sky so that refuelling a strike package doesn't take too long. Fewer booms with less gas behind them is not a big help in this regard. Using an aircraft with specialized tanker hardware and specially traned crews to move bullets and beans doesn't make much sense either.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 39): That would still leave wingspan as a major issue. Not to mention, chopping the 777-200 into a 777-100 would be a considerably difficult task with no application in the commercial sector.

Not to mention it would be a very inefficient aircraft. You'd be carrying around a huge wing with heavy structures, strong landing gear, etc and using it to carry a small payload. It would not make much sense to do this.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 39): In the USAF did want a KC-10 replacement, there would be no need to cut-down the fuselage of the 777F.

  

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 41): No, this isn't what is going to happen. The US government has become very sticky about ITAR. It doesn't matter if the item is something as innocuous as a transport aircraft. If it has a military use of any kind, ITAR applies. To quote the Seattle Times: "Boeing would likely do some initial modifications on the Everett assembly line. That would require setting up strict access control to the line, to comply with International Traffic in Arms Regulations that govern the export of defense-related articles." http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...anker

Which is exactly why Boeing will build an ITAR compliant ( as in no ITAR technology) derivative in Everett and ship it out. They dont want to get caught up in ITAR rules in Everett. Thats what I was tryin ta say. The 767ERFT built in Everett will be a commercial product, no ITAR tech. It could have thicker skins were a boom could go. It could have a military grey interior. An open floor space where an ITAR restricted component would go later. Things that are not ITAR limited. There is a big range between a green bare 767 and a 767 with lots of non-ITAR stuff and provisions thrown in.

The "767ERFT" built in Everett will have no ITAR restricted material... it will get flown to wichita and be turned into a KC767. It keeps the Evt production line free from ITAR costs and lets Boeing build it cheaply with commmercial processes.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 44): The "767ERFT" built in Everett will have no ITAR restricted material... it will get flown to wichita and be turned into a KC767. It keeps the Evt production line free from ITAR costs and lets Boeing build it cheaply with commmercial processes.

Yep. Unlike the P-8 and future Wedgetail production, which is different enough to warrant its own line. Stuff like the bomb bay needs to be cut as the airframe is produced.

Did you know that bomb bays are not ITAR restricted? The technology is so old that is does not need to be controlled. Everyone can already do that

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 46): Did you know that bomb bays are not ITAR restricted? The technology is so old that is does not need to be controlled. Everyone can already do that

but but, the RUSSIANS.... er... THE CHINESE... er... uhm they both can do it already... er... THE TERRORISTS... thats it we have to spend tens of millons per frame on a simple patrol plane because they might get the technology that existed either before WWII or is in common commercial service around the world today.

While military technology is not a joking matter, there is nothing in your green framed 737/767 that is of any secret to anyone. Simple mechanical things like "bomb bays" where the framing and doors are pre-installed are not going to be a concern to the US military. after all one can buy any number of WWII bombers on the collectors market to get real life example of how its done even if you can't read blueprints for some odd reason.

The decision to make a military variant of a civilian plane on its own line is a simple cost/benifit trade off, not a fundamental requirement to the production of the aircraft. By definition if its unable to be made on the civilian line and then converted with the restricted equipment/technology, it is no longer a civilian conversion. So it may make sense to open a new line for the 737 military variants, not only because there is not line space for them on the current lines, but because you can save some money back by not having to rework some sections of the aircraft, and can pre-install things that are easy to integrate into the initial build. The 767 with a wide open line capacity, and a simple conversion to a tanker would be vastly more expensive as a sole military line. So they will leave it up to a conversion center to wire in all the secret toys, install the refueling equipment, and other sensitive aspects of the program.

I will again restate, the 737 gets its own line for military variants, not because they CAN NOT convert off a normal production frame, but rather that is is cheaper/more profitable to build a new line to do this work.

I think we are closer in agreement than it might appear. Even the dedicated 737MMA line is still a commercial line. The aircraft that comes off of it will not be a P-8A. It will still be a green airplane that will be transfered for installation of restricted equipment. Lots of it.

I think we are discussing that fine grey fuzzy area where it stops being a commercial line and turns into a military on. In the 737 case the dedicated line in Renton is a commercial one and after they fly it to Boeing field it goes into a military one.

Every 737 (or any other BCA product) has ITAR restricted technology in it. Its a question of how much. There are military variants going down the regular line in Renton fairly often that get some special handling. For the MMA, that special handling made a dedicated line make sense. Still a commercial line though, that is the point I wanted to make.

I always wondered how it felt to park a small fighter jet in between the business ends of GE90s in flight to get a sip of gas.