Boeing Kc-767

[Brittany Bhadd]

Thesimple plain fact is anyone in the US will generally say the Boeing plane should win anyone from elsewhere aka Europe will say Airbus should win. Yet another simple point is that this will drag on for maybe years until it is resolved. When it is resolved it will still be controversial to many people. Both aircraft will be made in USA but some members of congress and the senate dont seem to notice this at all and i suspect that stretches to my fellow posters.

Everyone is making things up as they go along the USAF and DOD say things but that is only statements released to the public to make News. People i ask you stop spreading the busht unless you have a signed hardcopy USAF/DOD RFP and you work for either in procurement on this project then it is safe to say you dont know what really happened. The program has been tinkered with so much that nobody knows not even the USAF or DOD what the RFP was or is.

In my PERSONAL OPINION (got that it's in caps and bold?) the aircraft that is best suited to the USAF would be the KC-767 i am saying this purely as it is the most similar to the KC-135 that is currently in use. Each aircraft has it's pros and it's cons which people will bend to suit their own way of thinking and their own opinion.

A random point that i noticed that i wanted to chip in on, Runway performance is not really an issue tankers always operate from long runways far from the fight and 90% of the time from large established airfields. A reason for this is how the f*ck do you get millions of gallons to a tanker base that is not already got the fuel facilities onsite.

A personal request from the Fat cnut sitting at the computer is that posters refrain from personal attacks on each other. We dont know each other in reality and simply have no idea of what others do or do not know, you simply have no idea who you are talking to. So lets just stick to opinion and fact of the mess that is KC-X

Boeing was radioactive after the 767 tanker lease scandal of 2002/3 where a ranking USAF procurement official and ranking Boeing manager went to prison. There was absolutely, positively no way any USAF bureaucrat would risk their career by allowing Boeing to win. Instead, USAF hatched a scheme to use the 767 tanker as a stalking horse to get EADS to sell a heavy tanker at the price of a medium tanker. It almost worked, but Boeing blew the whistle and got GAO involved.

If I was the USAF (and the Pentagon), I would recommend Boeing to make the offer as cheap as possible and win by that. Giving a multi-billion USD procurement to Europe when Boeing has increased difficulties in competing with Airbus is politically not so clever.

So what's the plan now? Buy KC-777, have them loiter outside the danger area, and have all single-seat U.S. fighters equipped with buddy-buddy kits, running forth and back to deliver fuel to the customers out over Indian country?

Aha! this is one of the problems people see it as the European tanker but it really is not. Part of the deal is that the A-330 is produced in the USA with US engines and US avionics. So most of the money will be going into the US economy creating new jobs rather than keeping boeing employees in work. The B-767 IIRC has parts made in Japan and by other boeing partners so not all the money stays stateside.

Seahawk we all know your opinion and you are clearly American with a taste for Boeing not that im complaining. The problem with the KC-777 is that there is none of them flying and it would cost more money and take longer to get one fittted as a tanker, risk reduced and flying. However those 2 aircraft would fit the bill fine but i suspect one of the reasons that the USAF chose the KC-30 was the possibility of it covering both roles using a single aircraft. Thats just a thought from me and it does make sense to pick the tanker that could fufill the role of both aircraft just incase they cant get a KC-10 replacement due to cost. Yes i do realise that the KC-10 is bigger again but the KC-30 is mid field so would be a safe idea. No offense but the USA is as bankrupt as the UK one realises it and one does not.

We will just have to wait and see what bid's each company puts in and wait till the tanker is picked. Everyone goes on about how much Boeing is doing to make new tanker's based on different airframes model's etc. What we don't hear so much is what Northrup Grumman is doing with it's bid. We could see all kinds different things in the new bids. Maybe Airbus will provide a modified A330 with a bit shorter fuselage and wings but the same large payload.

If the US airforce really wants a perfect tanker/cargo aircraft to meet there exact spec it will need to be a new development. This could be put out to Boeing and Northrop and they could then put in Bids to match this exactly.

The fact is by using commercial airliners and due to the range available from the 2 companies it is hard to get 2 planes that are the same. We could see if this drags on for another few years Boeing offering the 787 and airbus offering the A350. Personally i think that both planes are going to be to big as they are both larger than the A330. We will need to wait and see what happens. Airbus could offer an A300 model as this more or less competes with the 767. If the decision is delayed much longer this makes it tough for Boeing as there 767 is closing soon.

The fact the A330 won the tanker competition is a big plus for Northrop Grumman. If it's the same spec as last time it should win again. People often say about the infrastructure needing to be upgraded. This will need to be done no matter what plane gets picked as some of it has been there from the 1950's. The fact the KC-135R will be in service for a long time to come and the staggered integration of the new tanker also makes this a bit of a non issue.

Airbus can develop a brand new plane for about $5 billion so if the Airforce really wants an exact plane it could be developed for less by using existing aircraft parts. The facts are the 767 and A330 are quite different planes. The US airforce must decide what it wants. I think we should see a bit of a shift to carrying more cargo in these planes as the C-17 and other cargo aircraft are cut. The A330 wins this hands down and can take off and land on shorter runways with a bigger payload. The 767 is a little cheaper but it really is that last 767 we will see as there will be no more commercial aircraft after the ones on order.

Would you want to by the last old model of a new car or the brand new model with all the enhancements over the older one?

The A330 is so reliable and is making a fantastic tanker with some countries already.

What could be needed would be a new way of thinking in the US airforce about how it uses tankers and cargo aircraft. Some people point to the fact that the US airforce doesn't even use the full capability of the KC-135 most of the time and that's why the 767 will do fine. If they can alter thinking and use the KC-45 to full potential then it is a real winner for the A330. We are going to see a change to drones at some point and using aircraft with bigger engines e.g. F35, F22 , heavy lift cargo and big bomber's. These aircraft are needing to fly farther and use more fuel to do this. Also using navy aircraft from carriers a long range tanker able to offer fuel far from it's home base is important. We also need to look at upgrade potential, such is installing more fuel tanks. I think the A330 wins this as it's still commercially viable and can carry more fuselage fuel tanks instead of cargo.

My preference would be for the Airforce to come up with the requirements it needs without thinking about what aircraft are on the market. Then get the companies to design a tanker that meets there needs perfectly and for as cheap as possible. If a plane on the market just now meets the needs then buy that. Also the airforce could look at what is on the market and decide what is best value.

Or for there to be a split buy. Granted sometimes a small tanker is most useful but then sometimes a large tanker is best. A split buy between say A330 and 757 should fit both roles. Also a decision needs to be taken as to how much of the tanker fleet is going to be used to carry cargo.

ONLY when this is all decided can people say what is best. Also just because the airforce used to use the tankers in a certain way does not mean that's how they are going to use them for the next 50-80 years. I mean look at the KC-135 it was made to be used to refuel Large bomber's carrying Nuclear bombs long distances. The KC-10 was made to be able to fly to Europe and refuel planes all the way. Also it was to fly to Europe fly around for a bit refuel aircraft and fly back to the US without landing. Another thing was the ability to carry cargo as well as refuel.

one interesting thing is the UK tanker project. It was done with private companies that will own the aircraft so the best value for money with the most capability would be picked. The picked the A330MMRT over the 767. If you want for info there is loads on the web about this competition.

What was the huge deal with combining parts of three different 767 models?

Jetliner makers are always stretching/shrinking and generally reconfiguring designs for new models or even specific customers. And for a jet that doesn't need to be commercially certified, the any concern seem even more silly.

I can't imagine that any unknowns were that big to deserve the "Frankentanker" label..or the comments made by the USAF in their original report. They made it sound like the whole idea was too risky...(as I've commented before, for being a combat outfit, the USAF is very adverse to risks.)

The main problem is the re-design needed, the risk of delays and cost increases of doing this. Also people have no idea how this will change fatigue specifications on an aircraft that may serve 50 or more years. Another thing that may crop up is that since it is a non-standard aircraft then parts can't be picked up anywhere for it unlike the standard A-330 or B-767 airframes.

3a8082e126