Boeing Tanker: Beans, Bullets, Oil, and politics .. and did we mention: politics ??

[JT Eagle]

KC-767 vs KC-30

Try these for a start.
JT

 

[Wingnut172N]

The USAF from what I heard disliked the KC-767 because it was based on the smaller 767-200 airframe. Why didn't Boeing use the 767-300ER as a base for it's tanker? Wouldn't that have made it more compatable with what the USAF was looking for?

 

[Lawman]

The USAF from what I heard disliked the KC-767 because it was based on the smaller 767-200 airframe. Why didn't Boeing use the 767-300ER as a base for it's tanker? Wouldn't that have made it more compatable with what the USAF was looking for?

From my understanding of it the idea was to replace the KC-135 and not the larger much longer range bigger haul KC-10. If that was the case then the Boeing aircraft made more sense using the -200. I think one point that is greatly being ignored by all the people saying "well it can offload X thousand more lbs so you need less aircraft" is that the lower number of aircraft means a lower number of booms in the air at any given time. So while you may have a plane that can theoretically fuel up a heck of a lot more aircraft in an area those aircraft that are now stretched out further from the tanker spend less time on station and more time in transition.

 

[Single Seat]

The friends I've talked to at AMC are happy.

This could also be a message to Boeing that there IS competition out there, and they can't keep demanding top dollar for their stuff.

 

[Fog]

Per Flash's stats, the KC-767 has as much fuel as the KC-45 (aka A-330) - which is slightly more than 200,000 lbs. What it can't do is haul as much "stuff" or carry as many troops. As Wingnut asks above, if non-gas capacity was such a big deal in the AF's decision, why didn't they ask Boeing to go to the -300 or - 400 airframe? Given the state of the economy, I see Congress making a real stink over this. If the original intent was to get 179 airframes of a KC-767 size, maybe the best answer/compromise would be to split the baby & buy about 2 wings of KC-767's (~60) and about 3 wings of KC-45's (~90). Am not sure of the number of a/c in a USAF tanker wing, however.

Oh, I also think the USAF is the only air force in the world that uses the "Iron Maiden" boom - everyone else can tank and uses the drouge & chute system.

 

[HeloBubba]

Oh, I also think the USAF is the only air force in the world that uses the "Iron Maiden" boom - everyone else can tank and uses the drouge & chute system.

The "Iron Maiden" is NOT the boom. It is an all-metal drogue.

 

[Huggy Bear]

Don't worry, our good friend Nancy Pelosi is looking into this. She always has the best interests of the military at heart.

 

[Cavrone]

Per Flash's stats, the KC-767 has as much fuel as the KC-45 (aka A-330) - which is slightly more than 200,000 lbs. What it can't do is haul as much "stuff" or carry as many troops. As Wingnut asks above, if non-gas capacity was such a big deal in the AF's decision, why didn't they ask Boeing to go to the -300 or - 400 airframe? Given the state of the economy, I see Congress making a real stink over this. If the original intent was to get 179 airframes of a KC-767 size, maybe the best answer/compromise would be to split the baby & buy about 2 wings of KC-767's (~60) and about 3 wings of KC-45's (~90). Am not sure of the number of a/c in a USAF tanker wing, however.

Oh, I also think the USAF is the only air force in the world that uses the "Iron Maiden" boom - everyone else can tank and uses the drouge & chute system.

Exactly! It sounds like the Air Force sabotaged Boeing's proposal. When the perameters for the bid were put out, they didn't say anything about a lager airframe than the KC-135. Cargo/troop hauling weren't part of the bid.

 

[phrogdriver]

Does anyone have a reference for the KPPs the proposals were based on? I'd check those out before saying the USAF sabotaged anything. I don't see tham having an interest in arbitrarily pissing off congressmen.

 

[e6bflyer]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x.htm

 

[Single Seat]

Damn thing is huge.

 

[Flash]

Per Flash's stats, the KC-767 has as much fuel as the KC-45 (aka A-330) - which is slightly more than 200,000 lbs.

Actually, if you look closely at the links the KC-30 site never gives a specific fuel capacity number. I finally found one, this link says it is 250,000 lbs vs 202,000 lbs for the KC-767. Also, the KC-767 had to add tanks to get to that number, where the KC-30 did not. The KC-30 can also haul a lot more cargo, and I believe at the same time, than the KC-767.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc30tanker/

According to Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute, the KC-30 won 4 out of 5 categories:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030303143.html

Sounds like a fair win to me so far.....

 

[navy_or_bust]

I am curious how the exchange rate will affect the whole thing. I don't know how the contract was written, but it seems like if it keeps getting worse then a foreign company wouldn't be able to supply at the initial price. Also when you take into consideration the repair parts, even with perfectly free trade(no goverments limiting the sale of parts), they could cost an arm and a leg, from a foreign supplier depending on the exchange rate.

 

[HeyJoe]

Don't worry, our good friend Nancy Pelosi is looking into this. She always has the best interests of the military at heart.

LOL, speaking of the Iron Maiden

 

[AznDragonBoy]

I'm a big beliver in the free market and the global economy. But when it comes to front line equipment, I like to know my pink ass is sitting on something made by the poeple of America. Is the A330 a better design? Yes, its also a lot newer and bigger. Its not that MUCH better. Both Boeing an SAC acted like a litte arrogrant. But I'm sure that Boeing can offer a design that can meet RFP requirements and still offer a great value. I favor a tanker dirivative of the 787, although that will add to the R&D and test phase.

I almost sure Congress will revist this.