US Air force 7E7 launch customer

[747FOCAL]

There is a rumor flying about and Washington has confirmed it that the US Air Force may be the launch customer for the 7E7 by scrapping the 767 Tanker contract and replacing it with a 7E7 Tanker contract.

Let the "subsidy" war begin.........:E :E :E

[steamchicken]

I thought Boeing had the subcontract to make the infallible autoland system for the A380?:D

[747FOCAL]

You mean kinda like the Osama designed autoland for Boeing? :hmm:

[BEagle]

Cynical me thought that all Boeing's efforts were actually geared towards persuading the USAF that there was some urgent need for replacement tankers. Why would that be? They've just spent a lot of bucks on the Pacer Craig upgrade to the KC135 which will go on flying for years - and they've got loads of KC10s as well... Why would that be? To keep Uncle Boeing happy by keeping the 767 production line going after civil orders dried up post-11 Sep.

With the 7E7 going ahead, why isn't the USAF thinking instead about a KC-7E7 when they, not Boeing, need it?

That's what I wrote back on 24 Feb on PPRuNe-mil!

[Schrodingers Cat]

But just you make sure that those bloody Europeans don't give their industry any subsidies, or we'll be in the WTO at Mach 6 (or was that the sonic cruiser.....):p ;) :p

[Ian Corrigible]

Looks like RR and GE have been selected for the donks:

Boeing selects le suppliers de les engines pour le 7E7 (or something...) (http://hosting.afp.com/clients/aircosmos/francais/aviation/040406172935.ev1oa3v3.html)

Rolls-Royce et General Electric retenus pour motoriser le 7E7 de Boeing
AFP April 6

Les fabricants de moteur d'avions anglais Rolls-Royce et américain General Electric ont été choisis par le constructeur aéronautique Boeing pour motoriser son futur avion super-économique 7E7, selon une source proche de Boeing."


I/C

[Snowballs]

Boeing Selects Two 7E7 Dreamliner Engine Partners
Tuesday April 6, 5:07 pm ET
EVERETT, Wash., April 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA - News) has selected two engine types, the General Electric GENX and Rolls-Royce Trent 1000, for its all-new Boeing 7E7 Dreamliner, an airplane that will provide the world's airlines with exceptional efficiency and environmental performance.
Boeing's decision follows months of collaboration with the leading manufacturers of large commercial airplane engines.
"The General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines will enable the 7E7 to fly higher, faster, farther, cleaner, quieter and more efficiently than comparable airplanes," said 7E7 Senior Vice President Mike Bair. "Having an engine choice is a key consideration for our customers. We're now offering two excellent options for the 7E7."
Both engine types will be capable of providing between 55,000 and 70,000 lbs. of thrust, which will allow the three planned 7E7 models to use the same basic engines.
The 7E7 will reduce fuel use -- and associated emissions -- by 20 percent over today's comparably sized airplanes. The engines are key contributors to the airplane's dramatic efficiency improvements. The engines will also help the 7E7 be significantly quieter than today's airplanes and meet new industry requirements.
"All three engine manufacturers presented exceptional proposals," Bair said. "We reached this major milestone well ahead of our original schedule due to the close collaboration on requirements, capabilities and technologies. While it was a challenging decision, the speed with which we made it is representative of the customer interest and the overall momentum on the 7E7 program."
For the first time in commercial jet history, both engine types will use the same standard interface with the airplane, allowing any 7E7 twinjet to be fitted with either engine at any point in time. Engine interchangeability makes the 7E7 a flexible asset that can easily be moved among carriers, an attractive feature for financiers, leasing companies and airlines. Other 7E7 innovations include the elimination of traditional bleed air systems in favor of an efficient, more-electric architecture.
General Electric's new engine, called the GENX (GE Next Generation), is derived from the ultra-high-thrust GE90 engine, which has a proven track record on twin-engine aircraft. The GENX technologies include composite fan blades, the highest pressure-ratio compressor in aviation, and a unique single-annular combustor (where compressed air and fuel are mixed) to achieve dramatically lower emissions. The GENX will have its first full-engine test in 2006. The engine is being designed and tested at GE Transportation's world headquarters in Evendale, Ohio. Final assembly will occur in Durham, N.C.
"Our engine for the 7E7 represents the culmination of new technologies for which GE has made considerable investments over many years," said David Calhoun, president and CEO of GE Transportation. "Needless to say, this is one of the biggest days in the history of our jet engine business."
Rolls-Royce will produce a new variant of its successful, high-thrust Trent engine series to power the 7E7, the Trent 1000. Designed to deliver optimum performance with minimum development risk, it will be the fifth member of the Trent family to enter service, once again featuring the three-shaft design layout unique to Rolls-Royce. The engine will be the most efficient and environmentally advanced Trent ever built.
Mike Terrett, president of Civil Aerospace for Rolls-Royce, said, "This is a special day in the long and rewarding relationship between our companies. Now, once again, our focus is on bringing a new generation of Trent successfully to market."
Boeing is continuing to receive strong customer support for the 7E7 and has submitted a number of firm contract proposals to airlines. The company expects to launch the new airplane this year.

[swh]

They are also installing Flight Engineer stations on the 7E7 aircraft to keep operations inline with KC135 operations.

[Dan Winterland]

KC135 doesn't have an engineer - never had either. They did have a Navigator prior to the Pacer Craig (glass cockpit) update. Perhaps you mean a boom operator?

[Genghis]

"scrapping the 767 Tanker contract and replacing it with a 7E7 Tanker contract"

P&W won't be very happy if this were true - given they had curiously won the 767 tanker engine deal but are not on the 7E7.....

[steamchicken]

Hmmm....GEN X? I suppose a Generation X engine doesn't see why it should fly and much prefers playing video games and eating pizza.

[747FOCAL]

Genghis,

It wasn't until yesterday that the engine choices were known and this has been in the works for months. Pratt's engine was far inferior to the GE and the RR by the numbers. :)

[MarkD]

This seems to make more sense - use a military contract to make a civil innovation viable, 7E7 gets made and Airbus are forced to innovate an A310/300 replacement.

The other option - kick the dead 767 horse made sense for Boeing's 767 line but not for USAF, especially as they don't need new tankers yet.

It will disappoint those Boeing heads who want to blame govt intervention for why the Airbus line wins orders.

[rotornut]

Gee, I thought incest was still a crime in the U.S..

[Ponchus Pilot]

This is not true. Boeing has said that the 7E7 can not be a tanker because of the weight savings made in the design. In short it can not structually take the loads. I read it in Aviation Week.

[Ignition Override]

So what?

There is still a difference between 1) selling aircraft to the military services and 2) direct subsidies for purely civilian airliner research and development-or to subsidize direct marketing for global sales, i.e. Airbus "Inc", Ltd/GmbH....never mind 3) paying bribe$ (baksheesh, anyone?) through second, third or fourth parties, in order to win sales in distant lands. Check an article in "the Economist" on the fairly recent Indian government scandal, amongst others, if still in the dark.

Whether there will be some overlap at Boeing is to be seen, but the enormous financial advantages for Airbus over many years, paid for partly by the already over-taxed citizens in France, Germany, Britain etc, are very clear.

The first order for the A-320 in the US, and a major order, happened while a former airline CEO was accused of taking bribes, via a "central" European politician buddy, who was eh... coincidentally..., on the board of Airbus. This was reported years ago in the "Wall Street Journal".:oh:

[BEagle]

"Boeing said the 7E7 can't be a tanker....."

Would that be the same Boeing who are deperate to flog the 767 tanker in large numbers to the USAF, so that the line stays open and the dollar$ roll in? Hardly likely to queer that pitch by saying "Of course we can make a KC-7E7".

Of course if they really can't, Airbus would certainly be able to provide the USAF with the A330 tanker......... 244K lb of gas as against 202K in the 767 - and it doesn't need a 12000 ft balanced field runway to get airborne at that weight either!

Boeing said it? Well, that must mean it's true..............

[flight sim boy]

There is still a difference between 1) selling aircraft to the military services and 2) direct subsidies for purely civilian airliner research and development-or to subsidize direct marketing for global sales, i.e. Airbus "Inc", Ltd/GmbH....

A difference between:

1 Huge amounts of funding through NASA and DoD for 'military' projects which are immediately read across to civil - eg latest core for CFM-56 engine
Buying lots of aircraft at over the odds prices that you don't really need anyway
Not re-engining your B52s or C-5s cos a non-American engine option is so-overwhelmingly better on all counts that it would make it painstakingly obvious that you were buying American solely to fund pratts or GE

or

2 A government loan where they are effectively a risk and revenue sharing partner. If the project fails they get nothing back, if it succeeds they get there money back + more over a long time period...

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/su/loans/report/appendix03-03.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1293073.stm

http://www.iht.com/IHT/TB/00/tb031400.html

The U.K. has published details of its Airbus loan repayments. Of the $369 million (in 2000 dollars) provided to BAE Systems for A320 launch aid, BAE/Airbus has repaid $459.2 million, with a certain amount levied against the delivery of each airplane (even beyond the amount needed to repay the loan). This has given the U.K. government an impressive profit of $126 million on this program.

[Wino]

Very good flight sim boy,

Now tell me about the payments for the A300 A310 A330 A340 and whether your government has gotten one dime back on that...?

That's where the real injustices are

And having the government take all the risk is VERY different than buying something else from the company. Airbus can launch any plane it wants with no commercial case. Boeing doesn't have that option.


Cheers
Wino

[747FOCAL]

Ponchus Pilot,

Not true. Makes no difference in what the load is made of. Be it people or cargo. MTOW is MTOW. Already spoke with the design boys in Everett and it's already in the works.

As far as all you boys that seem to think any US politician or the US military would ever spend the money to upgrade the tanker fleet outside of the USA is crazy, stupid or retarded. 767 or 7E7 or another US built aircraft is all that really has a chance. They will make it look good for the EU politicains so they don't trade sanction the US, but that is it.

With how the US economy is right now sending jobs overseas would be political suicide. It will never happen. There are very few foreign built aircraft in the US military.

:ok: :ok:

[BahrainLad]

Wino,

Significant projects supported in the past include the Airbus A320 and A330/340 programmes. The A320 investment has already been repaid to government, and continues to provide a return. The A330/340 is contributing a steady stream of funds to the Exchequer, and is expected to pay for itself in the medium term. In November 1997, the Government reached agreement with Rolls-Royce to support the development of three new engines in the Trent family, for the Airbus A340-500/600, and for stretched and longer-range versions of the A340.


(Don't think the UK govt. paid anything towards the A300/A310....were BAE not a partner until the A320 days?)

[Wino]

Yes but Bahrain lad,

Take the money that was loaned to airbus and apply a 5 percent interest rate on it from the date the check was written (in otherwords at the rate that a corporation would have to pay on money borrowed on the real market, not as a government subisidy) and if you do that even the A320 hasn't paid i ts way yet. Yes in total dollars it has, but not if you compound the interest in a way that ANY corporation would be required to do... The interest ran for a LONG time with almost no aircraft sold...

But what is even more odious, is when Boeing goes out to borrow the money, they have to repay WHETHER OR NOT THEY SELL ANY AIRCRAFT! Airbus had ZERO risk. They only have to pay back if they sell the aircraft, and not with any reasonable interest schedule.


THat is NOT a level playing field no matter what you think or say.



Cheers
Wino

[AA717driver]

Is everyone involved in the A v. B debate so naive to believe that deals for aircraft are on a "may the best man win" basis?

These decisions are so political reason is chucked out the window very early on in the process. The 767 deal was probably sweetened by kickbacks in other programs and A's offer probably had some incentives for "partners" to buy some items from U.S. companies as a sweetener.TC

[Flight Safety]

As long as the 7E7 airframe is appropriate for tanker use, I think this might be a good choice for a new US tanker.

The US military could probably use a good long ranged mid-sized tanker/cargo/personel transport, as these aircraft would probably be multi-use in the same way that KC-10s are now. The US military often ponders its needs for more airlift capacity, and this mid-sized aircraft could be ideal at this role, leaving the C-5s and C-17s for handling the outsized cargo. The 7E7 would probably be easier to maintain and upgrade than a soon-to-be out of production airframe like the 767. BTW, I'd love to see how they install a cargo door in the side of a composit airframe.

It doesn't matter if the military or a civil airline lauches the 7E7, a customer is a customer. I'd love to see if the WTO can creatively come up with some twisted way of seeing this possibility as "uncompetitive", as 50,000 plus pages of the GATT treaty leaves a lot of room for imaginative interpretation.