Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
Northrop Grumman to Pentagon: Screw you guys, we're going home.
Pentagon to Northrop Grumman: Don't let the screen door hit you in the a** on the way out.
Taxpayers: BOHICA
Pentagon to Northrop Grumman: Don't let the screen door hit you in the a** on the way out.
Taxpayers: BOHICA
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Face it, the USAF wants a smaller airplane. If they wanted larger tankers, they would have bought more KC-10s long ago. EADS doesn't like it because they don't have a roughly 767 sized airplane to offer. The wording of the RFP seems to clearly show a desire for a smaller aircraft, a KC-135 replacement.
If your airline wanted a modern replacement for a fleet of 732s, would you buy A330s or 787s? I think not. In aviation size matters. Operationg costs and flexiblity vs mission, that's why airplanes come in all sizes.
If your airline wanted a modern replacement for a fleet of 732s, would you buy A330s or 787s? I think not. In aviation size matters. Operationg costs and flexiblity vs mission, that's why airplanes come in all sizes.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Face it, the USAF wants a smaller airplane."
the USAF or the Democrats?
they seemed quite keen on a larger aircraft last time,
"the answer is the 767 now go away and think of the question"
this was never a competition merely yet another taxpayer subsidy for Boeing
the USAF or the Democrats?
they seemed quite keen on a larger aircraft last time,
"the answer is the 767 now go away and think of the question"
this was never a competition merely yet another taxpayer subsidy for Boeing
Last edited by knowitall; 8th Mar 2010 at 23:19.
Flight Safety,
If the USAF wanted 'a smaller tanker' the 767 still isn't the best answer, because it needs such a big balanced field length if it's going to carry anything like its full potential fuel load.
The A330 is better in this respect.
If you were absolutely wedded to a shorter span and smaller footprint (but concrete is cheap) a better solution would be the A310 MRTT with five underfloor ACTs, which boost fuel load to within a gnat's testicle of that of the KC-767, but which do so in a tanker that can operate from smaller air bases, shorter runways, and which ends up with more fuel to give away on the tow line.
Oh yes, and which has a proper wide body cross section, capable of taking standard pallets two abreast, which the 767 can't.
The problem is that Boeing don't have a right-sized aircraft for the role that can stop quickly enough in the event of a rejected take off, and which therefore couldn't use tanker bases like Mildenhall and Brize except after offloading some fuel.
If the USAF wanted 'a smaller tanker' the 767 still isn't the best answer, because it needs such a big balanced field length if it's going to carry anything like its full potential fuel load.
The A330 is better in this respect.
If you were absolutely wedded to a shorter span and smaller footprint (but concrete is cheap) a better solution would be the A310 MRTT with five underfloor ACTs, which boost fuel load to within a gnat's testicle of that of the KC-767, but which do so in a tanker that can operate from smaller air bases, shorter runways, and which ends up with more fuel to give away on the tow line.
Oh yes, and which has a proper wide body cross section, capable of taking standard pallets two abreast, which the 767 can't.
The problem is that Boeing don't have a right-sized aircraft for the role that can stop quickly enough in the event of a rejected take off, and which therefore couldn't use tanker bases like Mildenhall and Brize except after offloading some fuel.
The as-yet-undelivered Italian KC-767 cannot even take-off from Pratica de Mare in summer with max fuel - which is way, way below the 91 tonne the Frankentanker is supposed to be able to carry.
Perhaps that's why ol' Bubba Boeing uses Kansas so much - it's very flat, so building the 12000 ft balanced field runways the Frankentanker would need at MTOW is fairly simple?
And STILL the Frankentanker's pods do not work!
If you consider a 10000 ft balanced field at ISA/SL for take-off, landing and alternate, the Frankentanker with its narrow body and rendition class seating can only take-off with a couple of hundred kgs more fuel than an A310MRTT could, were it to be fitted with a 5th ACT. But it doesn't need 5 to meet current customer user specifications, so hasn't been developed further.
The Luftwaffe is just back from another 8000 km Eurofighter deployment exercise from the Baltic to India and back - proving how good the A310MRTT really is yet again.
Perhaps that's why ol' Bubba Boeing uses Kansas so much - it's very flat, so building the 12000 ft balanced field runways the Frankentanker would need at MTOW is fairly simple?
And STILL the Frankentanker's pods do not work!
If you consider a 10000 ft balanced field at ISA/SL for take-off, landing and alternate, the Frankentanker with its narrow body and rendition class seating can only take-off with a couple of hundred kgs more fuel than an A310MRTT could, were it to be fitted with a 5th ACT. But it doesn't need 5 to meet current customer user specifications, so hasn't been developed further.
The Luftwaffe is just back from another 8000 km Eurofighter deployment exercise from the Baltic to India and back - proving how good the A310MRTT really is yet again.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Northrop's parting shot was to disclose the pricing publicly so the taxpayer can see how much they are being screwed for.. always assuming that the DoD are dumb enough to divulge such information in the public domain, which in the interests of political careers, they won't.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, then why doesn't EADS offer the A310MRTT as a competitor? I think it's because the A300 and A310 are now out of production. So EADS doesn't currently have an aircraft available in the desired size range. I personally think this is the only reason the 767 is still in production, with it's slow sales. The 767 is also a gap filler for the 787.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddest thing is some posters [the Yanks ?] are too dumb to realise just what is REALLY behind this decision and what it is going to cost them in the long term.
With the raised tensions in the south atlantic and the prospect {50/50} of the ol' black gold the cries to dissolve the "special relationship" and look after UK national interests are growing.
But that always the new messiahs plan wasn't it.
With the raised tensions in the south atlantic and the prospect {50/50} of the ol' black gold the cries to dissolve the "special relationship" and look after UK national interests are growing.
But that always the new messiahs plan wasn't it.
Last edited by glad rag; 9th Mar 2010 at 17:47.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many half-life A310s are out there that could be bought and converted? The USAF doesn't need to put tanks in new airframes; one-third life left would serve them for ten or more years.
There were no used pax jets available when the KC-135 was bought. Now there are plentiful 757, 767, A310, DC-10, MD-10, and MD-11 that still have enough life for ten or more years refueling service.
A/B and Boeing would end up only parts suppliers to MRO, Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul companies, with not enough profit to pay the lobbyists, so it won't happen without a great deal of pressure from somebody like the taxpayer.
EADS made the mistake of backing McCain with lobbyists on his campaign staff.
GB
There were no used pax jets available when the KC-135 was bought. Now there are plentiful 757, 767, A310, DC-10, MD-10, and MD-11 that still have enough life for ten or more years refueling service.
A/B and Boeing would end up only parts suppliers to MRO, Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul companies, with not enough profit to pay the lobbyists, so it won't happen without a great deal of pressure from somebody like the taxpayer.
EADS made the mistake of backing McCain with lobbyists on his campaign staff.
GB
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there are plentiful 757, 767, A310, DC-10, MD-10, and MD-11 that still have enough life for ten or more years refueling service.
Perhaps "ten years" isn't exactly a bargain for a used jet especially one that was in the commercial industry.
Hint, see the 707s being used as E-8Cs. How'd that work out for cost-savings?
With about ten years in the AAR game, one thing I've learned is that there are few occiasions when you don't wish you had more fuel on board. And I'm sure all the USAF tanker guys think that way. They may have a bit of national pride that they're flying an American aircraft, but the numbers on your fuel totaliser are more important.
Oh, and an A330 rating is far more useful than a B767!
Oh, and an A330 rating is far more useful than a B767!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kc-x = 767
Having fun listening to the discussion here, but as a lifelong tanker mechanic(KC-135)/pilot(KC-10) & current 767 pilot, I want to point out some failings of the A330.
1. Cannot refuel V-22, 767 can
2. Limited breakaway/overrun capability
3. Limited pilot control inputs - bank protection vs full envelope capability for 767
4. RAAF A330 boom refueling issues
5. WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)
6. A330 requires more runway/airport footprint (hangars, etc)
7. Composite tail vs aluminum tail (important consideration wrt formation takeoffs - I've been exposed numerous times to preceding a/c jetwash)
Boeing's lineage with tankers is unmistakable. There is real security through product knowledge and being an American builder on American soil. They're not perfect I agree (787 delays) but EADS can't brag about their A400M either.
1. Cannot refuel V-22, 767 can
2. Limited breakaway/overrun capability
3. Limited pilot control inputs - bank protection vs full envelope capability for 767
4. RAAF A330 boom refueling issues
5. WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)
6. A330 requires more runway/airport footprint (hangars, etc)
7. Composite tail vs aluminum tail (important consideration wrt formation takeoffs - I've been exposed numerous times to preceding a/c jetwash)
Boeing's lineage with tankers is unmistakable. There is real security through product knowledge and being an American builder on American soil. They're not perfect I agree (787 delays) but EADS can't brag about their A400M either.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precontact, could you elaborate?
1. Cannot refuel V-22, 767 can
When did the 767 achieve this milestone? And when was the trial condutced with the A330 MRTT?
2. Limited breakaway/overrun capability
Breakaway as tanker or receiver? Limited decel or accel? Please quantify. Overrun as tanker or receiver? Limited above 275kts or down to green dot? What is limited?
3. Limited pilot control inputs - bank protection vs full envelope capability for 767
How often do you need to fly your 767 at >67 deg AOB or 2.5g?
4. RAAF A330 boom refueling issues
What issues? And is the 767 AAR equipment now FMC?
5. WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)
Nobody is squeaky clean in this competition:Boeing 767 Tanker Lease: Internal Documents Released by Sen. McCain
But, as in the Boeing fraud case, us humble operators should leave it to the lawyers to negotiate them rules. I can't find reference to EU subsidies being paid to NG, for example; could you?
6. A330 requires more runway/airport footprint (hangars, etc)
Please quantify: BEagle was kind enough to do so for the KC767; please detail the A330 issues.
7. Composite tail vs aluminum tail (important consideration wrt formation takeoffs - I've been exposed numerous times to preceding a/c jetwash)
And how many times have aircraft tails fallen off under such circumstances? I don't understand your point here.
Maybe I'm none-too bright, but I couldn't find any substance to your claims I'm afraid. Sorry.
1. Cannot refuel V-22, 767 can
When did the 767 achieve this milestone? And when was the trial condutced with the A330 MRTT?
2. Limited breakaway/overrun capability
Breakaway as tanker or receiver? Limited decel or accel? Please quantify. Overrun as tanker or receiver? Limited above 275kts or down to green dot? What is limited?
3. Limited pilot control inputs - bank protection vs full envelope capability for 767
How often do you need to fly your 767 at >67 deg AOB or 2.5g?
4. RAAF A330 boom refueling issues
What issues? And is the 767 AAR equipment now FMC?
5. WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)
Nobody is squeaky clean in this competition:Boeing 767 Tanker Lease: Internal Documents Released by Sen. McCain
But, as in the Boeing fraud case, us humble operators should leave it to the lawyers to negotiate them rules. I can't find reference to EU subsidies being paid to NG, for example; could you?
6. A330 requires more runway/airport footprint (hangars, etc)
Please quantify: BEagle was kind enough to do so for the KC767; please detail the A330 issues.
7. Composite tail vs aluminum tail (important consideration wrt formation takeoffs - I've been exposed numerous times to preceding a/c jetwash)
And how many times have aircraft tails fallen off under such circumstances? I don't understand your point here.
Maybe I'm none-too bright, but I couldn't find any substance to your claims I'm afraid. Sorry.
Last edited by D-IFF_ident; 10th Mar 2010 at 16:35. Reason: I'm even dimmer than I thought
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D-IFF
Regarding Point 5, I think you mis-read something. SUBSIDIES, not SUBSTANCES, probably in respect of EU legislation. Things like bailing out the banks, BAe, and other Gravy-Train lawyers . . . . .
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"WTO issues wrt illegal subsidies from Euro nations (think American perspective here)"
the WTO specifically forbids retaliatory action out side of its processes
don't be surprised if this ends up at the WTO either
you'll excuse me if I'm not to keen on taking a lecture on subsidies from an american!
the WTO specifically forbids retaliatory action out side of its processes
don't be surprised if this ends up at the WTO either
you'll excuse me if I'm not to keen on taking a lecture on subsidies from an american!