Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing Receives USAF Contract to Build Next-Generation Refueling Tanker
The contract calls for Boeing to design, develop, manufacture and deliver 18 initial combat-ready tankers by 2017.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess at this stage a European victory was simply unacceptable.
I saw it in 2008 when the rules of the game were changed, deleting the value of additional capabilities, steering the deal to the aircraft meeting the minimal requirements (=767 capabilities) at minimal costs.
I saw it in 2008 when the rules of the game were changed, deleting the value of additional capabilities, steering the deal to the aircraft meeting the minimal requirements (=767 capabilities) at minimal costs.
Looking forward to seeing what they look like and what they're armed with
More seriously are we looking for an improved 767 or something completely new ? I guess that the plastic 787 will not make a safe tanker...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 787 would be too high a risk at this point, since it is not yet in production. The 767 tanker does exist, albeit in a different configuration. While some people say the new configuration is a high risk, Boeing has shown the ability to "cut & paste" wings, fuselage, cockpit, and software in the 737 series.
Another part of the decision that bodes well for those who use it is that less cost per airframe means more hoses in the air. That is what limits the tactical utility of the airborne tanker in these days, NOT the total amount of fuel available. There is only so much fuel flow available to tactical jets, and there are not a lot of B-52s needing tankers any more...
Another part of the decision that bodes well for those who use it is that less cost per airframe means more hoses in the air. That is what limits the tactical utility of the airborne tanker in these days, NOT the total amount of fuel available. There is only so much fuel flow available to tactical jets, and there are not a lot of B-52s needing tankers any more...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be the saviour of the F38 vertical engine development, provided there's enough time available to produce six off sets!! - not too certain about the stealth aspects though - has Boeing been stealthy in the past?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder whether, assuming all other things being equal, this was compensation to GE for the F-35 second engine cancellation. 
The Pentagon said Boeing was about 1% cheaper than EADS, so if compared purely on capability, I cannot see how the KC-767 is a better solution than the KC-45...
One must also question whether Boeing has sufficient engineering resources to bring the KC-767, 787-9, 787-10, updated 777, AND 737 replacement all on line in time in the next decade. It couldn't do the 787-8, 787-3 and 747-8 concurrently (only one of which was an all-new model, the other two being derivatives) - the 783 was canned, the 788 is 3.5 years late, and the 748 is 18 months late.
The Pentagon said Boeing was about 1% cheaper than EADS, so if compared purely on capability, I cannot see how the KC-767 is a better solution than the KC-45...
One must also question whether Boeing has sufficient engineering resources to bring the KC-767, 787-9, 787-10, updated 777, AND 737 replacement all on line in time in the next decade. It couldn't do the 787-8, 787-3 and 747-8 concurrently (only one of which was an all-new model, the other two being derivatives) - the 783 was canned, the 788 is 3.5 years late, and the 748 is 18 months late.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lets think about it. 767 was the first twin jet to do the atlantic. it has a long good history.
I can't think of any thunderstorm related crashes for this type. I do remember the inadvertent thrust reverser deployment tragedy.
While the Airbus might be a bit more efficent...its all about combat capability and reliability.
So, how come France, Germany, Spain, and England don't buy the airbus as a tanker?
I can't think of any thunderstorm related crashes for this type. I do remember the inadvertent thrust reverser deployment tragedy.
While the Airbus might be a bit more efficent...its all about combat capability and reliability.
So, how come France, Germany, Spain, and England don't buy the airbus as a tanker?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this decision was inevitable, the most tactically capable, and, most importantly, reliable on-task performance, won the day.
There appears to be not much difference between the manufacturing cost per airframe, but considerable difference in the operating costs per airframe.
also...
quote - "Another part of the decision that bodes well for those who use it is that less cost per airframe means more hoses in the air. That is what limits the tactical utility of the airborne tanker in these days, NOT the total amount of fuel available. There is only so much fuel flow available to tactical jets, and there are not a lot of B-52s needing tankers any more..."
errr...from FoxtrotAlpha18..quote.."The Pentagon said Boeing was about 1% cheaper than EADS, so if compared purely on capability, I cannot see how the KC-767 is a better solution than the KC-45..."
I think the experts (and blind freddy) could see the better solution.
Simply put they need a tactically capable, reliable tanker.
There appears to be not much difference between the manufacturing cost per airframe, but considerable difference in the operating costs per airframe.
also...
quote - "Another part of the decision that bodes well for those who use it is that less cost per airframe means more hoses in the air. That is what limits the tactical utility of the airborne tanker in these days, NOT the total amount of fuel available. There is only so much fuel flow available to tactical jets, and there are not a lot of B-52s needing tankers any more..."
errr...from FoxtrotAlpha18..quote.."The Pentagon said Boeing was about 1% cheaper than EADS, so if compared purely on capability, I cannot see how the KC-767 is a better solution than the KC-45..."
I think the experts (and blind freddy) could see the better solution.
Simply put they need a tactically capable, reliable tanker.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, how come France, Germany, Spain, and England don't buy the airbus as a tanker?
...most tactically capable, and, most importantly, reliable on-task performance, won the day...
And upon what do you base your assessment EW? What about risk - development nearly completed vs paper airplane, Boeing's engineering capacity? Any comments there?
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 25th Feb 2011 at 02:18.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt GE would see this as compensation - when they were part of the EADS bid and Boeing are proposing P&Ws.
And it doesn't matter how many hoses you put in the sky if you can't use them - just ask the Italians.
And it doesn't matter how many hoses you put in the sky if you can't use them - just ask the Italians.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the USAF said the total life-time program cost differential was GREATER than 1%... which, according to the rules of this iteration of the contest, meant that capability above the minimum required was NOT to be considered.
Apparently, Boeing's operational costs were enough lower than EADS' to compensate for the higher initial development cost by more than 1% overall.
There were always going to be 4 developmental aircraft and 175 production aircraft no matter which aircraft won.
I doubt that running costs would have played much role in "how many hoses are in the air" on any given day... reliability and "mission capable availability rates" rule that equation.
Apparently, Boeing's operational costs were enough lower than EADS' to compensate for the higher initial development cost by more than 1% overall.
There were always going to be 4 developmental aircraft and 175 production aircraft no matter which aircraft won.
I doubt that running costs would have played much role in "how many hoses are in the air" on any given day... reliability and "mission capable availability rates" rule that equation.