Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 7/16/2008 3:53:18 PM EST


The Boeing Company
News Release

Boeing KC-767 Tanker Cost Advantage Grows as Fuel Prices Soar

ST. LOUIS, July 16, 2008 -- As the U.S. military expresses concern over
escalating fuel costs stressing defense budgets, Boeing reports that the
U.S. Air Force could pay as much as $44 billion more in fuel bills over
40 years to operate a fleet of 179 Airbus A330-200 aerial refueling
tankers, compared with a similar number of tankers based on the Boeing
767-200ER.

This assessment is based on a Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information
study, funded by Boeing, that calculated the Air Force's cost with oil
at $130 per barrel, $150 per barrel, and $200 per barrel.* Oil prices
hit a record high last week above $147 a barrel and many analysts expect
prices to continue climbing. Escalating fuel costs are a critical
military concern. As the largest consumer of fuel in the Department of
Defense (DOD), the Air Force, for example, spends an additional $600
million annually for each $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil,
spending approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006
alone.

"Boeing's primary focus and objective, as always, is on our customers'
operational needs -- and affordable life cycle cost is a key component
to any aircraft acquisition," said Dave Bowman, vice president and
general manager of Boeing Tanker Programs. "This is even more evident
today as our Air Force customer seeks the most affordable and capable
solution."

Conklin & de Decker, an independent aviation research company, recently
recalculated fuel price costs for the Boeing 767-200ER and the Airbus
A330-200, popular commercial twin-aisle aircraft that are being
converted to military aerial refueling tankers. The larger, heavier A330
is less fuel-efficient than the 767-200ER and, as a result, consumes 24
percent more fuel per trip than the 767-200ER. The study also factored
in estimated costs of refining, transportation, storage, handling, and
fueling the aircraft.

The Air Force's Request for Proposals (RFP) called for a highly-capable,
medium-sized, low-risk, and low-cost refueling tanker to replace its
aging fleet of KC-135 tankers. However, on Feb. 29, the Air Force
selected Northrop Grumman-EADS to build 179 next-generation tankers
based on the A330. The DOD called for a recompetition after the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) urged the Air Force to reexamine
10 of 15 significant issues in Boeing's protest of the contract award.
Among the sustained issues, the GAO concluded that fuel costs needed
reevaluation. The report stated that "even a small increase in the
amount of fuel that is burned per hour by a particular aircraft would
have a dramatic impact on the overall fuel costs." The Air Force is now
preparing a new RFP for an expedited competition.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:01:19 PM EST
Tested, Built and Flown.......


That's what those damned Airbus commercials keep saying down here. You'd think Boeing didn't know how to build military hardware for goodness sake.


Go Boeing....
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:10:19 PM EST
Boeing's KC-767 tanker is only on paper. Northrop Grumman's KC-45 just completed its 100th flight test. The first four are done. The fueling boom has successfully refueled numerous aircraft. Boeing hasn't even built their boom.


I got news for you - the Air Force is going through this re-bid as quickly as possible just to satisfy the idiots in Congress. They WANT Northrop Grumman's KC-45, not Boeing's plane. The KC-45 is a superior tanker, end of discussion.


Plus, even if they gave the contract to Boeing tomorrow, they won't see their first tanker delivered until 2014.



Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:10:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/16/2008 4:19:13 PM EST by cmjohnson]
It's good for Boeing, at the moment. Hope it STAYS that way.


With a December deadline for the rebid, I'd imagine that right now the Boeing team is
absolutely jumping through their asses trying to get every possible advantage they can
get. I think that there's at least a chance that right now they're pulling major overtime
and round-the-clock shifts and endless brainstorming sessions so that they can figure
out a way to offer no less than THREE flying prototypes to the USAF before the date of
selection: A 767 derivative, a 777 derivative, and a 787 derivative. Hell, throw in a
tanker derivative of the 747-8 while you're at it. Set it up so that no matter how the
AF wants to choose, they can't get fact that Boeing offers a better cost/benefit solution
that's COMPLETELY American.


If I ran Boeing, I'd want them to do exactly that. Use EADS' own "spider chart"


and other comparisons from anybody and everybody to design tanker solutions that
meet all objectives, exceed all objectives, and exceed the A330's performance in
every way, by respectable amounts. And price it to win.

One thing to note about that "spider chart" is that it's an NG/EADS creation and omits all
factors that are definitely in Boeing's favor with the KC-767, such as airfield accessibility.
Granted, the A330 can reach more airfields but it can't USE some that the smaller 767
is able to use due to its shorter takeoff and landing distances. That factor was cleverly
left out of the spider chart, of course. There are other factors in Boeing's favor
that are not in that chart, either.


I like this form of graphic representation of capabilities. I think it should be adapted
to show EVERY selection critera, with a colored band delineating the optimal range of
performance that the AF wants for its new tanker. An optimal tanker would have its
data points entirely within that colored band.



CJ


Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:11:36 PM EST
methinks Boeing is going to win the re-bid, and will sell both a 767 and a 777 tanker variant. what they NEED to do is make a tanker 787.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:15:21 PM EST
COMPLETELY American? Get real - Boeing's 767 has as many foreign made parts in it as the KC-45.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:18:02 PM EST
Globalization of the supply chain is a given. Did you know that Boeing provides a lot of parts for Airbuses? And Airbus provides parts for Boeing. But the USAF should, hopefully,
be dealing with a company that is fundamentally American, if it can deliver the desired
product at a competitive price.


CJ
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:20:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
methinks Boeing is going to win the re-bid, and will sell both a 767 and a 777 tanker variant. what they NEED to do is make a tanker 787.


If Boeing wins, the US is going to have SERIOUS problems selling aircraft and weapons to Europe, the EU has already stated what they will do.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:22:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:


The Boeing Company
News Release
.


'Nuff said...

Major SPIN on that release...

Boeing ignores, in their calculations, the amount of fuel that would be expended sending MULTIPLE KC-767s to do the same job ONE KC-45 could do...

Figures don't lie... But liars figure...
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:24:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
It's good for Boeing, at the moment. Hope it STAYS that way.


With a December deadline for the rebid, I'd imagine that right now the Boeing team is
absolutely jumping through their asses trying to get every possible advantage they can
get. I think that there's at least a chance that right now they're pulling major overtime
and round-the-clock shifts and endless brainstorming sessions so that they can figure
out a way to offer no less than THREE flying prototypes to the USAF before the date of
selection: A 767 derivative, a 777 derivative, and a 787 derivative. Hell, throw in a
tanker derivative of the 747-8 while you're at it. Set it up so that no matter how the
AF wants to choose, they can't get fact that Boeing offers a better cost/benefit solution
that's COMPLETELY American.


If I ran Boeing, I'd want them to do exactly that. Use EADS' own "spider chart"
www.eadstankerupdate.com/images/2007/sep_032.jpg

and other comparisons from anybody and everybody to design tanker solutions that
meet all objectives, exceed all objectives, and exceed the A330's performance in
every way, by respectable amounts. And price it to win.

One thing to note about that "spider chart" is that it's an NG/EADS creation and omits all
factors that are definitely in Boeing's favor with the KC-767, such as airfield accessibility.
Granted, the A330 can reach more airfields but it can't USE some that the smaller 767
is able to use due to its shorter takeoff and landing distances. That factor was cleverly
left out of the spider chart, of course. There are other factors in Boeing's favor
that are not in that chart, either.


I like this form of graphic representation of capabilities. I think it should be adapted
to show EVERY selection critera, with a colored band delineating the optimal range of
performance that the AF wants for its new tanker. An optimal tanker would have its
data points entirely within that colored band.



CJ






You are giving Boeing commercial airplanes WAAAAAAYYYYY too much credit...
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:24:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
It's good for Boeing, at the moment. Hope it STAYS that way.


With a December deadline for the rebid, I'd imagine that right now the Boeing team is
absolutely jumping through their asses trying to get every possible advantage they can
get. I think that there's at least a chance that right now they're pulling major overtime
and round-the-clock shifts and endless brainstorming sessions so that they can figure
out a way to offer no less than THREE flying prototypes to the USAF before the date of
selection: A 767 derivative, a 777 derivative, and a 787 derivative. Hell, throw in a
tanker derivative of the 747-8 while you're at it. Set it up so that no matter how the
AF wants to choose, they can't get fact that Boeing offers a better cost/benefit solution
that's COMPLETELY American.


If I ran Boeing, I'd want them to do exactly that. Use EADS' own "spider chart"
www.eadstankerupdate.com/images/2007/sep_032.jpg

and other comparisons from anybody and everybody to design tanker solutions that
meet all objectives, exceed all objectives, and exceed the A330's performance in
every way, by respectable amounts. And price it to win.

One thing to note about that "spider chart" is that it's an NG/EADS creation and omits all
factors that are definitely in Boeing's favor with the KC-767, such as airfield accessibility.
Granted, the A330 can reach more airfields but it can't USE some that the smaller 767
is able to use due to its shorter takeoff and landing distances. That factor was cleverly
left out of the spider chart, of course. There are other factors in Boeing's favor
that are not in that chart, either.


I like this form of graphic representation of capabilities. I think it should be adapted
to show EVERY selection critera, with a colored band delineating the optimal range of
performance that the AF wants for its new tanker. An optimal tanker would have its
data points entirely within that colored band.



CJ




What's the point of a TANKER being able to use 'smaller' airfields?

There isn't one...

Who cares where it can land, if there are no facilities there to resupply it...

Smaller airfields, in general, are not going to have the refueling capacity to fill a tanker....
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:26:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Globalization of the supply chain is a given. Did you know that Boeing provides a lot of parts for Airbuses? And Airbus provides parts for Boeing. But the USAF should, hopefully,
be dealing with a company that is fundamentally American, if it can deliver the desired
product at a competitive price.


CJ


Not when there is only ONE 'fundimentally American' company making commercial airliners of the required size...

Boeing should not get another defense contract 'on merit of being American' until there is a competing firm on US soil producing airliners...
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:26:51 PM EST
The Northrop Grumman KC-45 will create 48,000 jobs here in the U.S. It will be built at a brand new facility in Mobile, Alabama. Boeing already has their 767 line in Everett - they won't need to hire that many people.


Boeing has a commercial backlog of hundreds of billions of dollars - this 40 billion dollar contract is a drop in the bucket to them. The real reason they are fighting this is they don't want EADS to have a plant here in the U.S. that could compete with them for commercial airliners. The Air Force has had enough of Boeing with their late deliveries and cost overruns. Trust me, when the dust settles, the Air Force will give this contract to Northrop Grumman AGAIN.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:29:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mudfish:
Boeing's KC-767 tanker is only on paper.


Like this one? It's the Japanese version, but there's clearly very little risk associated with Boeing's proposal.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:35:10 PM EST
Remember, this contract is only PHASE ONE in a multi-phase group of contracts to replace the KC-135 fleet, which started out as 770 aircraft, but of course now the fleet is a bit smaller
due to attrition, etc.


I drive by Northrop-Grumman's Melbourne facility every day, practically, on my way to or
from work. I could probably get a job with them if I were so inclined.

It won't affect me personally no matter who gets the contract, but frankly I hope that
Boeing delivers a better answer to the contract, and I definitely believe that Boeing builds
a better aircraft.

Ask a bunch of aviation mechanics who've worked on both Boeing and airbus aircraft,
including 767s and A330s, and see what THEY think. I'll bet you that they'll agree
that Boeing makes a better plane.


CJ
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:39:23 PM EST
Five countries have already purchased the EADS tanker, because it is the best there is. Should our U.S. warfighters have a second rate weapon because of political grandstanding?


Boeing should be careful what they wish for. If this contract is pulled out from under Northrop Grumman, expect our allies in Europe to reconsider where they purchase THEIR weapons. And remember that Europe buys a hundred times more weapons from us than we do from them. A European protectionist response will hurt ALL the defense contractors, including Boeing.

Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:49:46 PM EST
Boeing should be careful what they wish for?


How about a FAIR competition? I'm sure they wish for THAT.


There's no question in my mind OR that of the GAO that the AF didn't play a fair game and
now they've got to do it over.

THAT IS FAIR.


Anybody who'd get pissed over Boeing possibly winning this time around, under what I
have no doubt will be a TOTALLY fair competion and award, is someone that should
shut up and go crawl under a rock anyway.

If the EU gets pissed and stops buying US weaponry over a Boeing victory, then I say FUCK THEM ALL. Let them go pound sand if that's how they'll react.

I want FAIRNESS in the contract and award, which we did NOT get on the first attempt,
and the blame lies with the people within the Air Force who made the contract selection
in defiance of the Air Force's own stated criteria, and their biases also led them to
make unfair and inappropriate "adjustments" to Boeing's lifecycle cost estimates, which
was one of a number of complaints from Boeing that the GAO upheld.

As a matter of FACT, the GAO upheld ALL of Boeing's protests as valid. And the GAO is
not a particularly partisan or forgiving organization. They turn down about 75 percent
of all protests.


CJ
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 4:58:37 PM EST
Out of 111 items protested by your whining buddies at Boeing, only 8 were upheld by the GAO. And those 8 were minor procedural matters. The Air Force will clean them up and give the contract back to Northrop Grumman, mark my words.


Mr. Johnson, if you can't even keep simple facts straight, I sincerely doubt if you would qualify for a job at Northrop Grumman.



Link Posted: 7/16/2008 5:01:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/16/2008 5:13:53 PM EST by skin290]

Originally Posted By Mudfish:
Out of 111 items protested by your whining buddies at Boeing, only 8 were upheld by the GAO. And those 8 were minor procedural matters. The Air Force will clean them up and give the contract back to Northrop Grumman, mark my words.


Mr. Johnson, if you can't even keep simple facts straight, I sincerely doubt if you would qualify for a job at Northrop Grumman.





Please...I have seen the quality of people that work in aero...there are jobs for everyone! (unless they contract out the floor sweeps-oh noes!) they def. come in all shapes and sizes...not a magical rocket-scientist club (there ARE those, though...)
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 10:25:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/16/2008 10:27:06 PM EST by joe-bananas]
The 767 has been flying for what, 25 years now? And no one, absolutely no one, on the planet has built more refueling booms than Boeing. Second is McDonnell Douglas which was, incidentally, bought by Boeing. What's more, no company on the face of the planet has built more successful aerial tankers than Boeing.

I doubt it will take until 2014 for the first KC-767 to be delivered. I'm guessing four years. Perhaps five at max.

Even the experts believe that, until they fly, it is open to dispute as to which is the better tanker. That said, I'm pretty darned good friends with Captains who have flown both civilian equivalents of the Airbus and Boeing birds. They both loathe the Airbus (oh, excuse me, the Northrup Grumman). Slower, more fuel-hungry, etc.



Originally Posted By Mudfish:
Boeing's KC-767 tanker is only on paper. Northrop Grumman's KC-45 just completed its 100th flight test. The first four are done. The fueling boom has successfully refueled numerous aircraft. Boeing hasn't even built their boom.

I got news for you - the Air Force is going through this re-bid as quickly as possible just to satisfy the idiots in Congress. They WANT Northrop Grumman's KC-45, not Boeing's plane. The KC-45 is a superior tanker, end of discussion.

Plus, even if they gave the contract to Boeing tomorrow, they won't see their first tanker delivered until 2014.


Oh, and suck it, Mudfish:


Link Posted: 7/16/2008 10:47:30 PM EST
The Air Force's fuel costs just doubled....they will HAVE to cut flying 50% or request double the amount for fuel as they did last year.

With the flying cut in half for FY'09.....WTF do they need more tankers for?

500 KC-135's with some with external pods to service the Navy.....bunch of KC-10's.....bunch of KC-130's......contracted refueling....NATO refueling....jeezuz.....

How about make someone that doesn't need jetfuel to fly? Wouldn't that be just freggin awesome and a good use of taxpayer dollars?

What's this new tanker going to haul? BioDiesel?...please.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 10:49:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
methinks Boeing is going to win the re-bid, and will sell both a 767 and a 777 tanker variant. what they NEED to do is make a tanker 787.


If Boeing wins, the US is going to have SERIOUS problems selling aircraft and weapons to Europe, the EU has already stated what they will do.


I doubt it. but then again we might because the peons are known to buy the lesser quality shit to make a point. as stupid as it is.

I doubt we will have problems selling F22 to anyone.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 10:50:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Globalization of the supply chain is a given...



Of course, which is why it is pretty stupid to claim that the -767 is 'COMPLETELY American'.

I don't see why people want Congress to pick the next tanker, rather than the Air Force...
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 10:52:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:
I doubt we will have problems selling F22 to anyone.



That has more to do with Congress' moronic decision to not allow it to be sold to Australia and other close allies than anything else...
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 10:54:11 PM EST
Aw geez...not again...
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 10:54:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mudfish:
Boeing's KC-767 tanker is only on paper. Northrop Grumman's KC-45 just completed its 100th flight test. The first four are done. The fueling boom has successfully refueled numerous aircraft. Boeing hasn't even built their boom.


I got news for you - the Air Force is going through this re-bid as quickly as possible just to satisfy the idiots in Congress. They WANT Northrop Grumman's KC-45, not Boeing's plane. The KC-45 is a superior tanker, end of discussion.


Plus, even if they gave the contract to Boeing tomorrow, they won't see their first tanker delivered until 2014.






Think so huh??
www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/media/newsletters/7M104432_KC-767.pdf
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 11:11:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
methinks Boeing is going to win the re-bid, and will sell both a 767 and a 777 tanker variant. what they NEED to do is make a tanker 787.


Nah, they'll lose precisely because they refuse to bid a 787, it would take too much honey out of the commercial pot. Boeing should sell of their military business, they suck at it. I did read that they replaced Mark McGraw, the moron that fucked up their tanker bid, I guess better luck next time. If they pull their head out and bid a 777 they'll still lose, it can't meet even close to the same field length requirements of the A330.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 11:12:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By joe-bananas:

Oh, and suck it, Mudfish:

farm3.static.flickr.com/2342/2273160526_f39736c87d.jpg?v=0


Nice picture, of an airplane that is 2+ years late, still not certified for use, and not even the same damn airframe that they are bidding for KC-X. Try again.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 11:17:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mudfish:
The Air Force will clean them up and give the contract back to Northrop Grumman, mark my words


That would likely be the case but the meddling morons in Congress have insisted that the AF doesn't know best what is best for the AF. An undersecretary of defense will be making the contract decision this fall. I bet the Boeing "Darleen Druyun bribery machine" is well oiled and ready to rock now that they only have one guy to bribe, instead of dozens.
Link Posted: 7/16/2008 11:40:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2fewtoys:

With the flying cut in half for FY'09.....WTF do they need more tankers for?





You think china will have any respect for us if they know we dont have enough tankers to get to them.

You know our entire political power base is based off global reach right??
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 5:36:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

What's the point of a TANKER being able to use 'smaller' airfields?

There isn't one...

Who cares where it can land, if there are no facilities there to resupply it...

Smaller airfields, in general, are not going to have the refueling capacity to fill a tanker....


Have you noticed deployments these past 6 or 7 years?

Deployability is a major consideration.

The larger, heavier airplane is less deployable because it is more limited in the number of airfields it can use.

It helps if you can put 'em where you need 'em.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 7:46:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/17/2008 7:52:19 AM EST by joe-bananas]

Originally Posted By 2fewbrains:
The Air Force's fuel costs just doubled....they will HAVE to cut flying 50% or request double the amount for fuel as they did last year.

Wow. The Air Force's fuel costs doubled because the price of fuel has doubled. Cutting flying by 50% is not an option. There's that war thing going on, remember? And since fuel prices have doubled, how is it that you can make the mental leap that they'll need to order double the amount of fuel? Where have you been, sniffing gasoline fumes instead of watching gasoline prices? Un-freaking-believable.



Originally Posted By 2fewbrains:
With the flying cut in half for FY'09.....WTF do they need more tankers for?

Since many of these tankers have been flying since the 50s and early 60s, one could argue that they're wearing out. Fact is they are wearing out, and because of this there are fewer and fewer aerial refueling platforms. What's more, they don't have the inventory of new parts for the KC-135 that they used to have, hence the need to manufacture small lots of old parts at a huge cost because there is less of an economy of scale. This is a contributing factor that makes it appealing to go with a newer, more capable and more fuel-efficient design. I think every one of us has seen a couple dozen photos of KC-135s that have bit the big one due to age or any number of other reasons. As much as I love that old bird, you can only rebuild an aircraft so many times before it just doesn't make sense to do so.



Originally Posted By 2fewbrains:
How about make someone that doesn't need jetfuel to fly? Wouldn't that be just freggin awesome and a good use of taxpayer dollars?

Oh, and THIS would make more sense than just building KC-767s? Invent, refine, prove, produce and distribute an entirely new technology that doesn't yet exist? What are you smoking? And now what? Are you going to say that we can just walk up to Area 51 and copy the technology from the aliens? Please, take off the tinfoil hat, let your brain get a little air and then try using a little more logic.



Originally Posted By 2fewbrains:
What's this new tanker going to haul? BioDiesel?...please.

It's going to haul the same jet fuel that the Air Force, Navy and Marines use to fuel their planes. Get off the BioWillie wet dream.

I'm completely amazed at your argument, or lack thereof. It would almost make one come to the conclusion that your talking out of a portion of your anatomy that most polite men don't show in public. Thankfully, your voice is being muffled by your Skoal can, otherwise we'd grow weary from your inane statements.

Geez.


Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:10:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/17/2008 8:10:36 AM EST by cmjohnson]
2fewbrains, your comments make me think that you don't even understand what these tankers actually do on even the most fundamental level.


These tanker aircraft do not haul fuel from one base to another. They refuel other aircraft in midair for reasons of efficiency. If you can refuel in midair, you can fly longer distances without having to land (VASTLY longer) and more importantly, you can get back into the
fight very rapidly after tanking up if you're in a combat aircraft.


I really hope you DO understand that that's what these "tankers" are actually for.

I believe you thought they were for hauling gas to various airbases, in place of hauling fuel to bases via trucks.


CJ
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:11:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
2fewbrains, your comments make me think that you don't even understand what these tankers actually do on even the most fundamental level.


These tanker aircraft do not haul fuel from one base to another. They refuel other aircraft in midair for reasons of efficiency. If you can refuel in midair, you can fly longer distances without having to land (VASTLY longer) and more importantly, you can get back into the
fight very rapidly after tanking up if you're in a combat aircraft.


I really hope you DO understand that that's what these "tankers" are actually for.

I believe you thought they were for hauling gas to various airbases, in place of hauling fuel to bases via trucks.


CJ

Serious question,
How are they getting fuel into AFG?
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:14:36 AM EST
GET BOTH!

Why not get some of each?

Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:16:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
GET BOTH!

Why not get some of each?


maintenance, training, pure stupidity.
Having a pure fleet makes life so much simplier.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:19:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By CRC:
GET BOTH!

Why not get some of each?


maintenance, training, pure stupidity.
Having a pure fleet makes life so much simplier.


Until the whole fleet gets grounded like the F-15.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:23:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
2fewbrains, your comments make me think that you don't even understand what these tankers actually do on even the most fundamental level.


These tanker aircraft do not haul fuel from one base to another. They refuel other aircraft in midair for reasons of efficiency. If you can refuel in midair, you can fly longer distances without having to land (VASTLY longer) and more importantly, you can get back into the
fight very rapidly after tanking up if you're in a combat aircraft.


I really hope you DO understand that that's what these "tankers" are actually for.

I believe you thought they were for hauling gas to various airbases, in place of hauling fuel to bases via trucks.


CJ

Serious question,
How are they getting fuel into AFG?



Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:27:53 AM EST
Nothing but propaganda from a bunch of sore losers including Boeing, and congressional critters from Washington and Kansas.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 8:31:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
methinks Boeing is going to win the re-bid, and will sell both a 767 and a 777 tanker variant. what they NEED to do is make a tanker 787.


If Boeing wins, the US is going to have SERIOUS problems selling aircraft and weapons to Europe, the EU has already stated what they will do.


Which is them acting acting childish, despite their blanishments.

The U.S. is buying plenty of Euro and foreign made .mil products, to include aircraft like the C-27J and VH-71, not to mention the T-45, AV-8 and other past programs.

Link Posted: 7/17/2008 9:05:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/17/2008 9:11:14 AM EST by tangeant]
Boeing for the win !

The only thing the AB does better as a tanker is carry more un-needed gas. The amount of extra gas doesn't overcome the AB major negatives, higher unit price, higher operating price and less mission flexibility.

The AF did a horrible job of selling the AB contract win. Getting on the podium and rambling AB/Grumm sales " More " BS and trying to " Baffle with Bullshit " didn't work too well. Alot of those 100 Boeing complaints are valid but were out of the scope of the GOA investigation.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 9:17:38 AM EST
Fuel in any country is obtained from local sources, or MODERATELY local, in any event,
in almost every case. Fuel in Afghanistan is probably obtained from Pakistan or any
other country nearby that we're not at odds with. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
I'm sure one of them will sell fuel and oil.

If absolutely necessary, fuels could be flown in but I shudder to think how much that would cost in the long run.


CJ

Link Posted: 7/17/2008 9:20:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Fuel in any country is obtained from local sources, or MODERATELY local, in any event,
in almost every case. Fuel in Afghanistan is probably obtained from Pakistan or any
other country nearby that we're not at odds with. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
I'm sure one of them will sell fuel and oil.

If absolutely necessary, fuels could be flown in but I shudder to think how much that would cost in the long run.


CJ



Early in Iraq C-5s dropping off cargo would offload a bunch of fuel for the base to use. They would then hit a tanker just after take-off. It was expensive as hell but kept fuel trucks off the road.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 9:42:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Fuel in any country is obtained from local sources, or MODERATELY local, in any event,
in almost every case. Fuel in Afghanistan is probably obtained from Pakistan or any
other country nearby that we're not at odds with. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
I'm sure one of them will sell fuel and oil.

If absolutely necessary, fuels could be flown in but I shudder to think how much that would cost in the long run.


CJ



Early in Iraq C-5s dropping off cargo would offload a bunch of fuel for the base to use. They would then hit a tanker just after take-off. It was expensive as hell but kept fuel trucks off the road.


IIRC, sometimes some of our Cargo birds have to do that to carry max loads. They can fly with more than they can take off or land with. (Also true if the Runway is short or soft)

Not the case with a drop off, of course, but sometimes that's why they hit the tankers right after taking off with a load.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 3:56:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
IIRC, sometimes some of our Cargo birds have to do that to carry max loads. They can fly with more than they can take off or land with. (Also true if the Runway is short or soft)
Not the case with a drop off, of course, but sometimes that's why they hit the tankers right after taking off with a load.


Also true of the C-17, C-5, B-1, B-52, F-18, F-16, F-15.....
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 4:52:54 PM EST

The 400-500 KC-135's we have, only have less than 1/3rd of their expected flying hours.

The only aircraft to leave a USAF airbase 99.9% of the time....the KC-135....while the C-17's and C-5's are down for parts and mx.

The KC-135, an old bird has had some block modifications...shoot you can even plug a lavatory service hose into the new model and they have pods on the wings for servicing Navy aircraft...and the boom for AF.

It's an old, old plane but it is far from being a piece of chet. Since when do you need a nice cubicle with fancy electronics for the pilot to sit in when the 1950's crap is just fine for a mobile fuel station?

The KC-10 was touted as something bigger and better back in the day......turned out to be a big piece of shit. All DC-10's...commercial versions...were prohibited from carrying passengers due to the mylar insulation fire hazard. They're all cargo birds now...commercially.

In their infinite wisdom the KC-10 was designed to haul passengers AND cargo....what a great idea....but the boneheads put the cargo door in the front....and they put the seats for passengers in the front. IF you want the cargo.....you have to take out alllll those seats first.......get the cargo.......put the new cargo in...then put the damn seats back in. If your pressed for time like say in a military role....What a phackin stupid idea. Your going to have some pansy Lt. coming over and asking you to cover each and every seat with plastic before it leaves the plane because "he doesn't want it to get wet"....what a time wasting aircraft for military logistics. How many bags have flown off and ended up in another aircraft's engine nearby....it's happened.

Atleast the Navy got it right with their C9....people in the back...cargo in the front....capability to quickly offload.

Maybe we do have some need for a new Cargo/Fuel plane.....would it mean that Evergreen will lose it's contracts for airlift? DHL? FedEx? and all the other contractors flying our cargo? I pray not....they are the only regularity in AMC and are regular because they can ignore AMC bullshit safety crap. Lost an engine on a fully loaded 747...phack it....the contractors taking off with 3...full of cargo.

AF doesn't have the personnel to man the new planes. KC-135's went to non-Active Duty as the C-5 did. Who Active Duty is going to fly and maintain these new tankers? That's right...they're going to have to cut and form Squadrons someplace....or drop the KC-10's alltogther which have nearly no flying hours on them. UPS and Fedex will get a bargain on them when they buy them.

I see waste with Air Force Tankers that makes your head spin. Every few months Refueling Tankers are flown from Some State U.S.A. to Guam........and flown back as someone else replaces them. Imagine allllllll that fuel being blown away over the War in the Pacific right now. Those KC-135's have proven something......no god damn problems whatsoever...even when they're managed by complete morons.

They need to spend money on more important things....like how to fly without jetfuel.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 5:00:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2fewtoys:
The 400-500 KC-135's we have, only have less than 1/3rd of their expected flying hours.

The only aircraft to leave a USAF airbase 99.9% of the time....the KC-135....while the C-17's and C-5's are down for parts and mx.

The KC-135, an old bird has had some block modifications...shoot you can even plug a lavatory service hose into the new model and they have pods on the wings for servicing Navy aircraft...and the boom for AF.

It's an old, old plane but it is far from being a piece of chet. Since when do you need a nice cubicle with fancy electronics for the pilot to sit in when the 1950's crap is just fine for a mobile fuel station?

The KC-10 was touted as something bigger and better back in the day......turned out to be a big piece of shit. All DC-10's...commercial versions...were prohibited from carrying passengers due to the mylar insulation fire hazard. They're all cargo birds now...commercially.

In their infinite wisdom the KC-10 was designed to haul passengers AND cargo....what a great idea....but the boneheads put the cargo door in the front....and they put the seats for passengers in the front. IF you want the cargo.....you have to take out alllll those seats first.......get the cargo.......put the new cargo in...then put the damn seats back in. If your pressed for time like say in a military role....What a phackin stupid idea. Your going to have some pansy Lt. coming over and asking you to cover each and every seat with plastic before it leaves the plane because "he doesn't want it to get wet"....what a time wasting aircraft for military logistics. How many bags have flown off and ended up in another aircraft's engine nearby....it's happened.

Atleast the Navy got it right with their C9....people in the back...cargo in the front....capability to quickly offload.

Maybe we do have some need for a new Cargo/Fuel plane.....would it mean that Evergreen will lose it's contracts for airlift? DHL? FedEx? and all the other contractors flying our cargo? I pray not....they are the only regularity in AMC and are regular because they can ignore AMC bullshit safety crap. Lost an engine on a fully loaded 747...phack it....the contractors taking off with 3...full of cargo.

AF doesn't have the personnel to man the new planes. KC-135's went to non-Active Duty as the C-5 did. Who Active Duty is going to fly and maintain these new tankers? That's right...they're going to have to cut and form Squadrons someplace....or drop the KC-10's alltogther which have nearly no flying hours on them. UPS and Fedex will get a bargain on them when they buy them.

I see waste with Air Force Tankers that makes your head spin. Every few months Refueling Tankers are flown from Some State U.S.A. to Guam........and flown back as someone else replaces them. Imagine allllllll that fuel being blown away over the War in the Pacific right now. Those KC-135's have proven something......no god damn problems whatsoever...even when they're managed by complete morons.

They need to spend money on more important things....like how to fly without jetfuel.






Someone gets the big picture. The push to replace the KC-135s is due to politicians wanting to spend money in their districts, and some AF brass wants new toys when
in truth the old ones are actually doing quite well.

Certainly the need to replace the KC-135s is not critical nor will it be within at least the
next decade.

I say that adding more C-17s and F-22s to the Air Force's fleet should be higher priorities. I'd rather see the whole tanker contract fiasco get put on the back burner for a few years
in order to put more Globemaster IIIs and Raptors into service. We've got enough
tankers, hell, well over 500 of them are in service!

CJ
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 5:03:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Pontius:

Originally Posted By Mudfish:
Boeing's KC-767 tanker is only on paper.


Like this one? It's the Japanese version, but there's clearly very little risk associated with Boeing's proposal.
farm3.static.flickr.com/2342/2273160526_f39736c87d.jpg?v=0

Different airplane. Boeing did not submit the same KC-767 that they sold Japan or Italy.

And oh by the way, Italy is pissed at Boeing over how they handled the KC-767 deal there.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 5:05:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:

I doubt we will have problems selling F22 to anyone.

Yes we will. Congress will never approve their export.
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 5:11:17 PM EST
I've said it before in other threads. The KC-330 fits the REQUIREMENTS the USAF has better than the frankentanker Boeing threw out there with little or not thought or effort because they think it's their birthright to have the USAF contract. Unfortunately, so do posters here and congresscritters.

Anyway, back to the requirements:

Why the Air Force Picked Northrop’s Tanker

By Colin Clark Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 9:34 am
Posted in Air, International, Policy
Read all about it. Here’s the first interview with someone who actually knows why the Pentagon decided to buy the Northrop Grumman KC-45 airborne tanker.

The concept of operations that will govern how the airplane is used played a key role in driving Air Force officials to conclude that the Northrop tanker was much better suited to the military’s future. The service wants tankers to operate at a stand-off distance. It wants fighter planes and unmanned planes to be able to refuel two or three times while in the air. This allows them to take off with significantly heavier ordnance loads and to launch several strikes instead of going up once, gassing up, firing weapons and going back to base.

The greater size of the Northrop plane means it can carry more fuel, allowing it to remain aloft for longer periods and to refuel more planes. Once it empties its bladders, it can then refuel and perform reconnaissance missions using a wide array of electro-optical, infrared and other sensors for a significant period of time. In fact, the Northrop plane can stay in the air for up to 18 hours at a stretch allowing it to perform other missions as well, such as carrying a router and becoming a communications hub, though I was told this was not a requirement.

Here are some of the technical factors that led the Air Force to pick the Northrop plane. First, the Northrop tanker’s boom pumps fuel at a significantly faster rate than would the Boeing 767 tanker. The faster refueling speed puts the lie to the claim by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) that the Boeing plane will consume $35 billion less in fuel than their plane, our source said. The study Dicks cited — which earned a “D” in quality of analysis from our source — simply took the difference in the amount of fuel an equal number of Boeing and Northrop tankers would consumer and extrapolated it. The study, by a Boeing consultant, also assumed the fuel consumption of a regular 767, not the Boeing tanker. It did not take into account the greater fuel efficiency of the newer Northrop plane, according to our source. Also, the Northrop tanker’s bigger size and ability to refuel at faster speeds means fewer Northrop planes would be deployed.

Second, the Northrop tanker’s boom has a significantly larger boom envelope than does the Boeing plane. This gives pilots a much greater safety margin when hooking up at the flying gas pump. It also, our source says, means they can refuel a wider range of aircraft, including unmanned fliers.

The fact that several allies, including Australia, have bought or committed to buy very similar planes means the US has an array of compatible tankers deployed around the world which it can draw on in a crisis, our source said. It also means that NATO and other allies can use common training techniques for their pilots, reducing costs and ensuring interoperability.

Boil all of this down and what you get is a tanker that, our source said, that can support fifth generation fighter aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 and their concepts of operations, our source said. It also means the US would get a plane that is more flexible, more efficient and can serve as the hub for enormously complex and ambitious operations involving a wide array of fighters, sensor aircraft – both manned and unmanned – operating over enormous distances.

“You are taking an airplane [the KC-135] that could only do one mission one time and now you are doing three missions,” our source said.

One thing several sources had cited earlier as an important factor — that the Northrop tanker could refuel itself — turns out to have been a requirement that both builders met. But the faster refueling speed of the Northrop tanker means those planes can refuel each other more efficiently.

www.dodbuzz.com/2008/07/15/why-the-air-force-picked-northrops-tanker/
Link Posted: 7/17/2008 5:13:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Pontius:

Originally Posted By Mudfish:
Boeing's KC-767 tanker is only on paper.


Like this one? It's the Japanese version, but there's clearly very little risk associated with Boeing's proposal.
farm3.static.flickr.com/2342/2273160526_f39736c87d.jpg?v=0

Different airplane. Boeing did not submit the same KC-767 that they sold Japan or Italy.

And oh by the way, Italy is pissed at Boeing over how they handled the KC-767 deal there.

whats the diff?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top