WT Forums

BV, I guess you still disagree with me that the A330 must cost more than the 767.

<img src="http://www.airpictorial.com/media/pic_mar_767_d8.gif " border=0>

What can I do to convince you? That's OK. That's not my main concern anyway. After calming myself over the suggestion of a "French" tanker for the USAF, I was getting around to formulating an opinion that we can not afford a new start program end running all the long range planning. It can only cause all the current programs to be strangled. I reluctantly conceed that the KC-135 is going to have to soldier on. The real victim of this tanker fiasco is likely to be the F-35, since the planets are aligned for both these projects to ramp up production simultaneously. The F-22 is quite a bit ahead and there is a strong case to squeeze some fielded capability out of the investment. Its fly-away cost should look quite reasonable by then.

By the way, didn't the Italians and the Japanese select the KC-767? I could be mistaken, but I think the Italians and the Japanese currently build some components for the 767. The fact that the RAF selected the Airbus may have something to do with the Brits building the wings. It's essential to line-up political support when you're trying to fund a public project. It's part of the equation. Boeing would be smart to offer the Aussies some offsets if they can find any. The KC-767 is a good offering for some country in the market for a tanker, and Boeing can do the job right. The're not so good at single seat fighters. I wonder why?

_________________
????

Forget upgrading the F-15C, the planes are whooped.

That is not a viable option.

I and others have stated that here before, but since you don't pay attention to A10stress, i guess there's no way you'll pay attention to the rest of us either...

"It should come as a surprise only to the fools among the men of our generation that we liked war."

Major V. 'Popski' Poniakov, British LRG, WWII

Everyone has to believe in something...............and I believe that Bigvette missed his calling. He should be a novelist.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

The primary thrust of Stress's long response earlier was that the Airbus bid isn't a real bid. It's a spoiler.

Pretty much designed to elicit the exact reaction you had, but in politicians.

I get that bout right Stress?

"It should come as a surprise only to the fools among the men of our generation that we liked war."

Major V. 'Popski' Poniakov, British LRG, WWII

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The primary thrust of Stress's long response earlier was that the Airbus bid isn't a real bid. It's a spoiler.

I get that bout right Stress?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Affirmative. I think I see what BV is getting at. He thinks that this deal is totally crooked and Boeing should be punished. I don't see it that way. I'm suspicious of Airbus. That's what makes the world go round.

_________________
????

I ask my esteemed collegues at WT to comment on this: Is it reasonable to expect that a transport aircraft that is 100000 lbs heavier, and has more features and gadgets, could be only 60% of the cost? Why would anyone say that it is? When things don't make sense, look for the sinister. Airbus knew they would never have to perform on such a claim. It was an attempt to make their competitor look bad by comparison.(Check) It was another opportunity for Europe to claim that trade with the US is a one way street, and put that in the bank for later.(Check) If things worked out, they could delay things and scuttle the deal, weakening their chief competitor.(Probably Check). Devious, but effective, and there was no down side. It couldn't have worked out better for them. It's a jungle out there in the business world.

_________________
????

Lousy French.

"...government without arms is an inconsistency." James Logan (circa 1740)

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I'm sure there is a way to see what the prices Airbus and Boeing were offering the RAF and is currently offering the RAAF. It really ticked me off that the Boeing deal did not come with twin drogue pods on the wings and that that was going to be extra money down the road once the AF were committed to the KC-767 - that's sheer irresponsibility on all sides in that one.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I understand your frustration but no one has the right to see the proprietary cost data unless all the parties agree to make it public. It has to be kept confidential. I'm thinking that the Air Force told Boeing to remove features and equipment until the cost got below the magic number. That's another indication that tanker recapitilaization is not affordable unless we cancel another program, maybe mine. Uh-Oh, What am I saying? Don't repeat that.

_________________
????

Think this one through Vette...
The USAF not only supports USAF aircraft with its tanking assets, but USN and USMC aircraft as well...The Super Hornet is comming online, and that aircraft is extremely dependent on USAF tanking assets...The KC-10 was designed to support both USAF and USN aircraft, while the KC-135 needs a drouge attached to the end of the boom, and from what I am told is a pain in the ass to tank with, as compared to the KC-10 for carrier aircraft...With the Navy commited to the F-18E/F, and the F-18E/F committed to utilizing inorganic tanking aircraft, we really need to prioritize procurement of those assets, whether its Boeing or Airbus, who cares so long as its able to keep jets in the air...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
What good does it do the AF to cancel other porgrams to buy the tankers - the only reason the AF needs tankers is to support other aircraft like the F-22 and all!

And someone help me out on this one, as I've yet to read a good answer to this question. Why is the USAF only buying 100 new tankers when they have 230+ KC-135's? I know they do not intend to replace the already modernized KC-135R's, or at least at first as well as the KC-10's but what exactly is the strategy here?

I know that right now the USAF ready rate of the -135's is pretty bad and that maybe only half are able to get up at a moments notice but still - how do you replace so many tankers with just 100 tankers that don't even carry as much fuel as the ones they are replacing?!

Think about it, why was the AF's mandates for an aircraft such the size of the KC-10 when it was and why would that mandate now be for a lot less capability?

And what about the philosophy of the USAF buying a tanker based on a 20+ year old platform? The USAF has gotten 40+ years out of the the KC-135's and I would say that has been a solid return on taxpayers investment. But what if the Air Force instead of the 135's back when they did took "old echnology" B-29's and made tankers out of them? (I know they did, but I'm talking they bought new ones at the time they instead bought KC-135's.)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>



Cancellations may not be "good" for the Air Force but it may end up being a compromise that the Dept. of Defense and the Congress can live with. Maybe compromise is the answer for the 100 tanker request too. Maybe it's a stopgap and they would prefer to start a "new technology" dedicated tanker design for the future, not an off the shelf commodity aluminum tube twin-jet. Maybe they need smaller, cheaper but more numerous tankers to cover the remaining jobs. Maybe they choose to go low tech here because they are balancing huge technical risk in other programs. There is not an infinite amout of money, even though it looks like it, and there are the costs of prosecuting a hot war to fund. If it gets bad enough, all modernization could get delayed. The people in the field will have priority. According to the stuff presented to Congress, the availability of the -135s is essentially the same as the KC-10, about 80%. It may be taking a lot more resources to "keep 'em flyin" but apparently it is being done. The question is for how long? I still think, if the tankers are in, something else is out.

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
What else might you be referring to, Stress?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yeah, the potential chopping block items were the C-130J, F-22, C-5 Modernization and the Navy MMA (is that what it's called now? you know, the P-3 replacement). Those are current Marietta hardware and paper projects. Maybe the C-130 would finally be history?

In answer to your suggestion about 777 tankers, no I don't like them, or any of these widebody twins. I'm not a fan of the combi tanker/transport, because they end up burning more fuel to get to the offload point. You can make a much better performing tanker with a pupose built design that doesn't have empty space in it. That goes for the transport too, only reverse. You want more volume and better cargo handling. I understand the selling point is the "off the shelf" factor that must translate into enough $$$ savings to justify the non optimum configuration. I guess the C-130J tanker is in this mix too, kinda. Hey, don't laugh. It's got hoses and drogues and what not.

_________________
????

Well, quite frankly I don't know why the 767-300 doesn't carry any more fuel than what it does since it's such a larger aircraft than the 707. And on top of that, Boeig sometimes just really baffles me - they go out and report to the RAAF that the engine going to be offered on the KC-767 is the PW 4062 which seemingly would go against the KC-767's for Italy and Japan who already will be powered by GE not to mention the USAF preference for GE engines, AND then they go out with the 7e7 and say they aren't going to let P&W offer engines on it.

<i> I thought they were proposing the 767-200ER, which has a little more tankage. It can be made to carry more fuel too, but it will cost you. It will also mean (probably)it can never be restored to commercial condition, which is part of this stupid lease thing. You are suggesting a conversion along the lines of the KC-10, which will take time and money that is not available. Maybe they are getting such a good deal on the P&W 4062's it gets the total cost in line with what the customers want to pay. Maybe it's a personal fued going on between the CEO's of Boeing and GE. It could be only a business decision, which doesn't need to be logical to the outside observer.</i>

Sometimes I wonder about Boeing, and I love them don't get me wrong, I'm just shall I say dissapointed in the KC-767 and what it has to offer. Can't they turn the entire or at least a significant portion of the cargo bay into a fuel tank so it can carry more fuel?

<i>It makes sense that you are dissatisfied with the KC-767. I'm sure many others are too. Please take into consideration that Boeing may be doing exactly as the customer asks. When the customer tells you to cut schedule and get the bottom line lower, you do whatever it takes. Realistically, that means capability and features have to be deleted. That is, if you have given a good faith bid in the first place.</i>

If Airbus was to go in with LM and build the KC-330's in LM old facilities, that might be a better platform than the KC-767. Still, why couldn't Boeing re-open production on the MD-11 line and make modern tankers out of them? Is it whatever Boeing offers to the AF or am I wrong here shouldn't the USAF be telling Boeing what it wants?

<i>See, you are assuming Boeing is not doing what the customer wants. I assure you that will not happen because of the golden rule. The Airforce (and Congress in this case) tells Boeing what performance it wants and what budget it has to spend. The Boeing Company responds on what it will cost to fullfill the wants. If things don't match up, they discuss the added cost of each feature, and the Airforce makes the decision on must haves and nice to haves. As I have said before, I do not like the odds against Boeing being able to beat the competition for a product like this.</i>

I think a KC-777LR would be the best bet for the USAF, especially if they are to only to have 100 of them, their going to want all the fuel they can muster!

<i>There is probably no consensus that a bigger tanker is better, as long as you already have some big ones (KC-10's). Maybe two smaller (presumably cheaper) tankers are more desireable because they can be in two places at once. If this was a normal procurement start-up there would be a phase that defined the best size and features first. Then qualified bidders would design a paper airplane to meet that performance. An airplane too big for the job would not be looked at favorably. The best one would be selected according to an established criteria. Then the air vehicle spec for that aircraft would be written <b>by the contactor</b> with consultation with the customer. When everybody's happy, they would sign a contract to try to build it.</i>

_________________
????

Bottom line is I just want what's best for the AF and I don't think leasing is. All of this talk about needing a tanker immediately just reminds me of that old sloagn I remember seeing while waiting in line somewhere: "Your lack of preperation does not constitute an emergency on my part."

<i>Yes, I have come to that conclusion too.</i>

Is it the AF that should have asked sooner for the money or just not enough money in the budget through the 8-year dark period otherwise known as the Klinton era?

<i>Tankers were always on the wish list for the future, they just got pushed to the front of the line by the Congress because the airline industry (and Boeing) were in a bad slump after 9-11.</i>

And what's the condition of the E-3 AWACS? Shouldn't the USAF have E-767's on the radar screen soon, too?

<i>I don't know, they are much newer, maybe they can get by with overhaul. Don't the electronics get obsolete faster than the airframe wears-out? What about JSTARS? They were made from worn-out airliners to start with. Aren't there some number of EC-135's out there too? The USAF has a huge geriatric jet management problem doesn't it?</i>

_________________
????