Tankers - 767 or 7E7?

[Tony]

I have been wondering why the Air Force doesn't look to buy tanker versions
of the 7E7, rather than 767s? From what I've read, the discounted price of
a 7E7 to the airlines will be under $100 million, possibly well under. So a
100 of them would cost less than the $10 billion being cited as the price
for 100 767s. As a launch, and substantial, customer - the Air Force might
be able to get a goodly discount, as well as some say in design (like maybe
alternate rack designs to hold Mil Std avionics). And the tanker versions
should be even cheaper because they wouldn't need airline features like a
complex galley, multiple lavatories, and entertainment piped to 250 seats.

Better yet - why not procure some of each? There have been statements that
there is a risk in having all the tankers be of one design in case that
design is grounded for some reason.

You know that whatever the Air Force buys will be flying for 40+ years - why
not get the latest, most efficient, and lowest maintenance aircraft?

Tony (first time poster)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tony" > wrote in message
news:Ps5Jb.48076$PK3.9517@okepread01...
> I have been wondering why the Air Force doesn't look to buy tanker
versions
> of the 7E7, rather than 767s? From what I've read, the discounted price
of
> a 7E7 to the airlines will be under $100 million, possibly well under. So
a
> 100 of them would cost less than the $10 billion being cited as the price
> for 100 767s. As a launch, and substantial, customer - the Air Force
might
> be able to get a goodly discount, as well as some say in design (like
maybe
> alternate rack designs to hold Mil Std avionics). And the tanker versions
> should be even cheaper because they wouldn't need airline features like a
> complex galley, multiple lavatories, and entertainment piped to 250 seats.
>
> Better yet - why not procure some of each? There have been statements
that
> there is a risk in having all the tankers be of one design in case that
> design is grounded for some reason.
>
> You know that whatever the Air Force buys will be flying for 40+ years -
why
> not get the latest, most efficient, and lowest maintenance aircraft?

Time. The USAF needs new tankers ASAP, which is why the plan to pursue the
combined lease/buy option is underway. The 767 already flies, and the first
tanker mods with flying booms are already under construction (for the
Italian and Japanese, IIRC). It will be available long before any tanker
version of the 7E7 will be--the 7E7 has yet to even begin entering the metal
cutting stage (heck, design is only now firming up), much less undergone its
flight test.

Brooks

>
> Tony (first time poster)
>
>

[Larry]

>"Tony blurted out; "Better yet - why not procure some of each?"

It's MUCH cheaper to have ONE common set of spares, overhaul, and
intermediate repairs for a SINGLE platform. Not to mention the complete pain
in the ass to run DUAL training tracks to fill the aircrew seats for two
platforms. It goes on and on.

Not a good idea.

My two cents.


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
USN Retired
"Certified Web Designer"
www.SkagitMedia.com






"Tony" > wrote in message
news:Ps5Jb.48076$PK3.9517@okepread01...
> I have been wondering why the Air Force doesn't look to buy tanker
versions
> of the 7E7, rather than 767s? From what I've read, the discounted price
of
> a 7E7 to the airlines will be under $100 million, possibly well under. So
a
> 100 of them would cost less than the $10 billion being cited as the price
> for 100 767s. As a launch, and substantial, customer - the Air Force
might
> be able to get a goodly discount, as well as some say in design (like
maybe
> alternate rack designs to hold Mil Std avionics). And the tanker versions
> should be even cheaper because they wouldn't need airline features like a
> complex galley, multiple lavatories, and entertainment piped to 250 seats.
>
> Better yet - why not procure some of each? There have been statements
that
> there is a risk in having all the tankers be of one design in case that
> design is grounded for some reason.
>
> You know that whatever the Air Force buys will be flying for 40+ years -
why
> not get the latest, most efficient, and lowest maintenance aircraft?
>
> Tony (first time poster)
>
>

[Gene Storey]

Actually, since the fall of Iraq, the number of tankers needed has dropped
significantly. With the end of operation northern and southern watch, this
has freed-up essentially a squadron of aircraft.

Tanker pilots can fly anything heavy, with minimal training. Training costs
are insignificant.

The USAF leasing planes means the lessor has to maintain a bench stock.
In any scenario described, the lessor will also contract the maintenance
CONUS and Overseas.

Personally, I would go for the 767, as this is a very large aircraft that can
carry pallet cargo, and has the fuel tanks for a significant offload. The 767
is all the USAF needs for both an AWACS and Tanker replacement. I also
think it could replace the B-52 in cruise missile launch capability. With an
internal load of hundreds of cruise missiles, it can eject them from a
rotary launcher and track system. Most B-52's that launched cruise missiles
never crossed the FEBA (Gulf, and Med).

[tscottme]

Tony > wrote in message
news:Ps5Jb.48076$PK3.9517@okepread01...
> I have been wondering why the Air Force doesn't look to buy tanker
versions
> of the 7E7, rather than 767s? From what I've read, the discounted
price of
> a 7E7 to the airlines will be under $100 million, possibly well under.
So a
> 100 of them would cost less than the $10 billion being cited as the
price
> for 100 767s. As a launch, and substantial, customer - the Air Force
might
> be able to get a goodly discount, as well as some say in design (like
maybe
> alternate rack designs to hold Mil Std avionics). And the tanker
versions
> should be even cheaper because they wouldn't need airline features
like a
> complex galley, multiple lavatories, and entertainment piped to 250
seats.
>

Why would the Air Force be charged for galley and other airline type
gear on a 767 tanker purchase? Aircraft aren't like cars on the
dealer's showroom floor.

--

Scott
--------
The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
schools.
Wall Street Journal

[C Knowles]

That's a darn good question. The 767 is available now and has enormous
political support. But the 7E7 is the same size and has what you'd want in
an OTS tanker; range & efficiency. The 767 is more of an interim tanker
until KC-X comes along, which is why leasing is a good idea. If the 7E7 were
to come on line we could sell/give back the KC-767s. But getting in now
seems the smart thing to do, as with the KC-135/707. Most avionics would be
the same, as with the KC-10.

> Better yet - why not procure some of each? There have been statements
that
> there is a risk in having all the tankers be of one design in case that
> design is grounded for some reason.

Smoke. This is just to justify the 767 buy. This type of a/c is rarely
grounded and even then it is as a precautionary measure, i.e., the military
could still fly them in a crisis. It does not justify the huge added
expense.

> You know that whatever the Air Force buys will be flying for 40+ years -
why
> not get the latest, most efficient, and lowest maintenance aircraft?

Exactly. There is talk of a purpose built tanker but that would be hard to
justify the $. However, by leasing a small number of 767s the AF can delay
the KC-X decision and wait for any new technology aircraft to take shape,
such as X wing, blended wing, etc.

Curt

[C Knowles]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:oF7Jb.6477$6l1.101@okepread03...
> Actually, since the fall of Iraq, the number of tankers needed has dropped
> significantly. With the end of operation northern and southern watch,
this
> has freed-up essentially a squadron of aircraft.

Funny, the crews don't seem to see that: another "Deny Christmas" just
passed with folks very busy. Just because we don't have a "big" war going
doesn't mean there are not tankers deployed all over the world flying their
butts off. And when the next big one comes along we will need all those
tankers. Every time a crisis hits requiring either fighters, bombers or
'lifters, the theater commander wants every tanker he can squeeze into the
available airfields.

> Tanker pilots can fly anything heavy, with minimal training. Training
costs
> are insignificant.

WHAT? Training costs are huge. Line pilots, by reg, are not dual qualified.

> Personally, I would go for the 767, as this is a very large aircraft that
can
> carry pallet cargo, and has the fuel tanks for a significant offload. The
767
> is all the USAF needs for both an AWACS and Tanker replacement.

All true, but I am assume that the 7E7 will have the same capability, in
time. But it will be all new. The 767 is still a what, 30 year old design?
Even with modern upgrades the 7E7 should do the job better.

Curt

[Kevin Brooks]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:oF7Jb.6477$6l1.101@okepread03...
> > Actually, since the fall of Iraq, the number of tankers needed has
dropped
> > significantly. With the end of operation northern and southern watch,
> this
> > has freed-up essentially a squadron of aircraft.
>
> Funny, the crews don't seem to see that: another "Deny Christmas" just
> passed with folks very busy. Just because we don't have a "big" war going
> doesn't mean there are not tankers deployed all over the world flying
their
> butts off. And when the next big one comes along we will need all those
> tankers. Every time a crisis hits requiring either fighters, bombers or
> 'lifters, the theater commander wants every tanker he can squeeze into the
> available airfields.
>
> > Tanker pilots can fly anything heavy, with minimal training. Training
> costs
> > are insignificant.
>
> WHAT? Training costs are huge. Line pilots, by reg, are not dual
qualified.
>
> > Personally, I would go for the 767, as this is a very large aircraft
that
> can
> > carry pallet cargo, and has the fuel tanks for a significant offload.
The
> 767
> > is all the USAF needs for both an AWACS and Tanker replacement.
>
> All true, but I am assume that the 7E7 will have the same capability, in
> time. But it will be all new. The 767 is still a what, 30 year old design?
> Even with modern upgrades the 7E7 should do the job better.

Yes, it will have similar capabilities...the operative word being *will*,
with the proviso that the program actually meets fruition. It would not be
available for some years; current first flight plan is 2007, with
certification in 2008. So any tanker mod would not be available until
sometime even later, probably in the 2010 timeframe at the earliest.
Contrast that to the likely delivery of the first 767-based tankers to the
USAF in 2006, a year before the 7E7 even makes its maiden flight.

Brooks

>
> Curt
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
om...
> That's a darn good question. The 767 is available now and has enormous
> political support. But the 7E7 is the same size and has what you'd want in
> an OTS tanker; range & efficiency. The 767 is more of an interim tanker
> until KC-X comes along, which is why leasing is a good idea. If the 7E7
were
> to come on line we could sell/give back the KC-767s. But getting in now
> seems the smart thing to do, as with the KC-135/707. Most avionics would
be
> the same, as with the KC-10.
>
> > Better yet - why not procure some of each? There have been statements
> that
> > there is a risk in having all the tankers be of one design in case that
> > design is grounded for some reason.
>
> Smoke. This is just to justify the 767 buy. This type of a/c is rarely
> grounded and even then it is as a precautionary measure, i.e., the
military
> could still fly them in a crisis. It does not justify the huge added
> expense.
>
> > You know that whatever the Air Force buys will be flying for 40+ years -
> why
> > not get the latest, most efficient, and lowest maintenance aircraft?
>
> Exactly. There is talk of a purpose built tanker but that would be hard to
> justify the $. However, by leasing a small number of 767s the AF can delay
> the KC-X decision and wait for any new technology aircraft to take shape,
> such as X wing, blended wing, etc.

But the currently approved plan is only for the lease of 20 aircraft, with
purchase of the remaining 80. Time is apparently of the essence in this
case, with the current schedule looking at delivery of the last 767 tankers
in the 2014 timeframe--it would be hard to imagine any 7E7 tanker variant
being available for delivery before maybe 2010 at the very earliest, and
likely later, given that it is scheduled for first flight in 07 (a year
after the first 767 mods are accepted under the current plan) and civil
certification in 08. One advantage to the current 767 program is that we can
take advantage of the boom/aircraft integration effort already underway on
behalf of the Italian and Japanese purchases of the 767 tanker
mods--depending on the 7E7 means you'd have to wait for the integration and
associated testwork to be repeated all over again, making 2010 an optimistic
availability date.

Brooks

>
> Curt
>
>

[Larry]

>Gene offered his thoughts "Training costs are insignificant"
EXCUSE ME?

Since I have written the Navy Training Plan (NTP) for the E-6A Hermes (more
commonly known as the Gecko) I am QUITE familiar with training pipelines and
their associated costs.

Don't tell me you'll just "grab some other pilot" and train him to fly a
tanker! That pilot has to come from "off the street" sooner or later and
will require several years of training to become qualified. These costs are
easily calculated by taking the overhead of the school (trainers, sims,
instructors, equip, aircraft, maintenance, etc) and divide by the throughput
(number of students per year). Then add all the pay/bennys for the students-
This cost (per pilot) is over $200,000 on some platforms on up to well over
a million dollars on others.

More to this discussion is the "dual qual" which in that case would likely
add at least several months to a training pipeline (with all the overhead
associated with trainers, sims, instructors, equip, etc) for what purpose?
Then you'll have two "training squadrons", two "model managers", double the
"pilot instructors", and on and on.

What interval will cross-qual be required to keep current? Many of our
pilots cannot keep "current" now due to budget constraints- let alone
maintain a "dual-seat" qual? Why???

More thought needs to be applied here. You don't just "run out and jump into
an airplane"!




Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN Retired
"MTS = Master Training Specialist and that includes coordinating training
pipelines and curriculum development, not just mass podium time"






"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:oF7Jb.6477$6l1.101@okepread03...
> Actually, since the fall of Iraq, the number of tankers needed has dropped
> significantly. With the end of operation northern and southern watch,
this
> has freed-up essentially a squadron of aircraft.
>
> Tanker pilots can fly anything heavy, with minimal training. Training
costs
> are insignificant.
>
> The USAF leasing planes means the lessor has to maintain a bench stock.
> In any scenario described, the lessor will also contract the maintenance
> CONUS and Overseas.
>
> Personally, I would go for the 767, as this is a very large aircraft that
can
> carry pallet cargo, and has the fuel tanks for a significant offload. The
767
> is all the USAF needs for both an AWACS and Tanker replacement. I also
> think it could replace the B-52 in cruise missile launch capability. With
an
> internal load of hundreds of cruise missiles, it can eject them from a
> rotary launcher and track system. Most B-52's that launched cruise
missiles
> never crossed the FEBA (Gulf, and Med).
>
>

[Ian]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:oF7Jb.6477$6l1.101@okepread03...
> Actually, since the fall of Iraq, the number of tankers needed has dropped
> significantly. With the end of operation northern and southern watch,
this
> has freed-up essentially a squadron of aircraft.
>
> Tanker pilots can fly anything heavy, with minimal training. Training
costs
> are insignificant.
>
> The USAF leasing planes means the lessor has to maintain a bench stock.
> In any scenario described, the lessor will also contract the maintenance
> CONUS and Overseas.
>
> Personally, I would go for the 767, as this is a very large aircraft that
can
> carry pallet cargo, and has the fuel tanks for a significant offload. The
767
> is all the USAF needs for both an AWACS and Tanker replacement. I also
> think it could replace the B-52 in cruise missile launch capability. With
an
> internal load of hundreds of cruise missiles, it can eject them from a
> rotary launcher and track system. Most B-52's that launched cruise
missiles
> never crossed the FEBA (Gulf, and Med).


Not sure it would be feasible to do this with a 767/7E7. When the Nimrod
MRA4 was in planning, one idea was to take an Airbus (can't remember which
model) and give it an internal torpedo etc bay. The stress calcs weren't
very nice, and the cost would be even higher than its currently going to be.
Although I suppose if you were to build enough, the cost would become
manageable....

[Felger Carbon]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
om...
> That's a darn good question. The 767 is available now and has
enormous
> political support. But the 7E7 is the same size and has what you'd
want in
> an OTS tanker; range & efficiency. The 767 is more of an interim
tanker
> until KC-X comes along, which is why leasing is a good idea. If the
7E7 were
> to come on line we could sell/give back the KC-767s.

Hmm. Suppose that Boeing wuz gonna lease some 767's with the
possibility that the AF wuz gonna turn them back to Boeing early.
Don't you think this possibility would affect the bid price for the
leasing? Or that, to get a good lease price, a long *guaranteed*
lease period would be required?

Try leasing a car for three years and then try to turn it in after 3
months!

[Tony]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tony > wrote in message
> news:Ps5Jb.48076$PK3.9517@okepread01...
> > I have been wondering why the Air Force doesn't look to buy tanker
> versions
> > of the 7E7, rather than 767s? From what I've read, the discounted
> price of
> > a 7E7 to the airlines will be under $100 million, possibly well under.
> So a
> > 100 of them would cost less than the $10 billion being cited as the
> price
> > for 100 767s. As a launch, and substantial, customer - the Air Force
> might
> > be able to get a goodly discount, as well as some say in design (like
> maybe
> > alternate rack designs to hold Mil Std avionics). And the tanker
> versions
> > should be even cheaper because they wouldn't need airline features
> like a
> > complex galley, multiple lavatories, and entertainment piped to 250
> seats.
> >
>
> Why would the Air Force be charged for galley and other airline type
> gear on a 767 tanker purchase? Aircraft aren't like cars on the
> dealer's showroom floor.
>
My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the 767s would
not be new aircraft, but retired (or undelivered?) airline aircraft.

[Thomas Schoene]

Ian wrote:
> Not sure it would be feasible to do this with a 767/7E7. When the
> Nimrod MRA4 was in planning, one idea was to take an Airbus (can't
> remember which model) and give it an internal torpedo etc bay. The
> stress calcs weren't very nice, and the cost would be even higher
> than its currently going to be. Although I suppose if you were to
> build enough, the cost would become manageable....

Airbus ultimately found a more clever solution (at least arguably). Rather
than cutting a hole in the people tube, they proposed a conformal "canoe"
under the fuselage for weapons and some of the sensors (mainly the FLIR
ball, I think).

Doesn't really work for a cruise missile shooter, but it seems viable for
the MPA role.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Tony]

"Larry" > wrote in message
...
> >Gene offered his thoughts "Training costs are insignificant"
> EXCUSE ME?
>
> Since I have written the Navy Training Plan (NTP) for the E-6A Hermes
(more
> commonly known as the Gecko) I am QUITE familiar with training pipelines
and
> their associated costs.
>
> Don't tell me you'll just "grab some other pilot" and train him to fly a
> tanker! That pilot has to come from "off the street" sooner or later and
> will require several years of training to become qualified. These costs
are
> easily calculated by taking the overhead of the school (trainers, sims,
> instructors, equip, aircraft, maintenance, etc) and divide by the
throughput
> (number of students per year). Then add all the pay/bennys for the
students-
> This cost (per pilot) is over $200,000 on some platforms on up to well
over
> a million dollars on others.
>
> More to this discussion is the "dual qual" which in that case would likely
> add at least several months to a training pipeline (with all the overhead
> associated with trainers, sims, instructors, equip, etc) for what purpose?
> Then you'll have two "training squadrons", two "model managers", double
the
> "pilot instructors", and on and on.
>
> What interval will cross-qual be required to keep current? Many of our
> pilots cannot keep "current" now due to budget constraints- let alone
> maintain a "dual-seat" qual? Why???
>
> Larry
> AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
> Disabled Combat Veteran
> USN Retired
> "MTS = Master Training Specialist and that includes coordinating training
> pipelines and curriculum development, not just mass podium time"
>
This is true of military aircraft - but not of commercial aircraft. Both
Boeing and Airbus go to great lengths to make cross and dual
certification between similar types as easy as possible. It is one
of their selling points. Since the 7E7 is intended to be (amoung
other things) a 767 replacement - I'll bet that Boeing will make
recirtification very easy. Airbus advertises that pilots can cross
certify from one of their types to another in two weeks or so.

Tony

[Gene Storey]

"Larry" > wrote
> >Gene offered his thoughts "Training costs are insignificant"
>
> Don't tell me you'll just "grab some other pilot" and train him to fly a
> tanker!

I'm talking about post indoctrination (UPT or whatever they call it today).

> That pilot has to come from "off the street" sooner or later and
> will require several years of training to become qualified.

I'm talking after that training. I'm talking about a gomer that already knows
what makes an airplane work, and is now ready for a management position
in a computer operated vehicle with consumables onboard.

> This cost (per pilot) is over $200,000 on some platforms on up to well over
> a million dollars on others.

OK, now compare that to the cost of the airframes and maintenance per year.

> More thought needs to be applied here. You don't just "run out and jump into
> an airplane"!

When I flew, we really didn't have a syllabus. The IP signed you off as a copilot
when he thought you were ready, and it may be anywhere from 5 to 10 flights.
Today, those 6 flights I got would be done in a simulator in three sorties, and I
would have gotten more out of it. Picture an E-6A (ours was a 707) with 5 pilots,
5 navigators, and 5 flight engineers all doing a P-sortie. The in and out of the seats
so the next guy can have an hour, was just a ****-poor way to go. Now you and
the IP go to the sim, and your first live flight is really your first eval. This stuff
while more costly than an SUV, or chocolate cake, is cheap in the big scheme
of heavy aviation.

I'm also aware of "padding the syllabus." This is the technique where you try to
justify sorties and training programs that without them would make the job look
less dramatic and important. I remember we had what seemed like 100 hours
on Boeing flight cable systems, and "stump the dummy" IP's would test your
knowledge with "How many feet of wire connect the left aileron with the left
midsection bellcrank?" "Bzzzt, times up! You need another 8 hour P-sortie..."

If there's not anything you can do about it off the ground, then you have two
options: bail out, and go in with the ship. Leave that crap out of the syllabus.

[tscottme]

Tony > wrote in message
news:i_iJb.48563$PK3.47226@okepread01...
> >
> My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the 767s would
> not be new aircraft, but retired (or undelivered?) airline aircraft.
>

I thought the whole point for Boeing in pushing this deal was to keep
the 767 production line in motion?

If indeed the USAF would be using second-hand airline gear, someone else
has already paid for the sardine seating, galleys and lavs.

--

Scott
--------
The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
schools.
Wall Street Journal

[[email protected]]

"Gene Storey" > wrote:
>
>If there's not anything you can do about it off the ground, then you have two
>options: bail out, and go in with the ship. Leave that crap out of the syllabus.
>

Damned right...that stuff's fun to win beers with in the hotel
bar but it's actually counterproductive in flight (fills yer
memory chips up with useless trivia)...although it appears that
the Air Transat guys could have (apparently) used a little more
of those tricks when they just happened to find themselves over
Lajes when they ran outta fuel!...
--

-Gord.

[C Knowles]

These will be new-build aircraft, from cancelled airline orders. Some of the
long-lead materials were already in the mill.
Curt

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tony > wrote in message
> news:i_iJb.48563$PK3.47226@okepread01...
> > >
> > My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the 767s would
> > not be new aircraft, but retired (or undelivered?) airline aircraft.
> >
>
> I thought the whole point for Boeing in pushing this deal was to keep
> the 767 production line in motion?
>
> If indeed the USAF would be using second-hand airline gear, someone else
> has already paid for the sardine seating, galleys and lavs.
>
> --
>
> Scott
> --------
> The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
> extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
> l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
> schools.
> Wall Street Journal
>
>