"C Knowles" wrote in message
om...

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
newsF7Jb.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