"Leadfoot" wrote in message news:cyr_a.10338$2g.6846@fed1read05...
I'm happy that USAF is replacing KC-135's with 767 just concerned about the
leasing arrangement.

Why not just buy them outright?

Cost and available funds. which other USAF (or DOD, for that matter)
program are you going to cancel that has the funds programmed in the
amount required for such a purchase?

The USAF is not the only service looking at or committed to a lease
option on tankers. The RAF is going that direction. The Israelis are
looking at it now. And IIRC the RAAF has floated the idea as well.
Heck, either the RAF or RAAF (can't recall which) is already doing a
lease deal on King Airs for nav training and light transport.

Have you ever bought a new car with a bank or financing company loan?
If so, you did so because the purchase price was too steep for you to
handle, and for all intents and purposes you "leased" your car from
them until it was fully paid off (not a bad analogy, as the likely
outcome of the tanker lease will be a final purchase payment and
outright ownership by the USAF).

Brooks




"Longtailedlizard" wrote in message
...
And if your beef is with the 767 itself...Italy has already
purchased the first tanker mods, Japan the AWACS mod (and a possible
tanker buy in the future?)....so it sounds like a fairly decent
airframe for the mission (especially as the E-10 is also going to be a
767-based design).

Brooks




Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings, and
is
"the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.
Our first 767's are at 20 or approaching 20 years of service. The
200ER's
been on the north atlantic run since 85.
UPS has been flying the **** out of the 767 freighters since 95.
I've been a 767 heavy check mechanic since 92, I pushed over 200 767's
through, heavy "C" check, and last year was the first time we had ever
pulled
off a engine pylon. (Boeing calls them engine struts)
She'll never be as sleek looking as her smaller sister the 757, or as
glamourous as her big sister the 777, but as we say, "when they park the
75's
and 77's in the desert, the crews will non-rev back on the 76's".
Its a well used and abused airplane, and will make the airlines money
for
years to come.Its big enough to haul money making cargo in its belly, and
pax
on top, on long trips, yet small enough not to need all the "attention"
that a
4 engined 747, or the temparametal 777 with its 12ft dia. fan engines.
The Air Force will just be replacing one workhorse with another.


J