Tankers - 767 or 7E7?

"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)