Tankers - 767 or 7E7?

"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.

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....

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 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

"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.

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

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

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" 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

"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!