If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
Pentagon Tanker Study
Supports Both Boeing, Airbus By ANDY PASZTOR Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 26, 2006 11:14 p.m. LOS ANGELES -- The Pentagon's long-awaited analysis of options for new aerial-refueling tankers calls for the Air Force to acquire*and convert "medium to large" commercial jetliners,*potentially larger than Boeing Co.'s 767, and perhaps also buy planes from European rival Airbus, according to a senior Democratic Congressman. Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington,*after being briefed on the report earlier today, put out a release indicating that a number of Boeing and Airbus aircraft*probably "would meet the requirement,"*including the Boeing 747, 777, 787 models, as well as Airbus A330 and A340 models. Rep. Dicks, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and a staunch Boeing supporter*whose district includes many Boeing employees, added that the study stopped short of "definitive conclusions about the timing" of replacing the current aging tanker fleet. Prompted by*years of scandal, protracted controversy and a spate of Congressional and Pentagon investigations involving earlier Air Force tanker decisions, the latest document is expected to open the door for Airbus to compete for any order. It's also likely to provide ammunition for Pentagon brass inclined to pick aircraft larger than Boeing's twin-engine 767 model, though in his statement the Congressman said he believes the 767 likely also would meet Air Force requirements. Arguments over how many new aerial-refueling tankers the Air Force needs, and how quickly they need to be put into service, embroiled Chicago-based Boeing in a long-running dispute with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and particularly Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Sen. McCain led the charge against the Air Force for skirting acquisition procedures years ago in trying to rush through a*$20-billion plus*deal to lease or*buy some 100 Boeing 767 aircraft*for use as*tankers.* The latest study,*which*is based partly on analytical work*by Rand Corp, a Santa Monica, Ca. think tank, concludes that "factors other than economic concerns should drive the acquisition schedule for tanker recapitalization," according to Rep. Dicks. The Congressman said he expects the Pentagon later this year to seek expressions of interest from Boeing and Airbus for the initial phase of a proposed tanker replacement program. But*it could take a long time, perhaps even years,*until the Air Force puts out formal bids. And*current Pentagon budget pressures*are likely to make any large-scale acquisition program*difficult to fund. Rep. Dicks said the Air Force has $100 million in*seed money previously appropriated by Congress to launch any program. Write to Andy Pasztor at |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
LOS ANGELES -- The Pentagon's long-awaited analysis of options for new
aerial-refueling tankers calls for the Air Force to acquire and convert "medium to large" commercial jetliners, potentially larger than Boeing Co.'s 767, and perhaps also buy planes from European rival Airbus, according to a senior Democratic Congressman. I wonder how many hours those finally-to-be-replaced KC-135 airframes have on them? They must have some truly prodigious numbers, given the amount of time spent on-station, from Viet Nam till now... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
In article ,
B A R R Y wrote: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=109 According to thata website, 530 KC-135's and 59 KC-10A's. And they want to replace the whole tanker fleet with 100 aircraft? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980 as
the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all old airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder if Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have all the repair parts under US control, the way the French are, they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P -- The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome. some support http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties. "john smith" wrote in message ... | In article , | B A R R Y wrote: | | http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=109 | | According to thata website, 530 KC-135's and 59 KC-10A's. | And they want to replace the whole tanker fleet with 100 aircraft? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980 as the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all old airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder if Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have all the repair parts under US control, the way the French are, they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares. Agreed. If the Air Force even considers buying a foreign aircraft, we've clearly got the wrong leadership at the top. Although it can't hurt to make Boeing THINK we might buy Airbus, just to keep the price honest... ;-) As I recall, when the earlier proposals were made for tanker replacement, Airbus and their US partners had more US content than Boeing did. It's almost like the "Japanese" cars now mostly made in US assembly plants. It's not as cut and dried as you make it seem. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
The proper action would have been to charge and try the
officers in the USAF and at Boeing who rigged the contract. But the tanker lease deal wasn't a bad deal except for the price fixing. The price could have been fixed without canceling the whole contract. A few years ago a tornado hit Wichita and other local cities. The path of the storm was across the south part of McConnell AFB. Had it gone a mile further north, it would have destroyed half of all the B1 bombers, which were parked in the open. Base closings and consolidation may save money, but they also mean that a flood or tornado can destroy a major part of our equipment. In the days of big fleets of thousands of fighters and bombers and large numbers of support aircraft, the loss of a dozen airplanes was not as serious a problem as it is today. If you only have 100 airplanes of a type and 10 are destroyed by a single storm [or terrorist attack] and the production line has closed, they can't be replaced. I'm all in favor of saving taxpayer money, but first the defense must have depth. We should never have all of our planes, ships, troops at one consolidated base even if it is more efficient, a civilian peace-time idea from an accountant. The generals and privates might voice support but just because their choice is consolidate or nothing. Current military use of tankers is not just to increase range, but to increase payload and availability. Fighters and bombers take-off with reduced fuel and increased weapons or cargo loads, and refuel soon after take-off. This increases payload and reduces wear and tear on those airplanes. But we need enough tankers to do the job. I don't think that the KC 135R will be replaced totally, because even though a new tanker might carry more fuel, there is a limit as to how many airplanes can be refuel at one time from one tanker. But the new, big tankers can carry more off-load fuel because the new engines burn less. That was also a factor with the KC 135R, new engines burned less fuel. Jim -- The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome. some support http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties. "Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... | The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980 as | the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all old | airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder if | Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have all | the repair parts under US control, the way the French are, | they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares. | | Agreed. If the Air Force even considers buying a foreign aircraft, | we've clearly got the wrong leadership at the top. | | Although it can't hurt to make Boeing THINK we might buy Airbus, just | to keep the price honest... ;-) | -- | Jay Honeck | Iowa City, IA | Pathfinder N56993 | www.AlexisParkInn.com | "Your Aviation Destination" | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
It all depends on what is meant by "US content?" If the
small parts are all US manufacture and the major airframe parts are all French, you can't fix the airplane after battle damage without the sheet metal parts. "James Robinson" wrote in message . 97.142... | "Jay Honeck" wrote: | | The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980 as | the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all old | airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder if | Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have all | the repair parts under US control, the way the French are, | they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares. | | Agreed. If the Air Force even considers buying a foreign aircraft, | we've clearly got the wrong leadership at the top. | | Although it can't hurt to make Boeing THINK we might buy Airbus, just | to keep the price honest... ;-) | | As I recall, when the earlier proposals were made for tanker replacement, | Airbus and their US partners had more US content than Boeing did. It's | almost like the "Japanese" cars now mostly made in US assembly plants. It's | not as cut and dried as you make it seem. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
"Jim Macklin" wrote:
"James Robinson" wrote: | As I recall, when the earlier proposals were made for tanker | replacement, Airbus and their US partners had more US content than | Boeing did. It's almost like the "Japanese" cars now mostly made in | US assembly plants. It's not as cut and dried as you make it seem. It all depends on what is meant by "US content?" If the small parts are all US manufacture and the major airframe parts are all French, you can't fix the airplane after battle damage without the sheet metal parts. That's true. On a 767, Boeing makes the flight deck, the forward fuselage, the wings, the tail, and the engine nacelles. Pretty well everything else is subcontracted to other companies in the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, and Brazil. I guess it comes to a point where you have to rely on allies, if you expect them to buy any US equipment. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message news On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:34:07 -0500, "Jim Macklin" wrote in pJr0g.3387$8q.1415@dukeread08:: Below is a bit of chronology on the subject: I would say that was a bit more than "a bit". Did you really think that anyone would read it? Vaughn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Tanker pt2
("Vaughn Simon" wrote)
Below is a bit of chronology on the subject: I would say that was a bit more than "a bit". Did you really think that anyone would read it? I read a chunk of it. Some stuff I skip, some stuff I skim, some stuff I read, some stuff I'm into the links for hours... You never know who will enjoy what? Montblack We had a 4-ft crawl space under our house when I was growing up. Dad built a couple long sturdy shelves under there. There was a trouble-light hanging by the screened off entrance. Every magazine that came into the house, from 1960-1973, went on those shelves - and we had a lot of magazines (subscriptions) coming to the house back then. That was our Internet growing up. That and an encyclopedia set, and a globe ...and our National Geographic maps. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tanker Competition On | john smith | Piloting | 0 | April 16th 06 03:06 AM |
F-14 used as a tanker? | Mike Weeks | Naval Aviation | 11 | July 8th 04 03:02 PM |
Nice Fake: Tanker refueling a tanker refueling a tanker :) | Jan Gelbrich | Military Aviation | 2 | April 23rd 04 09:12 PM |
Boeing B-767 Tanker case "Virtual Kryptonite" | BJ | Military Aviation | 1 | December 20th 03 05:15 AM |
EADS aims at USAF tanker market | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | September 20th 03 05:54 PM |