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....

"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!

"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.

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)

"Larry" wrote in message
...
Gene offered his thoughts "Training costs are insignificant"
EXCUSE ME?

Since I have written the Navy Training Plan (NTP) for the E-6A Hermes
(more
commonly known as the Gecko) I am QUITE familiar with training pipelines
and
their associated costs.

Don't tell me you'll just "grab some other pilot" and train him to fly a
tanker! That pilot has to come from "off the street" sooner or later and
will require several years of training to become qualified. These costs
are
easily calculated by taking the overhead of the school (trainers, sims,
instructors, equip, aircraft, maintenance, etc) and divide by the
throughput
(number of students per year). Then add all the pay/bennys for the
students-
This cost (per pilot) is over $200,000 on some platforms on up to well
over
a million dollars on others.

More to this discussion is the "dual qual" which in that case would likely
add at least several months to a training pipeline (with all the overhead
associated with trainers, sims, instructors, equip, etc) for what purpose?
Then you'll have two "training squadrons", two "model managers", double
the
"pilot instructors", and on and on.

What interval will cross-qual be required to keep current? Many of our
pilots cannot keep "current" now due to budget constraints- let alone
maintain a "dual-seat" qual? Why???

Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN Retired
"MTS = Master Training Specialist and that includes coordinating training
pipelines and curriculum development, not just mass podium time"

This is true of military aircraft - but not of commercial aircraft. Both
Boeing and Airbus go to great lengths to make cross and dual
certification between similar types as easy as possible. It is one
of their selling points. Since the 7E7 is intended to be (amoung
other things) a 767 replacement - I'll bet that Boeing will make
recirtification very easy. Airbus advertises that pilots can cross
certify from one of their types to another in two weeks or so.

Tony

"Larry" wrote
Gene offered his thoughts "Training costs are insignificant"

Don't tell me you'll just "grab some other pilot" and train him to fly a
tanker!

I'm talking about post indoctrination (UPT or whatever they call it today).

That pilot has to come from "off the street" sooner or later and
will require several years of training to become qualified.

I'm talking after that training. I'm talking about a gomer that already knows
what makes an airplane work, and is now ready for a management position
in a computer operated vehicle with consumables onboard.

This cost (per pilot) is over $200,000 on some platforms on up to well over
a million dollars on others.

OK, now compare that to the cost of the airframes and maintenance per year.

More thought needs to be applied here. You don't just "run out and jump into
an airplane"!

When I flew, we really didn't have a syllabus. The IP signed you off as a copilot
when he thought you were ready, and it may be anywhere from 5 to 10 flights.
Today, those 6 flights I got would be done in a simulator in three sorties, and I
would have gotten more out of it. Picture an E-6A (ours was a 707) with 5 pilots,
5 navigators, and 5 flight engineers all doing a P-sortie. The in and out of the seats
so the next guy can have an hour, was just a ****-poor way to go. Now you and
the IP go to the sim, and your first live flight is really your first eval. This stuff
while more costly than an SUV, or chocolate cake, is cheap in the big scheme
of heavy aviation.

I'm also aware of "padding the syllabus." This is the technique where you try to
justify sorties and training programs that without them would make the job look
less dramatic and important. I remember we had what seemed like 100 hours
on Boeing flight cable systems, and "stump the dummy" IP's would test your
knowledge with "How many feet of wire connect the left aileron with the left
midsection bellcrank?" "Bzzzt, times up! You need another 8 hour P-sortie..."

If there's not anything you can do about it off the ground, then you have two
options: bail out, and go in with the ship. Leave that crap out of the syllabus.

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

"Gene Storey" wrote:

If there's not anything you can do about it off the ground, then you have two
options: bail out, and go in with the ship. Leave that crap out of the syllabus.


Damned right...that stuff's fun to win beers with in the hotel
bar but it's actually counterproductive in flight (fills yer
memory chips up with useless trivia)...although it appears that
the Air Transat guys could have (apparently) used a little more
of those tricks when they just happened to find themselves over
Lajes when they ran outta fuel!...
--

-Gord.

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