U.S. Airforce Tanker

[bits44]

Looks like Boeing may offer a 767-400 ( same size as the A330)

or the 777-200 (Larger and more capacity)


http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... source=rss

[ElcoB]

Ah yes, big question now is if Boeing can deliver this in the required time-frame?

Boeing is already in troubles with their tanker-delivery to Japan and Italy.

Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Italy will penalize Boeing Co. for being three years late in delivering the first of four aerial refueling tankers. ...

[earthman]

If extra points will be given for more fuel offload capacity, what's to stop Boeing from offering a 747 tanker, and NG/EADS offering an A380 tanker?

I'm starting to think that perhaps the USAF should have started a tender for a new tanker built completely from scratch, instead of being based on an existing airframe?

[smokejumper]

If extra points will be given for more fuel offload capacity, what's to stop Boeing from offering a 747 tanker, and NG/EADS offering an A380 tanker?

I'm starting to think that perhaps the USAF should have started a tender for a new tanker built completely from scratch, instead of being based on an existing airframe?

The RFP requires that the new tanker be able to refule all US aricraft . I understand that the NGA KC-45 (A-330) is certified to refuel all but one (OV-22 Osprey) while the KC-767 has demonstrated that it can meet the requirement. The Air Force chose to overlook this in awarding the contract to NGA (probably expecting it to be qulaified during flight certification in US service).

The B747 has been used as a tanker by the Iranian Air Force and has demonstrated (1980's) that it can refuel a number of planes (most of which have been retired , including the SR-71).

While they have prodigious capacitries (fuel, cargo and passengers), they far exceed the need and will cost a lot more in terms of initial purchase, fule burn and maintenance.

[achace]

I am a simple soul!

Can someone kindly explain how Boeing can demonstrate its ability to refuel the Osprey with a plane not yet designed?

Cheers

[bits44]

This lengthy article in Air force magazine sheds some insight into this whole process, and adds more questions to the mix.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... anker.aspx

[achace]

This lengthy article in Air force magazine sheds some insight into this whole process, and adds more questions to the mix.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... anker.aspx

Thats worth a Fosters Bits.
Cheers

[earthman]

I am a simple soul!

Can someone kindly explain how Boeing can demonstrate its ability to refuel the Osprey with a plane not yet designed?

Cheers

Perhaps the A330 can't fly slow enough to refuel it? But that would also mean that the 767 can in theory refuel the V-22, but whether it actually will work will be another matter altogether.

[jan_olieslagers]

My apologies is this is a silly question: How come there's only two competitors?
Of course it is sad there's only one maker of big planes left in the US of A, but I don't mean that.
What surprises me is that no one is proposing a tanker based on another transporter plane, neither US'an or Airbus. Which of course leaves only Russian airframes. But why not? A tanker based on the Il-76? OK, more modern engines would be required and it is altogether an old design, but then again it is proven over and again, and certainly is as sturdy as any. And then there's more recent designs in Russia/Ukraine, too.

Perhaps it is bizarre enough on the USAF to have to consider non-US'an suppliers, but having to use Soviet equipment is still a bridge too far as yet?

[Taxi]

I was wondering what limits the KC767 fuel offload? Wouldn't it be possible to use the 767-200ER yet with the larger wings of the 767-400ER? So you would get the lower weight and better rotation of the 200ER, yet with the higher lifting capability of the 400ER wings? Although still limited cargo volume wise, wouldn't this both improve fuel off-load and transport load capability as well as take off performance? Optionally you could slap GEnx engine on there, but that would be even more expensive. This is a genuine question from someone who doesn't know much about this, so don't shoot my head off.

[bits44]

This information page from Boeing should shed some light on your questions, also try Wikipedia for further comparisons, as well the wing replacement would require a complete resesign of the wing box, landing gear, and various other sundry items, very expensive!

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 01txt.html

[Taxi]

This information page from Boeing should shed some light on your questions, also try Wikipedia for further comparisons, as well the wing replacement would require a complete resesign of the wing box, landing gear, and various other sundry items, very expensive!

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 01txt.html

If you say redesign of the wing box do you mean strengthening? Cause that is already done for the 400ER so that would be sunken cost. Also there are two versions of the landing gear already, so why would that be so expensive?

I rather have the suspicion that this could be a very good tanker/cargo hauler, but in today's market it would be close to worthless as a commercial plane (the 787 does the long range role much more economical) so perhaps that's why Boeing initially made no effort for it. But now with a good chance of loosing the bid they perhaps want to go the extra mile and just forget about the commercial plane thing and focus on making the best plane for the RFP even if it costs a bit more?

[bits44]

You're right all that has been done, but for two different versions of the aircraft. There's a lot more to using different components than just swapping pieces in and out. As an example the 747-I is just a lengthened version of the 400 but still required flight testing, recertification by the FAA, and a lot of money.

[Taxi]

You're right all that has been done, but for two different versions of the aircraft. There's a lot more to using different components than just swapping pieces in and out. As an example the 747-I is just a lengthened version of the 400 but still required flight testing, recertification by the FAA, and a lot of money.

yes I agree, but I don't think their current proposal will win and a 777 is too large, so perhaps they don't have much choice if they still want a chance to win the bid.

[bits44]

The one constant in this whole process is change, by the time this all settles out and someone finally wins the bid without further protests, hell will have frozen over and pigs will be flying for Lufthansa


That being said, hopefully for the sake of the Aircrews and Pilots of the Air force this gets settled quickly, but not holding out much hope that will happen.

[smokejumper]

Boeing appears to be seeking more time for larger tanker bid (767-400 or 777-200?). See:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... er=germany

[smokejumper]

Here is a column from a "conservative" writer (you can guess his favorite bidder), but he offers some opinions on the tanker procurement. See:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28129

[smokejumper]

Leeham and Company has prepared a comparison of the possible tanker contenders. See: http://www.leeham.net/default.asp?Page=26 and click on "Comparing 7767AT, 767-400, 777-200LRF and KC-30: All options on table at Boeing, including protest"

[bits44]

After reading through the immense volumes of material regarding this very contentious issue including RFP's and GAO reports and postings from both experts and non-experts I've come to the conclusion that the the sole responsible party for all this boondoggle is the United States Air Force, as the GAO concluded the whole process conducted by the Air Force was deeply flawed and rift with error.

Despite all the rhetoric from NG blaming Boeing for the delay, it is by any measure not Boeing's doing but rather the fault of the USAF. Had they done their duty with due diligence none of this would have occurred.

The GAO has directed the Dept. of Defense to rebid this contract, the Air Force has redefined their requirements to reflect what they really wanted in the first place, so Boeing has demanded sufficient time to rebid the contract based on the true requirements stated by the Air Force, it is only fair that the DOD and the Air Force grant the time to allow Boeing to fairly and justly submit a new bid based on those requirements.

In the event that the Air Force denies their request then Boeing has indicated they may withdraw from the bid process.

Some will say it's just sour grapes from Boeing, but in reality its a reflection on the Air Force and their inability to conduct a clear unbiased thoroughly thought out bid process.

The unknown factor is what will happen if Boeing does withdraw, will the contract be automatically awarded to NG/EADS. or will it go to a congressional committee, or can it be legally awarded with only one bidder?

It would be in the best interests of the USAF and its men and women in their countries service to allow the extension to Boeing and a complete review of the procurement department and its processes is carried out.

And if anyone thinks that EADS/NG is just testing the water to see if they can get in the door watch this:


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ob-ad.html

[achace]

Aviation if nothing else is an industry of ever changing technology and transition.

Between the time when Boeing thought they had it sewn up six years ago, they have suddenly discovered that the other kid on the block has a better product.

Frankly, politics aside, Boeing should save themselves time and money and back away.

If they bid a very technically dubious 767-400, NG/EADS will come in with a 332F based offer with an option to fit GEnx after say four years. Frankly it will be a killer, and no version of the 767 or 777 will be able to hold a candle to it.

They should spend their time on the 787, which will make a lot more money, even with its Japanese wings.