Boeing KC-767 update

[Chunk]

The designation's not going actually be KC-767 is it?

 

[klhoard]

I guess we can always hope the Army will still get a shot at taking over the A-10 and AC-130 gunship program.

Having flown in the Army for 5 years, this would definately NOT be a good thing. . . .

The U.S. Army is all about infantry, tanks, and artillery. Anything with wings or rotors is used to extract money out of Congress to divert to the ground forces . . . .

 

[LJDRVR]

This reminds me of the Gulfstream debacle several years ago when the Air Staff, AMC and 89th got a new type of A/C shoved down their throats without anyone having asked for it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the 767 procurement in question is not in response to any specific DOD published request, study, requirement or RFP. In other words pure, unadulterated pork.

While I'm sure the 767 would make an excellent tanker, our elected officials and military leaders have a duty to perform some sort of moral due diligence here.

If the issue here is the E-model tankers, then let's take a look at the 7Q7 conversion. Four brand new JT8D-219's with TR's, total cost per airframe of 25 million. (This solves all the TF33 issues with not only the -E's, but the AWACS, RC's and EC's also.) Compare the costs of modification with this lease. 25 million per airframe plus spares, vs. 23 million a MONTH for a LEASE!

I got to watch the maiden flight of Omega's re-engined demonstrator in San Antonio. No smoke and the jet lept off the runway at a climb angle reminicent of the R model. This on a 707-330C airframe, which weighs a bit more than the KC-135.

Oh well, our tax dollars at work. Let us not forget that it was an aide who toned down Eishowers remarks, which the old man originally penned as "the military, industrial, CONGRESSIONAL complex." (emphasis added)

Here's a blasphemous question: Do we have any real leaders in the air staff who are willling to speak out publicly against such pork? Surely some four star has the integrity to sacrifice the last year or two of his career in order to do the right thing. Just a rhetorical question, I understand all too well how things at the pentagon work.

 

[Spur]

Compare the costs of modification with this lease. 25 million per airframe plus spares, vs. 23 million a MONTH for a LEASE!

Well, I'm not a math major, but:

$138 million/aircraft for 6 yr lease +
$40 million/aircraft to buy at end of lease
= $178 million

$178 million / 6 years => about $30 million per YEAR.

 

[Mud Eagle]

If the issue here is the E-model tankers, then let's take a look at the 7Q7 conversion.

Isn't part of the selling point also the amount of gas the airplanes can pass?

 

[LJDRVR]

UHHH...lazy pilot math

Yeah Spur, I messed that up. I didn't factor in the purchase cost and should have typed 23 million a YEAR. I'm even less of a math major than you dude.

Mud Eagle, I honestly don't know. According to a previous post by a tanker pilot, the 135 has more lift/range than the 767 as proposed. He also said they are rarely flown that way. According to the civilian press, the Air Force didn't ask for this airframe at all. My point here is I think we should avoid corporate welfare for Boeing unless two conditions are satisfied:

-That AMC has a valid need for the 767, with procurement initiated through proper channels instead of at the beheast of Illinois and Washington Congressmen.

-The current tanker MWS is updated to its most complete potential/longest life. (Pacer CRAG, 7Q7, FSAS, CFM's, etc..)

 

[ShawnC]

The designation's not going actually be KC-767 is it?

Found this Chunk:
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_KC767

In September 2002, KC-767A was officially approved as the designation for the projected Boeing 767 tanker conversions to be leased by the U.S. Air Force. Instead of using the next number in the C-series and designating the aircraft as KC-42A, the manufacturer's design number was used.

The MDS request from the CDARA (Commercial Derivative Air Refuelling Aircraft) program office to the USAF Nomenclature Office, dated 6 August 2002, says:

The CDARA Team requests approval for the model designation of KC-767A for the subject aircraft. We understand the next available MDS designator for this type of aircraft is KC-42A. However, Air Mobility Command, the using command, has requested an out of sequence designator of KC-767A for this aircraft.
[...]

As usual (nowadays), the Nomenclature Office stated their objection when forwarding the request to HQ USAF, and included the paragraph:

According to AFJI 16-401, KC-767A is a nonstandard designator. This aircraft should be assigned the MDS of KC-42A.

Also as usual, HQ USAF ignored the objection, and confirmed the KC-767A designation on 18 September 2002 with the words:

As approving authority for Mission Design Series (MDS) designators, we approve MDS designator KC-767A [...]

I also found something about a KC-747, but that's unrelated.

 

[Slug]

KC-10

KC-10 didn't follow the order either. Gucci boys got to keep their -10 type.