New tanker contract

[6'0 AGL]

Does anyone have any info on why the Air Farce cancelled the 767 tanker contract?

 

[psysicx]

There was a big scandal with boeing and the people in charge.

 

[chawbein]

There was some buffoonery from the lady that was in charge of the deal. Landed her in Leavenworth. It was the perfect excuse to divert the tanker money into free health care for gay married illegal immigrants. I kid.

Nevertheless, there will be a new competition between Boeing and Airbus and whoever else. The new tankers will be bought instead of leased. There just isn't any hurry to git 'er done.

 

[Guitar Guy]

The civilian woman overseeing the leasing contract for the Air Force ended up leaving her position just after the tanker contract was announced. She then turned up in senior management for Boeing. The scandal ended up costing Boeing the contract and Phil Condit his position as CEO of Boeing.

 

[mzaharis]

And the civilian her freedom - spending some time in prison.

Funny thing was, I remembered when Aviation Week did an article on her and how she was toughening up Pentagon procurement (Darleen Druyan).

 

[potrack]

I heard the tanker contract ran into some legal concerns because it appeared that there wasn't any competition for it. The gov handed the contract to Boeing.

Personally, I think a 2 engine tanker would run into ETOPS isues, but I guess a 777 or A330 tanker would be nice.

Best option would be to get some more DC-10s and convert them. The KC-10 has worked out pretty good and has 3 engines and great range.

 

[chawbein]

I heard the tanker contract ran into some legal concerns because it appeared that there wasn't any competition for it. The gov handed the contract to Boeing.

Personally, I think a 2 engine tanker would run into ETOPS isues, but I guess a 777 or A330 tanker would be nice.

Best option would be to get some more DC-10s and convert them. The KC-10 has worked out pretty good and has 3 engines and great range.

Yeah, there wasn't any competition because the chick running it gave it to Boeing, then ended up in Boeing upper management not long after. She had accepted a job with Boeing before the tanker deal went through. Another big problem Congress had with it was the lease. It was going to be more expensive to lease-then-buy than to update all the remaining 135E's or to buy the tankers outright. The "benefit" of the lease was the tankers would enter service much faster than if they were purchased (go around the beaurocracy).

The 767 should make a decent tanker, and the competition from Airbus will hopefully make Boeing put some more gadgetry i.e. boom, hose-and-drogue wing pods, etc... into the tankers.

After the Presidential Helo competition went to "Lockheed" (i.e. Brittish-Italian consortium), Boeing ought be scared sh!tless.

P.S. It's probably been posted, but here's some background info on both the Boeing and the euroweenie.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/tanker/flash.html

http://www.usatanker.com/index.jsp

 

[potrack]

Correct me if I'm wrong.......

It seems like the AF isn't gaining anymore capability getting the 767 over the KC-135.

The 767 was a -200 model with the -300 wing and empannage and the -400 cockpit. The 767-200 and -300 are from about 320k to 410k or so. Isn't this the weight range of the KC-135??

Also, what would it's cargo capability be? More than a KC or DC-10...I don't think so. Would there be certification issues with ETOPS?? How do you drag fighters where ever you want to if you are constrained by ETOPS regs? They will probably get a waiver for all of that.

Why doesn't the AF just admit it.....they wish they would have bought another 50 KC-10s when they had the chance. Why doesn't the AF admit that the civilian world does some things better.....look at FED EX and their MD-10F? Buy some DC-10s cheap and convert them.

The 767 would be great but for no apparent increase in capability---it only gives the KC-135 guys something to dream about

 

[potrack]

Patmack18,

You are correct....ETOPS isn't in the mil vocabulary. I used to see Navy DC-9s at HNL---flying there from the states.

Yes the 767 tanker would be nice---but why not bring it up a notch and get the 777 tanker? More cargo and lift capability. As the C-141 starts to go away, the tanker fleet will be required to shoulder more cargo. What does a -135 carry, maybe 8-10 pallets? Any oversize cargo (Acft engines, humvees, etc)?

Why buy a newer version of something that does the same thing? (767 vs 135)

 

[bocefus]

What you will most likely see is service life extension program for the current - 135 tanker fleet and the next new tanker will be a 787 variant. Write it down