Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Does anyone know any further updates about this plane? From what I understand, it turned into a very big fiasco. Some people lost their jobs, and some lady ended up in jail. Is it still going to happen? I hope it does, because we don't have many KC-10s, and the 135s are getting old. The AF, and really for that matter the military in general, needs a replacement muy pronto.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

F-16.net Sponsor

Unfortunately because of the political fiasco, short of starting from scratch and restructuring the deal, I think the 767 option will wither on the vine. Some have suggested an outright purchase of low-time MD-11s that commericial carriers have in storage. I could be wrong but rather than spending time and money building an entirely new supply chain and manpower base to support the KC-767, some of the current KC-10 infrastructure could be carried forward to support MD-11 ops. Things like engine maintenance, airframe structures, boom and boom operations, etc., could be adjusted to cover the MD-11 while extra emphasis could be put on airframe differences like the MD-11s glass cockpit and digital avionics.

Retraining of ex -135 drivers and troops will obviously be an issue but I think the current KC-10 curriculum could be modified to cover the MD-11 a lot easier than starting a 767 syllabus from scratch.

Also, in an all-cargo config, the MD-11F has a larger total cargo volume than the KC-767, so it can carry more stuff further unrefueled for about the same fuel burn rate.

The MD-11's "gotcha" is that's it's an out-of-production airframe, whereas the KC-767s will be new-built off the current 767 line, so spares for the Boeing planes should be more readily available and "upgradeability" can be designed in from the gitgo.

So in the world of tankers....as in life....there are always trade-offs. Wink

I'm hoping they use the 767. Additionally, I'm hoping they modify it to carry pallets and other equipment in a more efficient manner. An aircraft that could provide air refueling, carry a units equipment (at least some of it) and carry personnel at one the same time would be a logistics success. Have the Air Force coordinate with Fed X, UPS, DHL, and anybody else of which hauling cargo is their mainstay.

My money is on the 7E7 ( a japanese airline ANA just committed to ordering 50 7E7s ) 767 production is going away.... fast. Boeing isnt going to wait on a deal that is so screwed up now, that it might be years before anything concrete happens.

EADS/Airbus will be in on the deal only if U.S. workshare with Lockheed or Northrop Grumman is confirmed. Funny. As this workshare might even excede boeing on the percentage of U.S. workers employed.

I laugh seeing the politicos whine about the 767 being important because of the U.S. worker. Large portions of Boeing production on a variety of jets is already farmed out to so many non-U.S. firms on foreign soil it would make your eyes spin. If 7E7 gets in on the mix on this deal because of long delays and the death of 767 production, their will be even less U.S. workshare. 7E7 U.S. workshare is only around....... 35% + / - suprise suprise. Tanker specific mods might bring that back down some. But not much. Welcome to the global economy. Laughing

Nah what the air Force needs is a KC-17 !!!!!!

SwedgeII wrote:

Nah what the air Force needs is a KC-17 !!!!!!

Barney, the happy, loveable tanker. Laughing

elp wrote:

My money is on the 7E7 ( a japanese airline ANA just committed to ordering 50 7E7s ) 767 production is going away.... fast. Boeing isnt going to wait on a deal that is so screwed up now, that it might be years before anything concrete happens.

Boeing has stated publicly that the 7E7 is not suitable for a tanker. Don't remember the reasons but they made sense when I read them.

The KC-767 will go on but in a leasing agreement with Boeing.
That I am sure of

Roscoe wrote:

elp wrote:

My money is on the 7E7 ( a japanese airline ANA just committed to ordering 50 7E7s ) 767 production is going away.... fast. Boeing isnt going to wait on a deal that is so screwed up now, that it might be years before anything concrete happens.

Boeing has stated publicly that the 7E7 is not suitable for a tanker. Don't remember the reasons but they made sense when I read them.

Be interesting to find out. The 7E7 is supposed to use gobs more composite in place of aluminum. If thats the case, we are going to be in a pickle looking for an airframe. I have no confidence in this getting sorted out anytime soon. My 2cents.