Newsstand - Boeing May Enter A Modified 777 In Tanker Battle

From The Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2005:

"With a military competition for new aerial refueling tankers on the horizon, it is increasingly likely that the Defense Department and congressional leaders will want Boeing Co.'s entry to be a modified version of its 777 aircraft, rather than the 767 tanker the company has already developed.

A competition to modernize the U.S. military service's aging tanker fleet is expected to begin next year, and Boeing's plane would likely be pitted against an offering from European archrival Airbus. Final decisions on modernizing the military's aging air tanker fleet could stretch into 2007, and it isn't clear where the money to buy dozens of new planes will come from.

But after years of focusing on the cost and attributes of the 767 as a flying gas station for the military, attention inside the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill has shifted to the more expensive but more capable 777. Responding to overall budget pressures as well as advice by outside experts, military leaders are leaning toward tanker aircraft that would be able to ferry cargo, troops or conduct certain types of airborne surveillance."

Balance of article is here, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113374311216913691.html?mod=home_whats_news_us) but may require subscription.

Article also mentions that the 777 poses extra operating complexities on cramped airfields due to its larger size.

If an airfield can take a C-5B Galaxy, a 777-200ER shouldn't be much of a problem. ;)

But a 772F does offer some serious capacity and payload benefits over the 762ER. And with the Air Force looking for a "multi-mission" tanker with onboard sensors (performing some mission profiles currently handled by the RC-135 and E-3 platforms), a 777 offers plenty of space to pack things on.

And, best of all for Boeing, Airbus has nothing in the same size category (the A300F is too small and the A388F is too big).

What can't the 777 do?

Considering that the US has no idea how to pay for the aircraft anyway, the 777 would be waaaaaay too expensive and the 762 is waaaaay too old, so the only logical choice is the A 330...

I highly doubt the A330 is going to fly, excuse the pun, with this Congress and Administration. EADS was smart to put the conversion plant in Alabama, since that is where a number of influential members of the House Armed Services Committee are from, but France and Germany are not exactly in "imperial favor" at the moment and since the basic airframes will be assembled in TLS...

A 777 would allow a nice boost above the KC-10A Extender fleet as well as just pantsing the capacity of the KC-135.

Considering that the US has no idea how to pay for the aircraft anyway, the 777 would be waaaaaay too expensive and the 762 is waaaaay too old, so the only logical choice is the A 330...

Wha . . . ?

The USA will pay for new 762s or 777s the same way it pays for everything else: with American Dollars. Our government takes in more than $2 trillion of them each year (more than most other countries' GDP, right) - there's no shortage of money.

Oh, now I get it - your comment is a slam at deficit financing by the US government. Why not take that to OMNI?

Pack your patronizing patriotism off to OMNI! The US has a budget squeeze, face facts. Defence procurement budgets are being cut to pay for the War in Iraq. Unless you'd prefer tax hikes to pay for things? A 777 is twice the price of a 767 or A330 at list.


Wha . . . ?

The USA will pay for new 762s or 777s the same way it pays for everything else: with American Dollars. Our government takes in more than $2 trillion of them each year (more than most other countries' GDP, right) - there's no shortage of money.

Oh, now I get it - your comment is a slam at deficit financing by the US government. Why not take that to OMNI?

From The Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2005:

"...Responding to overall budget pressures as well as advice by outside experts, military leaders are leaning toward tanker aircraft that would be able to ferry cargo, troops or conduct certain types of airborne surveillance..."
Without wanting to get into the Boeing-versus-Airbus issues, I have problems with this logic. I know all about "outside experts" and what floats their boat, having been one on and off. Most of the military procurement disasters for the past few decades have been the result of trying to build one whatever that will do A, B, C, D and so forth. Conversely, most of the successes have involved building something to do one job and do it well.

While there is some surface similarity in the requirements for the set of tasks outlined in the quoted part of the article, "jack of all trades" designs tend not to work out well. I know someone will be able to say "this one is different because," but that was said about the last few too...

It all depends on what you can reasonably put into the airframe. If the primary function is to ferry payloads and fuel, that cuts into what else it can do. You don't want to put a radome on it to also do AWACS duty or put blisters all over it holding SARs and such and taking up half the cabin with techs and battle management staffs.

But if you can stick a few blisters on it to collect data that just comes to it and a small computer and dish to forward that data on to dedicated analyst staff groundside...

It all depends on what you can reasonably put into the airframe. If the primary function is to ferry payloads and fuel, that cuts into what else it can do. You don't want to put a radome on it to also do AWACS duty or put blisters all over it holding SARs and such and taking up half the cabin with techs and battle management staffs.

But if you can stick a few blisters on it to collect data that just comes to it and a small computer and dish to forward that data on to dedicated analyst staff groundside...
The trouble is the slippery slope. It starts when you agree to "stick a few blisters on it" for one, specific, single purpose. Then someone figures, if you add just one more blister and just another hundred pounds of avionics, you can get this much more data. Then one more (just a tiny little bit bigger, not enough to really matter) blister with a little more stuff, and one more crew member, and you can do this other thing... Been there. Not good.

You really have to hold the line from the get-go, but that's near-impossible to do when you have the political situation (in the broad sense, not just Rep-Dem elected officials) that takes over in any major military procurement. You end up trying to pacify a bunch of competing, if not conflicting, interests and end up with something designed by a committee. And you know what they say about camels...

Well I am sure Boeing would love to sell dedicated airframes, since it would keep the 777 line going for decades... ;)

Considering that the US has no idea how to pay for the aircraft anyway, the 777 would be waaaaaay too expensive and the 762 is waaaaay too old, so the only logical choice is the A 330...

As much as I love the A330, I just don't understand the logic of this statement???? :confused:

If US has no idea how to pay for the aircraft (which is not accurate), then why is A330 the only logical choice versus 777???

If US has no idea how to pay for the aircraft (which is not accurate), then why is A330 the only logical choice versus 777???

An A330 is roughly half the price of a 777, and would be the more traditional, tanker only craft. And they could get some sensor airframes cheap after the Airborne Laser cancellation. There will be a few 747s floating around for modification

Well the new E-10A MC2A uses the 767-400ER airframe, so if a 762ER is too "old", I guess the 764ER isn't. ;)

In fact, the 764ER airframe was chosen because it is more flexible and capable then the 762ER airframe, so the KC-767 might very well use the 764ER frame.