One of the interesting questions to emerge from reporters covering the Farnborough Air Show in mid July was some confusion over whether Boeing has actually built and delivered a modern air tanker. That’s right. There were many questions from the media at several briefings that suggested all we had was a paper airplane.
Well, let’s set the record straight. We have delivered two KC-767s to Japan earlier this year. The two planes, currently in final operational training and evaluation with the Japanese government, represent the world’s most advanced aerial-refueling aircraft. They are the most recent addition to our unique tanker legacy, which includes delivering nearly 2,000 operational tanker aircraft.
And the KC-767 that we’ll build for the U.S. Air Force will be even more advanced than the ones delivered to Japan and slated for delivery soon to Italy. We’ll be upgrading the advanced technologies - most notably offering a new, more advanced refueling boom.
But let’s remember that the new boom for the U.S. Air Force will represent the sixth generation of boom technology. We just want to remind folks that even though the Air Force will receive an upgraded boom designed specifically for their requirements, it will be derived directly from the five generations of tanker booms that have been already designed, built, tested and delivered to air forces around the world. Our friends at Northrop and Airbus have yet to deploy or operate a single boom from an A330 aircraft - let alone compile the kind of track record we have since the Eisenhower era. We know booms. We know risks. The design upgrades we are offering the Air Force are low risk.
If we’re anything, we are about reducing risk. When it comes to tankers, we do it better simply because we’ve built so many. A less risky solution is central to what we are offering our customer. Take the production system, for example. We offer an already proven, ready-made production line that is capable of delivering hundreds of new advanced Tankers. Talk about low risk!
Other features that simplify operations, thereby reducing risks: our tanker’s smaller footprint allows more tankers in fewer bases, and puts more booms in the sky allowing fighter jets to meet demanding targeting requirements. Our tanker sips fuel rather than guzzles it, which helps to cushion spikes in fuel costs.
In fact, the KC-767 burns an estimated 24% less fuel than its competitor. Such efficiency saves about $30 billion in fuel costs over the life span of a 179 aircraft. Throw in the combination of maintenance, manpower and military construction costs and the savings climbs to nearly $50 billion in life-cycle savings compared to our competitors. Savings like those alleviate enormous financial risk. As we say: we’re ready today to fuel the fight anytime, anywhere. Can our competitors say the same thing?
Atom
Comments (21)
If USAF still wants a bigger Airplane in order to haul more cargo and does not care about Parking spaces, facilities or footprint (ACN No) for the next RFP, Boeing should offer 747 Tanker.
There is an analysis; done by Australien for comparison A330, B767 and B747.
See: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf
Tom
Posted on July 27, 2008 00:25
By the time either one of the two companies actually gets around to designing, testing, and delivering a product it won't matter. Stop wasting taxpayer money. You both know you will be overbudget and deliver the product late so you can keep extracting money from the govt.
Posted on August 1, 2008 04:42
Uh, both tankers are largely designed and tested already. And most of that was paid by their respective manufacturers, not the taxpayers.
Posted on August 4, 2008 13:05
Sorry AJ, but if the Air Force would have just kept the contract with Boeing they would have gotten the best product for the money with NO DELAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but the Air Force has made a major mistake on this one.
But I'm guessing AJ, you will not have a problem with your tax dollars going to another country to build our military planes.
Posted on August 6, 2008 00:21
I'm wondering if Boeing can submit two separate proposals--one for the 767, and one for a 777 tanker. Yeah, I know, proposals cost money. But it's a risk to be considered to hedge your bet on winning. Besides, the 777 is closer in size to the A330 and would offer a more direct comparison of capabilities. Plus, it's probably a much better aircraft. The 767/A330 comparison is apples and oranges.
Posted on August 6, 2008 13:32
As a former KC-135 schoolhouse instructor pilot who has employed the tanker in every role, I am delighted that our nation has come to its senses before buying the French aircraft. However, I am dismayed that we are going to waste billions of dollars developing the next generation of manned tankers when we should be converting our existing -135 fleet to unmanned, aerial refueling platforms to support both manned and unmanned receivers. The massive weight savings and reduced reliability and safety requirements resulting from the removal of aircrew would result in a significant gains in operational capability at reduced cost. Let's be honest, we don't need taker crews when we can program an FMS to "take off and turn left."
Posted on August 7, 2008 19:10
Boeing needs to get out with the message that bigger is not always better. Start touting the KC-33A/747-400SF as the biggest tanker that carries more fuel than the A330, carries more payload than the A330, and carries more passengers than the A330.
If bonus points are awarded for being bigger, the KC-33A/747-400SF is ready.
Put the fear that their point system will deliver the wrong tanker at the wrong time.
Posted on August 11, 2008 20:29
Me too I also don't understand why Boeing can't just offer a 2 engine version of a 747! I mean if you look today’s engines are huge and it seems Boeing could just re-engine and older aircraft and prove it works with 2 engines. If GE figured out how to install GE90 then Boeing should be able to figure it too.
Posted on August 12, 2008 11:06
They did a 747 tanker back in 1975 for IRAN
Posted on August 12, 2008 11:11
If 179 NG/Eads tankers cost X billion dollars to acquire and operate over 40 years, how many Boeing tankers for that X billion? Maybe 219 or 229.
While 179 NG/Eads planes may get slightly more fuel
airborne, maybe 10%, the 219 Boeing planes would offer more boom and hose spots, maybe 20%.
Take your pick.
Posted on August 13, 2008 09:51
Is it just me or does it seem unpatriotic that the US Air Force would even consider buying a non-American built jet? With the fragile US economy, jobs should be a major concern for our government - keeping Americans at work here in the States.
I try not to use JetBlue due to the fact that they only buy Airbus planes. You think those making the decision to buy from someone other than Boeing would have the same feelings.
Posted on August 13, 2008 11:34
Bill, GE uses a 747 as a test bed for new engines. Notice how only one engine is the test engine, the others are standard. The total thrust (230,000 lbs) of 2 GE90-115Bs is sufficient for a 777-300ER, how could it be enough to replace the 4 engines of a 747-400 (253,200 lbs) or a 747-8 (266,000 lbs)? You have to be able to take off with one engine, so 115,000 lbs, as impressive as it is, probably won't cut it (not with the same capacities and performance as the standard, at least).
Posted on August 13, 2008 13:43
The Mobile, Al city leaders are up in arms over the contract rebid. Northrop is running ads daily encouraging the citizenry to contact their congressmen. They're also trying to give the impression that Northrop knows what they're doing and that Boeing doesn't by saying the KC-45 is built, the boom is built and tested. They don't mention Boeing's history as a tanker builder. One councilman down here encouraged Boeing, on TV, to drop out of the bidding process because "....our Armed Forces need the KC-45 now!"
It is all quiet amusing. I hope cooler minds prevail.
Posted on August 15, 2008 07:56
The Air Force did not choose the A330 for being bigger; they chose the A330 because it is undeniably more versatile (in part because of its larger capacity) and a generation in Aircraft design ahead of the 767. There is a reason why the 767 production line is on a life support schedule while the A330 is the hotest airplane in its segment at the moment.
Notwithstanding that the first Airbus airplane is standing by for conversion while the Boeing proposal is still on a drawing board - citing the Japanese 767 tankers as a reference is nothing short of hubris; we are speaking of an entirely new aircraft version Boeing is intending to build.
After all, the whole problem is not the tanker deal anyway, since it is not very attractive; a low output; long year contract with a low yearly delivery output; the real issue, for both parties is whether to allow Airbus to gain a foothold with localized American manufacturing for chugging out the A330 cash cow at using cheap american labor while opening up the European lines for the A350.
The tanker aircraft is just money lost on an already dead plane; but having Airbus produce domestically is the real problem.
Posted on August 17, 2008 17:36
In response to Don's comment about modding the existing -135 fleet to be unmanned; I agree that it's physically possible and would be a good idea, but given the age of the existing aircraft, I just don't see it as being a feasible option. The money spent on R&D for converting -135 to be unmanned would, when all is said and done, be very close to the final acquisition costs of a new tanker. Plus at that point, we'd still have the same aging aircraft that we do now. All it would eliminate is the flight crews. Maintenance time and personnel wouldn't change from a mechanical (crew chiefs, hydro, jet shop, backshop, A/R shop, etc.) standpoint, and would actually increase from a "pointy-head" (E/E, GC, Comm-Nav) standpoint due to all the new control systems added to the aircraft.
Plus, even it it were feasible, how many flight crews would be willing to give up TDYs to Hickam and Nellis? As a crew chief, I certainly wouldn't want to give those up (ha).
Posted on August 18, 2008 15:11
Near objective Observer,
The USAF did not chose the A330.
The A330 IS NOT more versatile, it is in fact undeniably less versatile because its larger than KC-10 size (but 110,000 lbs LESS fuel capacity) limits how many airfields it can operate from & how many of it can operate from each airfield.
The A330 IS NOT a generation in aircraft design ahead of the 767. The reason why the 767 production line in slowing down is because the markes for 180-240 passenger medium-long range airlines is not expanding.
Thge KC-767AT has a lot in common with the Italian & Japanese KC-767s. Much of with it does not have in common with them it has in common with other 767 derivatives.
Posted on August 25, 2008 23:51
Why doesn't Boeing protest the requirements for a larger plane? In March 2007 the GAO issued a paper (GAO-07-566T) discussing how the USAF never validated any of the requirements for a cargo and passenger capability for the new tanker (those requirements were added after Northrop threatened to exit the market). It would seem that this report provides Boeing with sufficient cause to protest the requirements.
Posted on August 29, 2008 11:59
Jammer (St. Louis),
Some folk seem to think that its ok for Boeing to protest repeatadly until Boeing gets what it wants. Shouldnt it be about what the USAF wants?
Posted on August 31, 2008 16:34
You Boeing supporters have had the wool pulled over your eyes for too long. The A330 singlehandedly knocked the 767 out of the commercial market. The fuel usage data within the document is skewed in Boeing's favor: the REAL fuel scenario is fuel delivered divided by fuel burned. In that (proper) metric, the KC-45 wins yet again.
Boeing and it's congressional puppets would like the competition to read "Choose whomever you wish, as long as it's Boeing."
Utter Rubbish!!
Posted on September 3, 2008 11:23
August 31, 2008 16:34 Ed said:
Some folk seem to think that its ok for Boeing to protest repeatadly until Boeing gets what it wants. Shouldnt it be about what the USAF wants?
------------------------------------------------
Ed: Let's say EADS went to each of 49 States in the US and promised them "new" jobs if NG/EADS got the Tanker contract. And let's say those State's members of Congress and the Senate plus Governors and local business persons began to salivate about those "new" jobs for their District. Might they talk "quietly" to their military liaisons in the Pentagon, who might get the feeling that the NG/EADS Tanker is what the 49 States want? Might this lead to "bias" in AF procurement ranks, and to a misguided belief of what "the AF wants"?
Let's say congressional reps do get those 100 or more "new" jobs for their State from EADS, not realizing an equivalent of 20,000 jobs to make the major subassemblies go NOT somewhere in the US, but into Europe instead. So NG/EADS has used Congress to lobby AF decision makers! Who needs paid lobbyists when NG/EADS can get our own Congressional Reps and Senators to lobby the AF?
20,000 jobs at ~$50K/yr each job = $1,000,000,000 of our US Taxpayer's $$ to Europe EACH YEAR for the next 30-years = $30 Billion we'll send to Europe. Not to mention about $200M/yr of taxes the US Govt could collect on those wages if it were US laborers building those major subs. Wow! That $30B is even better than the $12B we sent to rebuild Europe thru the Marshall Plan!
Wakeup Congress! You are selling out the birthright of our finest US laborers. Shame on every one of you for being mislead by a promise of "100 new high-paying industrial jobs" for your State!
Posted on September 4, 2008 19:22
Jammer (St. Louis),
Some folk seem to think that its ok for Boeing to protest repeatadly until Boeing gets what it wants. Shouldnt it be about what the USAF wants?
if you check you might find out that this is the First GAO protest BOEING has lodged.
The real whinners are EADS. HOW MANY TIMES DID THEY THREATEN TO PULL OUT.
Posted on September 10, 2008 02:35
We welcome your comments. However all comments are moderated and may not post immediately. Offensive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not treat any comments you submit as confidential information. Please do not submit comments that contain any confidential information belonging to anyone else.
By submitting a comment to Tanker Facts, you agree to our site terms and privacy policy, and to having your name displayed with your comment. All or part of your comment may be posted or cited in the blog. Your name and personal information will not be used for any other purpose, and we will not publish your e-mail address.