Well, Boeing has failed twice with the KC-767, so maybe they have taken the hint! Of course, quite alot of the 777 is built outside the USA, so Beoing's emotional "stars and stripes, built-in-the-USA" card may not be as strong this time around (not sure if it was that strong with the 767, mind).

Regards

I saw a study a few years ago that did talk about the merits of a high / low mix for the tanker fleet.

One factor is that the KC10's are showing their age as well. I doubt they will have the same logevity as the -80 / 707 that the current fleet is built around

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

Originally posted by FredT
I saw a study a few years ago that did talk about the merits of a high / low mix for the tanker fleet.

One factor is that the KC10's are showing their age as well. I doubt they will have the same logevity as the -80 / 707 that the current fleet is built around

I would disagree with the high-low mix and aim for complete commonality across the fleet.

Which means the 777 or 330 gets the lot. Sure, someone is going to be pissed, but its a better solution for the air force.


The 777 is a much better option for the USAF, as it will be in production much longer than the 767 and Boeing can provide support alongside civilian/commerical MROs.

For the 767, the USAF was effectively going to have to carry the whole MRO program for the 767 on its own budget... not good.

The good news is that the 777F is just coming on stream in numbers - and it has a huge payload -226,000 lb , which compares to 243,000 of the `daddy` the 747F

this is a huge load , as its nearly twice that of the 330;


or another way - the 777 can carry 37 pallets with the 330 @ 23 pallets.


which beggers the question - will airbuis come back with a tanker version of the 380 and say` sod you` to booing

[edit on 19/6/09 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Harlequin
which beggers the question - will airbuis come back with a tanker version of the 380 and say` sod you` to booing

It all depends on what kind of footprint the USAF are willing to accept.


Big = 777
Medium = 330
Small = 767 (although if they were after small tankers, a 737 or 320 version might be better due to ongoing support)

From what is being said in the airshow at Le Bourget (Paris) Boeing do indeed intend to put forward the 777 for the tanker bid, seems a bit odd to suddenly jump out and say that though since there is still time before the bidding process for EADS/Northrop to modify their bid.
They could easily increase the A330 MRTT from a 200 to 300 variant and indeed a 340-500 body twin engine variant wouldnt be too hard to imagine, which would be essentially the same size if not bigger than the KC-777.

The real question is whether this is just Boeing grasping at straws, if they need something the size of the A330 then that is what they need, sometimes bigger isnt really better...

Amazing how long this tanker question keeps on going and going without any progress being made.

Previous contest was like the 3rd try to deside a future tanker?

But the 777 looks good in my books. But a bit more competition might not be bad for the USAF. My bid for the tanker contract would be a Il-96-400 cargo/tanker variant.

And if the USA also needs a light tanker, the Sukhoi SSJ could be a nice contender. Its light and is just as long as a Boeing 737.