• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

US Air Force Tanker Competition-- Any News?

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
668
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Is there any news in the continuing saga of Boeing versus Northrup-Grumman/EADS concerning the US Air Force tanker competition? Are they still waiting on the Obama Administration/US Air Force to release another RFP?

I know that there have been opinion/editorial pieces that have been published stating that Boeing should propose a tanker version of their new 787 "Dreamliner." KC-787 "Dreamtanker"?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
678
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Are they still waiting on the Obama Administration/US Air Force to release another RFP?

From what I understand, essentially yes (though it isn't quite that straight forward), though the ongoing posturing from both sides is ongoing. I think the latest from Boeing was to offer the USAF just about any airframe they wanted as a tanker...desperation. :D

Regards,

Greg
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
I used to be a proponent of the KC-787, but all of that program's delays are making me think twice. Right now I think the 777 would be the best choice for a tanker. Based on the KC-10 experience, I think a bigger airplane would be more useful (in spite of Boeing's argument that the 767 can fly from more airfields than the A-330.)

It would appear that the new tanker will still be called KC-42, regardless of which airframe is selected.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
143
CFE said:
I used to be a proponent of the KC-787, but all of that program's delays are making me think twice. Right now I think the 777 would be the best choice for a tanker. Based on the KC-10 experience, I think a bigger airplane would be more useful (in spite of Boeing's argument that the 767 can fly from more airfields than the A-330.)

It would appear that the new tanker will still be called KC-42, regardless of which airframe is selected.

Actually, I believe that the A330 actually has a lower runway requirement than the KC-767. What Boeing was saying regarding airfields is that its aircraft could operate on more unmodified ramps and taxiways than the 330 derivative, and more could be parked on a given ramp space.

In this next go-round, although some speculated on a KC-787, that's unlikely for exactly the reasons you mentioned. in addition to the 787 being very new technology that isn't even in service, their performance so far on the program would make this a risky choice in the evaluation process. Also, since so much of it is outsourced, there are security regiments that would be more troublesome.

Boeing does have some flexibility here. If USAF again emphasizes minimum modification to existing fields, thy bid the 767 and offer the side benefit of more booms in the air. If USAF now pushes for max fuel/cargo capability, they offer the 777. It can carry more than the A330 but to my understanding requires less runway than the A330 when only carrying a load equivalent to the A330's

It'll be interesting...
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
668
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Are any Airbus A330 MRTTs currently in service or are the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Air Force, Royal Saudi Air Force, and the United Arab Emirates Air Force still waiting for deliveries? Has Airbus done a good job of managing this program and will be able to make deliveries on time and on budget?
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
371
 

Similar threads

Top