Tanker pt2

Pentagon Tanker Study
Supports Both Boeing, Airbus
By ANDY PASZTOR
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 26, 2006 11:14 p.m.
LOS ANGELES -- The Pentagon's long-awaited analysis of options for new
aerial-refueling tankers calls for the Air Force to acquire*and convert
"medium to large" commercial jetliners,*potentially larger than Boeing
Co.'s 767, and perhaps also buy planes from European rival Airbus,
according to a senior Democratic Congressman.
Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington,*after being briefed on the report earlier
today, put out a release indicating that a number of Boeing and Airbus
aircraft*probably "would meet the requirement,"*including the Boeing
747, 777, 787 models, as well as Airbus A330 and A340 models.
Rep. Dicks, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and a
staunch Boeing supporter*whose district includes many Boeing employees,
added that the study stopped short of "definitive conclusions about the
timing" of replacing the current aging tanker fleet. Prompted by*years
of scandal, protracted controversy and a spate of Congressional and
Pentagon investigations involving earlier Air Force tanker decisions,
the latest document is expected to open the door for Airbus to compete
for any order. It's also likely to provide ammunition for Pentagon brass
inclined to pick aircraft larger than Boeing's twin-engine 767 model,
though in his statement the Congressman said he believes the 767 likely
also would meet Air Force requirements.
Arguments over how many new aerial-refueling tankers the Air Force
needs, and how quickly they need to be put into service, embroiled
Chicago-based Boeing in a long-running dispute with members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee and particularly Republican Sen. John
McCain of Arizona. Sen. McCain led the charge against the Air Force for
skirting acquisition procedures years ago in trying to rush through
a*$20-billion plus*deal to lease or*buy some 100 Boeing 767 aircraft*for
use as*tankers.*
The latest study,*which*is based partly on analytical work*by Rand Corp,
a Santa Monica, Ca. think tank, concludes that "factors other than
economic concerns should drive the acquisition schedule for tanker
recapitalization," according to Rep. Dicks. The Congressman said he
expects the Pentagon later this year to seek expressions of interest
from Boeing and Airbus for the initial phase of a proposed tanker
replacement program. But*it could take a long time, perhaps even
years,*until the Air Force puts out formal bids. And*current Pentagon
budget pressures*are likely to make any large-scale acquisition
program*difficult to fund. Rep. Dicks said the Air Force has $100
million in*seed money previously appropriated by Congress to launch any
program.
Write to Andy Pasztor at

LOS ANGELES -- The Pentagon's long-awaited analysis of options for new
aerial-refueling tankers calls for the Air Force to acquire and convert
"medium to large" commercial jetliners, potentially larger than Boeing
Co.'s 767, and perhaps also buy planes from European rival Airbus,
according to a senior Democratic Congressman.

I wonder how many hours those finally-to-be-replaced KC-135 airframes
have on them? They must have some truly prodigious numbers, given the
amount of time spent on-station, from Viet Nam till now...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=109

According to thata website, 530 KC-135's and 59 KC-10A's.
And they want to replace the whole tanker fleet with 100 aircraft?

The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980 as
the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all old
airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder if
Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have all
the repair parts under US control, the way the French are,
they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"john smith" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| B A R R Y wrote:
|
| http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=109
|
| According to thata website, 530 KC-135's and 59 KC-10A's.
| And they want to replace the whole tanker fleet with 100
aircraft?

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980 as
the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all old
airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder if
Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have all
the repair parts under US control, the way the French are,
they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares.

Agreed. If the Air Force even considers buying a foreign aircraft,
we've clearly got the wrong leadership at the top.

Although it can't hurt to make Boeing THINK we might buy Airbus, just
to keep the price honest... ;-)

As I recall, when the earlier proposals were made for tanker replacement,
Airbus and their US partners had more US content than Boeing did. It's
almost like the "Japanese" cars now mostly made in US assembly plants. It's
not as cut and dried as you make it seem.

The proper action would have been to charge and try the
officers in the USAF and at Boeing who rigged the contract.
But the tanker lease deal wasn't a bad deal except for the
price fixing. The price could have been fixed without
canceling the whole contract.

A few years ago a tornado hit Wichita and other local
cities. The path of the storm was across the south part of
McConnell AFB. Had it gone a mile further north, it would
have destroyed half of all the B1 bombers, which were parked
in the open.

Base closings and consolidation may save money, but they
also mean that a flood or tornado can destroy a major part
of our equipment. In the days of big fleets of thousands of
fighters and bombers and large numbers of support aircraft,
the loss of a dozen airplanes was not as serious a problem
as it is today. If you only have 100 airplanes of a type
and 10 are destroyed by a single storm [or terrorist attack]
and the production line has closed, they can't be replaced.

I'm all in favor of saving taxpayer money, but first the
defense must have depth. We should never have all of our
planes, ships, troops at one consolidated base even if it is
more efficient, a civilian peace-time idea from an
accountant. The generals and privates might voice support
but just because their choice is consolidate or nothing.

Current military use of tankers is not just to increase
range, but to increase payload and availability. Fighters
and bombers take-off with reduced fuel and increased weapons
or cargo loads, and refuel soon after take-off. This
increases payload and reduces wear and tear on those
airplanes. But we need enough tankers to do the job. I
don't think that the KC 135R will be replaced totally,
because even though a new tanker might carry more fuel,
there is a limit as to how many airplanes can be refuel at
one time from one tanker. But the new, big tankers can
carry more off-load fuel because the new engines burn less.
That was also a factor with the KC 135R, new engines burned
less fuel.

Jim
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
| The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980
as
| the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all
old
| airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder
if
| Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have
all
| the repair parts under US control, the way the French
are,
| they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares.
|
| Agreed. If the Air Force even considers buying a foreign
aircraft,
| we've clearly got the wrong leadership at the top.
|
| Although it can't hurt to make Boeing THINK we might buy
Airbus, just
| to keep the price honest... ;-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

It all depends on what is meant by "US content?" If the
small parts are all US manufacture and the major airframe
parts are all French, you can't fix the airplane after
battle damage without the sheet metal parts.
"James Robinson" wrote in message
. 97.142...
| "Jay Honeck" wrote:
|
| The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980
as
| the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all
old
| airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I
wonder if
| Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have
all
| the repair parts under US control, the way the French
are,
| they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares.
|
| Agreed. If the Air Force even considers buying a
foreign aircraft,
| we've clearly got the wrong leadership at the top.
|
| Although it can't hurt to make Boeing THINK we might buy
Airbus, just
| to keep the price honest... ;-)
|
| As I recall, when the earlier proposals were made for
tanker replacement,
| Airbus and their US partners had more US content than
Boeing did. It's
| almost like the "Japanese" cars now mostly made in US
assembly plants. It's
| not as cut and dried as you make it seem.

"Jim Macklin" wrote:

"James Robinson" wrote:

| As I recall, when the earlier proposals were made for tanker
| replacement, Airbus and their US partners had more US content than
| Boeing did. It's almost like the "Japanese" cars now mostly made in
| US assembly plants. It's not as cut and dried as you make it seem.

It all depends on what is meant by "US content?" If the
small parts are all US manufacture and the major airframe
parts are all French, you can't fix the airplane after
battle damage without the sheet metal parts.

That's true. On a 767, Boeing makes the flight deck, the forward fuselage,
the wings, the tail, and the engine nacelles. Pretty well everything else
is subcontracted to other companies in the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, and
Brazil.

I guess it comes to a point where you have to rely on allies, if you expect
them to buy any US equipment.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:34:07 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
pJr0g.3387$8q.1415@dukeread08::


Below is a bit of chronology on the subject:

I would say that was a bit more than "a bit". Did you really think that
anyone would read it?

Vaughn

("Vaughn Simon" wrote)
Below is a bit of chronology on the subject:

I would say that was a bit more than "a bit". Did you really think that
anyone would read it?


I read a chunk of it.

Some stuff I skip, some stuff I skim, some stuff I read, some stuff I'm into
the links for hours...

You never know who will enjoy what?


Montblack
We had a 4-ft crawl space under our house when I was growing up. Dad built a
couple long sturdy shelves under there. There was a trouble-light hanging by
the screened off entrance. Every magazine that came into the house, from
1960-1973, went on those shelves - and we had a lot of magazines
(subscriptions) coming to the house back then. That was our Internet growing
up. That and an encyclopedia set, and a globe ...and our National Geographic
maps.