Baha, Nothing questionable about it, seriously. THIS particular deal occurred after the Boeing acquisition of McD, obviously. However, if I remember correctly, Boeing had a proof of concept demonstration for the B-767 as a KC type aircraft for the USAF in the early 1990s. Alton might be able to confirm that date range. The DC-10 production line long since closed and the MD-11 is not compatible with the KC-10 Extender fleet. USAF philosophy is to standardize as much as possible for aircraft acquisition due to operational, maintenance, training, and logistics synergies. Obviously, the KC-135Es need to be replaced with an off the shelf aircraft. The questions are which one, how many, and when? Regards to all, JCK Fan of ex-TWA JT3D powered KC-135s (can you say "Dynafan" boys and girls?) ---- >From: Bahadir Acuner <bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx> >Reply-To: The Airline List <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >Bahadir Acuner <bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx> >To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Aircraft Replacement >Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:17:49 -0500 > >John, >What I find questionable is the 767 being used as a fueling aircraft. >Correct me if I am wrong but this deal was put together after B gulped MDD. >Considering that USAF has DC10s as refueling tankers also, I think MD11 >would be a better choice due to increased payload and commonality. > >If you ask me I think this 767-USAF deal stinks worse than a dead rat. :) > >BAHA >Fan of Md11s. > >-----Original Message----- >From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John >Kelly >Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:15 PM >To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Aircraft Replacement > >Gerry, >Boeing's post 9/11 proposal to the Air Force for the "KC-767" was >unsolicited. Nothing wrong or even questionable as these types of >proposals >are submitted by contarctors all of the time. The B-767 was proprosed as a >tanker numerous times in the past but KC-135s were performing well and air >refueling activities were humming aloing just fine. However, the timing by >Boeing was "fortuitous" due to several reasons: >1) Post 9/11 2001 aircraft orders for the B-767 all but evaporated. Pre >9/11 orders were already dwinding but the terrorist attacks acceralated the >decline in orders. >2) KC-135 corrosion was more advanced than many people thought/realized. >Depot level maintenance wasn in excess of 400 days per aircraft. The depot >maintenance decreased to under 180 days but the aircraft's aging cannot be >ignored for much longer. The "E" model bears the brunt of the aging >concern. >3) I can'r recall exactly why the 100 tanker number was picked. But, the >number corresponds tothe quantity of tankers being removed from service and >using that attrition quantity to compute air mobility requirements i.e. "x" >pounds of fuel that can be transferred, "x" lbs of cargo for expeditonary >force needs, "x" aircraft needed for expeditionary force requirements; "x" >air refueling support for USN and USMC aircraft along with allied air >refueling support needs. The quantity of 100 tankers is a place holder or >a >stake in the ground. >4) The Quadrennial Defense Review did not plan for KC-135 replacements and >a >new way to finance acquisition of a tanker repalcement was needed. >5) The lease agreement is novel for U. S. Air Force procurement and >received >intense scrutiny because of its size, suddeness, and timing with a slow >commercial aircraft economy. The oversight was Rightfully so, and Boeing >was forced to sharpen its pencil by the Pentagon and USAF officials. The >result was a $4 Billion reduction (at least) in program acquisition cost > >I believe Dragyn Traynor may be able to shed more light on this area, but >that's what I recall from my contacts and readings over the last two years. >The fact still remains that a KC-135 replacement is needed in the very near >future. And, don't foget the KC-10s are entering their third decade of air >refueling and cargo/pax service. > >All the best, >JCK >--- > >From: Gerard M Foley <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Reply-To: The Airline List <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >Gerard > >M Foley <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >Subject: Re: Airvraft Replacement > >Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:33:04 -0500 > > > > > > > Officials had hoped Congress would have approved the controversial > >Boeing > > > 767 tanker lease by now so the Air Force could begin receiving KC-135E > > > replacements by 2006. > > > > > > >I think there is general agreement that the oldest KC135's should be > >replaced soon, but not at the rate called for by the cancelled ( or > >postponed?) lease deal. > > > >Gerry > >_________________________________________________________________ >Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed >experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 _________________________________________________________________ Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1