Podcast on the selection with Jon Ostrower.
KC-30 Wins!
By IAG | February 29th, 2008 | Posted in airbus, boeing, eads, pentagon, tanker, usaf | No CommentsWhy did Boeing select the 767-200 as a tanker?
By IAG | January 2nd, 2008 | Posted in boeing, tanker, usaf | No CommentsPodcast with Bill Barksdale, Boeing tanker program spokesperson.
Pratt & Whitney to power KC-767 Advanced Tanker
By IAG | March 14th, 2007 | Posted in kc-767, pratt and whitney, tanker, usaf | No Comments
The Pratt & Whitney PW4000- 94" engine was selected by Boeing to power the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, that will compete in the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition. This selection represents the first military application for the PW4000 engine family. The PW4062A for the Boeing 767 delivers 62,000 pounds of thrust per engine.
This is great news for Pratt because not much is heard of the firm anymore in terms of big aero-engines. The company partners with GE on the A380 Engine Alliance powerplant.
Pratt & Whitney to power KC-767 Advanced Tanker
By IAG | March 14th, 2007 | Posted in kc-767, pratt and whitney, tanker, usaf | No CommentsThe Pratt & Whitney PW4000- 94" engine was selected by Boeing to power the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, that will compete in the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition. This selection represents the first military application for the PW4000 engine family. The PW4062A for the Boeing 767 delivers 62,000 pounds of thrust per engine.
This is great news for Pratt because not much is heard of the firm anymore in terms of big aero-engines. The company partners with GE on the A380 Engine Alliance powerplant.
Mixed messages on the USAF tanker?
By IAG | February 28th, 2007 | Posted in tanker, usaf | No CommentsLast week US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley spoke about the possibility of a mixed fleet. Today we have this – Moseley said the Air Force still planned to award a first contract for 179 tankers to a single winner. Advantage Boeing.
But wait – get this. He hopes both teams bidding for a $40 billion aerial tanker refueling competition would "stay in the game" for the longer term. "I want everybody to stay in the game," he says. He goes on to say it is important that even the losing bidder remain engaged since the Air Force ultimately needed to replace over 500 of its KC-135 tanker.
This should not be hard to understand – competition helps keep costs down in the longer run. The only way to keep both vendors in the game is to buy from both. Double talk is not going to make Northrop Grumman feel any better if the first tranche goes all Boeing. It will be no surprise if they pick up and leave. The US taxpayer will get nailed by a monopoly. Which is great if you own Boeing stock.
Mixed messages on the USAF tanker?
By IAG | February 28th, 2007 | Posted in tanker, usaf | 1 CommentLast week US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley spoke about the possibility of a mixed fleet. Today we have this – Moseley said the Air Force still planned to award a first contract for 179 tankers to a single winner. Advantage Boeing.
But wait – get this. He hopes both teams bidding for a $40 billion aerial tanker refueling competition would "stay in the game" for the longer term. "I want everybody to stay in the game," he says. He goes on to say it is important that even the losing bidder remain engaged since the Air Force ultimately needed to replace over 500 of its KC-135 tanker.
This should not be hard to understand – competition helps keep costs down in the longer run. The only way to keep both vendors in the game is to buy from both. Double talk is not going to make Northrop Grumman feel any better if the first tranche goes all Boeing. It will be no surprise if they pick up and leave. The US taxpayer will get nailed by a monopoly. Which is great if you own Boeing stock.
USAF might buy "mixed" tanker fleet
By IAG | February 22nd, 2007 | Posted in airbus, boeing, eads, tanker, usaf | No CommentsIn what may be a solution worthy of King Solomon, the USAF likely would seek to buy planes from both Boeing and Northrop Grumman, the top Air Force general said Wednesday.
As you read the linked story note the word use – some utility in a mixed fleet; a continual set of opportunities. To us this means Boeing likely gets the nod this time around and maybe net time the KC-30 team.
But his last statement "Lifecycle cost has to be as low as we can get it with the most capable airplane we can get" is really interesting. This one seems to favor the KC-30.
The truth may be that the USAF has to buy some KC-30s, sooner rather than later. That way the USAF keeps Boeing's prices very sharp. It also ensures the USAF has a choice of vendors. Isn't it amazing that this puts the USAF in the same place as many airlines? They all need Airbus to remain an effective airframe maker. Without it, Boeing becomes a monopoly which nobody wants. Airbus, despite its current woes, will get through its problems because those who fly planes need them.
USAF might buy "mixed" tanker fleet
By IAG | February 22nd, 2007 | Posted in airbus, boeing, eads, tanker, usaf | 2 CommentsIn what may be a solution worthy of King Solomon, the USAF likely would seek to buy planes from both Boeing and Northrop Grumman, the top Air Force general said Wednesday.
As you read the linked story note the word use – some utility in a mixed fleet; a continual set of opportunities. To us this means Boeing likely gets the nod this time around and maybe net time the KC-30 team.
But his last statement "Lifecycle cost has to be as low as we can get it with the most capable airplane we can get" is really interesting. This one seems to favor the KC-30.
The truth may be that the USAF has to buy some KC-30s, sooner rather than later. That way the USAF keeps Boeing's prices very sharp. It also ensures the USAF has a choice of vendors. Isn't it amazing that this puts the USAF in the same place as many airlines? They all need Airbus to remain an effective airframe maker. Without it, Boeing becomes a monopoly which nobody wants. Airbus, despite its current woes, will get through its problems because those who fly planes need them.
USAF 767 Tanker to differ from Japanese and Italian versions?
By IAG | February 14th, 2007 | Posted in 767, boeing, tanker | No Comments
What is Boeing cooking up?
Earlier this week the announcement about Boeing's plans for the 767 tanker had some fascinating language. Just the kind of thing to attract the attention of plane junkies. It appears the USAF version of a 767 tanker will be rather different from what the Japanese and Italians will be flying.
Take a look here and notice these words "it will offer its newly redesigned KC-767 Advanced Tanker for the US Air Force's $40 billion aerial refueling tanker competition". That is what set us off.
What we know is that the 767 tanker is based on the 767-200ER. Actually it turns that Boeing has been doing what they are very good at. Namely tweaking a design to get more out of it. Here is language we got today from Boeing – "Each customer for a 767-based tanker has different mission profiles. In the case of the tanker for the U.S. Air Force, advances will be in the areas of the flight deck, avionics, mission equipment and engines. Boeing believes the company can best meet the specific requirements of the RFP by also looking at some of the other attributes the 767-200 LRXF has to offer. We can't disclose those attributes at this time but we can say that they are important in providing the capability the U.S. Air Force has stipulated."
Note the term LRXF? How about "advances will be in the areas of the flight deck, avionics, mission equipment and engines"? These mods will drive up the plane's capabilities and likely close any gap with the KC-30. But this is a very serious game of poker and Boeing won't say more. Anyone have anything on the LRXF? Could the USAF 767 tanker be getting GEnx engines? Fascinating stuff. And bound to irritate you know who.
USAF 767 Tanker to differ from Japanese and Italian versions?
By IAG | February 14th, 2007 | Posted in 767, boeing, tanker | 3 Comments What is Boeing cooking up?
Earlier this week the announcement about Boeing's plans for the 767 tanker had some fascinating language. Just the kind of thing to attract the attention of plane junkies. It appears the USAF version of a 767 tanker will be rather different from what the Japanese and Italians will be flying.
Take a look here and notice these words "it will offer its newly redesigned KC-767 Advanced Tanker for the US Air Force's $40 billion aerial refueling tanker competition". That is what set us off.
What we know is that the 767 tanker is based on the 767-200ER. Actually it turns that Boeing has been doing what they are very good at. Namely tweaking a design to get more out of it. Here is language we got today from Boeing – "Each customer for a 767-based tanker has different mission profiles. In the case of the tanker for the U.S. Air Force, advances will be in the areas of the flight deck, avionics, mission equipment and engines. Boeing believes the company can best meet the specific requirements of the RFP by also looking at some of the other attributes the 767-200 LRXF has to offer. We can't disclose those attributes at this time but we can say that they are important in providing the capability the U.S. Air Force has stipulated."
Note the term LRXF? How about "advances will be in the areas of the flight deck, avionics, mission equipment and engines"? These mods will drive up the plane's capabilities and likely close any gap with the KC-30. But this is a very serious game of poker and Boeing won't say more. Anyone have anything on the LRXF? Could the USAF 767 tanker be getting GEnx engines? Fascinating stuff. And bound to irritate you know who.
