Given that a larger than required tanker may gain some 'points" in the competition, how will the AF define cost parameters?  For example - wider runway, turning and taxi and parking areas should be priced by the AF at XX$$ per ' extra' weight  on runway capacity , Yy$$ per foot extension of taxi width, zz$ per foot of wingspan,   etc

Also they should provide a spreadsheet on " standard fuel" and labor cost  increases  by month/quarter/year for both teams to use.

Hello fellow Tanker Followers.  I just want to ask -

Are we offering a 767 that is based on the -200 ER that was part fo the original content?  or, do we have the latitude to offer a 767, that can be be composite of other 767 technologies - like a -400ER body, new ( GEnX ) or improved engines, blended winglets?  Or are we sticking with one single type?

also, if we offer both 767 and 777 - will they be similarly type classified ( is taht what it's called... ) that the same pilot can fly either of them at any time/  

Thanks

If it worked in the past,keep it in the future.Boeing has the know how.

Considering that American taxpayer$ will pay for some gorgeous tankers desperately needed... I wonder how much American content is the minimum and/or if that'll hopefully break a tie?

As a former USAF Tanker Crewchief and Boeing employee charged with Flight Opts maintenance at their depot in Texas, I'm wondering just how these new "conversion" airframes will stand up to the increased demands placed on them by DOD. Further, will those of us who must maintain these aircraft be expected to come equipped with A&P Licenses? Finally, does this effort foreshaddow an emerging trend towards replacing aircraft specifically designed for a designated mission or a continued effort to use retrofitted commercial airliners for multiple missions?

by ARBE on 10/18/2009 at 5:03 AM
I totally agree on the MILCON costs - how are they derived.
But how do you (gu)estimate cost of operating anything for 40yrs?

by Josef on 10/19/2009 at 5:48 PM
Agreed - does/will the USAF include a mandatory reciprocal section in the final RFP. Why hasn't Boeing been more vocal about such an option.

by gunstarr2000 on 10/19/2009 at 6:38 PM
isn't KC-135 modified 707's? I know it's not a direct derivative of the 707, but the basic concept was a commercial-use aimed design.

RE   . . . I totally agree on the MILCON costs - how are they derived.
But how do you (gu)estimate cost of operating anything for 40yrs?  . . .

That was my point.  Even the GAO cannot do it.  But to level the field, the GAO should make a projection for the time involved in the contract(s) of ALL costs that are not under the control of the bidders, and use that as a baseline available to both (ALL) sides.

MILCON is just part of that issue.  Both sides should be able to document past reliability and maintenance costs for similar or identical parts and service under commercial conditions, for example transoceanic flights, etc.  

IF the military wants to then factor in a military vs commercial " cost" due to extreme use  or by flight hour, then that factor should be published.  

How many  realize that the baseline A320 equivalent to the 767 was /has been significantly subsidized  in commercial service regarding ' free maintenance '  and certain repair issues   in addition to subsidized purchase costs greater than the normal 20-25 discounts from " sticker"  price.

How will that be factored in  or how should it be factored in?

Can the Airforce use the same ground support equipment for the 767 or 777 that is used on the KC135, or will they have to but all new?

What is the cost of ground equipment to support a 767 and/or 777, vs. the competitors airplane ground support equipment needed?

by Tankerwinner on 10/20/2009 at 7:19 PM
I seem to remember the draft RFP stipulating seamless integration with the current USAF ground support infrastructure. So all offers must be compatible with current equipment.

by ARBE1 on 10/20/2009 at 5:44 PM
Doens't the maintenance manual usually stipulate the lessor of X flight hours, Y flight cycles and Z time, whichever comes first as the driver for maintenance - the USAF itself can then ascociate cost with the maintenance.
Also, the basic flight regime of these tankers is so different from commercial use (flying long endurance at low altitude and speed and such) I think military vs commercial is a apples to oranges comparison.
Why do you include the 320 in this discussion. It's not offered by anyone.

I think that boeing should let the 767 go into the past now that the 787 is here. If you look at history, the 707 (commercial) was derived from the original 717 - that is the KC-135 which needs replacing. the 767 replaced the 707, and that is when boeing should have offered a replacement to the USAF for the KC-135. Now the 787 is replacing the 767. why should the USAF have new aircraft with outdated structures and systems... Should they not be on the leading edge of technology, with equipment more superior and robust than an airline? the KC787 could be built exactly where the 767 line is now. This way it would not interfere with commercial 787 production, and also would serve as the 787F line in the future. commercial technology almost always has been brought to the market after research and development for defense applications. the KC787 would make the KC-45 (A330) inferior in so many ways it would be a no brainer. The 787 also sits in size directly between the 767 and 777. the KC777 would be best to replace the KC-10 as the 777 replaced the DC-10. Why have two different size tankers, as we have now, when one can do it all? Also with the 787 being more electrical, it would definatly make a good AWACS replacement; which usually coincides with the tanker platform. The 787 being composite, should also be safer as a tanker. Get the KC787 going! It will bring and or save jobs in both WA and KS.

When I try to access the .pdf file that contains the answers the Air Force provided to the bidders' questions, I get a dialog box that says my security settings do not allow access to that site.  Is there another way to get to the file?

Couple of things to think about when we are debating this issue.
1. Boeing aircraft is a large American Company. I know parts of the B-767 are made out side of the U.S. but we are not talking about the profits going to Europe.
2. How many cars do you see driving down the street on a regular basis (daily to and from work) that are from the late fifties and early sixties?
3. How many of us would ride a 707 to Europe?
4. The last new jet tanker aircraft that we bought (KC-10) were purchased in the eighties. The pilots that will be using them in the future have not even been born yet.
5. If we are going to have a military then we must give them the proper tools. Air refueling although not "sexy"  is an important part of air warfare.
6. Foreign operators are now using or are about to start using the KC-767 so why can't we?
7. The whole idea about using a commercial aircraft is that it could use different commercial airports along with it's main operating bases. So the need for new support facilities required for 'oversize' planes is some what misleading. Also as the A-330 and A-340 are roughly the same size the cost of modifications for either aircraft is a wash. Another point being is that it seems that we have enough runways that could handle B-52's, C-5, and C-17's to say nothing of the KC-135's that are already in service that need roughly similar facilities the whole idea of increased cost's to operate the KC767