Is the Future a KC-777 Tanker?

[LancerMc]

It seems to have become obvious to the USAF the KC-767 is not going to meet their future needs. With Airbus proposing building the KC-330 in the U.S. it has made a better case for the aircraft to replace the aging KC-135 fleet. It is also evident even with the basic information listed below the MRTT is a better choice not only for air refueling but also carrying of cargo.

On that note Boeing has been asked to look at the 777 as a possible replacement. Even with the basic figures of the 777-200LR it would far surpass the abilities of the A330 and 767 even without the use of additional fuel tanks. Though how much will KC-777 cost? If the U.S. Air Force wants a larger tanker aircraft whats keeping Airbus from offering a KC-340? Is this another military/political decision to keep jobs in the United States? (This question surpasses the point of this website.) Boeing is capable of turning the aircraft into a tanker, but in how long?

The 777 looks great but will it be another lame duck like the 767 looks to be? Only the future will tell us.

Here is information about the the aircraft.

Airbus A330 MRTT

Internal Fuel Load: 122 Tons / 111,000 Kg. in wing tanks, + the addition of full tanks under the main cargo deck. (Any help in the fuel load with additional tanks would be appreciated.)

Ferry Range: 6,450 nm / Global with inflight refueling

Max Takeoff Weight: 507,000 lbs / 217,000 Kg.


Boeing KC 767

Internal Fuel Load: 161,000 lbs / 73,000 Kg. in wing tanks, + main cargo tanks 202,000 lbs / 92,000 Kg.

Ferry Range: Global with inflight refueling

Max Takeoff Weight: 395,000 lbs / 179,000 Kg.


Boeing 777-200LR

Internal Fuel Load: 298,000lbs / 136,000 Kg. (200LR)

Range: 9,420 nm 200LR/ 4,965 nm 777F

Max Takeoff Weight 766,000 lbs / 347,542 Kg. (200LR)

 

[Magoo]

It seems to have become obvious to the USAF the KC-767 is not going to meet their future needs. With Airbus proposing building the KC-330 in the U.S. it has made a better case for the aircraft to replace the aging KC-135 fleet. It is also evident even with the basic information listed below the MRTT is a better choice not only for air refueling but also carrying of cargo.

On that note Boeing has been asked to look at the 777 as a possible replacement. Even with the basic figures of the 777-200LR it would far surpass the abilities of the A330 and 767 even without the use of additional fuel tanks. Though how much will KC-777 cost? If the U.S. Air Force wants a larger tanker aircraft whats keeping Airbus from offering a KC-340? Is this another military/political decision to keep jobs in the United States? (This question surpasses the point of this website.) Boeing is capable of turning the aircraft into a tanker, but in how long?

The 777 looks great but will it be another lame duck like the 767 looks to be? Only the future will tell us.

Here is information about the the aircraft.

Airbus A330 MRTT
Internal Fuel Load: 122 Tons / 111,000 Kg. in wing tanks, + the addition of full tanks under the main cargo deck. (Any help in the fuel load with additional tanks would be appreciated.)
Ferry Range: 6,450 nm / Global with inflight refueling
Max Takeoff Weight: 507,000 lbs / 217,000 Kg.

Boeing KC 767
Internal Fuel Load: 161,000 lbs / 73,000 Kg. in wing tanks, + main cargo tanks 202,000 lbs / 92,000 Kg.
Ferry Range: Global with inflight refueling
Max Takeoff Weight: 395,000 lbs / 179,000 Kg.

Boeing 777-200LR
Internal Fuel Load: 298,000lbs / 136,000 Kg. (200LR)
Range: 9,420 nm 200LR/ 4,965 nm 777F
Max Takeoff Weight 766,000 lbs / 347,542 Kg. (200LR)

I'm not sure the KC-767 is a "lame duck", especially with its 'smart tanker' implants and 767-400 cockpit. It's also low risk as the development work is all-but done. The only reason it hasn't been ordered by the USAF is because of the Boeing/Collins/Druyun scandal.

I feel a tanker version of the 777F is a great prospect - that thing can lift a $hitload of fuel AND freight just in standard form, and if the boom and other systems can be fitted without too much difficulty, it should be a winner, albeit an expensive one! However, I think there's also room for a smaller capacity tanker like the KC-767/KC-30. Perhaps a mixed fleet is the solution.

Magoo

 

[Gaenth]

I'm not sure the KC-767 is a "lame duck", especially with its 'smart tanker' implants and 767-400 cockpit. It's also low risk as the development work is all-but done. The only reason it hasn't been ordered by the USAF is because of the Boeing/Collins/Druyun scandal.

I feel a tanker version of the 777F is a great prospect - that thing can lift a $hitload of fuel AND freight just in standard form, and if the boom and other systems can be fitted without too much difficulty, it should be a winner, albeit an expensive one! However, I think there's also room for a smaller capacity tanker like the KC-767/KC-30. Perhaps a mixed fleet is the solution.

Magoo

While I must agree with you in which a KC-777 would be the best possible tanker the USAF could get, and that a combined fleet would be a rather good solution I'm not so sure the US Government would be willing to pay for the KC-777 development to Boeing after paying for the KC-767, their corporate struggles, the F-22 structure flaw (if you've read that thread) in case it's accountable to Boeing and all the support they've been giving them against Airbus. Really bad because if the USAF gets tired of waiting and choses MRTT, that does let some jobs go, unless they negotiate building most of the aircraft in the US, like with the Marine 1 Helos, something extremely unlikely, so if I had to make a guess I'd say Boeing will be put on line soon, start building those KC-767s and they can consider themselves lucky they saved that order and that they have no US competitors in the airliner/cargo bussiness.

 

[Magoo]

While I must agree with you in which a KC-777 would be the best possible tanker the USAF could get, and that a combined fleet would be a rather good solution I'm not so sure the US Government would be willing to pay for the KC-777 development to Boeing after paying for the KC-767, their corporate struggles, the F-22 structure flaw (if you've read that thread) in case it's accountable to Boeing and all the support they've been giving them against Airbus.

Pretty silly comment really, considering the KC-767 fell over because of the corruption of a then serving USAF member, and neither the extent nor the cause of the F-22 structural flaw has been revealed.:roll

Really bad because if the USAF gets tired of waiting and choses MRTT, that does let some jobs go, unless they negotiate building most of the aircraft in the US, like with the Marine 1 Helos, something extremely unlikely, so if I had to make a guess I'd say Boeing will be put on line soon, start building those KC-767s and they can consider themselves lucky they saved that order and that they have no US competitors in the airliner/cargo bussiness.

Extremely unlikely? Umm, actually, the KC-30 will either partly or wholly built in Mobile, Alabama. Depending on the numbers ordered, either 'green' aircraft will be flown from Toulouse to Mobile to receive their tanker mods, or the aircraft may even be built from ground up at Mobile.

Otherwise, great post!

Magoo

 

[LancerMc]

Magoo is correct, Boeing would never be allowed to build A330's in the U.S. It has never been on the table that would happen, Airbus wants to build some of their aircraft in U.S. to gain a better foothold for expansion in the U.S. Plus if Boeing built A330's it probably wouldn't create as many jobs if Airbus built them here. Major procurement programs normally always involve American jobs.

What little information about the flaw in F-22 there is says there currently little risk to the aircraft. Overall as Lockheed Martin being the primary company, I would think they would hold the overall responsibility for the flaw.
There will a comprehensive investigation for sure, and the cause will be found out.

Magoo your correct the KC-767 is advance, and my "lame duck" statement goes around the Boeing scandal. The scandal keeps getting worse for Boeing all the time. Also USAF wants more airlift capability and they can't get more C-17's then why not get a bigger and better aircraft to help those needs. I should have explained my opinion better.

 

[Sea Toby]

Also keep in mind the facility at Everett, Washington. The 747 line is still cranking out aircraft, although mostly freighters now, the 767 line is closing, and the 777 line is busy. Boeing hopes to keep the 767 line open by building tankers for the Air Force. Otherwise, a third of the building will be closed until the area is retooled for another aircraft.

The Air Force will get its tankers quicker buying 767s. If the decision is to buy 777s, than the 767 line will have to be closed and retooled, delaying the aircraft a year or more. If the decision is to buy Airbus 330s, there will be a delay for Mobile to hire trained workers, probably from the Boeing 767 line.

 

[Gaenth]

Magoo is correct, Boeing would never be allowed to build A330's in the U.S. It has never been on the table that would happen, Airbus wants to build some of their aircraft in U.S. to gain a better foothold for expansion in the U.S. Plus if Boeing built A330's it probably wouldn't create as many jobs if Airbus built them here. Major procurement programs normally always involve American jobs.

What little information about the flaw in F-22 there is says there currently little risk to the aircraft. Overall as Lockheed Martin being the primary company, I would think they would hold the overall responsibility for the flaw.
There will a comprehensive investigation for sure, and the cause will be found out.

Magoo your correct the KC-767 is advance, and my "lame duck" statement goes around the Boeing scandal. The scandal keeps getting worse for Boeing all the time. Also USAF wants more airlift capability and they can't get more C-17's then why not get a bigger and better aircraft to help those needs. I should have explained my opinion better.

:hitwall Well, that's my point, by extremely unlikely I meant that neither Boeing nor the US government would want to build Airbus Aircraft on Boeing's facilities. Flying "green aircraft" from Tolouse to be fitted with the refuelling hardware in the US would be the least Airbus could offer if they really want to sell Tankers to USAF. Now, Airbus opening an assembly plant in the US? Maybe in the future but they first have to harvest a little something from all the cash they've blown building facilities and resources in Europe in the last few years.

As for the F-22 structure flaw, no matter how big or little the risk to the F-22 fleet, if after investigation it turns out that Boeing is responsible for it they'd have to fix it, not Lockheed Martin nor the tax payers because they wouldn't want to share responsibility and actually, they shouldn't. Likewise if it turns out to be LM's or another contractor's fault. Add to that the corruption scandals, the lack of success in recent very expensive programs (KC-767, JSF, RAH-66), and I'd be a little surprised if Boeing was rewarded with a KC-777 development contract, that surprise could become true though. But whatever the controversy the KC-767 issue will be settled sooner than later in my opinion and that's the tanker I see USAF having in the future, not MRTT.

 

[Sea Toby]

I doubt whether the American congress will ever buy a foreign aircraft from abroad. Boeing's position is if the Air Force wants 767s, they better buy them now before the line is closed once and for all. Boeing won't be able to build them ten years in the future if they don't start having orders now to keep the line open.

Yes, the 767 is an older aircraft, similar in size to an Airbus A-300-310, not the Aibus A-300-400. While it maybe smaller than the new Airbus A-330, the 767 is larger than the aircraft it is proposed to replace, the EC-135s, which are similar to the 707s.

The Boeing 767 line in Everett has been around since the 1970s, alongside the Boeing 747 line. During the early 1990s the 777 line was added to the Everett facility.

 

[alexsa]

Would you consider the 787 as a viable alturnative to both the 777 and 767 given its operating efficiencies and that Emirates will probably push for a larger versions which would eat into the 777 size market in any case?

 

[Magoo]

Magoo is correct, Boeing would never be allowed to build A330's in the U.S. It has never been on the table that would happen, Airbus wants to build some of their aircraft in U.S. to gain a better foothold for expansion in the U.S. Plus if Boeing built A330's it probably wouldn't create as many jobs if Airbus built them here. Major procurement programs normally always involve American jobs.

What little information about the flaw in F-22 there is says there currently little risk to the aircraft. Overall as Lockheed Martin being the primary company, I would think they would hold the overall responsibility for the flaw.
There will a comprehensive investigation for sure, and the cause will be found out.

Magoo your correct the KC-767 is advance, and my "lame duck" statement goes around the Boeing scandal. The scandal keeps getting worse for Boeing all the time. Also USAF wants more airlift capability and they can't get more C-17's then why not get a bigger and better aircraft to help those needs. I should have explained my opinion better.

Who said anything about Boeing building A330s

 

[Magoo]

I doubt whether the American congress will ever buy a foreign aircraft from abroad. Boeing's position is if the Air Force wants 767s, they better buy them now before the line is closed once and for all. Boeing won't be able to build them ten years in the future if they don't start having orders now to keep the line open.

Yes, the 767 is an older aircraft, similar in size to an Airbus A-300-310, not the Aibus A-300-400. While it maybe smaller than the new Airbus A-330, the 767 is larger than the aircraft it is proposed to replace, the EC-135s, which are similar to the 707s.

The Boeing 767 line in Everett has been around since the 1970s, alongside the Boeing 747 line. During the early 1990s the 777 line was added to the Everett facility.

Sorry to sound picky, but doesn't anyone proof read their own posts anymore?

buy foreign aircraft from abroad

. As opposed to what? And what's an A-300-400 or an EC-135???

The KC-767 has an almost identical offload capability to the KC-135. The KC-30 (the designation which Northrop Grumman as prime and EADS North America, not Airbus, are marketing the tanker version of the A330 under) will be able to offload significantly more.

However, the KC-30 will have a limited freight carrying capability which may count against it based on Rand's recommendations that the USAF buys a tanker with freight capability like the KC-10, unless Airbus develops a cargo door and floor which appears more likely now that they're going to close A300/A310 production next year.

Magoo

 

[LancerMc]

I think what ever future tanker is choosen for the USAF, that it will have to have significant cargo capability. This probably the main reason why Boeing in the first place asked to look into modifying a 777 in to a tanker.

The KC-135 has an internal fuel load of 120,000lbs (54,000 Kg) and a range of over 9,000 nm.

The 767 would only be an improvement of the 50,000lbs of fuel while the KC-30 would be an improvement of almost 90,000lbs.