KC-X Winner to be Announced Later Today

[Jim123]

Politics aside, how hard is it to convert an existing, proven, commercial airframe into a tanker?

Not exactly the question you're asking, but it seems to be easier than the alternative- coming up with one from scratch. A short list of U.S. heavies and their lineage:

DC-10 --> KC-10
Boeing 367 --> KC-135
" " --> 707
C-130 --> KC-130
B-29 --> C-97 --> KC-97
" " --> KB-50

List of successful scratch-designed heavy tankers:

?

 

[jmcquate]

Not exactly the question you're asking, but it seems to be easier than the alternative- coming up with one from scratch. A short list of U.S. heavies and their lineage:

DC-10 --> KC-10
Boeing 367 --> KC-135
" " --> 707
C-130 --> KC-130
B-29 --> C-97 --> KC-97
" " --> KB-50

List of successful scratch-designed heavy tankers:

?

Just one. Boeing Dash 7 became the KC-135. The design was for the Air Force. They required a tanker that could fly fast enough to re-fuel Century Series fighters.

 

[Jim123]

Just one. Boeing Dash 7 became the KC-135. The design was for the Air Force. They required a tanker that could fly fast enough to re-fuel Century Series fighters.

Ah, good point- it was "dual use" even on the drawing boards. I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[Flugelman]

I usta watch the KC-135s stagger into the air at Utapao before the B-52s left, climb to about 1000 ft and nose over, apparently to gain much needed airspeed. Which makes me wonder, is a 2 engine tanker a really good idea? I don't know what gross weights they would operate at or if today's engines make that a moot argument. Inquiring minds and all that...

 

[A4sForever]

A4's the linked article mentions 11,000 direct and indirect jobs for WA. It will be interesting to see if and when these jobs come about - and if they come anywhere near the 11,000 total. The "indirect" title allows for quite a bit of wiggle room.

I think the # is 'real' in the sense of Boeing + ancillary business ... businesses that will be supporting Boeing & its workers and who have taken a big hit in the past 10-15 years. Suppliers, housing, auto dealers, grocery stores, bars, restaurants, etc., etc. ... basically everything. Time will tell, but it's happened over & over & over before in the area. Hiring ... furloughs/layoffs ... hiring ... furloughs/layoffs ... repeat & recycle for the next 60 or so years.

PLUS ... there's a lot of growth potential for employment in the PNW w/ the pathetic 787 program, the "new" 737, and the "new 747" ... *YES !!!* .

PLUS ... the line and technology is already in place and there's not much spool up time associated w/ making it run 24/7 or something approaching that if the need arises ... it's a BIG difference from the manufacturing fiasco that the 787 has proven to be, with it's 'offshore' dependency on critical parts and assemblies ...

PLUS ... it keeps corporate ownership and oversight of an integral part of our defense establishment on this side of the pond, as it should be ... that's as in both 'ponds' ...

I just hope it doesn't let WA state politicians think they can 'dodge' the hard realities of the state's budget with the 'anticipated' growth of state & local tax revenues to be had over the coming years.

 

[Recovering LSO]

^ you're giving our state legislators too much credit

 

[A4sForever]

Just one. Boeing Dash 7 became the KC-135. The design was for the Air Force. They required a tanker that could fly fast enough to re-fuel Century Series fighters.

Mebbe you're sayin' the same thing and I'm just missing it: the 707's design was conceived for both civilian & military, but the lead customer was the USAF.

It was born at a time when it was still uncertain whether or not a jet transport would be viable in a commercial airliner application. Boeing had been making nearly all of its $$$$ from military contracts ever since the start of WW2 and the venture into the commercial arena -- AND WITH A JET -- was something of a novelty and certainly unexplored territory at the time for the company.

 

[jmcquate]

Dash 80, not Dash 7, brain fart.

The Dash 80 was first delivered to the Air Force as a result of an Air Force tanker compitition (I think in 52'). Lockheed had won the contest but Boeing gambled and put thier design in production without any aircraft ordered by the Air Force or the Airlines. The Air Force changed it's mind because Boeings gamble meant that it could deliver, the gamble paid off. The Dash -80 was designed to impress the Air Force (that's why it does not have passenger windows but does have cargo doors) the airlines came soon after (some say due to Tex Johnson rolling it over the Seattle speed boat races).

 

[Random8145]

I am glad it was an American company that got the contract, having the Europeans build the tankers just would have seemed weird and "wrong" IMO.

 

[A4sForever]

.... the airlines came soon after (some say due to Tex Johnson rolling it over the Seattle speed boat races).

Gold Cup Races at Lake Washington, August 1955 ... .

And his legend carried over, for the story goes that @ 40 years later on the 777 initial flight ... the Chief Test Pilot was called into the Boeing President's office prior to the flight and told: "NO ROLLS".

 

[scoolbubba]

And his legend carried over, for the story goes that @ 40 years later on the 777 initial flight ... the Chief Test Pilot was called into the Boeing President's office prior to the flight and told: "NO ROLLS".

Foolish. Could have sold more.

 

[yak52driver]

Gold Cup Races at Lake Washington, August 1955 ... .

And his legend carried over, for the story goes that @ 40 years later on the 777 initial flight ... the Chief Test Pilot was called into the Boeing President's office prior to the flight and told: "NO ROLLS".

That is a great interview with Tex!

 

[Fog]

Some possible points to consider about this competition:
- EADS has built & delivered 6 tankers (A-310s) that don't have a USAF-compatible refueling probe
- They have a contract from Australia & the UK for A-330 based refuelers, but none delivered yet
- Their fixed refueling probe (compatible w/ USAF a/c) is under development (dropped one in Atlantic already)
- Boeing has built & delivered > 2000 refueling a/c that have serviced USAF & USN a/c for over 60 years
- EADS would have manufactured the parts in Europe & assembled (<10% of total labor cost) the A330s in Mobile
- Alabama is a very RED State
- Boeing is now HQ'ed in Chicago & 767s are built in Washington state - both very BLUE states
- Handing a huge US defense contract to the (gov't owned/assisted) competitor of our largest a/c builder, in this economy, makes no short-term economic sense nor long-term strategic sense for our industrial base
- White House politices might have been involved in this decision


One final thought: To take the air out of EADS' bigger-better-hauls mo' argument for the A-330, why didn't Boeing just use the Dash 300ER airframe (instead of the -200) as the base airframe for their bid? It would have cost only slightly more & would have significantly increased the fuel load & cargo the KC-767 could carry.