Quote:
Originally Posted by JA Boomer
Here's the thing thought, the B777 is only 20 feet longer, 2 feet wider, and has less then 2 feet more cabin width. I think Boeing choose the B767 to try and keep the line over, rather than plugging up the B777 production line, which is still selling nicely commercially. Or perhaps they really thought the RFP called for a smaller airframe, dunno. Seems like their mistake though. Too bad they couldn't offer a KC-787...(damn composites)  |
Agreed on all points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adux
So basically Boeing tried to sell off a inferior product to the USAF, trying to push it through with weight and influence; so as to keep a production line?
|
That's definitely what it looked like. I'm actually a fan of the 767...I've only flown on it a few times myself, but it was a very different experience than the typical MD-80 or 737 I usually get stuck on during US domestic flights. I enjoyed it quite a bit, actually.
But in this case, Boeing seemed to think their name and history was enough to get them the contract. It also seems they dont know what the US actually uses its tanker fleet for. For once I disagree almost completely with highsea. I've spent a lot of time with tanker aircrews lately, and I've been able to fly with them. One thing that surprised me is that KC-10s routinely fly cargo across the country. According to one guy, more than half his CONUS flights are hauling cargo, sometimes with A/Rs enroute, sometimes not. Cargo is huge. Someone brought up the C-17s...another valid point, that I hadnt thought about.
During combat ops, I would rather have a KC-10 out there than a 135. Without question. The KC-45 seems to bring along all the "bonuses" that come along with a 10, like fuel consolidation (not always possible with a 135), loiter time, etc. There are other tactical considerations that make the 10 (and probably the 45) a better choice than a 135, none of which involve who punches the rivets.
I certainly would've preferred a "Made in the USA" stamp on these planes...but not at the expense of getting an already outdated and replaced airframe.
If Boeing really wanted the USAF to be a solid 767 customer, they'd have put a bit of real effort into selling it for the E-8. Instead they...*drumroll please* pushed the 707 to try to keep the line open (the USAF went out and bought
used 707s instead). When the AF said no, they *drumroll again* offered more E-3s.
Granted, I wish the AF had taken them up on that last one, but that's neither here nor there.