Is Boeings aging 767 aerial tanker snake bit?
Five years ago, Boeing got caught pushing the 767 in a controversial $23 billion sweetheart lease deal with the Air Force that landed its execs in jail. Since then, Boeing has been on the loosing end in sales to four U.S. allies which bought aerial tankers. Great Britain, United Arab Emirates, Australia and soon to be announced Saudi Arabia all went with the newer KC-30 built by Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.
Boeing inked deals with Japan and Italy but has yet to deliver. Italy has been waiting for more than two years and counting. And Japan has imposed fees and angrily waits as Boeing struggles to get the tanker fully certified by the FAA.
Thats proving harder than Boeing publicly admits. Problems include flight control software integration and debugging (very serious), and an environmental control system (minor). Others concern communications, not being able to fly long distances on only one engine and night refueling glitches. All keep the aircraft grounded.
And a new wrinkle popped up at Boeings recent investor conference. After hearing about yet more Japan and Italian tanker set backs problems with the refueling boom camera, and hang ups with wing pod gas hoses J.P. Morgan warned these performance issues and delays may count against Boeing in the $40 billion competition against EADS and U.S. partner Northrop Grumman to replace the U.S. Air Forces fleet of existing tankers. Its the biggest procurement program in years.
Since past performance is a top criterion of the selection process, the Air Force no doubt is wringing its hands. And Boeing continues to stub its toe and raise eyebrows inside the Pentagon. At the end of May, Boeing got caught embellishing some tanker facts. It said the 767 could take off fully loaded in 7,000 feet of runway. In reality, according to Boeings own clarification, it needs 8,000 feet to get airborne.
The art of fact-shading doesnt stop there. Boeing says its tanker program will create 44,000 new jobs. The truth? Regardless of who wins, the program will create 25,000 new jobs, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The straight facts are not hard to come by. The KC-30 is newer and more technologically sophisticated than the Boeing 767. The KC-30 carries 20 percent more gas (or 45,000 more pounds), more passengers, including aero-medical evacuation patients, nearly double the cargo pallets, is more fuel efficient, and can land fully loaded at 838 runways worldwidenearly 300 more than the Boeing 767.
Military planers like the fact that the KC-30 multi-platform tanker could lighten the load of the Air Forces C-17 cargo hauler, letting it move the heavy equipment it was designated for. Others think a straight tanker, like Boeings 767, despite its limitations, is best for the service.
But what about Boeings current snafus on the Japan and Italian tankers? Is this not a red flag of problems and risk the Air Force should worry about? Boeing says these contracts serve as risk mitigation programs for the big U.S. Air Force deal. In other words, our allies in Tokyo and Rome are guinea pigs.
Had the Pentagon gone with the original lease deal and paid Boeing $250 million per plane or more than twice todays purchase price the Air Force would be the guinea pig. The same problems that plague the 767 in Japan and Italy would have left the Air Force without an operational tanker today.
That head-spinning fact is not lost on the pilots who require a tanker that can get airborne anytime to refuel military aircraft supporting troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and hot spots around the world.
(Gouge: BV)
– Ward
I know it’s a stupid and blissfully naive question, but why the hell should Boeing even be in the running for this competition, given its disgraceful history of bribing upper-level U.S. government officials? How are we ever going to get Boeing and other public-trough-feeding bureaucracies under control, if they suffer no meaningful consequences for criminal activity?
A related question: How many comments will be posted before some pompous clown goes on about how Boeing and its ilk are just too vital to be constrained by trivialities like law?
hopefully i’m not being *too* pompous, but the reality of the so-called military industrial complex is that no company which is indeed vital to current and future systems is going to be blacklisted for an incident that at least on the surface seems to be limited to a personal decision.
i’m sure it’s not the only instance of pocket-lining occuring in the industry today, and it’s not going to stop anytime soon. if any one of the big equipment mfgs decides to stop trying to get the military’s business, we will certainly be left with a vacuum of technological advancement.
we can’t have the procurement utopia we’d all like to see. this is what we have to work with. the best we can hope for is more public oversight of the process as a result of the boeing scandal coming to light
I won’t argue the fact that a reliable tanker is needed, and that Boeing needs more than a slap on the wrist for their suspect activities. Other items were covered on the aspects of the aircraft themselves, which I won’t argue.
My only questions are: What ever happened to “American Made”? If we continue to outsource our military needs to another country to fulfill, aren’t we hurting ourselves in the long run when/if an American company folds because of this?
The post does not take in account that the 767 tanker trasformation work has been done by Aeronavali in Italy and not in US.
So as a matter of fact Italy is not just a guinea pig but a full partner with risk sharing:
http://www.fly-net.org/aeromedia/amib767t.html
This partnership is part of a wider strategy involving 787 parts production:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/275606_italy28.html
Just to correct: The KC-30 is actually a Northrop Grumman development, which as you know is an American company. It is only based on the Airbus A330, and some of Airbus is participating in the project. So it’s not like America is losing out to Airbus when other countries choose it over the 767 tanker. It’s just Boeing.
When a major war comes on try calling France for spar parts.
At least we can make Boeing spread the drawings and designs around to increase production.
Unlike the AIRBUS guys Boeing is American. If NGC has a good idea to make tankers they should team with Boeing like on the Super Hornet EA18G.
AIRBUS makes good products but don’t expect them anytime soon as they can’t seem to get the A380 right. Buy American!
“When a major war comes on try calling France for spar parts.“
How’s about we leave the France-bashing jokes in the same dustbin where “Freedom Fries” reside? It’s got old, it’s basically ignorant (why don’t you try that sort of humor on a legionaire sometime?), and it’s kinda like making jokes about President Taft’s weight.
“When a major war comes on try calling France for spar parts.“
How’s about we leave the France-bashing jokes in the same dustbin where “Freedom Fries” reside? It’s got old, it’s basically ignorant (why don’t you try that sort of humor on a legionaire sometime?), and it’s kinda like making jokes about President Taft’s weight.
Posted by: sglover at June 6, 2007 10:09 PM“
ARE YOU KIDDING-the way they change governments, can we really trust them to come through? This isn’t about Freedom Fries, this is about tens of thousands of unemployed young men running around the French suburbs plotting treachery.
Why torch a Citroen when the plant making parts for the US Air Force is right there?!?
Glover-you are super naive today.
As a formmmer boomoperator I like what the 767 ha to offer it nice to see the comfort of the crew being dicuss along with planes perfomance ‚. but this just goes to show that alot of company still want to dump untested equipment on us and have US pliot work out the bugs
ARE YOU KIDDING-the way they change governments, can we really trust them to come through?
Do you mean “by holding elections, like everyone else”? Have you not noticed that they *just did exactly that*? You do realise that in 1969, a year after the nearest approach to a revolution since 1871, they *re-elected a conservative government and elected a conservative president*?
Are you aware that the wings and landing gear come from the UK, most of the fuselage and the flight control system from Germany, the tail unit from Spain, the flight-refuelling gear from the UK, and there is a choice of Rolls Royce or GE-Snecma engines?
Are you aware that the airframe in question, the A330, has been in service for the last 20 or so years with airlines around the world?
I too have serious concerns of our air force buying foriegn airplanes. The biggest and most severeis, of course, what would happen in times of another war. We have just concluded a tough relationship with the French, so think what would happen if we had their airplanes. No parts and thus our tanker fleet would be sitting on the ground and become sitting ducks for the enemy. Our government should never buy foreign, period.
Remember, Boeing is footing the R&R bill for the 767, but I think they should be more upfront with the operational data.
I’m a retired Air Force KC135 Crew chief.
I remember B-47 pilots sweating bullets as they got heavier and closer to stall speed behind the old slow KC-97’s, and later the agony of falling off the boom as we got heavyer behind the speedy KC-135’s. But the real issue is integrity, when a company lies to tout their new planes performance to sell it to the USAF, it tells me they are more interested in money than our pilots safety, lives and mission capability. Boeing has served our country well in the past, but this showes the generational change in management integrity. It makes me sick to see such blatent disreguard for morals and ethics, in my mind it brings shame to the nation, the company has lost all of the respect I used to have for a once great aircraft manufacturer. Sad just sad. An aging former SAC crew chief. E. V. Pence
As a KC-10 and –135 Crew Chief, I am very much against buying foreign planes. There is just too much that can go wrong as far as logistics, parts etc. Keep it at home where it belongs.
I think it’s high time that democrats and republicans quit playing politics with our security and order the new Boeing 767 Tankers, as a retired Air Force Fuel Systems Repairman (Fuel Cell.)
I can assure you the KC-135 needs replaced ASAP as this aging fleet is close to 50 years old, lets get a clue people before it’s too late.
Sincerely; Msgt.(Retired)James M. Keating
I think it’s high time that democrats and republicans quit playing politics with our security and order the new Boeing 767 Tankers, as a retired Air Force Fuel Systems Repairman (Fuel Cell.)
I can assure you the KC-135 needs replaced ASAP as this aging fleet is close to 50 years old, lets get a clue people before it’s too late.
Sincerely; Msgt.(Retired)James M. Keating
I have worked on the kc-135r for over 7 years and the quality of that plane is excellent. For it to still be around and performing as well as it is today is impressive. I know we have done alot of work to it through the years, but it still shows american made. To purchase from a manufacturer over seas puts us at risk. Just look at the sale of F-14s to Iran back in the day. Now they are trying to buy are parts at surplus auctions, since we wouldnt sell them parts for there broke planes through the years. Do we even want to be in any kind of situation like that.
(air guard) adam mitchell
all the comments about refusing to buy from foreign sources are off-base
1. it is based off a COMMERCIAL airliner with over 1000 in service, it would be impossible to pull parts off the shelf
2. for the tanker specfic parts, you buy enough spares to last you for years
3. the contract/treaty would contain language that would guarantee availablility of parts no matter what
4. france is actually very good about not cutting off customers (moreso than the US). Whether it’s principle or money, it’s true
5. the contract will undoubtedly include access to plans and sourcecode so IF we were cut off it wouldn’t be too difficult to create our own parts
6. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries we reduce the capability of our own military by possibly refusing better solutions and certainly reducing competition (thus increasing costs)
7. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries, you can expect retaliatory measures against us. Remember the US exports A LOT of weapons overseas. Retaliatory sanctions could severely cripple many companies here.
there are legitimate criticisms of the KC-30, this is not one of them
“Do you mean “by holding elections, like everyone else”? Have you not noticed that they *just did exactly that*? “
No, I mean they change policies based upon the whims of the huge Islamic population that burns a hundred cars a night this time of year. That’s what I meant.
They have just elected a somewhat conservative Gov’t however-they have a history of standing AGAINST the US quite TOO OFTEN. I’m still pissed that those F-111s had to fly to Libya via Gilbraltar.
“6. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries we reduce the capability of our own military by possibly refusing better solutions and certainly reducing competition (thus increasing costs)
7. if we flat out refuse to buy any military products from other countries, you can expect retaliatory measures against us. Remember the US exports A LOT of weapons overseas. Retaliatory sanctions could severely cripple many companies here.“
NOONE is flat out refusing to buy from foreign sources.…. just this source, unless we get tons of insurance that their won’t be riots in the street of Paris if these tankers support an air strike against Tehran or Damascus. Right now some terrorists claim they hate the US because we arm Israel-is France ready to be a target because they equip us?
As for retaliation against American military manufacturers.…. NOT WORRIED.
> NOONE is flat out refusing to buy from foreign sources.…. just this source, unless we get tons of insurance that their won’t be riots in the street of Paris if these tankers support an air strike against Tehran or Damascus.
it simply is NOT an issue
did you read all my other points? we will buy sufficient spares to last YEARS, there will be legal guarantees, there will be technical guarantees (access to plans and sourcecode). It is simply not an issue. However many people riot in paris or whoever comes to power, it DOES NOT MATTER
besides this is NOT buying from ‘France’, it’s from EADS of which France owns less than a third. EADS is a private company with large presences in Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and America. It’s not clear France could stop EADS even if it wanted to
also what exactly are concerned they could withhold?
take a look at their industrial partners:
http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/march_29_2007.htm
engines — GE — Ohio
wing pods and drogues — Sargent Fletcher — California
radio, avionics, mechanical — Honeywell — Arizona
flight management — Smiths Aerospace — Michigan
intercommunication — Telephonics — New York
basically the only things EADS will be directly supplying are the frame and the boom
and the frame is a very successful commercial airliner ensuring global availability of spares
Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone else that when the French held a competition to replace their KC-135s, they did not allow non-European companies to compete?
I have read the comments and for the most part agree with the many points being made. What is bothering me the most are several factors that we seem to be missing. Are we holding a grudge against Boeing for two stupid people who screwed up, got caught and went to prison. There have been many changes in the company to prevent that from happening again. The rest of Boeing is highly dedicated to building quality products and doing the job right. We can find problems like those mentioned above in any industry. Harboring resentment is not healthy!
The bottom line for me is the tax dollar — BILLIONS of them — being used to support a foreign fleet. It bothers me to say that French Quality is better than American quality. It bothers me that we have to spend BILLIONs more in infrastructure changes just to support the KC-45. It also bothers me that we are calling this an American product simply because parts of will be assembled in Alabama. In the end, it is still a French built airplane and the profits go outside of our country to help someone else’s economy. We should be focusing that help to much needed ares in our country. To say that there will be retalliation for not buying European is hogwash. We sell weapons systems to those without the capability to build themselves. This is not the case in this acquisition.
From history, we can feel confident that the French will most likely be the first to turn their backs on us if they disagree with a delicate US political strategy as they did in the Iraq War.
In my mind, the Airbus may be a nice plane and a good tanker, but it is not an American Tanker. The 767 met all acquisition requirements, was a lower cost, and will not require major retrofit of hangars and runways to accommodate it at a wider variety if bases (This new tanker will now become a budget sinkhole that take more dollars for maintenance and upgrades).
Bottom line — we need to rethink our procurement strategy — I cannot see how this decision was anything but a major screw-up. What is worse is to hear our leaders (even a presidential nominee) say that 44,000 american jobs are not important so we will hire thousands of French engineers to do the job,
It all boils down to abuse of the American tax dollar. This particular selection process just shows that Americans nave been screwed again by their own leaders!
“It’s not about landing at commercial airports but short-run military fields that interest the Air Force. The smaller 767 can land and take-off from more of these facilities than can the larger KC-30.“
The fact is KC767 requires longer runways to operate on than the KC30 civil or military. In any case refueling tankers don’t land on forward military runways since tankers offload their payload in the sky, not on the ground. Tankers normally land at reasonably large airports or airbases to which fuel can be delivered by land, sea.