Ta Da! Boeing Unveils Its KC-X

Ta Da! Boeing Unveils Its KC-X

Boeing unveiled the plane it will offer for the KC-X airborne tanker competition today, including a little movie and a press release.

There was no mention of a 777 tanker, just the long-expected 767. One of the more intriguing adds to the new bid was the news that the new tanker will boast “a digital flight deck featuring electronic displays” taken from the 787, Boeing’s most advanced civilian plane. It will “show all flight attitude, navigation, engine indication and crew-alerting information on screens 75 percent larger than on a commercial Airbus A330.” One can almost hear the Boeing folks crying: Take that EADS!

Boeing said in its release that the new tanker “will meet all of the Air Force’s 372 requirements” and will rely on “a low-risk approach to manufacturing.” For members of Congress and their staff, as well as lobbyists everywhere, the release notes that it will be built in Washington and Kansas, as well as by “suppliers throughout the nation.”


And in a finally flurry of blows against Northrop Grumman and its partner EADS, the release claims the Boeing plane will be “more cost-effective to own and operate than the larger, heavier Airbus airplane” and will “save American taxpayers more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life because it burns 24 percent less fuel.” Not only that, but the Boeing program “will support substantially more jobs in the United States than an Airbus A330 tanker that is designed and largely manufactured in Europe.”

OK, we won’t go into just who relies more on foreign suppliers or who will generate more jobs. After all, it’s not clear yet whether Northrop plans to bid on the tanker and risk the substantial costs that go into preparing and offering a bid. EADS is apparently pushing Northrop to bid as it would mark a remarkable long-term penetration of the American defense market by a foreign company.

Join the Conversation

yeah!! buy american we still know how to do it right.

Can anyone tell me why a 787 design or the Airbus A350XWB design is not being used? The 767 and Airbus A330 could very well be out of production in less then ten year. This will produce a part shortage starting almost immediately after the tanker production run is done. The KC-135 started development around the same time the 707 did we were able to take advantage of this for a long time. If a part wore out up until the late 1970’s we could get a new part to replace it. We will not be able to do this with an A330 or 767 design.

buy american!!!!! the jobs you save may be your own

Its all about money in the end…

and the military lives lost from using second-best equipment will be someone else’s?

Buy the absolute very best for the military regardless of the source.

Maybe Boeing really is the best, but that will be a question of technical and operational testing,
not of how many politicians got reelected by buying Boeing.

But, Northrop Grumman’s Tanker is already flying and transfering fuel, while Boeing’s is only on paper as early design.
Just saw a picture of Boeing’s 787 color coded by which country makes the major pieces. Very little American made pieces. Most made in Australia, Spain, England, etc.
Really wonder how much of the 767 is really made in the U.S.???
Northrop’s tanker has already been bought by Saudia Arabia, Australia, and the UK. If Boeing’s smaller 767 Tanker is the ultimate winner, our allies and Saudia Arabia will have a larger much more capable Tanker than the U.S. !! Has that ever happened before in aircraft acquisition??

Hello, buying American? Boeing just signed a partnership in Japan for engineering with a University over there, Airbus works with the local universities in Kansas, hum, training Americans to work in America and insource jobs to America and the planes are going to be built in America in Alabama, last I checked that is America. Some of you people have been drinking too much Boeing and Democratic Kool-Aid. Comments made by Rep Dicks should have him reclused from the debate, if he was a judge in a court he would have to step down. Pull out a map and look, ALABAMA is in the USA…

Plus the MRTT is flying already and I for one as a USAF pilot have flown it and it is far superior than any Boeing plane I have flown…

Its very simple, if you get a opened end contract on the 767, you can keep manufacturing that airframe long after its useful life.

This is not the best aircraft neither is the airbus. This is the way to get more money from the taxpayer with less work and keep the pork barrel warm!

ANYONE who is naive enough to think that this is about buy America or anything else except dollr bills is a fool.

This is another case of getting the politically correct instead of the best for the buck. We are buying in either case a obsolete plane that is already billions of dollars over budget without the first part being made! Very few parts of these planes are made in the “good ole USA”.

This RFP breaks almost every written and understood law that the FAR (Federal Aquisition Rules, 2300+ pages of rules and regs) has and every purchasing agent for every private and government firm knows it!

THE ULTIMATE example of your tax dollars at work and the depths that the US government will prostitute themselves to stay elected. This is from the President right on own to the local statte level politicians.

The President? Unions are the ones who are involved in this and the unions got the president where he is.

The size of the KC767 is an advantage as it can operate from fields that the Frog airplane cannot.
For the price you can have more Boeings which gives you more flexability in deployment.
We know that the 767 is a very reliable airplane and the vertical stab does not fall off.
The 767 is not computer flown, therefore it is much safer and more reliable.
I’ve flown the 76 and it is good.
We’ve been refueling from Boeings forever and it works.
Whatever we do, we should not put our eggs in a Frog basket.

So there!

Leo

Yes, Alabama is in the US, but that is just final assembly point. Whatever jobs are gained in Alabama wille lost elsewhere.

There are versions of the 767 tanker in service in Japan.

KC-X only addresses 179 airframes. KC-Y and KC-Z will address another 350 or so. If the USAF wants a MRTT then they will have ample opportunity to buy it.

Hi folks, don’t usually post on these, just like to keep across the discussion. Sorry, but as an interested observer, the “competition” stopped being about which aircraft is best the moment the GAO stepped in after protests. This is now about who has the most influence and therefore, gets the taxpayers’ dollars after yet another tender process. Sadly, if Northrop don’t tender, it will just go to show that who whines loudest wins and the people who lose out are the men and women in uniform.

A little reality here,
1. EADS Tanker has been bought by the countries, NG hasn’t made any tankers yet.
2. The A330MRTT is not the same airplane as they proposed and it is not in service in any country yet. It is undergoing testing. On the otherhand, the KC-767 is in service in Japan and has been delivered to Italy but neither is the same as the 767 deriived tanker that will be submitted for the KC-X bid. Shoot, Isreal is developing a KC-767 conversion tanker, but it isn’t in service yet either. So actually, Boeing is ahead on that one.
3. Since the KC-767 is already in service and is superior to the KC-135, I guess a nation already had a tanker in service that was bigger and had more capability. Somehow the world did not end.
4. What does the 787 have to do with the 767?

Think of this as a car purchase. You want and need a compact car (KC-X). You drive a lot, never carry lots of people or luggage, and have limited garage space. Dealer B (Boeing) has something that fits your needs and offers it to you. Dealer A (Airbus, I mean NG) doesn’t have a compact, he only has a Minivan. Dealer B has an even bigger fullsize van he could offer, but after all, you asked for a compact. Dealer A tries to convince you that you need a Minivan instead. It (relatively) guzzles gas, doesn’t fit in the garage or in the driveway, and your wife already has a Minivan (KC-10) for when you need the additional capability and plans on replacing it in a few years (KC-Y). If you only had one car like your neighbor, you would need a Minivan (UK, UAE, SA, etc) but you have two cars. So which car, I mean plane, makes more sense?

Great analogy Curt — well done!

That’s the dumbest anaolgy I’ve ever seen. It’s a bit more complicated than that Einstein…

And in x years, we will still hear from either company about delayed production, delayed delivery, cost overruns, X years overdue and $Y billion dollars over budget.…..Same Story, Different Project

America is buying 179 tankers. Saudi Arabia bought 3. There is NO SUCH THING as a Northrop Grumman tanker. It is an EADS (French) tanker sold thorugh Northrop Grumman. That’s why the price is so high. Boeing sells directly to the U.S. Government. EADS builds the A330 commercial aircraft, in France (and other parts of Europe), then will fly it to Alabama to have it outfitted as a tanker. Let me repeat again, there is no such thing as a Northrop built Tanker. Northrop jacks up the price to make a profit on the EADS tanker, since EADS cannot sell directly to the US Government, unless you want France to control spare parts to the US military.
If you don’t believe this, look up on the internet what happened when Grumman sold F-14s to Iran. As soon as the Nut cases took over, the US government stopped all supply of spare parts to Iran. It took years for Iran to go to Europe to have spare parts manufactured for their jets. DO YOU WANT FRANCE TO HAVE THIS POWER OVER THE US MILITARY?

i strongly agree with american jobs — the french are unrelable when it comes to the nitty gritty — they refused to deliver mirage aircraft to israel (but took paymnent of course) they also refused to release paid for warships to the israeli navy — and they had to be snatched from cherbourg harbour. note how france has helped n iraq and afghanistan? i wonder how much weaponry they have — are and will still sell to iran???

In regards to allies having a more capable plane than the USA: The most capable F-16 is the Block 60 flown by the UAE, not the USAF. Some folks have pitched this plane as a fallback if the F-35 goes belly-up.

Money is not infinite and in case you hadn’t noticed, we (the US) are broke.

Better to buy something of high quality that is reasonably priced and better than what you have now.

I think, it realy don’t matter who has the best design for the best price. It is all about politics, and the most political power.

In this procurement, the Govt requires the tanker be based on a commercial airframe. The airframe must have been in service for at least a few years to show that it is a reliable a/c.

Some of you guys really have no idea what you’re talking about.…

The 787 doesn’t have the lift capability required as well as the fact Boeing has no way to spin ANOTHER Dreamliner line up in a reasonable amount of time to start producing tankers, they’re already so far behind schedule to the airlines it isn’t funny.

The 767 is a hugely successful and proven widebody airframe that is readily available. To say it is beyond its useful life is absurd. There is a good chance that, like the new generation 747 (I suppose you think that’s useless too?) there will be design features taken from the 787 like the wing and avionics.

Also, all of you Airbus fanboys need a little reality check… to say the A330 is a better jet is a hard sell. To say Airbus can deliver the aircraft on time is even more far fetched. If the Air Force hadn’t screwed this up so bad Boeing would have won the original contract because, plain and simple, the 767-based tanker met the bid requirements more closely than the Airbus version.

“For members of Congress and their staff, as well as lobbyists everywhere, the release notes that it will be built in Washington and Kansas, as well as by “suppliers throughout the nation.”

——————————————————————————————————-

Incredible — bragging about the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned against, and touting it as an advantage — Ike must be rolling over in his grave. But at least it would mean buying American.

Money doesn’t have to be infinite to equip the military with the very best:

Total cost of KC-X program: projected around $35B
GM bailout: $55B
AIG bailout: $85B
farm subsidies: $87B

If necessary and the right priorities are in place, that’s plenty of room to pay a bit more on a critical USAF $35B program and get the very best.

To see what it’s like to really be too broke to spend on the military, look at Poland in 1795;
country was partitioned between Russia, Prussia, Austria and the last Polish king died in
exile in Russia.

Thank goodness we’re nowhere near that broke.

How so? Boeing offered a medium tanker, same as the requirement. Airbus offered a heavy tanker. What other tanker does Airbus have? Boeing can use the 777 if the USAF asked for a Heavy Tanker. Why does the US need 360 heavy tankers? Most KC-135s land with plenty of fuel they could transfer so the capability of a bigger aircraft will be a waste but the disadvantages will still be there. So tell me why my anagogy doesn’t work besides the fact it destroys your pre-concieved notions,

For $60 billion we could get over 425 more F-22s. With over 600 Raptors, there wouldn’t be so much pressure on the F-35.

But bailouts come first… yay…

The Air Force doesnot matter if the aircraft is out of production. Look at how many B-52s and 707 the Air Foce have been our of production for over 10 plus years and the Air Force still flies them. The bean counters gets there worth out of an aircraft. As for spare parts heaven help us if we ever run out of them.

Not really the boom system and all the electronics wili be assemblied in the US with US companies using parts made from all over the world, just like Boeing will be doing.

Noticed on the Boeings Tankers web site it still does not list the specifications as to which airframe they are using, it is a 767–200/300/400 or a combination of them. Did notice they are going to use the 787 cockpit design. Will it fit in the 767 cockpit, how much engineering modification will it take, which cost money. I am also tired of everyone referring to the Japan and Italy tanker. You’ll seem to forget this was behind schedule and over cost. Didn’t Italy sue Boeing and win for the 2 year delay. We can not afford to have a 2 year delay on delivery of this tanker

Nice video though, guess they learned from Northrop Grumman to build a real mock up

Good Morning Folks,

This has become a three ring circus. Lets see, Boeing massages the RFP to favor them, NG/EADS scream unfair, we will pick up or marbles and not play. Boeing does the new car salesman stunt, who is trying to unload the last dogs of a model year, the salesman says he/she will go to the General Manager and seeing what kind of a better deal he can make, and comes back and says “I twisted his arm and nearly broke it but I got you two more cup holders and floor mats at no additional cost.”, but I could move him on the price.

Of course we still haven’t hear from southern fried, most likely lead by the old Congressional pro himself Senator Richard Shelby. This like the F-35 will go on and on and on…

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Old391,

Of course Boeing does not give the exact specification of the “NewGen” Tanker, It never gave the exact specification of the KC-767AT either. But it is quite clear from all the renderings (stills & videos) that the “NewGen” Tanker is essentially the same as the KC-767AT. The 767–200(ER) fuselage is easy to see as well as the 767-300F wings. Although if the higher MTOW 767-300ER/F landing gear & 767-400ER flaps are utilized may or may not be used & as has been stated the “NewGen” Tanker is borrows from the most advanced commercial airliner cockpit in the world.

The Australian KC-30 is behind schedule and over cost too.

*

Byron Skinner,

You are living in an EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid induced fantacy world. Boeing didn’t massage the RFP, the requirements are essentially the same as last time (which NG/EADS DID get massaged) and IF the KC-30 is truly less expensive as the Kool-Aid tells you then a RFP emphisizing cost SHOUD favor NG/EADS.

pfcem, Boeing cannot give any type of specification for their KC what ever tanker because they do not have one to give, why because it is still a paper Tanker. It is a paper 767–200/300/400 conglomeration. We all know the basic specifications MRTT Tanker that NGC/AirBus was going to offer but nothing from Boeing. So get your Boeing friends to tell us which B767 airframe will be used, which wings will be used and other such basic information, or can they?

Old391,

BS.

Boeing isn’t giving exact specification of its offering because it is none of your business what they are at this point. We intelligent & reasonably infomed people know the BASIC specifications of the KC-767 (ALL OF THEM).

It is MORE than obvious that the NewGen tanker uses the same 767-200ER airframe that EVERY PREVIOUS KC-767. It is also obvious to us that it uses the same 767-300F wing as the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT. Boeing has already stated that the cockpit uses 787 technology & the same engines as the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT. And EVERYONE can see that the NewGen tanker boom ‘looks’ different from previous KC-767 booms. The only ‘question’ is whether the NewGen tanker uses the 767-300ER landing gear & 767-400ER flaps as the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT or not.

pfcem Guess you’re having champagne right now since NGC may not bid on the tanker proposal. Guess after looking at the new RFP and how it was slanted to Boeing, NGC knew it was a lost cause since it was rigged. Now the question is “Will Boeing be 2 years late on this paper tanker like they were with the Japan and Italian tanker and over cost?”

Northrop Grumman pulled out of the competition, just announced.

http://​www​.irconnect​.com/​n​o​c​/​p​r​e​s​s​/​p​a​g​e​s​/​n​e​w​s​_​rel…

Northrop just posted their No Bid Press Release. Link Provided above.

pcfm you just confirmed, now that NGC/EADS are not going to bid, Boeing is going to offer an upgraded version of the Japan/Italian tanker design. They are going to sell the AirForce a used tanker design

The KC-X is very impressive, especially with all the improved capabilities and the two that say, saving 10s of billions of dollars and it is combat survivable. Thanks Boeing!

For anyone who read the results of the Air Force Acquisition bids EADS/Northrop was the clear winner. Does anybody not remember the scandal no less than six years ago where Boeing was fixing the bidding process for DOD contracts. Remember Darleen Druyun, the retired AirForce Procurement Officer who went on to become a high level Boeing executive. She plead guilty to conspiracy after a federal corruption probe. This is by far not the only time Boeing has been caught cheating at the tax payers expense. I will not by conscience support a company that has defrauded the American people to the extent Boeing has. Despite the misleading reports about the Air Force selling Americans out, one should actually do a little research and get an idea of just how many people EADS and Northrop plan on hiring to build and assemble the Airbus. Quite a many more than Boeing would like you to know about. WE NEED AS MANY JOBS AS WE CAN GET!

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement