Interesting comparison... No flames please!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart...mpare-0927.gif __________________

I believe "cluedo" is some sort of board game?? Funny:D

One thing about the tankers......there is a huge backlog for 777's. The 767 line is barely creeping along. If the 777 is picked it could be a long time before the tankers show up....the 767 is ready now.

Anyone here promoting the 777 here ever consider the fact that the majority of tanker ops are stateside sorties, which have offloads of less than 10K, if at all...that's an awfull lot of gas we'll be burning just to fly an airplane that's 350K lbs heavier than the 767, and besides, the primary mission (some of you know what I'm talking about) of the 135 has nothing to do with dragging squadron's home and doesn't require an offload of more than 200K.

But at the same time if you look at who's passing a large portion of the gas in the desert right now and moving a large amount of the jets across the pond and back it's the -10. I think we can all agree that the -10 and -135 both have certain roles they do best. It's about the right mix of tankers that the AF needs and I think only 59 -10's is about 59 too few of the big tankers... We obviously need to replace the -135 and the 767 is a great choice, I just think if you're going through the trouble of awarding a new contract you should go ahead and add a few big tankers to the mix. It's that long term planning that the AF seems to never get right... JMHO

planeview

I didn't see a $$$$ row in your comparison.

Seems like it would make sense to buy both 76 and 77's. Any chance congress will split the contract btw Boeing and Airbus due to the recent scandals?

777 Freighter is about $250M, 767 Freighter is about $160M. Not sure what the modified tanker would cost but you could guess about $90M difference between the two.

New Tanker!
 

The 10 is good at the long haul? How often does the 10 go across the pond without a 135 toping it off? Just about never! Cargo/Coronet missions usually means picking up the cargo, how long are the fighter base runways? Not long enough! So 135 refueling is added, so it is still a minimum 2 plane mission. Which the 135 can do more cost effectively from a strict air refueling consideration.

Long distance A/R, Who is more efficient w/o topping 0ff?
the 135! Do the math on PFPS and see, realizing that the point the 135 becomes more effecient is directly related to how much gas the 10 takes off with. Even fully loaded the 135 has more gas available the further they fly!

The added cost of operating the 10 is significant compared to benifit...as a tanker.

BUT it is a much better cargo plane! Dual role has same problem as above but extra airplanes are required to accomplish this mission anyway, and the 10/135 combo is much more cheaper than a 135/5 or 17! (tankers now required for the 17 and probably for the 5) And what fighter CC dosen't like first class service for his troops!

The 777 is an awesome cargo/long distance AR aircraft, but not cost effective compared to the 10/135/767 combos. Although it would be cool! The 767 is more of a 135 replacement than a 10 replacement. Keep in mind after you get to the war you have to get into the war! And this means numbers not gallons!

777 as a cargo plane with a secondary mission of long distance AR is the best argument for the 777.

Yes, I'm a former tanker(I've flown both)/coronet planner!

What about the KC-30? I read that the KC-30 only has one benefit over the KC-767, and that is that it has a fly-by-wire refueling boom. Sounds like over-engineering the toaster to me . . .