KC-767 Acceptance to Equal E-10 Ressurection?

**cancidas** · 2010-01-26, 10:51 PM

i was wondering if when the USAF finally comes to a decision regarding the KC-135 replacement program and selects the 767-based refueler if it would eventually lead to the resurrection of the E-10 program. the E-10, i thought, was a great idea since it consolidated the E-3, E-8 and RC-135 aircraft. i can't be sure but i vaguely remember it was meant to replace the USN's E-6 as well.

i realize this won't happen in the next 10 years. i also know the E-8s are relatively new airplanes compared to some of the KC-135s flying but they will eventually need to be replaced. perhaps by the time this comes about the 787 will make a better platform for such an airplane. when is the 767 line scheduled to close anyway?

anyone have any thoughts on this?

**hiss srq** · 2010-01-26, 11:16 PM

Valid point and idea Matt. To answer your question about the 767 line. It wont be closing anytime soon even with the 787 finally creaking to life. Considering Northrop has pretty much tossed the towel into the hamper on the tanker program at this point the 767 is going to have life to come. I would imagine at least freighters will continue to crank out at least. I wouldnt be the least bit suprised to see 767-200's and 300's in FedEx colors before this decade comes to an end.

**Matt Molnar** · 2010-01-27, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by cancidas

when is the 767 line scheduled to close anyway?

ANA just ordered five 763s last month. Kind of awesome: ANA's last 767 order was 20 years ago.

There are 59 unfilled orders at the moment, though 9 are destined for JAL so who knows about those.

NLovis · 2010-01-31, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

Originally Posted by cancidas

when is the 767 line scheduled to close anyway?

ANA just ordered five 763s last month. Kind of awesome: ANA's last 767 order was 20 years ago.

There are 59 unfilled orders at the moment, though 9 are destined for JAL so who knows about those.

They need to update the 767 line. With the new tech now and these next gen engines I can say if they update the line the 767 can be around another 20 years in production.

**jerslice** · 2010-02-01, 03:25 AM

They need to update the 767 line.

It's been tossed around as an idea - a 767NG or something.
I'm not sure that would make it very appealing to airlines though. Even with a re-engine and a new wing.

NLovis · 2010-02-01, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by jerslice

They need to update the 767 line.

It's been tossed around as an idea - a 767NG or something.
I'm not sure that would make it very appealing to airlines though. Even with a re-engine and a new wing.

Dont forget the new carbon material they are using for the body. I think it will sork. All the airlines use the 767 for the long domestic routes. Although they can swap that out for the dreamliner now. I still think the 767 has some life once updated.

**jerslice** · 2010-02-02, 02:59 AM

All the airlines use the 767 for the long domestic routes. Although they can swap that out for the dreamliner now.

There's your key. If the tanker bid doesn't come through I think it'll be a slow spiral to the end for 767.

**hiss srq** · 2010-02-02, 03:52 AM

It is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. Right now Northrop is throwing temper tantrums because the Obama admin. rewrote the requirements for the program and the KC767 project pretty much matches it spec for spec. That is one thing I will give Obama's white house, they are looking to keep one of the bigger aerospace projects for the gov. in the states where as the Bush goverment was happy to send jobs overseas.

NLovis · 2010-02-03, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by hiss srq

It is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. Right now Northrop is throwing temper tantrums because the Obama admin. rewrote the requirements for the program and the KC767 project pretty much matches it spec for spec. That is one thing I will give Obama's white house, they are looking to keep one of the bigger aerospace projects for the gov. in the states where as the Bush goverment was happy to send jobs overseas.

One of the reasons we had the recession.

**DHG750R** · 2010-02-03, 04:28 AM

Just found this picture of the former E-10 parked in a corner of PAE looking a little neglected

http://paineairport.com/kpae2735.htm

**cancidas** · 2010-02-03, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by DHG750R

Just found this picture of the former E-10 parked in a corner of PAE looking a little neglected

http://paineairport.com/kpae2735.htm

that airplane was sold to bahrain from what i understand, though it's been a while since we've heard anything about delivery.

**jerslice** · 2010-02-03, 09:11 PM

that airplane was sold to bahrain from what i understand, though it's been a while since we've heard anything about delivery.

That is correct...it's been sitting up there in the same spot every time I go. I'd take a shot but it's pretty well obstructed. They are expecting a delivery in the summer of this year - I think late June/early July. Can't wait to see it start flight testing again.

**Tom_Turner** · 2010-02-04, 12:57 AM

I suspect Boeing is barely breaking even on the 767 line, and the only reason they are selling any now (like the LAN order) is low prices to keep it alive for the tanker program. Otherwise it'd be well on its way into the history books.

Tom

NLovis · 2010-02-06, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Tom_Turner

I suspect Boeing is barely breaking even on the 767 line, and the only reason they are selling any now (like the LAN order) is low prices to keep it alive for the tanker program. Otherwise it'd be well on its way into the history books.

Tom

If they upgraded the line they would probably secure orders for replacements of the current ones out there. Most of the 767's owned by the US companies are like 20 years old. If they saw that and took advantage it would work out. It would also work for the tanker program. Fly further burn less fuel. Win win.