Talk:Boeing KC-767

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Controversies and political details

From Boeing 767 talk on KC-767

  • .. I just added some additiona KC-X information to the KC-767 article, you might want to see if you want to tweak any of it. I'm also wondering at what point we might want to start a separate article on the KC-X RFP, especially if Boeing fields a KC-777 instead of the 767. Given the controversies, and the availability of citations, maybe move some of the political stuff out of the aircraft articles so that they just reflect the actual aircraft? Akradecki 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think just letting things go until after winner of the KC-X is decided. Then intervening details won't be as important and can be summarized. That's my take anyway. -Fnlayson 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. I've just finished adding more development details and cites. Akradecki 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If it looks like it will get really political, and I think it will, then I'd be for the KC-X page, esp if Boeing goes with the 777. Yes, it will have a lot of info that will need to go once the wimmer is decided, but hey - that's the fun of a web-based pedia~ - BillCJ 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KC-767 designation official?

I removed this statement " KC-767 is approved as an official designation under the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system." from the bottom of the lead. I don't see how this can be official until until the plane wins the KC-X. I'm not seeing any Boeing or DoD press releases that mention this. -Fnlayson 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system for a detailed explanation on why the KC-767 is an official allocation for the 767, though of course not for the KC-X. - BillCJ 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I corrected the wording. That's covered in better detail in the Lease section. -Fnlayson 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I got to this a little, sorry. I saw you had made adjustments right after I posted that. - BillCJ 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. Thanks for the link. I added/reworded to explain that better. Please review. -Fnlayson 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence in the Export section makes it seem like the lease came first, then gives the date of 2001 for the Japanese ordering the KC-767J. This needs to be reworded, but my brain refuses to concentrate enough to think of the right words to change/use. Can you see if you can do anything here? Thanks. - BillCJ 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll look at it. There was probably so overlap with the US and export efforts. I'll wait until this other editor quits redoing everything though. -Fnlayson 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry did not see this till now- I too missed the interim edits and then had edit conflict. Seems like we have fixed it now though! A75

[edit] Designation section

I've removed the Designation section. The KC-767A designation is already mentioned two times previously in the article. The KC-30 info does not really below in this article. Here's the section..

KC-767 was approved as an official designation under the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system, approved September 2002 as KC-767A and appearing in the 2004 addition of DoD 4120.15-L.<ref name="DoD 4120" />
The KC-30, which went by the "KC-330" moniker early on, is set to compete again with the KC-767 is not an official designation- however the designation C-30 has not been used in the post 1962 Tri-service system yet. Other designations of aircraft in the C- series in the same era include C-41 for the Series 400 CASA C.212 Aviocar and HC-144 for EADS CN235-330 Phoenix.

for reference. -Fnlayson 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Accorrding to User:Andreas Parsch: "The USAF has officially reserved the designation KC-45A for the winner of the KC-X competition, so things like KC-767A and KC-30A are effectively dead." See his website at http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/412015-L(addendum).html#_Note_KC45A for more info.
Given this, in the event the KC-767 wins the competition, then this page should be moved to Boeing KC-45. If it loses, then this name is fine, as it is Boeing's marketing name.
  • Thanks. It would more likely be "KC-45 name". Surely it'll get a name with the designation, but you know that already. -Fnlayson 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Payload compared to KC-135

I was comparing the KC-767 specs to that of the KC-10 and KC-135. It says that the KC-10 has an empty weight of 241,027 lb and a max takeoff weight of 590,000 lb, giving it a payload weight of 348,973. The KC-135 has an empty weight of 98,466 lb and a max takeoff weight of 322,500 lb, giving it a payload weight of 224,034 lb. The KC-767 has an empty weight of 188,705 lb and a max takeoff weight of 412,000 lb, giving it a payload weight of 223,295 lb. Is this correct? Why would the USAF want an aircraft that has the same payload capacity as the 50 year old one they already have? --rogerd 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • They are mainly looking for a replacement for KC-135Es with this round. "The RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters: air refueling capability, fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135..."[1] There will be a KC-Y & KC-Z contracts as well where maybe they will replace some or all KC-10s. -Fnlayson 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also 777 and A330 based tankers are closer in size to the KC-10. -Fnlayson 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, so we may see a KC-777 eventually? I see that the 777-200LR has a 440,000 lb payload weight. --rogerd 22:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing some type of 777 later, depending on AF requirements. Boeing was looking at a KC-777, but it was too big for the KC-X requirements. Didn't fully answer your question. KC-135s are used for tactical (in-theater) refueling. More refuelers is more important there than capacity per plane. The KC-10s do strategic (long range) refueling and carry cargo/passengers. -Fnlayson 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I knew they were talking about other programs later (Y & Z), but I didn't fully understand that they most likely be larger aircraft to fulfill different missions. I figured that it would be just a "B" and "C" model of whatever was selected in the KC-X program. I see from your response, and from reading the source material, that it will likely be a different aircraft altogether. Even after the 179 KC-X order is fulfilled, there will likely be a lot of 135R's still in service. I was just reading the AFA magazine reference article [2], and it said that "Even so, the KC-767 can carry treble the fuel, passengers, or cargo of the existing KC-135 tanker". That would seem to be counter to what the KC-767 article says, wouldn't you say? --rogerd 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was speculating on the Y & Z contracts. I see no reason they can't be different type of tankers depending on need. They may want/need to start replacing KC-10s before long. The "Why the 767?" article is used as a reference for this article. Where does this article counters that quoted part? I'll look at rewording it. -Fnlayson 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) "treble the fuel, passengers, or cargo of the existing KC-135 tanker" would seem to contradict the weight figures that I quoted above (taken from the respective articles about the three aircraft). --rogerd 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You should have just said the payload weights were about the same. The KC-767 Advanced for KC-X is in development and will have a higher capability.[3] -Fnlayson 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, the "treble the fuel, passengers, or cargo of the existing KC-135 tanker" line is from the AFA article, a direct quote. That is what appears to be the error here. - BillCJ 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. That's either wrong or overstating things. It's going to have to be comparable to the KC-135 to meet the RFP statement (see above). -Fnlayson 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is about the thing (plane)

It's not about any event (scandal, crash, whatever happened, I don't really care). If you want, make one. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

True on the scandal category. But probably not enough content for a separate article on the Druyun/Sears scandal. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Therefore for those wanting to look for the Scandal, they'll find the scandal here. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's not enough content (sources?), then it's not notable. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also say, please see what's in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_scandals now. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • There's plenty of references of the Druyun/Sears scandal, but there would not be enough content/text to make more than a short, stub of an article, in my opinion. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So, comfort women are scandals? Orders are scandals? --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Comfort women" (Japanese military sexual slavery) is a huge international scandal, and cotinues to be even today. The order to kill own soldiers if they surrendered and send their families to concentration camps is pretty much a scandal too, I think (imagine this: in the US POWs are ususally heroes instead). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, Comfort Women were people enslaved by the Imperial Japanese military. They weren't a scandal, they were people. That article is about people. Given that, there was a scandal involving those people. Now, substitute "Boeing KC767" for "People" in the above (yeah, the grammer doesn't work out) and reread it. Do the same with Order No. 270. It was an order contrary to humanity and decency, not a scandal. Yeah, there was a scandal involving these things, but that does not mean that you have to have "Scandal" in the word of every article you might want to categorize under "Military Scandals." If you want to put Ammunition under the Firearms category, great. But, you might say, ammunition is not a firearm? It doesn't have to be! --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, no. It's not people, it's "a euphemism for women forced into prostitution and sexual slavery for Japanese military brothels". Is Boeing KC-767 "a euphemism for" some kind of "military scandal"? The "person enslaved by the Imperial Japanese military" would be Walterina Markova. Is Markova "scandal"? No. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comfort women weren't people, eh? Now you're changing your argument to include what you think are euphemisms? Hmmmm, I'd love to chase your position around in circles, but I don't know where you are right now. When I think KC-767, I think about the scandal involving the 100-plane lease. Therefore, uh, yeah, still don't know how to put it more succinctly. Sorry if you can't understand. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, tehy have their names and they (the people) are not "scandals". What was made to them is a scandal. The plane was and is not a scandal, isn't it? (If it is and Boeing is manufacturing military scandals, I want to buy two.) When I think about plane, I think about plane. Strange indeed. Sorry if you can't understand. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is tedious. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 747 is not a scandal.

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 is a scandal.

Can't explain easier. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, am I the only one that just thought you were trying to make my point? --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny. Boeing 747 is an article about an airliner, its history, etc. It is not a plane for sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)