IAI's Bedek was gearing up for a 767 tanker series based on converted airframes, no doubt building on their busy 767 BCF program.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-411680/

IAI/Bedek has been doing this for years. Apparently in 2012 they had completed design and testing of a boom version (previous ones being drogue types).

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... conversion

However, it appears that Boeing has blocked this program, I'm guessing by refusing a type certificate. That's interesting since I'm wondering if none had been issued for the testing done years ago, or was it issued then recently revoked?

https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-boei ... 1001248908
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22 ... ompetition

It appears the Boeing is trying to lock in its market for the KC-46. This would leave only Boeing and Airbus in the tanker market - leaving the world to choose between two expensive options.

The timing is interesting, since IDF has been rumbling recently about a bunch of fleet purchases and Boeing's name is listed. By snuffing a national job-making enterprise, does this alter that shopping list? Would such pressure cause Boeing to cough up a TC? Arm-chair a.net generals, you decide.

Also, Boeing wasn't out on the cold on the IAI program - apparently IAF was going to buy new-build 767F and then convert them, if I read the Globes article correctly.

From the Globes article:

According to the source, any Boeing aircraft that IAI converts from passenger configuration to cargo or fuel tanker configuration must receive a special permit from Boeing, as the manufacturer and the owner of the intellectual property in the aircraft's design. A source close to Boeing confirmed this to "Globes", and said that in order to receive the required permits, for every Boeing aircraft that IAI converts to a different use it pays Boeing between $500,000 and $1 million. "How would it make business sense for Boeing to give IAI such a permit when it is bidding against it in the very same tender?" the source said.

I am not aware of such "permitting" requirements. Is anyone else familiar with such a requirement? When someone converts an A321 or a 767 to a freighter do they pay royalties to A or B? Up until now I've never thought that was part of the equation. I assumed you just work under a STC and do the mods yourself independent of the OEM.

A confidential source talking to the Globes is maybe not confirmation of the pertinent details, here. I do think Boeing likely wants to win the business themselves, but this could be one guy without any kind of program authority. The Drive (Tyler) is basically just reporting on the Globes article.

texl1649 wrote:

A confidential source talking to the Globes is maybe not confirmation of the pertinent details, here. I do think Boeing likely wants to win the business themselves, but this could be one guy without any kind of program authority. The Drive (Tyler) is basically just reporting on the Globes article.

True - I usually take The Drive with a lot of skepticism, so I put in the Globes reference. Had it just been a blind article by The Drive, I may not have posted.

Boeing obviously wants to sell them the KC-46, but that clashes directly with a home-grown business they have going that also has a big price difference. Also, seems that IAI was looking at GE engines but KC-46 is PW - not sure if that will help Boeing's case.

I appreciate the posting. It's just that Boeing and IAI have partnered for projects as diverse as MD-11 conversions, B757SF's, 777 (and yes also 9x), 787 and 717 landing gears/empennages, F-15 CFT/cockpit/doors/rudders (I think IAI is the largest Eagle airframe supplier, and they're both looking for a big follow on order from Israel), T-38 upgrades, F-18/T-45 landing gears, 737 conversions, Arrow 3 production/licensing, and I'm sure countless others (I seem to recall F-4 and AH-64 partnerships but not specifically enough to cite.)

I just don't see Boeing making a decision to substantially sever their IAI relationship over what is, in reality, a handful of licenses for 767 conversions. The KC-46 program is, overall, a huge money loser for them as it is anyway, there's no reason to drive IAI, and/or IDF business away long term over this competition.

Again, I suspect this is one mid-level guy in an office yapping off the record/complaining about IAI to a reporter, and nothing else. The IAI program approach using the 767-300 frame is very different, as well, vs the KC-46.

texl1649 wrote:

I appreciate the posting. It's just that Boeing and IAI have partnered for projects as diverse as MD-11 conversions, B757SF's, 777 (and yes also 9x), 787 and 717 landing gears/empennages, F-15 CFT/cockpit/doors/rudders (I think IAI is the largest Eagle airframe supplier, and they're both looking for a big follow on order from Israel), T-38 upgrades, F-18/T-45 landing gears, 737 conversions, Arrow 3 production/licensing, and I'm sure countless others (I seem to recall F-4 and AH-64 partnerships but not specifically enough to cite.)

I just don't see Boeing making a decision to substantially sever their IAI relationship over what is, in reality, a handful of licenses for 767 conversions. The KC-46 program is, overall, a huge money loser for them as it is anyway, there's no reason to drive IAI, and/or IDF business away long term over this competition.

Again, I suspect this is one mid-level guy in an office yapping off the record/complaining about IAI to a reporter, and nothing else. The IAI program approach using the 767-300 frame is very different, as well, vs the KC-46.

That's a great assessment with sound logic. Ultimately it's up to what the customer really wants. If it comes down to Israel wanting the cheaper conversion option then that's what they're going to do and Boeing isn't going to pass up on the business (IAI could very well go and get an A330 afterall - it would just take more time).

I am starting to wonder how much this is about. The articles claim to quote "IAI CEO", but not seeing any official word from IAI or Boeing through normal channels, unless I'm missing it. I wonder if this is a kerfuffle being blown out of proportion?

texl1649 - thanks for the great post reviewing the Boeing-IAI relationship. It does seem out of place that Boeing would kvetch (ha!) over an order conversion from six new-build 767F to six KC-46.

In the absence of hard information, I can start a rumor.

I knew earlier that IAI had put a boom on a 767 around 2010-2012-ish. Maybe IAI did the work but never got a STC signed off for it, and maybe as these Israeli tenders are being prepared Boeing said "you recall you never got that thing covered and it wasn't complete enough to sign off a STC" and someone complained to someone who leaked it to the media? Maybe Boeing didn't block the STC, but instead IAI has yet to get the program into position to get one yet.

Just a guess...

Ever since the KC-767 fiasco (maybe earlier) Boeing has been hard nosed about proprietary rights. This, in line with their goal of expanding their post production business have made them stingy in giving out aircraft data which is required to modify airplanes. Sure, you can see that a frame is made of aluminum, but do you know what type aluminum used? That would tell you how strong the new modified joint would be. All that information belongs to Boeing and they will assert that rights where they deem fit.

In this case, Boeing is probably eager to sell the KC-46 to Israel. Since the sale would probably be based on US Tax money given to Israel as military aid, Boeing would be in a stronger position to play ball. For other countries, where no aide is involved, Boeing would probably allow, even promote, the IAI conversion.

This is also why Boeing was the sole sourced as the mod team for PAR. Sure, the Air Force could have selected the 747 and have someone else do the design and mod, but Boeing would have charge a significant amount of money for the base 747 Engineering data, so the Air Force was probably forced to go sole source with Boeing as the prime integrator.

bt

The OEM cannot prevent someone from getting an STC, they can just make it very difficult by not providing data. The STC applicant is free to reverse engineer a solution with out OEM support, they will just have a very uphill effort to get the data approved by the regulatory agency.
For IAI, they probably possess the data needed to perform the tanker conversion due to the data having been provided by Boeing to support their freighter conversions, but I would imagine the data was provided under a specific license that only permits IAI to use the data for the freighter conversion (actually specifically for individual freighter conversions). Of course it is hard to unsee information, and if IAI chose to use their knowledge to proceed without Boeing's permission Boeing's only recourse would be to take legal action, and sever their support for future IAI work. That would be a risk that IAI would probably would not want to take.