I think that I missed a couple of things from the March 10 Aviation Week issue that I need to address now, specifically some rather telling comments in the “Hometown Hubris” article.

Interesting stuff:

• IBoeing’s proposal was, “far too risky and expensive”. The 767-200LRF “Frankentanker” used the, “767-200 airframe; over-wing exits from the -300; floors, doors and structurally enhanced wings from the -300F; a cockpit, tail section and flaps from the -400ER, a completely new and not yet produced configuration.
• By comparision, the A-330 proposal was nearly identical to the Australia tanker currently in test.
• Boeing felt that, “Air Force purchase of tankers capable of hauling large amounts of cargo could jeopardize Boeing’s already tenuous C-17 production line”.
• It’s worth noting that Boeing has already purchased long lead C-17 items for 10 airframes in the expectation of more orders.
• Boeing did consider the 777, and considered pitching both the 767 and 777, but decided on pitching just the 767. There are claims that someone “discouraged” submittal on the 777, but no name or time are given.
• The U.S. requirements were similar to Australia’s. The Australian defense forces wanted a tanker that could refuel 3+ fighters, and carry maintenance crew and spares to a distant Pacific airport. The smaller airports of Europe and the Middle East were not as important in their scenarios.
• The 767 could not do this. You would need a 2nd freighter to carry crew and spares.

Now I get it. They pitched the 767, and not the 777 because they thought that the latter would compete with the C-17.

Additionally, to the degree that there was a short field requirement, the 777’s short field performance is lacking, with its wing optimized toward the cruise efficiency end of the spectrum,

Note, the boom is not rocket science. McDonnell Douglas developed their own in the 1970s, and Airbus is testing theirs for Australia as as I write.