Air Force restarts tanker replacement program

[sundevil777 102]

Finally. I didn't realize that Northrop Grumman was teaming with Airbus to compete for this project, to build it in Louisiana. The 767 production line will be shut down without this program.

I didn't realize that Japan and Italy already have the 767 tanker. It is amazing how long the KC135 has served, and they still have 500 in service. The tanker is so crucial to the capability of the air force, it is awful that the scandal at Boeing led to the delay of such an important program.

Announcment of green light from Pentagon:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/aw042406p2.xml

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[freeflir29 0]

What's wrong with the 135's that they need replacing? I worked on them (Structural Maint. as late as 1994) and they were in awesome shape. It's a good airplane and the R model upgrade should be able to last for many years.

[JohnMitchell 16]

I'm guessing a few factors. The economy of 2 engines vs. 4, and a 2 man flight deck rather than 3-4 man. Also, I think the gross weight for the B-767 is greater than the B-707 (KC-135). That means more fuel, greater capability. When a flight of 4-6 F-15's deploy somewhere, a KC-10, based of the infamous DC-10, can carry the fuel, the spares, and the ground crews all at once. The KC-135 can't do the same, severely limiting it's flexibility.

If Congress makes the Air Force choose an Airbus for the next tanker, I'll just barf. Is that still a possibility?

[sundevil777 102]

From the article below:

RAND Corp. has been conducting a Defense Department-commissioned study of options for modernizing or replacing the KC-135 fleet. The KC-135s are about 45 years old on average, compared with an average age of about 20 years for the KC-10s. The Air Force's 110 or so KC-135Es, the oldest in the KC-135 fleet, are plagued by corrosion and rising maintenance costs, Handy said.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=553506&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FKC1008035.xml

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I'm guessing a few factors. The economy of 2 engines vs. 4, and a 2 man flight deck rather than 3-4 man. Also, I think the gross weight for the B-767 is greater than the B-707 (KC-135). That means more fuel, greater capability. When a flight of 4-6 F-15's deploy somewhere, a KC-10, based of the infamous DC-10, can carry the fuel, the spares, and the ground crews all at once. The KC-135 can't do the same, severely limiting it's flexibility.

If Congress makes the Air Force choose an Airbus for the next tanker, I'll just barf. Is that still a possibility?

This is a no hurl zone! Yes, Airbus is in the running, they have joined with Northrop/Grumman for this project, which will no doubt make it more politically palpable.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=549579&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FEADS06235.xml

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mx757 4]

we should NOT buy airbus tankers! we should buy 767 or maybe have the C-17 made into a tanker? I'm against the airbus tanker because long after aircrft are built, we'll be buying parts from French etc to support this aircraft for next 20 to 40 years! its our tax dollars and we should have a US made tanker either a 767 / or have the 777 / C-15 modified for tanker roles. the KC-10 was based on the DC-10

[sundevil777 102]

I've never heard of the C-17 being considered as a tanker. I would think it not so well suited for the task. The design needs of a rough field capable military transport result in it being just not as efficient a plane as a commercial airliner in moving a heavy load a long distance. It would be attractive politically to help keep the prodution of the C-17 up, as the numbers being authorized for it start to be cut/considered to be cut.

The 777 is being considered, but of course would involve extra costs as only about 50% of the development from the 767 tanker could carry over as is. There is always the balance of having more tankers that carry less vs. fewer tankers that carry more. John's coment about the larger planes being able to carry a larger mix of fuel, cargo, and personnel is also a consideration of the air force.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

I'm guessing a few factors. The economy of 2 engines vs. 4,

The KC-135 (my old airframe) was designed under Gen LeMay to have multiple redundancies to fulfill a cold war mission, i.e. give every last drop of gas to a nuke-laden B-52, and then ditch the acft, the crew having jumped out under rounds. It can fly straight and level on one engine until the fuel runs out.

The problem is corrosion control. The mx is becoming cost-prohibitive, as some parts are just rotting faster than they can be replaced.

Quote

and a 2 man flight deck rather than 3-4 man.

Only special ops/low & slow missions require the Nav. Google "Pacer-CRAG" for the Nintendo they installed to replace a human nav. Even the pilots prefer the Nav on board.

Quote

Also, I think the gross weight for the B-767 is greater than the B-707 (KC-135). That means more fuel, greater capability. When a flight of 4-6 F-15's deploy somewhere, a KC-10, based of the infamous DC-10, can carry the fuel, the spares, and the ground crews all at once. The KC-135 can't do the same, severely limiting it's flexibility.

The AF acquisitions nitwits fucked up when they only bought a few dozen KC-10s. There's fuck-all they can do about that now...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[tbrown 26]

I didn't realize that Japan and Italy already have the 767 tanker. It is amazing how long the KC135 has served, and they still have 500 in service. The tanker is so crucial to the capability of the air force, it is awful that the scandal at Boeing led to the delay of such an important program.

[mx757 4]

Quote

I've never heard of the C-17 being considered as a tanker. I would think it not so well suited for the task. The design needs of a rough field capable military transport result in it being just not as efficient a plane as a commercial airliner in moving a heavy load a long distance. It would be attractive politically to help keep the prodution of the C-17 up, as the numbers being authorized for it start to be cut/considered to be cut.

Aviation & Space week had a artical about proposed C-17 tanket / combi awhile back..

[miked10270 0]

Quote

we should NOT buy airbus tankers! ... we'll be buying parts from French etc ... its our tax dollars and we should have a US made tanker...

I'm guessing that "International Trade" is a bit of a foreign concept to you!

(Did I REALLY just say that?).

We buy stuff off you. planes, helicopters... Loads of stuff(which occasionally works - see the latest Chinook & Apache scandals with the British MoD). All in the name of standardisation, or best cost (meaning politics).

You buy stuff from us for the same reason.

If the airbus is the best performing contender, then shouldn't your troops get the best? It is a more modern & efficient design.

Or would you prefer to spend more money on a less effective (but home-grown) product? If that's the case, then should Europe do the same rather than buying American?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[ypelchat 0]

Quote

we should NOT buy airbus tankers! we should buy 767 or maybe have the C-17 made into a tanker? I'm against the airbus tanker because long after aircrft are built, we'll be buying parts from French etc to support this aircraft for next 20 to 40 years! its our tax dollars and we should have a US made tanker either a 767 / or have the 777 / C-15 modified for tanker roles. the KC-10 was based on the DC-10

So much for your tax dollars.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601715.html?sub=new

Yves.