A tanker thread

[JFReservist]

Okay, I was gonna hijack the spaceplane thread, but... here's the answer to that question - satellites

In all seriousness, the mighty tanker turns 50. She's been a great platform for many years, but the time has come to really start looking to the future. The -135 community is seeing more airlift/aeromed missions, and there's been rumors about the all purpose platform, capable of any mission be it EW to airlift.

I know some of you have some thoughts out there as to what should be done, so here are some questions:

1. Do we invest in the disposable Eurotrash airframes because they are (maybe) willing to produce them locally and meet someone's 11 point criteria

or

2. Order KC-767's before the line closes?

3. KC-787?

4. KC-747-800?

I admit that this isn't as cool as my best friend's third cousin's uncle worked on the Tacit Blue SuperHypersonic Secret Hybrid Alien SpyPlane thread, but - who's gonna refuel all of them F-22s out of Hickam?

 

[Huggyu2]

KC-787 is my choice. Uninformed, maybe, but still my choice.

 

[dtfl]

Good question

Ya know I have thought about this....seeing as how I am from Mobile and EADs wants to retrofit the 300 series into tankers at BFM. Anyway....tough call. You can argue for keeping the jobs in America -but EADs was smart and they are going to do just that. The Airbus has embraced technology more than Boeing, IMO...but..there are arguments for both. I guess whichever has the best performance on hot, heavy days and which can carry the MOST GAS and therefore be the best force multiplier - is the one we should buy - well, and cost is a factor also. Kinda like the J model. GREAT plane...but not cheap...but when you think about the fact that 3 J model sorties carry as much as 4 E/H sorties....might make sense.
Arguments are for and against. Unfortunately the idiots at Boeing that got busted might have ruined it for them - McCain has the red on for them now.

 

[Otto77]

Ive thought about it a lot..Id like to throw out another rumor I have heard.
I have heard that there have been studies about the future of air refueling and could include a KC-737 variant to serve as refueler for spec ops and other platforms. Also we could buy more numbers of these tankers and have them strategically placed. Meanwhile this would coincide with a larger tanker of course being either the KC-330 or KC-777 (yes, seen memos now being circulated now about support for this platform.

Whatever we choose to pick, I hope it comes soon. Im currently worried about the stress on the current tanker fleet and the KC10s cant pick up all the slack. Furthermore, AR is crucial for our military's strength and ability to go anywhere, anytime.

 

[TankerPuke]

I have seen the paperwork on the KC777 as well...this is my choice. I also believe the current #1 is the Airbus based on offload capability, utility,etc...but I just...can't...bring...myself....to want to fly it :nuts:

PUKE

 

[Draginass]

Whatever happened to the push for the KC767 program? The 135s have done a yeoman's job for a lot longer than we had a right to expect of them. A 767 would be a much better cargo carrier with less maintenance and lower fuel burn.

Is the KC767 still being considered up at the puzzle palace?

 

[Occam's Razor]

I have seen the paperwork on the KC777 as well...this is my choice. I also believe the current #1 is the Airbus based on offload capability, utility,etc...but I just...can't...bring...myself....to want to fly it :nuts:

PUKE

Puke,

I understand your reticence. I was a staunch Boeing/Douglas/Lockheed fan until I flew some long-haul international on the DC-10, and then some medium-stage flights in the A320. The stick rocks!

There is something goofy about using the yoke in a B777 for 1-minute on takeoff and 2-minutes on approach...and having it sitting obstructively (my new word!) in front of you for 11-hours in between! Ugh!

Ok...I'm a table addict.

 

[Otto77]

The only thing that worries me would be the longevity of an Airbus product..the way the AF is rough on airplanes would cause some concern for how long it would hold up. I think Boeings would hold up much better to the abuse..just my .02 cents

 

[PHX767]

Well, remember the history of the KC-10 purchase

The DC-10 was competing against the 747 and the L-1011 - The 747 was by far the most capable. But this was the fuel shortage 70's, and USAF bought the best compromise 3 engine airplane, the KC-10. After all, all we did with tankers was train, right? And this was right after Vietnam - a good example of a tanker supported war. Now the -10 was a fine airplane, I had 10 years on it, but just does not have the capacity that was needed, either in freight or gas. A true dual role mission in the -10 needs tanker support on both sides of any pond.

Another factor in a conflict is how many booms can you put in the anchors to reduce cycle time for the shooters? The answer is always a compromise - buy the biggest, most capable tanker possible, but buy LOTS of them. No one has ever needed fewer tankers, always more.

The 737 is too small, the 767-200 is too light, the -300ER would be pretty good. But how about all those parked 747's that the airlines would sell cheap? Put some body tanks and a little pumbing in those babies, hang the Dutch AARB (remote viewing) on the back and there you go.

A very capable airplane.

The first KC-135 I worked on was a 55 model.....

 

[RampFreeze]

Biggest is not always best. It seems like a nice idea to have a bunch of 747 tankers, but remember, you've got to have a place to park them wherever the war is. If we've learned one thing in the past few conflicts, it is that ramp space is precious. A smaller footprint is a good thing and allows you to access a lot more airfields than a large footprint airplane. If ramp space is not an issue, more medium-sized tankers on the same ramp gives you more flexibility than a few jumbo tankers.

The argument about dual role and having an AR+airlift capability is nice, but really, how often do KC-10s carry cargo? Not often when you look at the big picture. Sure, KC-10s do much more airlift than KC-135s, but it is still a small percentage of their flying overall. When a war kicks off, all of the tankers get sucked up into their vital air refueling role and aren't available to do anything but pass gas. Then, as mentioned before, the real requirement is the number of booms in the air instead of how many pounds of fuel are in the air. (fighter cycle time) The airlift airframes are much better at carrying cargo and don't need the specialized loaders, airstairs, etc. at the forward location. Yes, the new tanker(s) should have an airlift capability, but it shouldn't be a large factor in this debate even if the final C-17 buy is a deliberation point.

Boeing vs. Airbus: There are fundamental design philosophy differences between Airbus and Boeing. IMHO, the quality, durability and product support of a Boeing product beats Airbus hands down. Airline guys: for those of you who fly at companies that operate both Airbus and Boeing products - why are your new FAs specifically briefed that all of the noise near the tail (sounds like the airplane is falling apart) on takeoff is "normal" in an Airbus product? "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going..." In reality, it doesn't matter because the congressional powers with the most pull to get the contract in their districts will determine what is "best" for the USAF.

Airframes: I like a mix of 787s or 767s and 737s. KC-135 guys, how often are you flying operational missions where you offload less than 50K of fuel? I'm guessing it's a large percentage of the time and a 737 could do that job efficiently and be augmented by a larger airframe for large offload receivers.

Receiver Capable: All of the new tankers need to receiver capable. The force extension capability of the KC-10s is awesome. It would be especially nice to be able to force extend a bunch of smaller 737 tankers on the tanker tracks in between shooter "rush hour" periods in the anchors.