KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4085 times:
For the first time an Italian KC-767 has refueled another Italian KC-767. Looking at the picture, the Kansas country sides looks very cold. The mid-west US has had a lot of winter storms in the past month.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10469 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3862 times:
Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 2): Why don't just get a bigger tanker?
Remember, the KC767 couldn't take off at full load from a 7,000ft long RWY under the USAF specifications used in the competitive tanker comparison of last year: basically it came down to this: the KC767 offers either a full load with poor range, or good range with poor loads.
Maybe Boeing is secretly testing a way to solve this serious dilemma by topping up those half-emply KC767s before they go on their refuel missions?
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3718 times:
Has the A330 tanker passed fuel via its boom yet?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3714 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 1): One of these days they will actually pass fuel through the wing pods as well.
Actually, that was done last summer, as well as fuel passed through the centerline hose, to a Boeing leased USN F/A-18F.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4): Remember, the KC767 couldn't take off at full load from a 7,000ft long RWY under the USAF specifications used in the competitive tanker comparison of last year: basically it came down to this: the KC767 offers either a full load with poor range, or good range with poor loads.
That, my friend turned out to be a myth. Read the GAO report.
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5): Has the A330 tanker passed fuel via its boom yet?
Nope. It has only passed fuel though one WARP, I believe the one on the left side only. For some reason the right side WARP has not been tested. Nor has the KC-30 ever had a contact with its receptial or on-loaded fuel. This is something the RAAF is very interested in.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3290 times:
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 7): What are the chances the KC-30 ever replacing the KC-135 in The U.S.?
Before Feb. 08, I would have said never. I still don't think it will happen, but more now because of costs than anything else.
Tiger119 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3241 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): I still don't think it will happen, but more now because of costs than anything else.
- At the risk of sounding like one of the "How Long Will NW Fly the DC-9" threads in Civ Av, how long do you think the U.S.A.F. will keep flying KC-135s and all the other 707 variants?
David
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3153 times:
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 9): At the risk of sounding like one of the "How Long Will NW Fly the DC-9" threads in Civ Av, how long do you think the U.S.A.F. will keep flying KC-135s and all the other 707 variants?
The E-3, E-6 and E-8 will be in service for quite some time.
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2009 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3098 times:
Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 9): - At the risk of sounding like one of the "How Long Will NW Fly the DC-9" threads in Civ Av, how long do you think the U.S.A.F. will keep flying KC-135s and all the other 707 variants?
Despite all the doom-sayers that claim it's criminal not to buy these tankers immediately before all those old tankers fall from the sky, the current plan is to have the R-models in service until 2040 or so. Even if new tankers were coming off the line today, the KC-135 isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3132 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8): Before Feb. 08, I would have said never. I still don't think it will happen, but more now because of costs than anything else
The previous RFP came just before some new laws hit the books on sourcing equipment for these kind of contracts. So with the old RFP going dead, so does the chances of a Airbus A330 with american badging.
I do not know if they can get around them just by upping the US content and US participation in the program. (something Airbus likely would like to force through for the civil production to spread out the risks that could cause production stoppages)
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10469 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 2887 times:
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10): The E-3, E-6 and E-8 will be in service for quite some time.
Some wikipedia searching shows all three programs are being upgraded for the long haul.
E3: The USAF has now taken a new direction with the E-3 platform. It is investing and currently testing its block 40/45 modification. Currently, the USAF has one Block 40/45 E-3 that is under going flight testing, research and development. Another program that is currently in R&D is the Airframe Modernization Program (AMP). AMP would provide the E-3 with a glass cockpit and possibly re-engine the USAF fleet of E-3's with an engine that is more reliable and at least 20% more fuel efficient. New engines would give the USAF E-3's a longer range, longer time on station, shorter critical runway length (meaning the E-3 could now operate with a full fuel load on a runway with only 10,000 feet at higher temperatures and pressure altitude) and at a higher altitude that would provide better range for its line of sight sensors.
E6: The E-6B is an upgraded version of the E-6A that now includes a battlestaff area and new flight deck systems replacing the aging 1970s-style cockpit with an off-the-shelf 737 Next Generation cockpit. The entire E-6 fleet was modified to the E-6B standard, with the final delivery taking place on 1 December 2006.
E8: The USAF has selected Pratt & Whitney to re-engine the fleet of 19 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) aircraft. Pratt & Whitney, in a joint venture with Seven Q Seven (SQS), will produce and deliver the complete JT8D-219 propulsion system. This will allow the Joint STARS more time on station due to the engine's greater fuel efficiency. Joint STARS is programmed to be used until 2025.
Also:
RC-135: In 2005, the RC-135 fleet completed a series of significant airframe, navigational and power-plant upgrades which include re-engining from the Pratt & Whitney TF-33 to the CFM International CFM-56 (F-108) engines used on the KC-135R and T Stratotanker and upgrade of the flight deck instrumentation and navigational systems to the AMP standard. The AMP standard includes conversion from analog readouts to a digital "glass cockpit" configuration.
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 11): the current plan is to have the R-models in service until 2040 or so
It seems there will be a lot of aircraft to replace in the 2020 - 2040 time frame, but if we wait till then we'll have mature CFRP platforms to base the replacements on that will need less maintenance. We'll also have awesome amounts of compute power to utilize, and quite possibly totally different communications systems. We may also be transitioning to more unmanned platforms with great range that will not need refuelling.
In 2025, the first 787s will be 15 years old, so we can even be looking at recycled airframes at that point in time!
It seems going to 767/A330 based platforms now is such a bad idea in so many ways, and in any case, we can't afford it.
Re-engine the KC-135Es, stockpile key spares, and soldier on till 2040, I say!
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2717 times:
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10):
The E-3, E-6 and E-8 will be in service for quite some time.
- 25+ years? That would be sort of like the B-52s. Being flown by pilots who had grandfathers fly the BUFF!
David
In the case of the E-3 they have already been flying over 25 years, and might well for another 25. What is amazing to me is that our first venture into a jet engined airliner... the 707/720 airframe... will have military variants still flying almost 100 years after its introduction. Did Boeing do good or what? Good lord with the way things were progressing in the 1950's aviation scene (the Golden Era) if you would have told anyone back then that the 707 would still be a viable military aircraft for 90 years or so you'd be thrown in a white padded room. Remember this was the same time when a brand new type of airplane, the fastest ever to this day, which required new hydraulic fluid, oil and fuel to be INVENTED went from napkin to prototype in about 2 years (compared with the 20 years from the ATF requirements until the F-22 entered service.). Anyways I've always thought that was interesting.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2632 times:
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 15): In the case of the E-3 they have already been flying over 25 years, and might well for another 25. What is amazing to me is that our first venture into a jet engined airliner... the 707/720 airframe... will have military variants still flying almost 100 years after its introduction. Did Boeing do good or what? Good lord with the way things were progressing in the 1950's aviation scene (the Golden Era) if you would have told anyone back then that the 707 would still be a viable military aircraft for 90 years or so you'd be thrown in a white padded room.
The jet age airplane that has the greatest potential of being flown for 100 years first will be the sister of the B-707, the KC-135.
Another airplane that potentially could fly to 100 years old will be the DC-3/C-47.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 693 posts, 
Why don't just get a bigger tanker?
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
