747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10246 times:
With the KC-46 (767) replacing the KC-135, now I know it will be years from now, but I do wonder, what plane is likely to replace the KC-10 (DC-10) in the future?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11742 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10251 times:
Most likel it will be either the KC-777F or the KC-747-8F. It will depend on what missions the airplane will fly and how important carg hauling will be. EADS really doesn't have an airplane, right now that can be a supersized tanker and cargo airplane. The A-380F really cannot carry outsized cargo, as it is defined right now, the A-330F will not carry the fuel load needed for a super tanker. The A-306F Beluga will not even be considered.
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9940 times:
My guess would be that it will most likely be based on the 777. I don't know that the Air Force would want something as big as the 747-8 when it turned down Boeing's original 747 tanker proposal. Of course that was some years back and the perceived needs might be different now.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11742 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9865 times:
Yeah, but the B-747-8F is an excellent cargo airplane, and like the C-5 and C-17 can carry oversized cargo. But itcannot carry big vehicles such as the M-1A2 MBT or Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It should be able to carry the US Army Stryker vehicles, and load/unload through the nose cargo door.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 791 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9813 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): But itcannot carry big vehicles such as the M-1A2 MBT or Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
It wont be flying to unimproved stations either, it will have to go to facilities with infrastructure to support it. It would be great for palletized cargo, and troop transport in addition to hauling fighters around. Let the C-17 and C-5 do the dirty work, the KC-747 can get the rest.
stealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9778 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): It should be able to carry the US Army Stryker vehicles, and load/unload through the nose cargo door.
Can it?
I seem to recall(but too late at night to research it) that before the RAAF decided on the C-17 they were considering buying B747F on the used market(well at least a proposal to the ADF was!) Amongst the concerns was-
a/ The ability to get a turreted ASLAV in via the nose door
b/ the "deck" height being such that one needed loading infrastructure everywhere you flew or onboard equipment which impacted on load capacity.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2498 posts, RR: 21 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9735 times:
I see the 777f as a replacement, and chartered civilian freighters for missions needing 747f capabilities.. no sense owning what you can lease on short notice.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3150 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9690 times:
KC46.
The KC-10 while impressive on its inital lift, burns quite a bit of it by the end. Which means that the KC46 while having less lift, can do almost as much in the real world. It will also have 100% less BS in the buying process than a different frame regardless of the company making it, which is 100% of the reason I believe that the KC46 will end up replacing the KC10 even if a KC777 would make an awesome heavy tanker.
Certainly makes the most sense to ponder whether a heavier tanker is needed at all. However if the USAF picks up the 747-8i for VIP transport or anything else, I wonder if there could be some co-development to make a militarized tanker version of the 8F.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2498 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9589 times:
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 11): a militarized tanker version of the 8F.
in the older threads it was noted that putting more gas in the air doesn't buy much because the offload rate and number of receivers it can handle without too long a waiting line is limited. Therefore the 767 based tanker fielded in packs can service more aircraft in a limited time...
So a 747-8 tanker doesn't make sense. and a 777 tanker is pushing the offload time limitations.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6191 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9547 times:
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 11): Certainly makes the most sense to ponder whether a heavier tanker is needed at all.
I don't believe the KC-10 will be replaced with a new aircraft. Maybe a few more frames of the KC46, if any.
The military need in my opinion is for move aircraft being able to be in more locations around the world, than for a few heavy aircraft.
I could be wrong, but with the current view of the US politicians (Democrat and Republicans) that the US military is too large and too expensive - I just cannot see another aircraft being procured.
SSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 452 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 9398 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 13): I could be wrong, but with the current view of the US politicians (Democrat and Republicans) that the US military is too large and too expensive - I just cannot see another aircraft being procured.
Unless that aircraft is built in their district-- then it's vital.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 9366 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10): I believe that the KC46 will end up replacing the KC10 even if a KC777 would make an awesome heavy tanker.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 13): I don't believe the KC-10 will be replaced with a new aircraft. Maybe a few more frames of the KC46, if any.
I agree that it will be the KC46 going forward. It is more than big enough for the job its got (if you've seen my posts on it I think the best replacement would have been a variant of the 757 not 67 but that is neither here nor there).
With the 767 they have plenty of capacity for the current mission and I suspect if they need more they could always do a "heavy-lift" variant. It's not like it is filled to the brim with tanks now, I think it is quite the opposite.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
tommytoyz From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1139 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9274 times:
The math is not in favor of a replacement anytime soon, so don't hold your breath.
1. The number of aircraft the DoD has, is going down
2. The ones they maintain, have better range than older models, in some cases dramatically (Global Hawk types)
3. They are keeping KC-135s around for decades more to come, till about 2040 and KC-10 for decades more than that
4. Defense budget is going down every year from now - IMHO.
5. Pound for pound, Cargo is always cheaper in dedicated cargo planes, not in tankers.
Math = no KC-10 replacement till after 2060 - if ever.
Unless some technological breakthrough occurs, making the math compelling to replace.
AviRaider From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9056 times:
Although it's just a guess on my part, I believe that by the time the KC-10s are being phased out, the military aviation world will be much different than today. I would imagine we will see more automated craft, perhaps smaller than today's tankers just for the role of being a tanker, thus cheaper, and more can be used to fill the KC10s role. We may not even need conventional tankers in the future, who knows.
Size isn't everything...the (slightly) smaller 787 would allow more frames to be bought, and therefore offer more operational flexibility...
The military is not as hard up to save on fuel cost as an airline. They don't fly nearly as many miles and cycles of a civilian airliner so a production line winding down like the 767 one really suits them pretty well. I see no reason to go from a 767 tanker to a 787 tanker.
If you make a change you go to something in the 777 class but I am with the majority here, they will just stick with the 767 tanker and buy more if they need more capacity.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1602 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8769 times:
I learned something new, yeah for a tanker size is not that important, it can only refuel 2 planes at the time anyway. And the freight would be more effective leasing. So even a 738/C40 would make sense as a tanker? It has to carry fuel, keep up with the fighters and be able to service 2 at the same time?
The only freight that couldn't be leased is out sized military stuff, or even this has been leased by the AN124.
Maybe the future air force will be a much leaner operation, leasing assets when needed keeping costs low. Only need to keep tankers, C17 and some C5s. And With UAVs getting more capable even tankers can be automated along with fighters. Some staff would have to be on the ground monitoring all these machines?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11742 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8736 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 7): Only other possible replacement other than 77F would be the A350F? If that will ever come to market.
As things stand now, the A-359F is the last A-350 model in the developement schedule. They have to get the A-359, A-358, A-359R, A-3510, and then the A-359F out.
Quoting stealthz (Reply 8): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):It should be able to carry the US Army Stryker vehicles, and load/unload through the nose cargo door.
Can it?
The B-747-8F nose cargo door measures;
Width 9' 11" (3.05m)
Height 9' 0" (2.76m)
The B-747-8F side cargo door measures;
Height 10' 3" (3.15m)
Width 11' 2" (3.43m)
The interior body of the "F" is;
Width 20' 6" (6.30m)
So the Stryker can be driven into either cargo door, but the side cargo door requires it to turn once half is inside the airplane.
Quoting kanban (Reply 12): Quoting SSTeve (Reply 11):a militarized tanker version of the 8F.
in the older threads it was noted that putting more gas in the air doesn't buy much because the offload rate and number of receivers it can handle without too long a waiting line is limited. Therefore the 767 based tanker fielded in packs can service more aircraft in a limited time...
So a 747-8 tanker doesn't make sense. and a 777 tanker is pushing the offload time limitations.
Correct, but the KC-10 is versital because of its huge cargo capability.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16): Math = no KC-10 replacement till after 2060 - if ever.
No, the KC-10 is scheduled to be replaced by the KC-Y program, which should begin around 2022 to 2025.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8682 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 21): I learned something new, yeah for a tanker size is not that important, it can only refuel 2 planes at the time anyway. And the freight would be more effective leasing. So even a 738/C40 would make sense as a tanker? It has to carry fuel, keep up with the fighters and be able to service 2 at the same time?
That is only for a probe-and-drogue system, which has a lower fuel volume capability. The boom method has higher volume but of course only one plane can refuel. I don't know if the balance each other out (the boom method is twice as fast as the P&D method).
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
25 BigJKU: There is a happy medium between offload capacity and rate at which you can fuel planes. A 738 would be far too small. It was pretty clear from the ou
26 kanban: was summarizing some of the knowledge you passed in earlier threads, but couldn't find the exact quote. Thanks
27 rwessel: OTOH, most fighters, unlike larger aircraft, can't take much advantage of the boom's higher flow rates. So two simultaneous P&D refuelings of fig
28 tommytoyz: The "KC-Y program" does not even exist. It surely is not on any schedule. Procurement a decade or more out is completely unknowable. Look how long it
29 KC135TopBoom: No, it wouldn't. It never lived up to its promised capability/performance in the civilian world. That is why nearly all of them were converted into f
30 PC12Fan: If, and that's a big if, a super tanker were to go for bid today, I also believe the 777F platform would be favored. From what I've heard and read her
31 135mech: Hi, the 767 fwd and aft lower cargo holds are going to be fuel tanks, just like the KC-135/KC-10...so it's space will be unitilzed decently (along wi
32 sweair: Nice pdf of the aussies, now the 744s are even cheaper. There are good deals to be done for a military with the need of heavy lift transport.
33 NASCARAirforce: Won't EADS make another run at trying to sell their A330 tanker that they lost out to the 767 (KC-46) on? Seems most logical especially when the A330
34 XT6Wagon: They might try, but they will be well behind the on risk and cost metrics vs the KC-46 which will be in service.
35 bennett123: I suspect that by the time that the KC10 is replaced, that the A330 will have been replaced by the A350.
36 ADent: At some point the KC-46 will be quite old. Say in 2028, when the last of the current older is delivered, the 767 will have been in production for 50
37 KC135TopBoom: Tat is correct, for the tanker mission. But the tanker mission is but one part of the overall military mobility mission, hauling all kinds of cargo a
38 LMP737: Which it does very well. The early issues with reliability and performance were eventually taken care of with the PIP program. Unfortunately the dama
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1602 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 791 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6838 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 106 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
