Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf?  
User currently offlineDandy_don From United States of America, joined May 2000, 202 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Would not the USAF be better off to submit it's requirements for bids and see what specific tanker design manufacturers can come with? Why try and make a tanker out of an airliner? The military doesn't do that with it's freighters.

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Because the needs for a tanker are not so stressful that a civilian aircraft cannot perform that mission.

It's not like a bomber or tactical transport that must be able to land on dirt strips or drop parachutists or bombs....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6666 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3735 times:

$$$. Would a manufacturer commit to building something that wouldn't sell enough copies when they can base a tanker on an existing airframe? As said, a tanker has a rather quiet life compared to the freighters that have to be designed for purpose - and are generally high wing as well, something that is not part of a civil design for bigger aircraft.


wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3668 times:

Quoting Dandy_don (Thread starter):
Would not the USAF be better off to submit it's requirements for bids and see what specific tanker design manufacturers can come with? Why try and make a tanker out of an airliner? The military doesn't do that with it's freighters.

Like the previous post said, it's all about the money. Or in this case the lack of money. Just look at the costs of programs like the V-22, JSF, F-22, C-17, B-2 etc. New build programs are very expensive. Unlike a freighter, fighter or bomber a tanker does not require a specialized design. That's why the USAF goes with existing designs, it's cheaper.


User currently offlineDc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

I whole-heartedly agree with most everything said. It is just cheaper to base a tanker off of a proven commercial design. They do not need to be designed to land on dirt strips like the C-17, C-5, and C-130.

Interestingly enough, Boeing created an airliner based on designs for a replacement of the KC-97 (Boeing 367-80) ... the Dash-80 developed for the USAF KC-135 was turned into the Boeing 707.

I think the Air Force hit a home run with the purchase of the KC-10. Not only is it a great tanker platform, it is also an excellent strategic airlift platform as well. It can move 27 pallets of cargo, weighing up to roughly 170,000lbs a distance up to 4,400 miles. In comparison, the C-17 has 18 pallet positions with a max cargo weight of roughly 170,000lbs but only a range of 2,400 miles!

I think we will see another tanker / airlifter combination as the next tanker for the air force. It just makes sense. Flexibility is the key to air power. (haha)

I don't have my in-flight guide with me, but there is a gee-wiz section of air show data to tell the patrons. It is something like this; it takes 8 KC-135s, 2 C-5s, and 3 141's and 4 days to move a squadron of 12 F-15s, their support personnel, and cargo from the US to the Middle East. 6 KC-10's can do the same mission, saving 1,000,000 lbs of fuel, and do it non-stop, truly giving the KC-10 the nickname the Extender. If that isn't specialized, I don't know what is.

Pat


User currently offlineDc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

I was a bit off in my recollection of the air show data .. here's the actual data from the book ...

"With only Six KC-10s, we can deploy 12 F-15s, 115 tons of equipment, and over 200 troops nonstop to the middle east. The same job without the KC10 would take 16 KC-135s, 3 C-141s, 2 C-5s, two forward operating bases, a two day deployment, and four million extra pounds of fuel."

Pat


User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 4):
I think the Air Force hit a home run with the purchase of the KC-10. Not only is it a great tanker platform, it is also an excellent strategic airlift platform as well. It can move 27 pallets of cargo, weighing up to roughly 170,000lbs a distance up to 4,400 miles. In comparison, the C-17 has 18 pallet positions with a max cargo weight of roughly 170,000lbs but only a range of 2,400 miles!

I always thought that the USAF could have acquired a good-sized batch of
MD-11s (could have called 'em KC-10Bs) for a pretty good price when Boeing
was looking to wind down production after disappointing commercial sales.
Admittedly, there are differences that would need to be addressed such as
the glass cockpit and flying characteristics. On the other hand, with lots
of mx troops familiar with the KC-10A, wouldn't there be a reduced need for
new parts and mx infrastructure?

BTW, I live in Mercer County and frequently see the McGuire KC-10s and
C-17s. What's the inside skinny on the C-17? Sure isn't much to look at
but then there's the old saw about form following function. How's it function?


User currently offlineDc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Interestingly enough, McD back in the day offerred the USAF another 60 airplanes at cost in order to keep the DC-10 line open to ensure a seamless transition to the MD-11. Unfortunately, the USAF didn't opt for them. Hind-sight is 20-20; many of the KC-10 guys think the USAF made a big mistake doing that.

The DC-10 and/or the MD-11 is a great platform, not just for air refueling (KC-10), but also for hauling palletized cargo. Let's face it, if it they weren't, FedEx and UPS wouldn't be using them to fly cargo.

I don't fly the C-17 and can't really speak to how it functions. The airplane definitely has some unique capabilities. It's bread and butter is delivering heavy cargo to airfields not suitable for commercial aircraft. I don't think it is a great strategic airlifter in that it isn't efficient or fast, and doesn't carry many pallet positions.

Just my 2 cents.

Pat


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F/A-18Es For The Usaf? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 05:43:51 by CX747
747's For The Usaf? posted Wed Mar 30 2005 02:29:19 by AirRyan
Open A Base In Iraq For The Usaf? posted Tue Jul 29 2003 15:05:13 by CX747
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021
Why No Military Name For The JT8-D? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 01:37:35 by 747400sp
Why The USAF Never Bought F-14 Tomcat? posted Thu May 11 2006 01:33:54 by 747400sp
Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5? posted Sun May 7 2006 00:31:24 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Cancel The YC-14 & YC-15 posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:19:19 by 747400sp
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
F/A-18Es For The Usaf? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 05:43:51 by CX747
747's For The Usaf? posted Wed Mar 30 2005 02:29:19 by AirRyan
Open A Base In Iraq For The Usaf? posted Tue Jul 29 2003 15:05:13 by CX747
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021
Why Not Sell Some Of The "stuff" On Davis Monthan? posted Wed May 26 2010 01:36:11 by 4tet
Why Did The Usaf Pick The 742 Over The 743? posted Tue Mar 30 2010 14:31:04 by overloaduk

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format