Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Afsoc RFI For 30 New Tankers.  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

It has been reported in several magazines (Aircraft Illustrated) and other media outlets that the United States Air Force Special Operations Command has put out a RFI (Request for Information) for a replacement tanker. The tanker will replace the aging fleet of HC-130P and MC-130E tanker aircraft. Several aircraft manufacturers have come forward.

Bell/Boeing: CV-22 Osprey
Lockheed: C-130J (Non-stretched version)
Airbus: A400M
EADS/CASA: C-295

It would seem that the C-130J has a leg up on the other platforms. It replaces the operating aircraft in size, fuel available while increasing the platforms range and speed. The speed issue would definitely come in handy if the platform is used to refuel "fast movers".

I think that the C-295 airframe is to small and does not offer enough cargo and fuel offload capability.

The A-400M and CV-22 are pipedreams.

[Edited 2006-02-14 03:37:09]


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2738 times:

Quoting CX747 (Thread starter):
The speed issue would definitely come in handy if the platform is used to refuel "fast movers".

In the USAF, the HC/MC-130s do not refuel the "fast movers". KC-135s and KC-10s do that. The AFSOC tankers refuel helocopters, like the USAF/USMC HH/MH-53s, V/CV-22s, HH/MH-60s, and the US Army CH-47s.

Quoting CX747 (Thread starter):
It would seem that the C-130J has a leg up on the other platforms.

I would agree, since the USMC already has 10-12 KC-130Js already on order to replace their aging KC-130F/Ts. A USAF order for the (HC/MC/KC?) C-130J tanker would make sence. The C-130Js are already in the USAF/ANG inventory.

Like the current HC/MC-130E/H/Ps, I'm sure these airplanes will have a duel role as Combat Talons, too.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Quoting CX747 (Thread starter):

The A-400M and CV-22 are pipedreams.

The CV-22 is in the same class as the C-295 and therefore simply too small.

Although it might unrealistic to assumme the USAF would buy foreign eqippment (I refer to the A400M) to a greater extent, but US Special Forces were always those that had less problems with doing it, be it airborne or ground vehicles ... but maybe a complete new, stealthy approach meets their requirements best ...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 2):
but maybe a complete new, stealthy approach meets their requirements best ...

You could be right. But, you are looking at a 20 year development program for a stealth tanker/SOC mission aircraft.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
But, you are looking at a 20 year development program for a stealth tanker/SOC mission aircraft.

That's true. Decades of development, billions of dollars and most important you need to produce more than 30 airplanes in order to make it feasible.

But at some point you just have to start ... and in small numbers this type of aircraft could also be useful to the next 10 biggest militaries in the western world, like the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Spain etc ...


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

Oh oh, better make sure it won't be too much of an aircraft.

IMO the -J has the best papers in overall national strategic value.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

I was reading an article several months ago that said the next round of buys would indeed look for a stealth aircraft etc. That round of special ops refuelers and platforms would come 30+ years from now when they are retiring the current birds that they are looking to buy.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7077 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

The C130J makes most sense since it is already in the fleet it would be too expensive to add a single new type to the it. Although I would love if the US buy some A400Ms in the future but I really doubt it.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
best papers in overall national strategic value.

ehhmm .... in what?

Quoting Columba (Reply 7):
The C130J makes most sense since it is already in the fleet it would be too expensive to add a single new type to the it. Although I would love if the US buy some A400Ms in the future but I really doubt it.

Yes, this is what it is finally going to result in ... no doubt


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7686 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

I would expect a C130J given the number in service already.

User currently offlineCannibalZ3 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Let's rephrase the question slightly: does anyone SERIOUSLY doubt the selection of the C-130J?

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16883 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2320 times:

Quoting CannibalZ3 (Reply 10):
Let's rephrase the question slightly: does anyone SERIOUSLY doubt the selection of the C-130J?

A possible scenario I could see would be the USAF placing an order for A400s for SOC as a pacification over giving the order for 100+ KC-767s to Boeing, also as a quid pro quo in exchange for a "reasonable" order from Europe (France, Germany..) for lets say 8-12 C-17s.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2239 times:

I can't see an order for anything other than a C-130. Having a small fleet of A400Ms would be difficult. Parts etc might become a hassle if you are operating in and out of third world countries and other hush hush places on a nightly bases. Also, a C-130 allows the operator to just blend in as another C-130 operated by the USAF. If a A400 comes in, then you know that Spec Ops has arrived.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Afsoc RFI For 30 New Tankers.
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...
Chavez's 30 New Su-30's... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:04:03 by AirRyan
New Aircraft For The New Nato Countries posted Mon Mar 29 2004 20:55:09 by Vio
Customers For The New T-50 posted Thu Sep 26 2002 19:58:51 by Tomh
New U.S. Air Force Bombers Planned For 2018, 2035 posted Fri Oct 13 2006 06:48:45 by AerospaceFan
Article: "New Dawn For Russian Bombers" posted Mon Jul 3 2006 21:25:52 by Lumberton
New Stealth Aircraft Under Contract For Usaf posted Sat Jun 24 2006 23:05:17 by RichardPrice
Aurora - New Fuel For The Fire posted Wed Jun 14 2006 23:58:28 by RichardPrice
New Helicopters For Portugal Army. posted Wed May 24 2006 09:13:59 by CV990
Why It Took 40's Years For A New Class Of Carrier posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:34:47 by 747400sp
New Bomber Plans For USAF, J-UCAS Cancelled. posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:39:21 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format