Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-X Tanker Project Approved  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3493 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21829 times:

Quoting Combat Aircraft magazine!


(The US Department of Defense has approved the USAF's plans to proceed with the development of a new aerial refueling aircraft and Begin replacing more 500 KC-135.)


There more in the article, but I did not want to spoil it for those who has not bought this mouth Combat Aircraft. But this is good news,I hope they do not look at the KC767 again or worse a KC737. I would like the USAF to try to design and build a all new aircraft like the KC-135 was, this would be better than turning an airliner into a tanker. There was a photos of a stealth tanker which was a good ideal, also there was a project Lockheed was working on with there Skunk work team for a aircraft that was going to replaces both the KC-135 and C-141, it had two 70,000 to 100,000 LB thrust engine. I hope one of these two are picked.

PS: I know there been way to many KC-135 replacement post, but this is one of the first written after the USDOD approved the KC-X.

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21802 times:

Having worked on the manufacturing side at one time I can tell you the cost of a new build aircraft is not cheap. Especially when the US government is involved. Considering the amount of zero's on the US budget deficit I don't see how this country can afford it.

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21785 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 1):
Having worked on the manufacturing side at one time I can tell you the cost of a new build aircraft is not cheap. Especially when the US government is involved. Considering the amount of zero's on the US budget deficit I don't see how this country can afford it.

I agree. As great as it would be to see a new tanker design, we don't need one. Commercial aircraft do just fine... look at the 707 and DC-10. With the amount of money involved, they could probably even make it so that C-17s could be converted into tankers... imagine that, an excuse for the Air Force to order a few HUNDRED more C-17s. This money could also be spent on things like more F-22s, keeping the F-117s and U-2s around, etc...

Too bad politics are getting in the way of just buying airliner based tankers. I'm not really partial to any choice, but I am partial to it being an already existing airframe.


User currently offlineDLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 21755 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I would like the USAF to try to design and build a all new aircraft like the KC-135 was, this would be better than turning an airliner into a tanker.

Isn't the KC-135 a 707 converted? Which means the KC-135 was an airliner turned into tanker, not a whole new aircraft.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 21751 times:

Quoting DLSLC (Reply 3):
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I would like the USAF to try to design and build a all new aircraft like the KC-135 was, this would be better than turning an airliner into a tanker.

Isn't the KC-135 a 707 converted? Which means the KC-135 was an airliner turned into tanker, not a whole new aircraft.

No, the KC-135 bears the Boeing Model number 717 (the 1st 717, that is). The 717 is more akin to the concept 367-80 aircraft that is the grandfather of all the KC-135/VC-137/707/720 family of aircraft. The fuselage is narrower (only permits 2+3 seating in transport C-135 version), is shorter, the wing has a much simpler and less efficient planform, and on and on. It's a different airplane.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 21740 times:

Gotcha. Thanks Connies4ever, I must have bad sources of information! Thanks again for the correction.
Regards,
Devin B.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 21731 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
would like the USAF to try to design and build a all new aircraft like the KC-135 was, this would be better than turning an airliner into a tanker

For something like a Tanker it's best to use off the shelf technology as the quick and cost effective way to deploy a new tanker.

The money that would be spent on a new design is better spent on aqcuiring additional F-22s and C-17s.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 21726 times:

Well this is good news, any word on how they will start and what will they be looking at as a replacement. IE....KC767....!!!


I Love HNL.............
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 21711 times:

I don't think it's a question of whether it will be KC-767's. The question will be if the KC-767's will be supplimented with KC-777's or KC-737's for logistical reasons.

User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 21692 times:

KC-767's and KC737's would make very good sense.


I Love HNL.............
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 21638 times:

If there was a new design, and there is no money for one, it would be the perfect platform to develop a BWB concept. Cheaper to run, a massive fuel load, easier on power and naturally stealthy. A perfect fit for the next platform for not only tankers but also transports, AWACS and even MMA.

User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 21515 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 2):
U-2s around

It would seem that we dont need the U2 or the SR-71 anymore, they just wont show us why yet.

Quoting Socal (Reply 9):
KC-767's and KC737's would make very good sense.

That seems to be the optimal solutiuon.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 21410 times:

KC-787's are the only thing I want in USAF inventory 10-20 years from now - not what are already outdated 767's!

http://www.ab-pr.com/upload/Boeing/Bulten/Web-787%20Flight%20Deck-H.jpg


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 21390 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):

Outdated? I don't see anybody bitching about the C-172 or Beechcraft Bonanza designs.

Some of you people just facinate me.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 21252 times:

Quoting DLSLC (Reply 3):
Isn't the KC-135 a 707 converted? Which means the KC-135 was an airliner turned into tanker, not a whole new aircraft.

No, the KC-135A predates the B-707-100s.

The KC-X project may be approved, by DOD, but that is still a long way from getting money to actually build any airplanes. USAF is considering scrapping a lot of projects, like the ABL, and buying fewer F-35s, so they can buy a few more F-22s and C-17s.

Even if USAF is allowed to buy any new tankers, by Congress, the buy will eventually be cut as a cost saving measure. The USAF's best bet, right now is to re-engine the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs. That will, at least assure the have tankers for the next 30+ years.


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21210 times:

Since the 135's have still a lot of life in the airframe, I would hope that the zoomies would take a hard look at a KC-787 program.


MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 21181 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):



Quoting RAPCON (Reply 15):

I agree with the ideal of a KC-787. It would be a much better aircraft than, an out dated KC-767 and KC-30. An KC-787 would burn less fuel and would have out standing range. It could do the job of two or more KC-135Rs.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20929 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
KC-787's are the only thing I want in USAF inventory 10-20 years from now

I have vague memories that Boeing once said that the B787 is not an appropriate platform for a tanker. Am I remembering wrong?

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20919 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 17):
I have vague memories that Boeing once said that the B787 is not an appropriate platform for a tanker. Am I remembering wrong?

They did say that but they have since said that they would consider the 787 as a tanker IF the USAF asked for it. It has just been released that the USAF is actually going to be asking fro 189 tankers and the decision on what Boeing will offer will be based upon what the USAF specifically asks for. As a taxpayer, I think the KC-767 is a waste of our money in comparison to a KC-330 or KC-787.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 961 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20917 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 17):

I have vague memories that Boeing once said that the B787 is not an appropriate platform for a tanker. Am I remembering wrong?

You remember correctly. But they said at a later date (and a lower volume) that a freighter/tanker variant could be made if that's what the USAF wanted. In other words, "We've built a business case around the KC-767, and we've got two words: commmmmeee onnnnn."

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 16):
It would be a much better aircraft than, an out dated KC-767 and KC-30. An KC-787 would burn less fuel and would have out standing range.

It would also negate the logistics selling points of the 767 that Boeing was pushing very hard to beat the A330. Namely, where are you going to put something with ~200 feet wingspan on the limited ramp space the USAF contends with at many bases?

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 16):
It could do the job of two or more KC-135Rs

Think in terms of coverage, it isn't necessarily good to have a lesser number of some BAMF design. You can't effectivly consolidate two tankers into one in many instances.


User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 20902 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 8):


I don't think it's a question of whether it will be KC-767's. The question will be if the KC-767's will be supplimented with KC-777's or KC-737's for logistical reasons.

I disagree. After the Fuck up with congress, I think that the KC767 is dead. As topboom said to me, the KC767 is just about the same as the KC135, why not keep them (he said the KC767 is about the same as the KC135, which is good company)

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 13):

Outdated? I don't see anybody bitching about the C-172 or Beechcraft Bonanza designs.

Some of you people just facinate me.

But there isn't a superior design, as there are in the tanker world.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

Even if USAF is allowed to buy any new tankers, by Congress, the buy will eventually be cut as a cost saving measure. The USAF's best bet, right now is to re-engine the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs. That will, at least assure the have tankers for the next 30+ years.

Knowing our congress, we will probably have that. But don't get me wrong, the KC135s have a lot left in them. If they get new engines in the E's, or even slightly improved cocpit, they will survive another 30 years.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 15):


Since the 135's have still a lot of life in the airframe, I would hope that the zoomies would take a hard look at a KC-787 program.

I would like a deal where we re-engine the KC135Es, and aquire some KC777 or KC787 over the time, and slow fase out the current KC135Rs (so we would be picking up new KC135Rs)

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 18):

They did say that but they have since said that they would consider the 787 as a tanker IF the USAF asked for it. It has just been released that the USAF is actually going to be asking fro 189 tankers and the decision on what Boeing will offer will be based upon what the USAF specifically asks for. As a taxpayer, I think the KC-767 is a waste of our money in comparison to a KC-330 or KC-787.

As I have said in earlier threads, for everything that Airbus brings to the table, Boeing one ups them. KC33 gets beat by the KC777. Heck, the KC350 would get beat by the KC787



"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20856 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 17):
I have vague memories that Boeing once said that the B787 is not an appropriate platform for a tanker. Am I remembering wrong?

Tony

Boeing later said they would build the KC-787, if asked by the USAF to do it.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
Think in terms of coverage, it isn't necessarily good to have a lesser number of some BAMF design. You can't effectivly consolidate two tankers into one in many instances.

That is correct. It is not now, nor ever has been the number of tankers you have, it is the number of booms you have in the air.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 18):
As a taxpayer, I think the KC-767 is a waste of our money in comparison to a KC-330 or KC-787.

Well, sort of. I believe the best and cheapest option is to reengine the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs. But, believe it or not, the KC-767A is the second best cheapest option, and the KC-30A or KC-787A will cost about the same.

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 20):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 18):

They did say that but they have since said that they would consider the 787 as a tanker IF the USAF asked for it. It has just been released that the USAF is actually going to be asking fro 189 tankers and the decision on what Boeing will offer will be based upon what the USAF specifically asks for. As a taxpayer, I think the KC-767 is a waste of our money in comparison to a KC-330 or KC-787.

As I have said in earlier threads, for everything that Airbus brings to the table, Boeing one ups them. KC33 gets beat by the KC777. Heck, the KC350 would get beat by the KC787

I think you have the wrong airplane designation. The KC-33 is a B-747-400F/ERF. I believe you mean the KC-30, which is the A-330-200F?

So, they want 189 tankers? The fastest way to do that, then will be to reengine all 150 KC-135Es, and then an initial buy of 39 KC-44As (new designation for the new B-747-800F).

Should the USAF name the C/KC-44As the "Magnum" (go ahead, make my day)?  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 20820 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
So, they want 189 tankers? The fastest way to do that, then will be to reengine all 150 KC-135Es, and then an initial buy of 39 KC-44As (new designation for the new B-747-800F).

Is it safe to say this is an official designation (KC-44A?)

I think a fleet mix of medium and large tankers makes the most sense. The USAF already has the medium aircraft in its fleet, its the KC-135 and they can cherry pick the best to last out the next 30 years or so. In the large category they can pick from the 777, 340 and 747. My pick is the 747-8 (KC-44A).

If they insist on a new airframe for the medium category, then the KC-767 (for cockpit commonalty with the 747) is the choice. The problem now facing the USAF is that congress is still uncertain if they want to commit the money.


User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 20807 times:

Lockheed has been kicking around designs for an all new tanker/striker aircraft. If the artist depiction is accurate, it's one ugly/goofy looking bird......

http://www.defenselink.mil/transform...on/articles/2006-04/ta041106b.html



Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 20793 times:

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 22):
Is it safe to say this is an official designation (KC-44A?)

The C-44 designation is the next one in line. But nothing is safe. To quote Yogi Bearra (Baseball player, catcher with the NY Yankees, I believe) "It ain't over 'til its over".

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 22):
The problem now facing the USAF is that congress is still uncertain if they want to commit the money.

That is why I believe the KC-X program will never fly.

Quoting Okelleynyc (Reply 23):
Lockheed has been kicking around designs for an all new tanker/striker aircraft. If the artist depiction is accurate, it's one ugly/goofy looking bird......

Most everyone thinks the A-10A is ugly, too........


25 AirRyan : KC-30 you are correct, my bad. I forgot that they already secured a designation for the platform.
26 Okelleynyc : Heck no. I love the old warthog! Purpose built, solid as rock, down and dirty flying. What's not to love! The MD ANG 175th Wing was near me when I wa
27 KC135TopBoom : Don't get me wrong, the Warthog is a great airplane. But, it has a look only the ground pounders can love, LOL Tankers, by their very nature are offe
28 RAPCON : Now TopBoom....aren't you kinda stretching things here? That's like me calling the AOR's (the USN's resupply vessels) offensive. About the only offen
29 747400sp : The USN has not had AOR since the early 90's there only AOE now. AOE and AOR are basically do the same type of job, but an AOE is larger and has the
30 RAPCON : I'm old Navy. I hung up the khaki's in the early-mid 90's. But the AOE's that we had in my time--interestingly the fast one AOE's that you seem to re
31 DEVILFISH : That piqued my curiosity. How many knots should the CVN be doing for the Super Bugs to be safely arrested?
32 EBJ1248650 : How can the KC-30A be as expensive as the KC-787 when the A330 research and development costs have already been amortized over the length of the curr
33 RAPCON : It all depends on the wind over the deck (combo of prevailing wind speed, and the CV's own speed). It changes all the time. I never worked with 18E/F
34 AislepathLight : Think long term. The 787 will be much more effecient that any A330. Also, you have to remember that the 787 is state of the art, and will probably be
35 Post contains images Sprout5199 : Hey now, The FFG's aren't that slow. We could go 30+ knots just like all the other ships. And seen 39 once. There was one ship that could keep up for
36 KC135TopBoom : IIRC the Iowa class BBs (rated at 33 knots, Wisconsin reached 37 knots during her 1988 sea trials) gave the CV/CVNs a run for their money. Additional
37 AislepathLight : The old Papa could do 44.7 knots, which is damn impresive, but made a racket. Topboom: If my understanding of your post and my old knowledge, you say
38 KC135TopBoom : No, all I am saying about the AOEs is the strike force they are used to UNREP, normally deployes with enough stores to complete their missions. The A
39 Texfly101 : That's the bet if they don't specifically ask for a 767 type aircraft. The design requirements will be tight when the final contract is signed, the b
40 Revelation : As a taxpayer, I'd like to see us get every cent out of the KC-135 fleet. I agree. I'd rather see the money spent on CFM-56s for the rest of the flee
41 AislepathLight : You do bring up a good point here, as the navy fuctions in a totally different scale of opps and time of their opps, specally when you have CVNs who
42 2H4 : Considering that in 2005, the Cirrus SR-22 was the number one selling certified single-engine airplane, and considering the increasing number of Diam
43 KC135TopBoom : The proposed KC-30 for the USAF is a far different airplane than the RAAF A-330MRTT, which is also different from the RAF A-330TT. When I said "neith
44 RAPCON : REALLY??? In what World did that occur??? 'Cause the FFG that I was assigned could never, and I repeat NEVER, go faster than 28.8kt with a good tail
45 LMP737 : Define "battle area". With carriers in the confines of the Persian Gulf and having to transit the Straits of Hormuz the "battle area" is preey much e
46 AirRyan : I think that is already done. If not a KC-787 than at least a KC-777 based on a 200LR or something, with the folding wings that Boeing has already de
47 Post contains images 747400sp : Yes they can! After the USS Constellation CV-64 was decommissioned, some of her sailor came to my old ship the USS Belleau Wood LHA-3. One of the sai
48 Sprout5199 : We did 30 all the time. seen 39 after we had our rudder repaired in 1987. I was on the USS Flatley(FFG-21) from 1987 to 1991. With one turbine we cou
49 Post contains images 747400sp : I meant I know she was smoking! I surprise FFG can do 28 knot! I apology, but FFG just so small and just have one prop. That does not say speed to me
50 Post contains links Revelation : Why do you feel that way? This article says: I read the article, and still am not convinced we need to replace the KC-135 in the short term.
51 AislepathLight : I would agree that I want to see everything out of our KC135s, and with E's getting turned in to Rs, I think that 25 years can be easily done. But by
52 EBJ1248650 : " target=_blank>http://www.defenselink.mil/transform....html If this is the direction they're considering, is it quite possible that a near term tanke
53 AislepathLight : In the past months that this has been discused to death, I have received the fealing that KC135Rs would be able to last us some more time, up to 25 y
54 Sprout5199 : Well, a carrier has giant engines(steam turbines) because it needs them, just like a B-52 has 8 engines. A FFG isn't small(445 feet long), it just lo
55 KC135TopBoom : Should the USAF ever buy a KC-777, it will not have the folding wing option. No airline has ever bourght the option on their B-777s. The folding syst
56 TropicBird : What are the documented reasons to replace the KC-135? The only one I can seem to find is because the aircraft is a maintenance hog and the USAF seems
57 KC135TopBoom : Yes, USAF does say that. But, there own records also indicate the KC-135 fleet maintanes an mission ready rate above 95%. The USAF standard is 85%. S
58 Post contains images RAPCON : Just keep the A380 wiring engineers away from that project!
59 Zkpilot : I was wondering if anyone could tell me why the USAF persists with the "boom" design?? The drouge design (spelling?) appears to be much more effective
60 ElmoTheHobo : You just talked about getting your penny's worth - the KC-777 is going to cost a whole lot of dough that congress won't be willing to give the Pentag
61 10boomer : It's agonizingly slow, you're lucky to get 2000 lbs a minute through a hose. A boom can offlod at a rate > 8000lbs a minute. Even with fighters you g
62 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Hey, 10boomer, haven't "scene" you here in a while. Have you been deployed? If so, welcome home.
63 10boomer : Hey, TopBoom I wish that I had been, keeping STAN/EVAL running the past couple of months has been a headache at best. I'm sure I'll be back in the sa
64 Post contains images DeltaGuy : Wasn't the last 707 built for the Navy, an E-6, back in the mid 90's? Who's to say we couldn't just make a ton of brand new KC-135R's....best fit for
65 ElmoTheHobo : Like replacing an NW DC-9 with another DC-9... I would have loved to see a KC-757, which would have been a perfect replacement if that had gotten engi
66 KC135TopBoom : Yes, the last B-707 built was a B-707-700 built (E-6B) for the USN. But the B-707 really is not a good substatute for the KC-135. Both are totally di
67 747400sp : Don't Brazil have KC-137s and Israel and Italy have KC-707s (707-300B tankers). If Boeing still has the tooling to make a tanker out of the 707 700,
68 KC135TopBoom : Yes, Brazil has KC-137s, and Isreal and Italy both fly KC-707s. But, IIRC, all of these airplanes were used jets when they were aquired. Boeing did n
69 747400sp : It very sad, that they will not build any more of these great planes .
70 KC135TopBoom : From a marketing position, why would Boeing want to market additional new build B-707/E-3/E-6s or KC/RC/C-135s when they also had the B-757 and B-767
71 Connies4ever : Would that not be true for the KC-767 as well ? I thought the 767 wing was also supercritical, but more efficient than the 757 wing (ref. "AC "Gimli
72 KC135TopBoom : The B-767 has a much more effeicent wing than the KC-135, but it is not a "supercritical" wing design like the B-757 has. It is because of the B-757
73 Post contains links Texfly101 : Interesting article on the USAF tanker in the Seattle P-I today. Basically it revolves around the 767 being the front runner for Boeing's response to
74 KC135TopBoom : The story says there will be a dedicated KC-767A line, just like the P-8A MMA. These airplanes will not be built on the commerical B-767 (or B-737 for
75 Texfly101 : Yep, that's very interesting to read too...But then again, they still have to get the contract to begin with...so on to next year. The 737 has always
76 TropicBird : Boeing has a fair amount of support in the USAF for the KC-767. However, that support could backfire on them if it is found that they (the USAF) are a
77 777236ER : This is not really the case. The 757 and 767 both have aft-loaded, essentially supercritical airfoils (though it was the 777 that really went for it
78 747400sp : May be if you put a 767 wings and engines on it, this ideal could work.
79 Texfly101 : I don't see the USAF backing off their spec built KC-767. It was specifically built around their requirements and not a Boeing offered design. So my m
80 KC135TopBoom : The KC-135 wing is essentially the same wing design of the B-367-80 and the B-707-100. When they were designed, in the very early 1950s, there was no
81 KC135TopBoom : Does anyone know if the USAF is still looking at P&W engines for the KC-X? The USAF wanted the KC-767A, a few years ago, with P&W engines, instead of
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-X Tanker Project Approved
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...
First KC-767 Tanker Rolls Out posted Fri Feb 25 2005 11:39:57 by 777ER
Updated: USAF's Next Tanker posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:05:32 by AislepathLight
The Boeing 777 Tanker posted Thu Sep 28 2006 00:35:18 by NWDC10
KC-135 Fire In Manas posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:52:42 by Venus6971
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
KC-777F Specs? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 01:19:59 by N328KF
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:25:04 by Justloveplanes
A Tribute To The KC-135 posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:41:49 by 747400sp
Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal posted Mon Sep 18 2006 12:12:54 by Columba
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format