|Quoting Par13del (Reply 12):|
A question for you KC135TopBoom, is there a need for both a strategic and a tactical tanker? Take the Gulf war's, a strike flight of F16's takes off minimal fuel, refuels at altitude. What is the value of all that additional cargo space, passenger seats etc on the tanker, how much more is it costing to haul all that empty weight around when all you need is to remain on station for a few hours for strike packages, no cargo being uploaded or delivered. This issue does not seem to get looked at when people talk about how more efficient a KC10 is at dragging aircraft across the pond etc. What percentage of tanker ops does this take up, I seem to remember talk about a cargo pod which could be loaded onto a tanker when needed, can't remember if that was a Euro or Boeing option.
Both the KC
-135 and KC
-10 fill t both the tactical and strategic air refueling roles now. So any replacement tanker would also need to have that capability.
On a tactical refueling mission, for either the KC
-135 or the KC
-10, the cargo compartment is usually empty, except for airplane/crew required equipment and survival equipment. On strategic deployments, the KC
-10 is capable of carrying both cargo/passengers and fuel for refueling of fighters. The KC
-135 also has this capablity, but it is more limited. KC
-135s can carry 50-60 passengerswith limited baggage/cargo and still be capable of offloading up to 120,000lbs of fuel. But, typically passengers weigh a lot less than bulk cargo.
-10 is very efficient at fighter drags because one tanker can usually carry the support/maintenance troops and some cargo for the fighter aircraft it is dragging across the pond. In missions like this, the KC
-10 is usually refueled, itself, about mid route by a KC
But, efficentcy is different things to different people. Some say a KC
-135A/E/Q/R is more efficient than a KC
-10A, as the -135 burns about half the fuel (or less) a -10 burns.
I believe that efficientcy changes with the different mission requirements.
I don't know of the cargo pod you refer to. Both the KC
-135 and KC
-10 have cargo compartments, so they would not need a pod for cargo.
|Quoting AirRyan (Reply 16):|
I say we start sending Iraq the bill for the war and taking payment in oil supplies, move our bases in Germany to Iraq, and send the 1st Cav from Ft. Hood down into Mexico to secure the worthless government so we can take their oil, too. Mexico is such a 3rd world dictatorship trying to avenge their loss in the Mexican/American War thinking squatters rights supersedes all, once we kill the druglords running the country everything will be fine. What's the world going to do, boycott and isolate the United States? (Isolationism, eh?!)
Uh-oh, this could get ugly.
Back to tankers. Something we use to say in the tanker world, when I was in (I think it is still said today) "Nobody kisks ass without tanker gas (NKAWTG)".