747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:04 am

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.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:45 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:05 am

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.
 
DLSLC
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:59 am

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.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:12 am

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.
 
DLSLC
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:21 am

Gotcha. Thanks Connies4ever, I must have bad sources of information! Thanks again for the correction.
Regards,
Devin B.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:13 am

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
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:17 am

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.............
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:18 am

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'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:21 am

KC-767's and KC737's would make very good sense.
I Love HNL.............
 
Ozair
Posts: 1344
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:26 pm

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.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2787
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:40 am

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
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:27 am

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
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:45 am

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.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:18 pm

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.
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:51 pm

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!!!
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:28 am

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.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:13 am

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.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:48 am

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.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:59 am

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.
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:42 pm

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
bleepbloop
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:02 pm

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 
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:47 am

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.
 
okelleynyc
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:26 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:19 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:54 am

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........
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:27 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
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?

KC-30 you are correct, my bad. I forgot that they already secured a designation for the platform.
 
okelleynyc
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:26 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:10 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Most everyone thinks the A-10A is ugly, too........

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 was in Baltimore. Loved to hear their unique whine as they flew overhead.

As for the Lockheed proposal, they typically make beautiful birds, so I'll hold out for the real thing if it's ever to pass. I was just surprised that they're thinking about making a dual role aircraft. Tanking and Strike. I mean usually you hear Tanking and Airlift together, but never anything offensive......
Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:15 pm

Quoting Okelleynyc (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Most everyone thinks the A-10A is ugly, too........

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 was in Baltimore. Loved to hear their unique whine as they flew overhead.

As for the Lockheed proposal, they typically make beautiful birds, so I'll hold out for the real thing if it's ever to pass. I was just surprised that they're thinking about making a dual role aircraft. Tanking and Strike. I mean usually you hear Tanking and Airlift together, but never anything offensive......

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 offensive weapons systems. Just because they don't shoot or drop bombs doesn't mean they are not offensive. Modern air combat would not be what we know it as today without tankers, AWACS, J-STARS, ELINT, etc.
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:31 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Tankers, by their very nature are offensive weapons systems.

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 offense they can do is run over something.
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:39 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 28):
That's like me calling the AOR's (the USN's resupply vessels) offensive. About the only offense they can do is run over something.

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+ knots speed to keep up with a carrier.
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:14 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 29):
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+ knots speed to keep up with a carrier.

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 refer too--could only go about 26kts on good day (they were rated for 27kts but that was with a strong tail wind and glassy seas).

The new AOE's also cannot do more than 25kts. Either of them, old or new, could never keep up with the CV if she opened up the throttles and hit flank bells.

NOTHING can keep up with the carrier.

NOTHING.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Not the CG's. Not the DDG's'; Not the DD's; and just forget about the possibility of an FF/FFG keeping up.

When the CV/CVN's want to crank up the turns....well it's just like the Roadrunner and Willie Coyote: The carrier is the roadrunner, and the rest of us in the escort group are left like ol' Willie with his jaw hanging.

Beep! Beep!

POOF!!!

CV is bye bye!

p.s. The SSN's can keep up, but they would be running blind.
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:18 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 30):
NOTHING can keep up with the carrier.

That piqued my curiosity. How many knots should the CVN be doing for the Super Bugs to be safely arrested?
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:04 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
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.

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 current production run of airliners and will likely be all the more so as more A330s are ordered?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:17 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):
That piqued my curiosity. How many knots should the CVN be doing for the Super Bugs to be safely arrested?

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, so I would not know. But I have seen CV's launch S-3's while barely doing 12kts (with probably about 30kts over the deck).
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:47 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 32):

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 current production run of airliners and will likely be all the more so as more A330s are ordered?

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 around after the A330s have left the world.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 28):

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 offense they can do is run over something.

I wouldn't say so. If you think about tankers, they make much more sense as attack related aircraft that you would want to be in the wings, waiting to refuel, rather than defensive. If you are on the defense, you will have access to all your air bases, and won't need as much tanker support. I wouldn't go as far as calling them offensive oriented, but they sure do help an attack
bleepbloop
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:41 pm

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 30):
and just forget about the possibility of an FF/FFG keeping up.

Hey now, The FFG's aren't that slow. We could go 30+ knots just like all the other ships. And seen 39 once.  shhh 

There was one ship that could keep up for a short time. The PHM's, as long as the sea state was flat.

And I don't know if the CV's could go that fast. The CVN'S yes but I'm not to sure on the CVs. Hell the Forrestal hardly made it out of Mayport.

Dan in Jupiter
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:29 pm

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 30):
NOTHING can keep up with the carrier.

NOTHING.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Not the CG's. Not the DDG's'; Not the DD's; and just forget about the possibility of an FF/FFG keeping up.

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. Additionally, USN SSNs and SSBNs have been able to penetrate the CVBGs ASW screen to successfully "attack" the CV/CVN, during exercises. Some adversery Naval SSKs are thought to have this capability, too. That is why CVBGs now have added LA class SSNs to the escort force.

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 28):
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 offense they can do is run over something.



Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 34):
I wouldn't say so. If you think about tankers, they make much more sense as attack related aircraft that you would want to be in the wings, waiting to refuel, rather than defensive. If you are on the defense, you will have access to all your air bases, and won't need as much tanker support. I wouldn't go as far as calling them offensive oriented, but they sure do help an attack

Unlike the USN AOEs, the airborne tankers are what are called "force multipliers". This allows the strike force of bombers, attack aircraft, and fighters to take off at their maximum gross weight with weapons payloads, as opposed to carrying their own fuel. Then the tankers refuel them after departure. A second group of tankers goes with the strike force to set the fuel loads at the optimum "fighting weight" when over the target area, usually well beyond the FEBA. These tankers stay on station, near the targets, protected by CAP, for post strike refueling.

The total effect is more weapons on the target using fewer strike aircraft.

Tankers usually do not have a role in defensive operations, except to maintane a CAP.

Even though an airborne tanker and an AOE appear to have similar missions, they really don't. Aircraft, like ships have a maximum weight. The difference is, in airplane the fuel needed to fly the mission is the heaviest portion of the total gross weight, sometimes even exceeding the airplanes basic weight. This leaves very little weight available to add weapons. In warships, the max gross weight (sometimes called full load displacement), fuel and crew provisions are not the heaviest items carried. The weapons systems can be, and in the case of CVs, it is the weapons (airplanes), the single heaviest loads carried. In the case of a CVN, nearly all fuel stoared aboard is for the air wing (there is some fuel stored for the ships purposes, like the deisel powered emergency generators). Another heavy amount of weight is used for the weapons the airplanes carry. The AOEs would UNREP the CG, DDG, and FFG escorts much more often than the CVN requires. The AOE, or the CVBG for that matter, will almost never enter the battle area, it is just to risky to do that. The KC-135 and KC-10, OTOH, are tasked to be close to or within the battle areas. The fighter guys (including the fighter and attack forces sent in by the CVBG), cannot survive, in todays combat enviornment without tankers.

In the case of the USN AOEs, the CVBG usually already possesses enough fuel and weapons loads to be able to complete the strike mission without UNREP. Additionally, under the modern tactical procedures, the CVBG does not go within 200nm of the coast line, it uses the CV air wing and the CG, DDG, and FFG cruise missiles launched from the VLS systems, to bring the fight to the enemy forces.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 32):
How can the KC-30A be as expensive as the KC-787

Neither one has been designed and built, yet. The costs to design a tanker, from the commerical A-330 or B-787, will not be absorbed into the commerical aircraft versions. The airlines would never put up with that. Additionally, both the B-787 and A-330 need to have full freighter versions designed and built, first. A USAF tanker version of any aircraft will always be based on the freighter version, not the passenger version.

Yes, I know Airbus is now designing the A-330F, and Boeing has not announced a B-787F, yet.
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:55 pm

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 that AOE's aren't offensive weapons, nor are they force muiltipiers, as the ships have internal stores incomprable with those of an aircraft. Tankers aren't offensive weapons, they are force multipliers. They allow the aircraft to maintain a higher combat ability, and also allows pilots to worry less about fuel levels, therfore fighting longer.

Lets keep on topic, and discuss the KC-X project.

I will start a new thread about what everyone thinks that the aircraft choice will be.
bleepbloop
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:53 pm

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 37):
Topboom: If my understanding of your post and my old knowledge, you say that AOE's aren't offensive weapons, nor are they force muiltipiers, as the ships have internal stores incomprable with those of an aircraft. Tankers aren't offensive weapons, they are force multipliers. They allow the aircraft to maintain a higher combat ability, and also allows pilots to worry less about fuel levels, therfore fighting longer.

Lets keep on topic, and discuss the KC-X project.

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 AOEs become valuable in extending the range and capability of the task force, after about the first 2 weeks of the deployment. In the aircraft business, the tankers must fly the mission with the shooters.

But, back on topic. I don't see where the KC-X project will ever be fully funded. So, we might use what money the project does get to reengine the KC-135Es.
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:14 am

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.

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 beginning request will be for proposals to see what is available. But make no mistake, both A and B will be in talks with the AF to determine what to offer. And this isn't just a smorgasboard of aircraft. The proposals will be priced specifically on the numbers of aircraft, so offerings are very specific as to type and numbers. Offer up varities and you can't get the price low and risk being underbid by a single source of type. Also, you have two entities that will determine the final decision, the procurement side of the Pentagon and the Ops side of the AF. You have to satisfy both of them to get the contract. Gotta get a good price and a capable aircraft. The B767 is a known design for the AF. The B787 is not. Let the AF try to develop a totally new aircraft and you get the F-22 development schedule, decades, not years. Remember that the AF chose for the 767 before in the terminated lease deal. And that was not the result of the scandal. The scandal happened after the AF said that they wanted the B767. They, not Ms. Druyn, rejected the A330, and specifically asked for the B767. That airplane that still sits out at the end of Paine Field is the result of the AF specific request for specific capabilities in a tanker that B built on their own to AF specs. It is not a "proposed for sale" aircraft, it was body 001 in the tanker line. And those Ops people, pilots, and AF heads that wanted that aircraft still are there in charge. My bet is on the B767 being the main choice for the contract with a buy also of the A330 tanker. I think a mixed buy is almost imperative to satisfy the scandal birds, the "Buy America" senators, the NATO Allied Force supporters (NG and certain Southern senators), and the AF Ops planners. It will be one of the most politically charged and dictated military buys since the Tomohawk single source contract of the 90's.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13749
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:09 am

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

As a taxpayer, I'd like to see us get every cent out of the KC-135 fleet.

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 20):
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)

I agree. I'd rather see the money spent on CFM-56s for the rest of the fleet, till their useful life is fully extracted. The whole KC-767 thing started out as a bone to throw to Boeing, and right now, I don't think Boeing needs the dollars more than the taxpayers do.

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 34):
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 around after the A330s have left the world.

How much efficiency is needed? Sure, you can make the tanker 20%-30% more efficient, but the thing is a flying gas can.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Neither one has been designed and built, yet.

How far along is the A330 tankers being supplied to UK and Australia?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
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 AOEs become valuable in extending the range and capability of the task force, after about the first 2 weeks of the deployment.

You are thinking like an airman, where the duation of the mission is hours to perhaps days. If you think like a seaman, you will see the scope of a mission is months to perhaps years and then you may find the AOE is the same kind of force multiplier as is an airborne tanker.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:45 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):

You are thinking like an airman, where the duation of the mission is hours to perhaps days. If you think like a seaman, you will see the scope of a mission is months to perhaps years and then you may find the AOE is the same kind of force multiplier as is an airborne tanker.

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 don't really need to worry about fuel, save the aircraft fuel.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):

How much efficiency is needed? Sure, you can make the tanker 20%-30% more efficient, but the thing is a flying gas can.

Remeber that we are talking about airframes that will be in service for another 40-50 years, and most of the options are going to use more fuel than a KC135, that 20-30% will add up.
bleepbloop
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:22 am




Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 13):
Outdated? I don't see anybody bitching about the C-172 or Beechcraft Bonanza designs.

Considering that in 2005, the Cirrus SR-22 was the number one selling certified single-engine airplane, and considering the increasing number of Diamonds and Lancairs being sold, I'd say there have been plenty of people complaining about the 172 and Bonanza designs. If nobody was complaining, the others wouldn't be selling.




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:51 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Neither one has been designed and built, yet.

How far along is the A330 tankers being supplied to UK and Australia?

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 "neither one has been designed and built, yet", I was only referring to the KC-30 and KC-787 proposals.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
You are thinking like an airman, where the duation of the mission is hours to perhaps days. If you think like a seaman, you will see the scope of a mission is months to perhaps years and then you may find the AOE is the same kind of force multiplier as is an airborne tanker.

Maybe that's because I am an Airman and not a Sailor? But, in the long term, you are correct, the AOEs eventually become a force multiplier, too.
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:31 pm

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 35):
Hey now, The FFG's aren't that slow. We could go 30+ knots just like all the other ships. And seen 39 once.

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 wind (in trials FFG7 made slightly over 30kts, but that was before she was loaded up with weps, full bunkers, helo, and all the rest of the crap one had to carry).

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 35):
And I don't know if the CV's could go that fast. The CVN'S yes but I'm not to sure on the CVs. Hell the Forrestal hardly made it out of Mayport.

When Kuwait was invaded, we left MYPT about 5 days later with SARA's group. Two days at sea SARA said "BYE BYE" and totally smoked us (the frigates).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
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. Additionally, USN SSNs and SSBNs have been able to penetrate the CVBGs ASW screen to successfully "attack" the CV/CVN, during exercises. Some adversery Naval SSKs are thought to have this capability, too. That is why CVBGs now have added LA class SSNs to the escort force.

The CV's could hang with the BB's. Adding an SSN is done to "sanatize the ops area" before the ops begin. But an SSN running at 30+kts, is as blind as a mole.
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:44 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
The AOE, or the CVBG for that matter, will almost never enter the battle area, it is just to risky to do that.

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 eveywhere. Especailly since the Iranians have diesel electric boats. And since the CBG's have to be unreped in the Gulf that means the USNS vessels have to be in the "battle area" as well. In fact back in 2002 "pirates" in the gulf made a run at a USNS ship. They were driven off by gunfire. So as you can see the whole ocean can be described as a "battle area". It's just that some area's a safer than others.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
The AOE, or the CVBG for that matter, will almost never enter the battle area, it is just to risky to do that.

See above.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:02 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
As a taxpayer, I'd like to see us get every cent out of the KC-135 fleet.

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 designed; it would take up no more room than a KC-30. The 777 was originally designed to replace the 767 but then Boeing decided to go all new and ended up with a great modern platform. Using the 777 platform it would perhaps be the best compromise between the 767 and the 787, and with freightor versions already being produced, making a KC-777 would be a lot less expensive for Boeing than a KC-787 would be.
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 35):
And I don't know if the CV's could go that fast.

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 sailor from the Connie told me, that on her last west pac she was flying though the sea and just crushing waves, she was cruising from 38-40 knots. I know she we smoking!  Smile
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:35 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 44):
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 wind (in trials FFG7 made slightly over 30kts, but that was before she was loaded up with weps, full bunkers, helo, and all the rest of the crap one had to carry).

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 could do about 18 and with both 30 was easy, 35 was pushing it but we could sustain it with flat seas, and 39 was battle-overide to test our rudder.

Which fig were you on?(must have been a p.o.s.(Antrim?) if it couldn't go faster than 28) If you were in MYPT, then you were in Desron Eight.

Dan in Jupiter
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3830
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Project Approved

Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:09 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 47):
. I know she we smoking!

I meant I know she was smoking!

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 35):
Hey now, The FFG's aren't that slow. We could go 30+ knots just like all the other ships.

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. A carrier is "Giant" with a long sleek hull giant engines and four giant props. It make since for a carrier the travel so fast. A FFG should be call a big boat instead of a ship.

PS No offence to any FFG crew.  Smile

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests