keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:17 am

A recent report shows the lift requirements for the KC-X with regards to strategic cargo / passenger transport might be outdated taking into consideration current use of the cargo fleet.

Rough airfield deployment of the C-17 and C130J seems to be very limited in day to day operation. They can do it but it hardly happens in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Tanker capasity is mainly hard pressed during the first month of an operation.

http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/...030708/Bolkcom_Testimony030707.pdf

Page 6 of 21

Because DoD’s last tanker requirements study is outdated, and because subsequent
analyses failed, for many, to provide increased insight into tanker and airlift requirements,
many significant acquisition and force structure questions remain unclear. One question was
alluded to earlier in this testimony: “how much airlift capability should the aerial refueling
fleet provide?”

It appears that some within DoD believe that the KC-X program should provide for
more airlift capability than it currently does. Last spring, DoD’s top military transportation
commanders expressed a strong preference for a multi-role tanker. Gen. Norton Schwartz,
Commander U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) testified that

"What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that
can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane
to go wherever we need to take it....if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over
Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive.
But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25
years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission
airplane to me makes sense.14"

The Defense Science Board agreed with Gen. Schwartz’s opinion on refueling
requirements and the availability of tankers to provide airlift missions. “The major driver for
future aerial refueling needs is the number and type of nearly simultaneous “major”
operations. Demands on aerial refueling are particularly stressed when time is of the essence
for the mission and when local infrastructure is immature.”15

The amount of airlift ultimately to be provided by the tanker fleet could have important
implications for other programs under this subcommittee’s purview.

The report further descripes the strategic and tactical capabilities / choices that have to made.

The argument that a tanker always was a tanker, is a tanker and tanker can only ever be a tanker seems to be loosing ground. IMO this could have influence on the tanker competition to be finalized this fall and not only on the tanker competition.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:57 am

This article underscores Northrup-Grummans appeal that the RFP was not fair, as it discounted lift capacity in favor of a moe specialized tanker. A multi roll tanker makes more sense from a fleet capitalization view and as a tax payer.

Gen. Schwatz has pretty much summed it up, that we need lift in addition to tankerage. As an x mtc guy, we deployed the Wing with all of our test eqiupment and spares, palleted onto the 135Qs. This was a Cold War scenario with a fighter drag across the pond to RAF Mildenhall. As the USAF is asking for both lift and tankerage, a mixed fleet of KC-30s and 767s would work.

From the article, I didn't know taht we were renting AN-124 time, over 100 million dollars in FY06. That was one frame we could have bought.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:41 am



Once again, Kessje tries valiantly to push a boulder up a very steep hill.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:53 am

The point here is that the lift capacity of the tanker is less important than the tanking.....and the more booms in the sky the better off we are. The lift capacity of the 767 is not significantly enough less than the 330 when comparing useful loads to justify the smaller number of airframes we'd be able to buy with the same money.

We need more booms and drogues in the air.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:59 pm

Ah well, since we are on this again let me play along. Since these "new" requirements show that the lift requirement is more important, I think both Boeing and Airbus need to re-evaluate their choices of a/c. Obviously, in this new environment the B-767 is outmoded, ditto the A330. Boeing needs to up its a/c to the B-777 and the B-747 as a mix fleet to replace the KC-707 and the KC-10, both provide more lift and more "gas" than any other selection available.
Airbus now has to match that with the KC-340 and the KC-380, both would have the advantage over one of Boeings - KC-777 - a twin versus the tried and proven 4 engine tankers the US-Airforce already uses.

Both OEM's would be able to provide a/c immediately as there are numerous B-777's and B-747 being made obsolete by the A-350 and the A-380. Airbus has the production capacity to produce A-340's and A-380's on short notice so the air force would not have a long wait. I can see the various PR flyers now, Boeing, tried and true a/c, Airbus newer more modern a/c, let get this show on the road.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:02 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):
Boeing needs to up its a/c to the B-777 and the B-747 as a mix fleet to replace the KC-707 and the KC-10

I'd say that the 777 would be an excellent replacement for the KC-10 fleet once it's retired....I'd not mind seeing the 777 ordered as long as it did not reduce the overall number of booms in the air once the entire fleet is ordered.

The lift capacity of the tanker fleet is not as important as one thinks if the fact that tanking is the tanker fleets number one job. Lift is secondary. We can charter or conscript lift if necessary. We've got a huge US flagged civilian fleet for that sort of lift (it's different, totally, from the strategic and tactical lift capability upon which we need to improve) when we need surge capacity and it's a very well proven system. FedEx, UPS and the passenger fleets have all the airlift we could possibly need for cargo and passengers......none of them, however, can provide refuelling capability.

We need more booms in the air.......talking about cargo capacity is a dodge designed to distract people from the real mission. The 767 is well capable of carrying cargo......the A330 is well capable of carrying cargo....we can buy more KC767s than KC30s for the same money. More refuelling missions can be handled with the KC767.

Are there really any more questions?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:58 pm

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Rough airfield deployment of the C-17 and C130J seems to be very limited in day to day operation.

If C-17 and C-130J deployment seems limited to you, how can you expect the civilian-derived KC-X to do more rough airfield deployments? Or by "rough" did you mean "estimated"?

If more airlift is needed, then more C-17s and C-130Js should be funded.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:52 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
We need more booms in the air.......talking about cargo capacity is a dodge designed to distract people from the real mission. The 767 is well capable of carrying cargo......the A330 is well capable of carrying cargo....we can buy more KC767s than KC30s for the same money. More refuelling missions can be handled with the KC767.

Are there really any more questions?

there shouldn't be, unless you work for Airbus or Northrop Grumman and are desperately trying to sell the American public more airplane than is needed for the mission.

My nephew is a KC-135 boom operator. He tells me they never tank their full fuel load, and as far as cargo goes, he's been all over the world and never carried a full non-fuel cargo load.

Simply put, we need more booms in the air, not larger fuel tanks or cargo decks.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 6):
If C-17 and C-130J deployment seems limited to you, how can you expect the civilian-derived KC-X to do more rough airfield deployments? Or by "rough" did you mean "estimated"?

If more airlift is needed, then more C-17s and C-130Js should be funded.

ÊÊ

[Edited 2007-07-14 17:52:52]
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:49 pm

Hey Halls120,

I think a reasonable case for a mixed fleet can be made. From reading the article, the airlift requirement is not well defined by the USAF or the DoD, or the one that they have done is obsolete. Also in the article the researcher guestimating acquisition costs, the KC-30 is comparable in price (not the DoD really ever cared a rat's ass about price. You don't have to go far for example, Osprey, DIVAD, etc.).

A mixed fleet will add flexibility to our airlift capability if the tanker frames are close in costs. Loading troops on a C5A (been there) or a C-141A (been there also, I guess I am getting up there in years) is a waste of airframe capability. Having additional lift would add flexibility to deploy spares, test equipment, etc in a Tanker Task Force.

Now, my experience is obsolete, I am an old SAC weenie back when it was, TAC, MAC, the American Toy Company, etc. When we deployed, cargo was stacked 6 feet in front of us for the lenght of the Q model. After a stop at Dover, we picked up more tankers and flew a fighter drag across the pound, impressive sight, 6 tankers and a full squadron of F-4s. My point here is that this is anecdotal evidence. And a boomer today can only provide anecdotal evidence also. Fuel/cargo loads may be the result of MAJOCM policy, bickering lack of coordination or many things.

As the contract is to be awarded this fall, the topic is current. As a tax paying Reaganite Vet, I want the military to be the most capable it can be. The EU buys into our major weapons programs and I don't have a problem if we buy theirs. (I'm definitely not insinuating you are, just a comment.)
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:26 pm

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
Now, my experience is obsolete, I am an old SAC weenie back when it was, TAC, MAC, the American Toy Company, etc. When we deployed, cargo was stacked 6 feet in front of us for the lenght of the Q model. After a stop at Dover, we picked up more tankers and flew a fighter drag across the pound, impressive sight, 6 tankers and a full squadron of F-4s. My point here is that this is anecdotal evidence. And a boomer today can only provide anecdotal evidence also. Fuel/cargo loads may be the result of MAJOCM policy, bickering lack of coordination or many things.

Just about every person who has posted on this topic who is currently flying for the US military today has said the same thing my nephew has said - they don't need more fuel capacity per aircraft, they need more aircraft. Anecdotal it might be, but why should we believe the testimony of one CRS researcher? What are his qualifications?

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
As the contract is to be awarded this fall, the topic is current. As a tax paying Reaganite Vet, I want the military to be the most capable it can be. The EU buys into our major weapons programs and I don't have a problem if we buy theirs.

I guess you missed the threads on the EU balking on buying a C-17 for NATO, eh?

I agree that we should buy the best available. But buying the best doesn't mean we need to buy more than we need. If the KC-767 is cheaper than the KC-30, and it satisfies what the AF needs, to me it's a no brainer. You take the system that gives you more bang for the buck. And in the case of tankers, I believe we need more airframes, not more capacity.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:03 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
I want the military to be the most capable it can be. The EU buys into our major weapons programs and I don't have a problem if we buy theirs. (I'm definitely not insinuating you are, just a comment.)

Dude.....speaking as another Reagan era (and Bush 41/Clinton) vet I'd have to say I've got zero problems with foreign weapons systems (Harrier/Penguin/Beretta/Benelli and so on) if it's the right piece of equipment for the job that needs doing.

If the KC-30 was the right piece of equipment I'd say so and be bitching that Boeing hadn't put forward the 777 as the solution....but it's not. I outlined how we can achieve the surge cargo capacity we need for both passengers and regular sized cargo both during peacetime and wartime (US flagged charter operators such as World and North American plus the cargo carriers), as well as that which they cannot provide. The limited capabilities of operations such as Omega could not nearly enough provide us with more booms or drogues in the air to supply surge deployments or sustained combat operations once the older KCs wear out.

We need the outsized cargo planes and the KC767.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):

We need the outsized cargo planes and the KC767.

Really that is what it comes down to. Additionally any cargo or people you can move in a KC-30 you can move more cheaply in a contracted situation even if you do not activate the reserve fleets. The real problem is that in an operational situation the tankers are likely not going to where the majority of the cargo is needed.

They use the WOT as an example but it is flawed. The vast majority of the troops are in Iraq proper as is the vast majority of the cargo demand. However tankers do not really go to Iraq so they can't really haul cargo there.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:38 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 11):
Additionally any cargo or people you can move in a KC-30 you can move more cheaply in a contracted situation even if you do not activate the reserve fleets

wonder how cheap you can get those old 742F or 743F out of storage and polished up again..... Even better if you use those, you never have to use your TANKER as a CARGO plane,

The idea that you would want to use your tankers for cargo lift is very strange. There isn't enough frames right now to cover what the USAF wants done on the tanker side, so you want to remove frames from tanker use to haul cargo? I could see it if you had a small airforce and didn't conduct that much in the way of operations around the globe, but the USAF isn't small, and they are always sending warplanes somewhere, all which take tankers to get where they are going.

It boggles the mind that people keep harping about how much better the KC30 is than the KC767 is for cargo, yet ignore the fact the USAF at this time CAN'T spare the tanker fleet for cargo duty. Or that if it was important, the KC777 is almost the same footprint as the KC30 and dwarfs the KC30 in ability. Price per frame is higher sure... but oh wait some select people here keep arguing that "ability" > price. Just imagine a 747 based tanker.. Most capability per dollar bar none. What more could you want, massive speed, massive payloads, massive range... Its all there. Likely would only be a hair more than a KC777 a frame too. So clearly based on these "new" requirements the only sane solution is for the USAF to ignore the KC30 and KC767 and go straight for a 748 based tanker.
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:03 am

Guys, I am open to rational discussion. I am not dogmatic is suggesting anything, but the diferent sides is what is interesting. I'm not advocating a specific platform.

There are guys insdie the USAF that have mentioned combined cargo/tanker capacity. This is where the discusion should be. How far off is Gerneral Schultz then? He has done this all of his life, as a professional airman. Damn, I wish he would post his view. hehe.  Smile

Cheers, AS
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:28 am

Beat this. Please.




Big version: Width: 768 Height: 1024 File size: 233kb
Dead horse


Quoting Halls120 (Reply 2):


Once again, Kessje tries valiantly to push a boulder up a very steep hill.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:45 am

You have to remember who General Schultz is working for. His command is responsible for moving things around so he is proposing what from his point of view is the simplest solution. There are many other voices to be heard however. Primarily Air Combat Command, though no longer responsible for administering the tankers are among the big users of them and their voice will be heard. In addition you have the various theater commanders who will actual decide how these things are employed.

What the General is arguing is that basically a multi-role capability is important in a tanker. On the face of it that is not really earth shattering news. The question is what level of capability can you use and how much are you willing to pay for it. If you budget is unlimited then certainly it makes the most sense to buy the biggest best thing you can get. However this is probably not the case.

I maintain what I have said before, and what a lot of independent analyst in the business have been saying for a while, the KC-30 is great if you are only buying a few of them and do not have a large transport fleet otherwise at hand. When you are buying in the hundreds you get far better value by getting more 767's for a given cost.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:56 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 13):
Guys, I am open to rational discussion. I am not dogmatic is suggesting anything, but the diferent sides is what is interesting. I'm not advocating a specific platform.

They're good points for discussion, but the return point sort of answers the logic of the situation. The aggravation comes when certain posters seem to simply be stirring the pot with points that have been refuted effectively before simply because they favor one manufactor over another.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 14):
Beat this. Please.

Didn't someone wake up with that in their bed?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 14):
Once again, Kessje tries valiantly to push a boulder up a very steep hill.

I was wondering how you spell Sysiphus in Dutch......
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:00 am

You mean the A-330's going to still win the tanker thing? I thought the 767 won!??

Andrea K
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:54 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
You mean the A-330's going to still win the tanker thing? I thought the 767 won!??

They still have to dot the i's and cross the t's, but unless Boeing was silly enough to charge more per frame than the KC30, the KC767 is going to win.

Even if they did, Our politicians currently hate the french more than they hate Boeing so.... "Freedom Fries".... lord. what idiots.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:07 pm

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Tanker capasity is mainly hard pressed during the first month of an operation.

Where did that come from? Tankers are still flying combat missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq today. They are also used to shuttle C-17s, Fighters and Bombers back and forth to the US.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 1):
Gen. Schwatz has pretty much summed it up, that we need lift in addition to tankerage.

Gen. Schwatz is a US Army General. His job is to move people and equipment. He is less interested in the tanker requirements in-theater, or the air bridges.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 1):
As the USAF is asking for both lift and tankerage, a mixed fleet of KC-30s and 767s would work.

??? No, it will not. Tanker requirements are always needed, airlift surges are temporary. That is what the CRAF and chartered airliners are for, and that is a lot cheaper than buying two different types of airplane, or having excess airplane capability laying around.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
My nephew is a KC-135 boom operator. He tells me they never tank their full fuel load, and as far as cargo goes, he's been all over the world and never carried a full non-fuel cargo load.

Simply put, we need more booms in the air, not larger fuel tanks or cargo decks.

Being an "Old Boom" myself, I confirm what your nephew is saying. The only time we ever loaded full fuel tanks in the KC-135 (up to our max ramp gross weight of 301,600lbs, or available runway lenght, for the KC-135A/Q) was on on alert for the SAC EWO missions.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
A mixed fleet will add flexibility to our airlift capability if the tanker frames are close in costs. Loading troops on a C5A (been there) or a C-141A (been there also, I guess I am getting up there in years) is a waste of airframe capability. Having additional lift would add flexibility to deploy spares, test equipment, etc in a Tanker Task Force.

Now, my experience is obsolete, I am an old SAC weenie back when it was, TAC, MAC, the American Toy Company, etc. When we deployed, cargo was stacked 6 feet in front of us for the lenght of the Q model. After a stop at Dover, we picked up more tankers and flew a fighter drag across the pound, impressive sight, 6 tankers and a full squadron of F-4s. My point here is that this is anecdotal evidence. And a boomer today can only provide anecdotal evidence also. Fuel/cargo loads may be the result of MAJOCM policy, bickering lack of coordination or many things.

The bottom line here is a tanker, or any airplane, can only lift so many pounds. The tanker does not care if those pounds are fuel or cargo or troops. This only indicates how far you fly before you have to land, unless you are refueled enroute by another tanker.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:05 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The bottom line here is a tanker, or any airplane, can only lift so many pounds. The tanker does not care if those pounds are fuel or cargo or troops. This only indicates how far you fly before you have to land, unless you are refueled enroute by another tanker.

Granted we need tankers. What about the need for more lift? How acute is this need? Do they need a bunch of 747Fs? It seems the new 748F might be fairly good at military tasks.

Or, are they happy securing roughtly 20 to 50 private 747s for gear and DC-10s for troops?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
Granted we need tankers. What about the need for more lift? How acute is this need? Do they need a bunch of 747Fs? It seems the new 748F might be fairly good at military tasks.

The USAF has said their # 1 need right now is a new tanker. Airlift is being taken care of because the C-17A is still in production, and additional USAF C-17 orders could be made next year, with Congresses blessings. The B-747F has always made military cargo runs under contract, and is a good strong airlifer. The USAF has never been interested in buying B-747F (they were offered in the early 1990s in place of the C-17).

As long as contract air and airlift is available, the USAF is okay with airlift. They cannot contract out for air refueling, on the scale the US needs because their are no contractors available.

Just buy the KC-767A and let's get this over.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:03 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The B-747F has always made military cargo runs under contract, and is a good strong airlifer. The USAF has never been interested in buying B-747F (they were offered in the early 1990s in place of the C-17).

As long as contract air and airlift is available, the USAF is okay with airlift. They cannot contract out for air refueling, on the scale the US needs because their are no contractors available.

Isn't there a lot of $ & weight in the tanker fuel systems such that cargo ops are penalized unless there is a reason for the tanker to be there. A ferry flight makes sense, flying cargo without using the tanker capability doesn't make the best use of the resourse.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 22):
Isn't there a lot of $ & weight in the tanker fuel systems such that cargo ops are penalized unless there is a reason for the tanker to be there. A ferry flight makes sense, flying cargo without using the tanker capability doesn't make the best use of the resourse.

Yes, there is. The original SAC KC-135A fresh from the Boeing factory in 1962 had a basic operating weight of 98,500lbs (which eventuall grew to around 105,650lbs in the late 1960s). For a fresh MATS C-135A delivered the very same day, the basic operating weight was 90,000lbs.

The C-135A did not have the air refueling boom, air refueling pumps (they used smaller override pumps in their body tanks), no upper deck fuel tank, one less cell in the foreward body fuel tank, less fuel plumbing, no boom pod, and associated electronics, avionics, and electrical equipment, and a few less hydraulic lines. The C-135A did have a heavier metal cargo floor where the KC-135A used lighter 3/8" plywood for a cargo floor.

There were some C-135As that started down the production line as KC-135A production numbers, but reduced to the C-135 configueration. They had most of the refueling equipment, except the boom pod electronics and boom. These airplanes were called "falseies". These airplanes weighed in around 95,000lbs. Most of these later became RC-135s or WC-135s.

So, yes, there is a cargo weight carrying penality when a tanker is used to carry cargo, compared to a pure airlifter.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:01 am

I know this will sound like a silly question...

But why not just reconfigure a C-17 for mid-air refuelling? I mean that thing's HUGE and could carry loads of fuel... it has plenty of thrust to spare and has long-range performance.

That sounds better than both the 767 or A-330


Andrea Kent
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:50 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 24):

But why not just reconfigure a C-17 for mid-air refuelling? I mean that thing's HUGE and could carry loads of fuel... it has plenty of thrust to spare and has long-range performance.

Because the amount of fuel carried is not the issue. The issue is the number of airframes you can get into the air and the efficiency with which you can do so.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 24):
That sounds better than both the 767 or A-330

No, actually it would be one of the worst possible solutions to the problem at hand.
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:18 am

I think since it became clear the KC-30 is a little better at everything then the KC-767

a wild kind of dancing can be seen on the other side of the pond.

people got jailed in the proces & now again USAF is sweating to adjust the reasoning to the inevitable result..

IMO it´s a bit like a tv soap, where´s the pop corn

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 6):
If more airlift is needed, then more C-17s and C-130Js should be funded.

Now we have a brand new hot selling outsize lifter here carrying double the C-130 load, costing about half the price of a C-17, flying further & having a production run of at least 15 more yrs..

I better pre-order some more pop corn..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:26 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
I think since it became clear the KC-30 is a little better at everything then the KC-767

Again, except for being 30 million dollars more expensive and being considerably bigger...points which you refuse to address.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
Now we have a brand new hot selling outsize lifter here carrying double the C-130 load, costing about half the price of a C-17, flying further & having a production run of at least 15 more yrs..

Last price I saw for the A400M was about 130 million per copy. A C-17 cost 200 million and has a lot more than twice the capability. And no matter how you slice it hundreds of A400M's still can't meet US strategic lift needs as they cannot move heavy forces around.
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:43 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 27):
Last price I saw for the A400M was about 130 million per copy. A C-17 cost 200 million and has a lot more than twice the capability. And no matter how you slice it hundreds of A400M's still can't meet US strategic lift needs as they cannot move heavy forces around.

The C-141 spend 30 years serving as a strategic transport. The A400m has a wider cabin and the C-141 and more range then the C-17. It can carry e.g. two tiger combat helicopters (or even Puma´s) or vehicles like the VBCI.



I think the C-17 cabin is mainly much wider. Both A400M and C-17 dwarf the Herc´s cabin.



AGM howitzer mounted on the MLRS chassis fits in a A400m and also the new NLOS-C mobile howitzer fits in, not in a Herc. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ages/LAND_FCS_NLOS-C_Prototype.jpg

Add the fact that it can carry 20 tons accros the Atlantic without refuelling and Yes, I think the A400 qualifies as a strategic transport.

It would also solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armoured vehicle programs.

The A400M is expensive indeed, but nowhere close to the escalated C-17 prices, $120-130 million compared to $180-240 million. Apart from that the numbers of A400M sold will most likely outdo the C-17, spreading the investment costs.

I think the US DOD has to finance a new cargo Aircraft program soon or the A400m might become un-avoidable in a few years.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 27):
Again, except for being 30 million dollars more expensive and being considerably bigger...points which you refuse to address.

After the KC767-KC30 tanker threads we will be able to switch over to A400M-C17 threads where bigger will no doubt be better.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:45 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 25):
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 24):
That sounds better than both the 767 or A-330

No, actually it would be one of the worst possible solutions to the problem at hand.

Well, let's not be that harsh. It's an idea worth exploring. I'd bet it's impractical due to cost reasons.

It's not a bad idea on the outset.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 25):
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 24):

But why not just reconfigure a C-17 for mid-air refuelling? I mean that thing's HUGE and could carry loads of fuel... it has plenty of thrust to spare and has long-range performance.

Because the amount of fuel carried is not the issue. The issue is the number of airframes you can get into the air and the efficiency with which you can do so.

The issue here is that the C-17 would be more expensive than KC-767s and less capable as tankers. They drink more gas and cannot fly as far or as fast. The logistics wouldn't work.

But, it seems like a decent capability to have as a backup plan. They use KC-130s....why not KC-17s for SOF work and other backup missions?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:54 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
The C-141 spend 30 years serving as a strategic transport. The A400m has a wider cabin and the C-141

And how many C-141's are in service now?

.....oh yeah....

Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
Add the fact that it can carry 20 tons accros the Atlantic without refuelling and Yes, I think the A400 qualifies as a strategic transport.

So it can carry 1/3 of a tank across the Atlantic?

That's strategic airlift for you?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
I think the US DOD has to finance a new cargo Aircraft program soon or the A400m might become un-avoidable in a few years.

Yes, when we finally decide to field a cargo aircraft that can't lift as much, or fly as far... we'll know who to call.  sarcastic 

Dude, that wasn't popcorn you were munching earlier.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
After the KC767-KC30 tanker threads we will be able to switch over to A400M-C17 threads where bigger will no doubt be better.

For an outsized freight aircraft you are absolutely correct.. to a limited degree. Not for a tanker aircraft. Apples, oranges...
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:28 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
Now we have a brand new hot selling outsize lifter here carrying double the C-130 load, costing about half the price of a C-17, flying further & having a production run of at least 15 more yrs..

Remind us again when EADS finally have it out of the production line, flying and certified, with all the kinks ironed out!  Wink
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:20 pm

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 27):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):I think since it became clear the KC-30 is a little better at everything then the KC-767
Again, except for being 30 million dollars more expensive and being considerably bigger...points which you refuse to address.

In case you haven't figured this out yet, Keesje refuses to address points he cannot spin to his advantage. Like the fact that we can buy more KC-767's than KC-30's for the proposed budget outlay.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:35 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 32):
In case you haven't figured this out yet, Keesje refuses to address points he cannot spin to his advantage. Like the fact that we can buy more KC-767's than KC-30's for the proposed budget outlay.

Pls give me any price info you have (with source).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:25 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
I think since it became clear the KC-30 is a little better at everything then the KC-767

Clear to who? Italy? Japan? The USAF? Remember, the new tanker requirements are set by the customer, not the manufactuer. If the USAF wants a tanker that can carry 215,000lbs of fuel, than an airplane that carries 250,000lfs of fuel is to much airplane.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 26):
Now we have a brand new hot selling outsize lifter here carrying double the C-130 load, costing about half the price of a C-17, flying further & having a production run of at least 15 more yrs..

When was the last A-400M sold? IIRC, about 2 years ago. Mean while, the C-130J has continued to get new orders. The A-400M costs about 2/3s the cost of a C-17A, not "about half", at current pricing. The C-17s fly away costs are pretty much fixed, the A-400M's fly away costs really has not been fixed yet. There is plenty of time for Airbus Military to increase the price per unit, which is what is going to happen. So, the A-400 will be in production for 15 years? The C-17 has almost hit that milestone already.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
Pls give me any price info you have (with source).

The price quote to the USAF from Boeing for a B-767-200LRF modified to the new KC-767A configueration is $115M-$120M (depending on options). The price quote for the A-330-200F modified to a KC-30A from NG/EADS is $152M-$160M (depending on options).

BTW, neither the B-767-200LRF or the A-330-200F actually exsist, yet.
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:24 am

Hi Boom, thanks for the info on the old A models. These are such an historic part of our Air Force and it always fun to read back in the day accounts about them.

Also Boom, you mentioned that the C-17 line is open, true, but we're not buying, unless Boeing and Congress know something they're not telling.

I am not convinced that the fuel loads going out on todays fleet is indicative of the current or future requirements. One item that has not been mentioned (that I have read) in either what has been released to the public in the RFP or the Tech Proposals is loiter time or time on station. If mission planning calls for 1 KC-30 or 1.2 KC-76s (as an old Phili punk, a great name), a mixed fleet would be advantagous. The same concept of the current 135/-10 fleet. I think USN Tomcat operations over Kosovo are an example that tankers with the ability to spend 9 hours on station could be called force multipliers (as stated, I don't know if either or neither frame can extended loiter).

Bottom line for me is, if all we need is more booms in the air, a "KC-73NG" would be considered, as the 737NGs must be much less expensive then a 767.

A KC-30 capability would require new mission planning to exploit the fleet to it's fullest, a heavier MTOW tanker would allow for more active and passive DEF electronics also. Maybe even a minor ELINT/SIGINT or C cube capability (yea I know, I'm dreaming and the Cold War is over, even if I am living in the past).

As the Air Force has not definitively defined their airlift requirements, the advantages of a MRTT can't accurately be nailed to tonnage.

Dougloid, Keesje has brought this up, I think it is current. Didn't you see the threads he started? They were almost pro Boeing, a Kindler, Gentler, Kees?  Smile As this procurement will probably be the major announcement of the decade, it will be fun to see the details.

Greeting Hall120~I can accept that the absence of a 100% non refueling mission (cargo) is fact, or 99%. But it may be more mission planning and a lack of cargo capacity rather then true mission requirements. Recent past and current conflicts have shown that boots on the ground is the most effective way to project power, we can't (conventional, non nuclear) bomb anyone into submission (don't look to closely at Kosovo...). From Korea, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, and current wars, it's the grunts that takes real estate.

If a cargo mission is never needed, it would make more sense to retire the KC-10s as they hit 30 years and replace them with 767s or if cargo is needed, KC-30s. I'm ok with that.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 27):
And no matter how you slice it hundreds of A400M's still can't meet US strategic lift needs as they cannot move heavy forces around.

This is not really a valid argument. If it were, it would have been decided for C-5 new builds or more conversions not C-17 purchases. The weapon system is always matched to the mission, A400s could be used effectively by any Air Force with the need and cash.

A look at the specs of the KC-10 (this really should be made obsolete by the KC-30), KC-767, KC-30 and KC-135R shows that the new frames will add needed capability. If current doctrine is valid, an excellent case can be made for a split purchase.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:47 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):Pls give me any price info you have (with source).
The price quote to the USAF from Boeing for a B-767-200LRF modified to the new KC-767A configueration is $115M-$120M (depending on options). The price quote for the A-330-200F modified to a KC-30A from NG/EADS is $152M-$160M (depending on options).

Well, Keesje?

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
But it may be more mission planning and a lack of cargo capacity rather then true mission requirements. Recent past and current conflicts have shown that boots on the ground is the most effective way to project power, we can't (conventional, non nuclear) bomb anyone into submission (don't look to closely at Kosovo...). From Korea, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, and current wars, it's the grunts that takes real estate.

The tanker force, IMO, shouldn't be looked at as a strategic cargo carrying asset. The fact it can carry dry cargo is a bonus. Remember what the program analyst said in the post that started this current debate:

"if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive. But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25 years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that's why a multi-mission airplane to me makes sense."

Wonderful. According to the author, we should buy a tanker fleet optimized for low intensity conflict that will leave us short in a high intensity conflict. Sorry, but I'd rather spend our tax dollars on a tanker fleet optimized for high intensity conflict that will be inefficient in low intensity conflict
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Clear to who? Italy? Japan? The USAF?

The KC-30 wasn´t launched / an option then. I won´t dare to ask Italy & Japan now knowing how the project is progressing. About the USAF: they indeed ordered them, after they let Boeing rewrite the specs to fit the 767´s . However the cheating got exposed. USAF / Boeing VIPs were jailed / fired. Price for the KC767 was .. well pls lets not bring this up again  Sad http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/ar...ives/individual/2004_03/003565.php

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
When was the last A-400M sold? IIRC, about 2 years ago.

No, 195 aircraft from 10 worldwide customers before first flight, the last order Dec 2005 Malaysia. It´s at least a generation ahead of the C-17 and C130J. Glass cockpit, flybywire, composites etc. Can´t find order data for the C-17.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M#Orders

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
Well, Keesje?

As usual assumptions fitting the preference, without sources  Sad

Whatever the reason the KC-767 will be selected, it won´t be bang for the bucks..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:24 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
If mission planning calls for 1 KC-30 or 1.2 KC-76s

I think you missed the part that currently almost all missions are <.99 KC-135. In other words the currently KC-135 has MORE capacity than used. So the KC-767 having more than a KC-135 will likely amount to hauling around empty tanks for years to come.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
Bottom line for me is, if all we need is more booms in the air, a "KC-73NG" would be considered, as the 737NGs must be much less expensive then a 767.

Some people have advocated using a 747 tanker as a "master" to support 2 or 3 737 or equivalent sized refueling planes. The problem with this is that you now have 3 to 4 planes burning fuel, and you might as well run 3 KC135 or KC767. If the 737RS is large enough, it might be useful for *SOME* missions, but it remains the 737 is just too small to get the job done now.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
a heavier MTOW tanker would allow for more active and passive DEF electronics also. Maybe even a minor ELINT/SIGINT or C cube capability (yea I know, I'm dreaming and the Cold War is over, even if I am living in the past).

The addition of electronics for other missions is limited by a large number of things. Cost of installation is currently a massive problem. Weight is a smaller one.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
If a cargo mission is never needed, it would make more sense to retire the KC-10s as they hit 30 years and replace them with 767s or if cargo is needed, KC-30s. I'm ok with that.

If a cargo mission is ever needed, they can get all manner of planes from the civil reserve. If they need more native uplift, you just go shopping for the best 747's in the desert. You REALLY don't want to rely on takers for day to day cargo operations.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
About the USAF: they indeed ordered them, after they let Boeing rewrite the specs to fit the 767´s

No, no they didn't. Revisionist history is great and all but get off it. The requirement boils down to 1. REPLACE KC-135, 2. IF PLANES PROPOSED SUCK, go with KC-135 life extension. They didn't write it as "order the KC767 and make damn sure the airbus doesn't"

Even worse, if you pay attention, I don't know who's Cheerios Boeing pissed in, but its there is a definite trend of LM over Boeing in the contracting.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:40 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):Well, Keesje?
As usual assumptions fitting the preference, without sources

OK, now it is sourced. Going to address the issue, or run away?

Quote:
Northrop's tanker, based on the EADS Airbus A330 airframe, carries more fuel, cargo, and passengers than Boeing's. But its list price is a lot higher---$160 million vs. $120 million for the Boeing plane. The Air Force is expected to announce the winning bid in October.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...tent/feb2007/db20070221_325213.htm
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:07 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39):
OK, now it is sourced. Going to address the issue, or run away?

You´ve bad luck, I actually checked out this source. The opinion ventilated about the EADS offer and european aerospace in general leaves little room for objectivity.

Even then they say EADS will be able to match Boeings price. Funny to see how they are struggling with the "EADS has unfair advantage so they can offer cheaper" and at the same time say "Boeing is cheaper so they should win". Thing is you can´t have it both ways.

Airbus A330 is a hot running production line, contrary to the 767. It will probably win almost all non USAF competitions since it was launched. It´s a newer, better and economical, carries a more fuel further and can do a more in term of of passenger transport / cargo. That remains the biggest "problem".

Boeing & USAF will not be able to "fix" things behind the screens like before. Right now they are swetting to come up with a good story line.. One of the first actions was to leave the exact requirements / additional capabilities in the open air this time. With previously (25) operationally specified requirements things quickly started drifting in the "wrong" direction...
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:22 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
It´s at least a generation ahead of the C-17 and C130J. Glass cockpit, flybywire, composites etc

Uh, Keesje... C-17 and C-103J both have glass cockpits.

They both also happen to use composites in construction.

C-17 also happens to be FBW in case you didn't notice.

So uh, what was your point again?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
keesje
Posts: 8610
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:42 am

The C-17 technology dates back to the eighties, disgarding any YC-15 heritage..

For the C130J some technology is only 10 yrs old, some technology >50 yrs old.

The A400M has no legacy technology, so I would say at least 1 generation ahead.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/a400mcockpit1024.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:49 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 38):
I think you missed the part

No, I was responding to the posts that said that we needed more booms in the air. If the tanker fleet is not refueling, what do we need them for? So I agree with you on this point. But then the USAF turns around and says we're short of airlift, which is it? Booms or Butter? (kind of catchy, eh?) So from what has been posted we already are hauling around empty tankers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The only time we ever loaded full fuel

and:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
He tells me they never tank their full fuel load



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 38):
the civil reserve

. I keep hearing this, but have extreme doubts about this plan. How long will it take to generate this lift and will all be available?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 29):
why not KC-17s for SOF work and other backup missions?

Because:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
So, yes, there is a cargo weight carrying penality when a tanker is used to carry cargo, compared to a pure airlifter.

So a Boeing MRTT KC-17 is a good idea but a KC-30 is not.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
we need more booms in the air, not larger fuel tanks or cargo decks

Ok, I can understand this concept. But, how can we justify needing more booms in the air? What part of the RFP even states our in air refueling requirements? It is for 175 airframes. Currently, or July 06 is the only reference that I can halfway trust, there are about 521 135s split between the AD, Reserve and Guard fleets. With the addition of about 175 KC-Xs, I would not think this number would drop. We don't need more booms in the air, all the data points to replacing 40 year old tankers.

It doesn't have to be accepted on a.net, but airlift capabilities are an integral part of the KC-X RFP.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:11 am

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):

No, I was responding to the posts that said that we needed more booms in the air. If the tanker fleet is not refueling, what do we need them for? So I agree with you on this point. But then the USAF turns around and says we're short of airlift, which is it? Booms or Butter? (kind of catchy, eh?) So from what has been posted we already are hauling around empty tankers.

The USAF is short of heavy airlift they are plenty of trash haulers (I.E. general cargo haulers), which is pretty much what a KC-30 or KC-767 would be hauling around that you are far better of taking out a contract and keeping the flying hours off valuable assets like a tanker.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
So a Boeing MRTT KC-17 is a good idea but a KC-30 is not.

No, they are both stupid ideas and far to big for the current job.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
Ok, I can understand this concept. But, how can we justify needing more booms in the air? What part of the RFP even states our in air refueling requirements? It is for 175 airframes. Currently, or July 06 is the only reference that I can halfway trust, there are about 521 135s split between the AD, Reserve and Guard fleets. With the addition of about 175 KC-Xs, I would not think this number would drop. We don't need more booms in the air, all the data points to replacing 40 year old tankers.

You do not need more booms in the air than there currently are. We are replacing the KC-135's with KC-X. The total number of tankers is likely to decline to something around 400 I would suspect. The issue is the relative cost to get to that 400.

When people say we need more booms in the air what they are talking about is the fact that, for the USAF mission, a larger number of less capable planes is more suited to their needs than a smaller number of more capable planes.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
It doesn't have to be accepted on a.net, but airlift capabilities are an integral part of the KC-X RFP.

Again, no one disputes this but what you have to understand is what exactly the USAF and planners are really after when they look for cargo capacity in a tanker. What they are not looking at is hauling long term cargo around with it. It makes a lot of sense if you look at how tankers are deployed.

They fly out to where they are based and they pretty much take-off and land from the same field until they come home. They are not going to fly intra-theater missions and they don't do a whole lot of rotating in and out of theater. The capability is useful for bringing along a few things at the start of a mission and that is about it.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):
The A400M has no legacy technology, so I would say at least 1 generation ahead.

Great, my 2007 model pickup is several generations ahead of my friends 1998 Petersbuilt Semi-Truck. Not sure that matters to the question at hand though.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
This is not really a valid argument. If it were, it would have been decided for C-5 new builds or more conversions not C-17 purchases. The weapon system is always matched to the mission, A400s could be used effectively by any Air Force with the need and cash.

So we are going to tailor a bunch of new weapons systems to fit on the A400M, so we need to ditch the M-1, the Paladin, the tracked MLRS and the Apache.

So if we go with A400M's instead of C-17's we can forget about moving our heavy forces by Air. So I figure the replacement bill for all that would only be on the sunny side of 50 billion dollars. Then the force will be tailored for the mission. Oh, not to mention the new vehicles will be far less capable than those we replace.

Or we could just buy more of the lifter we already have that already does the mission with vehicles we already have and would leave us options to build new more capable vehicles. I suppose either solution works.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
A look at the specs of the KC-10 (this really should be made obsolete by the KC-30), KC-767, KC-30 and KC-135R shows that the new frames will add needed capability. If current doctrine is valid, an excellent case can be made for a split purchase.

Do you have any idea why the KC-10 was put into service, and why they did not replace the whole of the tanker fleet with it?

The KC-10 was designed to work with the large strategic bomber groups. Seeing as they for the most part no longer exist, the numbers have come down vastly since the wind down of the Cold War, the demand for a single boom that can offload large amounts of fuel is no there in the same way it was years ago.

What is necessary is what the KC-135 has proved very good at, that is supporting small, single seat airplanes in a tactical environment.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 35):
Recent past and current conflicts have shown that boots on the ground is the most effective way to project power, we can't (conventional, non nuclear) bomb anyone into submission (don't look to closely at Kosovo...). From Korea, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, and current wars, it's the grunts that takes real estate.

Great, but this has nothing to do with tankers. You are no more going to use troops to deploy tankers than I am going to put them on the next generation AWACS platform. Tankers, AWACS and other aircraft of this type do not fly out of the same airbases that it would be useful to deploy troops from. It is far, far more efficient to use the reserve fleet to move troops if you have to do so. Anywhere you could take them that you would land a tanker you would also fly an airliner there.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:12 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 40):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 39):OK, now it is sourced. Going to address the issue, or run away?
You´ve bad luck, I actually checked out this source. The opinion ventilated about the EADS offer and european aerospace in general leaves little room for objectivity.

Spin, spin, spin. You're pretty good at it, I'll grant you that. First you criticize the objectivity of the article - without providing the basis for this criticism, then you laud the part that you like.

So are you saying that EADS/Airbus is going to offer the KC-30 at a price to match Boeing's offer?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 40):
Airbus A330 is a hot running production line, contrary to the 767.

Really? You mean Boeing isn't building any 767's at the moment?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 40):
and can do a more in term of of passenger transport / cargo. That remains the biggest "problem".

Here's the real problem. You can't accept the fact that the Air Force will likely opt for an aircraft that meets their needs at a price that is cheaper than the aircraft produced by your favorite company even if it is more capable, because the Air Force doesn't need the extra capability you tout. And if the decision simply comes down to purchasing an American-built aircraft over a European- built aircraft because it is being paid for by US taxpayers, you'll bitch about it, even though I'm sure you're very happy when European countries opt for European built products.

If Boeing wins the competition, I'll bet you expect EADS to sue, right?

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
We don't need more booms in the air, all the data points to replacing 40 year old tankers.

And we can replace more of them with the KC-767 than we can with the KC-30.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:10 am

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
So we are going to tailor a bunch of new weapons systems to fit on the A400M, so we need to ditch the M-1, the Paladin, the tracked MLRS and the Apache.

No of course not. This is not what I said. This is why the C-5 is the only real strategic airlifter we have. (If you give me a few glasses of Bourbon, I'll start to argue that the only real strategic airlift we have are ICMBs and bombers, but by then I'd have no credibility  Smile )

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
Do you have any idea why the KC-10 was put into service, and why they did not replace the whole of the tanker fleet with it?

The KC-10 was put into servicem as a force multiplier, to add airlift capacity. You make a valid point

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
Great, but this has nothing to do with tankers.

Yes it does, and with this RFP. Boots require a supply line. Transport capacity sitting idle on a runway is a wasted resource and wasted money and war material is going to get in theater either by the Navy or Air Force.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 45):
If Boeing wins the competition, I'll bet you expect EADS to sue, right?

That was kind of a cheap shot. (But can be aimned at EADS/Airbus with justification!)

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 45):
And we can replace more of them with the KC-767 than we can with the KC-30.

Yes, but this is the 100 billion dollar KC-X question. A huge fleet to replace, and 2 giants in the industry with different proposals. We can agree that this will be spectacular.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:01 pm

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 46):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 45):If Boeing wins the competition, I'll bet you expect EADS to sue, right?That was kind of a cheap shot. (But can be aimned at EADS/Airbus with justification!)

How was it a cheap shot?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:05 pm

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 43):
. I keep hearing this, but have extreme doubts about this plan. How long will it take to generate this lift and will all be available?

next to no time at all the way that the law/contracts are worded. People really miss that its better for the USAF if they need cargo lift and it can be done by a civilian frame, its better to USE said civilian frame. You KNOW that the civil air reserve is working due to the fact that the USAF has to date bought 0 stored 747's for their use, despite cheap frame prices for 742's and the like. So clearly they DON'T need the lift to be in their fleet.

More C-17's are still needed but thats due to their abilities that CAN'T be handled by any conventional airliner.

Remains that the KC30 is nearly the size of a KC777 in physical size, with only a slight edge in capability over the KC767. If we were replacing the KC-10's the KC30 would have a much better chance with lower price than the KC777, and nearly comparable in capability to the plane its replacing. As it is, The KC30 ability over the KC767 is never going to be used in the KC135 replacement role.
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X

Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:44 pm

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 46):

The KC-10 was put into servicem as a force multiplier, to add airlift capacity. You make a valid point

No, not at all. You could not be more wrong. The driving force behind the purchase of larger tankers was the policy of SAC to maintain at times of higher tension bombers at airborne points at distances from the United States. Because of the large needs of strategic bombers relative to fighters the KC-10 was more suited to this missions.

It had very little if anything at all to do with adding airlift capacity and everything to do with keeping an on alert nuclear deterrent in the air 24 hours a day.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 46):

Yes it does, and with this RFP. Boots require a supply line. Transport capacity sitting idle on a runway is a wasted resource and wasted money and war material is going to get in theater either by the Navy or Air Force.

Say what? So I need to supply troops on the ground, no argument there.

Now if you can please explain to me, since no one ever really has, how a tanker is going to accomplish that. Even with no fuel to offload it is still not going to carry much cargo but that hardly matters. Take Iraq for an example, or any theoretical war in the Middle East. Where are the troops based and where are the tankers? The tankers are probably operating out of a distant airfield at best and probably Diego Garcia.

So I might ask what is the point of flying cargo to where the tankers are, unloading it, then flying it in something else to the troops? Why not just buy proper transports and take it all the way in? I can move a lot more for the money with a real cargo plane than I can with the tanker/cargo hybrid and they are better suited for quick offloading in a combat area anyway.

So please tell me, what realistic conflict, in what location, under what conditions, with what enemy would see tankers bringing in cargo to support ground operations?

On the other hand it is really easy to envision them bringing some stuff in with the Air Force as it deploys. But hauling cargo for troops on the ground, not really. The fact remains any airport I can land a KC-30 at I can just as simply land a civilian cargo plane at and be far more efficient. Anywhere you would hesitate to send a civilian plane having a KC-30 or a KC-767 is not going to help and you need a proper transport. The cargo hauling aspect will be driven mostly by the needs of a deploying Air Force units, not by the Army.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AvSafety46, TWA772LR and 5 guests