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

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:23 am

Here is some new information. If elected, it sounds like the Obama administration might go with a dual buy.


Kaminski: Obama camp considering all tanker options, including dual buy

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=29130
 
silentbob
Posts: 1538
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:43 am



Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
Obama administration

Did I sleep through November already?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:50 am

Sounds like sitting in the middle of the fence, with one foot on both sides. How is the USAF going to support both types?
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:01 pm

If I read the article correctly, the manufacturer that provides the best product will get the larger orders and these will come annually. So you're not going to get an even numbered mixed fleet. Rather you may get a large fleet of one tanker and a smaller fleet of the other; a much smaller fleet appears possible.

The first thought that crossed me mind is that Obama appears to be trying to make points on both continents. Boeing will get their tanker order; Airbus will benefit in Europe and Northrop/Grumman will have work to do here. Everybody's happy but I'm not confident the Air Force will get what it needs. The logistics problem will be multiplied; you'll have to have double the training program to get both jets operational.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
TropicBird
Topic Author
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:39 am



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 1):
Did I sleep through November already?

Note I said "if elected" for those who would question what I said. I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8467
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:02 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Sounds like sitting in the middle of the fence, with one foot on both sides. How is the USAF going to support both types?

I guess you have to remember the politicians ways on this one. To say anything that anyone wants to hear and worry about the results later. They want to be all things to all people until after the election. Then reality sets in.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:19 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):
They want to be all things to all people until after the election

To be fair, isn't that what it seems most people wanted to be treated like?  Wink
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8467
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:41 am



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 6):
To be fair, isn't that what it seems most people wanted to be treated like?

I agree and that is what gets us into all this trouble, people do want respect and to be considered. Unfortunately, that is not what happens after the election. Special interests take over, and the "people" do not fit into the category, "special" I am afraid, I am a cynic.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:28 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
If I read the article correctly, the manufacturer that provides the best product will get the larger orders and these will come annually.

That still leaves it open for interpetation. How do you define "best product"? Is it the OEM that can provide the most votes to politicians for reelection? Or will the USAF have a say?
 
Ozair
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:19 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
How do you define "best product"?

And if you do have a best product, what are you doing buying the other product which is not as good?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:27 pm



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 1):
Did I sleep through November already?



Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
If elected,

Well, it seems you are sleeping through October!  Smile
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
boacvc10
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:31 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:05 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
The first thought that crossed me mind is that Obama appears to be trying to make points on both continents. Boeing will get their tanker order; Airbus will benefit in Europe and Northrop/Grumman will have work to do here. Everybody's happy but I'm not confident the Air Force will get what it needs. The logistics problem will be multiplied; you'll have to have double the training program to get both jets operational.

Could potentially the Boeing and Airbus tanker cockpit be mandated by the Air Force to be one and the same ? I recall somewhere that during World War II or just before, the US Army had no standardised transport vehicle, and the Willys Jeep configuration was the one contract that started the contractor/supply relationship with stipulation that you could supply as much as possible, as long as they conformed to the Army spec.

Of course there would be some give and take on the cockpit layout and controls, but consider that it could streamline ops and crew, perhaps worth a shot ?

Quote:
By July 1941, the War Department desired to standardize and decided to select a single manufacturer to supply them with the next order for another 16,000 vehicles. Willys won the contract mostly due to its more powerful engine (the "Go Devil") which soldiers raved about, and its lower cost and silhouette. Whatever better design features the Bantam and Ford entries had were then incorporated into the Willys car, moving it from an "A" designation to "B", thus the "MB" nomenclature. For example, if the gasoline tank was directly beneath the driver's seat, combining the two main target areas into one, it would lessen the chance of a catastrophic hit.

ref: Wikipedia Willys Jeep.

BOACVC10
Up, up and Away!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:13 am



Quoting BOACVC10 (Reply 11):
Could potentially the Boeing and Airbus tanker cockpit be mandated by the Air Force to be one and the same ? I recall somewhere that during World War II or just before, the US Army had no standardised transport vehicle, and the Willys Jeep configuration was the one contract that started the contractor/supply relationship with stipulation that you could supply as much as possible, as long as they conformed to the Army spec.

Of course there would be some give and take on the cockpit layout and controls, but consider that it could streamline ops and crew, perhaps worth a shot ?

That, my friend would add uncountless $$ to the price of each individual airplane. The KC-30 is a FBW with side stick controllers. The KC-767AT is not FBW, and has a yoke.

It could be done, but it will cost billions.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:20 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
If I read the article correctly, the manufacturer that provides the best product will get the larger orders and these will come annually.

That still leaves it open for interpetation. How do you define "best product"? Is it the OEM that can provide the most votes to politicians for reelection? Or will the USAF have a say?

Indeed. And what if the USAF makes the wrong choice?

 Wink
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bbaldwin09
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:56 pm

I am just throwing this in there because I didn't see it mentioned above, but I just read that due to the delay in the decision making process, Boeing will now explore the 777F and KC-764 tanker options (which in the article was listed as being possibly to big fuselage wise), but boeing is now got the option of looking at converting the 787 Dreamliner to a tanker. The catch is that at the same time Airbus now have time to refine the KC-30 option by maybe offering it with the GEnx Engines and a 5 tonne increase to the MTOW.

The source was my Australian Aviation Magazine.

Sounds like its going to get very interesting. I am interested to see which direction Boeing will go.
BBaldwin09
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:34 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
If elected, it sounds like the Obama administration might go with a dual buy.

If elected this will probably change the day after the election to "we don't need a tanker".
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:58 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15):
Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
If elected, it sounds like the Obama administration might go with a dual buy.

If elected this will probably change the day after the election to "we don't need a tanker".

I agree.

Quoting BBaldwin09 (Reply 14):
Boeing will now explore the 777F and KC-764 tanker options (which in the article was listed as being possibly to big fuselage wise), but boeing is now got the option of looking at converting the 787 Dreamliner to a tanker. The catch is that at the same time Airbus now have time to refine the KC-30 option by maybe offering it with the GEnx Engines and a 5 tonne increase to the MTOW.

It may now be a waste of time for both Boeing and EADS/NG.

But for Boeing, they should not consider the B-767-400ER, but offer the B-767-300ERF, with the -400 landing gear and wings for a 450,000lbs MTOW. I like the idea of the B-777-200LRF tanker, but I was one thinking the KC-30 was to big. A KC-777 would be even bigger and have more logistical problems, on small airfields that the KC-30 would.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:17 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
It may now be a waste of time for both Boeing and EADS/NG.

I think there are more tankers up for replacement (like the french AF) maybe they'll try to benefit from the product development done by EADS / NG for the USAF.

I cheap solution IMO could be to order say 50-80 KC-X aircraft spread them & fly the hell out of them for the first 8 years, tanker & cargo. Keeping the aging KC135's & expensive C-17 fleets out of the wind & by 2015 have another look.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:28 pm

WIth the huge deficits we are running don't be suprised we see KC-135E's at least the 57 models on up converted over to the R model sans the APU, the APU the E has would do just fine and be able to give bare base capability or start replacing the TF-33 mounts with new struts and nacelles at $1M a apiece, the airframe still has alot of life in it. Another possibility is to mount JT8d engs or TF -33 -P- 100a(E-3 Sentrys power) The jt8d has better fuel burn but the P-100 has more power or thrust 21000 pounds at sea level and more resposive to throttle movements due to its 2 bleed valve system.Plus eases logistics because Tanks and E-3's are always together deployed. The the TF-33 P 102 the current power for most E's is a piece of crap that was modified from the JT3D. With the new carbon fiber brakes we could due away with the mx intensive clamshell thrust reversers.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:02 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
WIth the huge deficits we are running don't be suprised we see KC-135E's at least the 57 models on up converted over to the R model. . . .

 checkmark Fiscal reality is bound to intrude into the decision making process at some point. If it comes down to new tankers or new tactical aircraft and making do with refurbished tankers, the latter option will prevail.

Also, seems to me we discussed the possibility of the JT8D here before, perhaps in connection with another airframe? IMO, not a bad idea.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:47 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
How is the USAF going to support both types?

They already support two types (KC-10, KC-135).

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15):
If elected this will probably change the day after the election to "we don't need a tanker".

I Strongly disagree.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:57 pm



Quoting STT757 (Reply 20):
They already support two types (KC-10, KC-135).

To be technical you can split the 135's into E,RT,R,an T models and don't forget the MC-130's that Ar cabability for helos
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:46 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
WIth the huge deficits we are running don't be suprised we see KC-135E's at least the 57 models on up converted over to the R model sans the APU, the APU the E has would do just fine and be able to give bare base capability or start replacing the TF-33 mounts with new struts and nacelles at $1M a apiece, the airframe still has alot of life in it. Another possibility is to mount JT8d engs or TF -33 -P- 100a(E-3 Sentrys power) The jt8d has better fuel burn but the P-100 has more power or thrust 21000 pounds at sea level and more resposive to throttle movements due to its 2 bleed valve system.Plus eases logistics because Tanks and E-3's are always together deployed. The the TF-33 P 102 the current power for most E's is a piece of crap that was modified from the JT3D. With the new carbon fiber brakes we could due away with the mx intensive clamshell thrust reversers.

Wow, dude, that sounds awesome!

I think you have a new career coming on a TV show called Pimp My KC-135:

Quote:
Here we are today at Davis-Monthan AFB with expert KC-135 Pimper Venus6971. Today we're going to see how he took a KC-135 that looked like this:

http://www.rob.com/pic/KC135/Resize_of_KC_135_pres1.sized.jpg

Quote:
And made it look like this:



Sorry, Kessje, for working your side of the street....
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:24 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 19):
Also, seems to me we discussed the possibility of the JT8D here before, perhaps in connection with another airframe? IMO, not a bad idea

You probably got it mixed up with the E-8 JStar getting the JT8D, very little engineering costs since it will bolt right into the existing 3 mounts. Not sure about power feeders and accessories. Plus it the most reliable engine for its time that Pratt and Whitney built, every night with the JT3d's on my C-137B we were doing some type of high powered engine run for throttle alignment or failing to reach target.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Re-engining-the-E-8-JSTARS-04891/
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:24 am



Quoting STT757 (Reply 20):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
How is the USAF going to support both types?

They already support two types (KC-10, KC-135).

Correct, that will make 4 tanker types, KC-135 (4 current models), KC-10A, KC-767AT, and KC-30A. I was talking only about addint the two new types, the KC-30 and KC-767.

So, you would have four different tankers in an air fprce that flys just three fighter types, F-15, F-16, F-22, three bomber types, B-1, B-2, B-52, and three main cargo types, C-5, C-17, C-130.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:36 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Correct, that will make 4 tanker types, KC-135 (4 current models), KC-10A, KC-767AT, and KC-30A. I was talking only about addint the two new types, the KC-30 and KC-767.

KC-135s would be retired as KC-767s, KC-30s are added. For a period of time yes you would have a diverse fleet of tankers, over time that can be reduced to two types if the KC-10s are included.

In:

KC-767 , KC-30s

out:

KC-135s, KC-10s.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:47 pm

Probably the last word on things tanker from the current administration--before the election at any rate. If McCain comes from behind and prevails I suspect there will be another competition; if Obama wins, I suspect all bets will be off. Frankly, much of what Mr. Young says at this point is irrelevant. In the immortal words gleaned from multiple press releases from my favorite European aerospace company "nothing has been decided yet".

Anyway, just for the sake of contributing to the body of opinion....

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idINN3029566220081030?rpc=44

Quote:
Defense Undersecretary John Young said he was working closely with the Air Force to identify minimum mandatory requirements for the new aircraft.

In fact, Young said he was pushing all the services to adopt that approach in their weapons programs, adding, "The bells and whistles are costing us money."

Once the Air Force has whittled down its tanker requirements, Young said one option for the next administration would be to ask the competing companies to submit their best and final offers and then "let price be the deciding factor."

That approach was considered before the Pentagon canceled the current competition, he said, but officials were not convinced the companies would agree to those changed terms.

In competitions involving commercially developed items, which did not involve substantial technological risks, the Pentagon could emphasize price, Young said in a wide-ranging briefing with reporters,.

If that approach were pursued, "far greater weight" should be given to the development and acquisition costs, as opposed to estimated life cycle costs, since those included fuel prices and other factors that could fluctuate greatly.

In the case of the tanker competition, Young said, the life cycle costs were very close, but Northrop's tanker was slated to cost $12.5 billion for development and the first 68 aircraft, nearly $3 billion less than the Boeing tanker.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:15 am

It seems to me like having these massive aircraft as our smallest tanker is a dumb idea from a lot of different perspectives.

Why not get a dual fleet of small tankers and large tankers. Maybe one from each manufacturer? More small ones and less large ones... means the same amount of money going in each direction and everyone is happy.

For example, the KC-30 and a 737/BBJ based tanker. Lots of 737s to do day to day type missions where a lot of capability is not required. Small ramp presence, small cost, ability to procure a lot of them. A fewer number of KC-30s to do the big missions like refueling substantial numbers of aircraft, dragging planes across oceans, etc. Use them to eventually one day too replace the KC-10s.

You now have a situation where you have two different sized tankers that you can use to much more accurately meet the demand of the mission, the manufactures are happy, the air force is happy, etc. You don't have to reduce fleet size because of the cheap 737s that can be bought, you don't have to reduce capabilities because you have massive KC-30s for the heavy lifting jobs, etc.

Then again, rational logical thinking doesn't really come into play often in these situations.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:01 am



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 27):
Then again, rational logical thinking doesn't really come into play often in these situations.

It sounds like good common sense but again we are talking about the federal government. The 737 is a fine acft but which series do we use, has anybody did a feasability study with a 737 with a boom on it, or all air refuelable US Military or allied acft behind in the AR position to see if there are any nasty surprises inflight. Can a 737 use body tanks and take off with a full load off a short runway. Could a 737 be air refuelable from another -135 or KC-10, 330, or 737.Of course all these need to answered and paid for, what if the answers come back wrong.
On a other note I just read a RAAF white paper on their long range tanker plans with their 707's past their prime. They mentioned a possible KC-135 mod that was never done it was the KC-135H model. A -135 with a 707-300 wing which would have made it fly like a Cadillac than a dump truck . It would have increased its wing fuel load to 90k from its original 66k.I wonder if any other old tanker hands have heard about this mod and why it was never done?
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-AAR-2.pdf
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Oroka
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:02 am



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 27):
the KC-30 and a 737/BBJ based tanker

IMO that would be the best solution, and with the USN getting P-8s, that is another 100ish airframes that could be common. 737s will be around till the end of time, which is a good thing for a military aircraft for parts and upgrades. Lets say KC-777 for cargo and heavy tanking and KC-737 for tactical jobs. Maybe throw in some 737 Wedgetails for good measure... and lower the types of aircraft operated a fair bit.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:16 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
Quote:
Here we are today at Davis-Monthan AFB with expert KC-135 Pimper Venus6971. Today we're going to see how he took a KC-135 that looked like this:

I did not see that acft blow up but I heard it go pop. Pure stupidity or lack of paying attention.Civilian OCALC techs were doing the pressure run and were using a unauthorised/homemade tool to measure differential pressure, I guess the guy using it did not monitor it and it passed 8 psi and went around on the gage again , when he looked down he thought he was at between 6 to 8 psi but was at over 16 psi. So the acft pressurized real good, I'm suprised the guys ears were not exploding or bleeding at this point.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
legoguy
Posts: 2970
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:57 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7702654.stm

Landing gear door falls off a USAF KC-135 during a flight from RAF Mildenhall  Wink
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:49 am



Quoting STT757 (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Correct, that will make 4 tanker types, KC-135 (4 current models), KC-10A, KC-767AT, and KC-30A. I was talking only about addint the two new types, the KC-30 and KC-767.

KC-135s would be retired as KC-767s, KC-30s are added. For a period of time yes you would have a diverse fleet of tankers, over time that can be reduced to two types if the KC-10s are included.

In:

KC-767 , KC-30s

out:

KC-135s, KC-10s.

A program like that will still take 30-40 years to replace all the KC-135s and KC-10s. In the mean time, when the new KC-30s and KC-767s begin coming into the fleet, you still have four different types of tankers.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 28):
A -135 with a 707-300 wing which would have made it fly like a Cadillac than a dump truck . It would have increased its wing fuel load to 90k from its original 66k.I wonder if any other old tanker hands have heard about this mod and why it was never done?

The KC-135H program was originally proposed in the late 1960s or early 1970s by Boeing, IIRC. Although< I believe the USAF proposal was called the KC-135G program. It was to be a rewing program. But, engineering studies indicated a lot more wingbox work than originally thought, because of the longer wings, and the JT-3D (TF-33) engines. As far as I know, the proposal never entered the design stage, and only remained a paper proposal. O have no idea how much it would have cost, but it would have added the B-707-320B/C full wing leading edge slats, increasing the max fuel load by 26,000lbs, and adding some 20,000lbs + to the empty weight of the KC-135A. The B-707-320B/C landing gear could not be retrofitted, because they could not support the added 45,000lbs to 50,000lbs to the KC-135A MTOW of 297,000lbs. This would put the max weight very close to 350,000lbs (or more, depending on final designs), and would need the TF-33-P100 engines from the E-3A program, at a minimum.

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 31):
Landing gear door falls off a USAF KC-135 during a flight from RAF Mildenhall

If it is only the 1' X 2" panel, it would be the nose gear follow-up door.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:36 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
If it is only the 1' X 2" panel, it would be the nose gear follow-up door.

Sounds like someone did not make sure the pin was fully engaged or the the 2 balls at the end of the pin were worn out and wiggled out during flight, not knowing when it fell off is kind of hard to believe though, That opened in flight would have made a alot of noise under the cockpit.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
legoguy
Posts: 2970
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:43 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
If it is only the 1' X 2" panel, it would be the nose gear follow-up door.

Thanks for the info. I'm interested to see if anybody finds it and hands it in. Would make a nice mantlepiece ornament.
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:17 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 33):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
If it is only the 1' X 2" panel, it would be the nose gear follow-up door.

Sounds like someone did not make sure the pin was fully engaged or the the 2 balls at the end of the pin were worn out and wiggled out during flight, not knowing when it fell off is kind of hard to believe though, That opened in flight would have made a alot of noise under the cockpit.



Quoting Legoguy (Reply 34):
Thanks for the info. I'm interested to see if anybody finds it and hands it in. Would make a nice mantlepiece ornament.

It would have most likely come off when the gear was cycled, after take-off, or before landing. If it was before landing, that would account why the crew didn't notice the extra noise.

Legoguy, I wouldn't display this part any where someone could see it. The USAF will always want it back.
 
arluna
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:58 pm

Well folks,

Kiss the tanker competiton goodbye. Our new president will most likely cancel it for good.

J
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:11 pm



Quoting Arluna (Reply 36):
Kiss the tanker competiton goodbye. Our new president will most likely cancel it for good.

Cancel? My guess is that it will be sole-sourced. Where? Count the votes on the appropriations and armed services committees. Doesn't look good for Alabama.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:47 pm

I will split to the middle. I do not see where the new administration will find the funds with everything else they said they wanted to do, but if they somehow find the funds it will be sole-sourced to Boeing.

The Republicans can stall it, but eventually it would get done if the administration really wants it done.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:19 am

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 38):
but if they somehow find the funds it will be sole-sourced to Boeing.

Also, the funding issue alone will be enough to derail any talk of a split purchase--not to mention the USAF has repeatedly said they don't want a split.

[Edited 2008-11-05 16:37:44]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
arluna
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:06 am

Guys, Guys!

This president will have little, if any, regard for the military or it's needs. His staff has already hinted at a 25% cut in military spending so he can spend the money on social programs. I think the tanker buy is probably dead.

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

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:31 am



Quoting Arluna (Reply 40):
Guys, Guys!

This president will have little, if any, regard for the military or it's needs. His staff has already hinted at a 25% cut in military spending so he can spend the money on social programs. I think the tanker buy is probably dead.

J

I think you are correct, Arluna. I think the only option left for the USAF tankers, now is to reengine/upgrade the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs, or even a new configueration which should be the KC-135W.

That is if the USAF is allowed to keep their tanker needs at the level of 550-600 equivelent KC-135R/Ts.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:48 am



Quoting Arluna (Reply 40):
Guys, Guys!

This president will have little, if any, regard for the military or it's needs. His staff has already hinted at a 25% cut in military spending so he can spend the money on social programs. I think the tanker buy is probably dead.

Arluna, I can't find the reference to "the president" in my posts!  Wink

I wasn't aware that Obama's staff floated the 25% cut proposal. I thought that was Barney Frank?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:42 am

President Obama still wants to invest in the KC-X:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...rt%20Defense,%20Space%20Technology
Quote: "We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from ...., to systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft - which may not be glamorous to politicians, but are the backbone of our future ability to extend global power."
 
arluna
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:00 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
President Obama still wants to invest in the KC-X:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...rt%20Defense,%20Space%20Technology
Quote: "We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from ...., to systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft - which may not be glamorous to politicians, but are the backbone of our future ability to extend global power."

What you need to understand here is that presidential candidates here in the US will say anything they need to say in order to get elected. Once they get into office they usually find a reason for not doing what they said.

J
 
arluna
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:07 pm

Lumberton,

You're right and I was wrong, it was Barney Frank who hinted at a 25% cut in military spending. I think, however, that it's not too far-fetched to think that the president elect will think that cuts in the military budget are a good idea.

Large programs that cost a lot of money will be the first to go, and KC-X is a large and costly program.

J
 
texl1649
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:57 pm

KC-X represents an opportunity to extract power/money/influence from parties competitively seeking massive taxpayer dollars. Some things don't "change" and the KC-X program will go ahead.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9023
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:53 am



Quoting Arluna (Reply 44):
What you need to understand here is that presidential candidates here in the US will say anything they need to say in order to get elected. Once they get into office they usually find a reason for not doing what they said.

This is especially true for anyone following Bush/Cheney. McCain would have found the same financial problems that Obama is going to face. As for Frank, I think he's looking at the $10 Billion a month or the $120 Billion a year we spend on the Iraq War as about 25% of the Defense budget.

When Obama is working on his first budget he's going to be looking at the major departments and how funds are allocated between them. SecDef is going to be responsible for the allocation of the funds they receive and that is where there will be a major, internal bum fight between the branches.

The tanker issue is simply one of the many issues that will be pushing for part of the available funds.

I believe that there will be more of a focus on re-building areas that have been hit the hardest during the Iraq War. That's the challenge the senior military people are going to need to face. If you're in the DoD budgeting offices how many things are going to be placed above the tanker?

Personally I believe that the DoD would be wise to negotiate funds for upgrading some of the existing tankers and delaying KC-X until the economy improves. Congress needs to believe that Defense is willing to minimize costs in some areas in order to fund rebuilding after Iraq.
 
arluna
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:23 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Personally I believe that the DoD would be wise to negotiate funds for upgrading some of the existing tankers and delaying KC-X until the economy improves. Congress needs to believe that Defense is willing to minimize costs in some areas in order to fund rebuilding after Iraq.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

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

2009 Usaf Tanker Competition Proposals #2

Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:40 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
President Obama still wants to invest in the KC-X:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...rt%20Defense,%20Space%20Technology
Quote: "We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from ...., to systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft - which may not be glamorous to politicians, but are the backbone of our future ability to extend global power."



Quoting Arluna (Reply 44):
What you need to understand here is that presidential candidates here in the US will say anything they need to say in order to get elected. Once they get into office they usually find a reason for not doing what they said.

Once 1/20/09 comes around, we may very well hear a different tune for Prsident Elect Obama.

Quoting Arluna (Reply 45):
You're right and I was wrong, it was Barney Frank who hinted at a 25% cut in military spending.



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
As for Frank, I think he's looking at the $10 Billion a month or the $120 Billion a year we spend on the Iraq War as about 25% of the Defense budget.

It was Frank, and he did say a 25% cut in the "toys" that DOD buys. He said nothing about cutting money for Iraq. Additionally, Frank would not have said it without Pelosi's blessings.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Personally I believe that the DoD would be wise to negotiate funds for upgrading some of the existing tankers and delaying KC-X until the economy improves. Congress needs to believe that Defense is willing to minimize costs in some areas in order to fund rebuilding after Iraq.

Agreed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests