|Quoting BigJKU (Reply 137):|
Yeah....you want to put as few hours as possible on strategic assets like tankers because that makes them last longer. Its not about being efficient and making a return on profit. Its about making sure the asset is there when you need it. So yes, hiring commercial capacity is a very good idea. Not only that but the large commercial contracts are what keep the airlines and air cargo companies in line with the CRAF, which would be heavily used in the event of a real war.
Yup, more so since at the end of the day you don't have a care in the world. You got your cargo hauled and you don't have to find a place to park your 747, pay the crews, get parts and trained MX
people, etc. You just tell them where the bill goes.
|Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):|
Then why is everyone begging for the medium range / rough terrain C-17´s?
I think they are asking for it for the very reason I stated. You need your military cargo hauled RIGHT NOW, you use a dedicated air force cargo plane, not a tanker. Tanker cargo capacity has traditionally been used for either support of its own operations when it gets to where its going on a deployment, or "well if you are going anyway" type missions. Does the USAF
pull F-15's off the line to haul the president around when he needs to get somewhere quick?
Ah the hope, so much read into so few words. MIXED FLEET in no way implies mixed airbus/boeing aircraft. For all we know the USAF
might have forgotten to talk about a deep burning desire for 737 based tankers for certain missions. Its definitely certain that they are talking about replacing the KC
-10 which is far newer, and on a completely separate program for replacement. You are advocating the replacement of two very different fleets with one aircraft. one aircraft I might add that you HAVEN'T shown can compete well in either role the USAF
currently has its dual tanker fleets used for.
You seem like a smart man, crank out a chart or table or something showing the KC
-10, and KC
-777 as far as cargo, fuel load, foot print, and other key variables the USAF
will evaluate on.
|Quoting Keesje (Reply 135):|
So it isn´t really important if a KC-767 is a bit cheaper? Fully contradicting all the previous post using booms/money as a critical sales issue..
Nope, while the cost a frame will be the giant flag that waves victory for the winner, if all Airbus and Northrup come up with is the SAME cost a frame, the KC
-30 will lose. Oh and Keesje, you are not trying to fit one KC
-30 in place of one "B-52" in the faculties that handled both, you are trying to park 10 or 15 in place of a much smaller number of B-52s. Its going to be one pissed commander when he is told he has a mission that needs 10 tankers, and only has 8 spots to park them because the new shiny planes are too large. Oh and he has no time/money/space to make more parking. What is he going to do? Planes don't stack well on the flight line, and If you need 10 frames to make the mission work, then you need 10 frames, not a couple of KC
-748's with the same total fuel load.
This is where the "more capable" KC
-30 argument collapses. You can't have 3/4 of a KC
-30 in one place, and 1/4 somewhere else. So regardless a pair of KC767 will do the job better than a pair of KC30 even if the total fuel transferred is LESS than the capacity of a single KC30 and more than the capacity of a single KC
-767. So in the end, you really can't have less frames regardless of how much better one frame looks on paper as... you just have to have that minimum number of frames. . Your WHOLE argument basicly boils down to a narrow window of extra capacity that a single mission needs. Then note that its a far smaller window than the USAF
has to deal with in planning thier tanker operations between the KC
-135 and KC
-10. Yet you are asking them to take on non-trivial downsides for something they didn't ask for in the request.