Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
columba
Posts: 5238
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:07 am



Quoting Asturias (Reply 297):
Ey! CASA, Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA, was founded in 1923 in Seville, Spain by José Ortiz de Echagüe. Also very early and part of Airbus from 1972, only two years after Airbus was founded.

Sorry, how could I forget CASA, ashes on my head !!!!!!!!!
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:09 am

Congress should just pass a quick law that says the DoD cannot award any contracts to a consortium where any of the main partners is being sued or has a pending complaint by the US government for viaolation of international trade agreements. That would immediately disqualify NG as the US is suing EADS under the WTO for unfair subsidies.

Boom. end of drama. Move on. Next lets authorize an extra 200 or so F22s.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
columba
Posts: 5238
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:09 am



Quoting CYQL (Reply 299):

Canada has been flying the CC-150 Polaris MRTT tankers since 2004.

I did not know that Canadas A310s are already converted to tankers.
How is Canada pleased with its A310s ? Any chance that they might replace them with A330s as well at some time ?
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
CYQL
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:29 am



Quoting Columba (Reply 302):
I did not know that Canadas A310s are already converted to tankers.
How is Canada pleased with its A310s ? Any chance that they might replace them with A330s as well at some time ?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mrtt/

I would assume that replacement of the CC-150's is not a high priority, since we are taking delivery of our C-17's, and just ordered the C-130J.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:35 am



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 273):
Now let's fast-forward to the 21st century. The -141 is soda cans and static displays, the -130 fleet is getting more & more flight restrictions, and will likely be shrinking, and the C-5 is in danger of going the way of the -141. The C-17, while a good airplane, can't handle the whole mobility load by itself. So the KC-10 flies a significant amount of cargo missions (and speaking as a KC-10 boom operator, cargo is a HUGE currency & proficiency item for us), and the KC-45 will as well. Count on it. It's not gonna be "just a tanker".

That would be very wise! IMO the USAF will love the KC45 as freighter and even if only because the A330's efficiency will save many many $ over the military freighters.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 283):
US industrial competitiveness

That seemed lost when the 767 was chosen as platform to endure another derivative after the year 2000. That sounds not good in the light of media headlines like "Airlines are forced to retain 767's because the Dreamliner is delayed".

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 291):
NG may have a history of being on time, but Airbus does NOT

Airbus was IMO always on time except with A380 and A400. Boeing too, but the recent 787 and 767-tanker delays have derated them on the same level.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 291):
Military or civilian

Recent Airbus tankers were on-time, recent Boeing-tankers failed miserably in EIS.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
flynlr
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:43 am

The Ramp space at my guard base is pretty tight with 8 135's on hand. If we were ever to get the 45's
I imagine some more concrete would have to be poured, Hurry up with the 45's please these airplanes
are showing some serious aging,
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 681 File size: 82kb
The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:09 am

The real travesty is that the Air Force is only utilizing the Tankers at an average rate of only 750/hours per year. Do we really need that many birds sitting around on the ground all over the place doing nothing? Maybe they don't need them as urgently as they say they need them.

750 hours per year for a piece of equipment that costs over 135 million is just not a good allocation of resources to begin with. If they need freight hauling capacity, it would be far cheaper to contract the capacity with the likes of Evergreen, Polar, UPS or anyone else in the fright hauling business than to the fill the lift capability themselves with new birds that then just sit around.

No wonder the U.S. is massively over spending. The U.S. military is mis using tax payer dollars, IMHO. B-2's at 1.1 billion a piece to do something other aircraft can do far cheaper, F-22s at 250 million a piece, etc.....when is the insanity going to stop?

As a U.S. taxpayer, I'm appalled. The total contract should be reduced far bellow 179 aircraft if all the lift the USAF really needs is a utilization rate of 750 hours per year per frame at 179 frames. I know you can't use these like commercial operators, but at 750 hour per year annualized utilization makes these Tankers an expensive ramp ornament. By utilizing them for so little, it is also clear that the cargo hauling capacity is not a priority at all.

Buying only what they need as far as tanking is concerned and ignoring the cargo capability is more logical as they make extremely expensive and underutilized cargo haulers - not matter which one. The KC-767 is actually better when the cargo role is ignored, which it should be.

Pure cargo haulers are far cheaper and efficient in what they do and cargo hauling should be outsourced as much as possible - as it's cheaper. For where ever a A330 can land, so can a commercial freighter. Want to haul wounded soldiers out, like the USAF guy said in the Tanker decision? Well then, buy and convert some old 747BCFs to do that or even some 777Fs. Germany has two such converted A300 flying hospitals on standby at all times.

Tankers should only Tank and Cargo should be put on cargo planes. Clearly the USAF boys are not the sharpest tools in the shed and spend like drunken sailors.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:54 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 306):
750 hours per year for a piece of equipment that costs over 135 million is just not a good allocation of resources to begin with. If they need freight hauling capacity, it would be far cheaper to contract the capacity with the likes of Evergreen, Polar, UPS or anyone else in the fright hauling business than to the fill the lift capability themselves with new birds that then just sit around.

You make a remark that goes very close to the core of the problem and is at the same time the key to the solution! The solution is:
Use the tankers in their idle time as freighters! Use it, use it, let it not sit around! Swap its role for the task at hand! Ship the supplies with KC-45 around the world. The capability of this bird is THE key to reduce its idle time!
Having such a role-swapping plane at hand is something the USAF will be envied world-wide! The tanker and freighter capabilities are huge!
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:00 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 306):
750 hours per year for a piece of equipment that costs over 135 million is just not a good allocation of resources to begin with. If they need freight hauling capacity, it would be far cheaper to contract the capacity with the likes of Evergreen, Polar, UPS or anyone else in the fright hauling business than to the fill the lift capability themselves with new birds that then just sit around.

I agree but probably the capacity is dictated on a wartime scenario.

In a serious high-tech war (let say Russia collapses, heaven forbid), we need very large capacity of tankers. That allows airborne fuel bridges to fly fighters, bombers, cargo into Russia within 48, 72, 96 hours. Without enough tankers, you just cannot use your aircraft on a global basis.

So that is my understanding. No World War III, then the tankers will be ramp queens. But if World War III does come, we will need this tanker fleet. That is why the Pentagon is so keen on them IMO

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 306):
cargo hauling should be outsourced as much as possible - as it's cheaper.

Couldn't agree more. FedEx's cost per ton-mile is much lower than the USAF. So they sould hire FedEx or Kalitta whenever possible.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:20 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 308):
Couldn't agree more. FedEx's cost per ton-mile is much lower than the USAF. So they sould hire FedEx or Kalitta whenever possible.

That is true only because the USAF had no efficient freighters. That will change now by the KC45. I try to make this point trough the whole thread.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20370
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:58 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 170):
The issue is nothing more or less than national security...Do you TRUST the security of your children and their future to people in another land who you do not know?

You're already doing that. Where are the radars for ICBMs? Canada. Where are major airbases and logistics bases critical to US security? Iceland, Japan, Italy.... You can't have it both ways. Either you stand completely alone and give up the allies, or you allow the allies to work with you.

I also submit to you that war, or even (authentic) bad blood, with France isn't a very likely scenario. The UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy are much more like the US than Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, China. When it's crunch time I doubt you'll see France on the other side of the fence. Ethnic problems or not, if it comes down to WW III, France will be on the side of America.

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 306):
The real travesty is that the Air Force is only utilizing the Tankers at an average rate of only 750/hours per year. Do we really need that many birds sitting around on the ground all over the place doing nothing? Maybe they don't need them as urgently as they say they need them.

If there's a war on, there's no time to build more. And as mentioned above they can be used as freighters.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
columba
Posts: 5238
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:15 am



Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 306):

Tankers should only Tank and Cargo should be put on cargo planes.

I disagree, how many times do you need a tanker ? If a tanker just standing on the ramp it could very well put into use and haul some cargo, troops etc.
All airforces try to get multi-role aircraft as it much cheaper than having only type for each mission. A sad thing for us enthusiasts because that means less variety on aircraft good for us as tax payers.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:52 am



Quoting Columba (Reply 311):
I disagree, how many times do you need a tanker ? If a tanker just standing on the ramp it could very well put into use and haul some cargo, troops etc.
All airforces try to get multi-role aircraft as it much cheaper than having only type for each mission. A sad thing for us enthusiasts because that means less variety on aircraft good for us as tax payers.

I think when we get down to this we are getting into nit picking which serves no good purpose. Easy to say use them to fly cargo, all of this is scheduled, cargo does not just appear, training flights requiring tankers do not just appear, there is a huge control center which co-ordinates all logistics for the US military and the bulk of their cargo haulers are not tankers.
What oft times gets lost in this is that the US Air Force is a military weapon of the US govt. their ultimate purpose is to defend the country and its interest. If they launch a strike of say 12 a/c which require tanker support to get airborne with a full combat load, how many tankers do they need to get all a/c on the way with similar fuel loads? Lets for arguments sake say that 2 tankers are required over 15mins, just looking at those numbers its easy to say well one tanker could do the job in say 25-30 mins, so you only need one. Ok, now for the rest of the story, if 2 a/c are carrying Weasel loads and one is a ECM bird, do they refuel first, middle or last, they need to be availabe for ingress or egress, do you have to bring the tanker closer on egress because some a/c will run out of fuel earlier, do you really want to play peace time numbers on war fighting machines to make a simple refuelling option so much more complicated?
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:26 pm



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 310):

If there's a war on, there's no time to build more. And as mentioned above they can be used as freighters.



Quoting Columba (Reply 311):

I disagree, how many times do you need a tanker ? If a tanker just standing on the ramp it could very well put into use and haul some cargo, troops etc.
All airforces try to get multi-role aircraft as it much cheaper than having only type for each mission. A sad thing for us enthusiasts because that means less variety on aircraft good for us as tax payers.

Excessive usage of a tanker for cargo roles shortens the lifetime of the aircraft and devalues the investment in the specialized refueling equipment. The last thing you want is to find yourself in the middle of a war with an airframe with reduced lifetime. It makes more sense to me to have a smaller dedicated cargo fleet of cheaper aircraft that can be utilized at a higher rate and turned over more frequently.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:01 pm



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 286):
) Boeing (Est. 1916), Lockheed (Est. 1912), and Douglas (Est. 1921) began during the early stages of flight development, with the minor exception of Douglas, but 1921 was still earlier aircraft development. Airbus established in 1970.

Blériot Aéronautique was established in 1909 (Remember the SPADs ?). The successive re-organisation of the French aeronautical industry led to Aérospatiale, which is now part of EADS. Breguet was founded in 1911, buit the Br-14 bomber in 1916... and is now part of DASSAULT-BREGUET...They are still building some brilliant pieces of engineering, are they not ?
On the other hand, Not many Lockheeds and Boeings were seen over the skies of WW 1. AFAIK, the planes the US expeditionary forces flew were given to them by France and the UK. No strings attached, no compensation...

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 286):
All three US companies started as privately own companies, while Airbus was a consortium of European aviation firms, hence, much more money to begin with on a level to compete with the other "Big 3."

Yeah, so much money that they escaped being bankrupted by the skin of their teeth.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 286):
Technology: deny it all you want, but Boeing and Douglas established the passenger jet age with the 707 and DC-8. No, they were not the first (that title belongs to the de Havilland Comet), but they proved the technology worked and both became very successful. Airbus took this established technology and began creating their own birds, hence owing a bit of its success to Boeing and Douglas in the first place.

I don't deny it, I challenge it. Too easy to forget that the Comet ushered the Jet-age and its problems and their solutions benefited all, that the second jet airliner was the Tupolev 104. Not forgetting the beautiful Caravelle.
I'd heartily agree, though that the 707 and the DC-8 established for a long time US supremacy in airliners.
To say that the European engineers °stole° (not you words, but implied ) US technology in order to design the Airbus line is as close to an insult as possible : once again, you conveniently forget that in many ways, the first Airbus was a revolutionary design. Three words are enough : wide body twin. That was at an age when the world was running the risk of seeing the 100 meter stretch DC-8 ! (It would have been a lovely, elegant airplane, though !)
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15562
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:11 pm



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 313):
Excessive usage of a tanker for cargo roles shortens the lifetime of the aircraft and devalues the investment in the specialized refueling equipment. The last thing you want is to find yourself in the middle of a war with an airframe with reduced lifetime. It makes more sense to me to have a smaller dedicated cargo fleet of cheaper aircraft that can be utilized at a higher rate and turned over more frequently.

I think the fatigue life on the A330E is 25,000 flights with an average of 4 hrs. The operational tempo of the USAF tanker fleet would mean it would not come close to that by a long long way.

Before it gets close to that fatigue lift, Airbus would have done a life extension program on it like they have already done for the A300 series, and as they are doing now for the A320 series.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:18 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 308):
I agree but probably the capacity is dictated on a wartime scenario.

In Germany the Bundeswehr runs huge hospitals to cater with the casualties in case of war. Now for peacetime these hospitals are much to large for the few accidents which happen in the military.
The solution: During peacetime the military hospitals are also open to civilian patients, e.g. a colleague of mine had his cardiac bypass surgery done in the Bundeswehr hospital in Koblenz.
In Berlin, if you are in need of an emergency doctor, it is quite possible that the ambulance (actually a mobile ICU / OR) comes from the local military hospital, with the driver / paramedics being NCOs and the doctor a military officer.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
checksixx
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:54 pm



Quoting Flynlr (Reply 305):
The Ramp space at my guard base is pretty tight with 8 135's on hand. If we were ever to get the 45's
I imagine some more concrete would have to be poured

Do more, with less...
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:06 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 315):

I think the fatigue life on the A330E is 25,000 flights with an average of 4 hrs. The operational tempo of the USAF tanker fleet would mean it would not come close to that by a long long way.

The FAA Aging Aircraft Program puts the A330 (all models) at 40,000 flight cycles, and the B767 (all models) at 50,000.
 
7cubed
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:07 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 301):
Congress should just pass a quick law that says the DoD cannot award any contracts to a consortium where any of the main partners is being sued or has a pending complaint by the US government for viaolation of international trade agreements. That would immediately disqualify NG as the US is suing EADS under the WTO for unfair subsidies.

This idea was floated a few years ago when the Launch Aid subsidies issue was heating up. Congress decided against it.
joe
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25011
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:17 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 264):
True. But one would hope that flag officers took the time to listen to the grunts as to what tools they need to do their job. In this case, I'm not sure that communication occured.

What if the flag officers have decided that their jobs are changing, so different tools are required?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 267):
Look back over the history of this RFP. Northrop's brilliance was in getting the RFP modified on several occasions to level the playing field for EADS' much larger airplane. They had balked several times and threatened to walk away from participation if the RFP did not incorporate specifications that would allow the A330 airframe to be judged on its merits as a much larger aircraft. And given the fiasco of the last RFP, the USAF had to keep the competition very open and honest. Which means in the end that level playing field ultimately worked to their advantage.

I suppose, but if as many here contend that the contract should just have been awarded to Boeing, USAF could have told NG that they aren't changing the RFP, and if that means they won't bid, so be it. It appears, in retrospect, that the USAF really wants a bigger plane.

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 273):
Count on it. It's not gonna be "just a tanker".

 checkmark 

Quoting Tugger (Reply 284):
In case anyone is curious, a state by state listing for the KC-45A by NG:

No offense, but the info is kind of useless without saying what companies and locations are going to be doing the work.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 291):
Past performance: NG may have a history of being on time, but Airbus does NOT. Military or civilian. Seems that somehow this got ignored.

And Boeing does? Look at recent things like Wedgetail, KC-767, FIA satellites, and now, 787. It seems the days of "underpromise and overdeliver" are done. It's clear that DoD had little faith that Boeing could assemble that montage of 767-200/300/400 parts into a working airplane in a timely fashion.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:26 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 320):
It appears, in retrospect, that the USAF really wants a bigger plane.

Not quite. Check out this statement from an article in the Seattle Times this morning:

Quote:
"The Air Force started out believing that the larger aircraft was a liability," Thompson said. "Northrop did such a superior job of analysis that they convinced a reluctant Air Force to treat the larger aircraft as an asset."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8210_tanker04.html?syndication=rss

Seems like EADS picked the right partner to market their Airbus frame to the USAF.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:46 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 320):
No offense, but the info is kind of useless without saying what companies and locations are going to be doing the work.

Well, Arizona is listed, and one company - Honeywell, is listed, too.

I guess NG/EADS didn't get the memo that Honeywell Aerospace is moving to Indonesia and Malaysia. American jobs? LOL.
 
douwd20
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:45 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:34 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 321):
Seems like EADS picked the right partner to market their Airbus frame to the USAF.

This is Marketing 101. When a customer is coming up with specs for a contract a good marketer makes sure the spec is written in such a way they can fulfil it. Why and how Boeing let NG/EADS convince the Air Force their product(767) wasn't good enough was a huge strategic error that was unrecoverable. You never let your competitor write the specs. Which appears what happened.

[Edited 2008-03-04 10:39:38]
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:16 pm

Tommytoyz (et al)

"The KC-767 is actually better when the cargo role is ignored, which it should be."

WRONG!

1) The KC-30 is a MUCH better tanker.

The KC-30 hauls more gas, further from base, and can operate fully laden (with 111 tonnes of fuel) from shorter runways - from real world tanker bases at which the KC-767 would have to go without 16-20 tonnes of its 92 tonne capacity. Bases like Mildenhall and Brize Norton, not just two bit $hit-holes in one of the Northern 'Stans.

KC-30's tanker capabilities are proven.

The KC-30 won in four of five categories. The only category where the 767 was judged equal was risk - and looking at the hash Boeing has made of the JASDF and AMI jets, that's a complete joke!

2) You're not dealing with SAC tankers on strip alert - you're looking at tankers to support expeditionary warfare, where a tanker might need to carry the necessary men and material to support a fighter squadron deployment. The KC-30 can, the KC-767 can't.

Finally, the reason that Boeing didn't offer a KC-787 is that it can't take underwing HDU pods (the wing's too bendy!) and the composite structure would make conversion problematic.

And though a KC-777 could carry a bigger fuel load than a KC-30, it would also burn much more, making it more expensive to run per lb of fuel transferred, and it would have even more difficult runway requirements.

Face it. Boeing lost because they didn't have an optimally sized aircraft to meet the requirement, that can operate from real world tanker bases.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:43 pm

Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 306):
The real travesty is that the Air Force is only utilizing the Tankers at an average rate of only 750/hours per year. Do we really need that many birds sitting around on the ground all over the place doing nothing? Maybe they don't need them as urgently as they say they need them.

750 hours per year for a piece of equipment that costs over 135 million is just not a good allocation of resources to begin with.

You are just kidding, right? We are talking about a military asset here. Military assets are BY DESIGN supposed to be under utilized. They are supposed to sit there, unused (except for training, readiness), until a call to action arrises. Then they are used, spent, destroyed, etc in short order.

As a matter of fact, tankers are probably one of the the most utilized military assets. Try to apply your reasoning to other military assets and see how ridiculous it gets. Lets use a few examplbes.

All the ICBMs and SLBMs in the US arsenal are underutilized. They just sit there doing nothing. Zero hours of utilization. Lets get rid of them and save 100s of billions of dollars. If we exclude training. All the CVNs, carrier air wings, etc sit there doing nothing. Lets get rid of them too. The B2/B1/B52 in most years see NO ACTION other than training. Utilization close to ZERO. Lets get rid of them too.

For crying out loud.... run ANY major war scenario, and you will see that the US fighting capability is TOTALLY limitted by tanker asset availability. Do you know how many tankers were used to get airforce squadrons over to Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kwait? Do you know how many tankers it would take to get sustained CAP and bombers over central Russia or central China in any conflict there? ALL of them. That is right. ALL that we could get in the air and it would not be enough. And you can expect that several of them would be shot down. Tankers are high value targets, bacause our major potential enemies know that without tankers our USAF and USN planes can not effectively sustain inland operations. Our longest range fighters (F22/F15) with external tanks have combat radius of less than 1,000 nm. They may require 6 or more refuelings to perform 30 min of CAP on station over central Russia or escort bombers in.

I would not risk the health of our current bomber fleet by sending them to transport cargo into Iraq and other hot zones. losing a single KC135 in a sense maybe a worse loss than losing a B2.

Tankers may not be sexy, but they are the lifeline of the USAF/USN air fighting capability.

[Edited 2008-03-04 12:47:23]
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:04 pm

[quote=Atmx2000,reply=313]The last thing you want is to find yourself in the middle of a war with an airframe with reduced lifetime.[/quote

Airframe lifetime is very close to the bottom of the priority list in wartime, let me assure you.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
User avatar
PanAm_DC10
Community Manager
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 7:37 am

RE: Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 2.

Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:12 pm

As this has well over 300 replies please continue the discussion at the following thread Usaf Decided On KC-30 Part 3. Thank you
Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tmu101 and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos