Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 27641
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:22 am

Well a 787-8 is about the same size as an A330-200, though it does offer a bit more underfloor cargo volume.

If they fit it with the 787-3's upturned wingtips, it would also be a bit better fit in ramp areas thanks to an 8m shorter wingspan.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:23 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 43):
That's a throw-away statement.

Don't shoot the messenger who was merely posting a link and pointing out the jucier (regardless of liklihood) parts of it  Wink
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:44 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 39):

It has, it is now in the "LRIP" Low Rate Initial Production. Testing that nice mile-long factory Lockheed has in Texas. The plane hasn't exited yet but it has "entered" production.

Tugg

Tugg, I live down the street from the Fort Worth LM plant (next to NAS Ft. Worth JRB). The avionic test B-737-300 is still flying a lot, and the LRIP has not started. Funding will not be released before 2010, although LM is building the tooling and jigs. The only production at the FW plant right now is the F-22 mid-section fuselage.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 48):

Wow...That's a heck of an improvement. Is that with the CFM's or the Jt8's?

I can't see it happening, though...it makes way too much sense.

The 60% improvement is with the CFM-56 engines. The JT-8Ds do have the same amount of thrust as the CFM-56s, but also burns a lot more fuel.

BTW, there are 157 KC-135Es in storage at DM and other ANGBs around the US. IIRC, PSM has about 8 KC-135Es in storage.

[Edited 2009-03-12 19:46:21]
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:36 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 52):
The 60% improvement is with the CFM-56 engines. The JT-8Ds do have the same amount of thrust as the CFM-56s, but also burns a lot more fuel.

Always a trade off, if we go with the CFM's we get the 60% fuel savings but also the costly construction of new nacelles and wing fabrication also the horizontal and vertical stabs have to be modded. Go with the JT's we have bolt on technology without almost rebuilding the acft but not the fuel savings of the CFM. The PW JT9D is alot more reliable than the TF-33 JT3D and alot easier to perform mx on.
The current APU on the KC-135E's is sufficient enough for both engines . Just a possibility here thinking along the JT idea, what if we use the RR BR715 engine on the Boeing 717 (MD-95). Does anybody know if that will bolt up the same as a JT9D?.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11295
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:48 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 52):
Tugg, I live down the street from the Fort Worth LM plant (next to NAS Ft. Worth JRB). The avionic test B-737-300 is still flying a lot, and the LRIP has not started. Funding will not be released before 2010, although LM is building the tooling and jigs. The only production at the FW plant right now is the F-22 mid-section fuselage.

Thanks for the info KC! I know people who are neck deep buying and building material for LRIP's 1, 2, & 3 under contracts from LMA. I thought this meant it was going into the NFW factory. My Bad, good to have the info.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:40 am

I did some digging and unearthed this;

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Re-engining-the-E-8-JSTARS-04891/

The CFM-56 has provided the KC-135's with a 27% fuel saving and the Jt8-D provides a 17% fuel saving on the E-8C.

The tradeoffs are neatly explained in the article.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:21 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 51):
Don't shoot the messenger who was merely posting a link and pointing out the jucier (regardless of liklihood) parts of it

Sorry I came off the wrong way. The articles were very interesting, and my comments certainly weren't directed at you, they were expressing my frustration over how the military throws around FUD every time they don't get what they want.
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
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:33 am



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 55):
I did some digging and unearthed this;

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Re-engining-the-E-8-JSTARS-04891/

The CFM-56 has provided the KC-135's with a 27% fuel saving and the Jt8-D provides a 17% fuel saving on the E-8C.

The tradeoffs are neatly explained in the article.

Thanks.

I also found the following line interesting:

Quote:
a recent study claims that the structural improvements and other modifications could allow the aircraft to fly safely for another 50 years

It's interesting how the USAF talks out of both sides of its face at the same time.

KC-135s are cold war relics urgently needing replacement, whereas E-8s are good to go for another 50 years.
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
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14504
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:47 am

What about 4 Pratt GTF's for the KC-135s. They seem right sized.



Would mean a range / enviromenrtal boost over CFM56 powered variants.

They would become very silent anyway..

The CFM56 are becoming yesterday's engines.

An order for 800 GTF's would be a welcome boost for Pratt
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 27641
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:44 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
It's interesting how the USAF talks out of both sides of its face at the same time.

KC-135s are cold war relics urgently needing replacement, whereas E-8s are good to go for another 50 years.

I read an article that noted the 707s used for the E-8 program were literally rebuilt from the keel up so they are effectively new-build frames so I expect they're much "younger" then the KC-135Es and KC-135Rs.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:38 pm

Boeing needs to offer the KC-787 or nothing. The KC-30 is the best aerial tanker presently available. The audacity of Obama to try and ask the USAF to postphone new tankers that date back to the Eisenhower administration when he's on pace to outspend every single other US President combined - talk about amateur hour in the WH.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:19 pm



Quoting Oroka (Reply 28):
If the new AF1 ends up being a 748i and the ABL continues to go ahead and builds (12 AL-1 IIRC) based on 748fs... that will be 15 748s in the USAF inventory already. A KC-748 would just add to that fleet.

1. Expensive to purchase (although a 777LR wouldn't be that much less)
2. More expensive to operate than the 777LR
3. The 748 has a huge wingspan and will take up a lot of precious ramp space. The 777LR is slightly better in this regard.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:41 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 60):
The KC-30 is the best aerial tanker presently available.

Has this aircraft actually transferred fuel yet?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:57 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
KC-135s are cold war relics urgently needing replacement

So am I but I still have a few good years left in me.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:00 pm

KC-135s have a structural average life expectancy of 70,000 hours. The average KC-135 has 15,000 - 20,00 hours. There is plenty of life left in them, as is the case with the B-52 frames.

No need for new tanker frames. If we want an employment program, defense projects are the least effective ways to do that, as studies have shown. It would be cheaper to just send checks to idle workers than to funnel the money through contractors.

Alternatively, it would be better to retrain and pay these workers to build something in demand, like a new power grid, electric turbines, solar arrays, Wind Turbine Blades, etc...tons of stuff we need that is in short supply. Or just pay the workers their salaries while idle - while non nonsensical - that's still far cheaper then asking contractors to wasting scarce money to build stuff not needed, like new Tanker airframes.

The idea of the new Pratt Geared Turbine Engines on the KC-135s is an idea worth looking into as it could actually provide a better ROI (Return on Investment), just like CFM engines do today saving more money on gas and maintenance, than the initial investment.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:08 pm

In the latest developments of this on-going saga, SoD Gates again states he opposes splitting the deal:

Quote:
"It would require the Air force to maintain two different logistics facilities -- two different logistics trains -- two different kinds of training," he said.

The approach would result in duplication and much higher costs, Gates said.

"I just think it's a bad deal for taxpayers."

And, apparently, the RFP is still on track for an award in 2010:

Quote:
The defense chief said he had received no request from the White House to delay the contract to replace the fleet of aging in-air refueling tankers.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ALeqM5jUVJ2LcBDovxHl_sbM-j0_VYq4oQ
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.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:11 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 65):

I think everyone agrees that a dual buy is not desired. However, declaring a winner and having that decision stick (after years in the courts) is also not desired.

This is a mess and will only get worse. A split buy would at least start the replacement line flowing. This could all be over with tomorrow if the DoD would make an initial order to both A and B. Problem is it is very apparent no one in the DoD wants a 767 based airplane. It would take a leap of faith to order any quantity of the T7-F or 748.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:06 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 66):
A split buy would at least start the replacement line flowing. This could all be over with tomorrow if the DoD would make an initial order to both A and B.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If the 767 is at a disadvantage because it doesn't provide the best value for the taxpayer or the warfighter then how is a split buy going to assuage that problem? It would make things worse, in my opinion, and far more costly.
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.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:14 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 67):
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If the 767 is at a disadvantage because it doesn't provide the best value for the taxpayer or the warfighter then how is a split buy going to assuage that problem? It would make things worse, in my opinion, and far more costly.

We agree. My point was unless Boeing puts up the T7F or 748, they do not have an airplane that the DoD wants. However, in the current political climate, Airbus' only hope is a split buy. The odds of an Airbus only selection being funded are almost incalculable. Boeing knows this and will generate a situation where they control the process - 767 or nothing.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:32 pm

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 68):
My point was unless Boeing puts up the T7F or 748, they do not have an airplane that the DoD wants.

     
Then this general is just running his mouth here?
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...tilitiesNews/idUSN0351555620080903

Quote:
Gen. Arthur Lichte, the four-star general who runs Air Mobility Command, told reporters on Wednesday that both aircraft, offered by Boeing Co (BA.N) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), were outstanding and could do the job.

Each plane, he said, would add unique dimensions to how the Air Force used its tankers in the future.

Northrop and its European partner EADS (EAD.PA) beat out Boeing to win the $35 billion program in February, but the Pentagon relaunched the competition after the Government Accountability Office upheld Boeing's protest, saying the Air Force made significant errors in the first round.

"I don't care which tanker wins. I just need a new tanker," Lichte said,


[Edited 2009-03-19 08:33:54]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 27641
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:45 pm

Given a choice, I think the USAF would prefer the KC-30A since they did choose it at first, and there are implications they were willing to "cook the numbers" to ensure it won. You don't do that for something you're not really interested in.

But they also know the KC-767 is going to be more capable then a KC-135R, so they're certainly not going to get on their high horse and snub the 767 if that is the one that looks like it would be approved quicker / easier.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:34 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 69):
Then this general is just running his mouth here?

Show me any rated general who doesn't want a new toy every year or so. Thus when presented with a situation where the preferred airplane was not going to be funded, the option is to go along with anything to get a new airplane. In other words - General Spin.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:41 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 71):
Show me any rated general

This isn't just "any rated general". He commands AMC and has flown tankers.
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6196
The comment you made was:

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 68):
My point was unless Boeing puts up the T7F or 748, they do not have an airplane that the DoD wants.

Incorrect.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:13 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 72):

If the DoD wanted the 767, they would be building them now. All rated generals are the same. The ACC CO wants more F-22's; SOCOM wants smaller and better gunships; etc.

I stand by my statement - All rated generals want the newest toys now.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:36 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 66):
This is a mess and will only get worse. A split buy would at least start the replacement line flowing. This could all be over with tomorrow if the DoD would make an initial order to both A and B. Problem is it is very apparent no one in the DoD wants a 767 based airplane. It would take a leap of faith to order any quantity of the T7-F or 748.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 67):
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If the 767 is at a disadvantage because it doesn't provide the best value for the taxpayer or the warfighter then how is a split buy going to assuage that problem?

A split buy is about the dumbest thing the DOD could ever do. It increases maintenance, crew training, and logistics costs.

You are wrong that "no one in the DoD wants a 767 based airplane". The crews that fly the KC-135 now preferred the KC-767AT hands down. What pushed the KC-30 over was the 65 or so retired generals, who work for or consulted for NG picked it. They were not exactly an unbiased group.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 68):
We agree. My point was unless Boeing puts up the T7F or 748, they do not have an airplane that the DoD wants.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
Given a choice, I think the USAF would prefer the KC-30A since they did choose it at first, and there are implications they were willing to "cook the numbers" to ensure it won. You don't do that for something you're not really interested in.

When you have to 'cook the books', that alone implies they picked the less capable airplane. It also implies there is some quid=pro=quo that was going on between the USAF senior staff, NG, and EADS-NA. The KC-30A is also much higher cost to maintane, in LCC, and because of the high fuel comsumption, actually off-loaded less fuel than the KC-767AT at 2,000 nm, 3,000 nm, and 4,000nm. Additionally, both the KC-30A and KC-767AT carried the same weight in cargo, but the KC-30A carried more cubes.

I suggest you read the GAO report.

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 73):
If the DoD wanted the 767, they would be building them now.

No, the USAF has now screwed up the new aircraft porcurment process at least 3 times in the last 7 years, KC-767 Lease, CSAR-X, and KC-X. The GAO has caught them screwing things up. DOD has taken over the process since then.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10181
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:23 am

The ironic situation today is that the military (and all other departments) are facing budgeting restrictions that the most effective approach for acquiring capital equipment would be to go back to the lease purchase program originally considered after 9/11.

Does it cost more? Yes, but the Treasure Department can ensure good rates are obtainable from financial institutions. It would be a far better deal than you or I would get leasing a car.

The problem with the original lease./purchase tanker was a handful of people played games. They went to prison and Boeing paid around half a billion in fines. That might be sufficient to keep the next round honest.  Smile

Like individuals leasing a car, a lease/purchase approach allows for the use of capital equipment before the cash is available for a cash purchase. It's a balance between the additional cost, the increased price in the future because of inflation and the value/need of the equipment before cash is going to be available.

With the military facing some major capital replacements and the interest rates being low these days the balancing act might actually convince even McCain that it's time for lease/purchase programs in selected capital needs at DoD.  duck 
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:35 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 75):
Like individuals leasing a car, a lease/purchase approach allows for the use of capital equipment before the cash is available for a cash purchase. It's a balance between the additional cost, the increased price in the future because of inflation and the value/need of the equipment before cash is going to be available.

Your analysis misses that leasing is like putting things on a credit card. Since it is more expensive, in the end, the DOD will get less hardware for its money. Period. There is no magic.

If it is more expensive to lease = less hardware overall. Regardless of how you stagger the payments over time. You may also get into a situation where the DOD is obligated to lease for a certain number of years, tying up their hands = less hardware in the future. Going with a more expensive solution on purpose when there are cheaper solutions and is not operationally necessary is foolish and a waste of resources for no reason.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 27641
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:39 pm

Leasing military hardware is more expensive because in the end, usually the lessor actually ends up buying the hardware.

Unlike cars, Boeing doesn't launch a new freighter aircraft family every four or five years, allowing the USAF to "give back" their current plane and enter in with a new lease for the new model.

Also unlike cars, the second-hand market for a piece of military hardware is not very large. So Boeing would have a hard time trying to shift 100 "previously flown" KC-767As.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:30 pm

Actually, Stich, there just may be a market in FMS for used KC-767ATs or KC-30As should the USAF ever lease them. There are still several countries out there still flying KC-707s/KC-137s.

But, I agree, leasing military aircraft is not a good idea for the US.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:04 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 74):

How do the crews know they want the 767? They have as many hours in the 767 as the 330 - zero. The crews, like the rated generals, just want something new.

Also, the logistic reasoning for not having a split buy is a bit over the top. The USAF flies four different fighters, three different bombers, three different lifters, and two different tankers (all being for different roles makes no difference logistic wise). If it gets new airplanes on the ramp, what is the problem? The loser of the next round is going to take the appeal to court if they have to. Money is going out the door left and right. Take it while you can.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10181
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:25 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 77):
Leasing military hardware is more expensive because in the end, usually the lessor actually ends up buying the hardware.

I clearly don't know the numbers of any acquisition program of capital military equipment.

I also know that a lease/purchase is more expensive that a cash purchase - with a clear intent of purchasing the hardware at the end of the lease period.

The two factors making this option ironic to me?

Inflation needs to be factored into a least/purchase evaluation. How much more will a tanker cost if the purchases start 5 years later?

if capital military is needed, but isn't competitive with other lines in the budget (we're talking cash/debt budget) then a lease/purchase gets the hardware developed. Costs more now, but you won't pay 2009 prices in 2020. The additional costs are the price you pay to have the hardware now and pay the cash balance later.

I'm not recommending it, I just think it's ironic that it might be a viable option when we're spending huge amounts on other programs.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:56 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 79):
How do the crews know they want the 767? They have as many hours in the 767 as the 330 - zero. The crews, like the rated generals, just want something new.

Actually it comes down to two different factors as to why the KC-135 crews prefer one type over the other.

1.) The crews have a lot of time flying in their current Boeing airplane, and like the reliability and longivity of the KC-135. That is kind of like owning a Ford for a long time, then given the choice between buying a new Ford or a new Chevy.

2.) A lot of the KC-135 ANG pilots also fly Boeings or Airbusses for the airlines, including some who fly the A-330 or B-767. While there are more of these pilots flying the airline B-767, they seem to like that airplane.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 79):
Also, the logistic reasoning for not having a split buy is a bit over the top. The USAF flies four different fighters, three different bombers, three different lifters, and two different tankers (all being for different roles makes no difference logistic wise). If it gets new airplanes on the ramp, what is the problem?

You answered your own question. In the case of buying both the KC-767AT and KC-30A, they will have an identical role and mission, which overlaps with the KC-135R. The cargo capability differences is really miminal as tankers don't fly just cargo missions that often. Tankers are not very effecient box carriers, when compared to dedicated cargo aircraft.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:52 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81):
Actually it comes down to two different factors as to why the KC-135 crews prefer one type over the other.

1.) The crews have a lot of time flying in their current Boeing airplane, and like the reliability and longivity of the KC-135. That is kind of like owning a Ford for a long time, then given the choice between buying a new Ford or a new Chevy.

All understandable, but the preference is a new airplane. No one is going to walk away from either the Airus or Boeing airplane! The choice is actually a choice between a restored '57 Chevy or a new Ford or Chevy.

Quote:
2.) A lot of the KC-135 ANG pilots also fly Boeings or Airbusses for the airlines, including some who fly the A-330 or B-767. While there are more of these pilots flying the airline B-767, they seem to like that airplane.

And I am sure the ones flying the 330 seem to like that one. (Obligatory reply to keep the Airbus folks at bay.)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81):
You answered your own question. In the case of buying both the KC-767AT and KC-30A, they will have an identical role and mission, which overlaps with the KC-135R. The cargo capability differences is really miminal as tankers don't fly just cargo missions that often. Tankers are not very effecient box carriers, when compared to dedicated cargo aircraft.

As long as a new airplane(s) is/are purchased there is going to be overlap for a period of time time when there is an overlap between the new purchase and the 135/10.

Until the DoD agrees that a dedicated tanker is the way to go, any discussion of whether using a tanker as a transport is the best useage of assets, is really not an option. The same type of discussion is brewing over using the F-35 in an air superiority role. The DoD says not much drop off from the F-22; the Air Force says not so quick with that reply. In both instances, the DoD is daddy with the wallet.
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:48 am

I have over the last few years said that the 787 is what the USAF wants. The truth is that the world has changed. The second cold war has begun. The role of the tanker is in flux. I have said all this before. The next tanker will need more range to support aircraft in the Pacific. The President has just found this out. The reality of being President is not the same as running for the office.

Facts:

1- The 787 line will not be in its prime for at least 3 years
2- A second 787 line in the location of the 767 is a smart move.
3- The ability to stealth a plane goes up when the metal content goes down.
4- The heated interaction with China's military and our own has changed things
A. The recent interception of a USN ship.
B. The recent careless destruction of a satellite in one of the most busy orbits.
C. The demostration of the USA's major weakness by showing the level of chaos that can be created by the destruction of a few satellites in busy orbits. ie what would happen without GPS satellites etc.
5- A tanker will have to be able to fill in like an AWAC for GPS etc for any events without satellites
A. This may explain why the KC-30 was a better plattform than the KC-767. The rules changed and the USAF could not advertise the new role.
B. With the new restrictions on purchases the USAF needs a platform that can be an AWAC, GPS relay, Communication Relay, and whatever to prevent the need to RFQ. New programs will take decades to buy.
6- A few aircraft will not provide the needed coverage and as such a large platform would not be cost effective. A large midsized A350 or 787 sized aircraft is ideal. To fill the gaps created if we loose satelllite coverage. Though the range of the 777LR would be a selling point.
7- China's underground sub facility is EMP ready.
8- A plane with a composite hull would have a greater ability to deal with an EMP pulse due to its set up to deal with static electricity than current aircraft. (With mods)
9. China got a good picture of our electronics with the emergancy landing of a USAF aircraft a while back.

This is more than the EU versus the USA. Without satellites any military would need a replacement for all that they do. The current KC-30 or KC-767 fall way short. Those buying them today will be asking for help tomorrow.

Maybe waiting 4 years for the requirements to be defined would provide the USAF with the ability to survive.

Welcome to the next cold war. I should say tech war because that's what it will be.

PS watch how many satellites get damaged or have to change orbits due to the distruction of just one satellite.
BK
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:43 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 82):
the DoD is daddy with the wallet.

But the DOD does not control the USAF (or any oter military service) budget. Congress approreates the funds directly to the USAF, not through the DOD.

Quoting Blackknight (Reply 83):
Facts:

1- The 787 line will not be in its prime for at least 3 years
2- A second 787 line in the location of the 767 is a smart move.
3- The ability to stealth a plane goes up when the metal content goes down.
4- The heated interaction with China's military and our own has changed things
A. The recent interception of a USN ship.
B. The recent careless destruction of a satellite in one of the most busy orbits.
C. The demostration of the USA's major weakness by showing the level of chaos that can be created by the destruction of a few satellites in busy orbits. ie what would happen without GPS satellites etc.
5- A tanker will have to be able to fill in like an AWAC for GPS etc for any events without satellites
A. This may explain why the KC-30 was a better plattform than the KC-767. The rules changed and the USAF could not advertise the new role.
B. With the new restrictions on purchases the USAF needs a platform that can be an AWAC, GPS relay, Communication Relay, and whatever to prevent the need to RFQ. New programs will take decades to buy.
6- A few aircraft will not provide the needed coverage and as such a large platform would not be cost effective. A large midsized A350 or 787 sized aircraft is ideal. To fill the gaps created if we loose satelllite coverage. Though the range of the 777LR would be a selling point.
7- China's underground sub facility is EMP ready.
8- A plane with a composite hull would have a greater ability to deal with an EMP pulse due to its set up to deal with static electricity than current aircraft. (With mods)
9. China got a good picture of our electronics with the emergancy landing of a USAF aircraft a while back.

While I agree with you, and without getting into details, the KC-135R/T already flies a lot of what you are talking about. It is called the Smart Tanker.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:04 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 84):
But the DOD does not control the USAF (or any oter military service) budget. Congress approreates the funds directly to the USAF, not through the DOD.

Not so sure about that. I see a DoD portion in the budget, but I could not find an Air Force portion.

Yes each service is vetted separately, but the funding is through the DoD.
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: Obama Administration Seeks To Defer KC-X

Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:01 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 85):
While I agree with you, and without getting into details, the KC-135R/T already flies a lot of what you are talking about. It is called the Smart Tanker.

Yes it does, and the next question is :

1- Does the air-force ever retire the R/T platform even with new planes due to the need for network link ups? Or do they just fly them less in a sort of ready state?

Reports I am seeing would require 50 to 200 planes airborne to replace the links provided by space currently in the event of a blackout. (Depending upon location) They themselves will need to be refueled. There is a need for a large fuel offload at distance. It looks like the R/T platforms will not retire anytime soon.
BK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 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