JayinKitsap
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:42 pm

For the US, the C-130 and C-17 cover the current needs for airlift pretty well. Compare that to all the KC-135 variants that are still flying. Yes the KC-46 is replacing 1/3 of the current tankers, but a whole bunch of old planes still flying. Only this year did another important ancient plan is getting replaced - the T/X trainer.

But these urgent programs are still not proceeding:
B-52 re engine
A-10 upgrade or replacement (My favorite plane BTW)
Carrier launched transport plane

I would think all of these programs should come before a new transport.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
Leonelli notes that the official service life for the Lockheed C-130 is estimated to end in 2065 and for the Boeing C-17 and Lockheed C-5 around 2070.

Sorry for going off-topic (but I will come back to this issue, see further below): That’s really amazing! The C-5 was already flying when I was born and still will be flying when I will be rotting in the earth (unless I will become more than 100 years old.. and looking at the bottle of wine in front of me... I very much doubt it..)
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Reading the quotes in the opening posts, somehow the "requirements" in this post got out of hand. Reading back, it almost seems like we are trying to specify it away from a certain design. :biggrin:

If anything, your posting history in this thread and others shows you trying to fit every square A400M into every round hole you can find.

Which leads to the question: why did you mention the A400M in your opening post at all? This is an amazing thread, so thank you for opening it. But as you correctly stated, it has nothing to do with the A400M.
 
DigitalSea
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:28 pm

WIederling wrote:
Is there actually any short term real world application in view for those?


Plasma actuator technology has been around for a while but is slowly starting to make it into the white world. If they wanted to go the BWB route for a refueler or airlifter and wanted it to be low observable, that tech can assist in achieving those goals. The Chinese haven't been shy in publishing white papers on it (and various other areas) in their pursuit of catching up to the US and developing their own strategic stealth bomber.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:38 pm

Reading back this thread is a liberal intrepretation of "might be requirements" of an already liberal journalist.

there is a clear emphasis on designs that overcome the vulnerability of existing aircraft to detection and interception.


In our enthousiasm someone asking if any Refueller was ever intercepted in any war, how many intercepts the $34 Bill F22's made over the last 20 yrs, would we have survived without the $55 Bill 22 B2's, would be flagwaved away as not understanding. The industry has an easy job..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 19147
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:30 pm

keesje wrote:
Reading back this thread is a liberal intrepretation of "might be requirements" of an already liberal journalist.

there is a clear emphasis on designs that overcome the vulnerability of existing aircraft to detection and interception.

In our enthousiasm someone asking if any Refueller was ever intercepted in any war, how many intercepts the $34 Bill F22's made over the last 20 yrs, would we have survived without the $55 Bill 22 B2's, would be flagwaved away as not understanding. The industry has an easy job..

Interestingly enough, the goal is to for the refuelers to never be intercepted or even better yet never used in a war. Ideally the fighters never fight and the bombers never bomb in a war either. However to plan on that being the case is :butthead:.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
DigitalSea
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:04 pm

Well in theory, the next generation of battle needs to keep refuelers behind the FEBA, specific role fighters on the front lines, and expendable LO UCAVs doing the initial strikes/suppression. With that extra buffer, it provides more protection for the more valuable assets. IMO China's investment/focus on AI and UAVs for NextGen warfare is extremely wise. Hopefully the USAF can get over their hang up of wanting manned platforms, it's a bottleneck for future air-superiority doctrine development.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5708
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:45 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:

This is illegal in the US, although many have tried. One of these cost Boeing huge, still has some repercussions - the Miss Darleen Drunyun affair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun


Thanks for the humor.

A quote from the article.

“If a colonel or a general stands up and makes a fuss about high cost and poor quality no nice man will come to see him when he retires,” reads a 1983 internal U.S. Air Force memo. “Even if he has no interest in a post-retirement job in the defense industry he is taking a chance by making a fuss.”

https://warisboring.com/brass-parachutes/
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2539
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
I don't think merchant marines suffered due to lack of US submarines during the Battle of the Atlantic.


True, more destroyers and long range patrol boats would have been more desirable. The other technologies mentioned would probably not have been foreseen before the war and probably could not be developed without experience in combat.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:06 pm

keesje wrote:
With the vunerable C130s, it must be the perfect combination. No need for anything else.

Do you mean venerable or vunerable?

AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR BY B6 CO CZ DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI J7 KE KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(1) OZ(2) PA PI PT QQ RM RO RV(1) RV(2) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(2) ZZ 9K
 
LMP737
Posts: 5708
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:41 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Carrier launched transport plane
.


That decision has already been made. The V-22 is going to replace the C-2. Which IMHO is a mistake. The C-2 can carry more cargo and at much greater range than the V-22. What the Navy should have done is either re-manufacture or new build C-2's and incorporate the improvements made with the E-2D onto it. Alas it was not to be. The DOD was more interested in keeping the V-22 program going. I do see a future career at Bell or Boeing for the people involved in that decision. ;)
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:51 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
For the US, the C-130 and C-17 cover the current needs for airlift pretty well. Compare that to all the KC-135 variants that are still flying. Yes the KC-46 is replacing 1/3 of the current tankers, but a whole bunch of old planes still flying. Only this year did another important ancient plan is getting replaced - the T/X trainer.

But these urgent programs are still not proceeding:
B-52 re engine
A-10 upgrade or replacement (My favorite plane BTW)
Carrier launched transport plane

I would think all of these programs should come before a new transport.


B-52- A modernization roadmap was shared with the private sector not too long ago. Enter the B-52J.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc. ... source=dam

A-10- News of my death have been greatly exaggerated...Half of the fleet has been re-winged and the other half is scheduled to receive the same work. Other upgrades have been fielded and it is not a stretch to say the A-10's importance and relevance in real world current combat operations has only increased. A recent white paper by the Congressional Research Service has the A-10 flying into the 2030s.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:14 pm

LMP737 wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Carrier launched transport plane
.


That decision has already been made. The V-22 is going to replace the C-2. Which IMHO is a mistake. The C-2 can carry more cargo and at much greater range than the V-22. What the Navy should have done is either re-manufacture or new build C-2's and incorporate the improvements made with the E-2D onto it. Alas it was not to be. The DOD was more interested in keeping the V-22 program going. I do see a future career at Bell or Boeing for the people involved in that decision. ;)



Two thumbs up. A modernized C-2 was IMHO a much better option.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:57 pm

CX747 wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Carrier launched transport plane
.


That decision has already been made. The V-22 is going to replace the C-2. Which IMHO is a mistake. The C-2 can carry more cargo and at much greater range than the V-22. What the Navy should have done is either re-manufacture or new build C-2's and incorporate the improvements made with the E-2D onto it. Alas it was not to be. The DOD was more interested in keeping the V-22 program going. I do see a future career at Bell or Boeing for the people involved in that decision. ;)



Two thumbs up. A modernized C-2 was IMHO a much better option.


My original point is that there are programs that are practical and should be done, like a C-2 modernization or replacement. The V-22 is OK for delivering supplies from a supply ship to another in conditions where they cannot come alongside. But the C-2 gets people and cargo to the carrier from hundreds of miles away.

The B-52 re-engine has been in the works for a decade, but it still is not out of the starting gate, the RFP to place an actual contract to do the conversion with the first couple done so it can be evaluated and certified.

With regards to transports, the current equipment is quite current vs the last one produced being 40 years old.
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:27 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
CX747 wrote:
LMP737 wrote:

That decision has already been made. The V-22 is going to replace the C-2. Which IMHO is a mistake. The C-2 can carry more cargo and at much greater range than the V-22. What the Navy should have done is either re-manufacture or new build C-2's and incorporate the improvements made with the E-2D onto it. Alas it was not to be. The DOD was more interested in keeping the V-22 program going. I do see a future career at Bell or Boeing for the people involved in that decision. ;)



Two thumbs up. A modernized C-2 was IMHO a much better option.


My original point is that there are programs that are practical and should be done, like a C-2 modernization or replacement. The V-22 is OK for delivering supplies from a supply ship to another in conditions where they cannot come alongside. But the C-2 gets people and cargo to the carrier from hundreds of miles away.

The B-52 re-engine has been in the works for a decade, but it still is not out of the starting gate, the RFP to place an actual contract to do the conversion with the first couple done so it can be evaluated and certified.

With regards to transports, the current equipment is quite current vs the last one produced being 40 years old.


It has been quite some time on the B-52 re-engine program. I'm hoping with the decision to keep the B-52 and replace the B-1 and B-2 with the B-21, this changes.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:05 pm

The B-21 will surely get turned into the large stealthy tanker. What a great way to 100 extra frames to the production run at the end and keep the roduction line open for extra bombers. With KC-46's providing the bulk low risk and the Navy with a smaller uav tanker they are sorted.

I picture a new 50T payload stealthy airlifter that will still resembles a tube with wings. The fuselage tube would have chines and appear a bit more square. The jet engines would get located above the fuselage between the wings slightly burried. The wings would have blown flaps for near C-130 runway performance. The rear fuselage would then block IR signature and the rear tail would be like an A-10 and YF-23.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:40 am

Image

This is most likely what the future stealthy transport will look like. It would be much easier to pressurize the cargo bay. The blended wing transports are pure fantasy in my opinion.

Having the engines, wing and landing gear all in the centre makes forward and aft sections of the fuselage quite light. The IR signature from below would be significantly reduced. The main threat to tactical transports are heat seaking manpads during landing and takeoff.

The radar signature would be around super hornet levels. A tactical transport does not need B-2 bomber levels of stealth as it will always operate well behind friendly fighters. Russian S400 SAMs could currently take pot shots at a C-17 from 300kms away, if you can reduce the detection range to 100kms that is stealthy enough.
 
EBJ68
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:20 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:58 pm

Based on what I've found via internet search, the B-21 will be smaller than the B-2. I can't imagine it being of sufficient size to be a strategic tanker.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3896
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:47 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The B-21 will surely get turned into the large stealthy tanker. What a great way to 100 extra frames to the production run at the end and keep the production line open for extra bombers. .


smacks of watching too many sci-fi war stories. first who needs a stealth tanker, especially at the costs it would run????? The country's in major deficit spending and you want more ??
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:38 am

EBJ68 wrote:
Based on what I've found via internet search, the B-21 will be smaller than the B-2. I can't imagine it being of sufficient size to be a strategic tanker.

Strategic tanker? You wouldn't use a stealth tanker to refuel C-5's or C-17's. So you dont need such large offload capacity. That is not what the USAF wants if you do your research.

The USAF wants a tanker that can accompany the strike package 200-300kms further towards the target. This allows the strike package to penetrate further and to have fuel to defend themselves without having to abort the mission.

In the Gulf war dozens of tankers were doing circuits 50km from the Iraq border topping up fighters as they were coming and going and fresh tankers replacing the empty tankers to provide 24 hour coverage. With modern IAD network these tanker circuits would now have to be 500km from the enemy border not 50km. This severely limits the persistence and penetration of the strike fighters.

With the stealth tanker you would remain say 100km from the enemy border and your KC-46's doing circuits 500km from the border. The F-35's would first completely fill up at the KC-46's and might only need a 1T top up from the stealth tanker. Any fighters that were engaged and burnt extra fuel can then fill up at the stealth tanker on the way back. The rest of the strike package would refuel at the KC-46's. The stealth tanker only needs a very small offload, half the fuel capacity of the B-2 would be fine.

The US Navy tanker drone will work slightly differently. One tanker with 4 F-35C's will increase the strike radius out an extra 50%. The unmanned tanker will refuel the four F-35's at a point roughly two thirds of the combat radius and then return to the carrier. A second unmanned tanker will meet them at the same point to refuel on the return trip. The drone tanker would be refueling fairly close to the enemy IAD network and could be detected. Obviously a trade off of risk. Moderate stealth and unmamned makes them fairly cheap and disposable.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:59 am

kanban wrote:
smacks of watching too many sci-fi war stories. first who needs a stealth tanker, especially at the costs it would run????? The country's in major deficit spending and you want more ??

Stealth tankers and tankers in general actually saves money. It would allow thousands of cheap F-35's to reach targets that would require a B-21 or a very large and expensive 6th fighter program.

In the Gulf war without tankers the amount of fighters that could persist over Iraq soil would be significantly reduced. The campaign would easily take 10 times as long with the same fighter fleet.

The B-21 is perfect for the stealth tanker. It will be in the correct size range and will be in production. It wouod probably be cheaper than any clean sheet design. In 20 years time it would be easy to make it unmanned. The cost of maintaining stealth coatings are relative to the stealth performance. If the stealth tanker doesnt need B-21 levels of the stealth then the coatings can just be left unmaintained to reduce operating cost.
 
DigitalSea
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:08 pm

Was China being smart by having their J-20 be capable of greater range given its size? Less reliability on tankers, more time in the fight.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:43 am

Very smart. The greater range of the J-20 also pushes the USAF tankers further from the battle. So the US fighters have less time in the fight.

It is very similar to what the USAF wants with the penetrating counter air aircraft.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5650
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:50 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kanban wrote:
smacks of watching too many sci-fi war stories. first who needs a stealth tanker, especially at the costs it would run????? The country's in major deficit spending and you want more ??

Stealth tankers and tankers in general actually saves money. It would allow thousands of cheap F-35's to reach targets that would require a B-21 or a very large and expensive 6th fighter program.

In the Gulf war without tankers the amount of fighters that could persist over Iraq soil would be significantly reduced. The campaign would easily take 10 times as long with the same fighter fleet.

The B-21 is perfect for the stealth tanker. It will be in the correct size range and will be in production. It wouod probably be cheaper than any clean sheet design. In 20 years time it would be easy to make it unmanned. The cost of maintaining stealth coatings are relative to the stealth performance. If the stealth tanker doesnt need B-21 levels of the stealth then the coatings can just be left unmaintained to reduce operating cost.


That's why planes with long range are very useful, they can go places without needing the tanker support so close.

But then again, long range drones would be better still. Make fairly inexpensive and effective drones that can be used on risky missions without worry. You don't risk pilots or expensive things like exotic stealth bombers or expensive tankers.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:35 am

DigitalSea wrote:
Was China being smart by having their J-20 be capable of greater range given its size? Less reliability on tankers, more time in the fight.


When I saw the J-20 for the first time I immediately conclude this is a less defensive aircraft, more strike. A kind of JH-7 replacement.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Xian_JH-7A.jpg

The J-20 seems to have lots of volume for fuel, I'm surprized the J-20 is a single seat and continues to be promoted as air defense.
Image

I think the "strike" capabilities of a future next air refuller / transport mentioned earlier could very well be launch drones / cruise missiles.

On this site, combined roles for this kind of aircraft (tanker / transport / strategic, tactical, A400M) were consequently put away as useless compromises, basically because the USAF had them all separately & that was the best way forward. Progress seems to be catching up in our ranks.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
426Shadow
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:36 am

keesje wrote:

On this site, combined roles for this kind of aircraft (tanker / transport / strategic, tactical, A400M) were consequently put away as useless compromises, basically because the USAF had them all separately & that was the best way forward. Progress seems to be catching up in our ranks.



You don't consider the F-35 multi-role? Because we are sure selling that aspect of it. The F-15E could be considered multi-role (Can still dogfight but is mainly a bomb truck).

The Navy takes it even further with the F/A-18 being able to fuel other F/A-18's.

Just because we haven't made everything in our military a "one size fits all" doesn't mean we haven't been trying.
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2539
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:34 pm

keesje wrote:
On this site, combined roles for this kind of aircraft (tanker / transport / strategic, tactical, A400M) were consequently put away as useless compromises,
426Shadow wrote:
Just because we haven't made everything in our military a "one size fits all" doesn't mean we haven't been trying.


The US military did try the everything fit all approach. Recall the F-4 Phantoms. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. They have learned that you do not put all your eggs in one basket because when the shooting starts and you find that your your one design have some shortfalls, then you need to adjust you tactics. In the mean time, you loose pilots.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:32 am

bikerthai wrote:
keesje wrote:
On this site, combined roles for this kind of aircraft (tanker / transport / strategic, tactical, A400M) were consequently put away as useless compromises,
426Shadow wrote:
Just because we haven't made everything in our military a "one size fits all" doesn't mean we haven't been trying.


The US military did try the everything fit all approach. Recall the F-4 Phantoms. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. They have learned that you do not put all your eggs in one basket because when the shooting starts and you find that your your one design have some shortfalls, then you need to adjust you tactics. In the mean time, you loose pilots.

bt


Re-Read what I wrote.
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2539
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:32 pm

Shadow,

:bigthumbsup: Understood the first time. Just re-iterating your statement.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:38 am

bikerthai wrote:
Shadow,

:bigthumbsup: Understood the first time. Just re-iterating your statement.

bt


:highfive:
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:33 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
C17 is out of production because their primary customer, USAF, has all they need going forward, and in fact Congress bought the USAF more than they requested.


Totally unthinkable in Europe, but that's another story.

Anyway LM, Boeing, NG and the others didn't develop anything new over the last 30 years. While requirements changed dramatically. I'm pretty sure that if one of them had developed something with the capabilities of a 40t big cabin tactical transport, an assembly line would be humming in Marietta, Seattle or Long Beech. Apparently internal / political cash cow / job security mechanisms prevented that from happening.

Image


No matter how hard you try, Keeje, the USAF ain't buying the A400M Obsolete-Lifter to fulfill a requirement that is CLEARLY BEYOND the A400M's limited capability.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:57 pm

neutronstar73 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
C17 is out of production because their primary customer, USAF, has all they need going forward, and in fact Congress bought the USAF more than they requested.


Totally unthinkable in Europe, but that's another story.

Anyway LM, Boeing, NG and the others didn't develop anything new over the last 30 years. While requirements changed dramatically. I'm pretty sure that if one of them had developed something with the capabilities of a 40t big cabin tactical transport, an assembly line would be humming in Marietta, Seattle or Long Beech. Apparently internal / political cash cow / job security mechanisms prevented that from happening.

Image


No matter how hard you try, Keeje, the USAF ain't buying the A400M Obsolete-Lifter to fulfill a requirement that is CLEARLY BEYOND the A400M's limited capability.


? Why should I care ? If they determine the C130 is the best, keep buying them !
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11062
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: U.S. Air Force Begins Drafting Specs For Next Air Refueler, Airlifter

Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:26 pm

Designing an airplane that can haul big oversized military vehicles is the easy and cheap part. Adding stealth, unprepared field, and other capabilities is what costs billions.

Stealth is great, for the first few days of the war. After enemy radars and fighter support are defeated, you don't need it.

Unprepared runway capability is an Army requirement, once airfields are established you don't really need that capability.

If the FEBA is constantly moving, the Army already has the vehicle support it needs to move along with the front. The logistic lines keep getting longer but there is no time to plow out a resupply runway somewhere. Replacement vehicles, parts, food, water, and fuel will need protected lines as the FEBA moves forward to the point the politicians say STOP.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buml and 7 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