Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
UA857 wrote:Any idea why there isn´t a KC-24 (DC-8-54AF), KC-11 (MD-11CF) or A300 MRTT? Surely the DC-8, MD-11 and A300 would serve as good tankers but why McDonnell Douglas and Airbus didn´t consider a DC-8, MD-11 and A300 tanker?
GalaxyFlyer wrote:The DC-8 wasn’t considered because Boeing has the market sewn up. The RAAF and RCAF had bought a couple of KC-137s and other buyers until much later when the Dutch under NATO operated a couple of KC-10s. The market is not that big for a speculative design and test program to be funded.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:I’m not sure how the RAAF and RCAF procured their 707s but they weren’t 135s, aka Boeing 717-100. I’m sure Boring would have, the 707 line stayed in operation until the last AWACS were delivered to NATO.
mxaxai wrote:For the A300,
(a) it's a short haul aircraft, I doubt that it would've offered much improvement over the KC-135, let alone the KC-10 or L1011.
(b) Airbus at the time was a strictly civilian manufacturer. EADS (now Airbus Group) didn't form until the year 2000. Of course the individual companies, e. g. BAe and CASA, had military products and there was international cooperation, e. g. for the Eurofighter or Tornado, but it was far from today's highly integrated Airbus.
LTEN11 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:I’m not sure how the RAAF and RCAF procured their 707s but they weren’t 135s, aka Boeing 717-100. I’m sure Boring would have, the 707 line stayed in operation until the last AWACS were delivered to NATO.
Most of the RAAF 707 tankers were ex QF, plus a couple of ex SV machines.
All four ex Qantas, and identified here on a.net as "Boeing 707-338C (KC)"The IAI installed Flight Refuelling Mk32B AAR system was fitted to four RAAF B707s
SheikhDjibouti wrote:The curiosity for me is the appearance/ disappearance /re-appearance of the refuelling pods at various times. Were they easily de-mountable? If so, why?
UA857 wrote:Anyone know why there isn´t a KC-24 (DC-8-54AF)?
UA857 wrote:Anyone know why the KC-10B (MD-11CF) failed?
GalaxyFlyer wrote:No, under DoD regulations they wouldn’t have been allowed to operate them.
UA857 wrote:Did the US Navy ever consider a KC-24 (DC-8-54F)?
UA857 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:No, under DoD regulations they wouldn’t have been allowed to operate them.
So a US Navy KC-24 would not been allowed to operate?
SheikhDjibouti wrote:The curiosity for me is the appearance/ disappearance /re-appearance of the refuelling pods at various times. Were they easily de-mountable? If so, why?
Or was that just the VIP kit for A20-629?
JerseyFlyer wrote:Going back to the question posed in the opening post, I think the answer is in advances in aircraft design. Older frames could be pax transport OR tankers, whereas the A330 can be pax AND tanker. The A330MRTT has no additional tankage beyond the routine pax version as far as I know, so can be configured for a full pax load AND normal max fuel load for its tanker role at the same time.
Obviously not operated in both roles concurrently, but provides for alternate roles in a highly flexible package.
UA857 wrote:Was the KC-10B ever a proposal?
UA857 wrote:Can the KC-10 land on short runways?
UA857 wrote:Can the KC-10 land on short runways?
Stitch wrote:
Yes.
The KC-10B / KC-11 would not have offered any appreciable MTOW boost over the KC-10A and since the KC-10A was almost fuel-volume limited, anyway, additional MTOW would not have allowed much additional fuel to be carried. And KC-10A's rarely left at MTOW because missions did not call for maximum available fuel load, so again, the minimal extra MTOW offered would not have been used often, if at all.
McD did pitch them to the Dutch, anyway, but they were not interested.
https://www.avgeekery.com/why-wasnt-the ... ed-tanker/
DL757NYC wrote:Speaking of KC-10. How come the military didn’t go for the MD-10 conversion or do it now. The price on that technology has to be cheaper by now. Fed ex has dozens parked in the desert could you refurbish the main hardware. And use them in the KC-10. That conversion was not done so long ago. It would also eliminate the flight engineer I don’t see any near retirement plans for the KC-10 and as far as Tankers go they are relatively young compared to the KC-135
Stitch wrote:UA857 wrote:Was the KC-10B ever a proposal?
Yes.
The KC-10B / KC-11 would not have offered any appreciable MTOW boost over the KC-10A and since the KC-10A was almost fuel-volume limited, anyway, additional MTOW would not have allowed much additional fuel to be carried. And KC-10A's rarely left at MTOW because missions did not call for maximum available fuel load, so again, the minimal extra MTOW offered would not have been used often, if at all.
McD did pitch them to the Dutch, anyway, but they were not interested.
https://www.avgeekery.com/why-wasnt-the ... ed-tanker/
UA857 wrote:Was the KC-10B proposed as a KC-135 replacement?
Stitch wrote:UA857 wrote:Was the KC-10B proposed as a KC-135 replacement?
I can't find any record of it in a quick search.
McD called it the KMD-11 and they pitched to the Dutch Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force looked at second-hand conversions of passenger/freighter MD-11s to KMD-11 as part of their tanker 2000s RFP before choosing the A330MRTT. It was also evidently pitched to the Royal Saudi Air Force in 1997, but looks like the RSAF chose to keep their KC-135s until ordering the A330MRTT in 2008.
Spacepope wrote:I didn't think the Saudis had their own KC-135s. IIRC they have 8 KE-3 tankers, so basically CFM-engined 707s.
Stitch wrote:UA857 wrote:Was the KC-10B proposed as a KC-135 replacement?
I can't find any record of it in a quick search.
McD called it the KMD-11 and they pitched to the Dutch Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force looked at second-hand conversions of passenger/freighter MD-11s to KMD-11 as part of their tanker 2000s RFP before choosing the A330MRTT. It was also evidently pitched to the Royal Saudi Air Force in 1997, but looks like the RSAF chose to keep their KC-135s until ordering the A330MRTT in 2008.
UA857 wrote:My question is, was the KC-10B/KMD-11 ever offered to the USAF as a potential KC-135 replacement?
mxaxai wrote:For the A300,
(a) it's a short haul aircraft, I doubt that it would've offered much improvement over the KC-135, let alone the KC-10 or L1011.
(b) Airbus at the time was a strictly civilian manufacturer. EADS (now Airbus Group) didn't form until the year 2000. Of course the individual companies, e. g. BAe and CASA, had military products and there was international cooperation, e. g. for the Eurofighter or Tornado, but it was far from today's highly integrated Airbus.
kc135topboom wrote:The A-300 doesn't carry half the fuel load of the KC-135
Mortyman wrote:Airbus will now develop the Airbus 380 into tanker ...
Mortyman wrote:Airbus will now develop the Airbus 380 into tanker ...