USAF Tanker rebid 3rd try...

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I think you guys are kinda over complicating the programs a little.

KC-X is just to replaces the first 175 KC-135 Tanker, with a much more capable medium size tanker. The Air Force will determine if a new platform type is warranted, or whether to continue with the current production aircraft of the KC-X for the KC-Y.

KC-Y will replace more of the aging tankers either based on the KC-X winner or a new yet to be determined aircraft.

KC-Z is supposed to replace the KC-10, but if the one plane they have can do the job of the KC-10, then they may just save the money and keep just one plane instead of 2 airframes.

But the way Congress has been cutting funding ie. the 183 F-22's down from 360+ that was wanted, or the 190 C-17's wanted to replace all the critical C-141's down from the 230+, to know wanting to replace all 481 KC-135's and 59 KC-10's. In the end the USAF may only end up with only 260 to 300+ tankers.

If Northrup gets it, then there is a 75% chance that they will get the KC-Y contract, if it is as efficient as it is supposed to be, then it would make since to have more A330MRT, that every 2 would do the job of 3 KC-135's or KC-767's. And at that point price would go down, and you now get to save money to put towards the KC-Z.

[C]

Exactly. My thinking is that it would be prudent to have the A330 fulfil KC-X, negating the need for a Y and Z competition altogether, but maybe rather an extension to the numbers at a later date.

It'd make life easier for the USN and USMC, as they'd tank behind an A330 whether they were using US tankers or RAF...

[Ivan]

But Boeing keeps saying "if they wanted a bigger plane we could have given them the 777."

I suspect Boeing were a little complacent - they offered the 767 as it's the platform they chose to continue their 707 based platforms (JASDF AWAC, Italian and JASDF tanker etc) for other users after the delivery of the last "707s" to the RAF in 1990 ...

Dunno what the problm of the USAF is with that 767 variant... it's already proven to work (see above). the 'mission survivability' tale is not something i believe in... why at all risk your tanker / awacs.
And given the overall fear for anything foreign at the usaf... i think the final order will go to boeing

Probably very little - but compared up against the A330MRTT it obviously comes up short in a few areas. Not to mention that the A330 has a stonking fuel capacity (over 100tons) even compared to the "advanced" 767 tanker (90tons) without compromising cabin anf freight space - and in tanking, getting fuel available in the air is what counts.

If fuel is what counts they can always open that drawer with those 747 tanker sketches...
http://www.ausairpower.net/kb-747-1A.jpg

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

If fuel is what counts they can always open that drawer with those 747 tanker sketches...
http://www.ausairpower.net/kb-747-1A.jpg

That or the 777 would be perfect for the KC-Z program. Have 300 or so A330 MRT's and and about 40 or so 747/777 Tankers. Now the USAF would have a fleet of tanker that can fly a min of 7,000-miles and carry at least 245,000lbs of fuel and be able to lift over 200,000lbs of cargo or supplies if needed to, while still being able to refuel 3 NAVY or Coalition planes at the same time. Or ferry over an F-22 Squadron with all the maintainers and supplies with one plane in one go.

[C]

, while still being able to refuel 3 NAVY or Coalition planes at the same time.

Can't do three at a time. It's fundamentally unsafe, I suspect however large the tanker.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Actually the KC-10 was supposed to do 3 at a time, but was never practiced because like you said not really safe.

But in the New competition, that has been one of the things they have been testing. After all you can't be hanging over a hot zone wit 3 thirsty Typhoons, and expect them to wait when they can do it if pressed for time. Granted it is not something they will do 100% of the time, but they want that ability to do so given the size of the fighter it would be doing.

[C]

Actually the KC-10 was supposed to do 3 at a time, but was never practiced because like you said not really safe.

But in the New competition, that has been one of the things they have been testing. After all you can't be hanging over a hot zone wit 3 thirsty Typhoons, and expect them to wait when they can do it if pressed for time.

That all comes down to the missiona and tanker planners doing their planning. Either way, I'm fairly certain any fighter jock would prefer to be waiting on the wing than be on a centreline hose with fighters either side (admittedly there have been photos of aircraft in such positions, but you'll never see them in contact) - it would just become too busy, too confusing and overall not very safe (particularly with various nations aircraft who will often "do their own thing" and be quite unpredictable - the RAF boys will tend to do it pretty much verbatim by the NATO book - the USN for example often "just do it" - which isn't always the best thing and can lead to quite an unpredictable situation).

[Ivan]

I've seen pictures of 2 fighters together on a 707 tanker with wing pods, and the VC-10 can do it too...

Not enough space for 3 at the same time i think, unless you can push the hoses down to a lower level.

And its always funy to see 747s refuelling on a KC-135 that almost fits twice in the length

[C]

I've seen pictures of 2 fighters together on a 707 tanker with wing pods, and the VC-10 can do it too...

And it's safe. The problem with a third on the centreline, most obviously as you pointed out is space - both physically, and for the matter of safety - where does everyone go in the event of a problem? The middle man would have very few options - he can't immediately go left or right, can't go up, so would be very limited in his escape options.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I'm not saying they could do it all the time, but with the larger wing space of the A330, and the potions of the hoses on the wing, the 2 air craft on the wing will be closer to the plane it self, while the #2 hose coming out the body sits way further back, it would put the middle plane aways from both the tanker and the other 2 planes making it safer to do. Much like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 750pix.jpg
So with the newer larger plane it makes it safer then before, if they need to do it.

[C]

Thee other thing to consider is most fighters operate in pairs or fourships anyway.

[Ivan]

I'm not saying they could do it all the time, but with the larger wing space of the A330, and the potions of the hoses on the wing, the 2 air craft on the wing will be closer to the plane it self, while the #2 hose coming out the body sits way further back, it would put the middle plane aways from both the tanker and the other 2 planes making it safer to do. Much like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 750pix.jpg
So with the newer larger plane it makes it safer then before, if they need to do it.

KB-50 nostalgia...

Relative positioning is better on that one, but straight wings arent done anymore on jetliners. But A330 with the pods on the extreme end of the wings might be able to take 3 at a time

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

If the 141ft wing span KB-50 can do it, there is no reason the 197ft KC-45 can't do. Like I said they tested to see if it could be done safely now, which it can. And this gives them an extra option over a battle field if they ever need to utilize it. And another thing to consider, is that todays fighters are fly by wire as well as the tanker they will be getting it from, so the plane will keep in place with minimal pilot input.

Oh and as far as flying in pairs or in groups of 4, I know what you mean as I have always seen this done, but lately I have been seeing them fly and train in threes as of late and I don't know why, even today 3 F-18's and 3 F-5/T-38's.

In short they just want options, like the C-17 is capable of air refueling: NAVY Planes, Helicopters, and Coalition fighters, but this option has yet to be exercised. But if they wanted to, they would have to send the plane to DEPOT, and have the wing pods installed on the outer wings, as the hard wear for it is built in.

[C]

If the 141ft wing span KB-50 can do it, there is no reason the 197ft KC-45 can't do. Like I said they tested to see if it could be done safely now, which it can. And this gives them an extra option over a battle field if they ever need to utilize it. And another thing to consider, is that todays fighters are fly by wire as well as the tanker they will be getting it from, so the plane will keep in place with minimal pilot input.

Yes is CAN be done. The 146ft span VC10 could do it, the KC135 could do it, and I'm sure the KC-10 could do it, BUT it is unsafe, unless you introduced new procedures which would ultimately annihilate the flexibility of the tanker - and as I previously said, you can't predict exactly what your receivers are going to do, attached to hoses which flex both vertically and laterally, particularly in the dark, with very very few lights, over a war zone.

For the majority of the USAF is's irrelevant anyway, as they are confined to the inflexible boom.