It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(Source: US Air Force; issued March 3, 2006)
WASHINGTON --- The Air Force wants a new refueler aircraft, something commercially available now, which can be modified to replace the existing KC-135 Stratotanker fleet.
That testimony came from Air Force leaders associated with the tanker replacement program, Feb. 28 in front of the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on projection forces.
Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the military deputy for Air Force acquisition, told congressional members that his first choice would be to replace the service's fleet of aging KC-135s with a new airplane. "It should be a new aircraft, a commercial derivative, and I think we ought to buy one kind," he said. "The first 100 (should) all look the same."
Originally posted by carcharodon[/I]
The Air Force wants a new refueler aircraft, something to replace the existing KC-135 Stratotanker fleet. Lt. Gen. Hoffman said, "It should be a new aircraft, a commercial derivative . . we ought to buy one kind "The first 100 should all look the same." General Hoffman said the Air Force can afford to convert about 15 aircraft a year to the R model. At that rate, the Air Force would be modernizing those aircraft for some 40 years. At the end of that cycle, some of the aircraft coming out of the modernization process would be nearly 80 years old.
As the aircraft get older, the Air Force discovers more things wrong with the aircraft. That decreases the projected lifespan of the "Eisenhower-era" tankers, many of which were built in the late 1950s to early 1960s. The Air Force would also like to offer both boom and drogue refueling capability with its primary tanker fleet, something the KC-135 can not now do. [Edited by Don W]
I was under the impression the USAF was moving to the tanker version of the wide body, 3 engine DC10, (now MD10) the KC10. Apparently not. Do we still use the KC10?
Originally posted by soulforge[/I]
The US Air Force has 59 KC-10 Extenders, but over 400 KC-135s; many are near the end of service life. I'm curious why we don't simply buy more KC-10s, instead of starting a new competition for a new refueler? [Edited by Don W]
posted by Zaphod58
Yeah old thread, oh well.
We're not buying KC-10s because the DC-10 is no longer in production. Boeing is still producing parts for the KC-135 because of the sheer number in the USAF. The MGTW for a KC-10 is 590,000 pounds, with 342,000 as fuel. With cargo, it has a 4,400 NM range, without cargo 11.500 NM range. [Edited by Don W]
Going with the 767-400 as the replacement, we get an MGTW of 450,000 pounds and a range of 5,645 NM. The fuel load and range will be increased in a KC version . . we're not losing much by going with a new plane we're getting a more reliable plane, with improved performance, and a longer "shelf life" ahead of it. It's a good idea to replace the KC-10 AND KC-135 fleets with either the KC-767 or the Airbus tanker.
Do I expect a "fair" race? No, but Boeing took a pretty good hit with the scandal over the KC-767, so that may hurt the program. It's pretty bad when they develop the plane for the USAF and the first delivery is for a foreign military with no sign of the USAF ever getting them. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Waynos
The A330 pretty much ended commercial sales of the 767 due to its greater efficacy .
“ . . does this have any relevance to the USAF tanker choice? Obviously Airbus will think it should but it wont, the USAF is not an airline and doesn't have to worry about such things. The A330 has greater range and [load] capacity though but realistically the only way I see it in service with the USAF is if a MAJOR flaw was found with the 767 (which there wont be of course, it is a perfectly sound airplane) and even then Airbus would have to be tied in with someone else, i.e. 'Lockheed KC-330' or whatever. I would bet my house on Boeing winning this contract. [Edited by Don W]
I didn’t know that! I ride Delta almost exclusively - twice on a USAir trip I rode an Airbus product - and I’m thinking Delta is firmly committed to Boeing.
So who cares is Airbus isn’t headquarter in Seattle?
posted by waynos
“ . . our own BA is a committed Boeing fan, however the arrival of the A330 saw 767 sales drop off quite sharply which is why Boeing started on the path to the 787. Boeing had to address the issue of future sales and appears to have done so much more cleverly than Airbus did with its A350 . . the [US] govt would be loathe to risk losing votes because it gave a big contract 'to the French' over 'good ole all-American Boeing.' [Edited by Don W]
"In a record-breaking airlift, the Israeli Air Force, aided by El Al, brought 14,000 Ethiopian Jews from Addis Ababa to Israel - 1,200 of them in one 747 - within 33h just days before the capital fell to rebel troops."
"Some of the flights were performed by a specially configured El Al 747, carrying 1,200 passengers. The top-secret Operation Solomon began on 24 May when an air force C-130 Hercules brought the first group of high-ranking Israeli officers and experts to Addis Ababa International Airport. The airlift was completed a few hours before the first rebel units reached the airport area."
"The group, head by deputy chief of staff Gen Amnon Shahak, set up a command post in the airport while Israeli special forces and paratroops secured the runway and airfield perimiter. An Israeli mobile air traffic control unit performed advisory control, parallel to that given by the airport's tower."
"By noon on 24 May preparations were complete and the green light was given for the first aircraft to land. In the next 24h 18 air force C-130s and eight Boeing 707s aided by nine El Al aircraft - three 747s, four 767s and two 757s - flew 14,000 Jews from Addis Ababa to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport. All El Al aircraft had their logos covered."
posted by Zaphod58
The 787 and A350 are medium range transports that will carry about 300 people . . the A380 and 747-8 are the 500 plus birds . . the 777 engine is rated at 100,000 lbs or more of thrust, it's a pretty small engine. A huge portion of power comes from the fan section. You can keep them limited to a set RPM and get the same effect based on the fan section size, number of blades, number or turbines, etc. [Edited by Don W]
It was an El Al 747 that holds the record. It was 1087 people in one flight.
"In a record-breaking airlift, the Israeli Air Force, aided by El Al, brought 14,000 Ethiopian Jews from Addis Ababa to Israel - 1,200 of them in one 747 - Some of the flights were performed by a specially configured El Al 747, carrying 1,200 passengers . The actual figure was 1087 though, not 1200. [Edited by Don W]
posted by Zaphod58
The OFFICIAL MGTW is 875,000lbs. But I've launched an E-4 at 880,000 before . . Jet engines aren't really regulated to a certain RPM though. Some engines will run at a higher RPM than others. It's all controlled by the throttle settings in the cockpit. There is a bench jet engine that is capable of 10,000 RPM, but actual jet engines can run at 54,000 RPM or around there. [Edited by Don W]