It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

KC-X, KC-Y, KC-Z

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
The footprint of the aircraft has a lot to do with it as well though. It's required to get into something like 1000 bases that KC-135s can't operate from. As long as the Airbus can do it, buy them. I just want SOMETHING to be bought, to get the -135s out of service already. I'll be sad to see them go, but for god's sake just get SOMETHING in the works.




posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The footprint of the aircraft has a lot to do with it as well though. It's required to get into something like 1000 bases that KC-135s can't operate from. As long as the Airbus can do it, buy them. I just want SOMETHING to be bought, to get the -135s out of service already. I'll be sad to see them go, but for god's sake just get SOMETHING in the works.
The KC-135 was a good platform. Kind of old, but reliable fly by "wire" (looks like thick piano wire)!



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
It's been an awesome platform and performed WELL beyond what it was designed for. My big problem is that the YOUNGEST of them is older than most of the flight crews that are starting to fly them now. We used to have one go through that was built in 1958. They finally retired it a few years ago.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's been an awesome platform and performed WELL beyond what it was designed for. My big problem is that the YOUNGEST of them is older than most of the flight crews that are starting to fly them now. We used to have one go through that was built in 1958. They finally retired it a few years ago.
I only flew the KC-135A/Q models from 75 to 96. I would not know what to do with the extra power of R models. I was just a little older than all the models.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Before they restricted them, we would send an R model out with 210,000lbs of fuel onboard, with plans to offload half of that into 6 fighters, and take them most of the way to the east coast from Hawaii.

We had an A model taking off one day that lost water on take off. He wound up on the mountain side of the Ala Wai canal, looking UP at the highrises on the other side of the canal.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Zaph or beachnut, I have a question about refueling if you don't mind answering.

When I hear tanker communications on my scanner here in Missouri, most of the time the altitude is around 20,000 feet. Why do they refuel at that altitude? Is it a smoother ride or is it more to do with interfering with commercial traffic?



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
My understanding was that it keeps them under the jetways, and out of the way. ATC blocks off about 3000 feet of airspace that's "theirs" to use. The receiver enters 1000ft under the tanker, and exits 1000ft over the tanker.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Zaph or beachnut, I have a question about refueling if you don't mind answering.

When I hear tanker communications on my scanner here in Missouri, most of the time the altitude is around 20,000 feet. Why do they refuel at that altitude? Is it a smoother ride or is it more to do with interfering with commercial traffic?
He is right, you want 1000 feet below for the receiver to come in and 1000 feet above to go if the receiver or tanker want to get away from each other.

It depends on the receiver. FL210 through FL270 were typical. Some aircraft like lower altitudes. You may refuel an F-4s FL260 and then descend to 18,000 to 20,000 feet to do a C-130. Each aircraft had speed ranges also.

If there are multiple tankers, they are staggered at 500 feet when in formation.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Before they restricted them, we would send an R model out with 210,000lbs of fuel onboard, with plans to offload half of that into 6 fighters, and take them most of the way to the east coast from Hawaii.

We had an A model taking off one day that lost water on take off. He wound up on the mountain side of the Ala Wai canal, looking UP at the highrises on the other side of the canal.
In an a model long flight would only have fuel for 1 F-4. The Rs engines make a big difference, so will a new tanker. And you need booms, a lot of booms are needed, not just a lot of fuel in the air. So a good medium size tanker will be great.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Lemay would be rolling over in his grave lately. I've seen F-16s sitting for weeks waiting for tanker support, and they are SELLING tankers to other countries. I just wish they'd get off their butt and buy ONE of them, and get something in the pipeline already.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
heres one for you - why does the USAF use a boom , whilst most other countries (inc the USN and USMC) use drogue/hose?



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
That's an easy one.
The refueling boom allows them to refuel faster than a hose and drogue system. When you're talking B-52 sized aircraft that are taking on thousands of pounds of fuel, you don't want to be there all day burning off most of the fuel you just put in. Which was also the biggest problem with the KC-97. The B-47 would have to come down so low to refuel from them that by the time it got back up to cruising altitude it had burned off up to 50% of the fuel it just took on.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   
hmmmmm - the new airbus tanker has a fuel flow rate of nearly 1000 gallons per minute via the hose - which is on the money for the KC-135 witth a boom ; tech doesn`t stand still



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
hmmmmm - the new airbus tanker has a fuel flow rate of nearly 1000 gallons per minute via the hose - which is on the money for the KC-135 witth a boom ; tech doesn`t stand still
The USN legacy fighters take does not do 6000 pounds/minute (more like 1000 pounds). The boom is higher offload on legacy systems. Many fighters can only handle one or two pumps, 1000 to 2000 POUNDS of fuel a minute. The boom is latched in place and in emergencies can be held in place, and off load over 70,000 pounds of fuel in 20 minutes. Your latching system would be the limit for offloading at increased pressures. When a receiver is taking fuel on the boom and his offload rate goes down, you must reduce the pumps or you can pressure him off.

The receiver's tanks and plumbing dictate his fastest on load. If the new hose system can offload 6000 pounds a minute, that is too fast for most of the legacy USN fighters I know of, but a new system would be interesting.

Where are the specs for the new tankers? Interesting stuff.

For the KC-30
But the rates are really 8000 lbs/min for boom, 2400 lbs/min for drogue, and 4000 lb/min for the center hose. Fuel weighs about 6.7 lbs/gallon.

www.northropgrumman.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
We had a -135 have to hook onto an F-16 and literally drag him into Hickam on one trip. He was losing fuel as fast as they were putting it into him. They locked the boom in place and kept pumping it and sent the rest of the group ahead. They met up with one of our EC-135s in case any of them had any issues with fuel, while the -135 dragged the wounded bird in.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Great little video from youtube of when "Tankers Go Bad"



Thanks to woracle for the compilation.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Here is the latest rumours spreading around about how far along the decision is and when to expect the announcement. It all sounds reasonable to me and I look forward to Friday and hope that the purchase and production of the winner isn't hampered by the complaining of the loser.


Friday's the big day, it seems. An insider tells me the decision has been made, but that the memorandum is making its way around the Pentagon to get all the signatures it needs.

Our boy Steve Trimble reports that Northrop Grumman shares went up slightly today while Boeing shares went down (NorGrum is partnered with EADS/Airbus against Boeing).

www.defensetech.org...


WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force's top weapons buyer said on Wednesday her best bet was that the winner of a potential $40 billion refueling aircraft contract would be announced after U.S. markets close on Friday.

"That's my best bet for now," Sue Payton, assistant secretary for acquisition, told Reuters after a hearing of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on the Air Force 2009 budget request.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
and now it gets better:


AeroNews: Washington Guv Raises Possibility Of Legal Action If KC-X Doesn't Go To Boeing

At this writing, Boeing hasn't lost the US Air Force's KC-X contract to provide the service with new tankers just yet -- and many analysts feel a Boeing win over a team comprised of EADS and Northrop Grumman is all-but assured. But that didn't stop the governor of Washington from threatening a possible legal protest if Boeing is denied the contract.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday after a meeting with the state's congressional delegation, Gov. Chris Gregoire said the state could file a congressional inquiry or take another course of action if Boeing isn't awarded the KC-X deal.

A decision from the Air Force was originally said to be coming as soon as Wednesday evening... though officials said Wednesday afternoon not to expect an annoucement until Friday, at the earliest.

Gregoire then stressed she still believes Boeing will come out on top, reports The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I'm banking on us getting it," she said. "I just think we win if it's done absolutely without politics, based on experience, work force, all of that. So I'm feeling good about this.

"If we don't win, then I think there'll be a lot of questions asked about why in the world would Boeing, with that work force, that expertise, that experience, that history -- how could they not have gotten this?" Gregoire then added, muddying the waters somewhat. "My sense is there'll be a lot of questions raised and then we'll get into the protest.".........


why buy the best when you get sued to only buy boeing.....



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Hence the money set aside to deal with this sort of BS. I really have got to say that the government and special interest group that are created for this stuff can do more harm then good at time to the defense industry.

And as of 4:11 today still no news on the KC-X proposal. Sigh
we all wait.

Not a good sign in my opinion.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
i reckon it`ll be after the markets close - so another hour



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join