USAF Tanker Replacements

[RubiconNZ]

Reading a recent release, (USAF Tanker Request Opens Wide Range of Possibilities) By MICHAEL FABEY and WILLIAM MATTHEWS

the USAF is looking for up to 500-600 Aircraft to replace its tankers, can anyone tell me why that much I mean that would be one refueller for every 5-6 planes basically, hey I mean that capability is good but I don't know much about Mid Air Refuelling so...

Also will the 767 not be a sure thing, with the C117 line closing etc, also I mean as if the will give 500 aircraft order to Airbus. Guide me if Im wrong. What would the in service date I mean if it was say the same as globemasters then the earlier tankers would be nearly be at mid life when the last ones were delivered.

 

[Magoo]

Reading a recent release, (USAF Tanker Request Opens Wide Range of Possibilities) By MICHAEL FABEY and WILLIAM MATTHEWS

the USAF is looking for up to 500-600 Aircraft to replace its tankers, can anyone tell me why that much I mean that would be one refueller for every 5-6 planes basically, hey I mean that capability is good but I don't know much about Mid Air Refuelling so...

Also will the 767 not be a sure thing, with the C117 line closing etc, also I mean as if the will give 500 aircraft order to Airbus. Guide me if Im wrong. What would the in service date I mean if it was say the same as globemasters then the earlier tankers would be nearly be at mid life when the last ones were delivered.

So, what do you mean?

Seriously, there are more options than just the KC-767, although I suspect it is at the head of them list as it is the lowest risk proposition, at least for the first 100 aircraft anyway. RAND has also proposed that the 777, 787, 747 and KC-30 (A330) also be considered.

I think you'll find that, rather than requiring 500-600 new aircraft, the requirement is to replace 500-600 aircraft which the USAF currently has. I think there's about 520 KC-135s and 70-odd KC-10s in service. These will not be replaced on a one-for-one basis, as the new aircraft will likely be much more reliable and hence have better availability than the 42+ year old KC-135s, plus they will be more capable in terms of range and, if the 777 or KC-30 are selected, offload capacity.

I think the final number will be somewhere less than 400 over the next 20 years.

Magoo

 

[RubiconNZ]

Oh right

Well that makes a bit more sense in terms of numbers. If they got the 787's they sure would have the best looking fleet of Mid Air Refuellers.

 

[Big-E]

600 full size tankers? You sure that doesn't include buddy tankers?

 

[rjmaz1]

Best option would be a C-17ER.

Halve the cargo capacity but carry 50% more internal fuel.

Considering when deployed to iraq the C-17's usually carry only half their maximum cargo weight. This extra weight could be used to carry extra fuel to reduce the inflight refueling needs as well as giving it the ability to be used as a fuel tanker when equiped with a refueling boom at the back.

Its a win win situation.

1) It would increase the cargo hauling capacity of the airforce
2) Reduce the need for inflight refueling when used as a transporter
3) Increase the inflight refueling fleet when used as a refueler
4) It would keep the C-17 line open

 

[RubiconNZ]

C117er

Thats sounds like a good idea, a mix of the 767's and some of those I mean the Airforce wants c117's, i cant believe they capped the line at 180, at least another 20-40 would of covered the C141 loss, this would provide a excellent dual capability.

 

[WaterBoy]

The point of utilizing existing airliners as tankers is their availability & cost efficiency, both initially per unit cost, & over the projected operational life of the aircraft as the USAF accesses the larger pool of commercial logistics available for the aircraft type.

The KC767 is a cost effective option for the USAF as the development work has already been completed, & the aircraft is in service with other airforces. Additionally, the Boeing production line is capable of providing the airframes almost immediately, as commercial orders for B767’s dwindle. This is not the case for the B777, which has a 4 year lead time(backlog), & the B787, which is still a paper plane & 400+ orders already.

IMHO the C-17ER as a tanker wouldn’t be cost effective. Per unit cost, the C-17 would be more expensive, both up front & over the airframe life (Smaller production numbers, 4 vs. 2 engines etc). Additionally no development work for fitting refueling hardware & associated plumbing has been funded so this would be an additional cost. The placement of a boom type refueling probe could also inhibit the freight capabilities of the aircraft, particularly IIRC that the boom & associated plumbing weigh around a ton.

Don’t forget that those very same points raised apply equally to a KC767, that is, these aircraft will in addition to being tankers, can carry significant amounts freight, albeit palletized, on the main deck, or troops when configured.

Finally both the tanker & transport tend to be in constant demand during high tempo operations, such as Iraq. As phenomenal an aircraft as the C-17 is it can’t be in two places at once!

Regards,

WaterBoy

 

[Scorpius]

Isn't Europe developing some tanker as well?

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Isn't Europe developing some tanker as well?

The UK Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) will provide aerial refueling (AR) and Air Transport (AT) for the Royal Air Force using a version of the Airbus A330 MRTT.

The FSTA will be a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) where the RAF will pay for aerial refueling and air transport missions as required. The RAF will continue to retain responsibility for all military missions, whilst the contractor will own, manage and maintain the aircraft and also provide training facilities and some personnel. The private company will also be able to earn extra revenue by using aircraft for commercial operations when not required by the RAF - the most suitable of which would be leased air-refueling missions for other European air forces. The RAF however will always have the "first call" on aircraft, being able to mobilise the entire fleet in times of crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Strategic_Tanker_Aircraft

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/


In the US it is likely that several types of tanker will be selected. The favourite is the 777, followed by another smaller aircraft such as the 787.

It is very unlikely that new 767 aircraft will be built, but second hand aircraft could be converted as an interim solution until USAF can get a build slot for 777 & 787 aircraft.

Chris

 

[Giblets46]

As i understand it, the USAF has included a requirement to be able to use the tankers as transport aircraft or passenger aircraft too, which should benefit the A-330 (KC-30), as it does not require extra fuel tanks to be installed (unlike the 767). In tanker config the 767 only had hold space for 3 pallets in the hold.
Interesting that there is much talk about using the 777 after spending so long telling everyone the 330 was too big though!
Good to see the next generation are due to have hose and drogue wing pods too. Will allow them to fuel USAF and USN in the same mission.

In terms of tanker with Cargo capacity (767 or a330) or cargo with tanker facility (C17), i think the lack of a rough field performance/ outsize cargo is not the overiding factor. Most of what they want to tranport can go normal cargo routes. So works out much cheaper to use a 'normal' container transport.

 

[Magoo]

As i understand it, the USAF has included a requirement to be able to use the tankers as transport aircraft or passenger aircraft too, which should benefit the A-330 (KC-30), as it does not require extra fuel tanks to be installed (unlike the 767). In tanker config the 767 only had hold space for 3 pallets in the hold.

In fact, this may count against the A330 because, while the 767 has been certified with a cargo door and main deck cargo floor, the A330 has not. Airbus is likely going to do this in the next few years as its current medium freighter, the the A300, is due to end production mid next year.

Magoo

 

[Giblets46]

Yewh, I think that Airbus do need to work on this, apparently they are outsourcing the work on this a the moment. Though it should be made a little easier with the simularities between it and the A300 (already in use witha cargo door).

With the cargo door in place, this will increase the A330's cargo ability to 65tons (max of 35tons for the KC767), whilst the A330 can already carry 17tons in the hold, along with nearly 300 Passengers.
A KC-767 in Combi role can take 9tons of cargo and 100 passengers.

Out of interest the Hold Cargo door on an A330 is 3*2.4m, compared to a normal fuselage freight door for an Airbus at 3.6*2.6m, and the 767 main cargo door will be 3.4*2.6m

The standard Nato Pallets will fit it all those doors.

 

[LancerMc]

The only way Airbus will win the contract for USAF's replacement of KC-135 is to build KC-330 in the U.S. True it is a more capable aircraft but its not built in the U.S. Politics control procurement plans as large as this one. It that fair to Airbus, NO, but that how it works.

Though Airbus has said they would build the aircraft in the US, so they have gained points for the future. Though the reality is that the KC-135 needs to be replaced soon and quickly, so a mix of Boeing and Airbus products would probably be the best plan to replace the old fleet fast.

 

[Giblets46]

There have been hints that it will be a joint procurement with ideas about advantages if there aree porblems with one type of aeroplane, but hte biggest obstacle is political!

 

[Davyd]

Now i thought i remember hearing a long while back that a primary reason the Air Force was dragging it's feet in getting a new tanker was that they wanted it to have more than two engines. Have they gotten over that or was that just some clouded rumour? I myself did think it made sense, but saw how it was so troublesome to start a new product line since all these new airliners are twin engined (unless they're SUPER-sized).

 

[Giblets46]

I have to admit that i have never heard this rumour, have heard however that the USAF is demanding a physical station for a controller in the rear fuselage, rather than the CCTV version which is fitted to the A330 and I think the KC767

 

[410Cougar]

Just wondering if it would be wise to have a plane that can do the payload/gas duties at the same time as it would be a catastrophe of colossal proportions if something went wrong with it??

That being said, my vote goes with the 767 since it has been certified with a cargo door and main deck cargo floor and the A330 has not.

Although it would be neat to see the eventual C-17's that Canada will buy be able to refuel our Hornets while carrying our troops and equipment at the same time.

 

[Sea Toby]

The problem is that Boeing is considering closing the 767 line unless it gets some tanker orders from the USAF. One hundred or more tankers will keep the line open for several years. Any US administration that buys Airbus over Boeing can write off the state of Washington and its electoral votes. Its just that simple, politics. Of course, it would help Boeing if it offered a stretched 767, matching the capabilities of the Airbus.

Then again, the USAF has many more bases in more communities and states depending on more aircraft to keep them open. More politics. While the British or the Australians buy tankers in 10s, the USAF is looking at purchasing 500 or more.

 

[Giblets46]

The USAF could Conceivable purcahse both models , and this has been mooted, and avoids grounding the entire fleet should something go wrong.
In terms of the Cargo door, I think this is a non issue really, as Airbus already offer the A300 and A310 with this (same Fuselage as the a330), and they are currently working on the cargo door for the A330. Arbus is also going to produce the KC330 (or much of it) in the US, promoting American jobs.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/272475_jetride02.html

In terms of duties, I am not entirely sure if the aircraft would operate in dual mode at the same time. But rather as a mixed mode, on one sortie as a cargo aircraft and another as a refueler, as this gives huge flexibility.
Currently the KC-135 fleet that is being stationed in the middle east is acting in a medical role on its return (37 passengers) and cargo (40tons) going out (it can do it non stop compared to the C-130's etc). As it is not required as much for the refueling role at the moment, this secondary and at the moment, more important role is being utilised, whilst in Combat, the refueling mode was the major requirement.
This is one of the major reasons the USAF has requested this be a major part of its ability ( rather like the F-22 being able to drop bombs now).
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20041217.aspx

As for the C-17, I beleive these have little or nothing in common with the cargo role envisaged for the tanker/transport fleet due to its more combat driven performance/ capabilities.


Edit: Airbus is set to announce the launch of the A330-200 freighter version which will utilise the same cargo door as the a300 freighter. According to flight international, this is set to occur as early as the Farnborough air show.