I hate to do this to you guys but here goes. Did we choose the right refueling plane for activity in the Pacific?
My question really revolves around one number. Max fuel offload after loitering on station. Airbus touts that their airplane will be able to offload 140,000 lbs of fuel at 1000 nmi out with a 2 hr loiter.
A quick Google search this morning didn't reveal what the Boeing product is able to do at that distance and loiter time.
I was originally a HUGE supporter of the KC-46 because I simply looked at the specifications and penalized Airbus because it exceeded program spec and inched into KC-Y territory (in my opinion). I now think that its probably sized perfectly for a force with worldwide responsibilities and looking to an all stealth force.
Looking to the future I don't think a 787 will be large enough (as it is now) to effectively compete for the KC-Y contract. Quite honestly the replacement for the KC-10's might either not be flying or will fall into the size region of the 747 or the A350/A380 short.
I didn't fully consider how (and I'm waiting for the air guys to correct me) flying without fuel tanks will change the way air wars are fought.
Sidenote: Still looking for info on the USAF plan to equip their tankers as ISR platforms. Since the contract award the concept has gone quiet...I haven't heard anything about proposed sensors or desired capabilities.
I too was rooting for Airbus early in the aerial refueling contact (they were going to do some work at a Northrop-Grumman facility in stateside in Alabama(?) if my memory serves me correctly). Don't want Boeing to have ALL the money. But I no longer have a preference just get the Next Generation Tanker into production and rolling off the assembly lines already! Unfortunately, I think sequestration just set that back a bit (hope I'm wrong) it's not like the KC-135's are getting any younger...
ReplyDeleteCouldn't the MRTT also carry more cargo than Boeings KC-46A?
ReplyDeleteIt could also carry more than the KC-10. The competition was for a replacement of the KC-135. The KC-46 make sense as a 135 replacement because it can use the same hangars and runways as the older jet, while the MRTT would have required massive investment in new infrastructure throughout the Air Force and the lengthening of some runways. The MRTT does make sense as a KC-10 replacement, and if the Air Force decides it needs more large tankers in their mix it would make for a good replacement of the "newer" KC-135's.
Deletemy argument or rather question goes to the requirements part. was the thinking that a KC-135 replacement valid considering the obvious (even at that time) turn to the Pacific that was going to have to take place because of the rise of China? should we have been looking for a larger airplane all along?
DeleteEven if we require more large tankers in the MRTT and KC-10 class, it still wouldn't make sense replacing the entire KC-135 fleet with such a large airplane. The Air Force would be wasting money by buying excess capability, IMHO. The vast majority of the tanker fleet is comprised of 135's, with over 400 KC-135's and only about 60 KC-10's. Looking at that number I think it could be argued that there's a greater need for more large tankers, but i don't think that eliminates the need for a lighter tanker that can operate out of smaller runways and facilities. While we may be "pivoting" to Asia, the requirement for air-to-air refueling is not going away in the other areas of the world. Tanking requirements, after all, are global.
DeleteHere's a decent graphic that illustrates the size difference. Unfortunately the KC-10's not on there, but I think it still gets the point across as to how these various aircraft compare just in sheer size.
Deletehttp://catch4all.com/positive/2008/Boeing/KC-X/PUB_KC-X_Options_Comparison_lg.gif
The KC-35A will have a better chance now that there is a stateside complex. a KC-787 would be a nightmare considering the stability issues with the KC-767.
ReplyDeleteA re-engine of the Airbus or the Boeing with the GEnx would be awesome as well. Big fuel savings.
ReplyDeleteOh, on your last point:
ReplyDeleteIf that contract for a tanker ISR package isn't dead yet, then it doesn't surprise me that there's not much info out on it. The Air Force tends to not boast about its intelligence collection capabilities in great detail, for good reason too.
In order to get Tankers in the air, the KC-46 (KC-767) is the better choice as it is a more direct replacement for the KC-135 family. Less infrastructure change needed and the assembly line and expertise are already in place. In the future, the AF might need to replace all the C-135 and C-137 reconnaissance, AWACS and EW derivatives and the KC-46 would be a better fit for that mission. The KC-787 is a non-starter as the airframe for the 787 was optimized for fuel economy and there isn't enough extra robustness in the design to accommodate a military derivative. The KC-10 replacement would be an ideal setting for the KC-45 (MRTT) to shine. By that time the Aussies and the Brits should have all the kinks worked out of the design. A KC-777 derivative could be considered also.
ReplyDeletewell my thinking on this whole thing dealt more with the type of air force we're going to be putting into the air in the near future. more fuel carried might mean more long distance or long duration missions which might mean a bigger need for fuel offload. is it better to fill those planes with fewer tankers or more is waaaay above my head but if we're looking at a smaller air force then every airframe counts. additionally isn't this infrastructure argument a bit overblown? i mean seriously! these tankers are based at air bases that house bombers...they fly into airports that can handle C-17's and A-330 or even the Russian monsters. hangar facilities are that big a deal money wise? they're doing it for the F-35, why not for a bigger tanker if it makes sense?
DeleteI should have been more clear. By infrastructure, I meant more in the area of deployment/forward operating bases. I can't remember the journal, but I remember someone making a comparison of fields that the KC-46 could use. It has a shorter field capability than even some of the KC-135 variants. Something else I have been wondering about is the KC-45's ability to tolerate battle damage. It seems that Airbus flight data controllers are very susceptible to sensor damage (See AF flight 447) although I suppose a military version would have some redundancy. The 767 already has a reputation as being able to function when almost all of its normal flight functions were rendered inoperable. (see Gimli Glider) One of the versions of the 767 has an extremely long range so I don't think mission range would be an issue although I get your concern over the amount of fuel carried in order to service a sortie rate. Hopefully some AF jet-jockey can throw his (or her) 2 cents into the discussion. Maybe the AF can rig-up some cheap, disposable drop tanks that could help with range before aircraft come into the area of needing maximum stealth. Similar to what the USAAF did with the P-51 in WW2.
DeleteAs a KC-135 crew chief who will be getting the KC-46 in a few years, as far as infrastructure, our mission area is enlarging. However our flight line is being completely reorganized and our hangars torn down for room for aircraft movement and enlarged for fitting.
DeleteAs far as knowing the history between the two manufacturers I'll take one boeing jet over 5 or 6 airbus. We have had luftwaffe ,RAF, etc airbus a330 get stuck at our base for what seemed like issue after issue for several weeks.
I just hope the KC-46 continues the 135's tradition of being one of the most reliable aircraft in the airforce.
As a KC-135 crew chief who will be getting the KC-46 in a few years, as far as infrastructure, our mission area is enlarging. However our flight line is being completely reorganized and our hangars torn down for room for aircraft movement and enlarged for fitting.
DeleteAs far as knowing the history between the two manufacturers I'll take one boeing jet over 5 or 6 airbus. We have had luftwaffe ,RAF, etc airbus a330 get stuck at our base for what seemed like issue after issue for several weeks.
I just hope the KC-46 continues the 135's tradition of being one of the most reliable aircraft in the airforce.
The point you guys are missing with the A330 MRTT is in the last paragraph of this info:
ReplyDeleteAustralia's Airbus Military A330 multirole tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft have achieved initial operational capability (IOC), with the type demonstrating an air-to-air refuelling mission on the sidelines of the Avalon show.
The aircraft, designated the KC-30A in Royal Australian Air Force service, refuelled a pair of Boeing F/A-18A Hornets from its wing-mounted hose and drogue refuelling pods. The event was witnessed by journalists travelling in the tanker's cabin.
Australia's air force has taken delivery of all five of its A330 MRTTs. The IOC milestone includes the ability to refuel F/A-18s through the hose and drogue method during daytime and night, as well as carrying a full load of passengers. The type's passenger cabin is identical to that found in Qantas Airways' commercial A330s, although the military aircraft lack an in-flight entertainment system.
One of Australia's MRTTs remains with Airbus Military in Getafe, Spain, where remedial work is being undertaken to resolve issues with the aircraft's aerial boom refuelling system. The service is likely to begin working with the boom at the end of 2013.
The boom will be required for the air-to-air refuelling of types such as the Boeing 737-based Wedgetail airborne early warning and control system aircraft, and Australia's Boeing C-17 strategic transports. In addition, the boom will be required for the air force's future fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters.