The Tanker Joke - round... 4, I think?

[Webmaster]

Niels, do I just go to Milavia to get the specs on the contenders, and the specs on the KC-10?

No, I haven't done the tankers, as apart from the refueling they are kinda boring aircraft. I have been gathering info on the history of IFR, but never got to writing something. Plus there's already some good out there:

For KC-10 specific: http://www.kc-10.net/
For factsheets on all heavies: http://www.theaviationzone.com/main/facts.asp

And last time I posted the news that Airbus had won, doing so by watching live coverage of the press announcement and writing my own story. Took a few good hours, only to see the decision being reversed several months later. Since then, I haven't bothered to report on this anymore, apart from here on the forum.

Seems to me the new planes might barely exceed the capabilities of the KC-10, with maybe just their own fuel economy being better

You're probably right, although iirc both boom 'flowrates' are higher? And yeah fuel economy.

But KC-X is for replacement of the KC-135E/R/T. There will be a KC-Y competition for the KC-10 replacement. Likely it will be the same plane as the one that gets the KC-X. KC-X is dual role, and at least for the A330 this means it will do all its tanking from its own wingtanks. I could imagine a fuel tank being fitted in the cargo hold to the same aircraft for KC-Y, thus making it better than the KC-10.   

Still, I'd recommend the USAF to get some 'desert' DC-10s and convert them to 'stop-gap' tankers.

[shawn a]

Yeah, I looked at a few sites last night, and the KC-10 seems to carry more offloadable fuel than even a 777 tanker would.
Offload rate for the-10 was put at 1100 gals. ger minute from the boom, and 470  gpm for the hose. Offload capacities were stated as much as 356,000 lbs! (can that be right?) a different site claimed 235,000 lbs at a range of 1500 nm.
I think the USAF specified 1200 gpm from the new boom.
The receiving aircraft must have certain limits on their intake rate.
The USAF chose the -330 once, but many blogs decried the choice based on ramp space considerations, booms over the battle, aircraft weight, length of available forward-base runways, and a few other things.
Makes no sense to me to choose the same tanker twice for the KC-X, and the KC-Y.
If the USAF decides to retire the C-5, then we'll need tankers with a lot of capacity to refuel C-17s on their way to overseas destinations.
Just let's make the damn decision, and start producing them!! Whatever the choice!

[Webmaster]

365,000 lb is the number on the airforce's fact sheet for max fuel load, so unless you want to offload it on the ground without running the engines, offload capability is not that, LOL.

There's also a small lobby going for a split buy, seems they've considered the idea without ever thinking about costs?

[shawn a]

Yes, that figure (365,000 lbs.) seemed too good to be true. I like the idea of a split buy. Screw the cost (after all, I'm paying) and get the best, most capable equipment for defense until true peace breaks out! Then we can turn 'em back into airliners or freighters.
Shawn A.

[Webmaster]

Oh don't get me wrong, I love the idea as well. It's just not gonna happen. 

[shawn a]

There must be a nitrous oxide leak at my house, because I'm laughing uncontrollably, and it can't possibly be because of these two ads!

[Webmaster]

The magazines are really the ones that benefit from this the most with all those fullpage ads. I'm sure they're loving it.

[Webmaster]

Was browsing through 'auto-approved ads' which Google serves on my site and I noticed "AllAmericanTanker" ads (Boeing). LOL, so looks like I also profitted (if anyone clicked them).

[shawn a]

So the joke never stops!
I'm getting really buffed out abs from all the laughter!
EADS is now bidding again, and the pentagon has put off the deadline for bids to accommodate them. another 60 days, to approximately July 10th!
How many other countries are laughing and learning over this idiocy?
What if the iranians and the chinese bid? will we extend the deadline?
Let's get this moronic (expletive deleted) over with and start producing a tanker!!
Shawn A

[Webmaster]

The Pentagon wants EADS to bid, otherwise Boeing will rip you off. Okok, it's the law, blabla.

So yes, it wouldn't be an issue in many countries. Because either they don't buy foreign if they have their own industry, or anything the air force wants gets ordered, or the terms/financing is so bad they are happy to have one option.

I don't know about learning and laughing...  none are in a position to really do...

Learning... France maybe, how to hold a mock competition and select local product eventually without being called protectionist? They can't be laughing, at least not publicly, they fly Boeings but support Airbus, argh.

Laughing... Russia/China may be laughing with their competing factories (but all owned by the state, so it doesn't matter who wins), but they must be watching in envy, as they would want these aircraft.

Learning... UK... learning that they soon may need more full-time tankers, instead of lease, as the USAF won't be there to fuel them. That's no laughing matter.

Laughing... Iran... with their 707 and 747 tankers and parts under embargo, but supplied for the civil fleet? I guess they could be laughing at the fears over embargo. But even without tankers, the USAF is still no laughing matter, and there are plenty of bases around. USN will probably do, and they've got Boeing tankers in the form of SHornets.

Maybe Chavez is laughing, he loves to make fun of America. But FAV won't be laughing as they'll soon have to do it with Il-78s.

What if the iranians and the chinese bid? will we extend the deadline?

Bid with what? LOL. No, one bid = bad, two bids = fine and all you need.




I guess Americans want Boeing tankers. All this "best for the Warfighter" can be ignored, when do they ever get what they want? They'll learn to love it and never look back. Who cares if allies have better tankers, fighters/bombers win the war. It's like those An-124s being hired to carry the BlackHawks and Apaches to the fight, who cares as long as those choppers can be put into the fight.

And while Boeing is producing those tankers, Airbus will take-over the US cargo market... probably with planes produced in France, rather than Alabama.

[Webmaster]

Like I said.... two is enough...

[...] U.S. Aerospace Inc, has joined forces with the state-owned Ukrainian aircraft builder Antonov.

It is thought that California-based U.S. Aerospace has asked the Pentagon for a 60-day extension to prepare a bid. It had been thought that Russian aircraft manufacturer United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) had been involved with an American partner but this was strenuously denied by UAC in March this year.
[...]

And...

[...]
The Pentagon says it is sticking to its 2 p.m. July 9 deadline for competitors to submit their KC-X proposals, despite the potential U.S. Aerospace bid.
[...]

[shawn a]

Is somebody JOKING?
If not, what airframe would Antonov use? I can see a -225 with 3 booms and 4 hose-drogues refuelling an F-22, an F-15, an F-16, two Super Hornets, and two F-35Cs all at the same time!
sorry-I couldn't resist.