Posted on 06/19/2008 5:26:15 PM PDT by Paul Ross
By your logic the AF should buy 747 tankers.
>>NBD. Saw a Phantom do a maximum performance takeoff at Tampa International a thousand years ago..... the ground was shaking....he went up....maximum understatement.
One Saturday morning at MCAS Beaufort, SC, after a particularly hard night of drinking, two F4H (as they were known then)jets took off. As they rolled down the runway, they both hit afterburners and were gone. I thought my head was going to split down the middle.
Only plane I ever do better was an F-102, whose pilot decided to hit afterburners as he cleared the hangar. Straight up and out of sight in 5 seconds.
Google for A310MRTT. In active service at German and Canadian Air Force. That plane lost against KC-767 in early 2002 because it was deemed to small.
I don’t see how you got that out of my post. However, they already have KC-10’s a derivative of the DC-10 which is a very large plane. If the Air Force could figure out how to put three booms on a 747 I’m sure they would love it.
Whether a plane can land at an airport isn’t necessarily a function of it’s weight but it’s footprint, or how effectively that weight is distributed. Some other considerations would be whether the taxiways and runways could accomodate an aircraft with a wide wingspan. His argument was naive and probably suited for an audience that doesn’t understand the details. I was taking exception to the simplistic argument he was using. I do however agree with him on several of his points that are more critical than these two.
I didn’t think his argument was naive. He succinctly stated the problem without going into a paragraph or two of technical details explaining weight distribution, tire footprints, runway strength, etc...
I think the weight and size issues are very important, with the weight being critical. Weight is a crucial factor in all airplane operations. Airport and airfield design uses weight and one of the main factors in determining overall operational capabilities. Take away 20% of my available airfields and that is a BIG hit.
“My best scientific wild guess is that the NG-EADS aircraft will be unable to operate out of at least 20% of the airfields that could accommodate the right-sized Boeing tanker”.
Even according to the author he’s just guessing, even guessing wild. I would like to see some Air Force numbers if that would be OK with you.
bttt
The KC-10 cannot refuel certain aircraft due to the center engine. its great for fighters and bombers but not T tails and awacs.
Well, to paraphrase an earlier comment, since size and weight are such urgent considerations and not the amount of fuel carried perhaps we should just go with fleet of RJ’s. The airlines are parking them in droves so they’ll be cheap and we could get hundreds of them on any base in the world. Added bonus. They don’t weigh much and they have a small wingspan. Ideal if you ask me. /s/
The 767 can beat the F-15 Eagle to altitude, with certain provisions.
The 767 must be lined up on the runway, engines running, ready for takeoff.
The F-15 pilot must be in bed, asleep, and the jet must be out of fuel.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me!!!
LOL! Why don’t you phone that one in then.
LOL!!!!!
If you really believe that CRJ’s would make good tankers I can understand their reluctance to talk to you.
I responded to Paul almost the same way on another thread. He has posted this article or referenced it more than once.For his and everyone’s enlighjtenment, the max takeoff weight for the KC-10 is 590,000 lbs. If the AF cannot handle that weight, why haven’t they scrapped the KC-10. Mr. Ross also refers to an editorial in the Air Force Association’s magazine as claiming they don’t like the EADS tanker either. When you read the editorial, you do not find anything like it. As I said on another thread, if anyone thinks the AF deliberately biased their selection process, they are crazy. After the lease debacle, no one in the AF would dare try to do it again.
He said it was his wild ass guess.
For your information, the KC-10 is a strategic tanker that operates out of the airfields already available for strategic purposes. It was never expected to go into primarily tactical theaters. The KC-X has to be more flexible and tactically capable to go further into harms way. The KC-10 is perfect for its missions. But it is essentially one that is limited. There are approx. fifty or so KC-135s for every KC-10 in the fleet.
Mr. Ross also refers to an editorial in the Air Force Association’s magazine as claiming they don’t like the EADS tanker either. When you read the editorial, you do not find anything like it.
No, that was cited for a more limited point. I.e., you get a real sense of the concern for the warfighter's concerns, rather than arbitrary standards and rules. They explicitly want "booms in the air" not mythically "on station". They want them forward deployable...not a thousand miles out of useable range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.