Boeing tanker fight isn't over, political leaders say

HeraldNet.com (Everett, Washington) ^ | Saturday, March 1, 2008 | Jim Haley, Herald Writer

[Paleo Conservative]

The nose door is best suited for very long cargo containers (96" x 20 feet, less than 96 in. height), but the standard Air Force pallet easily fits in either door. The nose door may not be a necessary expense on a new build "KC-747." I dunno.

It depends on whether the USAF would want a 747F cargo/tanker aircraft to supplement the dwindling number of C-5's operating in the future. The nose door would allow a 747 to take some oversized cargoes that otherwise would require a C-5A or C-5M. Only the 49 surviving C-5B's, 2 C-5C's, and 1 C-5A will undergo the RERP program. On the other hand perhaps the USAF should consider buying some used 747-400 passenger aircraft converted to 747-400BCF that do not have nose doors. This would have a much lower acquisition cost than new build aircraft, and due to low utilization rates of military aircraft, would still serve the USAF for decades into the future. The relatively low number of cycles on used 747's compared to shorter haul aircraft means that they have lots more life left in them compared to similar vintage narrow bodied commercial transports.

[wolf78]

Even though JFK-LHR has a huge number of flights every day, the trend is for smaller planes rather than bigger ones to allow more frequency.

To be precise: Few of the existing routes that see 747 operations today will be switched to 787s tomorrow. As you said, certain routes and markets demand very large aircraft, take Frankfurt-Tokyo for example. The next logical and most cost effective step is an A380 instead of downsizing to say a 777 and 787 or two 777s. Both the markets for VLAs and medium sized jets will continue to grow over the foreseeable future, only that for medium sized jets at a faster pace.

[Solitar]

Thank you all for more great information on options for the KC-380 versus the KC-747 versus the KC-777. I've plugged more numbers into a comparative spreadsheet to see how much fuel they each could offload at, for instance, 2400 nm away (and allowing they have to fly back to the US to themselves refuel -- 4800 nm round trip). 2400 nautical miles is the range of all three or our cargo airlift aircraft -- C-17, C-5, and C-130. 2400 nautical miles is about the distance from Delaware to the Azores, and again from the Azores to Greece, and again from Greece to Afghanistan. If our freight aircraft can't refuel in the Portuguese Azores, then we need tankers to get them across the Atlantic and over the Mediterranean where, hopefully we have friends who will let them refuel.

At 2400 nm the 777 could offload about 200,000 lbs of fuel and still fly home; the A-380 could offload about the same 200,000 lbs of fuel because it gets one-third the fuel mileage in spite of its greater capacity. The 747-8 would be able to offload about 300,000 lbs of fuel and still fly home to the East Coast. For comparison, the KC-45 (A330-200) has a total fuel capacity of about 250,000 lbs and the KC-10 about 350,000 lbs.

Bottom line -- we need a few hundred 747-8 tankers.
Or we need to make darn sure we have refueling bases every 2400 nm between the US and wherever we may need to send a few hundred cargo aircraft with troops and equipment which need to be on the ground with a few days instead of a few weeks (by sea).

[Yo-Yo]

Wow! VERY nicely done! You’ve got me sold, I’ll take 100 KC-747s, and throw in the nose loading door. Oh, by the way, can I get those in black? Air Superiority Gray is so 80s.

[2CAVTrooper]

It would be a good concept but the problem with a BWB is there is no roll-on/roll-off capability.

According to the Airforce, there are currently 111 C-5A/B/C/M’s in service with a further 14 in storage.

All of the active, and most if not all of the reserve and ANG aircraft will be brought up to the M standard starting with the B and C models which represent the 52 that are with the active force that will extend their service life out to 2040.

[Paleo Conservative]

All of the active, and most if not all of the reserve and ANG aircraft will be brought up to the M standard starting with the B and C models

No, the USAF cancelled the RERP for the C-5A fleet. Only the B and C-models will be reengined. The one C-5A that underwent the RERP for test purposes will be the only one to be reengined. All the C-5A's remaining in service will undergo the AMP to replace the existing analog avionics with a digital avionics and a glass cockpit. I'm sure that with 52 planes undergoing the RERP and 14 of the eariest C-5A's being retired, there will be lots of spare parts available to keep the C-5A fleet going for at least a couple of decades.

[2CAVTrooper]

Ah, I found the article on Airforce Link.

They axed the planned upgrade of the A model due to projected cost overruns and an uncertainty that there will be any benefit to investing in the A model.

IIRC, the A's still go through the first phase which upgrades their avionics to modern standards.

[Paleo Conservative]

IIRC, the A's still go through the first phase which upgrades their avionics to modern standards.

The AMP was only about $4 million per plane, and many of the ANG pilots are used to flying other planes with glass cockpits. Also the digital avionics are much easier to maintain, and they're more reliable. With so many parts getting replaced on the 52 C-5's going through the RERP, there will be plenty of parts that can be refurbished as spares for the remaining C-5A's.