I've also thought that was odd.
The KC-10 is already impressively big...
This gives some sense of scale:
Posted on 06/19/2008 5:26:15 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Big plane related: A C-5 came to town yesterday and did a 1/2 hour’s worth of touch-n-go at the local airport. What a treat to see a beast that size in low, steep banking turns. Very nice engine noise, much higher pitched than standard airliners.
You have greater patience than me, sir.
How you maintain such tolerance for irrational bias is a testament to your professionalism.
No matter the weight of the argument in favor of GAO, no matter the merits of the GAO decision, no matter the emerging proof of a flawed and unequal Air Force process, some cling to their anti-Boeing biases.
Further, more and more advocates who examine closely the issue are coming to defense of OMB and Boeing. Of course, according to some, Boeing bought them off. Boeing may have deep pockets, but they are not that deep.
Loren Thompson, a highly respected Lexington Institute member and CEO, initially sided with the Air Force, but when he actually met with Air Force officials, as well as NG/EADS and Boeing personnel, he changed his mind and now seems how flawed the Air Force decision was—and is not at all pleased. Of course, some will insist he was “bought off” as well. Loren? Please.
PBS had an interview the other day with Peter Spiegel of the LA Times. Hardly a pro-Boeing organization. Spiegel lays out nicely how the Air Force made errors and did not follow their own rules.
Some have an irrational mind-set that actually believes Boeing is some sort of powerful Leviathan in DC, making the government and military do their bidding, but yet, as said before, if they had that sort of influence, the whole thing would have been over a long time ago. Additionally, Boeing would have won the JSF, the F-22 bid, the UCAS bid, would not be worried about the NGLRB, etc.
If Boeing was as influential as some believe, they would never lose a bid.
When the full report is released the same people arguing against the OMB will not be swayed, no matter the depth of proof, or the lack of integrity of the Air Force process.
Good luck fighting the good fight.
OMB should read “GAO”. . . but of course, you knew that.
(Been reading quite a few OMB reports today.)
Yes. The discord is actually pretty alarming when you consider that the "sectional rivalry" is rather ugly...and the people they are trashing ...[Boeing Mgt, engineers and workers] while they may be in a Rat-controlled fiefdom, are actually pretty strong pro-defense.
Something which is brought in question now about the priorities of the EADs apologists when they tout their prospective jobs and connections to the contract. This "venal vote" now on display amongst those backing EADS should give us all pause as to the strength of our union, and the selflessness of our national character, those willing to support the nation's good over their own petty self-interest.
Your disquiet about foreign dependency is well noted. It is shared by a broad consensus of true national defense proponents who believe that as well. Remember how the Federalist Papers warned us against divisive influence of foreign interests against our own national?
Both are unimproved field rated, I think. The C-17 for sure.
IMHO the military for sure should not be dependent on any other country for supplies.
Both are unimproved field rated, I think. The C-17 for sure.
I've also thought that was odd.
The KC-10 is already impressively big...
This gives some sense of scale:
Thanks. Glad you’ve noticed it too.
The Defense Science Board also thought that this might be a good idea, except for the trade-off of higher fuel consumption, and risk of reduced logistical availability. The C-17 is damn near as big as a C-5A, and uses four engines as well, unlike the two (more efficient) of either the KC-767 or KC-30 proposals.
McDonnell-Douglas, the developer of the plane was in fact supposed to have made a tanker version, but that got waived at some point when they decided they didn't want to sacrifice and reduce our cargo logistics capacity in exchange after all. It was too valuable for its primary mission.
Or the retired C-141 Starlifter?
The Starlifter [Lockheed] originated in 1965, retired over two years ago now, and used four, now-dated engines, hence it would not be as efficient as the new generation commercial conversions that are at issue in the new round of bidding. It might need new wings, new avionics, new engines...could be a daunting proposition.
The DSB has also suggested snapping up used commercial aircraft from the boneyards, rather than buying new. Those are all ideas to be considered. The question is bang for the buck and urgency. All decisions requiring a deliberate and careful weighing of options.
the KC10 / Dc-10 has the same 156 ft wingspan, but it does have a much higher MTW, and is far less efficient than the 767 in fuel burn. the KC10 pruchase was a political one, since the airline were not buying Dc10s anymore.
no actually is was a pilot who had left the AF and was flying commercial 767s, his comment was not about the “initial climb rate” ( all those AB takeoffs you guys mentioned are impressive, the SR71 moreso ), but actual “time-to-altitude”, say 35,000 ft. The 767 is over-thrusted, since it has to be able to fly on one engine at MTOW, should one fail at take-off. Go back a few years in AV/WK and you will see his comments.
You're welcome. [356,000 pounds v. 245,000 lbs] and it is eleven feet shorter, and commensurately shorter wings. And it is FAST. [619 mph v. 537/547 (peak)mph for KC-30]
bttt
Sounds like a pretty stupid point to me. There are plenty of times when cargo capacity might be needed but refueling capacity is not.
That was part of it, but it really was a complete package, and its origins and useages were primarily of strategic orientation, ferrying tactical squadrons to their regions included. A nice overview history is from Wikipedia here with some helpful additional observations:
Operational historyUnited States
The KC-10 was delivered to the USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC) (then in control of AAR assets) from 1981 to 1987.[1] SAC had KC-10 Extenders in service from 1981-92, when they were re-assigned to the newly established Air Mobility Command.
In the AAR role, the KC-10s have operated largely in the strategic refueling of large number of tactical aircraft on ferry flights and the refueling of other strategic transport aircraft. Conversely, the KC-135 fleet has operated largely in the in-theatre tactical role.
When faced with refusals of basing and overflight rights from continental European countries during Operation El Dorado Canyon, the U.S. was forced to use the UK-based F-111s in the 1986 air-strikes against Libya. The KC-10s allowed 29 F-111s to reach their targets.
The KC-10 fleet facilitated the deployment of tactical, strategic, and transport aircraft to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield.
There are 59 KC-10 Extenders currently in service.[3] The KC-10 has a significantly larger fuel capacity than the Air Force's other tanker plane, the KC-135,[5] which has over 500 in service. The USAF's KC-10s are stationed primarily at Travis AFB, California and McGuire AFB, New Jersey.
The KC-10 is currently the world's longest-ranged production aircraft (because the payload tanks are interconnected with the fuel source), surpassing even the Boeing 777-200LR, the longest-range commercial aircraft.
A significant feature of the KC-10 is that in addition to the USAF refueling boom, it also has a separate hose and drogue system used by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and most NATO allied aircraft. This gives the KC-10 the ability to refuel USAF, USN, USMC and other NATO aircraft, all in the same mission.
Why does he or anyone else need to? They are foreign orders...with foreign partners...the Italians being the choke-point [why are we not surprised?].
The U.S. KC-767 will be U.S. made.
Nontheless,Boeing already delivered two apiece, and the delivery pace was clearly impacted by the Italians wanting more of the pie than they could successfully chew. Note this report in Wikipedia:
Italy's aircraft became the first KC-767 to be assembled. The aircraft are initially built as 767-200ER commercial airplanes, then flown to a separate facility for conversion into tankers. Italy's first aircraft made its maiden flight on May 21, 2005,[25] and in June the same year, Japan's first aircraft arrived at Boeing's Wichita, Kansas modification center to be fitted out with the tanker equipment.[3]
Italy's second aircraft arrived for modification at the Naples, Italy facility of Boeing's partner, Aeronavali on May 6, 2005.[26]
On January 23, 2007, the KC-767 flight test aircraft set a program milestone by making its first hookup with a receiver aircraft, a B-52 Stratofortress. The "dry contact" transferred no fuel, but was intended to test the tanker's fifth-generation fly-by-wire telescoping boom. Unlike the KC-135 boom operator, who is prone, the KC-767 operator uses a remote station with a video display. The testing is being done at Edwards Air Force Base, and the test aircraft is destined for Italy once testing is complete.[4] Even if the KC-767 is not the final winner of the KC-X competition, Boeing expects the refueling boom being developed in the current program to be used on the KC-X airframe.[4]
The KC-767 extended its air refueling boom and transferred fuel to another aircraft for the first time on March 5, 2007.[27] The tanker completed another test milestone on April 12, 2007 when its aircrew successfully extended and retracted both wing refueling hoses.[28] Flight testing has resumed on Japan's tanker after modifications were completed.[29] In November 2007, Boeing decided to shift modification work on the KC-767A tankers for Italy and Japan from subcontractor Aeronavali's facility in Italy to Boeing's Wichita facility in an effort to meet delivery schedules.[30]
Both the Japanese and Italian planes were to be done via work by the Italian partner... so there is an object lesson for all would-be "global" and "multinational" defense manufacturing. Production by Committee times Ten. Bring the work home, boys, bring it home.
The choke point of tanker availability is real...and progressively more urgent in the future with the USAF plans to retire the KC-135Es wholesale, albeit the DSB thinks we can safely keep 'em going longer.
This based on Northrup-Grumman-supplied software that was tweaked with non-reproducible results? ;-)
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.