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.
Thanks for the info.
I went to an airshow last year where one of the demonstrations was a C-17.
Wasn’t expecting anything exciting, but that plane is amazing.
Living fairly near Ft. Bragg, I used to see C-141s often and got to really like them.
Frankly I didn’t think the C-17 would be able to replace the C-141s but after seeing the C-17 in action, WoW.