JackonickoBager,
Theoretically, there may be airfields that have a 12,000 ft balanced field length available, but which do not have strong enough taxyways to withstand the very slightly higher footprint of the KC-30.
But I’d be surprised if there were any existing KC-135 bases where that is the case.
In Europe, in the Gulf and Middle East, and at all the US and Canadian airfields used by RAF tankers (and used as diversions), that was not the case.
There are however, MANY airfields now used as tanker operating locations where you don’t have enough runway length to support full weight KC-767 operations – including Italy’s 767 base, Pratica di Mare, where the runway is being extended – but where unrestricted KC-30 ops would be possible.
JackonickoThe advantages of the KC-30 over the KC-767 go beyond capacity as an absolute.
1) The KC-30 has a wider cabin cross section, allowing standard pallets to be carried ‘side-by-side’ and allowing superior passenger accomodation.
2) The KC-30 carries more fuel, and does so without sacrificing underfloor cargo space.
3) The KC-30 has more fuel to give away, further from base, and can remain on a towline longer.
4) The KC-30’s balanced field requirements are less than those of the -767, whose braking requirements are such that it needs a longer runway to operate safely. When the RAF assessed both types, it found that the A330 MRTT could operate from every tanker base that its VC10s and TriStars used, while the 767 could not.
However, the KC-30 will be more expensive to buy (but probably cheaper to sustain and operate) and may not create or sustain so many US jobs, nor will it provide employment for Boeing specifically. Backing the KC-767 may also help a programme that could still earn valuable export revenue for Boeing and the USA. The KC-767 is lighter, and can taxy on surfaces for which the A330 would be too heavy, though the RAF analysis found no airfields capable of operating a KC-767 that the 330 couldn’t also use, though (due to runway length) there were bases that the 330 could use that the 767 could not. The KC-767’s external dimensions are smaller, and the aircraft can fit 707/-135 sized hangars.
It strikes me that the A330 is operationally suitable in the tanker role, but that the 767 offers some compelling political and economic advantages to the US customer.
JackonickoToo fragile. Too long. Too difficult to fold, structurally speaking, and with the blades.
And “an EMC nightmare”.
That’s why the Marines went Cobra.
JackonickoThe F-14 had one retirement.
The type’s only major user retired the jet. (Only the Iranian F-14s are left, and no-one really cares about them).
There are unlikely to be any warbird F-14s, and the type isn’t really suited for drone conversion. No-one will see an F-14 fly again (outside Iran).
This was a final farewell to an enthusiasts favourite, and to a consistently over-hyped aircraft whose capabilities were felt by some to be irreplaceable and still at the cutting edge. Many believe that its replacement is, in some respects, less capable.
Whereas the USAF F-4 retirement was a non-event, and one that was spread over the retirement of the type from the regulars, and a separate retirement from the Guard. And the F-4E was no longer anywhere near the cutting edge, and most people were pleased to see it being replaced by newer, more capable types. As if that were not enough, Phantoms wearing stars and bars remained flying in the USA with the German training mob at Holloman, and it was always clear that the type would continue to fly on as the QF-4 for years and years.
Moreover, from a wider, less insular perspective, the retirement of the Phantom from USAF service was nothing special. Just one of many milestones – of no greater significance than the withdrawals from the USN, the USMC, the RAF, the Spanish, or the IDF/AF.
And the Phantom remains in widespread service, and any aviation enthusiast worth his salt knows full well that he’ll see flying Phantoms for years to come at major airshows or if he visits the right airfields.
The same can’t be said of the F-14, which made its retirement a bigger deal.
JackonickoThe problem with the Jaguar M was in the single-engined overshoot case – and not in the case of a normal ‘bolter’ with both engines operating.
There was no ramp strike (the aircraft was not lost), but the lack of engine out performance was exactly the reason for the development of Part Throttle Reheat.
There was a very real problem – but the whole reason that people were up in arms about the selection of the Super Etendard was that the problem was one which arose when the Jaguar had lost an engine. As a single-engined aircraft, the Super Etendard’s capabilities with an engine out were even less impressive.
JackonickoHelicopters have always been vulnerable.
That’s why no serious operator attempts assualts into hot LZs, in the style of the Vietnam era.
Armed helicopters are equipped to operate while standing off (or from cover) and support and transport helicopters are not designed to operate over the FLOT or FEBA.
And the losses in Iraq and Afghanistan have been negligible, (had men and material all been moved by road casualties would have been MUCH higher) so why the fuss?
JackonickoThis isn’t a US/European issue, Joe H.
Rolls Royce coins it in whichever engine is selected, though it earns more from the F136.
Quite apart from risk reduction, and the promise of much lower through life costs, and the promise of better ‘bring back’ for the STOVL version, the F136 has the strength of both GE and Rolls Royce behind it. GE’s capabilities are indicated by the success of its ‘alternate’ engine in the F-16 and F-15.
The F136 incorporates advanced technology from the IHPTET (Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology) programme, and features advanced compressor and turbine design, components and materials and an innovative integrated high-pressure/low-pressure vaneless counter-rotating turbine design.
The titanium wide-chord, three-stage blisk front fan is also noteworthy, and the five stage (all blisk) compressor is arguably the most advanced fighter engine compressor ever built.
It may be a couple of years behind the F135 in terms of development, but it’s technologically several years ahead, not least because GE/Rolls have had more time before freezing the design.
And the F120 lost out because F-22 production was slashed to a point where a competing engine was not viable, and the F119 was available most quickly, because it was lower risk, and lower tech. It also helped keep costs down. But was it the best engine?
Of course PW have progressed since the YF119, but so have GE, and the F136 is just as far ahead of the YF120 as the F135 is ahead of the YF119.
You might cast a glance at:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/03/f136-engine-for-jsf-reaching-test-milestones/index.php
Jackonickoand it’s the better engine, too. More advanced, and likely to have better development potential for any F-35D/E/F……
Jackonickoand Barry Jones!
JackonickoUnderwing engines – as pioneered by Boeing, or perhaps by the Me 262 and Ju-287?
And single aisle twin engined jetliners began with the Caravelle, surely, or the Tu-104, or the BAC One Eleven, or the DC-9…… certainly not with the 737….
The widebody fuselage was a Boeing creation, with the 747, and it was then adopted for the TriStar and DC-10. But Airbus were the first to apply it on smaller jets, with the A300.
The point is not that Boeing has not had its share of innovations (it has, of course) – just that it’s entirely unfair and pretty stupid to claim that Airbus “piggybacked their way on Boeing’s trailblazing work, work done decades before you ever heard of Airbus.”
Just as it would be pretty silly to suggest that Boeing owes its success to copying the Comet’s conception of a jet-powered airliner…..
JackonickoVERY interesting reading.
“Operating from a 7000 ft runway
The offeror shall document the ability of the proposed KC-X aircraft to operate, including takeoff gross weight, from a 7000 ft runway for standard day conditions and using FAA ground rules…….”
JackonickoSauron:
“I don’t consider posting my location as unfortunate. I am proud to do so. I notice you haven’t posted yours. While I never fought a day I my life, I am as entitled as you or anyone on this forum to make observations (base or otherwise) about European nations who talk to talk but don’t walk the walk.”
Canada has nothing more and nothing less to apologise for than most European nations when it comes to contributing to combat ops. It’s never been in the same leageue as the UK and France, for obvious reasons, but there’s no shame in that. But you personally have no right to criticise others for what you haven’t had the guts to do yourself.
“I am also not the slightest bit shy about poking fun at the A400 Evader because it is the perfect symbol of the Europeans approach to defense. Perhaps it is a habit gained from having others help out to do the job.”
That’s usually an American criticism of Europe – and while the USA has helped us to do the job, we Europeans have played our part often enough – helping out in the Balkans, both Gulf Wars, and Korea.
And while the USA kept on making money and looking after No.1 from September 1939 until some time after December 41, we kept the fight for freedom going against Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Japan.
But while an American bemoaning the fact that Europe has often needed help would be mildly annoying, for a Canadian to do so is hypocrisy. Since WWII (when Canada’s contribution was exemplary) when has Canada ever done anything that was more than tokenistic? Evading her international moral responsibilities in just the way you accuse the Europeans…..?
JackonickoFew of the A400M customer nations need any lessons from anybody about contributing air forces to combat operations.
Certainly not the Brits, the French, the Spanish, the Belgians, and the Turks, and latterly not the Germans either.
It’s unfortunate that you list your location, as it might lead some to compare Canada’s contribution to ours, which would be unfair. Canada’s military contribution has often been valuable (if small) and I’m damned sure that those who made it would not be making such stupid and unwarranted remarks about fellow NATO nations ‘evading’ combat.
How much combat have you seen, Sauron, to be qualified to make base accusations about other NATO countries?
Or do the CAF have rather higher standards than to let in some geeky, spotty, rather unintelligent aircraft enthusiast with a poor grasp of world affairs and an unpleasant right wing chip on his shoulder?
JackonickoPeruvian and Libyan, I’d say
Jackonicko“As far as I’m concerned they (Airbus) are a company that has piggybacked their way on Boeing’s trailblazing work, work done decades before you ever heard of Airbus.”
Is that Boeing’s trailblazing work in the jetliner business (if you ignore the DH Comet, the Avro Canada Jetliner, the Sud Caravelle, the Tu-104, etc.)?
Or is that Boeing’s trailblazing work in using a widebody cross section on twin engined jetliners (A300 was the first)?
Or is that Boeing’s trailblazing work in the use of composites, FBW control systems for airliners or glass cockpits (where Airbus got there first)?
You might be “happy to see Boeing stomping them in the dirt again”, but thanks to their willingness to invest in and embrace superior technology and thanks to Boeing’s mistakes and conservatism, Airbus have risen from nothing to take roughly half of the world market in jetliners.
Hats off to Boeing for having the vision to shoot for a quantum leap with the Dreamliner – but far too often they’ve been too conservative, and have made smaller steps – like the embarrassingly lame warmed-over Jumbo that is the 747-8. Too often they’ve given away their lead, as they have done with tankers.
Try reading my previous post again. I do not claim that the KC-30 is superior simply because it’s larger – it’s superior because it can carry more fuel (vital for a tanker) and more freight/passengers (vital for a tanker/transport) further than a KC-767, while burning less fuel, and operating from the real world airfields that tankers need to use, while the 767 can only use such runways if operating at reduced weights.
You say that: “I’ve mentioned the only factor that’s important to me. The US Air Force should fly American tankers.” It’s clear that you don’t give a “good goddamn” whether the USAF operates the inferior aircraft, nor whether the US taxpayer gets best value for money. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however deluded, but it needs to be clear to those who do care about the quality and cost of what the USAF flies that the KC-30 is the better solution to the KC-X requirement.
As to the C-130J, the first deliveries to the RAF (the first operator) did not occur until 23 November 1999. So quite how it’s been in service five decades eludes me.
The A400M (which isn’t just a warmed over 1950s transport) will enter service ten years after the J. It will be faster, it will carry more, it has bigger hold dimensions, and it will have much lower operating and support costs.
Now you may be giving away personal or sexual secrets about yourself, or it may merely be an indicator of how you absorb information, but I neither want nor need to find my “butthole with a funnel”, lubricated or otherwise.
Sign In
