Jackonicko“Tankers rarely fly from forward airfields……….. For most missions, they don’t lift anywhere near that amount of fuel.”
In peacetime, perhaps. But to buy a tanker using peacetime KC-135 ops as the yardstick, and able to struggle into the air with 77 tonnes from a 10,000 ft runway would be about as sensible as buying a frontline attack aircraft that could carry no bombs bigger than a 50-lb practise bomb.
JackonickoI suppose LOL is an improvement on BS. But the accusations of Kool Aid drinking are rude, and especially from someone who loudly shouts down the facts with unproven and unsupportable nonsense.
A310:
It’s a cold hard fact that operating from a 10,000 ft balanced field, the A310MRTT gives more fuel to offload than the KC-767, which has about the same fuel as a VC10 K3. And that’s not BS, it’s fact, and I’ve provided the real world sortie profile figures that PROVE it. Not only does the A310 (with 170,000 lb of fuel) carry more fuel than Italian & Japanese KC-767s with their 160,000 lbs of fuel capacity, it also carries more than the KC-767AT from real world tanker bases, because the KC-767 cannot use its 200,000+ lbs fuel capacity when operating from a 10,000 ft balanced field.
A330:
111 tonnes max.
111 tonnes from a 10,000 ft runway.
KC-767AT
92 tonnes max. (82%)
77 tonnes from a 10,000 ft runway (69%).
The point about the C-17/KC-30 comparison is that C-17s routinely operate at more than the max weight of the KC-45.
JackonickoI’d ask the viewing audience at home to remember that the competition isn’t whether the A330 can take off with more fuel in a shorter distance than the 767…or any other single performance item.
Indeed it isn’t. But the size issue is used again and again against the KC-45, and it is often assumed that, as a larger aircraft, the A330 would require more runway than the smaller KC-767.
In fact, the KC-45 enjoys some of the advantages you’d expect from the smaller aircraft – and the fact is that it can lift more fuel from a shorter runway (which will often mean a more forward airfield). That’s counter-intuitive, so its worth highlighting.
I would suggest that if the KC-767 meets the US requirement (and I’m sure that it does) then that requirement is not stringent enough. A tanker that can’t lift more than 77 tonnes from Mildenhall isn’t impressive.
I suspect that given a tighter requirement, Boeing could redesign the 767’s brakes and landing gear enough to significantly improve balanced field performance figures, and to erode the Airbus advantage. That would require investment, but would result in a better tanker for Boeing to export, and for the USAF to operate.
JackonickoI have supported my claims with facts. I (& others) have been debunking the lies & half truths of people like you concerning the USAF’s efforts to recapitalize its tanker fleet for some seven years. I have long since grown tired of constantly providing exact links/references to every single well established truth/fact.
No, you haven’t. You provide no facts, just unsupported and ignorant contradiction or outright denial, with hostility and rudeness. You argue like a two year old.
The A330 doesn’t work for the USAF because it is bigger & heavier than every aircraft if USAF inventory (bigger & heavier than the CK-10, the C-17 & the B-52) except for the C-5 & a handful of 747s.
Hmmm. Typical of your ‘facts’. It’s a claim, and it’s wrong!
KC-30 MTOW 233,000 kg (KC-45 will be within a whisker of this!)
C-17 MTOW 265,000 kg.
it wants to be able to operate from smaller airfields closer to the refueling points/tracks in order to maximize effectiveness/efficiency.
The KC-45 can operate from a 10,000 ft balanced field carrying a full 111 tonnes of fuel. The KC-767 needs 12,000 ft to carry 92 tonnes.
I do not have a list of the 1643 worldwide airfields allowing tanker operations otherwise I would be more than happy to go through each & every one of them & demonstrate how it is the KC-30 can not operate from as many as the KC-767AT.
No, you wouldn’t, because you can’t demonstrate what isn’t true.
You have this false ideal that there are all these airfields out there with short runways that can accompdate a 193′ 7″ long, 197′ 10″ wingspan, 513,670 lbs MTOW (61 – 66 – 77 – 105 ANC-F, 52 – 61 – 73 – 85 ACN-R) beast of an aircraft.
It’s not short runways, it’s 10,000 ft runways. It’s bases like Mildenhall, Fairford and Brize Norton. Their ‘short’ runways can take a fully laden KC-45, but not a max weight KC-767. FACT!
Despite its good runway performace the KC-30 is simply too big &/or heavy for many identified airfileds to accomodate (either at all or in sufficient number to meet the peak demand).
Numbers at an airfield, perhaps, but parking is cheap to provide, whereas extending runways to allow a 767 to take off with full fuel is not.
We know it is a lie because 767s operate from runways shorter than your complete & utter nonsense of 12,000′ crap every single day & have for decades. And because if it were true the KC-767AT could not have met the KC-X runway operating requirements & if it didn’t the KC-X Source Selection Team & NG/EADS would have made a huge deal out of it. Instead the KC-767AT met the runway operating requirement.
No PFCEM, It’s the absolute truth. Boeing were horrified when asked to provide data for a 10,000 ft balanced field length for the RAF and requested 12,000 ft. When told that 10,000 ft was the requirement, they confirmed that the KC-767 would have to operate with just 77 tonnes (170,000 lbs) of fuel.
What you describe as facts are entirely without foundation.
There are identified airfields allowing tanker operations that can not accomodate the KC-30’s 193′ 7″ length &/or 197′ 10″ wingspan &/or, 513,670 lbs MTOW (61 – 66 – 77 – 105 ANC-F, 52 – 61 – 73 – 85 ACN-R). Many of them were built around the KC-135 or even the B-52. And many of those civilian (as apposed to strictly military) airfields were also not built to operate aircraft as large &/or heavy as the A330-200/KC-30.
Name them. Name airfields that can allow a KC-767 to take off safely, with full fuel, which a KC-45 can’t lift just as much fuel from. I’ve listed the three main tanker bases in the UK which can accomodate a full weight KC-45 but which a KC-767 would have to offload fuel to be able to use. Name a main tanker base where the KC-45’s wingspan or ACN would be a show stopper.
Boeing clearly don’t think there are any, since they’re now proposing the 777 – even bigger, dimensionally, than an A330.
you named three airbases the KC-767AT can easily operate from. I am too lazy at the moment to check on what the three were but I do remember earlier when you named two & both of them can & do operate aircraft larger/heavier & with worse runway performance than the KC-767AT.
Brize Norton, Mildenhall and Fairford. The three main tanker bases in the UK. None can operate a KC-767 carrying 92 tonnes, according to the RAF’s FSTA selection team.
No the point is that when EADS looked at the A310MRTT vs the KC-767 it determined that its 97,200 liters (36,000 from the five additional fuel tanks) or 25,579 gal or 171,379 lbs (77,737 kg) fuel capacity could not compete with the KC-767 which could (with auxiliary tanks) have a capacity of 30,000+ gal 201,000+ lbs of fuel. Which is unfortunate (escpecially given how the KC-767AT so exceeds the requirements) because the A310MRTT would make for a much better KC-X than the A330MRTT/KC-30 could ever hope to be.
Complete invention. EADS offered the A330 to the USAF because it gave a quantum leap in capability, whereas the edge offered by the A310 was marginal. Whereas the A310 offers greater fuel to offload when operating from a 10,000 ft balanced field, the A330 offers more fuel to offload across the board.
But it’s a cold hard fact that operating from a 10,000 ft balanced field, the A310MRTT gives more fuel to offload than the KC-767, which has about the same fuel as a VC10 K3. And that’s not BS, it’s fact, and I’ve provided the real world sortie profile figures that PROVE it.
JackonickoAnother rude and ignorant post from PFCEM.
Shouting BS and accusing people of being EADS Kool Aid drinkers is no substitute for facts, Pfcem, but you have no facts to support your ill-mannered argument.
You make claims, but can’t support them.
You say that the A330 “doesn’t work for the USAF” and make vague claims that it can’t operate from forward airfields. You can’t name a single airfield where a 767 can take off where a KC-45 cannot, and you certainly can’t name an airfield where a KC-767 could take off with more fuel than a KC-45.
In fact the opposite is true.
There are airfields that could ‘park’ more 767s than A330s, but that’s not the same thing, and pouring concrete for parking areas is cheaper than extending runway length.
The argument about basing large numbers of tankers is another thing, but if you want to operate from smaller airfields, with shorter runways, the KC-767 does not cut it.
It isn’t BS. The KC-767 cannot operate, with full fuel, from a 10,000 ft balanced field length (it requires 12,000 ft, in fact). I am aware that the KC-767 is not the 767-200ER, so I’m talking about the KC-767. Simply saying “BS” and contradicting me does not cut it. The figures are clear.
The KC-767 could not operate from Brize, Fairford or Mildenhall with full fuel. The KC-45 can. Again, simply saying “BS” and contradicting me does not cut it. The figures are absolutely clear. And we could add plenty more – including the KC-767’s planned home in Italy!
When limited to a 10,000 ft balanced field at sea level (assuming ISA standard conditions and still wind), the KC-767A certainly can NOT carry a full load of 200,000+ lbs, it can carry only 77 tonnes (170,000 lbs). Again, simply saying “BS” and contradicting me does not cut it. The figures are absolutely clear.
The KC-767 (whether we’re talking about the Italian, the Japanese or the proposed USAF version) simply can’t do what you claim. It cannot operate with a full fuel load from standard NATO bases nor from an 8,000 ft runway. It’s not about the wing and engines, because it’s not about take off roll – it’s about stopping distances at high weights, and no 767 variant can stop quickly enough to allow it to carry 200,000 lb of fuel and stop safely on an 8,000 ft balanced field.
Your claim is entirely incorrect. The KC-767AT did meet the KC-X runway requirement but it can NOT DO SO WITH FULL FUEL.
You claim that there are regular tanker airfields that the KC-767 could use that, because of footprint or ACN, the KC-45 could not operate from, or that a KC-45 could only operate from with less fuel to give away than a 767. I’ve named three bases that the KC-767 can’t operate from with full fuel, the challenge now is for you to name this mythical mainstream tanker base that a KC-45 could not use. There simply aren’t tanker bases that do have the 12,000 ft + runways that a fully laden KC-767 would need that also have such weak taxyways or such narrow and constrained taxyways that a KC-45 could not operate from them.
Again, you won’t be able to name a base where this applies, because there isn’t one.
The point about the A310MRTT is that with five ACTs it can operate from shorter runways than the 767, and from a 10,000 ft balanced field can carry 77.7 tonnes of fuel (.7 tonnes more than the KC-767), and then burns less fuel when airborne. (It’s a better tanker than the 767, in other words).
Operating from typical tanker bases, the KC-767 offers about the same capability as a VC10 K3. Again, that’s not BS, it’s FACT.
If you can’t answer without ill-mannered and rude shouts of ‘BS’, then don’t bother replying at all.
Unless you have hard fact to contradict the cold hard facts and figures offered above, again, don’t bother.
There are arguments for the 767, but operational capability and performance is not one of them.
JackonickoCertainly the cannon gives cheap, precise, discriminatory effect, in a way that no other weapon can. Not rockets, not Hellfire, not anything. I’d say that it’s essential for CAS and many AH roles.
JackonickoSo, the Blegium gov would have stopped the inquiry, Dasault would be as innocent as a newborn ?
Well we certainly could not have described Dassault as having been proved guilty of bribery in that case, so its record would be somewhat less tarnished.
(Dassault would still have had more of a shadow hanging over it than BAE does, unless the country’s legal authorities had explicitely stated that Dassault had no case to answer, that there was no prospect of a conviction, and unless it was also clear that Dassault was acting on French Government directions, and was transferring Belgian money to a Belgian Minister using Belgian MoD accounts. If you met all those requirements, then yes, you could say that Dassault was as innocent as a newborn.)
I say that BAE were proven innocent because all the facts make it clear that even were there corruption, it was Saudi corruption. (Saudi money to Saudi Ministers via Saudi accounts, with BAE as a mere sub contractor, working on HMG’s instructions). And because the official judgement into the dropping of the enquiry said:
“BAE has always contended that any payments it made were approved by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short they were lawful commissions and not secret payments made without the consent or approval of the principal. The cause of anti-corruption is not served by pursuing investigations which fail to distinguish between a commission and a bribe. It would be unfair to BAE to assume that there was a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, of proving that it was guilty of any criminal offence. It is unfortunate that no time was taken to adopt the suggestion (referred to in evidence) to canvass with leading counsel the Attorney’s reservations as to the adequacy of the evidence.”
JackonickoI’m at a loss.
I saw the Rafale display twice. On Tuesday, when I was able to give it my full attention from start to finish, and when I was looking forward to seeing a real spectacle, (and when I expected an answer to the very spectacular Super Hornet and F-16 displays), it was tame.
Really disappointing. (Like the Typhoon display had been – perhaps even less energetic, but prettier to watch).
You tell me that it included a dozen 9 g turns. It didn’t look like it to me, nor to others who saw it. It didn’t look like the Dassault video to which you linked, and it sure as hell didn’t look like the pilot’s commentary. It looked significantly gentler, and it looked like the pilot was pushing less hard.
I don’t claim to be able to accurately estimate g, speed or turn radius from the ground, but in 40 years of airshow-going I’ve seen enough FJ displays to think that I can tell when a pilot is pushing it hard, and I thought that I could tell the difference between a 9 g display and a gentler one. And quite apart from the lack of nose-pointing agility, I thought that the Rafale display was gentle and tame.
Only the roll rates and the high Alpha turn stood out for me.
I don’t have an explanation, but I do know what I saw.
I don’t really see the need for an argument – unless perhaps you perceive some kind of deadly insult to your beloved Rafale where none was intended?
The important point may be more contentious.
In my opinion, Rafale needs to raise its game in this area. Airshow performances are important enough that Boeing goes to the expense of leasing back pairs of Super Hornets for shows like Paris. And if it’s important enough to justify that, it’s important enough to show off your aeroplane to its very best advantage. Typhoon has been failing to do that at Paris for some time, and Rafale failed to do that this time. That’s not a mistake that Boeing or Lockheed are making.
JackonickoWhen I observed that: “at Le Bourget in 2009, the Rafale flying display was decidedly unimpressive, and failed to show what the aircraft can do”, you yourself said “I already reckognized that this wasn’t the best rafale dispaly. I already agreed with you on this point.”
You seem to have changed your mind.
JackonickoThat’s a stupid, unfounded, unjustified, offensive, nationalistic remark. I hope that the moderators slap you down for it.
For all its faults, I’d take British justice over most others in Europe.
JackonickoGlobal Gump?
Now that explains a great deal.
Couldn’t find a BAE conviction for bribery? In fact couldn’t even find any allegations that stand up as convincingly as those against Dassault?
Quel Surprise…..
Life is like a box of chocolates – the one with D on it is second rate and past its sell by date.
JackonickoI’m not implying anything.
I saw Tuesday’s display too. The video is certainly Le Bourget this year (or bits of it are), but it is NOT a record of the display that you and I saw. I suspect that it was filmed the week before, with crowd scenes edited in.
If you watched Tuesday’s display from start to finish, then I’ll bet that you (as a Rafale fan) were even more disappointed than I was – especially after Monday’s Super Hornet demo (and Tuesday’s to a lesser extent).
Do you think that the video reflects what you saw? I don’t.
JackonickoSo why is there a mismatch between the display as filmed by Dassault and described on that video (impressive) and the display that we saw on the trade days at Paris (tame)?
I think I know the answer, but you still haven’t answered that question, and I remain interested in your view.
JackonickoPFCEM,
You mount a spirited defence, but one in which passion entirely replaces fact. Moreover, if you can’t debate without recourse to hostility and rudeness, then I suggest that you go elsewhere.
None of what I’ve written is ‘BS’.
It certainly isn’t ‘BS’ that runway length is the limiting factor in whether a tanker can or can not operate from a given airfield. It’s usually the most critical factor.
There are other factors, of course, and I’m glad that you raise the old chestnut of PCN/ACN. When the RAF did it’s evaluation of FSTA contenders it could not find one single NATO airfield that it wanted to operate tankers from where the Airbus loading was too high for existing runways and taxyways. Not one. And were this a factor, Airbus can offer a KC-330 with an extra centerline landing gear bogey. They expected to find fields where taxyway width limits (wingtip clearance) would be a factor and (guess what) couldn’t find one.
Hangar width and height limits, and parking is another matter. Building new hangars is expensive, too, though pouring concrete for parking areas is not.
Of course the KC-767 will have advantages – and being able to fit -135 hangars, and being able to pack more of them into existing airfields are two of those advantages.
But when you come to operational capability, it’s all disadvantage and drawbacks for the KC-767.
While the KC-767A can carry 91.8 tonnes (202,000-lb) of fuel, given an unlimited runway, it cannot do so with 10,000 balanced field length – because of stopping distances, not because of take off roll.
When limited to a 10,000 ft balanced field at sea level (assuming ISA standard conditions and still wind), on a four hour sortie (landing with the equivalent of another hours flight time as a reserve) the KC-767A certainly can NOT carry a full load of 200,000+ lbs, it can carry only 77 tonnes (170,000 lbs).
Your claim that the KC-767AT can operate from airfields that the KC-45 can not (or can only do so at reduced take-off weight) is nonsense.
The KC-767 could not operate from Brize, Fairford or Mildenhall (just as convenient examples) with full fuel. The KC-45 can.
Name me the regular tanker airfield that the KC-767 could use that the KC-45 could not operate from, or that a KC-45 could only operate from with less fuel to give away than a 767. Hint: There isn’t one.
You say that “EADS did not proposed the A310MRTT because it knew it could not match the KC-767’s fuel offload.”
WRONG! With a fifth ACT, the A310MRTT exceeds the 767’s fuel offload from a representative runway. EADS/NG did not propose the A310 because, though better than the KC-767, they did not believe that such a small tanker best met the USAFs requirement and aspirations. Just as the KC-767 does not!
You say that: “The KC-767AT (hell, even the Italian & Japanese KC-767s) can lift more fuel load than is required from airfields even smaller & more limiting than one with a standard tanker base runway.”
It depends what you think is ‘required’. If the USAF is looking for no better capability than is offered by a KC-135, that’s true, to an extent. But from representative tanker base runways, on representative real world tanker sortie profiles, the 767 ends up with about as much fuel to offload as a VC10 K3.
Procuring a new tanker with about the same ‘real world capability’ as a VC10 in 2009 really is BS!
You ”bet a KC-777 loaded with ‘just’ the 246,000 lbs the KC-30 can carry would surprise you are to how short a runway it could take-off from.”
I do have a good idea of KC-777 balanced field length requirements, thanks, and when I was briefed on them I was surprised at the runway length required. And it really wasn’t pretty! The idea that the 777 can meet KC-45 balanced field length requirements is, to use your favourite phrase, “BS”.
The fact remains:
The A330 can operate from an airfield with a shorter balanced field length (with it’s full fuel load) than the KC-767 can.
That’s right, the ‘small’ KC-767A needs a longer runway to take off with 91.8 tonnes than is required by the ‘big’ A330 to take-off with 111 tonnes. The ‘small’ KC-767 can’t operate from a 9,000 ft runway WITH FULL FUEL, whereas a ‘big’ KC-45 can.
That means that the ‘big’ KC-45 can use more forward airfields closer to the towline, and will do so carrying full fuel. The ‘small’ KC-767 has less basing flexibility. That’s FACT, not ‘BS’.
JackonickoPeter G.
“I’m sorry – are you guys saying you can look at a display and say 8G, 9G, 10.5G turn?”
I’m categorically stating that I’m with John Farley on this one. I know that I can’t, and I don’t think it’s possible unless you can also accurately estimate speed and turn radius……
Niksi,
I’ve mentioned Typhoon only in passing – and to say how poor its Le Bourget display was! I’ve carefully avoided entering or encouraging a Rafale vs Typhoon p***ing contest.
Sign In
