It’ll take them awhile to get used to the terrain. Its not like they are flying over the Great Plains.

Unless the GEnx takes off in the free market then there won’t be a supply to change to, and then it won’t be available on a tanker for some time until it has a track record. They generally are behind the curve in programs like this because they are looking for dependable, not bleeding cutting edge.

I makes more sense to have a 3-engine 767.

The $290 million is based on the program cost to modernize their entire battle space strategy. The F-22 is a force multiplier, not just an air superiority aircraft. It will support battle space management techniques that will great streamline the work of the other fighters in the force. The Japanese are getting a bargain and the U.S. is once again shoring up their defenses against future threats. The stability of Japan is good for the entire region, especially for our joint allies in the Pacific. Its win-win for not just both parties, but the entire Pacific theatre.

I propose the C-5G, with GEnx engines and the other reliability, maintainability, and NextGen avionics of the C-5M program. If you’re going to re-engine them, why not get modern engines?

They ought to carry it further:

1. Recycle the C-1 designation for a new C-5 version to distinguish it from the C-5 family.
2. Move to a larger wing; boost the area to 900 m^2 or more.
3. Move to larger engines than the C-5, something in the 75-80,000 lbf range.
4. Spec for adequate capacity for 3x M1A2 Abrams and an unrefueled range of 3,000 nm.
5. Spec for adequate volume for 50 pallets.

Mike-

Windage is an issue for small caliber bullets, not so much when you reach the 20mm size. In order to reach hypersonic with a conventional round you have to either lighten your bullets and increase the explosive velocity of your charge, or you lengthen the barrel and increase the power in your charge. Or you do both… Either way you wear out your equipment faster. It’s all a trade off quid quo pro to reach the performance parameters. I think time of flight and range with hypervelocity rounds are the future, it’s a matter of logistics to make it happen for large service branches.

Never throw money at Boeing to accelerate anything, their corporate vaccuum cleaners have really deep bags to fill before they feel a need to change. Their competitor has a better track record.

Boeing just doesn’t get it, USAF isn’t going for best capability, its going for best value at a capped program cost. It won’t have the money to throw at a lemon program. The 777 would make for a nice asset, especially if it would have had a smaller footprint weight on the tarmac and shorter take off and landing runs. Unfortunately its not going to ever operate from smaller bases and its overkill for this stage of the competition. The kc-30 is just an overall better fit to the big picture in the end.

btw – its a lot cheaper to harden a landing strip than to increase its length. Quite a few bases are too limited in space to add runway length, but at the same time they can be hardened to handle the heavier footprints.