In-depth article on KC-767 Round 2

Quote from link above:

Team Boeing’s KC-767 Advanced in Round 1 used a 767-200ER fuselage; a 767-300F freighter wing, landing gear, cargo door and floor; and a 767-400ER’s flaps and flight deck (derived in turn from the 777). A new fly-by-wire boom with remote viewing would expand the tanker’s effective refueling airspace, and offload more fuel. Engines would be 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4062s, with 62,000 pounds of thrust each.

Their KC-767 “NewGen” in round 2 pared back Round 1’s optimization, which had penalized Boeing due to the additional risk and certification work involved. Boeing is keeping the PW4062 engines, and still says it’s using a new fly-by-wire boom design, but with a different-looking maneuvering structure reminiscent of the KC-10 boom. Earlier comments indicated a more standard 767, but pictures and videos appear to show lengthened wings and wingtip winglets, in order to deal with previous “flutter” issues and add cruise efficiency. The other clear forward-looking change involves replacement of the 400ER’s 777-derived flight deck with one derived from the new 787 Dreamliner’s.

The Navantia S-80A looks perfect for India. It is 30% more voluminous than the Scorpene. Approximately 700tons (S-80 ~ 2500tons) heavier than the Scorpene(~1800 tons). Can launch Tomahawks. And has a whole lot of place internally for an AIP system.

The RFP (when issued) should better indicate what weight class the Indian Navy is looking at. A stretched S-80A class would be a good sub.

The question is: With a STOVL Carrier, -How do you fix the AEW issue ?

Merlin AEW is the best bet for now.

Comparing paper planes (non-existent aircraft) to the non-existent V22 AEW I found this:

Sikorsky X2 Variants

-faster than the V22
-will carry heavier payloads than the V22
-more cabin space and
-probably has better combat radius.

So an X2 AEW funded by the RN maybe. :p

I don’t think any of us like “Fitted for but not with” but it is better then “not at all”. At least it means growth capability beyond primary role for the Type 45 rather then the Type 42 which had virtually no growth capability.

Agree with you on this.

I thought however, that there was time till 2012 to decide about installing the steam generator or not below the deck. My understanding is that the CVF design is flexible enough to allow this.

So another 18 months to make the decision? Or has RN already decided which variant they will purchase? I also heard a rumor that the RAF/RN has an option to postpone the F35 decision. Is this true?

I was referring to the canon bay which is stealthy and internal (F35A). NGJ shouldn’t have problems using the same aperture.

Source: Page 2 last para

Quoting from the article above:

“However, the cannon bay is big enough for NGJ, and it has a frangible covering for the gun barrel that has been faired into the stealth design. Lockheed Martin has discussed repackaging NGJ for F-35 in what it calls a gun pod. The gun port blister on the left side of the aircraft’s nose would become the aperture.”

The gun pod that you refer to, exists only for the F35B and F35C …… Its internal for the F35A. 🙂

Lockheed has certified the gun pod for the NGJ. I doubt they will certify the gun pod for the buddy re-fuelling system. Size constraints maybe.

Besides, the gun pod is in the front on the left side …. not ideal for a buddy refueling system.

F35B:
– lower range and combat radius than F35C
– marginally better t/w ratio than the F35C very early on in a mission
– more expensive to maintain but cheaper to operate than F35C(catapult launch)
– not the USN’s carrier based aircraft, its the F35C
– likely to have lesser space in the internal weapons bay than the F35C

Weight doesnot matter that much because both the B and C have the same g-rating and can carry 10000 pound+ on external hardpoints if they need to.

Also as both aircraft progress into a mission the F35C’s T/W ratio improves faster than for a F35B because of the lift fan in the F35B.

For a CATOBAR equipped CBG the F-35C is a better option.