I red quite well. The trouble is you’re dribbling so much, you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

I am not dribbling at all. You simple did what EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers do & claim that others have said things that they did not.

NOWHERE IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO DID I EVEN MENTION THE KC-30 other than to point out what a EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker you are.

So, the bottom line is you’re claiming that KC-30 can’t offload 153,000lbs at 1000nm, as opposed to KC-767’s 117,000lbs at the same distance, making these documents a lie?!

Once again, claiming I have said something I did not.

From an airfield with a PCN-F of 61 – 66 – 77 – 105/PCN-R of 52 – 61 – 73 – 85 & a 10,000′ runway, the KC-30 can offload 153,000 lbs of fuel at 1000nm. If the airfield’s PCN is lower than that, reguardless of the runway length, the KC-30’s take-off weight must be lowered in order to operate from said airfiled & thus its potential fuel offload at range is reduced.

From an airfield with a PCN-F of 48 – 54 – 66 – 87/PCN-R of 44 – 52 – 62 – 71 & a 10,000′ runway, the KC-767AT can offload 117,000 lbs of fuel at 1000nm.

When the KC-30’s operating ACN lowered to that of the KC-767, the KC-767 actually has the greater payload. 🙂

And again the infamous RAND ‘Analysis of Alternatives’ & CAS/EADS-NA study both stated from airfileds with a PCN of ~50 or lower, the KC-767 can actually offload MORE fuel at range than the KC-30. This is due to the KC-30 having to reduce its take-off weight (lower payload) in order to lower its operating ACN such that is can operate from said airfields. In so doing its potential fuel offload at range actually drops BELOW that of the KC-767.

Pcfem, your arrogance (and ignorance) is astounding.
Where did you get the idea that the modern USAF will operate at the fuel delivery rates, you cited above???!!!
What’s the SFC for F-15/F-16/F-18 and what’s for F22/F35???!!! How can you even compare that??
Of course 767 is enough for teens, but for a new all stealth, force??? Can you even begin to envision how will the modern USAF operate and what will be the new cornerstones? New tanker capabilities also mean new types of missions possible, therefore new tactics can be worked out, etc,…
KC-X program is a next gen program for the USAF tanker and is supposed to follow combat aircraft’s requirements.
The notorious RAND “clubbing baby seals” happened after F35s were denied access to tanker, for whatever reasons.
I mean can you even take a glimpse of a big picture and how important this tanker program is???

I have lost count how many times I have commented on the potential increase in per sortie fuel offload of future operations…

But it is going to be quite some time before the proportion of F-22/F-35 vs F-15/F-16/F-18 is high enough for the fighter types to be a significant factor. And even when it does what makes you think it is going to make THAT much of a differrence?

I see you don’t get it, again. If the runway is f.e. 6000ft long, regardless of PCN, 767 won’t be able to take off it at 202,000lbs of fuel at all. KC-30 will be able. So, your rotation argument becomes pointless immediately.
However, rotation argument has some semi-merit in the case of large runways, but those have high PCN as well, so then again KC-30 with shorter take off run will do faster rotations, because of that, shorter take off ability.
performance.

It is YOU who do not get it. The USAF has indentified its fuel offload at range requirements based on future operations. And not because it actually NEEDS the same (or greater) fuel offload at range as the KC-135R but because of all the grip it got during the tanker lease about how the 767-200ER-based KC-767A (160,000 lbs fuel capacity) did not has set the KC-X requirement at matching the fuel offload at range of the KC-135R (from a 10,000′ runway). But the intent of the KC-X is to be able to operate from more, smaller airfields closer to the refueling points/tracks in order to improve efficency & thus has indicated in the requirements the desire to (BUT NOT REQUIREMENT TO) from a 7,000′ runway, match the fuel offload offload at range of the KC-135R (from a 10,000′ runway). IF IT WANTED/NEEDED MORE THAN THAT THE REQUIREMTNS WOULD BE FOR MORE!

The KC-30 can not take off from a 6,000′ runway with 202,000 lbs of fuel either. And in fact based on the CAS/EADS-NA study, (ignoring PCN) from a 6,000′ runway the KC-30 can barely offload more fuel at range than the KC-767 (& that is a non-AT KC-767, with the KC-767AT’s better runway performance the gap would be even less if not closed all together).

BUT, the reality is that when you start talking about airfileds with runways of ~8,000′ or less then you are taking about airfields where PCN becomes a significant factor (& the lower the runway lenght, the MORE of a factor PCN becomes) such that the fuel offload vs range advantage of the KC-30 shrinks, is closed or even reversed such that the KC-767 can actually offload more fuel at range.

Boeing stretched KC-767 too far, so I guess 767 has been more, hastily adapted, then carefully studied, for KC-X role. 767’s airframe is too small to accommodate 202,000lbs of fuel and still retain original flying characteristics, or this is the case with present aeroconfiguration, at least.
767 has 12% less wing loading when empty than KC-30 and identical wing loading on MTOW. This means 767 has larger fuel fraction and less total fuel onboard than KC-30. Hence larger take off run and probably crappy flight

WITH A FULL LOAD OF 202,000 lbs THE KC-767 IS NOT EVEN AT ITS MTOW! And the KC-767AT’s increased MTOW is due simply to using the wings, landing gear & engines of higher MTOW 767 variants. There have been FAA certified 767-300ERs operating since the mid/late-1980s with the same MTOW as the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT.

The 767 has a superior payload vs weight (MTOW – OEW vs OEW) than the A330. The reason why the A330 appears so good to such ignorant people is because it is a comparatively large plane with a proportionally small payload capability.

So, why doesn’t the USAF then scrap its F22s? They’re way too good for anything they can potentially encounter and a few times too expensive?!
F-15 is way more efficient against Mig-29 than is F22, in terms of cost/effectiveness.
Got the big picture now?? Still foggy, eh?

What are you babbling about now?

The KC-767 is the better tanker! The KC-30 requires BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in additional MILCON just to match it

First of all, No! 767 can NOT offload more fuel than KC-30, according to released data. If you want to somehow prove the opposite, you’d better come with something more substantial than your “word”.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. Read what you are responding to!

Aside from that NOT being what I posted, I have already provided the links TO RELEASED DATA which proves that the KC-767 CAN offload more fuel than KC-30 when the airfield PCN is below ~50 (the infamous RAND ‘Analysis of Alternatives’ & CAS/EADS study both stated such)…

Here are some data of KC-X program (for all lazy readers no links, everything is here :D), so we don’t need to speculate too much.

My URL links take ONE click to see, your attachments require TWO clicks to see clearly. :p

Now, pfcem, even the layman like you should be able to discern what goes where, but in case you’re unable let me spell it for you. 😀

If KC-30 can take off from 7000ft runway at 245,000lbs of fuel, than it can take off from even shorter runway at 202,000lbs (which is 767’s max fuel load) and 767 wouldn’t be able to take off from that shorter runway at all.

While I do not claim to be an ‘expert’ I do know about the realities of US tanker operations & how such statement as what you just posted ignors said realities.

With 202,000 lbs from a 7,000′ runway, the KC-767AT EXCEEDS the fuel offload vs range requirement of the KC-X AND because its ACN with 202,000 lbs of fuel is lower than the KC-30 (even with the same 202,000 lbs of fuel) it can in fact offload more fuel from aifields with lower PCN. Not to mention how many more KC-767 (AT or not) can operate from each airfield (meaning in fact GREATER potential fuel offload from said airfields) AND most importantly that per sortie fuel offload is comparatively low BECAUSE THE KEY FACTOR TO MISION SUCESS IS THE NUMBER OF BOOMS IN THE AIR & not how much fuel each individual tanker is capable of offloading.

average per sortie fuel offload
Operation Desert Storm: 47,500 lbs
Operation Allied Force: 48,700 lbs
Operation Enduring Freedom: 75,400 lbs
Operation Iraqi Freedom: 60,800 lbs

From the 2008 Tanker Mission Data chart the average for 2008 was ~47,500 lbs with ~90% of ALL mission offloading ~90,000 lbs or less. AND THAT INCLUDES THE KC-10A with 110,000 lbs MORE fuel capacity then the KC-30!

In other words, EVEN THE KC-767AT IS MORE TANKER THAN IS ACTUALLY NEEDED & the ‘extra’ capacity of the KC-30 is a waste the vast majority of the time. And for that comparatively small portion of the time where something more is needed, THAT is what the true large tankers (KC-10/KC-Y) are for.

Your point that 767 fulfilled requirement is plain stupid.
Why?
Well, because this is called progress. If you have two products that both fulfill requirements and one is more capable than the other, you’ll get the more capable regardless of requirements. LOL, where is the logic in choosing “enough” over “excellence”?! 😀

Except that for the KC-30 to even be superior than the KC-135R in REAL WORLD TANKER OPERATIONS, requires billions of dollars of MILCON. AND the difference in total life cycle cost between the KC-767AT & the KC-30 could be GREATER than the $35-40 billion development & procurement cost.

Bigger DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean better. And in the case of the KC-30 vs the KC-767 it does not.

Pfcem can you show us 1 picture of an airfield that is 2 full because the aircraft are 2 big.

Boeing & others already have.

Here is one:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3295523/Open-Source-Kadena-Sattelite-Photos-UNCLASSIFIED?secret_password=sp1ueeryae3kfq87umb
A bit nickpicky but does demonstrate the problems even the LARGEST AIRBASE IN THE PACIFIC THEATER has with the operting the KC-30.

This never happens. If it did it would be bad planning. Even Ascension Island in 1982 was jam packed with aircraft and it still had room for incoming aircraft. This is no issue on tanker requirements

Stop drinking the EAD/KC-30 Kool-Aid & realize just how big & heavy the KC-30 is.

.

Advanced Tanker Program: Operational Assessment
June 2005 by CAS, Inc.for EADS North America
A comparision of tanker lease proposed KC-767 & KC-330 (including nominal higher take off weight variants).

The pdf file is 158 pages & I do not have a internet link to it but here are some telling figures I saved from it.

Impact of Pavement Condition on Fuel Offload
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4858/impactofpavementconditi.png
Impact of Runway Length on Fuel Offload
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/1536/impactofrunwaylengthonf.png
Impact of Runway Length on Number of Potential Tanker Bases
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6532/impactofrunwaylengthonn.png
Tanker Staging Bases
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8486/tankerstagingbases.png

Although it may seem difficult that Typhoon has >5,000 kgs internal fuel despite being generally smaller than F-18, it may carry high density fuel.

As mentioned earlier, the F/A-18 C/D was a category 3 jet : 11 tons and 160 kN. But as it’s range was short, a category 4 jet in the form of E/F was developed.

A Category 3 jet (like Typhoon) must have atleast 5,100 kg internal fuel and/or supercruise ability. This will give it decent range. Typhoon has both. In contrast, the F-18 C/D neither had so much fuel, and had only 160 kN thrust (even though 160 kN for a 11 ton jet is exactly proportional to 100 kN for a 7 ton jet like Gripen-NG); these didn’t give it the required range.

MiG-35 too has only managed 4,500 kgs of internal fuel — after lots of celebrated “redesign”. It too would’ve gone the way of F-18 C/D, had it not have had a 172 kN thrust like Typhoon’s 180 kN. Although it doesn’t give it supercruise ability, it does increase range somewhat. However, it has lesser range compared to Typhoon.

That is well known. F/A-18 E/F is a Category 4 jet : 14 tons, 196 kN thrust, and 6200 kg internal fuel –> all of which are exactly twice that of Gripen-NG.

The F-18 C/D was thus, a flawed design in that a Category 3 jet must atleast have about 5,100 kgs of internal fuel to maintain the ratio of Gripen in category 1, or F-16/Rafale in category 2. The Typhoon maintains it.

Nonsense.

The F/A-18 C is both LIGHTER than the Eurofighter Typhoon AND has a GREATER fuel capacity. And this from a carrier-borne aircraft with the specific design compromises for better handling around the carrier which contributes to the F/A-18’s otherwise less steller max performance figures vs land-based fighters.

***

My reply was more aimed at your “I haven’t seen it” statement, rather than the exact number. You certainly haven’t seen a lot of things, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, albeit I agree with you here that >5000 kg is not a “most accepted figure”. Basically a moot point, and I stay at the conclusion that the fuel load is somewhere in between 4900 kg and 5000 kg, with the photograph evidence of 4940 kg. I assume that to be JP-5.

But you are still missing the point. If Abhimanyu was corect then, JUST AS I POSTED, many postered would have posted many sources indicating such & I (& everyone else here) would have seen it.

It is VERY unlikely to be JP-5. Pretty much only the USN uses JP-5 due to its expense. Difference between JP-5 & JP-8 considered worth the cost for the additional safety on a carrier.

Look the figures I provided are for the F/A-18C and F/A-18E both directly taken form their related NATOOPS flight manuals. Unless you want to challange the accuracy of these documents and come up with a more accurate/reliable source I don’t see your point. Fact is for someone who is nitpicking on a minor calculation difference of 1.6 kg, you are awefully off with your numbers in comparison!

No, the fuel capacity of the F/A-18C is 1700 gal. Like I said, the numbers you provided are close enough given slight variations in conversion factors between volume (gals) & weight (lbs &/or kg) to be correct for the slighty less capacity of the F-18D of 1620-1621 gal.

***

pfcem, can I ask how did you arrive at the 4898.4 kg you posted before, the Luftwaffe factsheet gives 6125L of internal fuel, and 6125L of JP-5 or JP-8 comes to over 4900kg either way by my calculation ? :confused:

6125 L / 3.8 = 1611.8 gal
1611.8 gal * 6.7 = 10,799.3 lbs
10,799.3 lbs / 2.2046 = 4898.5 kg

Given how close the number is to “5000 kg” it would have been more correct for me to have used a more accurate liters to gallons conversion but I am used to 3.8 being close enough for most calculations (I may have to get myself into the habit of using 3.7854 instead).

6125 L / 3.78541178 = 1618.05 gal (very close to but still less than the F/A-18D & ~82 gal less than the F/A-18C)
1618.05 gal * 6.7 = 10,840.94 lbs
10,840.94 lbs / 2.2046 = 4917.42 kg

There’s an EADS presentation that puts the Typhoon’s fuel fraction at 0.31, which for an empty weight of 11,000 kg gives a range of between 4944-5170 kg internal fuel, and then we have it right from the a pilot’s mouth that the Typhoon carries 5.5 short tons or 4989kg of internal fuel, assuming of course that the plane was fully fuelled at the start of that display. 😉

What I KNOW is that the F/A-18C has a tank capacity of 1700 gal which @ 6.7 lbs/gal (JP-8) = 11,390 lbs (5166.5 kg). If you prefer the ~1.5% heavier JP-5 (I don’t because most all numbers given by sources seem to fall more in line with JP-8 & JP-5 seems specifically for use on USN carriers) you are talking 11,563 lbs (5245 kg).

And STILL with all the talk going on here NOBODY have given any credible source crediting the Eurofighter Typhoon with >5,000 kg (11,034 lbs) OR 1700 gal (6435.2 L).

I’m interested to know why Boeing doesn’t offer a tanker variant of the 787-8. The RFP requires the tankers to be in service for the next 40 years.

Too high a risk factor.

767-200 is already MORE than enough tanker so no need for anything bigger.

Remember, KC-X is only the 1st of THREE new tankers…

The KC-767 is hardly state of the art unlike the KC-135 when it entered service.

The A330 is not more ‘state of the art’ than the 767. Tankers don’t need to be ‘state of the art’.

They should offer the Pratt PW1000G or GEnx at the very least.

I agree & it should be the ‘launch platform’ to begin replacing all old technology high-bypass turbofans with the more efficient new technology. The problem is Congress won’t pay for it so it won’t happen.

Doesn’t the US want the best technology for the job.

No, it wants low cost & low risk – thus the primary reason that the tanker has to be based on a current production commercial airframe.

If it wanted the best technology it would be asking for a “clean sheet” design.

Oh, & it wanted its 1st new tankers 3 years ago…

All this talk about propping up Boeing is like a bail-out mentallity. How are you guys going to keep up the leading super-power and tech-power status with that kinda attitude. Boeing should step up to the plate and offer something state of the art.

Nobody is ‘propping up Boeing’. Boeing offered the better solution BOTH times.

Something ‘state of the art’ would be rejected on cost AND risk grounds.

The US has plenty of ‘state of the art’ systems, tankers don’t need to be.

no, they said they had to alter the model because the KC-30 was outside it’s previous capabilities to handle CORRECTLY

so they fixed the model to handle the KC-30 CORRECTLY

Where do you make this crap up from.

The model, USING REAL WORLD DATA, handles, everything else (KC-10s, C-5s, B-52s, et cetera) just fine. And the model WAS run using real world data. It was not the model, it was the reality that with the existing infrastucture they could not get enough KC-30s on the ground/in the air from the available bases to be able to refuel all the recievers.

and the KC-30’s superior short-field capability triumphs once again . . .

if you need to work from smaller bases, the KC-30 can take off with more fuel in shorter distance

if you need to work from more distance, the KC-30 has the range to deal with it

either way, the KC-30 wins

No it does not. Despite the KC-30’s good runway performace it is too big (footprint) & heavy (ACN) to be able to operate for the smaller bases with shorter runways. Being able to land/take-off from a given length of runway & ACTUALLY being able to operate from an airfield (reguardless of the length of its runway) are two different things.

What you NEED is booms in the air. That means as many tanker as you can get as close to the refuel points/tracks as you can. Not only to have ENOUGH booms to get the job done but with the shortest trasit (time & distance).

so smaller tankers are less efficient when working at long distances because they burn all their fuel just getting on station and have nothing left to give

That is what true large tankers (KC-Y) are for.

Again, we don’t even use the full capacity of the KC-135s! And the reason for the 7,000′ runway requiremnt is TO BE ABLE to better operate from more & smaller airfields closer to the refuel points/tracks.

well tell us Nostradamus, what sized tanker will be most efficient when fighting Oceania 20 years from now?

efficiency is nice, but when fighting a full-up war, NO ONE CARES

so the 767 is efficient for fighting policing actions when you have full control of the skies and there are no SAM threats and can be based close to the action

here’s a gold star you can show your mommy

your entire argument seems to be based around efficiency is small-time operations

my argument is based on capability, flexibility, worst-case scenarios

and no, being smaller is not necessarily an advantage in those situations as IFARA once again showed the ability to do the same mission with fewer aircraft, or if you prefer, more missions with the same number of aircraft

It has NOTHING to do with small-time operations vs big-time operations. Either way, there are MANY more fighters taking on comparatively small amounts of fuel then that are bombers taking on comparatively larger amounts of fuel.

My argument is based on reality. You argument is based on fantasy.

what if longer-distance becomes the norm? we’re already seeing that trend with stuff like Manas. Suddenly a long commute is the rule rather than the exception.

do we throw up our hands and say, ‘oops, 80% of our fleet is useless’ (or horribly inefficient)

LOL.

ONE theater of operations operating at an INSANELY low intensity is NOT a trend.

ok, slight hyperbole in action, but this isn’t:

the KC-30 can use more bases than the KC-767 because the horrible balanced-field ability of the 767

the 767AT might have had a shot, but now that it’s dead, so is any claim to airbase superiority

Dream on. Size (footprint) & weight (ACN) are the major limiting factors, not runway length.

The KC-767 DOES NOT have horrible balanced-field ability.

well i sure am glad you could clear that up for us :rolleyes:

If you would stop venturing off into some fantasy land, I would not have to.

sounds like a call for IFARA!

Exactly, but when the KC-30 can’t get the job done you acknowledge it & reject it for not being able to get the job done instead of altering the model data so that it can. 🙂

ok, fine, offloaded+burned

that’s a more relevant stat than offloaded by itself

And BOTH are more relavant than the amount returned.

***

This all leads to the conclusion that current tankers are timing out, rather than fueling out because it takes so long to offload the fuel

Tankers flying around for hours on end NOT refuel aircraft is HORRIBLY ineffective/inefficient. It is not that it takes so long to offload fuel at is is the sheer numbers of recievers & comparatievly low amounts of fuel per reciever that NEED to be refueled in a timely manner.

Probe and drogue woud reduce the time taken for a four aircraft package by 75%, and allow more fuel to be offloaded.

To quote the USAF

by refueling two fighters simultaneously, the time that the fighters spend refueling can
be reduced by approximately 75 percent. This reduced refueling time, in turn, would
enable the tanker to have considerably more fuel available to off-load to other
receivers….

I don’t know where you got that quote from but it is BS. NONE of the several studies into multi-point refueling came up with anywhere near that number & no flight crew that I have spoken with or have read comments from on the issue have indicated such either.

Coalition aircraft, and significantly, USN are already operating in Afghanistan, so any aircraft (including the proposed KC’s) would have a greater oppurtunity to offload fuel to these aircraft, as opposed to the one per time that they can acheive at the moment,

If the USAF chose to fit the probe and drogue to their several thousand F-35’s on order, this would further exacerbate the need for increased fuel offload.

There is no need for increased fuel offload. We don’t even us utilize the full capacity of the KC-135R! And we use the greater offload capacity of the KC-10 even less.

i’m not sure why you keep repeating your lies because i think everyone else here realizes by now how far off you are

It isn’t a lie. It is what the KC-X Source Selection Team said had to be done.

let me refresh your memory:

Being within 1% (which it isn’t) & the new evaluation somehow working out that it are two different things.

it’s a bigger factor than ACN and a hell of a lot bigger factor than footprint, which is basically irrelevant to whether or not a tanker can use an airfield

Dream on. ACN/PCN is the biggest factor by far.

the point you are MISSING is that often there is no closer base

tankers require a lot of infrastructure to deliver all the fuel they need

you don’t find such infrastructure at tiny austere bases in the middle of the desert

But often there are & THE primary reason for the 7,000′ runway requirement for the KC-X is to be able to better utilize them. Nobody is talking about tiny austere bases in the middle of the desert.

why do you think tankers fly from Manas? because they’re too big to fly from Kandahar? No! Because the fuel infrastructure at Kandahar is inadequate to support all their needs. Because there is NO OTHER CHOICE

So?

sure it CAN get the job done, just like you CAN excavate a pool with a pickaxe

doesn’t mean it’s the most efficient way of doing it

the bigger problem for the 767 is that sometimes the closest base is just too far away and it can’t deal with it (at least not efficiently) while the kc-30 can

I just love how your analogies are so off the mark.

The smallest/lowest fuel capacity tanker capable of getting the job done is the most efficient.

I also love how you continue to ignore that for those comparatively few instances where medium tankers like the KC-135 & KC-767 are not enough tanker is what the KC-10/KC-Y are for.

1. any airstrip a 767 can operate from a KC-30 can operate from
2. the KC-30 has a longer loiter time the KC-767

the 767 loses either way

1. not true (& even many that is can, it can only at reduced weight, thus negating its ‘extra’ capacity)
2. the KC-767 has more than enough loiter time

however, the point i was trying to make and you were trying to ignore, is that using fuel offload amounts is a STUPID way of determining how much capacity a tanker needs

You are right. The number of tankers needed to refuel all the MANY receivers in a effective & efficient manner is MUCH more important (because the fuel offload amounts are so comparatively low).

feel free to prove such anytime you want

I already did. Quite some time ago.

all i said was that that was a better stat to look at than fuel-offloaded to determine how much capacity is actually used

do you agree or disagree that fuel remaining would be a more useful stat?

Disagree.

How much fuel the tanker brought back shows how much ‘extra’ was carried, how much was offloaded (plus how much the tanker itself burned) shows how much was actually needed…

BOTH the comparatively low per sortie offload numbers & the significant amount of fuel KC-135s routinely return with CLEARLY show that even the KC-135 has more than enough fuel capacity for the majority of the sorties they fly. Thus the claim that more fuel capacity than the KC-135 is somehow needed is a solution without a problem.

Now, IF the KC-X requirements were for a tanker with LESS fuel offload capacity than the KC-135R, then how much the KC-135s routinely return with WOULD be a MUCH greater significance than it is for (as it is) a tanker with at least a much fuel offload capacity as the KC-135R.

All of this is extrapolated from current KC-135 based operations. Perhaps one could look at a step change in operational philosophy rather than an evolution (say KC-97 to KC-135)….albeit that was one required by the strategic shift in USAF operations.

Your points do rely on the current model being continued…and the alterations that you illustrate are based on the ends of the current spectrum as opposed to a completely new paradigm.

The only “new paradigm” that is going to make THAT much of a change is MANY fewer recievers each recieving a LOT more fuel per sortie.

Or possibly the change to several million pound MTOW tankers with multiple booms & enough endurance to stay airborne for days at a time.

I think this confirms that the assumption that the operational model developed for the KC-135 will be continued but with a new tanker.

No it confirms the relity that US tanker operations consit MOSTLY of each tanker refueling several recievers with comparatively small amounts of fuel per receiver.

***

I think the graph on page 4 says a lot. The average fuel offload of the KC-135 AND KC-10 is 47.5k lbs. However, a cursory glance at the graph will show that the average offload of the KC-10 is far greater, being closer to 90k lbs.

Showing that larger tankers DO offload more fuel per mission.

It also shows that even the KC-10 (with a fuel load of up to 356,000 lbs; 154,000 lbs more than the KC-135R/KC-767AT & 110,000 lbs more than the KC-30) offloads LESS fuel per sortie than the KC-767 is capable of. Looking at the KC-135 & KC-10 lines the main difference is the proportion of sorties with <30,000 lbs per sortie…

But then THAT is the reason for have both a medium tanker & a large tanker. Looking at the Total line, BOTH the KC-135 & KC-10 lines drop off ~80,000-90,000 lbs…IF, as is being implied, such large fuel capacity were REALLY useful that often the KC-10 line SHOULD be shifted at least 50,000 lbs higher than it is.

As pointed out above, it is better to have an aircraft ‘on station’ than flying to its station.

Thus the advantage of a smaller tanker which can operate in larger numbers from smaller airfields closer to the refueling points/tracks.

With Manas airbase being approximately 1000nm from much of the action in Southern afghanistan, the % of time on station (as opposed to the four hour round trip), will be important. If you can spend an extra hour or so of a mission offloading fuel, instead of flying back early.
The average offload for afghanistan in 2006 was apparently 68k lbs, and that is mainly KC-135’s. So a higher % of their max fuel offload than average, and more than 50% of these missions were above that level, and so nearer to their max offload. How many of those missions will have been limited by fuel offload? If an F-16 can take on 10,000lbs per time, thats a good few missions,

F-16s don’t take on 10,000 lbs of fuel per refueling. Neither do F-15s.

***

Can you please explain where you keep getting that the KC767 can operate from MORE airfields and in LARGER numbers than the KC-30 please?

As far as most people are concerned it’s the other way round. The KC-30 can carry more fuel from more bases than the KC767. The KC-30 better brakes and takeoff and landing ability lets it operate from more airfields when carrying the same amount of fuel as the KC767.

Contrary to what the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid says, the limiting factors the VAST majority of the time as to whether a given aircraft can operate from a given airfield is either size (footprint) or weight (ACN/PNC) NOT runway length.

Size (footprint) also comes into play with reguards to how many of a given aircraft can operate from a given airfield.

Yes there will be some ratio’s where the KC767 can looks good but we need real world figures. Since the new tankers will operate in a DIFFERENT way from current KC135’s we can’t plan weights and loads of aircraft. it will be more likely flights will carry cargo and fuel and do duel missions. This gives the KC30 the advantage when operating at higher weights. The easiest thing to do at an airport is slap a bit of concrete down for more aircraft to park on. The harder thing to do is to extend the runway. This goes in the KC-30 favour for the space issue. I grant that if Boeing put new brakes and engines on the plane it could match the KC767 in take off and landing ability. The problem with the KC767 is the safety margin for an aborted take off. It just can’t stop in the same distance as the KC-30.

More EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid. That BS is based on a commercial 767-200ER AT MTOW. With a full load of 202,000 lbs of fuel the KC-767AT is WELL below its MTOW. The US, Italy & Japan have NO issues with the 767-200ER-based KC-767A operating safely from the required runway length of 8,000′. And the KC-767AT has the wing/flats, landing gear & engines of heavier than 767-200ER varient 767s. Last but not least the KC-767AT exceeds the KC-X fuel ofload at range requirement froma 7,000′ runway.

With the fuel burn issue i think this is a bit of a non issue. The difference between the 2 is small and will depend on missions and i don’t think will play that big a part in the decision. Yes the KC767 uses a bit less fuel but if you need to send 2 instead of 1 KC-30 it doesn’t favour it anymore. What i mean is say the KC767 has ran out of fuel for the last 2 fighters you have to send a second aircraft where KC-30 has one. Unlikely i know this is why i don’t think it will play a big part in decision making

What is nonsense is the BS that there will be THAT many instances where the greater fuel capacity of the KC-30 will come into play. The VAST majority of the time the full capacity of the KC-767 won’t even come in to play. Thats is LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of sorties where the KC-Xs offload the same amount of fuel reguardless of whether it is KC-767 or KC-30 (but burning a not insignificantly greater amount of fuel themselves) vs a comparatively few instances where the extra capacity of the KC-30 is ever used (& those times are where the KC-10/KC-Y are for anyway).

The KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z are all meant to use the same aircraft and this is to be a compromise between the KC-10 and KC-135.

No, KC-X, KC-Y & KC-Z are all meant to be different aircraft. KC-X & KC-Z are meant to be KC-135 replacement medium tankers while the KC-Y is meant to be a KC-10 replacement large tanker.

Since the US airforce uses the KC-10 more often than the KC-135 and uses it capabilities as fully as possible this made it appear that a larger aircraft would be better to replace both.

Not even close on any count. Look at the historical averages & the chart for 2008 sorties…

We are going to see a change over time off the US air force using the tanker’s for far more transport missions than the KC135 and for this the KC-30 wins. The USA currently is hiring civil aircraft to fly equipment around as it’s cheaper than firing up the C-5 to take some pallets half way round the world. The USA is also looking at how to transport cargo cheaper but still do it by air. This is where the KC-30 gets ahead of KC-767.

The KC-767 has plenty of airlift capacity. In fact it exceeds the airlift capacity required for KC-X.

***

the very realistic IFARA score disagrees

No, when REAL data is used the KC-30 is not even able to complete the evaluation missions.

hardly, there were minor quibbles, nothing that changed the numbers drastically

LOL

if you truly believe the KC-30 can’t come within 1%, then you should be relaxing because you have nothing to worry about and the 767 has already won

however, i think we all realize you DO have something to worry about 😀

Where did I say the KC-30 can’t come within 1%? Although we both know IF it does that it is not by accident…

sorry bud, you might have been able to use that argument with the 767AT, but now that that’s gone, the KC-30’s excellent short field performance allows it to operate from more airfields

Sorry, but the KC-767, whether AT or some other varient (as long as it is still some varient of -200, possibly even -300), still has a smaller footprint & lower ACN than the KC-30. And contrary to what that EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid you are drunk on says, runway length is NOT that big of a factor…

just another example of your disenguousness. if you knew diddly squat about tanker operations you would know measuring fuel offload is a STUPID way of measuring how much a tanker was used

No now you are saying that the amount of fuel a tanker can carry is of little consequence. 🙂

if a tanker has a very long flight to its station, it will burn most of its fuel getting there and flying back

All the more reason for a smaller tanker which can operate from smaller airfields in larger numbers to reduce the transit distance & time.

the total fuel offload numbers will look very small but that doesn’t mean a small tanker would have done the job

The KC-135 HAS been getting the job done.

similarly a tanker that is waiting on station burns fuel even if it’s not refuelling anyone at the moment

All the more reason for a smaller tanker which can operate from smaller airfields in larger numbers to reduce the transit distance & time AND burn less fuel during transit, during refueling & while waiting on station.

a better number would be how much fuel was left at the end of a mission

To further prove that even the KC-135’s fuel capacity is not utilize the majority of the time…

***

imho it’s about time the USAF started to switch it’s tactical aircraft to probe and drogue tanking; is there any good reason to keep boom and recepticle tanking for fighters?

Ignoring the issues of switching…

Booms are safer, more reliable & require less training. And probe & drogue is NOT near as quick as most people think.

***

Black Buck being a good example of this problem. The number of tankers required due to the small load a Victor carried meant a far more expensive and complicated mission.

That is why the US has a smaller fleet of large tankers (KC-10/KC-Y) to supplement/complement its larger fleet of medium tankers. For the VAST majority of misisons, medium tankers (like the KC-135 or KC-767) are MORE than enough tanker for the job. For those few times it is not, we use large tankers.

***

I’m sure this has been discussed on other forums, but what is the likelyhood that the F-35a will be sold to the USAF with a probe?

Zero. The USAF prefers booms even for refueling fighters.

Surely they need it for foreign air forces anyway?

Need, no.

It is available though.

The F-35b will have it also

Yes the (as currently planned) 680 USN & USMC F-35s will be so equipped. That does NOT mean that the 1743 USAF F-35s should.