I’ve pulled those figures from all sorts of places, usually Jane’s Air Launched Weapons, Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, Yefim Gordon’s various books on the launch aircraft (and his interesting book dealing with air launched weapons as well, fun read), Rosoboronexport’s website and arms catalogs, and other places. Usually I err on the side of caution and keep the biggest value I can find that seems remotely credible (i.e. if I see a hugely different number in a fan site or stuck somewhere in a weird article, I’ll ignore it), and all of this stuff goes into an Excel spreadsheet for easy reference!

What are the latest modifications of the Kh-58 and Kh-31?

I recall there were some very late upgrades that increased their range by a LOT, especially for the Kh-31Pxx

The Kh-58U/UE has a range of up to 200 kilometers. Regular Kh-58 variants were capable of up to 160 km, or 120 km if they were Kh-58Es (export models likely suffering from slower launch platforms than the MiG-25BM able to impart enough kinetic energy to the weapon at launch to get a much greater range).

Kh-31 variants are more varied. The Kh-31A would hit 70 km, the Kh-31P 130. The Kh-31D/AD would hit 100-110 km, with the Kh-31PD hitting 200 km. The Kh-31PM/PMK should also be at 200 km. A variant called KR-1 has been quoted as having a range of up to 400 km as well.

Those are the figures I have, at any rate. Other sources might have variations obviously.

I was there, so was Zmey Smirnoff. Check out the Langley 2008 thread in the Photographic forum. I threw a similar photo to the ones above in the US Military Aviation News thread on this forum as well.

Hey you know what? It looks like this from the bottom 😀

Dunno if any of you are still planning to go to the Langley AFB airshow this weekend, but if you are, I’m headed there Sunday in an attempt to avoid the thunderstorms which may inundate the Saturday afternoon show. I’ll miss the B-2 flyover this year, but no big deal. It’ll be a lot cooler Sunday as well. Might still rain then too, but whatever.

Interestingly enough, this issue was not one that GAO considered sufficient to cite as a main reason for the overturn. Boeing’ position was that the solicitation required that the new tanker had to be able to operate from existing facilities that operated the KC-135. This included ramp strength and parking, including a specified wingtip to wingtip clearance. After the proposals were turned in, USAF relaxed the wingtip clearance requirements and then increased teh number of KC-330s it figured could be parked on existing ramps. It also did not include the cost of increasing ramp strength, taxiway width and corners required for the KC-330 to be operated from those facilities when it calculated life cycle costs for the KC-330. In fact, in one or more cases, USAF did their analysis of operations at certain facilities using ramps that did not in fact exist. When these irregularities were corrected in, the KC-767, not the KC-330 had a lower life cycle cost. than the KC-330, unlike what USAF cited in the award (life cycle was only part of the deciding factors). USAF seems to have already conceded this point even before the overturn.

That still doesn’t exactly wash though. Damn near every KC-135 base has been home to a larger type in the past or has runways sized well beyond the limits the KC-135 requires. The same goes for locations overseas in the Middle East. So where is the problem?

Regarding the Super Hornet, DoD essentially said, “Yeah, you’re right, but we’re going to buy them anyway”.

This is my point. What’s to stop the USAF from doing the same thing for the new tanker?

IN the ATF competition, USAF set it up so that as long as the winner met the basic criteria, relative merit of the aircraft was not a deciding factor and USAF could basically pick whoever they wanted by whatever criteria they wanted

Not exactly. The USAF had two aircraft that met the design requirements for the ATF. There is a method for picking between two qualified bidders, and in simple terms it involves picking the cheaper option. Simply put, Northrop had a stealthier, faster aircraft that met the USAF’s agility requirement, but it was more expensive than Lockheed’s F-22 that was more agile but met the stealth and speed requirements. Lockheed won on the basis of cost, and the messed up part is that they included the NATF in that decision yet cancelled that jet mysteriously shortly after the ATF contract was awarded.

The KC-45 would be a waste……

The KC-45 allows you to multi-task and not rely on much outside support when your tanker unit deploys. It also can fill an airlift role far more effectively than the KC-135 or KC-767, and with airlift being a capability we need more of that makes the KC-45 the more valuable aircraft.

I’m only 30, I grew up in Europe for most of the 1980’s and part of the 1990’s thanks to my dad’s USAF career 😀 That’s it for me tonight, I gotta get outta here if I want to be driving to Virginia in the morning.