I was musing on the Air Force tanker deal one fine day...

[jmowreader]

One of the biggest issues in the Murray-Rossi race in Washington was the Air Force tanker contract fiasco.

To refresh: the Air Force needs new tankers because right now, they've got two tanker models. The KC-135 is a Boeing 707 cargo conversion containing a big fuel tank, plus pumps, refueling booms and other items to allow tactical aircraft to be refueled in flight. The KC-10 is the same basic thing, but the airframe is a DC-10 cargo conversion. The REASON they need new tankers is too many parts are falling off the old ones. (According to http://247wallst.com/2010/07/09/aircraft-builders-compete-for-air-force-tanker-contract-again/ the KC-135 original contract was awarded during the Eisenhower administration!)

Hence the need for a new tanker aircraft. Two planes are under consideration: a modified Airbus 330 that will be assembled in the United States, and a modified Boeing 767.

This may show you how little I know about Air Force procurement, but exactly why in FUCK are we not looking at using a modified C-17? We already buy those for our military. They already work. We have the parts in the federal supply system now, which we don't have for either of those planes. We have pilots who know how to fly them and mechanics that know how to work on them--AND the airlines won't be cherry-picking the mechanics and drivers like they would be if we put a very, very popular airliner in the fleet like we would with either the KC-330 or the KC-767.

[enlightenment]

1. The KC-135 is not a modified 707.

They were both developed from the same prototype in the 1950s, but the 135 is narrower and shorter than the 707.

I'm not sure what the answer to your question is; it's probably financial (i.e., bucks to the corporations), but it may have something to do with the design of the C-17.

My dad flew air-refuelers through the late 1950s through the 1970s - the KC-97s and the 135s (including the 135s that were converted to provide mirror command and control functions, "Looking Glass").

He said they were pretty easy to fly and maneuverable.

[haifa lootin]

2. There's been more than a little discussion on this in our sqdn

it's hard to separate facts from speculation, it depends, like so many things, on who you choose to believe.
shrug

oh sorry I meant to add this one we have been talking about it lately

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A3236d1eb-1261-42c9-b936-a73238da88ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

[jmowreader]

3. It may be like the speculation we had on the OV-1

The OV-1 Mohawk was the Army's corps-and-above surveillance plane. (There was also an RV-1 which went after radars; same basic plane, though.) We got 'em in the 1960s and wore 'em out in the 1970s, which is why we kept using them through the 1990s. A lot of MI guys thought the perfect replacement, if we could have gotten past how it was powered, was the two-seat trainer version of the A-10. Just hang the observer's scope in the back seat, and you're golden.

Alas, the Army went to UAVs instead.

[Historic NY]

4. Airbus is a foreign made aircraft that tends to fall from the sky.

[jmowreader]

5. Well...that wasn't quite the point of my OP

In that the Air Force has a plane--the C-17--that would make a good tanker, and we're already buying parts and training crews for it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

9. most planes, under the control of fucktards will fall from the sky

Not even airliners built by the Soviets in the 1970's can seriously be considered to have poor safety records on their mechanical merits.

And the high profile airbus basher favorites...

AA587: First officer panicked and began kicking the shit out of the rudder peddles, that would have crashed just about anything.
AF296: Captain deliberately flew against flight envelope protection in attempted fly-by, autopilot landed plane as instructed.

[Angleae]

6. There are good reasons the C-17 is not considered.

The biggest is where do you put the extra fuel and refueling boom while maintaining the capability to carry cargo. A civilian airliner uses a split deck configuration allowing the extra fuel to be placed in the lower cargo bays (where the luggage goes) and due to the side loading door the refueling boom can go under the tail. A C-17 has only one deck, if you put the extra fuel tanks there you lose the cargo capability (no you can't make the fuel tanks easily removeable). Also, the refueling boom would normally go where to loading ramp is.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

7. Strategic Airlifters are not known for their efficiency

A refueling tanker doesn't need the over-engineering and power of a strategic airlifter capable of taking off uphill from a dirt strip.

Hopefully the Pentagon isn't bullied into giving the contract to Boeing, who between their criminal conduct in the original tanker competition and total non-performance on the Japanese and Italian 767 tanker programs certainly deserves to lose. The 767 has lost every single tanker competition since the Airbus A330 based tanker was introduced, the thing just plain sucks.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. Strategic Airlifters are not known for their efficiency

A refueling tanker doesn't need the over-engineering and power of a strategic airlifter capable of taking off uphill from a dirt strip.

Hopefully the Pentagon isn't bullied into giving the contract to Boeing, who between their criminal conduct in the original tanker competition and total non-performance on the Japanese and Italian 767 tanker programs certainly deserves to lose. The 767 has lost every single tanker competition since the Airbus A330 based tanker was introduced, the thing just plain sucks.