Kc-767 ??
02-29-2008, 05:36 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 511
Originally Posted by III Corps
# Vought Pampa 2000 Vought (initially LTV, then owned by Northrop (1992), then part of Northrop Grumman (1994)) with heavily modified FMA IA63 called Pampa 2000.
# SIAI Marchetti S.211 partnered with Grumman; (Northrop Grumman)*
# Rockwell Ranger 2000
# Lockheed T-Bird II,partnered with Aermachhi for Aermacchi MB-339; note in 1995 Lockheed merged to be come Lockheed Martin.
# Embraer EMB-312H Super Tucano partnered with Northrop; (Northrop Gumman)*. Special Super Tucano with better engine and other improvements (aka Tucano II).
# Beech-Pilatus PC-9 Mk 2, which won the competition. The PC-9 Mk 2 had a 70% redesign by Beechcraft and was further developed into, and entered serve as, the T-6 Texan II, and made by Raytheon (which has owned Beechcraft since the 1980s).
++++++++++++++++++++++++=
# SIAI Marchetti S.211 partnered with Grumman; (Northrop Grumman)*
# Rockwell Ranger 2000
# Lockheed T-Bird II,partnered with Aermachhi for Aermacchi MB-339; note in 1995 Lockheed merged to be come Lockheed Martin.
# Embraer EMB-312H Super Tucano partnered with Northrop; (Northrop Gumman)*. Special Super Tucano with better engine and other improvements (aka Tucano II).
# Beech-Pilatus PC-9 Mk 2, which won the competition. The PC-9 Mk 2 had a 70% redesign by Beechcraft and was further developed into, and entered serve as, the T-6 Texan II, and made by Raytheon (which has owned Beechcraft since the 1980s).
++++++++++++++++++++++++=
02-29-2008, 05:48 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by planeview
"Our sorties" being -135's... The majority of -10 sorties offload 100's of Thousands of pounds of fuel and carry a ton of cargo. The Air Force is moving away from specialized one mission aircraft and moving to a one aircraft can do everything mindset. Just look at the C-17, F-35 and now the KC-30. Now instead of having a ramp full of -135's sitting there waiting to offload 10k of fuel why not have a -30 takeoff, offload that 10k of fuel while moving 60 pax, 20 pallets of cargo all on one sortie. Think that doesn't happen? The -10 does it all of the time...
The -135 does a great job at what it was designed to do 50 years ago but in todays do more with less Air Force why not have the most capable assets available to the war fighter?
The -135 does a great job at what it was designed to do 50 years ago but in todays do more with less Air Force why not have the most capable assets available to the war fighter?
The new tanker will still do what the 135 does most of the day, especially in peacetime...thousands of dry contacts so that receiver aircraft can get their monthly beans. A larger aircraft will never do that better.
Actually the majority of 10 sorties are driving up and down the west coast doing dry contacts too...especially the "Quest" guys.
02-29-2008, 05:56 PM
#53
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by blastoff
Actually the majority of 10 sorties are driving up and down the west coast doing dry contacts.
The new tanker will still do what the 135 does most of the day, especially in peacetime...thousands of dry contacts so that receiver aircraft can get their monthly beans. A larger aircraft will never do that better.
The new tanker will still do what the 135 does most of the day, especially in peacetime...thousands of dry contacts so that receiver aircraft can get their monthly beans. A larger aircraft will never do that better.
02-29-2008, 05:59 PM
#54
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by blastoff
Actually the majority of 10 sorties are driving up and down the west coast doing dry contacts too...especially the "Quest" guys.
The "Quest" guys are schoolhouse sorties. Of course they're going to do dry contacts. But they're moving more and more of their training to the Sims. I bet you'll see with the KC-X the complete elimination of "Locals". All training sorties will be done in the Sim.
02-29-2008, 06:51 PM
#55
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: C-17A IP
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by III Corps
Do you remember the initial efforts to replace the T-37? The super-wonderful T-46? http://tinyurl.com/2s2y9t
02-29-2008, 07:00 PM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: C-17A IP
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by GasPasser
You obviously work for Northrup Grumman - good company.
Given that this plane may end up being the next tanker, here's a new trick you are going to have the teach the ScareBus......we (tanker pilots) require the plane to follow our commands, even if they are ourside of the normal airline range, for our tactical manuvering in training and combat.
Given that this plane may end up being the next tanker, here's a new trick you are going to have the teach the ScareBus......we (tanker pilots) require the plane to follow our commands, even if they are ourside of the normal airline range, for our tactical manuvering in training and combat.
HA! tactical maneuvering in a tanker...
02-29-2008, 07:04 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Posts: 900
Originally Posted by GasPasser
Unbelievable! It makes no sense to me. I’ve been flying the great Boeing tanker for the last 17 years now - which is probably 10 years beyond its planned service life. And it’s a good thing it’s a Boeing because they plan to keep flying some of them for the next 40 years. While I’m sad that my military flying career will not be long enough to get a chance to fly the next generation tanker, I’m actually glad I won’t be asked to fly the Scarebus!
Yes, I'd rather fly a Boeing, but I'll fly anything that pays the bills and better yet, anything that doesn't require me to cancel a sortie because of maintenance issues.
02-29-2008, 07:14 PM
#58
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: C-17A IP
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by TankerDriver
Come on now. I love the -135 just as much as the next tanker guy, but the reason why it's still flying is because it sat on nuclear alert for the first 30 years of its life. Not because it's a "Boeing". The fact of the matter is, the 135 is starting to show its age. It's falling apart because we've probably used them twice as much in the past 20 years than we did in the first 30. I've seen a big change in reliability just in the past 3 years alone because we're beating the crap out of them. They probably spend 8 months out of the year in the desert, flying 15+ hours a day. LeMay never in a million years imagined his tanker would be sucking Middle Eastern sand through its turbines.
Yes, I'd rather fly a Boeing, but I'll fly anything that pays the bills and better yet, anything that doesn't require me to cancel a sortie because of maintenance issues.
Yes, I'd rather fly a Boeing, but I'll fly anything that pays the bills and better yet, anything that doesn't require me to cancel a sortie because of maintenance issues.
02-29-2008, 07:19 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by planeview
The "Quest" guys are schoolhouse sorties. Of course they're going to do dry contacts. But they're moving more and more of their training to the Sims. I bet you'll see with the KC-X the complete elimination of "Locals". All training sorties will be done in the Sim.
02-29-2008, 07:23 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by planeview
The "Quest" guys are schoolhouse sorties. Of course they're going to do dry contacts. But they're moving more and more of their training to the Sims. I bet you'll see with the KC-X the complete elimination of "Locals". All training sorties will be done in the Sim.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
