alarkyokie

Boeing sure hopes so!
"WASHINGTON - The Air Force is likely days away from handing out one of the biggest Pentagon contracts in years - a deal valued at up to $40 billion to replace 179 planes in its fleet of aerial refueling tankers."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...RC=airforce.nl

planeview

I never figured out why they're pushing the 767 vs the 777. I know the saying goes max "booms" in the air but for the last 10 years all that matters is max airborne gas. If you ask most users they would much prefer 1 KC-10 to 3 KC-135's. And all the efficiency in fuel burn and ramp footprint go away when it requires 3 aircraft to do the job of 1. But I guess we never do what's in the best interest of the military, instead we do what's best for the congressional constituents.

Rocco

Lets see.....you can refill an entire division with 3 tankers at once or you can have your entire division practice formation flying while your wingman gets his gas.......lose one tanker (KC10) and it can really screw up your tanker plan......

It did put a smile on my face when I saw a 10!!!

Cooperd0g

Dude you are so cluedo it is unbelieveable. 100k of gas doesn't do much good when fighters are operating in three different areas all 150 to 200 miles apart. Quantity and mobility are key to combat tanking. Yes a KC 10 is better for moving one squadron from point to point or for tanking multiple big wing assets, but it isn't as good for combat ops as three KC-135s with both boom and MIPR.

MX727

Three planes can be in three different locations. One plane can't do that. USAF found that out when they tried to replace the -141 with fewer -17s. Same total tonnage doesn't solve all the logistical problems.

MX727

You guys are quick.

planeview

I agree when you have a ton of assets airborne at once booms matter. The other 95% of the time like the last 4 years when those 3 locations you talk about are Iraq Iraq and Iraq and you can have one tanker flying as a contingency spare that can remain on station for 10 hours then consolidate his remaining fuel into another KC-10 you can basically have 3 tankers in a 24 hour period do the work that would require about 8 or 9 mini-tankers to do. Yes, I'm biased but maybe that's just because I've seen hundreds of -135's RTB after their 2.5hr sortie when I'm burning holes in the sky for 9 or 10. Ask most people in the CAOC who'd they'd rather have available and I think the answer become pretty obvious. Yes, this is specific to our current "war" but that's been the status quo for the past few years with no end in sight... We obviously need both but I think the AF boned it when they only bought 60 -10's. Maybe a combo of 767 and 777's would be the right answer.

planeview

I don't think I've ever been called cluedo before so that is pretty unbelievable!!!

Cooperd0g

I WAS the guy the the CAOC - the SODO. I preferred KC-10 because it had both boom and drogue capability and it had more gas, but I would rather have had two KC-135's than one KC-10. Having only one tanker airborne was a nightmare for me.

The three locations I speak of are Mosul, Baghdad, and Basrah. All separated by about 150-200 miles. Kind of makes it hard for sections of fighters operating in those areas to use just one tanker. Iraq is not the size of Rhode Island.

WAFP

Throwing my 2 cents in as a FRED guy, I'd rather see the 10 than a 135, for the reason that if, for whatever reason, either one of you get delayed that could mean the difference in the gas to make it or turn around and divert. Have had that happen on more than one occasion where the difference was made up by the taker guys doing things they probably shouldn't be doing.

But if we are looking to replace all the 135s then I'd have to say the 767 is the better choice. It does make life easier when you have multiple tankers in the air. Kinda takes out the single point of failure.