GunnerV

So how are they going to replace 415 KC-135s with 179 KC-46As?

Marvin

By re-working all of the war plans and not planning to A/R strat airlift all over the world ...

hjs1971

Actually, alot of people don't know too much about the real KC-X plan...batch 1 is 179 tankers, then they are supposed to decide on the KC-Y, another batch of about 179 (give or take a hundred!). KC-Y could just be more KC-46's (the new official name of the KC-X Boeing 767 tanker), an improved B/C model of same tanker, or a whole new tanker completely. So, with modern equipment, 360 tankers should be able to replace 415 half century+ old ones...IMHO, the KC-Y is gonna happen alot faster than we think but it will actually be a KC-10 replacement since we are beating the snot out of those airframes and they currently have a worse dispatch rate than the -135's. They may stick with the original nomenclature and just call that the KC-Z plan and keep the KC-Y moniker for batch 2 of the -135 replacement. Clear as mud now?

shiznitobam

By purchasing more KC-46A's in subsequent buys. That is the plan, to buy the initial batch and then more in the future. We'll see how that goes though....

Sputnik

Yeah, like the M9, the M249, the M240G, the Harrier, the Stryker.....

Spur

...the T-6, the T-45, the UH-72...

Fishfreighter

All of which could have been developed and produced in the US creating US jobs. Not to mention the loss of the manufacturing capacity when buying foreign goods for the US military.

Each and every one of those programs could have been cut off (parts, tech support, etc.) on the whim of a foreign government at any time.

And you think that's a good thing?

Spur

Uhhh, all of the previously mentioned aircraft are produced in the US by US workers. Not that I like the bus, but it would have created more US jobs since Airbus was going to use the KC-45 program as a bridge to producing commercial A330s in the US. But who knows, maybe they will anyway...

Grumble

The T-6 and T-45 are built in the US. The T-45 development from the British Hawk was all done INCONUS by Boeing and US employees. Same with the T-6 development. The reason they use current platforms is because it's exponentially cheaper than developing a new one, which again is a better product for the tax payer.

As for the M9, that thing is a piece of FOD.

Sorry, but everything I've read said they would've flown green A330's to Mobile, where they would have done the tanker conversion. It would have been a European product.

As far as I'm concerned, US Taxpayer dollars are paying for an American made product, which we need now.

Spur

No, only the 1st 4 would be flown to mobile. The rest would be assembled there, then modified by Northrop. The KC-46 will have significant foreign content as well, how much? Who knows, but the 787 is around 50% foreign content, if not more.

As an aside, I was talking to one of the managers at mobile aerospace and he was very worried about airbus winning the tanker. He said it would significantly increase his labor cost as he competed with airbus for mechs and engineers.