Tuesday at 07:57 PM1 day Big tankersBreaking DefenseUSAF should buy newly designed air refuelers to meet Chin...Although there’s a “temptation” to keep buying KC-46s, a plan to procure 75 more of the Boeing-made tankers should be an “upper limit” followed by a new, longer range tanker, the Hudson Institute’s TiFinish and fix the 46, interim big tanker 787 tanker while developing the BWB.Needs a cargo door but a looker, especially as a Guard tail.
22 hours ago22 hr 27 minutes ago, FourFans said:Yeah, how many would actually stay after getting that type rating?All of them for at least 10 years...
20 hours ago20 hr Author 1 hour ago, FourFans said:Yeah, how many would actually stay after getting that type rating?They would still go thru the full training program at airline X even with the type but it might make them more competitive to the hiring algorithm…The 787 tanker is a long shot but just for the interwebs. The A-330 MRTT NEO would be my recommendation (interim bigger wing tanker) but politics would likely be insurmountable.Still it brings up a good question, should the AF become more strategically oriented? That is focus on long range strike and effects, coming from a distance to mitigate the proliferation of short to mid range fires? I’m not saying the whole of the AF should be bombers and big fighters but part of the force design.
11 hours ago11 hr As I recall in the original KC-X proposal Boeing offered the 777F with a boom. It crushed in every possible category and the AF came back with, "its to big and won't fit in our existing hangers (707)". So then we had the debacle that was the 330 vs 767.Now AF wants the plane that won't fit in thier existing hangers.... sigh.
7 hours ago7 hr Author 2 hours ago, RegularJoe said:As I recall in the original KC-X proposal Boeing offered the 777F with a boom. It crushed in every possible category and the AF came back with, "its to big and won't fit in our existing hangers (707)". So then we had the debacle that was the 330 vs 767.Now AF wants the plane that won't fit in thier existing hangers.... sigh.Yup, heard the same. Things change, different operational environment now so time to adjust. The report pushes hard (sts) for the Blended Wing Body (BWB) and Collaborative Tanker Aircraft (CTA), as the long term solution I think they are right, short term a new paradigm is needed though.If king for a day, if the KC-390 and A-330 MRTT+ could be acquired with an appropriate last tranche of KC-46s, I’d spin down the -135 fleet for this new iron while BWB design which would double as NGAL was spinning up. Those two designs somehow being acquired in compliance with the Made in America laws/policies.It’s a two fold problem, two fold approach. Big tankers to launch from relatively safe hardened bases with 1000+ NM set back from operational areas, AR to the next asset who will then AR the strikers assuming more risk going modestly into the A2AD bubble. The BWB will likely simplify this paradigm a bit (reduced signature, better range/offload, better organic defense) but we gotta crawl before we run.
1 hour ago1 hr 5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:If king for a day, if the KC-390 and A-330 MRTT+ could be acquired with an appropriate last tranche of KC-46s...KISS Principle.Axe the -330, keep the KC-46, drop any/all FAA certification.
Create an account or sign in to comment