Geez, what a mess this tanker replacement contract is. I can't believe the USAF can mess it up this badly. I say forget about all these new build Boeing 767s, and Airbus. There must be hundreds of surplus DC-10s and MD-11s either in storage or with airlines that want to sell them. I say just buy them, do a tanker conversion on them, and re-engine them if you have to. Modernised the cockpit and anything else u need. The USAF has been operating KC-10s for decades now. U will end up with a cheaper tanker, and it will be available much faster. U will create jobs here, and not in Europe. I know this is naive thinking, but at this rate, the new tanker will be in service too late.

Those airframes have tens of thousands of hours on them already. Add the intense op. schedule the AF has, and you'll have wings falling off of them in 5-10 years at the longest. Not to mention that the spare parts lines are not there, and you can't depend on scavenging everything. It's a non-starter.

Most useful DC-10s and MD-11 airframes have undergone freighter conversion. Those that are no longer needed or wanted in that role have so many cycles on them, that they would be only a temporary solution for the problem of the USAF. Add that they had different owner,s different maitenance, modifications and engines and you get a mixed fleet, which would be as hard to keep in service as the current KC-135 in the long run.

Buying secondhand is OK for a small fleet, but not the USAF. The numbers are too great to be able to get a standardised fleet, or to rely on old spares stocks.

Still you have to think a dozen good airframe could be found and a dozen new tankers would ease the strain.

I assume you mean something like the Dutch MD-11 tankers?

Problem is the MD11 is a dead airframe.

The simple fact is that this USAF contract has no hit any technical difficulties (which any civillian airframe conversion would) but the problems are simply political within the procurement system.

If some with the authority (and balls) just said so the A330 tanker could be entering service within two years, and I can't see the 767 taking much longer than five...

I don't think you solve the problems of having an aging fleet by adding more aging aircraft to it, particularly if you're adding a hodge-podge of clapped-out airframes and engines.

A friend was a flight engineer on DC-10s for a small airline. Interesting stories! These DC-10s were previously owned by a Mexican airline, and had engines uprated for operation from higher elevations. At one point the airline informed crews that they could no longer drink orange juice in the cockpits, as spills had corroded too much of the wiring. The aircraft were unexpectedly retired when one had its annual inspection--structural problems were such that any additional pressurization cycles put the airframe at risk. They were all flown to the boneyard at altitudes low enough to make pressurization unnecessary.

Although it flopped as a passenger airliner the MD-11 has been fairly popular as a cargo-hauler. I doubt that there are a dozen unused ones available on the market. You might be able to turn a few old DC-10s into tankers, but those airframes are probably so old and worn out that the conversion would be a waste of money.

I hope this doesn't sound like a silly question, but if the USAF can keep B-52's and C5A's flying forever, why can't they upgrade the current tanker fleet the same way?

Maybe because the original tanker airframes were not as sturdy in the first place?

The KC-135's have serials ranging from 55- to 65- (authorized in fy '55-fy '65), B-52H's are 60 and 61, C-5A's tail no's start 69 and 70. They tend to get run harder, and C-5A availability rates are unsatisfactory as far as that goes. But that said the KC-135's are not falling apart right now. Buying beat up old airliners wouldn't make sense for that reason: they could easily be in worse shape than the planes they are supposed to replace, being newer but not having received the same work (ongoing periodic major work) to extend their lives that the KC-135's have had. But sooner or later they must be replaced, and even at the rate of replacement in the original KC-X program it would take many years. The KC-X tranche is only a downpayment. If they keep waiting, they will eventually have planes falling apart, even higher costs to prevent it, or need much higher rate of production of the replacements.

Joe

Thanks Joe! Interesting stuff that makes sense.

There a lots of older model 747s available on the civilian market and there must be a very large spare parts line available for them. Surely they'd make good candidates for conversion to cheap tankers?

Exactly how worn out the KC-135s are isn't clear. Some people claim the newer airframes still have thousands of hours left on them. My understanding is the KC-135s assigned to SAC spent a lot of time on alert sitting on the ramp, and so are in better shape than an equivalent-aged airliner or USAF cargo jet. All of the R models have had engine and avionics upgrades. And the USAF maintenance infrastructure for them is well-established, obviously.

How much of a success/failure was the KC-10? I flew on them back and forth to NTC, as well as Space-A a couple of times back in the day. The VIP load out they had was pretty suite, but even the regualr airliner seats was neat.

Coming back from a TEWT at the National Training Center, the pilot allowed us to go back and watch them refuel a passel of F-15s somewhere over the Grand Canyon, which was snow covered at the time. A spectacular site to behold, and a real aerial ballet.

Major basing problems, fairly high operating costs, and I expect quite a bit of $$$ and time to certify it for the collision close flying tankers do.


Matt

Apparently a split buy between Boeing and EADS is still a possibility, although one would imagine that the USAF would rather not have to deal with the different logistics trains.

A split buy would be the worse case scenario for the USAF, i would imagine. Its a political creation anyway. I am sure the USAF would want to see only one time, otherwise they have the night mare of operating legacy KC-135 and KC-10s until they are phased out and Airbus and Boeing 767 at the same time.

Yeah, this website indicates that there are 21 DC-10/MD-11 in flying condition for sale or lease. Not to mention how many are in mothballed in the deserts. U would think just buying 15 of the best airframes and converting them to KC-10 configuration would ease the strain.

http://www.airtrading.com//jta.htm#b767

Wouldn't the spare parts be the same as for the existing KC-10 fleet? .

According to this website, there are 45 flying condition Boeing 767 for lease or for sale right now. I would say screw it, and buy them all and convert them. I say 4 months for each conversion, farm out the conversions to other companies if Boeing does not have the capacity, and get at least a squadron of 767 tankers going within a year. Yeah, i know, its just a fantasy.

http://www.airtrading.com//jta.htm#b767

I read somewhere that if a plane is properly maintained and serviced, it can fly literally forever. I see a lot of high usage B757, DC-9, MD-80s that make several cycles every day, day in and day out. I know for aircraft refurbishing, they can x-ray the skin, joints, etc. for stress fractures, etc. Even adding a hush kit on an older engine saves fuel. These beat up old airliners still deliver. If u are going to buy an off the shelf 767, MD-11, or even Airbus 330, and convert it to tanker configuration, I would imagine some level of refurbishment to extend its life can be carried out at the same time. U may end up with a stopgap measure, that could surprisingly last a longer time than its shelf life ala B-52. But at least u have something now, relatively less costly, and the urgency is taken away.

The idea of converting old airlines may seem appealing, but if it were a viable or desirable way of doing things... somebody would have already done it. You don't fix the problems of an aging fleet by adding old aircraft to it. This is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution.

If a person strongly feels that old airliners represent the best solution in terms of being economical, there's nothing to stop a person from engaging in that sort of business.

Not that I am an expert in large tankers developed from civil transport airframes, but I have a co-worker that just retired from a foreign military tanker program. It was based on converting a 767 into a tanker for this foreign airforce. He was specifically in charge of designing, developing, and maintaining the aerial refueling system. He tells quite a few anecdotal tales based on this program alone, and he knows his aircraft systems. Going by his experience, and what I know of standardization of "identical" airframes across several production blocks, attempting to develop and then implement an engineering refueling kit conversion program for all those candidate airframes, and then get their front ends up to mil-spec so they can coordinate and rendevous with "customers" would result in more wasted money than the worst run "new build" programs. It would however, stimulate the industry a bit, by getting rid of some older airframes and making them unusable for civil use after they were discarded when the program was cut loose.

The problem isn't building aircraft. It is political and legal lawyering of the contract.

The K33 is entering service now. The first airframes for the USAF could be flying in stars and bars within two years, and I don't imagine it would be more than a few years to get the 767 in service either.

Have there been any airforces other than the dutch to modify civillian airliners to mount flying boom aerial refueling probes?

You could count the Italians, but they didn't enjoy the process I hear.

Look at the used airliners market.

1. 747. The recent -400 version is still in high demand. Used airliners are converted to freighters and replace -200 series aircraft with cargo operators. -300 are rare. That leaves a fleet of old an tired -200s, which are probably more worn out then the KC-135, apart from having old engines (older then KC-135K), avionics , etc.
And never underestimate what different owners have done to the airframes. Each one will be special.

2. 767 Quite a few on the market. But mostly 767-200, 767-300 and 767-200ER. All less capable then the promised KC-767 which has a higher take-off weight. Different engine versions, too.

3. MD-11 / DC-10
MD-11 still in high demand by cargo operators and would be new to the USAF. DC-10s most likely old and tired. Not compatible to existing KC-10.

Imho most programs to convert airliners where not a big hit.

Dutch KDC-10s showing serious signs of age. Belgian A310 VIP conversion, in need of an replacmeent as the airframe is tired. German A310 also not doing too strong. VIP version up for replacment.

Interestingly it seems like older airliners where tougher built, or the airlines used them less heavily back then, as VC-10 or Tristars in RAF service are looking good, if compared to other converted airliners. But the VC-10 were young when the RAF got them and the Tristar, well it is a Tristar.

It is not that simple. The purchase price of a system is vastly dwarfed by the costs of maintaining it. While a system can theoretically be made to operate forever, this only occurs at greater and greater cost. More and more expensive parts will need to be replaced, up to major structural airframe members. At the same time, as parts become obsolete, due to the manufacturer halting production or even ceasing to exist, they become more expensive to replace. Configuration management is also especially hard with a heterogenous second hand fleet from the private sector. In the worst case, a whole supply chain of parts for each individual airframe may be needed. You also need to maintain expertise in the system, as its original designers become "obsolete" themselves. Modifying an old system is also usually more expensive and difficult than building it from scratch.

In short, recycling old platforms can easily be more expensive, more risky and slower than building new while delivering less capability. A detailed study has to be done first before you can claim that you would "have something now, relatively less costly, and the urgency is taken away".

Those aren't equipped as tankers though, no MRTTs as the German 310s are.

According to Boeings website, he Italian 767s were new airframes, built for the purpose by Boeing & modified by Boeing at Wichita. The Italians haven't enjoyed the process, but haven't most of the problems been with the wing-mounted hose pods?

Apart from the Dutch, the only booms re-fitted to old airliners I can think of are the old Israeli Boeing 707s. Iran got some 747 tankers in the 1970s, but I think they were new-build. All the other used airliner conversions I know of (well, except for the Airbus A310 test aircraft) have hoses & drogues - Boeing 707 (various users), A310, VC-10, Tristar. Isn't the Omega KDC-10 hose & drogue?

I just wanted to show, that former airliners are often not a solution which is worth the effort for such an big conversion. Even planes used in the VIP and transport role are showing their age. (The Belgian A310 is from 1984 or so)

Looking at the CSAR-X rescue helicopter program also, the USAF's procurement process isn't that much to brag about these days. Eventually they'll get something onto the tarmac but it's such a long, painful, politicized process.

I think that all of the suggestions about converting the airliners are forgetting one thing - they will still have to go through the same procurement process that screwed up every other program including KC-X one. So by the time they are done these supposedly cheap and fast conversions will end up taking 8 years, being almost new airplanes and cost twice as much as new build airframes...

Vladimir

Any reasonably priced second-hand 747s that are still in decent shape and have probably been bought up by cargo airlines. I would be very surprised if the USAF would be able to find many that weren't clapped-out pieces of junk.

Not according to my source. Their have been all sorts of problems. Didn't know the 767s were new builds, but it hasn't made much difference from what I heard. Someone in Italy cut a door slightly too large, and it compromised the hull pressurization, so they flew that AC back to Wichita.....below 10k ft. Person in question had to ride it back all the way. He lost count how many times it had to land and refuel since the engines were so inefficient below 27k ft.

Then there were the tales of the telescopic fueling probe extend and retract speed and the complications that caused. Then the tale about the feedback control servos that handled the refueling probe steering controls having their issues. An in flight failure during development made it necessary to land the aircraft with the probe fully extended and the hose pods extended, and during the debrief of what went wrong, someone noted that a flight test requirement was to land with all refueling equipment fully extended, so they had just inadvertently saved the company money, as long as the problem wasn't repeated (half of it was).

I've not really followed the project, but I heard there were serious problems with the underwing hose pods - or rather, the pylons on which they were mounted, which did rather dangerous things to the wings, & had to be redesigned. I didn't know about all the other problems (worse than I thought!), but none of them are attributable to the aircraft being secondhand.

From Boeings POV, the Italian & Japanese 767 programmes look like two-edged swords to me. They've had a lot of problems, which tend to reduce confidence in their ability to do the USAF tankers on time & budget. But - they can claim to have ironed out a lot of problems which they therefore won't run into in the USAF project.

The USAF thought the Airbus was, overall, the better choice. Too bad they can't just leave it at that.

I suspect we all agree on that.

Oh dear Lord here we go again!

Lawnchair [x]

Popcorn [x]

Cigarettes [x]

44Gallons of Red Bull [x]

Multi Coloured-text-proof goggles [?]

Right! USAF Tanker thread #64752 Bring it on...

Well, except for the fact that I'm now working with a bunch of former Boeing system engineers and flight test engineers with my present employer, because they got out while the getting was good. Boeing Wichita, which did the conversions, has lost quite a bit of their talent base, and there is a saying in Wichita, once you lay people off, they don't come back.

Oops! Bang goes that painfully acquired corporate knowledge.

From Mil.com/DoD Buzz; Murtha talks about 2-tanker purchase proposal;

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/01/dual-tan...illions-murtha/

Actually, u gave a very good point. LOL. Indeed, it will be screwed up.

Not me .....

The USAF bid evaluation team ignored their own evaluation criteria in choosing the Airbus proposal. Either they got all wrapped up in their analytical jock straps and lost their way, or else somebody in DoD tampered with the evaluation process in Airbus' favor.


I don't smoke, but the popcorn and the 44 gallons of Red Bull will get the job done.

No air force operators come close to civil operators in the rate at which they put hours on an aircraft, that why the KC135s can still fly around with hours left on their airframes long after their civil cousins were retired. The main issue I see with buying civil airframes and converting is likely to be the fact that you will have to creat bespoke solutions for virtually every airframe unless you can buy all your aircraft from one operator. Most smaller air forces could do that but obviously the USAF can't

The military also puts hours on an airframe in risk conditions the civil operators would not countenance, IOW they get used harder. Civil operations put more cycles on airframes. However, what civil operators consider unusable is due to the lack of economy in operations or maintenance when compared to competitors. Not because they are retired from civil use as barely maintainable wrecks as seems to be the perception here.

All I will say is something is wrong when the replacement aircraft (KC-45) could not fit in the same hangers as the KC-135.

Because the USAF should be saddled with a certain size of aircraft? Just because that's what they've operated for the last 50+ years? That notion seems pretty short-sighted.

It would seem even more silly to have to build an entirely new series of hangers, revetments, and other infrastructure for a single new type of aircraft. At the very least, such extensions to the program dramatically increase program costs and implementation times.

Penny wise, pound foolish. Buy the aircraft that best fits the mission, and construct support facilities accordingly. It's a major program. Just how many hangars are we talking about, anyway? Perhaps that might matter a bit?

If we limited our major systems to existing buildings, we'd still be operating out of horse stables.