| Author |
Message |
|
skrip00
|
 Posted: Aug 11, 2006 - 06:20 PM
|
 
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 04, 2006 - 12:15 AM
Posts: 557
Status: Offline
|
The 787 Dreamliner by Boeing is shaping up to be a very well rounded aircraft in terms of range, durability, and electronics.
So is it in the military's interest to use it as a tanker/cargo aicraft?
What about the 747-8f? Imagine this: A 747 with all of its cargo capacity devoted to refueling stores, 2 crews living on the upper deck for very long duration missions.
Have the Extra Fuel tanks be removeable so it can double as an airlifter? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Feb 12, 2012 - 6:01 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
seat_dreamer
|
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2006 - 08:00 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Apr 08, 2006 - 05:49 PM
Posts: 278
Location: Athens, Greece
Status: Offline
|
| I think the USAF are still into the K767 project ? Or is that history ? |
_________________
"144-0 kill ratio.....Ok 144-1 but that's 1 compared to your entire airforce."
|
|
|
|
|
|
NVGdude
|
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2006 - 08:32 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 06:01 PM
Posts: 87
Status: Offline
|
The problem is it's not all about fuel offload. The USAF wants a tanker that is the same physical footprint as the -135 in order to reuse the existing ground infrastructure (hangars rams etc). A larger tanker will require new facilities, which are also expensive. USAF wants KC-767 because it is roughly the same size as the existing aircraft, but has much greater cargo capacity by virtue of being a widebody jet. There are also some economies of scale in using the same platform for SIGINT.
If it was just about fuel ofload, the smart thing to do would be reengine the -135E with CFM56s and then purchase arround 100 used MD-11s and convert them to a KC-10 configuration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purplehaze
|
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2006 - 10:26 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Apr 26, 2004 - 09:20 PM
Posts: 1232
Status: Offline
|
| That 747 with all fuel would be too heavy to get airborne....there needs to be a compromise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elliboom
|
|
Posted: Aug 14, 2006 - 01:24 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Apr 05, 2006 - 07:21 PM
Posts: 421
Location: Lincoln, NE
Status: Offline
|
| The USAF is currently looking at offerings from Boeing in the KC-767 and from Northrup Grummann in the form of the Airbus A330. One of the other Boom Operators in my squadron is on some sort of evaluation team that has been going to the manufacturers and giving inputs on what us Boom's want to see in the new tanker. My hope is that the USAF decides to buy the KC-767 and leave the basic design of the boom operators station unchanged, that is to say leave is as a visual operation rather that going with some sort of camera system like Northrup is proposing. The Prototype 747 was actually fittted with a boom at one time to test the feesability of it, and it worked, but it was just to big of a plane to be deployed in the large numbers requred by the USAF. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seat_dreamer
|
|
Posted: Aug 14, 2006 - 02:22 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Apr 08, 2006 - 05:49 PM
Posts: 278
Location: Athens, Greece
Status: Offline
|
| The Airbus A330 by NG is simply a modified version (EADS - Northrop Grummann co-operation) or the MRTT ? |
_________________
"144-0 kill ratio.....Ok 144-1 but that's 1 compared to your entire airforce."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
