New U.S. tanker must carry more than fuel, Wynne says
Just last week I noted that the F-22 Raptor is transmogrifying into the F/A/R/C/E-22 Swiss Army Knife. (I also cross-posted that here on Defense Tech, and some great comments were made in the discussion area, so check it out.) Now it appears that “all missions, all the time” is becoming SOP in the Air Force:
Competition for the contract to build a new aerial refueling tanker likely won’t start until 2007 because the service wants a plane that can carry cargo, reconnaissance sensors and troops as well as fuel, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said today.
“I think 2006 is still going to be a development year,” Wynne said in an interview in his Pentagon office. “Tankers are not only tankers any more. They are going to be multi-mission aircraft.”
Again, if additional useful things can be added in a cost-effective manner to existing aircraft, by all means go ahead. But don’t make those options major selling points if you’re the manufacturer or requirements if you’re the buyer. The Air Force wants, and probably needs, new tankers. But let’s not make them so complex and expensive that they never get off the ground. Or that half of them get cancelled for budgetary reasons.
Then there’s this: DOD’s new transportation chief seeks multi-mission tanker
The new head of U.S. Transportation Command said Nov. 30 that he needs new tanker aircraft with the flexibility to carry cargo or passengers as well as fuel.
Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, who took the command’s reins in September, said the Air Force should buy new multi-mission tankers “without delay” to replace aging Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft. Some industry officials have been predicting that cargo capacity might emerge as a key requirement, which would give the budget-constrained Air Force more bang for its tanker buck.
Schwartz, who spoke with reporters after making remarks at the Defense Logistics 2005 conference, declined to say whether the need for a multi-mission tanker or “swing asset” would merit a larger airframe than the KC-135.
The “exact dimensions” are “not the thing that I worry about,” he said. “I establish requirements, and that is that it needs to be multi-mission, it cannot be a single-mission airplane.”
That’s going to set the whole thing back years.
For what it’s worth, I came across this on Airliners.net:
Let’s look at the possibilities from both Airbus and Boeing:
Airbus:
A-330TT, already selected for the RAF and RAAF tankers.
A-340–500, not mentioned before, but carries a lot of fuel.
A-350–800, mentioned several times, newest design, partially composite construction.
Boeing:
KC-135E converted to the KC-135R, by far the cheapest option and still in production (RC-135s), and the quickest production time.
KC-767A, in production for Italy and Japan, and some common parts with the E-10A.
B-777-200ER/LR, mentioned as a Boeing proposal and carries a lot of fuel.
B-787–800, mentioned by Boeing, and is a all composite airplane.
MD-11F, almost common with the KC-10A/KDC-10 but production would have to be reopened, as not many available on the used market.
B-747-400F/ERF, not mentioned before, but the IIAF flys KC-747–200 tankers and carries twice the fuel as most other competitors. Also has swing open nose for cargo missions.
B-747-800F, not mentioned, but the largest of all competitors and carries the most fuel. Like it’s smaller B-747-400F brother has swing open nose for cargo missions. Same very fuel efficient engines as on B-787 and A-350.
Most of these are waaaay outside of Murdoc’s sphere of knowledge. There’s a ton and a half of discussion on that board. Comments?
–cross-posted by Murdoc
This sort of multi-roll actually makes SOME sense:
Since a tanker is limited by mass carried, not by volume, it would make sense (for what is really a SMALL additional amount of money all-told) to include the ability to carry cargo/people in the unused volume when not hauling fuel around.
I’ve gone on a few check-rides on KC-135s, and from what I remember there was a side door for cargo pallets. Apparently when a tanker wing goes overseas, they pack the airplanes full of spare parts, maintenance equipment, and even a few pallets of office supplies (PCs with the wing’s personnel database for example). So we already have an inconvenient but viable way to move cargo on these airframes.
Likewise, the KC-135s I was on had several “jump seats” along the walls.
As for reconnaissance sensors, I’ve heard some tanker folks debate this issue hotly. Especially since the EP-3 incident near Hainan, some aircrew members are wary of being labeled as “spies” in a crash– or forced-landing situation. To my mind, a constellation of tankers doing lazy ovals outside enemy territory would be a great platform for distributed passive sensors.
The 787 variant seems to make the most sense. It will get great gas milage itself and be supported farther into the future than any of the others except the A350.
Now if we could just get the 787 engines on the B-52.
If the DoD had a clue they’d build a combination bomber/tanker. The cargo density is much closer between the two. No, better to carry all the drag associated with that big fuselage you don’t need 99.99% of the time. Typical.
Murdoc,
The Airbus A330 MRTT tanker ALREADY does this. MRTT = Multi-Role Tanker-Transporter. Check it out:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/
I suspect a number of the Boeing options, esp. the 747s, will be able to do this too. Boeing is most interested in keeping its 767 production line open, however, so that’s what they’ll offer.
Unless the US military really indicates that the cargo bit is a really serious priority — in which case a KC-17 proposal based on the C-17 becomes a possibility. Its operating costs would be significantly higher than a commercial alternative, but it would offer short field performance and other advantages.
The RAF’s Lockheed Tristars and Vickers VC10K2s are already tanker/transport swing role aircraft…it’s just a pity they are ancient, and had a thorough hammering in airline use before the RAF bought them.
A330 MRTT is a truly impressive capability; it beats the KC767 for range, load, offload, passengers, cargo, and cargo size. (For example — in the transport role it can take 100 men and several shipping containers direct Brize Norton-Falklands with fuel for a South American diversion, or in the tanker role fly from Toulouse, Airbus HQ, to a typical northern North Sea UK Air Defence towline and deliver 120+ tons of fuel, then RTB Toulouse.) It will also, however, not be cheap, but then, you get what you pay for. There is another Airbus option, the A310MRTT, which is already flying with the German air force — it’s comparable in most ways to the B767, although wider-bodied. That one is already in production and in the can, although the A310 airframe is hardly a new design.
The inclusion of “Windows” in the title led me to read this article in the hopes that some “window” other than Microsoft’s was the source of this title. As we can be sure that whatever operating system is used on the aircraft will be connected to the communications system, I surely hope that it is not the most unstable and most easily compromised one known. I did not find the answer in the article.
Still and I mean still can’t replace the C-130 for putting troups and cargo where it is needed. I can see a Tamker doing a LAPE low alt para extraction drop. Also the C-130 is being used also as a in flight refueler. I am sorry that the Air Force is canx the orders for the airplane. Better than a DC3
Speaking from experience in the Tanker business. Multi-Tasking is not a good idea. I have served as Chief Boom Operator and sceduler for tanker units. A Tanker should be able to transport it’s own maintenance package and parts when deploying and no other taskings. Example: Many times we have waited on the ramp with a hard RZ time with fighter aircraft deploying from anougher location an have been notified of a two hour slip because of personnel or cargo delays. This does not work. Also most deploying fighter units deploy their maintenance package in advance of their fighters deploying. The KC-135 needs to be replaced but we need to think out the mission that need to be accomplished.
G. Polser, CMSgt Ret
OK,
There is something veryspecific that people have lost sight oif. There eyes are so glazed over at the thought of something brand new that they are missin the point. The KC-135R is a multi-mission, multi-role, go anywhere anytime aircraft. Besides hauling pax and cargo it performs its mission better than any competitor. It can refuel both drogue and non-drogue aircraft without issue. For its age I also have to say that they remain extremely reliable. I love my aircraft and wouldnt choose anything else. I feel that the cheapest, most efficient method of replacing the current tanker(and trust me, they do NEED replacement) with a tanker that will last the next 80 years, capable of being adapted to nearly anymission you can name would be to redesign the KC-135 with maintanance in mind and possibly make it a tiny bit larger. The KC-135 has proven itself time and again and is one of the most comfortable aircraft to fly in.
sorry,
one last thing, for all of you promoting airbus in this; do you really want our military buying a non-american aircraft? one that will baloon the economy of another (certain) country? think about it!!! be a little patriotic and deal. We will find a better option or develope one. We always do.
I’m a retired tanker pilot. My last hoorah was the aircrew conversion process from the A to the R series KC-135 at McConnell AFB, KS, in the mid 80s. An observation; one of the design criteria Boeing had for the Dash 80 (367–80 was the prototype for the 707 and KC-135) was to build an airframe that could change with time. History will prove that they were very successful. The KC-135 varient (the FIRST Boeing 717) does one thing very well — inflight refueling. As I remember, the A series could carry something like 87,000 pounds on the deck but you would cube out before you got to that weight. Point is that if you want to refuel, then build a tanker, and build a lot of them. 80 KC-10s cannot deploy like almost 600 KC-135s. And for long haul refuelings, its very hard to compete with a couple of Rs. If we replace the 135 then let’s build tankers that have the flexibility and numbers to get fuel to whomever needs it when they need it, and leave the bacon, beans and bullets for the outfits that do that best, the airlifters.
Re tanker/Swiss army knife.
I have to say that this is a common problem facing not only the USAF but many other air forces as well. In Canada we opted to replace our 707 tankers with the A-340 Polaris, an Airbus aircraft. We had the same concerns as many US members do.,It was , even to us a foreign aircraft and our 1st European aircraft purchace in over 20+yrs. I must say that the aircraft has, with some modifactions after acceptance , done a good job . It serves as a tanker , a transport and as a medium/heavy lifter. We do not use it in a electronics role but it does possess the potential to do so with available equipment if installed. Several of the French Birds have been modded to VIP Transports for High level Government Types, Ie our PM & GG and senior Cabinet members. All in all A good bird and one that bares a look at. Even if it is to give Boeing the thought that it could offer up something that is as capable.
Thanks,
Per Adra et Astra.….….
Dfens,
I’m no aircraft structural maintenance technician, but it’s been pointed out that the airframes used for cargo aircraft and bombers are basically incompatible with each other’s mission. Cargo-haulers (e.g. low-wing aircraft like nearly all commercial transports) bear all their load in the “belly”, whereas bombers hang their weight from the “spine” of the airframe. You either drop your bombs with a ridiculously complicated dispenser, or are stuck with some sort of cargo pallet which must be suspended from the ceiling of the bay.
Lots of DC-10 variants–some with the high-gross extra middle gear leg–sit idly in the desert awaiting what? Some are lower-time airframes.
Boeing now owns the MD design. USAF now flies some KC-10s (the mil tanker variant).
Is there an obvious equation here? Certainly for the short run, commonality with existing KC-10s favors this economical option.
BTW, let’s not confuse “remanufacturing” with a production line. Boeing stopped building new KC135s a long while back.
Boeing built 8,KE3A cargo/tankers for Saudi Arabia in 1986. The US was concerned in re-engine program for KC135 tankers that were built 20 years prior and missed a good deal on getting a better package( that line has been closed for 15 years). Japan ordered 4 of the shorter B767-200 aicraft for tankers in the ninety’s that were almost “off the shelf”. The flight testing has already been completed and aircraft are in service.Iran owns the only KC747,This was built in the 70’s . Best bet would be the longer B767-300 and make it for whatever cargo/tanker and future requirements.This aircraft is easy to service and maintain.If more storage/space is required, buy the B777 It is the perfect aircraft for the USAF and I can say that after working 40 years as a maint mech for the AF and Boeing
I’m currently a KC-135R Crew Chief and I was also an A frame Crew Chief. The “R” model can actually carry it’s max fuel and take off with it, but that is all it can do. You have to give up fuel for cargo. It’s weight maxes out before the cargo deck could ever get it’s first piece of cargo on board. The only way to solve this is to build more Refuelable tankers and max them out in fuel after take off. I agree with Gary. We need to build tankers for what they are used for. If the military were to buy any new tanker and mod it with extra fuel tanks. I’m sure it would have the same limit we have with the KC-135R. I don’t believe a multi-purpose aircraft would give us the refueling and deployment capability we have with the KC-135 fleet
As a former Boom Operator during the ’80’s, I crewed A’s, E’s and 10’s. I must say I am a Boeing fan when it comes to Tankers. Although I spent over 5 years as a 10 Boomer, I must admit that capacity wise for handling a muti-use role, that plane couldn’t be beat. Getting cargo inside could sometimes be challenging, but it fulfilled the role of moving planes, parts and personnel very well. If it would be cost effective to reactivate and remodel some of the low hour 10’s in boneyards, then do it. No new Air force Tankers should be bought from France. Boeing builds the best. As a person who sometimes would be asked at Air Shows if my plane (KC-10) had the $200 toilet seat (big scandel in the 80’s, and as far as I know it did not cost that much), I say clamp down on the procurement shenanigans and get the new Boeing Tanker line going. The KC-135 is a great airplane, but the demands placed on her in this day and age, are potentialy, an unnecessary and costly strain on the crews that fly her, and those that maintain her. SAC FOREVER!
I don’t think the plan is for a plane to take max fuel and cargo at the same time. Rather it is to have a plane that can take either as needed–a multi-use plane. That would be no different from the current KC135. I have flown “in the back” (as a troop) along with gobs of cargo pallets. I have also flown “in the back” on refueling missions. Granted, they can’t do both at the same time very well, but one plane type can do both missions as needed. So the “new” requirement isn’t really new–it is just a reminder not to get “blinders” on and get too specialized.
I’m a retired Crew Chief form working on Q and E. Yes I’m one of the Beale Badit 6 years on the Q and 11 on the E with the 940th ARW.
I love working the KC135 my frist 3 years was on the f-111D they suck. but when I got to the KC they are EZ to work. I now work for Delta Air Lines 6 years I was on the ramp and worked 757–200 and 767–200,300 and 400 (Delta and Continental Airlines are the only two Airlines that fly the 767–400) I think the 767 what every model the Air Force get would do great it’s not to big and not to small, and 757 would also work as a Tanker more then cargo. The one thing about Airbus is that the planes are like computer printer they a cheap but go by parts for them.
and I have see 135 come back with parts missing and there still flying ask airbus how there plane fly with parts missing I.E. (AA over New York missing a Tail?) the other thing that you need look at is fuel and engines A340 have 4 engines and 757 and 767 have 2 engine. there are cargo 757 out there, UPS has a fleet of them and work will and today engine get better miles then the old J57 or TF33 (JT3 and JT3C for your old 707 guys) yes the A330 has 2 engine but the thing about an Airbus is you need a Ladder just like the KC10 to do every thing on it.
The USAF should only use aircraft “MADE IN AMERICA”.