NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The Curse Of the KC-767

May 30, 2009: Recently, Japan placed three of its four new KC-767 aerial tankers on active duty. The fourth tanker will arrive by the end of the year. While this is a bit of good news for the KC-767, this aircraft design is getting hammered by the competing design from Airbus. Last year, the U.S. Air Force selected the Airbus aircraft, called the KC-30 (based on the Airbus 330-300, which normally sells for $160 million each), over the KC-767. The KC-30 carries 20 percent more fuel than the KC-767, plus more cargo pallets (26 versus 19) and passengers. These were apparently decisive factors in the final decision. Legal action overturned the air force decision, and the selection of a new U.S. tanker is still up for grabs. But the KC-30"MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) is getting more orders worldwide, and may still win the USAF contract to replace the biggest tanker fleet on the planet.

The KC-767 is based on the Boeing 767-200 airliner, which sells for about $120 million. The 767 has been in service since 1982, and over 800 have been manufactured so far. Boeing developed the KC-767, at a cost of nearly a billion dollars, on its own. Boeing also developed the original KC-135 tanker in the 1950s, and has since built over 2,000 of these. But the KC-767 sales effort was marred by the earlier use of bribes and other misbehavior. 

The two engine KC-30 was to be officially be known as the KC-45A, and would have replaced the four engine KC-135. The older aircraft carries 90 tons of fuel and can transfer up to 68 tons. Typically, aerial tankers have to service B-52s, which carry over 140 tons of jet fuel, and fighters like the F-15 (over five tons). The KC-135 has long made itself useful carrying cargo and passengers, as well as fuel, and both the KC-767 and KC-30 have more capacity for this, with the KC-30 having a decisive edge.

The KC-767 was developed partly because it is about the same size as the KC-135 (wingspan is 156 feet, ten more than the KC-135). Thus the 767 could use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135. That was not a critical factor. Moreover, Airbus has been developing the KC-30 for several years, and the first entered service with Australia last year.

The contract to build 179 KC-45As is worth about $35 billion (about $196 million per aircraft). Airbus offered to do nearly half the work in the United States The first KC-45s were enter service by 2012, rolling out of an assembly plant in the United States. But now it may be several years more before the half century old KC-135s replaced.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article PROCUREMENT: Russian Gunrunners Keep On Coming


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Scooterboy       5/30/2009 10:23:45 AM
Correct me if I am wrong but I didn't think the RAAF had the KC30 in service yet?
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       5/30/2009 1:54:39 PM
It has not entered service with the RAAF yet,  it is due to enter service later this year (originally due in Feb 2009), work still has to be done on the boom, and appears to have been delayed by 10months (So delivery expected around Dec 2009).
 
The KC-767, has had more severe delays. Whilst the Japanese aircraft has entered service (originally due 2005, and delivered 2008), the Italian version (which is closer to the USAF version as it has hose and drogues too) has still not been delivered  (originally due 2005)has had severe delays with the hose and drogue system.
It is now set to enter service later this year.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36       5/31/2009 3:01:44 PM
So the only problem (technical) seems to be the facilities that would serve them.  They're a bit larger than the C-17s but smaller than FRED (C-5s) which occupy the large hangars - more often than desired.  The Northrop Grumman's KC-45 spec list says it has room for 32 463L pallets while the C-5 will allow 36 both with weight and size limitations on the ramp pallets.  While I'm sure that the height restrictions are greater on the KC-45 than the C-5, what is the allowable cabin load on the KC-45 if configured for a cargo mission?  It seems to be a great deal for refueling and/or cargo missions having the near C-5 pallet space, something AMC would find useful BUT what are the limits with respect to a load mission vs. fueling?  Maybe the pallet weight restriction is significant beyond the aircraft's center of balance?
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       5/31/2009 5:53:56 PM
KC-30"MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) is getting more orders worldwide, and may still win the USAF contract to replace the biggest tanker fleet on the planet.
 
The largest tanker on the planet, last I checked, is still the KC-10 Extender. Closely packed up with the RAF Tristars and the possibly with the Russian IL-78s.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       6/1/2009 2:12:41 AM
But there are less than seventy KC-10s
 
Quote    Reply

giblets       6/1/2009 5:24:26 PM
I don't think there is a specific problem with the cargo limits, other than the fuel offload limiting the range. Though I have heard for the RAF it can take a full load and tank two RAF jets across the atlantic. The main advantage over the 767 is that there has to be no interior change. The 767 would have to have seats removed replaced etc for the same mission.
 
Quote    Reply

Librarian       6/1/2009 6:40:44 PM

"KC-30"MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) is getting more orders worldwide, and may still win the USAF contract to replace the biggest tanker fleet on the planet.
 

The largest tanker on the planet, last I checked, is still the KC-10 Extender. Closely packed up with the RAF Tristars and the possibly with the Russian IL-78s."

If you re-read the passage you quoted, you will note that the article referred to the biggest tanker fleet , that is to say the biggest fleet of tankers not the biggest tanker.
BTW, the biggest tanker was and might still be the 747 tankers used by the Iranian Air Force.

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36       6/1/2009 9:56:42 PM
 The US Air Force selected the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 over The Boeing 747 December 1977

As far as Iran, (about a year ago) it was reported that they overhauled a few 747s back to tankers. Who knows how, (if true) but tails 5-8103, 5-8108 (changed to 5-8100), possibly 5-8106.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36    On the above info, for what it's worth   6/1/2009 10:08:20 PM
Forgot the CR obligatory source - Zaphod58; a member of AboveTopSecret.com, the message thread, "Iranian KC-747"  h**p://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread397874/pg1#pid5080083.
 
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       6/1/2009 11:47:51 PM
An Iranian 747 tanker? That'd be a sight to see. I bet instead of a drogue they got a guy named a Aziz with a rope tied around his waist who jumps out the back door holding a garden hose. Probably washes your windows while the gas is pumping.
 
Quote    Reply

Librarian    Iranian 747 tankers   6/2/2009 7:20:49 PM
Actually, they were purpose built by Boeing with flying booms to refuel F-4's. Whether they are still operational is anyone's guess.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy