New Military Plane: I remember reading a few years ago about a new tanker for the Air Force. The idea was that the plane being proposed - a modified Boeing passenger plane

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I remember reading a few years ago about a new tanker for the Air Force. The idea was that the plane being proposed - a modified Boeing passenger plane - was all wrong for the job. It was being pushed through by politicians.

So, now we have a new tanker, based on the 767, ready for its maiden flight. I hope it flies fuel as well as it flies people.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclusive-meet-the-usafs-long-awaited-kc-46a-pegasus-t-1675663600/1675669054/+matthardigree

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

that's nothing new, however if it outperforms our current Kc135's then might not be a bad acft other than the inflated cost.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

sr71 wrote:

that's nothing new, however if it outperforms our current Kc135's then might not be a bad acft other than the inflated cost.

Inflated cost is SOP. One good thing about using this plane is that parts should always be available, compared with a plane built in limited numbers solely for the military.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

The other plane being offered was a modified Airbus 330. There were arguments about the A330 being a European plane and what would happen if something happened to the supply line. But then, what else is new?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

nicksr1125 wrote:

The other plane being offered was a modified Airbus 330. There were arguments about the A330 being a European plane and what would happen if something happened to the supply line. But then, what else is new?

I'm not a big fan of our military hardware - like the main gun on the Abrams tank - being made in other countries. Germany was making a 105mm gun for us, but making a 110mm gun for their own tanks. On a TV show rating tanks, theirs was #1, and the Abrams was #2. Now the Abrams has a 120mm gun, as does the German Leopard.

ted45 Loc: Delaware

sr71 wrote:

that's nothing new, however if it outperforms our current Kc135's then might not be a bad acft other than the inflated cost.

Why do you assume the cost is inflated? The contract is for 179 planes at approximately $50 billion. That works out to about $30 mil per plane. A standard 767 costs between $190 and a $193 million.

catfish252

The Air Force currently uses the KC-135(modified Boeing 707) and the KC-10 (modified McDonnell Douglas DC-10) Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas a few years back. The KC-135 has been the backbone of inflight refueling all the way back to the Cold War, it has given years of excellent service, the plane was re-engined a few years back to make it 30% more fuel efficient and reduce noise levels on take-off, many are stationed with the Air National Guard at civilian airports. The 135 is an excellent platform for air refueling and for ferrying fighters across oceans. Like the B-52 Americans really got their money's worth out those aircraft. I would imagine that the 767 or KC-46 will continue that tradition. The 767 has been a good performer for the airline industry. The KC-46 offers more transferable gas and longer range. One interesting note the B-52 carries almost as much fuel as the KC-135 weighs fully loaded. The B-52 carries approximately 312,000 lbs of fuel which is roughly 46,000 gallons.

Zonker Loc: Leesburg, FL

Been in the cockpit, of the A/C for my icon, on the receiving end of mid air refueling, it's scary.

Zonker Loc: Leesburg, FL

Been in the cockpit, of the A/C for my icon, on the receiving end of mid air refueling, it's scary.

OviedoPhotos

The US is #1 in defense spending. This just keeps it that way. Long live the Federal Reserve printing press. What it does is technically illegal, but sanctioned by the Council on Foreign Relations. Our job as citizens is just agree with DC.

Look at the recent SCOTUS ruling on the 4th Amendment. The tanker expense is minor in comparison.

346pak Loc: Texas

The current, and very old KC135 is a modified Boeing as we'll. This is, and always will be the most efficient way to produce a new and specialized aircraft for the military. The new fuel truck, so to speak, is a huge technology improvement and significantly more fuel efficient than the KC135. Also, there will be no more black smoke trails with the new 767....an added bonus!

sboyd Loc: Houston, Texas

The cost per plane is actually $279 million, if the total was $50 billion divided by 179 planes.

Calsnap Loc: Seattle/Montana/San Diego

It went well. I happened to be walking to my car when I heard jet noises and when I looked up saw the plane with it's T33 photo chase plane right above me. It took me a few seconds to realize I was holding my camera. I got off two shots before it got into the wires and trees.
I'm visiting in Marysville WA across the bay from the north end of the Paine Field runway just a bit east of the approach. This is a typical view of heavy traffic landing here.

New tanker first flight

(Download)

Milt Findley Loc: Southeastern Wisconsin

A KC 135 is a Boeing 707. What is not to like about this one being another Boeing passenger plane?

Kuzano

jerryc41 wrote:

I remember reading a few years ago about a new tanker for the Air Force. The idea was that the plane being proposed - a modified Boeing passenger plane - was all wrong for the job. It was being pushed through by politicians.

So, now we have a new tanker, based on the 767, ready for its maiden flight. I hope it flies fuel as well as it flies people.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclusive-meet-the-usafs-long-awaited-kc-46a-pegasus-t-1675663600/1675669054/+matthardigree

Heaven only hopes they spend enough extra to paint them white, or even refrigerate them, so they will keep the fuel cool enough to keep the F35s flying????