Tactical Tanker

[AC&W]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I've walked the factory floor, you could eat off it.

 

 

Careful now, Boeing did that and we found the wrappers in the aircraft 🙂

[ClearedHot]

5 hours ago, uhhello said:

How much are you selling them for?

Less than a new C-130J

[Clark Griswold]

On 9/28/2022 at 2:42 PM, ClearedHot said:

Less than a new C-130J

Probably but... to the extent that you can say has LM proposed a jet powered tanker version of the Herc?  All sourced in America as an alternative to the KC-390? 

or with the straight wing and two engines?

Just a bit of engineering to get this done but pods where the outboard engines used to be (simultaneous receivers might not have enough clearance though) but just to stir the pot

[ClearedHot]

Except USAF doesn't want anymore C-130s, nor does the Army.  FYI only 8% of the Army's rolling stock actually fits on the C-130, a problem Lockheed has known about for a LONG time and they don't care to fix.

[Clark Griswold]

Except USAF doesn't want anymore C-130s, nor does the Army.  FYI only 8% of the Army's rolling stock actually fits on the C-130, a problem Lockheed has known about for a LONG time and they don't care to fix.

Good stuff, knowledge gained


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MCO]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Except USAF doesn't want anymore C-130s, nor does the Army.  FYI only 8% of the Army's rolling stock actually fits on the C-130, a problem Lockheed has known about for a LONG time and they don't care to fix.

We had the chance to make this right, then Lockheed forced the J on us and we just took it.

[SurelySerious]

Except USAF doesn't want anymore C-130s, nor does the Army.  FYI only 8% of the Army's rolling stock actually fits on the C-130, a problem Lockheed has known about for a LONG time and they don't care to fix.

We had the chance to make this right, then Lockheed forced the J on us and we just took it.

I know this belongs in the C-130 thread, but as an aside what form factor fits more than 8% of the Army’s stuff that isn’t a C-17?

[Day Man]

59 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

I know this belongs in the C-130 thread, but as an aside what form factor fits more than 8% of the Army’s stuff that isn’t a C-17?

 

BQZips mom?

[SurelySerious]

BQZips mom?

Valid.

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I know this belongs in the C-130 thread, but as an aside what form factor fits more than 8% of the Army’s stuff that isn’t a C-17?

From the analysis and past discussion with the Army I've seen so far, increasing the C-130 internal width by 8" would have made a dramatic difference but Lockheed would not budge (unlike BQZIPS's Mom).  Still working the exact numbers to account for new equipment but it looks like that small change would yield an increase to between 30 and 40% of current rolling stock.

As an aside, KC-390 has 14" more internal width.

[Clark Griswold]

Not sure if this story is legit but good vaporware nonetheless on the idea of tactical tankers, like the hard points with missiles, plumb for gas or extra power for ECM pods

https://www.airdatanews.com/kai-plans-an-a400m-sized-jet-airlifter/

Gas, missiles, EW capes in an expeditionary capable platform


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Not sure if this story is legit but good vaporware nonetheless on the idea of tactical tankers, like the hard points with missiles, plumb for gas or extra power for ECM pods

https://www.airdatanews.com/kai-plans-an-a400m-sized-jet-airlifter/

Gas, missiles, EW capes in an expeditionary capable platform


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interestingly, the A400 costs nearly double what the KC-390 goes for.

[StoleIt]

On 10/3/2022 at 5:49 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Just a bit of engineering to get this done but pods where the outboard engines used to be (simultaneous receivers might not have enough clearance though) but just to stir the pot

 

Boeing has entered the chat:

[Biff_T]

^

Needs bigger engines.  Lol

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Interestingly, the A400 costs nearly double what the KC-390 goes for.

Yup, more capacity more money 

The 400 just has such a limited customer base who want / could afford that much expeditionary capability, where as the 390 is looking way more affordable.

Still at the airspeeds the 400 is capable of it's a bit surprising there was never a proposal for boom to be added 

1 hour ago, StoleIt said:

Boeing has entered the chat:

Coanada effect is cool

Edited October 5, 2022 by Clark Griswold

[Sua Sponte]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yup, more capacity more money 

The 400 just has such a limited customer base who want / could afford that much expeditionary capability, where as the 390 is looking way more affordable.

Still at the airspeeds the 400 is capable of it's a bit surprising there was never a proposal for boom to be added 

Coanada effect is cool

How exactly are you adding a boom to a cargo aircraft with a rear cargo door/ramp?

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

How exactly are you adding a boom to a cargo aircraft with a rear cargo door/ramp?

With an expensively modified aircraft...

KC-390 doing that with it's cargo door/ramp 

Or alternatively I wonder if you could modify a 400 (very expensively and extensively) under the ramp and add a semi-recessed boom?

 

Seems like there's some clearance under it

[Lawman]

This may have come up somewhere before, but given they are operated by some Ally’s…


Has there ever been a serious feasibility study in taking a C17 with a roll on expeditionary air-refuel capability? Not the SOLL II, I mean we fix a boom or drag hoses out of it and call it a tanker than can land in harsh locations to displace from the missile sponge locations like Guam.

With the number of tails we have or our friends have access to that seems like a capability to be exploited if we apparently have so much airlift we can turn them into cruise missile trucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arg]

14 minutes ago, Lawman said:

This may have come up somewhere before, but given they are operated by some Ally’s…


Has there ever been a serious feasibility study in taking a C17 with a roll on expeditionary air-refuel capability? Not the SOLL II, I mean we fix a boom or drag hoses out of it and call it a tanker than can land in harsh locations to displace from the missile sponge locations like Guam.

With the number of tails we have or our friends have access to that seems like a capability to be exploited if we apparently have so much airlift we can turn them into cruise missile trucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A palletized hose and drouge system off the ramp of an OG Talon was tested back in the 80s. Drouge was too unstable because of the dirty air. So they put the refuel pods on.

[Clark Griswold]

This may have come up somewhere before, but given they are operated by some Ally’s…


Has there ever been a serious feasibility study in taking a C17 with a roll on expeditionary air-refuel capability? Not the SOLL II, I mean we fix a boom or drag hoses out of it and call it a tanker than can land in harsh locations to displace from the missile sponge locations like Guam.

With the number of tails we have or our friends have access to that seems like a capability to be exploited if we apparently have so much airlift we can turn them into cruise missile trucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To my knowledge no but I’ve been out of the tanker world a long time

I think it’d be worth the millions to try it on a 17 that’s approaching fatigue life and saving from just being flown to the boneyard, or alternatively as a joint venture on an early model 400


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, Lawman said:

This may have come up somewhere before, but given they are operated by some Ally’s…


Has there ever been a serious feasibility study in taking a C17 with a roll on expeditionary air-refuel capability? Not the SOLL II, I mean we fix a boom or drag hoses out of it and call it a tanker than can land in harsh locations to displace from the missile sponge locations like Guam.

With the number of tails we have or our friends have access to that seems like a capability to be exploited if we apparently have so much airlift we can turn them into cruise missile trucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its been talked about but why?  The aircraft is out of production, would cost more than a new tanker (actually three times what a KC-390 costs), and modifying the existing birds would cut an already strained strategic airlift fleet.

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Its been talked about but why?  The aircraft is out of production, would cost more than a new tanker (actually three times what a KC-390 costs), and modifying the existing birds would cut an already strained strategic airlift fleet.

...which means this is the perfect solution by AMC standards.

[Stoker]

13 hours ago, Lawman said:

Has there ever been a serious feasibility study in taking a C17 with a roll on expeditionary air-refuel capability? Not the SOLL II, I mean we fix a boom or drag hoses out of it and call it a tanker than can land in harsh locations to displace from the missile sponge locations like Guam.

It's funny because when the C-17 program was struggling, there was talk of just buying 200 more KC-10s to have more tanker and cargo capacity, at the expense of airdrop and austere fields.

[Lawman]

Its been talked about but why?  The aircraft is out of production, would cost more than a new tanker (actually three times what a KC-390 costs), and modifying the existing birds would cut an already strained strategic airlift fleet.

Because given the history across the services of actually acquiring new things vs the number that die in the development process I’m curious what it would look like as an alternate.

Look I’m all for new stuff, but the Air Force and Army have a decades long history at this point of spending billions to not get new stuff and soldiering on with stuff our Dad’s used to work/fly on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

41 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Because given the history across the services of actually acquiring new things vs the number that die in the development process I’m curious what it would look like as an alternate.

Look I’m all for new stuff, but the Air Force and Army have a decades long history at this point of spending billions to not get new stuff and soldiering on with stuff our Dad’s used to work/fly on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think in this case it would be the other way around.  C-17 Production ended in 2015, the cost to restart the line alone would be multiples higher than options currently in production.  Additionally, you would have the same boom development costs.  Finally, the C-17 itself would cost three times as much before the previous two factors were added in.

If you want to modify the existing birds, perhaps but the gap it would create in strat airlift would simply push the burden to CX which is even further out.