Jennings Heilig Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Suppose the RAF suddenly found itself with a fleet of really old, unsupportable tankers and had to buy a few soon-to-be-retired, low mileage KC-135Rs from the USAF to go with their almost new RC-135Ws? Might they look something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 PS: Before you all lock and load on me... I ***love*** the VC10! It's just that I love the '135 more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 So you're saying the RAF could end up with the KC-135F? That just might be grounds for war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Mon dieu, mais non!!! This is a gen-yoo-wine all-American tanker boy! None of that girly Frenchie stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Mon dieu, mais non!!! This is a gen-yoo-wine all-American tanker boy! None of that girly Frenchie stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I rather like the girly Frenchie stuff!! . Looks good in USAF markings..................................!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Supposing the USAF suddenly found that the aging F-15 fleet all had early fatigue cracks. And they had to turn to the BAE Typhoon FG1????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Supposing the USAF suddenly found that the aging F-15 fleet all had early fatigue cracks. And they had to turn to the BAE Typhoon FG1????? or even (heaven forbid) had to replace a large fleet of clapped out KC-135s and, had to choose Airbus A330s because it was superior to any home produced article. Hang on a minute.........................!!! PS - Like the profile Jennings. However, I'm not really a fan of these boring, overall grey low-viz schemes! I reckon it would look even better medium sea grey/dark green with /white (or light grey ) undersides AND proper full colour squadron markings! . A replacement for the Victor perhaps?. I remember talking to a KC driver at Fairford & he made an interesting comment about the Victor : " that's a beautiful machine. I'm really impressed with the way the Brits built a spaceship & then turned it into a tanker!" A compliment to the Handley Page team who produced a design that even when it retired still (in my view anyway) looked futuristic! Edited February 16, 2012 by Albeback52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Low mileage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Good "what if" but I think the flying boom would be dispensed with totally, just two drogue units on wings Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev67 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Good "what if" but I think the flying boom would be dispensed with totally, just two drogue units on wingsAndy I read an article somewhere that that some USAF pilots preferred to be refueled by the VC-10 because of the drogues on its wing and one on its belly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I read an article somewhere that that some USAF pilots preferred to be refueled by the VC-10 because of the drogues on its wing and one on its belly I should imagine those were USAF pilots from a good many years ago when USAF still had refueling probes as standard on some machines. Either that or USAF pilots on exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) I believe the comment about the VC-10 does not come from USAF pilots but from US Navy ones. During OIF several RAF tankers were used to support USN operations and there have indeed been comments of this type. The probe-and-drogue system on the KC-135 is known to cause some problems on USN aircrafts, as shown by the habit of Tomcat units to delete the probe door to avoid this being broken, something that does not happen with the USN own tankers and the RAF ones. It is true however that in several USAF circles there are some who would like to see a return to the older probeand-drogue system because this allows more tactical fighters to be refuelled at the same time. The flying boom on the other hand allows a faster fuel transfer that makes a huge difference when refuelling a bomber or a transport type. I have seen some suggestions for a modified F-16 fuel tank incorporating a probe at its tip to allow the Falcon to use this system. Something like that was used on the F-84G many years ago ! Edited February 16, 2012 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Morgan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I quite like that (apart from the boom) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Low mileage? Indeed. Most of the USAF's KC-135 fleet are nowhere remotely near their expected lifetime limits. The average a/c flies less than 300 hours a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 US Navy Tanker aircraft from carriers and land always used the hose /drogue method didn't they. I'm sure of that. Nevr seen pics of KC-130s, KA-6 etc, with rigid booms for air to air topping up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundowner14 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Indeed. Most of the USAF's KC-135 fleet are nowhere remotely near their expected lifetime limits. The average a/c flies less than 300 hours a year. Be that as it may, it would not be a cost effective option. There's a reason why the USAF is becoming desparate for the KC-X... KC-135 USAF Worries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) All the more reasons why they should bite the bullet and buy BAE/French! Edited February 16, 2012 by Paul J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Indeed. Most of the USAF's KC-135 fleet are nowhere remotely near their expected lifetime limits. The average a/c flies less than 300 hours a year. The article that Sundowner14 linked to has the age range as 14370 - 33977 hours. I'm not sure how well that stacks up against the RAF's TriStars when they bought them, but I'd expect to see a fair bit of canvas showing on the tyres, shall we say. On the other hand, if the last KC-135s aren't expected to retire until 2043, we could perhaps squeeze twenty years out of them, I suppose. But would they get such low usage? Edited February 16, 2012 by pigsty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) All the more reasons why they should bite the bullet and buy BAE/French! I believe the USAF DID originally choose the Airbus A330 over the KC-767. Unfortunately, that was the "wrong" choice!! (at least politically!) Edited February 16, 2012 by Albeback52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I believe the USAF DID originally choose the Airbus A330 over the KC-767. Unfortunately, that was the "wrong" choice!! (at least politically!) What ever the reason its never going to happen, we need to live with it even if we dont like it. No point to keep harping on. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlstavros Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 That doesn't look all that similar to what the RAF have already got (albeit in a different role!) except it's got a dangly bit at the back rather than a daft dish on the top! I'd rather keep the VC-10 for several more years......much much more character than the 135! Cheers, Carl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 or even (heaven forbid) had to replace a large fleet of clapped out KC-135s OK:- DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Be that as it may, it would not be a cost effective option. There's a reason why the USAF is becoming desparate for the KC-X... The **exact** same stuff was published when the KC-10 program was underway over 30 years ago. I've got some of the clippings. The '135 is dead, it can't be supported, they're cracking beyond use, etc, etc, etc. The fact is, the KC-135 will likely be around after the KC-10 is gone, and may very well outlast the KC-46. A large portion of the fleet is *way* below its design lifetime airframe limit. The main limiting factor is parts that are no longer manufactured. The USAF has no plans to completely retire the '135 before 2040 at the earliest, by which time the youngest '135 in the fleet will be 75 years old There are over 400 '135s in service, and we'll never have remotely that many KC-46s and KC-10s combined. Edited February 16, 2012 by Jennings Heilig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Maybe they should but some of those airship thingies the Royal Navy is kooking at. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now