Not a boomer (and I didn't stay in a holiday inn last night) but i refueled several times from the Dutch KC-10 ('the' because they only had one at the time, not sure about now). It didn't have a window in the back, just three little camera lenses. It was weird. Plus, it's shiny and has the normal DC-10 window compliment. The boomers were fine though, never had any problems taking gas or hooking up (STS).

No pics though so it probably didn't happen...

Edit: FWIW we should've bought the Airbus - much better suited to our needs.

Ben,

I largely ignored the Airbus/Boeing tanker re-compete (ok, well I paid attention to all the contract/business news about it but ignored the technical).
Can you elaborate at all on those comments?

Tim

The foxtrot alpha link quotes Boeing as saying the boomer's cameras are 3D so dept perception might not be a problem. Also, lots of refueling is done at night so having FLIR or LLTV might be preferable to the MkI eyeball. However, having never been on the top end of the boom (but a fair amount of time on the bottom end), I too await a BT boomer's opinion.

In the simplest terms we need a fair amount of gas EVERYWHERE in the world instead of a crap-load of gas at only a few locations. More aircraft with slightly less total hauling capacity would actually suit us better. The Boeing was/is significantly more expensive per copy (surprise surprise...) so we can buy way less of them than if we had bought the AB. However, the total amount of fuel that the complete buy can haul is about the same or favors the Boeing (I can't remember which).

We already have this problem with the KC-135/KC-10 mix. It's a good mix and KC-10's are great for dragging people across the pond, but they are much less efficient and we don't have enough of them to put them everywhere we need them. We have tons of 135's that are very old and in need of replacement. They are great airplanes, but just getting old (built in the 50's for most of them). Our KC-46 buy won't replace even the 135's (tail for tail) but somehow they claim it'll be more capability.

Deal is done and it's all a bridge underwater, but we didn't end up with the plane we need, we ended up with the plane that's built here. (even though Northrup was going to build a substantial part of the AB in the US, the number of jobs was close to the same IIRC).

Exactly, Ben, but IMO the AF went down the wrong path years ago when it got "SACumcised" and phased out the probe and drogue. It was then committed solely to large tankers--at the expense of flexibility. Terrible mistake.

Ben, Dick,

Just curious. Did the AF and or the Navy ever move forward with the joint tanker program? I know this was discussed a few years ago as a tactical refueling plane. This was supposed to replace the 135 and the S3 and FA-18 Striketanker.

Would this solve the problem you allude too?

Tim (I am in way over my head here)

You can hardly call a KC-135 'just another 707'..

I'm not sure about the wisdom of removing a simple window to fly the boom down to the receiving airplane and replace it with a 2MM electronic console and cameras.

Sorry, Ben, while that was true in the 2008 go-round, in the final contest Boeing dropped the price and was cheaper per plane, total savings over $330 mil.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ct-353642/
Your logic actually favors the 767. The 330 is bigger than the 767 so while it carries more it's more expensive to run, per mission. Its larger footprint also means it can use fewer bases than the 767 so will typically be farther from the action, again driving up per-mission cost.
That was always the conflict in the KC-X competition, whether the AF wanted minimum cost to meet the spec'd mission (favoring the 767) or whether uplift exceeding the spec mission was worth paying more to run a larger airplane (the 330) from fewer bases. Flipping back and forth on that question is what got the 2008 contest canceled and re-run.

You don't want to fly a HeavyLoaded A330 around.. has anyone seen how they barely climb?

Flown both civil aircraft. The B767-200 is one of my favorite aircraft to fly. A real "pilots" aircraft and a little hot rod. Could hit over 4000 fpm when light and climb right up to higher FL when heavy. The 330 is ok but is climb challenged. When we first started flying them the controlers had to learn to give us more time in climb for spacing.

Craig

It is so refreshing to see so many of you fighter and tanker pilots now flying Beechcraft aircraft! How reassuring and thanks to all of you for your service to our country!

Rockwell had a demo of a 3D camera system in their Oshkosh booth, I was told it was for boom operators.

I admit I haven't done a lot of research on the history, I was trying to recall what the debate was (as I understood it) from '08. If I'm mistaken, my appologies.

Either way, we are getting the 767/KC-46 like it or not. I hope the contract gives us what we need.

Edit: bad spellin'

I admit I haven't done a lot of research on the history, I was trying to recall what the debat was (as I understood it) from '08. If I'm mistaken, my appologies.

Either way, we are getting the 767/KC-46 like it or not. I hope the contract gives us what we need.