News Before It's News
About us | Ocnus? |

Front Page 
 Dark Side
 Defence & Arms
 Light Side

Defence & Arms Last Updated: Feb 18, 2019 - 11:07:32 AM

KC-135 Replacement Finally Arrives
By Strategy Page, February 15, 2019
Feb 18, 2019 - 11:06:40 AM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

The U.S. Air Force finally received some of its long-awaited (and long overdue) new aerial tankers. Two KC-46As were delivered to an air force base in January 2019. Thatís 18 years after the air force went looking for a new tanker and eight years after the KC-46A was selected. The first 18 of these was supposed to be delivered by 2017 but that is now delayed until 2020. The last series of delays were caused by a component provided by Cobham, a British firm that had developed the pods that are carried under each wing to allow two aircraft to be refueled at once. These pods ran into development delays and then there were further delays waiting for British aviation authorities to approve the Cobham design in its final form. There are still some problems but not so bad that production cannot continue. The air force now has four KC-45As as an additional two were delivered six days after the first two.

All these final delays were preceded by lengthy ones encountered with the competition AirBus). In 2011 the competition between the American KC-767/46A and European KC-330, to replace the aging U.S. Air Force KC-135 aerial tankers was won by Boeing's KC-767 (as the KC-46A). In 2008 the air force had selected the KC-330, but lawyers and politics upset that award, and the selection process had to be repeated. Before that, the KC-767 had won the original 2002 competition, but corruption tainted that award, and the order was cancelled. The 2011 award was not challenged in court. There was also a lot of resistance in the air force and Congress to any further squabbling over who should build the replacement for the KC-135.

The total value of the project, to replace the aging fleet of KC-135 and KC-10 tankers, could be as high as $44 billion. The initial order was for 18 aircraft at about $150 million each. That initial order also came with about a billion dollars for development work plus $4 billion in additional development costs that the American manufacturer absorbed. The air force might order over a hundred KC-46As, but the exact number depends on what kind of future aircraft the air force will be using. If there are a lot of unmanned aircraft (UAVs), fewer tankers will be needed (because UAVs are smaller, and need less fuel).

The competition between the American (Boeing) and European (AirBus) candidates was actually quite close. The KC-330 carries 20 percent more fuel than the KC-767, plus more cargo pallets (26 versus 19) and passengers. But this apparently worked against the KC-330, as the KC-767 is closer in size to the KC-135, and thus will not require as many new maintenance facilities. The KC-767 is also considered easier and cheaper to maintain. The KC-330/45A was to have cost about $175 million each (17 percent more than the KC-46A).

The KC-46A is based on the Boeing 767-200 airliner, which sells for about $120 million. The 767 has been in service since 1982, and over 1,100 have been manufactured so far. Boeing developed the KC-47A 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.

The two engine KC-330 (KC-45A) was based on the AirBus 330 (which costs about $160 million each). Over 1,400 330s have been produced since the aircraft entered service in 1994. Both candidates are replacing the four engine KC-135. This 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. The KC-46A can pump 1,200 gallons (4,900 liters) a minute while each of the underwing pods can deliver a third of that per minute.

The KC-767 was developed partly because it is about the same size as the KC-135 (wingspan is 50.3 meters/156 feet, 6.8 percent larger than the KC-135). Thus the 767 could use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135. In the meantime, Japan and Italy have ordered eight KC-767s but with the continued delays most export sales went to the KC-330s, now called the A330 MRTT or KC-30A. So far, 60 of these have been sold to Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Norway, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, South Korea and Britain.

Source:Ocnus.net 2019

Top of Page

Defence & Arms
Latest Headlines
Iran and the Problem of Occupation Warfare
Nazi-Soviet Pact Anniversary Can Help Zelenskiy Heal Ukraineís Totalitarian Trauma
Killing The Kirovs To Save The Fleet
Naval Air: Seahawk Lands In India
Russiaís Two-Pronged Approach to Militarizing the Arctic
Special Operations: A Very Special SubmarineSpecial Operations: A Very Special Submarine
Murphy's Law: The MiG On MiG Secret
Victory Day 2019: Kremlin Envelops Itself in Militaristic Fervor
Sanctions War Against Iran
Additional EA-03 Arrive at Yishuntun