Another Possible Solution To The USAF Tanker Bid: Start Up The KC-10 Proction Line

[casey jones]

Why can'nt the USAF start up the KC-10 production line again..I belive this could be the answer to saving the tax payers alot of money. Rather then buying new tankers, McDonell-Douglas is gone so how difficult would it be to get the blue prints ect., for this airplane and ask Boeing or lockheed to manufacturer them. Just a thought.


Cheers

Casey

[Willy]

Are you talking converting existing DC-10s or building new KC-10s?

With conversions, they'd probably have to rebuild them to like new while doing the conversion. Probably better to just build from new from the start.

As for building new ones, by buying out McDonnell Douglas, Boeing now owns the rights to the DC-10 and thus the KC-10. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be too keen on restarting production of an older non-Boeing aircraft and would rather build something off of what they already have in production.

[Trans_23]

Agree with Willy. Tooling a plant to build The KC-10 would prolly cost more than re-tooling an existing line.

[Railrunner130]

I'm not familiar with the performance specs of the KC-X competition or the two competitors aircraft. I'm not sure the KC-10 would meet those requirements. If I had to guess, I'd say that it would not.

[deathfromafar]

The KC-10A has certainly been popular with crews and it's combination capability is far greater than the KC-135R. I remember when there was talk of making a tanker based on the MD-11 but it never happened. On thing for sure, the MD-10 conversions are extremely popular with cargo operators. My question is, how many airframes are left available for rebuild if it became an option to go with a new MD-10 Tanker?

I've studied the KC-767 specs frontward and backwards and it actually comes in lower than the KC-135R number wise. It's major drawback is that it's airframe size and engine compatibility limit how much thrust it has with two engines and thus how much usable fuel & cargo it can carry. The KC-767 is closer to the 135R than it is to the KC-10A and A330 MRTT. The Airbus is bigger and has more powerful engines than the KC-767 which allows greater usable fuel and cargo loads. Still, the 3 engined KC-10 has the extra power and room for a huge payload and usable fuel. I lean towards the Airbus over the KC-767 any day but if the choice was open, I think the MD-10 upgrade into a KC airframe would be a better choice overall.

Some specs:

Bearing in mind that the weights listed are the maximums and the max fuel and cargo weights would not be carried at the same time without exceeding MTOW ratings for each aircraft. The numbers reflect the maximum for each typical configuration.

KC-135R
Max Fuel: 203,290 lbs
Max Payload: 83,000 lbs

KC-767
Max Fuel: 202,000 lbs
Max Payload: 77,000lbs

A330MRTT
Max Fuel: 245,000 lbs
Max Payload: 99 000 lbs

KC-10A
Maximum Useable Fuel: 342,000 Pounds(Max takeoff weight: 590,000 lbs)
Max Payload 170,000 lbs

[Bjoern]

Well, they could still buy out FedEx' existing DC-/MD-10 fleet and convert them into tankers and leave FE to decide what new cargo aircraft to get.

Picking up a few -10s stored in the desert along the way wouldn't hurt either.

[Willy]

The RAF seems to have done pretty well with their used Lockheed L1011 TriStars that they converted to tankers. But then I always thought that the L1011 was a better aircraft than the DC-10 anyway.

[Bone]

The RAF seems to have done pretty well with their used Lockheed L1011 TriStars that they converted to tankers. But then I always thought that the L1011 was a better aircraft than the DC-10 anyway.

I've jump seated on L-1011's quite alot back when Delta still had them. It's a very powerfull and impressive machine, but maintenance heavy-heavy-heavy. There's a good reason why no one flys them anymore, they'll suck your cash dry trying to keep them airworthy.

I've seen the RAF L-1011's broken and grounded at a few of the places I regularly go to. There was one broke in New Orleans for almost a month, back a few years ago. But then, I see C-5's broken all over the place too, lol.

I see the King of Jordan's L-1011 once in a while. It's a nice looking one.

[Roadburner440]

Picking out new aircraft is a pretty difficult process for the military as a whole.. There is a lot of trials/modifications and such involved in these programs. Like with the MH-60R that was supposed to be out when I joined the Navy (2003), and just as of the last 2 years we have started seeing them in the fleet due to teething issues. I would say that they it is strongly probably to see the KC-10 again except that the production line shut down. I think they will continue making H-60 derivatives till the production line runs dry. Aside from minor changes the airframe/powerplants are still the same as they were circa 1979 when the Blackhawk was first introduced. Most likely we will see a twin jet of some sort. I can only speak for the Navy, but there is always this push to do more with less. Like the new P-8A will only have 2 pilots, and now longer require a flight engineer. The EA-6B with 2 pilots and 2 NFO's will be replaced by the EA-18G with 1 pilot, and 1 WSO. I have even heard rumors now that if the F-35 falls through that the services are looking into ordering more regular Superhornets.. I know just generally at my work the budgets we are alloted have been slashed, personnel transfering out are not necessarily being replaced.. Like the SH-60B you will probably see the KC-10 go through some kind of ASLE (Airframe Service Life Extension) Program that willexpand their life. Right now we are up to 14,000 hour limit on the SH-60B's (supposed to be retired at 8,000).. With a 2017 retirement date though I am sure it will be extended again, and I am unsure what the projected date is for the tankers. We will see what happens with budgets overall, as that will be what drives decisions like this.. It should probably be based off of something we already have in the service so that way the supply infrastructure, basic maintenance/pilot training, and such is already there. Instead of having to build all that from the ground up.

[deathfromafar]

I got clarification from Boeing about the MD-10 program. There are exactly 413 DC-10-30/40F airframes left with usable life including already converted MD-10's. FedEx alone owns nearly 1/3 of those with 70 being converted and an option for a further 50. All the other DC-10F users are being offered the MD-10 conversion at a reasonable price to make the planes have more commonality to the MD-11F standards. But as it stands, not a single DC-10/MD-10 airframe will be available to the Military in the future which shutters the doors on the KC-10 numbers being increased.

There has been talk of canceling KCX altogether and redrawing specs for a Tanker which could draw plans for the 777F, 747F, or A340 design, all 3 of which would be a huge step up in capability over the current proposals. For many folks I know in the Tanker community, KC-10 or up in size(fuel and cargo) makes a hell of a lot more sense than KC-135 down to KC-767.

As already noted here, building something from the ground up is complicated and costly. Traditionally, the USAF Tanker programs have come from existing military or commercial airframes with the necessary retrofitted equipment. Both Boeing and Airbus have the tooling and hardware to convert pretty much any commercial product to a strategic tanker with more than sufficient capability. What is getting in the way is horsesense games being played in a single building. If that obstacle could be cleared/sidestepped, not only would the new Tanker be nearly in place by now, the costs could probably been kept down as well. Time will tell if the step will be forward or backwards.

[Bjoern]

Hmm...KB-52s...