TANKER

Bob- We did not need a stinking Airbus, at any rate. Boeing told the AF if it needed a bigger tanker, they would bid the 777, a way better aircraft than the 330. The AF said no thanks.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

That will be an amazing day! - I'm not going to hold my breath though!!

 

Nice to see someone finally praise the C-17. It actually does exactly what it was intented to do. Land an M1 tank in the less than 3000' on unimproved runways. They tried to make it a long haul cargo plane and dogged it for its legs. It is a wonderful flying machine.

The 767 would be a step back for a tanker. Far less capable than the KC-10. The 767 is Wonderful plane, it is just not big enough. 777 is the perfect plane for the task. We are developing civilian tanker versions right now using DC-10's but Boeing will not sell us the booms. We would have them flying already but Boeing is not playing ball. We are going to have to use drogues for now. Another company converted a series 40 DC-10 and is doing contract tankering with the Navy. Douglas messed up when the tried to sell the Air Force the KC-11. They wanted to stick with the 10 which would have been a very good for Douglas and they may still be in business today if they did not build that monstrosity called the MD-11?


Cheers

 

With our growing dependence on UAVs (and how the landscape for warfare is changing) I question whether we need such a substantial armada of tankers, especially 20 years from now.

 

Brian- The long range UAVs and the Navy's UCAV will both be able to aerial refuel. The C-17 is almost completely dependent on tankers because of its relatively short range (by airlifter standards). It is otherwise a superb aircraft able to do everything promised. The C-130s, including the new J-models, are in the same boat, as are the Ospreys.

Do not confuse what the Predator and Reaper can do in SWA as representative of something that will work in a future war. We have no idea how they will work in a heavy ECM environment and they are sitting ducks for SAMs and long range AAA until we build stealthy versions. Those have proven to be very expensive.

Gates has been lulled into thinking we do not need to worry about near-peer combat in the future. Hopefully he is not setting us up or another Pearl Harbor. Congress and the War Department limited us to 13 B-17s in the late 30s. History tends to repeat itself with 22 (21 now) B-2s and 187 F-22As being set as limits. Should have been 132 and 700+.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

All good points Terry - just so it's clear, in no way was I suggesting we don't need tankers, but that we may not need the 100s forecast 20 years from now. We'll still need tankers 20 years from now, but I question if we need as many as suggested.

And the Pentagon is already cutting back on JSF and other combat aircraft now - I don't agree with that, but maybe a smarter administration will change that.

I'm one of the few that felt that leasing the tankers might have been a better and quicker way to go. There were irregularities with the original deal, but at the same time, it's not like the tankers coming off lease could go and be leased to say Lufthansa or someone. I think McCain's reaction was penny wise, pound foolish.

 

Brian- Affirmative. No doubt we would have saved a bunch of money doing the lease because it also included maintenance, like the deal we did on the KC-10, and we would have had them years ago.

McCain pretty much needs to go away. Like another ex-military senator, John Glenn, neither has been a friend to the military. Killing the F-22 and hamstringing the F-35 will really hurt us, and all our allies counting on the F-35, in the future.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Wow, It's rare that I get to pipe up with some first hand knowledge and experience on a topic on this forum. Every once in awhile, I get to add something to Taz's comments, but this time.............With over 5,000 hours in the KC-10 and KC-135, I feel I can add to this debate just a little bit.

It really saddens me to see what the politics have done to our aging tanker fleet. One of you guys made a very good point when you said we need more booms in the air. That is essentially what our customers in the sky want. Granted, I'm a "Gucci Boy" with the majority of my time in the KC-10 where we had a dual cargo/air refueling mission, but when it comes down to it, more booms in the air is mission essential. Tankers really are a force multiplier when it comes to air superiority and they add an element of sustainability on the battlefield. Conversely, the increasing amount of humanitarian missions the Air Force is doing is extremely dependent on the tanker fleet. I can't tell you how many missions I flew after the massive Tsunami hit Thailand a few years ago. We spent countless hours refueling C-5's and C-17's that were taking supplies over there.

I, like most guys in the tanker world, think that the Air Force should have bought more KC-10's. That airplane is increasingly taking on more responsibility due to the aging of the KC-135 fleet. Boeing won't play ball on the retro-fit airframe issue because it's a McDonnell Douglas Boom design on the KC-10 that Boeing didn't come up with. God Forbid Boeing retro-fit a proven weapons system that THEY own, even though they didn't design it. It won't happen, end of debate on that one.

As far as the KC-X program, It is a two-fold debate. I think that Boeing makes a great airplane product, but their RAROS(Remote Air Refueling Operator Station) boom design does not generally have high marks from the USAF tanker crews that have tested it. I know, I've seen it up close and personal. The system is run by cameras located at fixed points on the bottom of the aircraft and it is very unsettling. Glare is also a problem that has yet to be fully rectified. They need to come up with an ARO Station or "Boom Pod" just like the KC-10 or the KC-135. Reportedly, they did not because the initial plan was to lease the airplanes, thus they could be easily converted to civilian or cargo configuration.

In a perfect world, I think they should build a mix of tankers by the same manufacturer for continuity. I think a blend of 777, 767, and even possibly a new build 747 series tanker for Dual Role missions is the answer. They just need to make a good air refueling platform. I don't want guys to look at a video screen, I want them to open up the window and and be able to see this in person.......
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Agreed. McCain has done far more harm to the military than good. It's rediculous, and while there was illegal shenanigans with the initial deal, it was still a better deal. Ugh.

10Boom, interesting viewpoints, thanks for explaining, good to know. I too sometimes wondered why Boeing didn't do a 777 or a 747 version of the tanker since the KC-10 will need to be replaced at some point as well. But as you pointed out, Boeing has a bad habit of the invariable "NIH" syndrome (not invented here). Boeing sidelined the McDonnell Douglas Blended Wing commercial aircraft notably because it didn't come out of Boeing. Now they're slowly resurrecting that design, for cargo, but we'll see where that goes.

Unfortunately USAF wouldn't look at buying up MD-11 aircraft and converting them to tankers.

 

No fortunately for the USAF they are not buying that pile of crap! It is unstable at high gross weights in the landing regime among other problems. The MD-11 has the highest accident history of any airliner made. Many more will come I am afraid. The MD-10 and MD-11 common type rating is a joke some of the folks in Flight Test are amazed it even got certified. High gusty winds and high gross weights are a formula for disaster for that bird ala Fedex at Narita.

Cheers

 

10boom- Great to have the opinion of someone who does this for a living. If my earlier statements were not clear enough, the USAF lives because of its tanker fleet. Most people do not realize that the max gross weight of aircraft on the ground and inflight are very different. Many fighters and most cargo aircraft can fly at much higher weights than they can taxi or take-off. The difference in my ancient history F-111 was over 10,000 lbs, or about four GBU-24s, which weigh ~2500 lbs each. For C-5s too, the aircraft can take off with full load and partial fuel, be refueled and go nearly forever. The C-17 absolutely has to have tanker support because of its short legs.

I deployed to Desert Shield three times from RAF Lakenheath/Mildenhall with KC-10s, two times with them escorting. The first time in August was in an F-111F with two external tanks and two GBU-24s on the wings because there were no PGMs in theater. The KC-10s carried all our support personnel and equipment in addition to refueling us non-stop from the UK to Saudi Arabia. The second time was inside a KC-10 with reinforcements and supplies from Lakenheath after escorting two of my guys back who had been killed in a training accident. The third time was in an F-111F, after training a new squadron as ops officer, while deploying with KC-10s escorting and refueling us and carrying all our squadron assets.

The ability to deploy with all your support personnel and equipment was a brand new capability, never before proven, and the KC-10s performed flawlessly. More KC-10s would have been a good idea, and a mix of 767s and 777s would be a good idea.

I even got a tanker pilot a DFC on day four of Desert Storm when we ran into it with my F-111F. But that story is in a thread already.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I've always been curious why that was a factor for the MD-11 but not the DC-10.

 

This is why. I posted this in another thread.

The MD-11 is prone to uncontrollable pitch oscillations in the landing phase and several have crashed as a result of this. The design of the horizontal stabilizer is such that stall buffet produces a dynamic load on the outboard elevators that has resulted in structural overload and failure of portions of the outboard elevators. There have been 3 other incidents where MD-11's had suffered damage to their composite elevators, following stall buffets. It also has had 5 high altitude upsets! It has a very high max landing weight and it is not untypical to have approach speeds over 200 mph at max landing weight. It is unstable in the landing phase!

The terms stability, stable, and unstable have specific meanings with respect to the flying qualities of an airplane. Those meanings are confined to "static stability" and "maneuvering stability" and refer to control force gradients vs. speed, and vs. normal acceleration ('g') respectively. Unfortunately, in common practice the terms are used indiscriminately by "aviation experts".

The software changes (implementation of the -908 FCS load, and some subsequent set mandated by the FAA to allow certification of the MD-10 on the same type cert) improved the predictability of the MD-11 in the landing phase; they did nothing to correct the omission of a simple lead-lag pitch SCAS (à la F-4) which was designed into the Rate Command CWS of the LSAS (which is there, but set to zero gain, making it non-functional), which would have compensated for the extremely low short period natural frequency of the airplane in the landing configuration (making the airplane prone to APC). The change in geometry from DC-10 to MD-11 made this item a required addition from a handling qualities standpoint, yet the FAA still certified the airplane. They also did nothing to correct the gross elevator load feel (force vs. displacement) gradients in the landing configuration, which make it virtually impossible for a normal pilot (and in particular a soft-handed airline pilot) to access the necessary deflections for control of the airplane. Nor did they compensate for the inadequate bandwidth of the elevator hydraulic actuators, which incur significant lags when rapid elevator control inputs are required (as in turbulence).

The DC-10, and MD-10, does not suffer from the above problems for several reasons: it has a lower max landing weight, and thus much reduced pitch inertia (Iyy), the elevator throws required for adequate control are significantly reduced as a result of greater elevator control power (area) along with correspondingly lower required control forces. Additionally, the DC-10 (as employed at most airlines) does not employ RCWS, a ludicrous, parallel roll control "enhancement" on most MD-11's; FedEx, incidentally, ordered its airplanes to have RCWS turned off; a wise decision.

What happened In Narita is the same as what happened in Hong Kong (to a China Airlines MD-11) and Newark NJ (to another FedEx MD-11) some years ago. The hard landings, which resulted in ALL cases from failure of the aircraft to respond appropriately to pilot control inputs, resulted in rupture of the wing spar by the main gear oleo strut, breaking the wing; the lift from the wing not yet broken then caused the aircraft to roll, and turn upside down. In Narita, both wings broke - first the left, and then as the roll angle reached about 80° LWD, the right wing also broke. this can be seen clearly on the video.

The failure of the aircraft to respond appropriately to pilot control inputs is the result of certification of the aircraft despite the omission of a vital part of the aircraft flight control system: namely the rate command function of the LSAS system. This omission leads, under certain circumstances, to what can be described as a "cliff-like" APC* as a result of the extremely slow response of the airplane to elevator control inputs at high gross landing weights. Despite protestations by the Douglas Aircraft Co. that the aircraft flies "just like a DC-10" (which are blatant untruths) the airplane is inherently dangerous and extremely difficult to handle in gusty wind conditions, especially at high landing weights.

I have had many discussions with FedEx , Delta, American, Alitalia, Korean and many other Check Airmen and Instructors about the MD-11, and have invariably heard horror stories about landings. I feel a great sense of sadness for the families of the airmen who were victims of the Narita Fedex tragedy, and I know that sadness will turn into anger when once again the NTSB/Boeing clique start to insist that this was all caused by pilot error. Boolsheet man!

Airplane-Pilot-Coupling - the phenomenon used to be called PIO, but the name was changed so to avoid the implication of pilot causality.

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings of the MD-11!

Cheers

 

In the KC-10 our MGTOW was 590,000 lbs and our MLW was 436,000 lbs. That number is based on a design R/D of 10ft per second (600fpm). The MD-11 has a higher MLW from what I understand, along with a longer fuselage, and in my opinion/experience that's not good. I know in the KC-10, we have a tendency to "porpoise" if we have a high VVI at touchdown and if it's a true hard landing (more than 600fpm at touchdown) then the airplane can actually porpoise and start to roll. Landings are sketchy in these airplanes and they take a good bit of attention to be successful. Thankfully the center gear doesn't let us "grease" landings, so you always know when you're on the ground in the KC-10. If you throw in a cross wind component and wet runway on top of all that, it's makes the pucker factor go way up.

 

I think the politicization of this acquisition is a disgrace. This process has been repeatedly tinkered with and corrupted to the point that the whole thing should probably begin from scratch (yet again!). While I understand the desire to "win" contracts for their home states, I think politicians need to be Statesmen (and, apparently, Stateswomen) and do what's best for the men and women in the uniform. Period. All other considerations come second, if at all.

However, these procurements are getting so utterly complicated that the proposals alone are nearly impossible to understand and grade. Heck, even though EADS is a European company, some large percentage of the Lockheed product would have been manufactured here in the US. Understand I have no dog in this hunt, I just want the best product that fits the misson description and meets the costs.

So, is Lockheed really bowing out because they can't meet the critieria? Boeing correctly, IMO, objected to the in-process changes. So, is this sour grapes by Lockheed? There's a lot of money at stake, but I can also understand that if they can't legitimately offer a product that meets the specifications, then they should bow out. They shouldn't waste their own money or the AF's time. As stated, the sooner we get these deployed in the field, the better.

CW

 

It does, and I appreciate you posting this - now to check in with my friend, who happens to (gulp) fly an MD-11 for World.

 

Verrrry interesting! I'm glad I never had to fly in that turkey. If you ever have any similar misgivings about the MD-80 or Boeing 717 (MD-95) or 757, please let us know! Personally I prefer the 767 and 777, because I had a (small) hand in their design, but the airlines that I fly out of ATL prefer those other 3 aircraft.

 

CW- It is Northrop-Grumman who is in bed with Airbus, not L-M. Having done several source selections for the AF, and even one for NASA, they are not difficult to grade at all. The trouble is the person or persons who write the RFP have to really know what they are doing when they put it out for bids. Then the proposal grading criteria have to exactly match what is in the RFP. In the case of the original tanker RFP and competition, the grading criteria did not match the RFP. That is an acquisition cardinal sin and almost guarantees a protest, and one which will be upheld when reviewed. For the AF officers grading the proposals, the N-G entrant won by the grading criteria provided to them. Those criteria did not match the RFP, however, so Boeing protested and won.

The smartest way to do an acquisition is to have the same people write the RFP that will grade the entries. The acquisition authority should also have the same people write the proposal grading criteria because they are the only ones who truly understand all the factors.

Incidentally, the acquisition authority is the person who makes the final determination on who wins. He takes the source selection board's advice and makes his own decision. Usually, but not always, he follows the board's advice.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

MD-80 great plane! Gas and oil baby for many years. old reliable like all Douglas designs.

MD-95 even better! Beautiful flightdeck and wonderful harmonic balance on the controls. Powerful, quiet and efficient. Boeing killed it because it was in direct competition with the 737, than they demolished the buildings! Makes no sense to me?

757 awesome machine, power galore and very reliable, flies like a truck on roll. Rolly Royce engines more powerful and reliable than Pratts.

767-Awesome machine, Flies like a Cadillac. a bit touchy on roll but mutch better than the 757 which flies like a truck with no powersteering.

I have flown them all, DC-10 still my favorite! This whole tanker issue could be resolved by doing a similar retrofit to DC-10's by converting them to KC-10's much like the MD-10 program since there is no "time life limit" on Douglas airframes. It would be cheaper than the R&D of a new plane.

Cheers

 

My pleasure,

I am sure he was not involved with the certifcation of the bird. People who fly them tend to be very sensitive about criticizing it. He would have no idea what was involved with the certification and inherant design flaws compared to the DC-10. On paper it is a good machine, 26% more fuel efficient than the DC-10, but why does it have the worst accident history of any airliner made?

Most operators turn on the A/P at 500 ft and keep it on until 200ft or less. LSAS is always trimming the plane when u make pitch imputs which is a pain in the ass when hand flying.

Please ask your friend about the initial failure rate from his company on MD-11 type ratings when they first took delievery and were trained in Long Beach by Douglas instructors assuming he was there at that time?

Is your friend Eric Ross?

Cheers