Tankers - 767 or 7E7?

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
newsF7Jb.6477$6l1.101@okepread03...
Actually, since the fall of Iraq, the number of tankers needed has dropped
significantly. With the end of operation northern and southern watch,
this
has freed-up essentially a squadron of aircraft.

Tanker pilots can fly anything heavy, with minimal training. Training
costs
are insignificant.

The USAF leasing planes means the lessor has to maintain a bench stock.
In any scenario described, the lessor will also contract the maintenance
CONUS and Overseas.

Personally, I would go for the 767, as this is a very large aircraft that
can
carry pallet cargo, and has the fuel tanks for a significant offload. The
767
is all the USAF needs for both an AWACS and Tanker replacement. I also
think it could replace the B-52 in cruise missile launch capability. With
an
internal load of hundreds of cruise missiles, it can eject them from a
rotary launcher and track system. Most B-52's that launched cruise
missiles
never crossed the FEBA (Gulf, and Med).


Not sure it would be feasible to do this with a 767/7E7. When the Nimrod
MRA4 was in planning, one idea was to take an Airbus (can't remember which
model) and give it an internal torpedo etc bay. The stress calcs weren't
very nice, and the cost would be even higher than its currently going to be.
Although I suppose if you were to build enough, the cost would become
manageable....