aging tankers to be replaced

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
(Longtailedlizard) wrote in message
...
Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings,
and is
"the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.

Sure its been a money maker for the airlines, but the 767 is no
warplane. New operational concepts are taking these big airframes
OVER the battlefield now. This is a significant fundamental change
from the way such aircraft have operated for the last 50 years and one
that is being ignored.

Are you suggeting a C-17?


I've been a 767 heavy check mechanic since 92, I pushed over 200 767's
through, heavy "C" check, and last year was the first time we had ever
pulled
off a engine pylon. (Boeing calls them engine struts)

Then you know the 767 is not built to withstand even minor battle
damage. Its folly to assume they could operate as they have in OEF and
OIF in an opposed battlespace....and if they won't be able to it may
mean the difference between winning and losing. The last few conflicts
have built up a bad case of hubris and false security that will
eventually bite somebody in the ass-Hard.

Tankers gernerally avoid being in harms way. The idea is to tank in airspace
you control. The only exception I can think of where it "might" have to
would be to rescue a damaged plane losing fuel and even in that case it
might be better to lose the damaged aircraft and pilot rather than risk the
tanker.


Its a well used and abused airplane, and will make the airlines money
for
years to come.Its big enough to haul money making cargo in its belly,
and pax
on top, on long trips, yet small enough not to need all the "attention"
that a
4 engined 747, or the temparametal 777 with its 12ft dia. fan engines

In a battle situation the redundancies of a 4 engine aircraft-along
with the increased redundancies of other systems-are an obvious
advantage.
And its been my experience that the 777-200 isn't any more
"temperamental" than the 767-200 or -400 while beating the 76 in
payload and range dramatically... of course the 777 isn't an aircraft
I'd want to go into Harm's Way in either.

If Boeing were smart they would get out of this bean-counter drivien
box they are in and show some real innovation by feilding a next
generation large military aircraft design much as they did with the
Dash 80 a half century ago. Indeed the seeds of such an aircraft
already exist in the abortive Sonic Cruiser and 7E7.





The Air Force will just be replacing one workhorse with another.


J

"Leadfoot" wrote in message news:oTN_a.10724$2g.8029@fed1read05...
"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
(Longtailedlizard) wrote in message
...
Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings,
and is
"the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.

Sure its been a money maker for the airlines, but the 767 is no
warplane. New operational concepts are taking these big airframes
OVER the battlefield now. This is a significant fundamental change
from the way such aircraft have operated for the last 50 years and one
that is being ignored.

Are you suggeting a C-17?
What I am suggesting is that in future conflicts new methods of
deployment of aircraft that used to stay on the periphery of the
battlespace means they are now smack in the middle of it. This is
especially true of the ISR platforms (E-8s, P-3s, Rc-12s, etc.), but
also true of the tankers which ventured within 50nm of bagdad in the
early phases of OIF. Specific to the tankers, the "Smart Tanker"
concept will only bring them that much more into the fight...and a
much more enticing target for an adversary. These missions belong in
an airframe that can take the punishment-or avoid some of the
punishment- of the fight and not in a civil airframe that even minor
damage will disable and is a sitting duck.
Just because the Japanese and Italians have bout 767s for some of
these roles doesn't make them viable warfighting aircraft.

,various snippages

Tankers gernerally avoid being in harms way. The idea is to tank in airspace
you control. The only exception I can think of where it "might" have to
would be to rescue a damaged plane losing fuel and even in that case it
might be better to lose the damaged aircraft and pilot rather than risk the
tanker.

Thats not so any more. As related above it was widely reported that
tanker aircraft operated in contested battlespace. The Commanding
General flew one mission to boost morale according to the reports.