767 does look good with winglets.

Great job on the new video. I believe that two proposals, 767 and 777, should be submitted. They are complimentary and give the Air Force the leeway to select the best configuration for its needs.

Commercial or Military.............Boeing is the "Only Way to Fly". Attention Pentagon....This is how to do it and do it right the first time!!!

The 777 reign's supreme.  These are pilot's planes unlike the computer controlled "bus" alternative being proposed by the opposition.  If it ain't Boeing I ain't going...  Keep it American all the way,

When combat operations begin, you can bet tankers are 100% committed to air refueling support.  And I assure you, that if operating out of a small constrained ramp where you may have limited space, maximizing the tails on the ramp is critical.  For those who truly understand tanker operations, there is one basic concept that has held true campaign after campaign, and most likely into the future, booms in the air for combat support, fuel in the air for deployment/fighter drags.  Don’t forget, we buy aircraft based on combat.  Once the air bridge rolls up, generally combat forces are in place (but always fluid), and tankers move forward to the AOR for combat support.  That support may come from several smaller airfields versus a large host military field or international airport.

When we measure footprint against ramp space, the formula utilized ends up in a MOG (maximum aircraft on the ground) for that beddown location.  A basic measure for the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A330, when you measure from nose to tail and wing tip to wing tip, you will find the difference quite staggering.  The 767 basic dimensions are roughly 25,000 square feet compared to the A330 which comes in at a whopping 38,000 square feet (medium capability in a big frame)!  For those interested, the KC-10 is about 30,000 square feet while the workhorse KC-135 is about 18,000 square feet.  Though more goes into the formula, i.e., spacing between parked aircraft wing tips, noses and tails, and more, the footprint gets even larger when all factors are applied.  The end result, operating out of a smaller field can really put a damper on air refueling support operations.  Let me digress for a minute.  The USAF will always try and find the best field for tanker beddown and continuous operations.  However, those airfields may be limited due to several factors, none less important than the political climate.  Let me remind you of Turkey during OIF.  Great country, great ally, but in the 11th hour, we were unable to fly combat support from Turkish soil.  

We don’t want to put our assets in one or a few location for obvious reasons….eggs in one basket theory, but we do want to use several strategic locations and not all those airports are going to be international airports.  As matter of fact, many airfields may be smaller, requiring maximized space.  The result, and simple math shows (use the numbers from second paragraph) that you can bed down more Boeing 767’s on smaller airfields to a ratio of nearly 2 to one.  Additionally, many smaller airfields will have a load bearing capability limitation.  Boeing aircraft in general have a very “soft” footprint compatible with more airfields.  I am not sure of what the final buy numbers will be, but at one point ~180 tails ( I believe) were discussed.  If you don’t have enough collective ramp space to support the collective tanker tails, we know which creek we are up without a paddle.  

Flexibility can translate into several advantages.  Some of these are intratheater lift, AIREVAC operations, air/ground spares, reliability tankers, surge ops, the list goes on, all of which become force multipliers.  I won’t do math in public, but if you man the tankers at 2.0 to 2.5 crews per tanker, depending on sortie duration, turnaround time, crew rest, etc., the sortie rate will most likely be 1 to 1.5 sorties per day, and 2 on rare occasions as an average.  Assuming a typical smaller ramp, if I have 10 Boeing 767’s in the fight, vice 4 or 5 A330’s, one can quickly see the advantage of fuel in the air in a 24 hour period.  If you want to dig into the "math weeds" a little further, I can show the 767 has more fuel on board per square foot of ramp space it occupies over that of the competition...very key observation.  Funseekers, if you want something to combat that gives less than maximum flexibility at a FOL, don’t gamble as your vice, you’ll lose.

As an aside and in closing, I have no stock in Boeing, Northrop Grumman, or Airbus.  No one pays me nor solicits my opinion, I throw it out there because I have been there, and done that, boots on the ramp, and at headquarters.  My loyalty lies with the United States, the United States Air Force, and the flight crews that make the complex puzzle of air refueling operations look easy.  I don’t look at how to cut corners, and that equates to a straight operational perspective on what works and works well.  Pound for pound, the only aircraft that bellies up to the bar is the Boeing 767.  If we are going to invest in a future combat system, lets match the best weapon system against the challenge of combat.  Why give our crews less than the best?  

Go Boeing!

Stu Pugh

As a current KC-135 Boom Operator it's good to see comments being posted on this blog by someone who actually has some real-world knowlege of tanker operations.  I have spent many a night orbiting over the action and I cannot think of one single instance where it would have been more beneficial to the fight to have less, but larger tankers as opposed to more, smaller sized tankers.  Many nights recievers have had to wait in line to get gas while leaving either their wingman uncovered down low, or leaving troops in contact without vital air cover.  What this and any future conflict is going to need is more "Booms in the air", not fewer.  The Air Force could solve the KC-X size issue really easy, all they would have to do is send out a survey to every person who has contact with tankers in their job, and ask them if they want to see more or less "booms in the air".  I think they would fine that the results would be heavily in favor or more booms, not less.  Crews want more, planners want more, reciever pilots want more, and the troops on the ground want more.