Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker

Not sure where else to put this, but at one point in time, the V2500 was considered for the KC-135 to "dual source" the KC-135R modernization program in the late 1980s. The V2500 promised a 17% reduction in fuel burn over the existing CFM-56 (F108) powered KC-135Rs.
V2500 KC-135.png

(1987, February). Air Force Magazine , 56.
 
Metrea C-135FR are now a bit more than 60 years old. Surely enough they have updagraded along the years, but they are nonethless very old planes. France milked them to the last drop, and since 1972 they were only eleven (the only loss of a C-135FR happened in French Polynesia, Hao, during nuclear testing. The planes turbojets got corroded by coral dust and saltwater corrosion, and one plane went down just after takeoff, killing the entire crew).

They had been bought to refuel the Mirage IVAs (62 of them, strategic mission) but soon the entire tactical fighter force became addicted to aerial refueling: F-100s first, then Jaguars, then Mirage F1s, then all subsequent jets: up to 450 of them by the end of Cold War !)
 
So it woud be a mistake if the USAF went ahead and upgraded the systems on the KC-135 so that it would last for a 100 years.
 
330 can´t really fly NoE and are unsuitable with ACE concept.
KC-135 are smaller and fits better ACE and low level flying.
 
FighterJock said:
Another B-52J style program? o_O :confused:
Click to expand...
As much fun as it may be to speculate about KC-135Z model tankers equipped with CFM-56 LEAP engines... I hate to say it, but KC-46B's re-engined with 787 engines would be a better choice for the low threat tanking, it would also check a box for the freighter market. Of course, Franken freighter it up to a -300 fuse with a -400 wing and undercarriage with said Dreamliner engines and you get something semi useful for a while.

Tongue firmly in cheek ;)
 
Max Mach, engine redundancy, wing in gust behavior (hence aspect ratio) could be the variables they are closely watching.
 
Last edited:
isayyo2 said:
Might as well bring the KC-10s out of the boneyard while they’re at it…
Click to expand...

You have a point. Pretty weird to think KC-135 will completely outlive the KC-10s. Which brings a few additionals questions
-why can't KC-10s last 60 or 100 years like the -135s ?
-why aren't KC-10s taken over by private companies ?

My 2 cts about this: fleet size.

I presume that the 707 / C-135 industrial base was so huge (between 707s and C-135s it was almost 1800 planes) it can still support extremely old tankers.
In comparison, the DC-10 / KC-10 / MD-11 logistic base is mostly gone, because it was much smaller from the beginning (386 + 60 + 200) - plus MDD no longer exists.
 
Too true Archibald, they should have upgraded the KC-10s instead of retiring them especially to have glass cockpits and replaced the engines to have more modern fuel efficient engines.
 
Archibald said:
You have a point. Pretty weird to think KC-135 will completely outlive the KC-10s. Which brings a few additionals questions
-why can't KC-10s last 60 or 100 years like the -135s ?
-why aren't KC-10s taken over by private companies ?
Click to expand...
To tack onto this - why weren't retired MD-10/11s acquired for parts reclamation as the 707s were acquired in the 70s/80s?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom