F106A Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Finally! I am so glad they are not going to name the thing the KC-767 or KC-330. Here's a paragraph from (AMC Commander) General Lichte's interview with Air Force Times. "Regarding the KC-X aerial refueling tanker program, Lichte said the selection of a plane for the planned 179-aircraft fleet would be made in January. Competing for the contract are the Boeing 767-200 and Northrop Grumman/Airbus A330-200. The winning aircraft will be designated KC-45A." Here's the entire interview link - http://www.airforcetimes.com/issues/storie...PER-3211613.php Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Interesting, I was thinking they might go with KC-11A since the KC-10 was the last new tanker ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ReccePhreak Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hmmm, well then I just saw 4 of these KC-45s across the ramp today. Two JASDF, the first Italian and an all gray unmarked one.So what were the KC-44, -43, 42, etc....??? Jeff Air Force Times requires a login BTW Google is your friend: C-42 The C-42 designation was not assigned. There is a very popular small sport plane, which is marketed world-wide under the "C-42" (or "C42") label: the German Comco-Ikarus C-42. A DOD source said unofficially, that there was some concern about potential legal issues if C-42 would be used for an MDS, and that this number was therefore skipped. C-43, C-44 The designations C-43 and C-44 were skipped to avoid potential confusion with the existing T/CT-43 and T-44 designators. According to unofficial information from DOD, there is an informal policy in effect to avoid duplication of "well-known" numbers. However, C-45 was not skipped (KC-45A is the official MDS for the KC-X tanker program), and it remains unclear why T-45 should be any less "well-known" than T-43 and -44. One possible explanation is that both the T-43 (Boeing 707) and T-44 (Raytheon/Beech King Air) are transport-type airframes (the T-45 is a two-seat jet), and that it was therefore avoided to assign numbers 43 and 44 to other transport aircraft as well. Next Number The next available design number in the C-series is C-46. HTH Larry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Voodoos4ever Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 (edited) Last time I checked, the C-45 was a Twin Beech, that was flown by the Armed Forces......... :D Oh yeah, next in line is the Curtis C-46......was that the Commando? Following that is the C-47.......also been taken......... Edited December 4, 2007 by Voodoos4ever Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cobrahistorian Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 (edited) They're putting a boom on a twin engined recip? :D Thanks Trigger! Edited December 4, 2007 by Cobrahistorian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jai5w4 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 However, C-45 was not skipped (KC-45A is the official MDS for the KC-X tanker program), and it remains unclear why T-45 should be any less "well-known" than T-43 and -44. Tried to get gas from a 45 the other day. No dice. I suspect it was a "T" version, and not the new "KC." :D A lot of people are going to be confused out there. Should have chosen a different number. :P -John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 It must the same guy that designated the F-35. Chappie Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 It must the same guy that designated the F-35. :D Chappie Almost shocking they got the "KC" part right init ? Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Almost shocking they got the "KC" part right init ? Gregg :D Chappie Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RCoulter52 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 They're putting a boom on a twin engined recip? :P Thanks Trigger! This must be for refueling A-10s!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nev Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hmmm, well then I just saw 4 of these KC-45s across the ramp today. Two JASDF, the first Italian and an all gray unmarked one. *cough* Pics? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
joncarrfarrelly Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hmmm, well then I just saw 4 of these KC-45s across the ramp today. Two JASDF, the first Italian and an all gray unmarked one.So what were the KC-44, -43, 42, etc....??? Jeff Air Force Times requires a login BTW Nope, those are still KC-767s, which BTW was originally the Boeing company designation not a DoD designation. The use of KC-767A by the DoD to designate the 'leased' tankers (remember that debacle?) came later. http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav...html#_MDS_KC767 I doubt very much that the tankers already sold or on order to foreign buyers will be re-designated as KC-45, and if they are it will be done by Boeing for marketing reasons. Jon Quote Link to post Share on other sites
joncarrfarrelly Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Last time I checked, the C-45 was a Twin Beech, that was flown by the Armed Forces......... Oh yeah, next in line is the Curtis C-46......was that the Commando? Following that is the C-47.......also been taken......... Irrelevant to the post-1962 designation system. But, to play the game, the original C-5 was a Fokker F-10 and the C-17 was a Lockheed Vega. Jon Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Regardless of duplication of old numbers or not, I'm ecstatic that it's not going to end up being a "KC-767". Finally, a microscopic spec of common sense prevails in the five-sided-booby hatch on the Potomac. J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 This must be for refueling A-10s!!! (cleaning screen...) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sunliner Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Somewhere along I-10 in Mobile, Alabama, I passed a sign a few months ago that advertised "the next generation tanker aircraft for the USAF". I didn't know any of the big companies had a factory near Mobile...anybody know what that might have been? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
C5sparkcatcher Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Somewhere along I-10 in Mobile, Alabama, I passed a sign a few months ago that advertised "the next generation tanker aircraft for the USAF". I didn't know any of the big companies had a factory near Mobile...anybody know what that might have been? If North/EADS gets the contract, they will be build in Mobile AL, where the old Buckley?AFB base was. ray Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedHeadKevin Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I'm sure that at some point, the designation will be changed to "KC/A-45A," then, after all the materials and paperwork is published, it'll go back to just "KC-45A," costing the Air Force millions of dollars. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SimFixer Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 If North/EADS gets the contract, they will be build in Mobile AL, where the old Buckley?AFB base was.ray Close....Brookley AFB. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I didn't know any of the big companies had a factory near Mobile...anybody know what that might have been? I heard from a friend today that Airbus wants to build part of the A320s family and A350s there. They intend to build them in the US to combat losses Airbus took from the weak $. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I'm sure that at some point, the designation will be changed to "KC/A-45A," then, after all the materials and paperwork is published, it'll go back to just "KC-45A," costing the Air Force millions of dollars. I guess it will take some getting used to but KC-45 just doesn't roll off the tongue like KC-135. Chappie Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.