Boeing going going ... tanker soon to be gone

[bdk]

If the USAF chooses the Airbus aircraft for the tanker program, a production line will be set-up in Mobile, Alabama. So for my home State's wellness I say go Airbus.

Yes, better an assembly plant in your home state where 90% of the work is done overseas rather than a program that spreads the wealth across the country where 90% is done in the US.

The Boeing plan I believe is to build the airframe in Washington and the tanker specific work in Wichita.

[The Inspector]

The '67 line area in the plant is begining to be re arranged to build the remaining freighters along side, but separate from the KC line-

[Mike]

Actually whether the Air Force selects the Boeing 767 version or Airbus A330 version for the new tanker to replace some and eventually hopefully all of the KC-135's, it will be designated KC-45A.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

There's an interesting section on the very subject of how the designation system has fallen apart in recent years in Barrett Tillman's book 'What we need'.

The next fighter after the YF-23 is the F-35.

The 'F-117' was never a Fighter, but an Attack aircraft, so should have has an 'A-' designation.

The invention of the 'F/A' designation for the Hornet for political reasons.

And he cites many other examples.

So it will probably end up as the KCF/A-767 or some such nonsense!

[The Inspector]

So, instead of painting them, they will be covered with 11 secret herbs and spices? I agree the designator system the DoD uses is going way over the top in trying to cover every users mission in the type designat or-

Actually whether the Air Force selects the Boeing 767 version or Airbus A330 version for the new tanker to replace some and eventually hopefully all of the KC-135's, it will be designated KC-45A.

Maybe.
Maybe not.

Mike - I read something in a "daily report" that I get in an e-mail from the Air Force Association/AFA this morning and it mentioned that the AF designation for the new tanker/transport has been officially set as KC-45A. This is good news since as you indicate there has been some very inconsistent logic applied to military designations (particularly fighter type designations) over the last many years. F-117 and F-35 are two blatant examples of convoluted use of the designation system.

Interestingly the miltary appears to be still using TWO separate number sequences for the cargo/transport designations in recent years. C-32, C-40 and KC-45 are examples of tthe lower end numbers, while they seem to have reverted to the older higher number sequences also, the new Coast Guard HC-144A being an example.

With helicopters the recent assignment of VH-71 and UH-72 appear to show some logic is in place there.