4 ms·

I’m unsure what you mean by transport and logistics; we use civilian airframes with any amount of modifications for only one in production aircraft that I’m awa

I’m unsure what you mean by transport and logistics; we use civilian airframes with any amount of modifications for only one in production aircraft that I’m aware of (P-8 Poseidon is based on the 737). The TACAMO and AWACS are both based on the 707, which is long since out of production. None of our strategic lift capability (logistics in your comment?) is based on civilian airframes.

lenerdenator 3y ago
KC-767, C-40, KC-46, E-4, VC-25.
- CobaltFire 3y ago
  Thanks! I was in aviation, but primarily tactical and expeditionary. I always forget about the C-40 despite having ridden in one multiple times. The E-4 and VC-25 aren’t really a fair one; you don’t need the divisions to be the same company for their integration (though I suppose it would make it vastly cheaper). We also don’t fly many at all (meaning cost per unit is relatively inconsequential). I also somehow always forget the tankers. Thanks for that. I’ll still maintain the links aren’t necessary. I honestly think a dedicated military platform for all of those would have been a smarter investment and that the current way of modifying airliners is suboptimal.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    It's agree it's probably suboptimal, but I don't think anyone's going to be willing to front the cash for development of a new airframe specifically for military/government use. The advantage of the airliner route is you have at least some revenue stream to fall back on if the military decides it doesn't want the new shiny or a court/congressional committee decides the military went about choosing the new shiny the wrong way, which happens often. It's just a ton of financial risk. I guess the new supersonic startups like Boom think they bring enough novelty to the market to justify that risk.
    - CobaltFire 3y ago
      That’s a very solid point. I do wonder why the heavy lift platforms won’t work (C-17, etc.).

lenerdenator 3y ago

KC-767, C-40, KC-46, E-4, VC-25.

CobaltFire 3y ago
Thanks! I was in aviation, but primarily tactical and expeditionary. I always forget about the C-40 despite having ridden in one multiple times. The E-4 and VC-25 aren’t really a fair one; you don’t need the divisions to be the same company for their integration (though I suppose it would make it vastly cheaper). We also don’t fly many at all (meaning cost per unit is relatively inconsequential). I also somehow always forget the tankers. Thanks for that. I’ll still maintain the links aren’t necessary. I honestly think a dedicated military platform for all of those would have been a smarter investment and that the current way of modifying airliners is suboptimal.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  It's agree it's probably suboptimal, but I don't think anyone's going to be willing to front the cash for development of a new airframe specifically for military/government use. The advantage of the airliner route is you have at least some revenue stream to fall back on if the military decides it doesn't want the new shiny or a court/congressional committee decides the military went about choosing the new shiny the wrong way, which happens often. It's just a ton of financial risk. I guess the new supersonic startups like Boom think they bring enough novelty to the market to justify that risk.
  - CobaltFire 3y ago
    That’s a very solid point. I do wonder why the heavy lift platforms won’t work (C-17, etc.).