Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid
There's your problem right there. Where does the true cost of Through Life Support come from?
Don't raise through life costs with graybeard; he studiously ignores through life costs because he hasn't got a defence. He also ignores the fact that there aren't enough second hand aircraft available to meet this, the first tranche of tankers without buying in multiple types. Which will of course add to whloe life costs, as you have to support different fleets.
I note with all the quotes he has used from the FAS report that he has ignored all those that don't support his argument. As a simple example he advoctaed using 737s as tankers because they were cheap and plentiful, completely ignoring the fact that no-one has designed a 737 tanker.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not to mention his totally outdated and spurious, repeated comments about the 'few hours a day' the KC-10s (and by extension, the -135s) fly.
It ain't the SAC days anymore. Both groups of tankers are being flogged unmercifully with the ops tempo since Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
It ain't the SAC days anymore. Both groups of tankers are being flogged unmercifully with the ops tempo since Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flogged Unmercifully
Yeh, Brickhistory, throw invectives instead of stating facts.
The KC-135R fleet is averaging 700 hours per year, or two hours per day.
The KC-135E fleet is averaging 450 hours per year.
The first KC-135 will reach their airframe life limit of just 39,000 hours in 2040.
Many early 747 have reached their life limit of about 90,000 hours. There are many DC-10-30s flying with over 100,000 hours.
Pax planes in long haul scheduled service average 4,000 hours+ per year. Cargo planes get much less, due at least partially to turnaround time.
The 737? It happens to share the fuselage of the 707, 727, and 757. Are there not any 707 tankers flying?
If an airline, pax or cargo, plans to stay in business, it buys or leases new or used planes appropriate to the utilization. A $200 Million plane that is parked 20 hours a day is a huge waste of capital, and is unthinkable in the for-profit world.
GB
The KC-135R fleet is averaging 700 hours per year, or two hours per day.
The KC-135E fleet is averaging 450 hours per year.
The first KC-135 will reach their airframe life limit of just 39,000 hours in 2040.
Many early 747 have reached their life limit of about 90,000 hours. There are many DC-10-30s flying with over 100,000 hours.
Pax planes in long haul scheduled service average 4,000 hours+ per year. Cargo planes get much less, due at least partially to turnaround time.
The 737? It happens to share the fuselage of the 707, 727, and 757. Are there not any 707 tankers flying?
If an airline, pax or cargo, plans to stay in business, it buys or leases new or used planes appropriate to the utilization. A $200 Million plane that is parked 20 hours a day is a huge waste of capital, and is unthinkable in the for-profit world.
GB
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Work associated address
Age: 42
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New and Shiny
as it's obvious the USAF wants New and Shiny.
But if this is what the Air Force wants and NEEDS for future operations etc then why should they be denied the funding etc to have the equipment they need whether it Boeing/Airbus/Illushyin
etc.Regards
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graybeard,
You are cherry-picking from that report to find statements that might lend credence to the idea that used commercial aircraft could satsify the KC-X requirement. You seem to think that USAF Generals reject used aircraft out-of-hand simply because they like the idea of owning new equipment. Let me assure you that no Generals get viscerally excited by anything as dull as tanker-transport aircraft. They are mainly fighter-pilots who will have not given tankers a second thought until they are promoted into a postiton where they are responsible for providing the service and only then do they realize how important tankers are to the delivery of airpower. It is very telling that Gen Moseley speaks of his nighttime worry being a structural failure that causes the loss of the KC-135 fleet. The USAF has taken on used airframes for expensive conversions in the past (JSTARS) and has probably learned a valuable lesson about the true cost of second-hand aircraft. Fighter Generals would not advocate spending money on brand-new tankers unless they thought it was the best value solution.
You also seem to think that tanker conversions are technically easy. Again, be assued that they are not. Boeing having been working on the KC-767 for the ITAF/JASDF for some years and it is still not in service. I can just about concede that a handful of DC-10s could be converted to KDC-10 standard to form a new squadron at Travis or McGuire within say 2 years, but definitely not 1 year. But as for the 767 or A300, with no conversion in service and neither type already in USAF service - it is just not possible on the timescale you quote. Moreover, tanker conversions and equipment are not as cheap as you imply. The conversion is not solely about the air-refuelling equipment, expensive as that is, but also the specialist avionics and other equipment required by the USAF that Omega and the Colombian Air Force don't need to fit. Try this for an analogy: You are going to buy a fleet of specialist vehicles - let's say a fire engines. They are going to be fitted with very expensive equipment to fulfil their role and are expected to last 40 years. Do you start with a half-worn out used commercial vehicle - or a new chassis?
Finally, as to your assertion that the first KC-135 will not reach end of it's life until 2040 did you not read these paragraphs?:
You are cherry-picking from that report to find statements that might lend credence to the idea that used commercial aircraft could satsify the KC-X requirement. You seem to think that USAF Generals reject used aircraft out-of-hand simply because they like the idea of owning new equipment. Let me assure you that no Generals get viscerally excited by anything as dull as tanker-transport aircraft. They are mainly fighter-pilots who will have not given tankers a second thought until they are promoted into a postiton where they are responsible for providing the service and only then do they realize how important tankers are to the delivery of airpower. It is very telling that Gen Moseley speaks of his nighttime worry being a structural failure that causes the loss of the KC-135 fleet. The USAF has taken on used airframes for expensive conversions in the past (JSTARS) and has probably learned a valuable lesson about the true cost of second-hand aircraft. Fighter Generals would not advocate spending money on brand-new tankers unless they thought it was the best value solution.
You also seem to think that tanker conversions are technically easy. Again, be assued that they are not. Boeing having been working on the KC-767 for the ITAF/JASDF for some years and it is still not in service. I can just about concede that a handful of DC-10s could be converted to KDC-10 standard to form a new squadron at Travis or McGuire within say 2 years, but definitely not 1 year. But as for the 767 or A300, with no conversion in service and neither type already in USAF service - it is just not possible on the timescale you quote. Moreover, tanker conversions and equipment are not as cheap as you imply. The conversion is not solely about the air-refuelling equipment, expensive as that is, but also the specialist avionics and other equipment required by the USAF that Omega and the Colombian Air Force don't need to fit. Try this for an analogy: You are going to buy a fleet of specialist vehicles - let's say a fire engines. They are going to be fitted with very expensive equipment to fulfil their role and are expected to last 40 years. Do you start with a half-worn out used commercial vehicle - or a new chassis?
Finally, as to your assertion that the first KC-135 will not reach end of it's life until 2040 did you not read these paragraphs?:
Additionally, during testimony, Secretary Wynne cited maintenance concerns stating,“The problem is that we have 85 active KC-135Es. We only have 40 that can fly. Of those 40, more than 13 are being stood down locally by their commanders because they don’t want to fly them. They break too often, and they suck their maintenance out.”
General Moseley explained KC-135E operational limitations when he testified,
“And we only fly the KC-135Es in the vicinity of the airfield for Operation
Noble Eagle and for the Northeast Tanker Task Force. We don’t deploy them.
We can’t take them into theater. We can’t lift the weight. We can’t operate at the temperatures with this airplane. And by the spring of [2010], all of them are now grounded because of the pylons and the structure.
General Moseley explained KC-135E operational limitations when he testified,
“And we only fly the KC-135Es in the vicinity of the airfield for Operation
Noble Eagle and for the Northeast Tanker Task Force. We don’t deploy them.
We can’t take them into theater. We can’t lift the weight. We can’t operate at the temperatures with this airplane. And by the spring of [2010], all of them are now grounded because of the pylons and the structure.
One point on conversions:
You can't put a boom on a 767 stretch (300/400) because of tail clearance, and there were very few 767-200s ever built with the high gross weight structure needed for tanking.
That leaves the DC-10s, but again - is it not the case that most of the freighters in decent shape have been recycled into MD-10s and are in commercial use? The only heavyweight DC-10 cargo aircraft were the -30CFs and they are 25-35 years old. A few MD-11Fs, but then you're really into aging AND small numbers.
You can't put a boom on a 767 stretch (300/400) because of tail clearance, and there were very few 767-200s ever built with the high gross weight structure needed for tanking.
That leaves the DC-10s, but again - is it not the case that most of the freighters in decent shape have been recycled into MD-10s and are in commercial use? The only heavyweight DC-10 cargo aircraft were the -30CFs and they are 25-35 years old. A few MD-11Fs, but then you're really into aging AND small numbers.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overdue and Over Budget
You can cite examples all day long of failures in USAF procurement. It's legendary. The KC-10A was exemplary in coming in on time and budget.
Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight, 27 Mar 08: "..That outsourced Marine One project has not been efficient. The president's new helicopter fleet is behind schedule, vastly over-budget, the cost has nearly doubled in three years. And in fact, that whole project is under review..."
Who's the contractor on that?
Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight, 27 Mar 08: "..That outsourced Marine One project has not been efficient. The president's new helicopter fleet is behind schedule, vastly over-budget, the cost has nearly doubled in three years. And in fact, that whole project is under review..."
Who's the contractor on that?
Graybeard,
Lockheed-Martin.
Lockheed-Martin.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Best Tanker
The Fedex fleet includes:
66 Airbus A300-600s
66 Airbus A310-200/300s
90 Boeing 727-200s
5 Boeing DC10-10s
13 Boeing DC10-30s
58 Boeing MD10-10s
7 Boeing MD10-30s
58 Boeing MD11s
Only a few MD-11 were delivered new to Fedex. Most of the rest were used, converted from pax. UPS flies another 40 used MD-11, leaving about 90 elsewhere to be obtained for cargo or fuel farms. The oldest of the MD-11 are less than 20, leaving them a long life in the reduced usage as tankers. They would be replacing KC-135R, that are getting less than two hours a day now, and KC-135E, which are used even less.
As for mission avionics, they have to be bought and installed anyhow, whether in a new plane or used. Tacan with inverse mode and UHF Comm were about all the KC-10 had when new, in addition to the boom control, of course. The rest of the avionics were standard airline fit, and hence, very reliable.
There is little doubt that a deal could be worked with Fedex, UPS or the leasing companies.
GB
66 Airbus A300-600s
66 Airbus A310-200/300s
90 Boeing 727-200s
5 Boeing DC10-10s
13 Boeing DC10-30s
58 Boeing MD10-10s
7 Boeing MD10-30s
58 Boeing MD11s
Only a few MD-11 were delivered new to Fedex. Most of the rest were used, converted from pax. UPS flies another 40 used MD-11, leaving about 90 elsewhere to be obtained for cargo or fuel farms. The oldest of the MD-11 are less than 20, leaving them a long life in the reduced usage as tankers. They would be replacing KC-135R, that are getting less than two hours a day now, and KC-135E, which are used even less.
As for mission avionics, they have to be bought and installed anyhow, whether in a new plane or used. Tacan with inverse mode and UHF Comm were about all the KC-10 had when new, in addition to the boom control, of course. The rest of the avionics were standard airline fit, and hence, very reliable.
There is little doubt that a deal could be worked with Fedex, UPS or the leasing companies.
GB
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graybeard,
I appreciate that facts from lots of people on this thread - better informed, I would suggest, than either you or I - have pooh-poohed the 2nd hand MD-11 or DC-10 solution.
In spite of this, let's take your MD-11 suggestion at face value:
Number of MD-11s produced (source: Wiki, but probably accurate)
Baseline MD-11 (131), MD-11 Combi (5), MD-11 Convertible Frieghter (6), MD-11ER (5), MD-11F (53)
Total MD-11 production = 147 + 53 freighters = 200 airframes
Less: hull losses 5
Total MD-11 avaliable = 195
Ok.
So, if the USAF wanted to have second hand MD-11s as KC-X at an MTOW 630,500lbs (vs 507,063lbs for KC-45As), and all of this was extra useful payload (which it isn't) then in massively over-simplified terms, you would need 20% fewer MD-11 tankers than KC-45As. This means you would need 145 MD-11s or about 75% of the total number of MD-11s in existence.
And if the US Government put it about that it wanted to buy 75% of the MD-11s around, then they could get them ... at a cost!
And if this cunning plan works, and 145 MD-11s arrive at a XYZ AFB for conversion, what will you find?
- Variety of ages - delivered 1990 - 2001
- 3 types of engines: Pratt & Whitney PW4460, PW4462 and General Electric CF6-80C2D1F
- Combination of structures - some cleared to 630,500lbs MTOW, others design limited to 602,000lb
- Different door designs - pax a/c don't have frieght doors and floors
- Combination of cockpits and systems
And you want to standardise this lot and then convert them to tankers because this is going to... wait for it..... Save money???
And that's before you make them a sustainable fleet for the next 50 years.
S41
I appreciate that facts from lots of people on this thread - better informed, I would suggest, than either you or I - have pooh-poohed the 2nd hand MD-11 or DC-10 solution.
In spite of this, let's take your MD-11 suggestion at face value:
Number of MD-11s produced (source: Wiki, but probably accurate)
Baseline MD-11 (131), MD-11 Combi (5), MD-11 Convertible Frieghter (6), MD-11ER (5), MD-11F (53)
Total MD-11 production = 147 + 53 freighters = 200 airframes
Less: hull losses 5
Total MD-11 avaliable = 195
Ok.
So, if the USAF wanted to have second hand MD-11s as KC-X at an MTOW 630,500lbs (vs 507,063lbs for KC-45As), and all of this was extra useful payload (which it isn't) then in massively over-simplified terms, you would need 20% fewer MD-11 tankers than KC-45As. This means you would need 145 MD-11s or about 75% of the total number of MD-11s in existence.
And if the US Government put it about that it wanted to buy 75% of the MD-11s around, then they could get them ... at a cost!
And if this cunning plan works, and 145 MD-11s arrive at a XYZ AFB for conversion, what will you find?
- Variety of ages - delivered 1990 - 2001
- 3 types of engines: Pratt & Whitney PW4460, PW4462 and General Electric CF6-80C2D1F
- Combination of structures - some cleared to 630,500lbs MTOW, others design limited to 602,000lb
- Different door designs - pax a/c don't have frieght doors and floors
- Combination of cockpits and systems
And you want to standardise this lot and then convert them to tankers because this is going to... wait for it..... Save money???
And that's before you make them a sustainable fleet for the next 50 years.
S41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeh, Brickhistory, throw invectives instead of stating facts.
The KC-135R fleet is averaging 700 hours per year, or two hours per day.
The KC-135E fleet is averaging 450 hours per year.
The first KC-135 will reach their airframe life limit of just 39,000 hours in 2040.
The KC-135R fleet is averaging 700 hours per year, or two hours per day.
The KC-135E fleet is averaging 450 hours per year.
The first KC-135 will reach their airframe life limit of just 39,000 hours in 2040.
Suffice it to say, I'll take my view over yours, but to each his own
By the way, if my previous post was 'throwing invectives' in your view, such was not my intent.
I am simply dismissing your opinion. Important distinction there.......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm bored of this now.
Well done to Northrop Grumman and EADS for winning the competition.
But even more credit should go those people in the DoD and USAF for having the guts to select what was clearly the most capable aircraft. Let's hope that self-interest, politics and jingoism doesn't hinder the speedy provision of this aircraft to the US servicemen and women.
Good luck to Boeing with development of the KC-777 or KC-787 for the next phase of the re-capitalization. This would be a far more laudible use of their energy than continuing to bleat about the outcome of KC-X and, happily, would see engineers employed instead of lawyers.
Well done to Northrop Grumman and EADS for winning the competition.
But even more credit should go those people in the DoD and USAF for having the guts to select what was clearly the most capable aircraft. Let's hope that self-interest, politics and jingoism doesn't hinder the speedy provision of this aircraft to the US servicemen and women.
Good luck to Boeing with development of the KC-777 or KC-787 for the next phase of the re-capitalization. This would be a far more laudible use of their energy than continuing to bleat about the outcome of KC-X and, happily, would see engineers employed instead of lawyers.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRS
Really sorry, Brickhistory. I knew invective was the wrong word to use, but CRS (Can't Remember S...) prevented me from an appropriate one.
I hadn't cited the source of the KC-135 flight hours, but it had been in earlier posts. Should have cited ibid, I guess. Regardless:
"As of 2006, the KC-135E fleet is flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet is flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecasted usage and sustainment costs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker
--------
"... The Air Force's nearly 50-year-old KC-135 Stratotanker must be replaced with a newer, more capable aircraft as soon as possible."
""This is a matter of national security and we can't lose sight of that as a nation. It's critically urgent that we get on with bringing a new tanker into our fleet; our global range and global reach rely on the tanker," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, the commander of Air Mobility Command. "Tankers give us the ability to go anywhere on the face of the planet and strike our enemies, or deliver cargo or humanitarian aid.""
"The tanker procurement, if it goes as planned, is still a 30-year process, which means Airmen could still be flying the KC-135 into the year 2040, the general said. Considering most airlines retired the commercial version of the KC-135 -- the Boeing 707 -- years ago, "It's unconscionable for us to ask our Airmen to fly in, and attempt to maintain, aircraft that are 80 years old," he said."
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123091147
I agree. Used planes, whether 767, DC-10, MD-11 or A310, could be in service much quicker, and at much higher rates of implementation than possible with new planes. There are more than 200 A310 in service, and several A310 MRTT, so it would be a good choice.
There is no overriding reason to demand a single type for replacement. Additional training and other costs are overshadowed by the savings in used airframes.
Spending serious money on airplanes with a return projected over a span of 30-50 years is folly. Even ten years planning includes myriad unknowns.
GB
I hadn't cited the source of the KC-135 flight hours, but it had been in earlier posts. Should have cited ibid, I guess. Regardless:
"As of 2006, the KC-135E fleet is flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet is flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecasted usage and sustainment costs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker
--------
"... The Air Force's nearly 50-year-old KC-135 Stratotanker must be replaced with a newer, more capable aircraft as soon as possible."
""This is a matter of national security and we can't lose sight of that as a nation. It's critically urgent that we get on with bringing a new tanker into our fleet; our global range and global reach rely on the tanker," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, the commander of Air Mobility Command. "Tankers give us the ability to go anywhere on the face of the planet and strike our enemies, or deliver cargo or humanitarian aid.""
"The tanker procurement, if it goes as planned, is still a 30-year process, which means Airmen could still be flying the KC-135 into the year 2040, the general said. Considering most airlines retired the commercial version of the KC-135 -- the Boeing 707 -- years ago, "It's unconscionable for us to ask our Airmen to fly in, and attempt to maintain, aircraft that are 80 years old," he said."
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123091147
I agree. Used planes, whether 767, DC-10, MD-11 or A310, could be in service much quicker, and at much higher rates of implementation than possible with new planes. There are more than 200 A310 in service, and several A310 MRTT, so it would be a good choice.
There is no overriding reason to demand a single type for replacement. Additional training and other costs are overshadowed by the savings in used airframes.
Spending serious money on airplanes with a return projected over a span of 30-50 years is folly. Even ten years planning includes myriad unknowns.
GB
Used planes, whether 767, DC-10, MD-11 or A310, could be in service much quicker
Let's face it greybeard you are out of your depth on this one. By your own admission you know nothing about AT and AAR operations. You have no/little knowledge of current operations in the USAF KC10 and 135 fleets and yet you persist in this stupidity, now claiming that a mixed fleet of 767s/DC10s/A310s would be cheaper.
You Sir are a troll, a good one, but a troll all the same. I salute you for keeping this topic going much longer than it should. At least we all know that the USAF are getting the right aircraft for their needs.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graybeard,
I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I'm not sure where the used frames would come from.
MD-11s are highly sought after as freighters, for example, and I don't know of any just sitting around. DC-10s are usually reborn as either freighters, or as contract/charter pax carriers. Again, there aren't many decent frames sitting in the desert. 767s are used to death, rather than being retired with low hours and cycles. Few A300s or A330s in decent condition are available.
There is a current shortage of transport aircraft, particularly widebodies. Consequently, I can't see how one would acquire a fleet of tankers based upon used commercial transports at an economically feasable cost. Most airlines are running their frames until they have reached either a cycle or an hour limit. It is likely, in the current environment, that the NPV of buying new is less than the NPV of buying used and converting.
There have been times in the past when large numbers of a type have been retired with low hours and cycles, but not now.
I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I'm not sure where the used frames would come from.
MD-11s are highly sought after as freighters, for example, and I don't know of any just sitting around. DC-10s are usually reborn as either freighters, or as contract/charter pax carriers. Again, there aren't many decent frames sitting in the desert. 767s are used to death, rather than being retired with low hours and cycles. Few A300s or A330s in decent condition are available.
There is a current shortage of transport aircraft, particularly widebodies. Consequently, I can't see how one would acquire a fleet of tankers based upon used commercial transports at an economically feasable cost. Most airlines are running their frames until they have reached either a cycle or an hour limit. It is likely, in the current environment, that the NPV of buying new is less than the NPV of buying used and converting.
There have been times in the past when large numbers of a type have been retired with low hours and cycles, but not now.
Graybeard, do please let me know where you think anyone could find suitable numbers of A310-300s to convert into MRTTs! You are raidly proving to be about as economical with the true facts as dear old 'Comical Ali' (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf) was in the last days of Saddam's regime.
Roland, for some obscure reason Boeing actually told the world that their 7-late-7 has the 'wrong configuration' to be a tanker. In any case, it has yet to fly and they're probably too busy rebuilding the centre wing box to prevent it from failing to even contemplate having another look at its AAR potential....
Roland, for some obscure reason Boeing actually told the world that their 7-late-7 has the 'wrong configuration' to be a tanker. In any case, it has yet to fly and they're probably too busy rebuilding the centre wing box to prevent it from failing to even contemplate having another look at its AAR potential....
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graybeard ... 
Nice to see that someone from South California is still strongly supporting the former Douglas Aircraft Company's products, but I fear your sentiments overcome the facts ... But thanks for keeping the thread running with your comments, however off-target ...
The Royal Air Force has a lot of experience with second-hand aeroplanes and can't wait to get the KC-330, ordering which has taken BritGov over four years ...
Sincerely,
Jig Peter
(another sentimentalist for "real aeroplanes", but who also likes real, useable ones)
Nice to see that someone from South California is still strongly supporting the former Douglas Aircraft Company's products, but I fear your sentiments overcome the facts ... But thanks for keeping the thread running with your comments, however off-target ...
The Royal Air Force has a lot of experience with second-hand aeroplanes and can't wait to get the KC-330, ordering which has taken BritGov over four years ...
Sincerely,
Jig Peter
(another sentimentalist for "real aeroplanes", but who also likes real, useable ones)
Beagle... Re 787, I'll bet that it's tail clearance for the boom.
Generally, reiteration time - tanker conversions from civilian aircraft have involved high-gross-weight, high-landing-weight cargo or convertible aircraft (with appropriate standards of structure, wheels/tyres/brakes, thrust).
A tanker with NO cargo capacity really does not make a lot of sense, and while some civvy pax jets have been converted to cargo for FedEx & UPS, it's for parcel freight which is low density, so a small weight payload does not matter. Moreover, when you convert to a tanker you add to the empty weight which further eats into payload.
Generally, reiteration time - tanker conversions from civilian aircraft have involved high-gross-weight, high-landing-weight cargo or convertible aircraft (with appropriate standards of structure, wheels/tyres/brakes, thrust).
A tanker with NO cargo capacity really does not make a lot of sense, and while some civvy pax jets have been converted to cargo for FedEx & UPS, it's for parcel freight which is low density, so a small weight payload does not matter. Moreover, when you convert to a tanker you add to the empty weight which further eats into payload.