View Single Post
Old 12-06-2010, 03:02 PM
  #39  
GasPasser
New Hire
 
GasPasser's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: KC-135 IP
Posts: 62
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Fatboy has a great point with the number of booms. It's 1's and 0's, a loss of .4 is a 1. From the fighter perspective both on the recieving end and working on the floor in the 'Died, size isn't the end all be all answer. The rows of of 135's there would be severly limited if replaced with something bigger. Real estate is a huge planning factor along with sheer numbers. I think I can count on one hand the number of times my tanker plan over Iraq or the 'stan went as planned. Everything else was dictated by how froggy the gomers were that day, and where our support was needed. It was inevitable that a cry for help to get a tanker over head would go out so that we could support the guys on the ground, and even then we'd be yo-yo'ing during someone else's cycle and have to wait for our turn on the teet. With fewer numbers, the tanker guys would be even more handcuffed and I can't tell you how many times I've plugged at or below bingo after they raced over at max blast to support. They're already working a complex puzzle with what they have (and do a phenominal job of it), if you cut down the number of booms in the air, regardless of how much gas the platform holds, you severely cut down the combat effectiveness of the end user. Today that end user are the guys on the ground 90% of the time.
To get this thread back on track, I invite all my tanker bros to join me on another board. I seem to be the only guy/gal with tanker experience there (along with one former boom and a tanker wife). The latest rumor is that Boeing (haven been given EADS IFARA score) thinks they have lost the bid. Come join me in the fray.


EADS will likely win tanker, says Boeing consultant Leeham News and Comment
GasPasser is offline