And to think some of you guys want the government to handle your health care???????????????????

Shack............

Holy crap, the plane is already approaching 60+ years old, even if the did get this round of procurements going it mean 70-80+ years on some airframes. Metal is just not meant to last that long, especially with max fuel loads out of the Deid.

You know even the engines on the 135R model are beginning to show their age, and from what I understand there are only a few left in the inventory.

The worse scenario I can think of is a wing coming off over the pond somewhere and the entire fleet grounded. I don't think these idiots realize just how much we will NOT be able to do without the 450 or so tankers in the fleet. You can forget OIF/OEF or any other conflict not requiring a damn remote control airplane. Not enough -10s to go around.

Dissapointed-

KC

I think the 135's were built well. There's no indication that I'm aware of that there are structural-fatigue issues?

I keep hoping that someone will have a Wile E. Coyote moment and remember there's a shttload of 10's still out there, most painted purple of course, but there is a mod to convert 10-30's into tankers.

It wouldn't be a true KC-10, but it's a boom, it's certifiable, and it gets some gas out there until this crap gets sorted out. Hell, the way things are going, you could probably get 20 of these done before the selection process is compete.

"Next administration"?!!! ***? Hey, wasn't Gates appointed by Bush? And then kept on by Obama? Come on dude, sack up. Congress approves the budget. Talk about kicking the can down the road.

I agree with kc135driver--Someone is going to get the "Wing Off Light" one of these days. Pick the most capable aircraft, stick a boom on it, and move on. Stop worrying about the losing company's feeling.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...na/revival.jpg

Respectfully, the most capable aircraft has nothing to do with it. For those of us who work and plan things in the Air Operations Center, it comes down to (and I really hate this phrase), the needs of the Air Force. The reality is, neither Airbus or Boeing put forth what the USAF needed. Boeing's second version of the 767 tanker was the closest thing to what is needed. But throw in politics and kick backs, and the tanker mess is sure to get all screwed up, three times over.

FATBoy, not having really researched the requirements, what is the AF saying it "needs" in its new tanker? Having flown the -135 with SAC (A moment of silence please...:rolleyes:) I would think a 767 or the Bus would be an instant big improvement. I refer specifically to size and efficiency (Two engines vs. four). The R model was a great plane to fly, but like the BUFF, it's just waaay too old.

The AMC/Tanker side of the house thinks a bigger tanker (aka ... more fuel more cargo) is best. It makes sense, bigger is better. Sometimes.

However, when you start comparing them to the mission they're replacing and the types of aircraft they're refueling, it doesn't make sense.

A bigger tanker requires more ramp space. Any overseas conflict is going to have limited ramp space. So if we buy bigger tankers, that means, we can't bring as many to the fight. The result, less booms in the air. And there's the problem.

Fighter guys don't care about how much gas is in the air. The USAF can almost always put enough gas in the air. We can not always put enough booms in the air or booms in all the right places. To do that, we need a smaller more tactical airplane like the KC-135. A larger more strategic airplane like the KC-10 or (A330), doesn't make sense as a replacement for the KC-135.

So if you replace 2 KC135s with 1 big tanker, you lose a boom. Even if doing the numbers, you lose 0.4 of a boom, you've lost a boom. Sure, you might have gained more fuel or even cargo, but you lost that boom. And as much as this ole tanker bubba wants to think tankers are more than just tankers (cargo, pax, etc.), it is all about the boom.

My background: I've worked on all sides of the tanker side of the house, was assigned to a Fighter Wing/Air Force where I was in charge with scheduling/requesting tankers, and now work in the AOC where I either build or execute the tanker plan of the day.

As a planner, a KC-135 sized tanker is great. It is light enough to refuel almost anything and still be compatible speed-wise with the receiver. The KC-10 has issues if it is heavy. I would suspect so would a 767 or A330. Additionally, a KC-10 gets limited to 15 degrees of bank when it is moderately loaded with fuel and has to refuel our Navy/NATO brothers and C-130s. Trying to be tactical in a KC-10 just isn't happening in that type of environment.

The USAF needs a mixture of tactical and strategic tankers. I'd like to see the USAF rebuild the KC-135. It is a very efficient and carries a large fuel load for it's size.