About the tankers...
11-20-2010, 05:53 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
Or they can do it the right way, without sending people to jail or breaking regulations/laws, and pick the correct and most capable aircraft. It is the military after all, is it impossible for them to man up?
If the future of the USAF dictated we would be best served by 2 models of tankers (there are benefits to a small and large tanker system - similar to the -135 and -10 setup) than so be it. But to do it because you are incapable of running a legal acquisition process and that is what makes everyone happy is BS.
If the future of the USAF dictated we would be best served by 2 models of tankers (there are benefits to a small and large tanker system - similar to the -135 and -10 setup) than so be it. But to do it because you are incapable of running a legal acquisition process and that is what makes everyone happy is BS.
11-20-2010, 12:36 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
Shack............
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
11-20-2010, 01:13 PM
#14
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,244
Originally Posted by kc135driver
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
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
11-20-2010, 07:37 PM
#15
Working Class Dog
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Spares Pusher
Posts: 1,668
Not enough -10s to go around.
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.
11-20-2010, 08:50 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
The Pentagon has cancelled a 35 billion dollar competition for a new air refueling tanker, leaving the politically charged decision to a new administration, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday.
"It is my judgement that in the time remaining to us, we can no longer complete a competition that would be viewed as fair and objective in this highly charged environment," Gates said in a statement.
11-22-2010, 05:35 AM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: HC-130P Instructor Pilot
Posts: 69
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.
11-22-2010, 02:40 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
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.
11-23-2010, 05:54 AM
#19
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: HC-130P Instructor Pilot
Posts: 69
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...
) 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.
) 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.
11-23-2010, 09:17 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
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.
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.
