KennHC130

Not seeing the AF contemplating rebuilding the 135 (again), what other "new" airframe do you see out there that would fit the bill as you see it? I still think the AF will go with the bigger is better option, but I'd like to know what you think. Also, while I understand the ramp space issue, couldn't a 767 land on less runway than the 135, since the R model has no reversers and limited leading edge flaps?

Marvin

I do not have all the data available to me(USAF retired 2008, former HQAMC and C-141/C-5 dude), but it seems to me that we are unlikely to replace all of the tankers 1-for-1 ... just too many tails. According to the current USAF fact sheet on the KC-135, there are 415 tails out there. So, while it would certainly be nice to replace all of those tails 1-for-1, is it reasonable to think that this will happen? Each tail might be cheaper than each tail for a bigger jet, but the logistics required for that many airplanes versus a smaller fleet of bigger airplanes is substantial.

Barring a 1-for-1 replacement, a 767 sized tanker (with significantly fewer tails) is probably the only option.

I suspect the DoD budget will be cut in the process of trying to "balance the budget", so it will be interesting what direction this goes. I suspect it will get worse before it gets better, and it may take a "wing off light", thus grounding the fleet and endangering national security, to get this problem fixed.

I hope I am wrong about that.

Ball Breaker

The AF won't need nearly as many tankers. 1st off, the huge numbers of 135s were built to sit alert for B-52s in the cold war. Today's mission is very different. Also, with UAS taking over the airspace, much fewer tankers will be required to maintain the air support which use to be done with F-??s. The "bread-n-butter" of the KC-10 was it's phenominal cargo capability--23 pallets (170K pounds). It did provide one hell of a fueling station as well. Those arguing the number of "booms in the air" are just pushing for the Boeing. Obviously, everything is political. Being a long time 10 guy and a few years in the 135, I can say it was very rare when "booms in the air" was an issue. It was much more common to dump fuel/fly fast with boards to make landing weight. With UAS now playing a dominant role, tanker requirements will be significantly less.

kc135driver

I've been flying R models for the last 9 years and had heard that they wanted to replace nearly all of the tails (450+) over an extended 20 year period. As Fatboy alluded to, it is not really the size of the tanker as much as number of booms in the air. We still do sit quite a lot of alert stateside (SAC really isn't dead in spirit and despite the current love-affair with RPAs, we CANNOT go to war without that many fewer tankers.

The 135 was built for long SAC runways, so anything would be an improvement. I agree it is probably the ideal size as compared to an A330 or B767, but I can't begin to fathom the sanity of trying to rebuild the original. Don't get me wrong, I love the plane, but it is about 50+ years behind in technology, even with the latest B45 to come out, it is nowhere near as efficient ones today.

My 2 cents-

KC

NKAWTG

Grumble

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.

Splash

You realize of course that the government DOES handle the health care of every one in the military, right?

I suppose we could have United Health Care take over the Air Force. Then it would better managed and a better deal...according to your inference.

KC10 FATboy

The future of UAVs remains to be seen. Use of UAVs could become limited via rules of war, Geneva Convention, etc. But even so, UAVs have demostrated air-to-air refueling. And since they're probably not going to be flying formation off the wing of a tanker, I can only imagine how much that's going to slow the air-refueling game.

With that being said, have you ever participated in a real shoot'em war or exercise? I haven't been in a real shoot'em war, but have flown tankers and planned many exercises. I actively plan for tankers and have planned for fighters (damn you 51FW/7AF).

In a large force exercise or big shoot'em war, the fighters want to refuel in 15 minutes. ALL of them. And to do that, you need a lot of booms in the air. Since OIF/OEF wasn't an air-to-air war, we've gotten away with yo-yo ops. But let's be clear. Yo-yo ops is in complete violation of doctrine and would not be something the fighter guys would do in a real shoot'em war. Just compare tanker ATOs from Gulf War I and today, and you'll see the difference. GWI had hundreds of tanker lines a day. So why exercise and build a future tanker plan on operations that will not likely be used in a real war? I don't know what our tanker utilization rate is. But if we were to start reducing the size of our tanker fleet, even by small percentage, I'm sure the pain would be significant.

Our bigger problem is the KC-135 is old, but the newer KC-10 has hours. While the KC-135 spent decades on the ramp sitting alert, the KC-10 has always been flying. As much as we need a replacement for the KC-135, we need to start looking to replace Big Sexy (KC-10). Her maintenance reliable since I've left the fleet has gone down a lot and she's showing her age. The KC-10 also has a legacy cockpit, the KC-135 does not. The USAF failed to upgrade the KC-10 and everyone is ignoring the big snafu that is coming with the new navigational requirements. To think that ICAO is going to give our tankers a waiver is very naive.

Marvin

Current war plans include using the large number of booms currently available. Of course, in addition to refueling bombers and dragging / refueling fighters, the strategic air portion of the plans requires a huge amount of tanker support, particularly in the most remote parts of the world.

It's going to be a real challenge to make it all work with significantly fewer booms, but there is likely no other option.

kc135driver

Just imagine what the air war would look like in NK. Relatively small geographic area but a crap load of air defenses. Maybe someday we will have a fully autonomous force all controlled by Skynet , but until then we need as many frickin booms as possible.

rickair7777

Interesting point. I tend to suspect there will be a push to ban UCAVs at some point...but it will be led by the have-nots and opposed by the heavy-hitters (US and Europe). I doubt such an accord will be agreed to by enough folks to make it stick

UAV's will presumably become regular tanker customers but due to their longer endurance you will probably not need as many booms per UAV. Also by the time they run out of gas UAV's tend to need to RTB anyway to re-store, mx, etc. Serious UCAVs will have less endurance than ISR birds though.