[QUOTE=KC10 FATboy;906573
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.[/QUOTE]
I've been pretty involved in the 135 CWG and can say this is one area the tanker is probably very well funded, relative to other platforms. In the next 5-10 yrs we will probably have an all glass cockpit with autothrottles and maybe even an autopilot that can level off by iteself! Downside is we are basically reverse engineering a modern glass cockpit, sometimes resulting in a very bastardized interface with little cultural understanding in how to operate it (hello long ass SAC checklists!). Sometimes I think we would have been better to just save the money and start over.
So she is basically getting new makeup and some new jewelry, but the bones are the same.
KC