Re: aging tankers to be replaced

[James Anatidae]

"willdave davenant" > wrote in message
om...
> AF tankers, that is. Or will they?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94339,00.html
>
What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same vintage
and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle the
Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020. As
Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
expense of the American taxpayers.

[David Lednicer]

> What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
> entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same vintage
> and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle the
> Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020. As
> Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
> expense of the American taxpayers.

Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
the end of theirs.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "James Anatidae"
> wrote:

> "willdave davenant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > AF tankers, that is. Or will they?
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94339,00.html
> >
> What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
> entire lives.

Yes, much money has been spent.

> Age doesn't enter into it.

Age is the entire crux of the question. Metals, especially aluminum fatigues
and needs to be replaced. Replacing primary structure is very expensive
when it happens.

> The B-52 is of the same vintage and continues to provide except service.

Yes, the B-52 has provided exceptional service. It also has been upgraded
when needed, and has a much lower cycle rate than tankers.

> Until this recent 767 debacle the Air Force said the tankers would not need
> to be replaced until 2020.

The AF was assuming that they would be spending lots of money replacing
structure to keep them flying. It's actually better to spend that money
on a newer and more efficient machine.


> As Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
> expense of the American taxpayers.

Until you study the alternatives.
Nader is mostly good at getting his name in the papers.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Daryl Hunt]

"David Lednicer" > wrote in message
...
> > What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
> > entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same
vintage
> > and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle
the
> > Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020. As
> > Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at
the
> > expense of the American taxpayers.
>
> Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
> horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
> service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
> the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
> the end of theirs.

I was involved during the KC-135A to KC-135R upgrades. The one item they
could not replace was the Air Frame. People think the Buffs are old. One
was a 1954 model. These are really , really old Aircraft and you can only
rebuild them so many times before something falls off during flight that
brings them down(already happens from time to time). And if anyone wonders
what happens when a KC-135 hits something with a fuel load, think of 9-11
except worse. These types of AC are nothing to fool around with nor play
Partisan Politics with.

[Kevin Brooks]

"James Anatidae" > wrote in message >...
> "willdave davenant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > AF tankers, that is. Or will they?
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94339,00.html
> >
> What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
> entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same vintage
> and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle the
> Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020. As
> Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
> expense of the American taxpayers.

Given that your basic premise is incorrect (yes, those KC-135's do
have finite structural lives), you seem to be convinced that this is
some kind of military-industrial conspiracy. Uhmmm...have you picked
up on the recent wranglings by the RAF, IDF, and IIRC the RAAF in
regards to (ahem!) *leasing* tankers (the 767 being a current or
likely contender for all of them)? So are you thinking that all of
these nations are interested in making a "corporate giveaway" to
Boeing? And if your beef is with the 767 itself...Italy has already
purchased the first tanker mods, Japan the AWACS mod (and a possible
tanker buy in the future?)....so it sounds like a fairly decent
airframe for the mission (especially as the E-10 is also going to be a
767-based design).

Brooks

[Gary Oehlert]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:31:31 +0000, Daryl Hunt wrote:

>
> "David Lednicer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
>> > entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same
> vintage
>> > and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767
>> > debacle
> the
>> > Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020.
>> > As Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing
>> > at
> the
>> > expense of the American taxpayers.
>>
>> Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
>> horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
>> service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
>> the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
>> the end of theirs.
>
> I was involved during the KC-135A to KC-135R upgrades. The one item they
> could not replace was the Air Frame. People think the Buffs are old. One
> was a 1954 model. These are really , really old Aircraft and you can only
> rebuild them so many times before something falls off during flight that
> brings them down(already happens from time to time). And if anyone
> wonders what happens when a KC-135 hits something with a fuel load, think
> of 9-11 except worse. These types of AC are nothing to fool around with
> nor play Partisan Politics with.

Wichita, Kansas, January 1965. Fully loaded KC-135 takes off from
McConnell AFB and immediately has problems. Pieces falling off, it seems
to be turning back to the base, but goes in about 4 miles north of the
runway. I don't know if was under control to the end, but it hit about
..5 mile west of the university, about .5 east of an oil refinery, and
about .25 mile south of a residential school for the hearing impaired.
Nobody made it out, and many killed on the ground. There's a park there
now. I still remember seeing the pillar of smoke.

Gary

--

Gary W. Oehlert (remove x's)

[Longtailedlizard]

>And if your beef is with the 767 itself...Italy has already
>purchased the first tanker mods, Japan the AWACS mod (and a possible
>tanker buy in the future?)....so it sounds like a fairly decent
>airframe for the mission (especially as the E-10 is also going to be a
>767-based design).
>
>Brooks
>
>
>
>
Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings, and is
"the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.
Our first 767's are at 20 or approaching 20 years of service. The 200ER's
been on the north atlantic run since 85.
UPS has been flying the **** out of the 767 freighters since 95.
I've been a 767 heavy check mechanic since 92, I pushed over 200 767's
through, heavy "C" check, and last year was the first time we had ever pulled
off a engine pylon. (Boeing calls them engine struts)
She'll never be as sleek looking as her smaller sister the 757, or as
glamourous as her big sister the 777, but as we say, "when they park the 75's
and 77's in the desert, the crews will non-rev back on the 76's".
Its a well used and abused airplane, and will make the airlines money for
years to come.Its big enough to haul money making cargo in its belly, and pax
on top, on long trips, yet small enough not to need all the "attention" that a
4 engined 747, or the temparametal 777 with its 12ft dia. fan engines.
The Air Force will just be replacing one workhorse with another.


J

[David Lednicer]

> Why not just buy them outright?

According to the budget numbers I've seen, if they bought them outright,
they will only be able to buy 1 (yes, one) in the period that they could
instead lease 100.

[s.p.i.]

(Longtailedlizard) wrote in message >...
> Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings, and is
> "the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
> She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.

Sure its been a money maker for the airlines, but the 767 is no
warplane. New operational concepts are taking these big airframes
OVER the battlefield now. This is a significant fundamental change
from the way such aircraft have operated for the last 50 years and one
that is being ignored.

> I've been a 767 heavy check mechanic since 92, I pushed over 200 767's
> through, heavy "C" check, and last year was the first time we had ever pulled
> off a engine pylon. (Boeing calls them engine struts)

Then you know the 767 is not built to withstand even minor battle
damage. Its folly to assume they could operate as they have in OEF and
OIF in an opposed battlespace....and if they won't be able to it may
mean the difference between winning and losing. The last few conflicts
have built up a bad case of hubris and false security that will
eventually bite somebody in the ass-Hard.

> Its a well used and abused airplane, and will make the airlines money for
> years to come.Its big enough to haul money making cargo in its belly, and pax
> on top, on long trips, yet small enough not to need all the "attention" that a
> 4 engined 747, or the temparametal 777 with its 12ft dia. fan engines

In a battle situation the redundancies of a 4 engine aircraft-along
with the increased redundancies of other systems-are an obvious
advantage.
And its been my experience that the 777-200 isn't any more
"temperamental" than the 767-200 or -400 while beating the 76 in
payload and range dramatically... of course the 777 isn't an aircraft
I'd want to go into Harm's Way in either.

If Boeing were smart they would get out of this bean-counter drivien
box they are in and show some real innovation by feilding a next
generation large military aircraft design much as they did with the
Dash 80 a half century ago. Indeed the seeds of such an aircraft
already exist in the abortive Sonic Cruiser and 7E7.





> The Air Force will just be replacing one workhorse with another.
>
>
> J

[Kevin Brooks]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message news:<cyr_a.10338$2g.6846@fed1read05>...
> I'm happy that USAF is replacing KC-135's with 767 just concerned about the
> leasing arrangement.
>
> Why not just buy them outright?

Cost and available funds. which other USAF (or DOD, for that matter)
program are you going to cancel that has the funds programmed in the
amount required for such a purchase?

The USAF is not the only service looking at or committed to a lease
option on tankers. The RAF is going that direction. The Israelis are
looking at it now. And IIRC the RAAF has floated the idea as well.
Heck, either the RAF or RAAF (can't recall which) is already doing a
lease deal on King Airs for nav training and light transport.

Have you ever bought a new car with a bank or financing company loan?
If so, you did so because the purchase price was too steep for you to
handle, and for all intents and purposes you "leased" your car from
them until it was fully paid off (not a bad analogy, as the likely
outcome of the tanker lease will be a final purchase payment and
outright ownership by the USAF).

Brooks

>
>
>
> "Longtailedlizard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >And if your beef is with the 767 itself...Italy has already
> > >purchased the first tanker mods, Japan the AWACS mod (and a possible
> > >tanker buy in the future?)....so it sounds like a fairly decent
> > >airframe for the mission (especially as the E-10 is also going to be a
> > >767-based design).
> > >
> > >Brooks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings, and
> is
> > "the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
> > She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.
> > Our first 767's are at 20 or approaching 20 years of service. The
> 200ER's
> > been on the north atlantic run since 85.
> > UPS has been flying the **** out of the 767 freighters since 95.
> > I've been a 767 heavy check mechanic since 92, I pushed over 200 767's
> > through, heavy "C" check, and last year was the first time we had ever
> pulled
> > off a engine pylon. (Boeing calls them engine struts)
> > She'll never be as sleek looking as her smaller sister the 757, or as
> > glamourous as her big sister the 777, but as we say, "when they park the
> 75's
> > and 77's in the desert, the crews will non-rev back on the 76's".
> > Its a well used and abused airplane, and will make the airlines money
> for
> > years to come.Its big enough to haul money making cargo in its belly, and
> pax
> > on top, on long trips, yet small enough not to need all the "attention"
> that a
> > 4 engined 747, or the temparametal 777 with its 12ft dia. fan engines.
> > The Air Force will just be replacing one workhorse with another.
> >
> >
> > J
> >

[John Halliwell]

In article >, s.p.i.
> writes
>If Boeing were smart they would get out of this bean-counter drivien
>box they are in and show some real innovation by feilding a next
>generation large military aircraft design much as they did with the
>Dash 80 a half century ago. Indeed the seeds of such an aircraft
>already exist in the abortive Sonic Cruiser and 7E7.

Some people believe the driving force behind the 767 deal is that it
allows Boeing to keep the 767 line running for those few operators who
might one them. If so, it sounds like a good deal for Boeing, and one
that may not drive them to looking at other options.

--
John

[Leadfoot]

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> (Longtailedlizard) wrote in message
>...
> > Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings,
and is
> > "the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
> > She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.
>
> Sure its been a money maker for the airlines, but the 767 is no
> warplane. New operational concepts are taking these big airframes
> OVER the battlefield now. This is a significant fundamental change
> from the way such aircraft have operated for the last 50 years and one
> that is being ignored.

Are you suggeting a C-17?

>
> > I've been a 767 heavy check mechanic since 92, I pushed over 200 767's
> > through, heavy "C" check, and last year was the first time we had ever
pulled
> > off a engine pylon. (Boeing calls them engine struts)
>
> Then you know the 767 is not built to withstand even minor battle
> damage. Its folly to assume they could operate as they have in OEF and
> OIF in an opposed battlespace....and if they won't be able to it may
> mean the difference between winning and losing. The last few conflicts
> have built up a bad case of hubris and false security that will
> eventually bite somebody in the ass-Hard.

Tankers gernerally avoid being in harms way. The idea is to tank in airspace
you control. The only exception I can think of where it "might" have to
would be to rescue a damaged plane losing fuel and even in that case it
might be better to lose the damaged aircraft and pilot rather than risk the
tanker.


> > Its a well used and abused airplane, and will make the airlines money
for
> > years to come.Its big enough to haul money making cargo in its belly,
and pax
> > on top, on long trips, yet small enough not to need all the "attention"
that a
> > 4 engined 747, or the temparametal 777 with its 12ft dia. fan engines
>
> In a battle situation the redundancies of a 4 engine aircraft-along
> with the increased redundancies of other systems-are an obvious
> advantage.
> And its been my experience that the 777-200 isn't any more
> "temperamental" than the 767-200 or -400 while beating the 76 in
> payload and range dramatically... of course the 777 isn't an aircraft
> I'd want to go into Harm's Way in either.
>
> If Boeing were smart they would get out of this bean-counter drivien
> box they are in and show some real innovation by feilding a next
> generation large military aircraft design much as they did with the
> Dash 80 a half century ago. Indeed the seeds of such an aircraft
> already exist in the abortive Sonic Cruiser and 7E7.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Air Force will just be replacing one workhorse with another.
> >
> >
> > J

[Walter Luffman]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:52:32 -0700, David Lednicer >
wrote:

>> What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
>> entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same vintage
>> and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle the
>> Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020. As
>> Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
>> expense of the American taxpayers.
>
>Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
>horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
>service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
>the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
>the end of theirs.

Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
that has been out of production for decades. Fortunately, the Boeing
engineers designed such a rugged and capable bird that it is still
capable of performing its heavy/nuclear bombing mission fifty years
after it first entered service, and despite all the changes in either
mission or warload over that period. Part of the reason for this
"over-engineering" was the willingness of the only buyer -- the U.S.
Air Force -- to pay almost any price to get exactly what it needed and
wanted on an exclusive basis.

OTOH, the R&D costs have long since been amortized and the aircraft
itself has changed very little (other than continuing improvements in
electronic systems) in decades, so producing replacement parts for the
B-52 is probably considerably less expensive today than it was when
the aircraft was still in production. It's also the only way to keep
the B-52s in service of course, short of rebuilding the assembly lines
and producing new aircraft. (When it comes to projecting a U.S.
military presence, the B-52 is not just any old aircraft; it is
uniquely American, distinctive in appearance, and to many people
synonymous with U.S. nuclear and conventional bombing capability.)

The KC-135 is essentially just one version of the aircraft most of the
world knows as the Boeing 707, and was designed with mass production
in mind. The original aircraft design was influenced to some degree
by the necessity of making it competitive price-wise with similar
designs from other companies. Neither jetliners nor military aerial
tankers are usually exposed to the sort of strains placed on heavy
bombers; nor are they intended to continue in service anywhere near as
long as the B-52 has flown, since expected improvements in technology
essentially guarantee their eventual obsolescence and retirement from
regular service. (I hate to use the term "planned obsolescence", but
in one sense that is what we're talking about.) The civilian Boeing
707, once the most common jetliner on international, transcontinental
and transoceanic routes, has long since been retired by almost all the
world's airlines -- which actually made it economically feasible for
the Air Force to keep the KC-135 flying a few years longer, since
plenty of retired aircraft with still-usable parts were available
(cheap!) for cannibalization. After more than 20 years of this
practice, however, the best parts-donor aircraft have already been
taken and prices for the remaining 707s are going up.

Add to this an increased mission for the aerial tanker force. Used to
be, only a relative few military aircraft were equipped for in-flight
refueling. These days, practically everything that goes into a war
zone has either a boom receptacle or a probe -- and, as we saw in both
Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, that can mean a lot of thirsty birds
in search of someplace to get a drink. Today's larger tankers are not
only equipped with both boom and probe-and-drogue, but in some cases
are actually able to refuel more aircraft before returning to base
with dry tanks; that means more fill-ups from a single tanker and thus
fewer tankers required in or near hostile airspace.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

[s.p.i.]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message news:<oTN_a.10724$2g.8029@fed1read05>...
> "s.p.i." > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Longtailedlizard) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings,
> and is
> > > "the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
> > > She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.
> >
> > Sure its been a money maker for the airlines, but the 767 is no
> > warplane. New operational concepts are taking these big airframes
> > OVER the battlefield now. This is a significant fundamental change
> > from the way such aircraft have operated for the last 50 years and one
> > that is being ignored.
>
> Are you suggeting a C-17?
What I am suggesting is that in future conflicts new methods of
deployment of aircraft that used to stay on the periphery of the
battlespace means they are now smack in the middle of it. This is
especially true of the ISR platforms (E-8s, P-3s, Rc-12s, etc.), but
also true of the tankers which ventured within 50nm of bagdad in the
early phases of OIF. Specific to the tankers, the "Smart Tanker"
concept will only bring them that much more into the fight...and a
much more enticing target for an adversary. These missions belong in
an airframe that can take the punishment-or avoid some of the
punishment- of the fight and not in a civil airframe that even minor
damage will disable and is a sitting duck.
Just because the Japanese and Italians have bout 767s for some of
these roles doesn't make them viable warfighting aircraft.

,various snippages>
>
> Tankers gernerally avoid being in harms way. The idea is to tank in airspace
> you control. The only exception I can think of where it "might" have to
> would be to rescue a damaged plane losing fuel and even in that case it
> might be better to lose the damaged aircraft and pilot rather than risk the
> tanker.

Thats not so any more. As related above it was widely reported that
tanker aircraft operated in contested battlespace. The Commanding
General flew one mission to boost morale according to the reports.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Walter Luffman" > wrote in message ...
>
> Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
> if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
> every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
> very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
> that has been out of production for decades.

What's the biggest part that's been replaced? Have they replaced main
spars on the wing (and can that be done without a total wing rebuild)?

[Daryl Hunt]

"Walter Luffman" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:52:32 -0700, David Lednicer >
> wrote:
>
> >> What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
> >> entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same
vintage
> >> and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle
the
> >> Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020.
As
> >> Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at
the
> >> expense of the American taxpayers.
> >
> >Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
> >horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
> >service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
> >the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
> >the end of theirs.
>
> Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
> if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
> every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
> very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
> that has been out of production for decades. Fortunately, the Boeing
> engineers designed such a rugged and capable bird that it is still
> capable of performing its heavy/nuclear bombing mission fifty years
> after it first entered service, and despite all the changes in either
> mission or warload over that period. Part of the reason for this
> "over-engineering" was the willingness of the only buyer -- the U.S.
> Air Force -- to pay almost any price to get exactly what it needed and
> wanted on an exclusive basis.
>
> OTOH, the R&D costs have long since been amortized and the aircraft
> itself has changed very little (other than continuing improvements in
> electronic systems) in decades, so producing replacement parts for the
> B-52 is probably considerably less expensive today than it was when
> the aircraft was still in production. It's also the only way to keep
> the B-52s in service of course, short of rebuilding the assembly lines
> and producing new aircraft. (When it comes to projecting a U.S.
> military presence, the B-52 is not just any old aircraft; it is
> uniquely American, distinctive in appearance, and to many people
> synonymous with U.S. nuclear and conventional bombing capability.)
>
> The KC-135 is essentially just one version of the aircraft most of the
> world knows as the Boeing 707, and was designed with mass production
> in mind.

And you were doing so well. The KC-135 precedes the 707. You will note that
some parts interchange but the Airframe and most panels won't. It's
slightly smaller. After the 135 was produced, they widened it, extended the
wings a bit for Passenger service. They are NOT the same Aircraft.


The original aircraft design was influenced to some degree
> by the necessity of making it competitive price-wise with similar
> designs from other companies. Neither jetliners nor military aerial
> tankers are usually exposed to the sort of strains placed on heavy
> bombers;

You are falling apart. The KC-135 can outclimb anything in it's weight
class. And carries about 3 times it's own weight in Fuel load. The strain
that the AC goes through is much higher than it's civilian counterpart.
Therefore, the fatique is much higher as well. I don't know of too many
Civilian Liners that can cruise (including climbout) at 500 knots like the
KC-125C can. They call it an E-6 these days but even a fighter can't run it
down if you give it a head start. These are NOT civilian AC in any way,
shape or form and the original KC-135A now the KC-135R got almost everything
new except for the Air Frame. When the Air Frame goes, the AC is sent to DM
to rot in the Desert. Some of those Airframes are 50 years old. Even the
B-52 isn't that old.

nor are they intended to continue in service anywhere near as
> long as the B-52 has flown, since expected improvements in technology
> essentially guarantee their eventual obsolescence and retirement from
> regular service. (I hate to use the term "planned obsolescence", but
> in one sense that is what we're talking about.)

You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the Buff.
And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they are.



The civilian Boeing
> 707, once the most common jetliner on international, transcontinental
> and transoceanic routes, has long since been retired by almost all the
> world's airlines -- which actually made it economically feasible for
> the Air Force to keep the KC-135 flying a few years longer, since
> plenty of retired aircraft with still-usable parts were available
> (cheap!) for cannibalization.

Outside of only a few parts, almost nothing is interchangeable from the 707.
The KC-135 has been so severely modified that it's not even the same AC
except for the Airframe and maybe the Horizontal Stab.


After more than 20 years of this
> practice, however, the best parts-donor aircraft have already been
> taken and prices for the remaining 707s are going up.

The KC-135 is a different AC entirely these days. Why would anyone want to
cabal something from a tired old AC that is already in Mothballs.


>
> Add to this an increased mission for the aerial tanker force. Used to
> be, only a relative few military aircraft were equipped for in-flight
> refueling. These days, practically everything that goes into a war
> zone has either a boom receptacle or a probe -- and, as we saw in both
> Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, that can mean a lot of thirsty birds
> in search of someplace to get a drink. Today's larger tankers are not
> only equipped with both boom and probe-and-drogue, but in some cases
> are actually able to refuel more aircraft before returning to base
> with dry tanks; that means more fill-ups from a single tanker and thus
> fewer tankers required in or near hostile airspace.

Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many as
they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to the AF
Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3 and
the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's better to
lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only cost a
few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.

Got a newsflash for you. For almost every Buff, there is a KC-135 assigned
to it. The mission profile is for the Buff to take off using quite a bit of
fuel. Meet up with a KC-135, gas up and head accross the Ice Cap. Without
that lone tanker, the Buff is a one way ride. They may be anyway but at
least the KC-135 gives them a chance.

If a Buff is low on gas, the KC-135 gives them all it has less about 5000
lbs. That is enough gas to break away. After that, the KC-135 is deadmeat.
It's going down. The Crew cannot eject due to the communciations antenni
along it's belly. It will shred anyone attempting to jump out the Crew Door
and jumping out of anywhere else is just plain suicide. The Boom may get
out by breaking out the rear glass but he will be the lone survivor. Unlike
the Buff, the crew has to jump and the chances of survival is slim to none.
Staying with a Tanker with fumes in the tanks with the motors off survival
is none to none.

The KC-135, due to the Air Frame, can't last forever and it IS older than
the Buff you keep comparing it to. There aren't too many 195X series Buffs
still flying but there are a ton of 1954 to 1957 KC-135s still in the air.

[s.p.i.]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message news:<x3__a.351>

> I would really avoid using the latest war in Iraq as an example at how
> combat will be fought in the future. The Iraqi military had as much chance
> as a one legged man in an asskicking contest.
>
> They ventured within 50NM of Baghdad because they could with impunity, not
> because the mission was important enough to risk the aircraft.

What has occured is an increased role for large ISR aircraft-with
large crews of folks with rare and sensitive talents and knowledge- to
be OVER the battlefiled and a body of operational doctrine is
integrating that. In future conflicts this persistent ISR presence is
going to be sorely missed if someone says it can't be provided.
I've mentioned it before. The OP-2E story should give some folks some
pause. It was deemed so necessary to deliver the sensors (the
persistent ISR principle at work) over The Trail that an 80 percent
loss rate was acceptable. Our military can no longer afford to fight
that way today or in the future. We simply do not have the resources
to fight a "War Of Plenty" anymore.
Tankers too are taking on an increased warfighting role with the
advent of the "Smart Tanker" concept. There will be a need for them to
be near or in contested battlespace as well.
As far as the sorties near Baghdad, the SAM threat was still real when
they occured.
Its folly to assume that these civil airframes are not going to be
shot at and they are simply not built for it.

[Dan K.]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Walter Luffman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:52:32 -0700, David Lednicer >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for
their
> > >> entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same
> vintage
> > >> and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767
debacle
> the
> > >> Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020.
> As
> > >> Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at
> the
> > >> expense of the American taxpayers.
> > >
> > >Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
> > >horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
> > >service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old
as
> > >the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
> > >the end of theirs.
> >
> > Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
> > if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
> > every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
> > very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
> > that has been out of production for decades. Fortunately, the Boeing
> > engineers designed such a rugged and capable bird that it is still
> > capable of performing its heavy/nuclear bombing mission fifty years
> > after it first entered service, and despite all the changes in either
> > mission or warload over that period. Part of the reason for this
> > "over-engineering" was the willingness of the only buyer -- the U.S.
> > Air Force -- to pay almost any price to get exactly what it needed and
> > wanted on an exclusive basis.
> >
> > OTOH, the R&D costs have long since been amortized and the aircraft
> > itself has changed very little (other than continuing improvements in
> > electronic systems) in decades, so producing replacement parts for the
> > B-52 is probably considerably less expensive today than it was when
> > the aircraft was still in production. It's also the only way to keep
> > the B-52s in service of course, short of rebuilding the assembly lines
> > and producing new aircraft. (When it comes to projecting a U.S.
> > military presence, the B-52 is not just any old aircraft; it is
> > uniquely American, distinctive in appearance, and to many people
> > synonymous with U.S. nuclear and conventional bombing capability.)
> >
> > The KC-135 is essentially just one version of the aircraft most of the
> > world knows as the Boeing 707, and was designed with mass production
> > in mind.
>
> And you were doing so well. The KC-135 precedes the 707. You will note
that
> some parts interchange but the Airframe and most panels won't. It's
> slightly smaller. After the 135 was produced, they widened it, extended
the
> wings a bit for Passenger service. They are NOT the same Aircraft.
>
>
> The original aircraft design was influenced to some degree
> > by the necessity of making it competitive price-wise with similar
> > designs from other companies. Neither jetliners nor military aerial
> > tankers are usually exposed to the sort of strains placed on heavy
> > bombers;
>
> You are falling apart. The KC-135 can outclimb anything in it's weight
> class. And carries about 3 times it's own weight in Fuel load. The
strain
> that the AC goes through is much higher than it's civilian counterpart.
> Therefore, the fatique is much higher as well. I don't know of too many
> Civilian Liners that can cruise (including climbout) at 500 knots like the
> KC-125C can. They call it an E-6 these days but even a fighter can't run
it
> down if you give it a head start. These are NOT civilian AC in any way,
> shape or form and the original KC-135A now the KC-135R got almost
everything
> new except for the Air Frame. When the Air Frame goes, the AC is sent to
DM
> to rot in the Desert. Some of those Airframes are 50 years old. Even the
> B-52 isn't that old.
>
> nor are they intended to continue in service anywhere near as
> > long as the B-52 has flown, since expected improvements in technology
> > essentially guarantee their eventual obsolescence and retirement from
> > regular service. (I hate to use the term "planned obsolescence", but
> > in one sense that is what we're talking about.)
>
> You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the
Buff.
> And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they
are.
>
>
>
> The civilian Boeing
> > 707, once the most common jetliner on international, transcontinental
> > and transoceanic routes, has long since been retired by almost all the
> > world's airlines -- which actually made it economically feasible for
> > the Air Force to keep the KC-135 flying a few years longer, since
> > plenty of retired aircraft with still-usable parts were available
> > (cheap!) for cannibalization.
>
> Outside of only a few parts, almost nothing is interchangeable from the
707.
> The KC-135 has been so severely modified that it's not even the same AC
> except for the Airframe and maybe the Horizontal Stab.
>
>
> After more than 20 years of this
> > practice, however, the best parts-donor aircraft have already been
> > taken and prices for the remaining 707s are going up.
>
> The KC-135 is a different AC entirely these days. Why would anyone want
to
> cabal something from a tired old AC that is already in Mothballs.
>
>
> >
> > Add to this an increased mission for the aerial tanker force. Used to
> > be, only a relative few military aircraft were equipped for in-flight
> > refueling. These days, practically everything that goes into a war
> > zone has either a boom receptacle or a probe -- and, as we saw in both
> > Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, that can mean a lot of thirsty birds
> > in search of someplace to get a drink. Today's larger tankers are not
> > only equipped with both boom and probe-and-drogue, but in some cases
> > are actually able to refuel more aircraft before returning to base
> > with dry tanks; that means more fill-ups from a single tanker and thus
> > fewer tankers required in or near hostile airspace.
>
> Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many
as
> they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
> Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to the
AF
> Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3 and
> the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
> KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
> operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's better
to
> lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only cost
a
> few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.
>
> Got a newsflash for you. For almost every Buff, there is a KC-135
assigned
> to it. The mission profile is for the Buff to take off using quite a bit
of
> fuel. Meet up with a KC-135, gas up and head accross the Ice Cap.
Without
> that lone tanker, the Buff is a one way ride. They may be anyway but at
> least the KC-135 gives them a chance.
>
> If a Buff is low on gas, the KC-135 gives them all it has less about 5000
> lbs. That is enough gas to break away. After that, the KC-135 is
deadmeat.
> It's going down. The Crew cannot eject due to the communciations antenni
> along it's belly. It will shred anyone attempting to jump out the Crew
Door
> and jumping out of anywhere else is just plain suicide. The Boom may get
> out by breaking out the rear glass but he will be the lone survivor.
Unlike
> the Buff, the crew has to jump and the chances of survival is slim to
none.
> Staying with a Tanker with fumes in the tanks with the motors off survival
> is none to none.
>
> The KC-135, due to the Air Frame, can't last forever and it IS older than
> the Buff you keep comparing it to. There aren't too many 195X series
Buffs
> still flying but there are a ton of 1954 to 1957 KC-135s still in the air.
>
Hi all! A few points here (in no particular order).

1) Major portions of the KC-135 were replaced during the R model upgrade,
but it should not be believed that the aircraft got *everything* new.
Holdovers from the A model included most of its avionics (including the
radar), all of its fuel, pneumatic, and electrical systems, all of its air
refueling gear, all of its flight controls, and of course the airframe
itself. There's probably more details, but that's what I can remember right
off. Even with all this, the R is quite superior to the earlier versions,
but it doesn't qualify as a new airplane.

2) The biggest problem facing the -135 fleet is not fatigue from flight,
but rather corrosion from exposure to the elements while sitting all those
years on alert on the ground. -135's are not routinely hangared.
Weathering and corrosion from years of exposure to rain and snow have taken
their toll.

3) It is true that compared to airliners, or even other aircraft in the
USAF fleet (save for the BUF perhaps) the -135s have relatively few hours on
them. When I quit flying in '97 the average tanker in our little group had
about 14k hours on it. I think our oldest (a '57) had passed 15k. For a
plane of that age, that's not too bad. However, as I just said above,
fatigue isn't the major problem the aircraft faces.

4) Not all -135A's were taken for the R model upgrade. Oldest plane I ever
noticed was our '57. Newest in our group was a '62. Almost all the E
models I noticed are older than this. There was talk of an E to R
conversion, but it was determined that corrosion (and some other issues)
kept such a mod from being cost effective. My sources here are my own
observations, plus what I heard from the "rumor mill," so there may be
significant variances from what I've said here.

5) I'd hate for you to tell the KC-10 guys that because they're reserve,
they don't get to the war zones. I don't know too much about the "Gucci
boys" (as we called them), but I do know that they seemed to always be part
of the tanker task forces put together for various operations. Yeah, they
can't hold a candle to the number of sorties generated by -135's, but then
again, there are far fewer of them.

6) I know of no policy or attitude that says one type of aircraft (and its
crew) is more expendable than another type. I also know that every
reasonable effort will be expended to try to rescue an aircraft in trouble.
We wouldn't do something that would be obvious suicide, but the best effort
would be made.

7) Tankers and AWACS aircraft don't venture into contested airspace unless
complete air superiority has been established (in my limited experience).
Tankers have no ECM gear or countermeasures of any sort. Our first
indication of a SAM fired at us would be the loud bang when it hit. We may
hear some traffic on the radios if someone else detects the launch, but if
we were the target, such info would be pretty useless. A tanker's defenses
consist of its speed (don't laugh, given enough of a lead it takes lots of
time to run one down in a tail chase), and its reliance on its "little
friends" to chase the bad guys away.

8) I won't comment on the specifics of any projected operations plans
(mainly because I don't know of any first hand anymore), except to say that
the days of the tankers giving all their fuel to bombers and then ditching
are long past.

9) Primary bailout exit for the -135 is the crew chute (forward crew door).
There is a spoiler that would extend from the forward end of the hatch which
(allegedly) would allow the jumping crewmember to clear the aircraft. As
long as the gear is up and the boom is stowed, the path is clear. There are
no antennas in the way (at least not on the R model). I wouldn't want to
try it, but that is the primary way out. One can also bail out the aft
emergency hatch (right side, rear end), but this would also pretty much
suck. I've heard "war stories"/urban legends of people who've bailed out
of -135s, but I've never heard such stories "straight from the horse's
mouth." Smashing out the boom sighting window is not an option for bailout.
The window is a multi pane pressure window (16 panes thick if I remember
right) that is about 1.5 inches thick, so it would take more time to hack
through it than you'd probably have. The window opening itself is also
pretty small. I doubt I could fit through it with a chute on my back.

As for the proposed 767 tanker, I'm in favor of it, but I'd do it
differently than what is being planned. Mainly, I'd ditch all that overly
expensive camera system crap and just put a sighting window in the back.
Ideally, I'd use the configuration similar to the KC-10, but the old style
boom pod would work just as well. Cameras can fail. Windows aren't so apt
to. As for the airframe, I'm of the opinion that it would serve quite well
as a tanker. Fuel efficient (compared to the -135) and larger. The ability
to take combat damage isn't really an issue as the current tankers can't
absorb missile hits any better (which is the biggest threat against
tankers). Leasing the aircraft is a joke. The USAF should buy them
outright. We will get our money's worth from them in their lifespan. But
keep them simple and cheap as possible. That way we will be able to buy
larger numbers, and they will be more reliable.

The "smart tanker" idea is interesting, but I would opine that giving your
AWACS/JSTARS and other "specialty" planes a secondary tanker capability
would be preferable to outfitting all tankers to handle these roles. You
just don't need that many "specialty" airplanes, and you always need lots of
tankers.

That's my $.02.

Dan K.
former KC-135R Boomer
Nebraska ANG

[C Knowles]

> You are falling apart... They call it an E-6 these days

The E-6 is based on the 707, not the -135.

> Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many
as
> they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
> Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to the
AF
> Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3 and
> the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
> KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
> operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's better
to
> lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only cost
a
> few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.

The KC-10 was a bargain at (about) $60 million apiece. Cheap compared to the
767 which won't come close to the Ten's offload capability.
Fighter drags are the Ten's first mission but we do much more theater
refueling and even cargo hauling.
No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire & Travis) have
an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units "own"
the airplanes.
KC-130s generally operate in higher threat areas due to the nature of the
mission, not financial reasons. Howwever, plenty of KC-135s & KC-10s go in
harm's way when the mission calls for it.

Curt
KC-10 flight engineer

[C Knowles]

Where do you get this ****? Some offhand comment by a fighter pilot? What AF
doctrine even discusses this? We exchanged posts on this subject several
months ago. The idea that any large aircraft can routinely "absorb battle
damage" and still remain mission capable is ludicrous. Any aircraft of the
sort receiveing battle damage is going to RTB immediately. What you are
suggesting, some sort of armored battle-tanker, would be hugely expensive
and there would be little return on investment, because that capability
would be almost never be used. The more crap a tanker has to carry means
that much less fuel for offload. It would be much cheaper and more effective
to protect the tankers with fighters, SEAD, or EW aircraft than equip each
tanker to defend itself to the extent you propose. You've been watching too
much 12 O'clock High.

Curt

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message news:<x3__a.351>
>
> > I would really avoid using the latest war in Iraq as an example at how
> > combat will be fought in the future. The Iraqi military had as much
chance
> > as a one legged man in an asskicking contest.
> >
> > They ventured within 50NM of Baghdad because they could with impunity,
not
> > because the mission was important enough to risk the aircraft.
>
> What has occured is an increased role for large ISR aircraft-with
> large crews of folks with rare and sensitive talents and knowledge- to
> be OVER the battlefiled and a body of operational doctrine is
> integrating that. In future conflicts this persistent ISR presence is
> going to be sorely missed if someone says it can't be provided.
> I've mentioned it before. The OP-2E story should give some folks some
> pause. It was deemed so necessary to deliver the sensors (the
> persistent ISR principle at work) over The Trail that an 80 percent
> loss rate was acceptable. Our military can no longer afford to fight
> that way today or in the future. We simply do not have the resources
> to fight a "War Of Plenty" anymore.
> Tankers too are taking on an increased warfighting role with the
> advent of the "Smart Tanker" concept. There will be a need for them to
> be near or in contested battlespace as well.
> As far as the sorties near Baghdad, the SAM threat was still real when
> they occured.
> Its folly to assume that these civil airframes are not going to be
> shot at and they are simply not built for it.

[Daryl Hunt]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
m...
> > You are falling apart... They call it an E-6 these days
>
> The E-6 is based on the 707, not the -135.
>
> > Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many
> as
> > they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
> > Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to
the
> AF
> > Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3
and
> > the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
> > KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
> > operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's
better
> to
> > lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only
cost
> a
> > few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.
>
> The KC-10 was a bargain at (about) $60 million apiece. Cheap compared to
the
> 767 which won't come close to the Ten's offload capability.
> Fighter drags are the Ten's first mission but we do much more theater
> refueling and even cargo hauling.
> No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire & Travis) have
> an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units "own"
> the airplanes.

That is just one place. But I can only speak from over 10 years ago and
things change. But 10 years ago, the primary 10 was with the Reserves.


> KC-130s generally operate in higher threat areas due to the nature of the
> mission, not financial reasons. Howwever, plenty of KC-135s & KC-10s go in
> harm's way when the mission calls for it.

No argument there. I remember a 135 dropping it's boom trying to get a
fighter home that was just pouring fuel with only one engine running. The
135 put the fighter within just a few 10s of feet from the runway before
forced disconnect. The fighter didn't make it but the attempt was heroic
considering just how much danger that place the Tanker in being so low to
the ground with the F-4 in tow.

I don't take a thing away from 135s and 10s. I retired from a KC-135R base
in 1990. But the fact still remains that if the KC-135s were used daily in
high threat areas, we would have losses that cannot be replaced. 60 mil is
an extremely high cost when a 6 mil tanker can be used in it's place. Just
get enough gas to get out of harms way until you can reach the real gas
station in the sky.

>
> Curt
> KC-10 flight engineer

[James Anatidae]

"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the
Buff.
> And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they
are.
>
I don't think that's correct. The B-52B, the first operational model, was
delivered in 1955. The KC-135 didn't come out until 1957. The last B-52
model, the 'H', was delivered three years before the last KC-135 came off
the line.

[C Knowles]

I have been a KC-10 flight engineer since 1985 and am currently the AMC
command flight engineer.
Sorry, but the KC-10 fleet has always belonged to the active duty. From the
very beginning of the program each active duty wing had an associate reserve
wing along side it. They were originally at Barksdale, March and Seymour
Johnson. Each base had two active and one reserve flying squadron. In the
early-mid nineties all were moved to Travis and McGuire. Each base now has
two active and two (smaller) reserve squadrons. The reserves provide both
aircrews (about half as many as the active duty) and maintenance personnel.
Both the reserve and active wing patches are painted on the side of the
airplane, but the active duty wing commander owns the aircraft. There have
never been any stand-alone reserve units with KC-10s.

I have read occasional references (usually in photo captions) to airplanes
being "assigned" to the reserves but they are incorrect. In practice
however, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Mission taskings are handed
out based on personnel availability, training requirements and sometimes
qualifications for a particular mission. Based on the statement above,
reserve aircrews fly about one third of all KC-10 missions. We frequently
fly mixed aircrews from different units, plus active & reserve crews train &
deploy together.

CMSgt Curtiss Knowles


> > No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire & Travis)
have
> > an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units
"own"
> > the airplanes.
>
> That is just one place. But I can only speak from over 10 years ago and
> things change. But 10 years ago, the primary 10 was with the Reserves.
>

[cheyenne]

Just because the A/C had a 55-XXXX serial number doesn't mean it was built
in 1955. That was the year that aircraft block was funded, but was
undoubtedly built and delivered in 1957 or later.

"KenG" > wrote in message
...
> Bzzzzzzzzt Wrong!!!!! I have seen and flown on a '55 model. and have
> heard of a '54 though I hadn't seen it.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Tex Houston]

"KenG" > wrote in message
...
> Bzzzzzzzzt Wrong!!!!! I have seen and flown on a '55 model. and have
> heard of a '54 though I hadn't seen it.
>
> James Anatidae wrote:
> > "Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the
> >
> > Buff.
> >
> >>And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they
> >
> > are.
> >
> > I don't think that's correct. The B-52B, the first operational model,
was
> > delivered in 1955. The KC-135 didn't come out until 1957. The last
B-52
> > model, the 'H', was delivered three years before the last KC-135 came
off
> > the line.

> >
> >
>
Serial numbers are issued on a contract basis. Construction then starts
after that. A 1955 tail number may not have been delivered until 1957-58.

I think you have stubbed your toe. You owe the man an apology. As an
example 05-0127 through 0135 serials have been issued for C-17As under
construction or yet to be started.

Tex Houston

[s.p.i.]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message >...

<Point by point snippages>

> Where do you get this ****?

Why Curt, I do my best to keep my head out of my ass so I don't
confuse all points of view contrary to mine with "****". Thats all you
tend to see when in an HUA position.

Here are some facts Curt.
1. Tankers were over an active SAM environment in Iraq. It made the
news that some of the crews thought it was a risky move. You're in
the business; care to shed some light Curt? Were you there?
2. Much has been written about using the 767-200 and -400 to replace
the C-135 in various missions...Missions that will take them into
contested airspace on a more regular basis as their presence is
considered more and more essential. That means ops over a battlefield
Curt...Guess they will never get shot at though.

> What AF doctrine even discusses this?
Some by the name of Jumper has been talking alot about this whole
smart tanker thing. I suppose he could be full of ****. Ever hear of
the guy Curt? http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html

>The idea that any large aircraft can routinely "absorb battle damage"
and >still remain mission capable is ludicrous.

Wow Curt we agree!! So how far from removed form a battlefield can
GMTI be and still be effective Curt? Maybe such capabilities need to
be on a more survivable platform than a 767. Why must all those people
be aboard that same platform that is carrying the sensors anyway?

> Any aircraft of the sort receiveing battle damage is going to RTB >immediately.

And you put more of a warfighting role onto the tanker fleet they WILL
eventually be seen as a worthwhile target by an opponent. We can't
count on hashish besotted boobs with an "Inshallah" attitude to be our
adversaries forever Curt.

>What you are suggesting, some sort of armored battle-tanker, would be
hugely >expensive and there would be little return on investment,
because that >capability would be almost never be used.

What I'm suggesting is that instead of considering replacing aging
tankers, its time to be replacing aging concepts.
More use of UAVs, Space, etc.
To be fair, last week's AVleak(I get a bunch of "****" from that
yellow rag Curt)had an article about the Navy's Hairy Buffalo and it
use as a UAV control system as well as its migration into C-130s; an
aircraft built to take some punishment at least.

>The more crap a tanker has to carry means that much less fuel for
offload.

You really need to set that Jumper dude straight Curt. His plan of
palletizing comms, elint, ISR, an putting it on tankers is apparently
full of "****"

> You've been watching too much 12 O'clock High.
Good movie...haven't seen the tv show in ages. Do you remember who
played Kowalski?

[Daryl Hunt]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have been a KC-10 flight engineer since 1985 and am currently the AMC
> command flight engineer.
> Sorry, but the KC-10 fleet has always belonged to the active duty. From
the
> very beginning of the program each active duty wing had an associate
reserve
> wing along side it. They were originally at Barksdale, March and Seymour
> Johnson. Each base had two active and one reserve flying squadron. In the
> early-mid nineties all were moved to Travis and McGuire. Each base now has
> two active and two (smaller) reserve squadrons. The reserves provide both
> aircrews (about half as many as the active duty) and maintenance
personnel.
> Both the reserve and active wing patches are painted on the side of the
> airplane, but the active duty wing commander owns the aircraft. There have
> never been any stand-alone reserve units with KC-10s.

I can only go by those that visited us. The crews I talked to were
Reserves. But that doesn't mean that will be though. I don't doubt what
you say but you can see how some of out in the rest of the world can come to
this conclusion whether it's correct or not or, like in this case, half
right.

>
> I have read occasional references (usually in photo captions) to airplanes
> being "assigned" to the reserves but they are incorrect. In practice
> however, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Mission taskings are handed
> out based on personnel availability, training requirements and sometimes
> qualifications for a particular mission. Based on the statement above,
> reserve aircrews fly about one third of all KC-10 missions. We frequently
> fly mixed aircrews from different units, plus active & reserve crews train
&
> deploy together.
>
> CMSgt Curtiss Knowles

It's good history to impart.

[C Knowles]

What link?

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> "C Knowles" > wrote in message
>...
> > Where do you get this ****? Some offhand comment by a fighter pilot?
>
> In case you ingore the link I posted check this out Curt...
>
> General Jumper recently told ISR's monthly sister publication AFJI,
> "No matter where we go to war, if it's the Navy or the Air Force, if
> there are airplanes involved, what's always there are tankers.
> Everybody relies on them; nobody can do business without them. ...We
> tend to put them as close to the danger zone as we possibly can so
> that the planes they're refueling have the shortest distance to go to
> do their jobs. What if we put on those tankers a pallet of equipment
> that could translate all of the links that have been invented by the
> 'stovepipes' for proprietary use in our weapons systems?"

[s.p.i.]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message >...
> What link?

I got the quote from here:

http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html

It is silly to think tankers won't eventually be shot at as they take
on more warfighting roles and assuming they won't will ensure its
occurence. Related; do you really think the JSTARS and its follow on
variants can reasonably be operated outside areas ot taking fire?

The 767 is built for rapid turnaround operations at airports and
economic cruise characteristics. It's built as light as possible, and
because components and systems have been engineered for ease of
access, they are vulnerable to external damage. Those who are familiar
with the brick ****house engineering and sporty performance of the
C-135 need to understand the 76 isn't your Granddaddy's Boeing.
It doesn't posess the inherent survivablity factors of speed, low RCS,
or agility of TACAIR and its not overbuilt like the C-135 is.
Without some hardening of the airframe and systems the chances of
going RTB after taking damage is pretty low with that airplane.

If there is official debate about this, its likely(rightfully)
happening in closed circles given the existence of this link
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/1999aircraft/neigh.pdf

But there is alot of open source on the subject and from this link you
can see surviviability been a red-headed step child discipline for
some time:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/ACFTVULN.HTM

Here are a couple of more links:
http://www.aircraft-survivability.com/Pages/Textbooks.html
http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac/
http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/oacurric/Kline-Poss.%20Thesis.htm
http://www.blazetech.com/Products___Services/Aircraft/FuelShield/fuelshield.html

[C Knowles]

Well, you obviously have a very different read on this than I do. You have
made a huge leap from Gen Jumper's comments to the idea of tankers and other
HVAA fighting it out with SAMs and AAA over a hot area, conducting AR while
taking hits. I have no idea who you are or what your qualifications are. You
may remember who I am. I'm one of the guys orbiting in that tanker near the
bad guys. Seriously, not trying to flame you here but you just don't seem to
be that knowledgeable on these aircraft or air refueling in general.

Tanker, or any other HVAA, employment is determined by the threat vs. the
mission requirement to get in close to the battle. ORM, really. And in spite
of what you think, tankers have been going into harm's way since the Korean
War and none have been shot down. That's where the smart tanker concept came
from. The biggest threat to this type of aircraft is probably taking a
manpad on takeoff or landing. The technology to counter this threat is
relatively cheap and available, yet few tankers anywhere in the world have
it.

Now, the special ops mission requires going into the bad guys back yard.
That's why we have MC- and KC-130s.

I checked out your links and, aside from the smart tanker article, saw
nothing addressing tankers, and only several references to heavies period.
I will agree however that the fuel tank explosion suppression technology is
something that should be put on large aircraft regardless of type. Not just
for combat either, but to prevent a stray spark from ruining the day.

Think about this; you use Gen Jumper's comments to justify your thesis; this
is the same Gen Jumper who is asking Congress for 767 tankers. Oh, and 767s
for the MC2A as well. Are you just smarter than him? If you are correct why
isn't the military pursuing a battle-capable tanker? Maybe because it costs
way too much? The only way we can afford 100 767s, a fraction of the KC-135
fleet, is by leasing. And that will require pulling funds from other
programs. Guess the Navy missed the boat as well, basing the MMA on the 737,
another airliner.

Curt

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> "C Knowles" > wrote in message
>...
> > What link?
>
> I got the quote from here:
>
> http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html
>
> It is silly to think tankers won't eventually be shot at as they take
> on more warfighting roles and assuming they won't will ensure its
> occurence. Related; do you really think the JSTARS and its follow on
> variants can reasonably be operated outside areas ot taking fire?
>
> The 767 is built for rapid turnaround operations at airports and
> economic cruise characteristics. It's built as light as possible, and
> because components and systems have been engineered for ease of
> access, they are vulnerable to external damage. Those who are familiar
> with the brick ****house engineering and sporty performance of the
> C-135 need to understand the 76 isn't your Granddaddy's Boeing.
> It doesn't posess the inherent survivablity factors of speed, low RCS,
> or agility of TACAIR and its not overbuilt like the C-135 is.
> Without some hardening of the airframe and systems the chances of
> going RTB after taking damage is pretty low with that airplane.
>
> If there is official debate about this, its likely(rightfully)
> happening in closed circles given the existence of this link
> http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/1999aircraft/neigh.pdf
>
> But there is alot of open source on the subject and from this link you
> can see surviviability been a red-headed step child discipline for
> some time:
> http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/ACFTVULN.HTM
>
> Here are a couple of more links:
> http://www.aircraft-survivability.com/Pages/Textbooks.html
> http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac/
> http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/oacurric/Kline-Poss.%20Thesis.htm
> http://www.blazetech.com/Products___Services/Aircraft/FuelShield/fuelshiel
d.html

[s.p.i.]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message >...

> Well, you obviously have a very different read on this than I do. You have
> made a huge leap from Gen Jumper's comments to the idea of tankers and other
> HVAA fighting it out with SAMs and AAA over a hot area, conducting AR while
> taking hits.

It's not such a great leap to see the potential for taking rounds when
you are tasked to be,"...as close to the danger zone as [you] possibly
can so that the planes...have the shortest distance to go to do their
jobs."

This will be especially true in the future since the CISR role will
keep you "as close as possible" for periods not envisioned throughout
your career. I'm not suggesting you will be plugged up while jinking
away from SAMS. I am sugessting that you and others in your business
had better think seriously about getting shot at. And you better think
about putting some battle hardening into your new airframes.

>I have no idea who you are or what your qualifications are. You
> may remember who I am. I'm one of the guys orbiting in that tanker near the
> bad guys. Seriously, not trying to flame you here but you just don't seem to
> be that knowledgeable on these aircraft or air refueling in general.

Its not my day job to be concerned about such things now...it used to
be in a previous life though. My active duty days predate yours by a
considerable margin and I find it troubling how important operational
concepts do not seem to be evolving with the times and the emerging
threats.
Cavalry officers never thought the horse would be replaced, battleship
admirals never thought airplanes would ever be able to think their
ships, I guess tanker guys think they will never be in a position to
take rounds. Time will tell.

> Tanker, or any other HVAA, employment is determined by the threat vs. the
> mission requirement to get in close to the battle. ORM, really. And in spite
> of what you think, tankers have been going into harm's way since the Korean
> War and none have been shot down.

Since the Korean war there has been haven airspace near the fight
where you guys could do business. I remember some ballsy KC-135 guys
going into SAM envelopes to drag fighters out of North Vietnam but
thats been the exception.
I notice you have studiosly avoided the missions near Baghdad by the
way. Why did General Mosely think it was so important he went too?

>The biggest threat to this type of aircraft is probably taking a
> manpad on takeoff or landing. The technology to counter this threat is
> relatively cheap and available, yet few tankers anywhere in the world have
> it.

When you are confronted with a S-300 or S-400, or truly viable air
threat that won't be true.


> Now, the special ops mission requires going into the bad guys back yard.
> That's why we have MC- and KC-130s.

And what about the 767 sporting the GMTI as the JSTARS replacement?

> I checked out your links and, aside from the smart tanker article, saw
> nothing addressing tankers, and only several references to heavies period.
> I will agree however that the fuel tank explosion suppression technology is
> something that should be put on large aircraft regardless of type.

What was suggested is a bit different from the tank inerting
technology making its way into the civil world. Now that MANPADS is
something the civil fleet must worry about maybe some of this
technolgy may become a viable consideration for civil aircraft as
well.

> Think about this; you use Gen Jumper's comments to justify your thesis; this
> is the same Gen Jumper who is asking Congress for 767 tankers. Oh, and 767s
> for the MC2A as well. Are you just smarter than him? If you are correct why
> isn't the military pursuing a battle-capable tanker? Maybe because it costs
> way too much?

No, I'm not smarter than Gen Jumper. Yep you're right its money. Does
that mean that the AirForce isn't fielding a vulnerable platform? No.
I still suspect this discussion has cropped up in closed circles and
if it hasn't it should be. You are in a position to find out.
Pardon a digression here but I must ask. Is the 767 cockpit going to
be reconfigured for a flight engineer? IIRC there may have been some
early ones that were configured that way for union purposes but I've
never seen one. It would be expensive to do in the current production
line.


>Guess the Navy missed the boat as well, basing the MMA on the 737,
>another airliner.

They jury is stil out about what the Navy is going to do about MMA.
But yeah, the 737 is a bad choice as well and the notion of the
EMB-145 borders on the silly.

[C Knowles]

I am suggesting that you and others in your business
> had better think seriously about getting shot at. And you better think
> about putting some battle hardening into your new airframes.

We've been thinking about it as long as I've been in the business.
Unfortunately getting the funding for even the basics is well-nigh
impossible. Every time something starts to gain momentum it is sacrificed
for something determined to be more important. And if I had a dollar for
every time a general made a pronouncement...
On the other hand, if a very powerful politician or high-placed civilian
says make it happen, it will. That's how the smart tanker idea came about.
The Secretary Rouch said make it happen and it did.

> I guess tanker guys think they will never be in a position to take
rounds.

We have been; many, many times. As you point out with the reference to the
"Baghdad missions." My opinion, or the opinion of the tanker guys, means
little. Until there is an established need identified by the leadership,
nothing will happen regards hardware.

>Time will tell.

You're right there.

> No, I'm not smarter than Gen Jumper. Yep you're right its money.

Which is my whole point. Is that money better spent defending tankers
against a threat that may or may not occur, or on some other program with a
higher priority? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see all this stuff. I just
don't see it happening. Even if it means losing a couple tankers. Hell, we
can't even bail-out of a KC-10. I would also love to see a purpose-built
tanker but that's a long shot at this point. The 767 lease may provide a
short-term respite to allow to us to better define the next generation
tanker. Or we could just buy more 767s. IMHO, the AF should get in on the
7E7 program now, provide some seed money, and lay the ground work for that
next generation tanker. Or we could just buy more 767s.

> Pardon a digression here but I must ask. Is the 767 cockpit going to
> be reconfigured for a flight engineer? IIRC there may have been some
> early ones that were configured that way for union purposes but I've
> never seen one. It would be expensive to do in the current production
> line.
>
No (sigh), no way they will put a FE on the crew. Too much $, and not
everybody likes us. However, the roles of enlisted aircrew are evolving and
I expect the boom operator will be taking on some new duties.

[Mary Shafer]

On 18 Aug 2003 15:14:38 -0700, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

> Pardon a digression here but I must ask. Is the 767 cockpit going to
> be reconfigured for a flight engineer? IIRC there may have been some
> early ones that were configured that way for union purposes but I've
> never seen one. It would be expensive to do in the current production
> line.

I don't know why they would. The KC-135s lost their flight engineers
when the aircraft were upgraded with glass cockpits. This was
probably close to five years ago.

The Guard pilots I talked to said they weren't too happy about losing
the third person in the cockpit and intended to carry a second boom
operator for a while, to have someone to sit in the jump seat and back
them up. They'd have preferred a flight engineer, but theirs were all
going away.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Daryl Hunt]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have been a KC-10 flight engineer since 1985 and am currently the AMC
> command flight engineer.
> Sorry, but the KC-10 fleet has always belonged to the active duty. From
the
> very beginning of the program each active duty wing had an associate
reserve
> wing along side it. They were originally at Barksdale, March and Seymour
> Johnson. Each base had two active and one reserve flying squadron. In the
> early-mid nineties all were moved to Travis and McGuire. Each base now has
> two active and two (smaller) reserve squadrons. The reserves provide both
> aircrews (about half as many as the active duty) and maintenance
personnel.
> Both the reserve and active wing patches are painted on the side of the
> airplane, but the active duty wing commander owns the aircraft. There have
> never been any stand-alone reserve units with KC-10s.
>
> I have read occasional references (usually in photo captions) to airplanes
> being "assigned" to the reserves but they are incorrect. In practice
> however, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Mission taskings are handed
> out based on personnel availability, training requirements and sometimes
> qualifications for a particular mission. Based on the statement above,
> reserve aircrews fly about one third of all KC-10 missions. We frequently
> fly mixed aircrews from different units, plus active & reserve crews train
&
> deploy together.
>
> CMSgt Curtiss Knowles

Chief, I am not contradiction to you. I am showing you how a misconception
can occur.

>
>
> > > No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire & Travis)
> have
> > > an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units
> "own"
> > > the airplanes.
> >
> > That is just one place. But I can only speak from over 10 years ago and
> > things change. But 10 years ago, the primary 10 was with the Reserves.
> >
>
>

[C Knowles]

Seems like I spend most of my day either explaining or briefing things to
people; sometimes it hard to stop. The last time someone asked me the time I
built them a watch.


"Daryl Hunt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C Knowles" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I have been a KC-10 flight engineer since 1985 and am currently the AMC
> > command flight engineer.
> > Sorry, but the KC-10 fleet has always belonged to the active duty. From
> the
> > very beginning of the program each active duty wing had an associate
> reserve
> > wing along side it. They were originally at Barksdale, March and Seymour
> > Johnson. Each base had two active and one reserve flying squadron. In
the
> > early-mid nineties all were moved to Travis and McGuire. Each base now
has
> > two active and two (smaller) reserve squadrons. The reserves provide
both
> > aircrews (about half as many as the active duty) and maintenance
> personnel.
> > Both the reserve and active wing patches are painted on the side of the
> > airplane, but the active duty wing commander owns the aircraft. There
have
> > never been any stand-alone reserve units with KC-10s.
> >
> > I have read occasional references (usually in photo captions) to
airplanes
> > being "assigned" to the reserves but they are incorrect. In practice
> > however, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Mission taskings are
handed
> > out based on personnel availability, training requirements and sometimes
> > qualifications for a particular mission. Based on the statement above,
> > reserve aircrews fly about one third of all KC-10 missions. We
frequently
> > fly mixed aircrews from different units, plus active & reserve crews
train
> &
> > deploy together.
> >
> > CMSgt Curtiss Knowles
>
> Chief, I am not contradiction to you. I am showing you how a misconception
> can occur.
>
> >
> >
> > > > No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire &
Travis)
> > have
> > > > an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units
> > "own"
> > > > the airplanes.
> > >
> > > That is just one place. But I can only speak from over 10 years ago
and
> > > things change. But 10 years ago, the primary 10 was with the
Reserves.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Daryl Hunt]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
. ..
> Seems like I spend most of my day either explaining or briefing things to
> people; sometimes it hard to stop. The last time someone asked me the time
I
> built them a watch.

I am an ISP that works the Customer Service line quite a bit. Know what you
mean.

[David Lesher]

"Leadfoot" > writes:

>I'm happy that USAF is replacing KC-135's with 767 just concerned about the
>leasing arrangement.

>Why not just buy them outright?

Gooood question....


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[s.p.i.]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message >...
> We've been thinking about it as long as I've been in the business.
> Unfortunately getting the funding for even the basics is well-nigh
> impossible. Every time something starts to gain momentum it is sacrificed
> for something determined to be more important. And if I had a dollar for
> every time a general made a pronouncement...

One last input and I will let theis dead horse be buried and
gone...Its been my observation that the Air Force has the shortest
institutional memory of all the services...I'd opine the Marines have
the longest. heck a recent Aviation Week articel all but said that the
AF had essentially forgotten that Firebee drone variants had been used
as armed UCAVs as long ago as Vietnam and as recently as GW I.
Anyway, rumaging about I found this article on the web:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1993/articles/jan_93/jana_93.html

Which has the following interesting passage printred below. Mind you
the 767-200 and especially the -400 are not going to be nearly as
"sporty"(I note that for the evasive tactics mentioned below) as the
C-135s they will replace and they have fewer parts to lose before
things get really, really ugly as well. Could well be most of the
folks who "discovered" the dilemma mentioned below are now long gone?:

Most people may think that tankers just fly around in safe areas
during wartime, never getting too close to danger. The Gulf War
disproved this notion. On numerous occasions, tanker crews flew into
the combat zone to rescue aircraft low on fuel. In some cases, tanker
crews braved antiaircraft fire. A flight of two KC-135s led by Maj.
Herb Otten of the 452nd Air Refueling Wing was orbiting in Saudi
Arabia near the Israeli border awaiting a return strike force of F-16s
when an AWACS advised that the F-16s were low on fuel and that one had
sustained serious battle damage. Despite lack of fighter cover, Otten
flew north into Iraqi air space to meet the fighters before they ran
out of fuel. The tankers eventually had to fly almost 100 miles north
into Iraq before they made contact with and successfully refueled the
fighters.

"One of the vital lessons of our experience over there was the
vulnerability of tankers," explains Col. Bill Sherer, the commander of
the 161st Air Refueling Group of the Arizona ANG. Sherer was
coincidentally in Europe on an air refueling mission when Desert
Shield began. He flew one of the first missions of the tanker "air
bridge." Sherer notes that flying close to enemy lines, or sometimes
into enemy territory, opened a lot of eyes. "In years past at
exercises like Red Flag, our tankers would orbit outside the exercise
area and refuel either side's aircraft as necessary," Sherer
continues. "It was like the game King's X: everyone was safe from
attack when refueling. Now we are treated as the high-value assets we
really are. If we get shot down, our side loses its fuel supply, and
probably loses the war. So now when we go on exercises, we practice
evasive maneuvers. We work much closer with our fighter cover when we
have it. Fighter crews have a vital interest in our protection."

[Charles Talleyrand]

"s.p.i." > wrote in message om...
> Unfortunately, the idea of producing our way to victory is no longer a
> luxury the U. S. will be able to count on. For the foreseable future
> you guys are going to need to fight more like the Germans did in WWII;
> superbly trained people who have to make do with limited resources.

This seems insane to me.

The Iraqis made do with limited resources.
The Afghanis made do with limited resources.

The United States spends more on defense than the entire continent of
Europe including Russia. We spend more than the entire continent
of Asia including China and India. We spend more on defense
than the top ten nations combined.

Going to your analogy, the Germans had less equipment than their enemies,
yet could win battles by better methods. The US does not face this challenge.

Sure, we face other challenges, but not this one.

[s.p.i.]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> "s.p.i." > wrote in message om...
> > Unfortunately, the idea of producing our way to victory is no longer a
> > luxury the U. S. will be able to count on. For the foreseable future
> > you guys are going to need to fight more like the Germans did in WWII;
> > superbly trained people who have to make do with limited resources.
>
> This seems insane to me.
ok

>
> The Iraqis made do with limited resources.
> The Afghanis made do with limited resources.

yup and limited skill as well

> The United States spends more on defense than the entire continent of
> Europe including Russia. We spend more than the entire continent
> of Asia including China and India. We spend more on defense
> than the top ten nations combined.
> Going to your analogy, the Germans had less equipment than their enemies,
> yet could win battles by better methods. The US does not face this challenge.

How many E-8s are flying today?...How many EP-3Es? How many
replacements are programmed that will be available to go into a fight
somewhere along the Asian Crescent?
The Air Force has been forced into this whole tanker lease deal
because they are outright desperate for the resources.

Ten years from now its entirely plausible that some wily potential
opponents in that region may well have the capacity to outmatch us in
terms of Concentration Of Force fi we had to meet them near or on
their home turf.

> Sure, we face other challenges, but not this one.

There is a growing realization we don't have the resources to do what
we are trying to do today. We can no longer fight a war of plenty.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Lyle" > wrote in message ...
> its not how much we spend but what percentage of the GNP that we
> spend.

Actually, it's how many useful resources you can get into battle. The fact that Kenya
or Argentina or Burma might spend more than us as a percentage of GDP isn't
really useful to their soldiers if the Big Battle (tm) comes their way.

[Lyle]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:36:45 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:

>
>"Lyle" > wrote in message ...
>> its not how much we spend but what percentage of the GNP that we
>> spend.
>
>Actually, it's how many useful resources you can get into battle. The fact that Kenya
>or Argentina or Burma might spend more than us as a percentage of GDP isn't
>really useful to their soldiers if the Big Battle (tm) comes their way.
>
if i remember right, we spend like 3% of a budget in the trillions on
defense, where as other countries spend 3% or less of a budget in the
billions. The US military buget is bigger then most of the countries
in Europe budgets. And the US isnt even taxed as much as the European
countries are.

but the most important thing is that if war were to break out
tomorrow( i mean a big one, like china) the president has the power to
take control of the Nations Civilian Airliners for military
tranport/cargo duty, and dont forget about the merchant marine. and
that is sometihing that alot of countries just dont have. You can have
a big army, but if you cant get them there, their useless.
Civilian assests that can quickly be used for war if need be.

a website to go to is
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Just my opionion.

[s.p.i.]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> "s.p.i." > wrote in message om...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> > > The United States spends more on defense than the entire continent of
> > > Europe including Russia. We spend more than the entire continent
> > > of Asia including China and India. We spend more on defense
> > > than the top ten nations combined.
> > > Going to your analogy, the Germans had less equipment than their enemies,
> > > yet could win battles by better methods. The US does not face this challenge.
> >
> > Ten years from now its entirely plausible that some wily potential
> > opponents in that region may well have the capacity to outmatch us in
> > terms of Concentration Of Force fi we had to meet them near or on
> > their home turf.
>
> Of course the US can be outnumbered at a moments notice. The Chinese
> could outnumber us in the Taiwan straights by tomorrow as could the
> Nigerians in Benin. But whatever they sieze, they could not hold.
>
> Maybe you could describe a reasonable scenerio where we cannot
> put more resources on the battlefield than our enemy. Iraq #1 was an
> almost worst case example, with a very well armed and experienced
> opponent about as far from the US as one can be.
>
> So, if you could offer a reasonable scenerio.


This one gives the gist anyway:
http://www.capitolsource.net/files/pacific_century_strategy.pdf

[Charles Talleyrand]

"s.p.i." > wrote in message om...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> > Maybe you could describe a reasonable scenerio where we cannot
> > put more resources on the battlefield than our enemy. Iraq #1 was an
> > almost worst case example, with a very well armed and experienced
> > opponent about as far from the US as one can be.
> >
> > So, if you could offer a reasonable scenerio.
>
>
> This one gives the gist anyway:
> http://www.capitolsource.net/files/pacific_century_strategy.pdf

Boy what a boring read.

You're arguing that the Chinese will launch 'thousands' of ballistic
missiles with 'advanced conventional warheads'. I'm not really
worried about scenerios involving weapons that the Chinese don't
have and currently cannot even build, and that no other nation on
the planet has chosen to develop.

Maybe we should end this conversation. It's uninteresting.

[David Lesher]

X-URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5378-2003Aug30?language=printer


washingtonpost.com

Documents Detail Maneuvers for Boeing Lease

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 31, 2003; Page A10

The two years of negotiations that culminated in a $21 billion deal
for the Air Force to lease, then buy, 100 Boeing Co. planes were
punctuated by attempts to seek "political cover" and personal appeals
by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to President Bush,
according to more than 100 pages of internal documents released
yesterday.

The Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by John McCain (R-Ariz.),
the chief critic of the deal, released the documents after reviewing
about 8,000 pages turned over by Chicago-based Boeing, the Air Force,
the Defense Department and the Office of Management and Budget.
McCain has accused the Air Force of developing the plan to help
Boeing, the Pentagon's second-largest contractor, weather the downturn
in commercial aviation.

{....}

But a recent Congressional Budget Office report said the Air Force
"significantly understates" the cost difference and estimates that
the lease-buy strategy would cost $21.5 billion, while buying the
aircraft outright would cost $15.9 billion.

{...}

The documents raise questions about how the Air Force developed its
argument that it needs the planes urgently, congressional sources
said. A September 2002 e-mail from a Boeing official said Marvin
Sambur, the Air Force's chief procurement officer, requested
clarification.

The Air Force "is desperately looking for the rationale for why the
USAF should pursue the 767 Tanker NOW," the e-mail said. "Sambur is
looking for the compelling reason the administration should do this
now rather than push off to a future administration."


FWIW:

A friend reported that part of the higher cost is that while Boeing
owns the tankers, they will perform the maint. on them and be
reimbursed by Uncle Sam, vs. Him doing it himself/bidging it out...
Anyone know the specifics?


Also, the question about when the tankers do get into hot areas. He
recalled a tanker commander being brought up on charges in GW#1 for
breaking the ROE & crossing the Iraq border to assist someone running
dry. True?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[C Knowles]

> Also, the question about when the tankers do get into hot areas. He
> recalled a tanker commander being brought up on charges in GW#1 for
> breaking the ROE & crossing the Iraq border to assist someone running
> dry. True?


I find that ludicrous. It happens all the time.

Curt