aging tankers to be replaced

"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.

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.

"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.

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)

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

"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)?

"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.

"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

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" 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