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.

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

"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.

"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

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)

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

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.

(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

"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