Leaderboard

I've got probably several hundred plugs on a 135/iron maiden combo, as well as every other combo including Brit VC-10's, L1011's, etc. While the iron maiden is challenging at times, so is landing on the boat at night. One of the worst nights I had was rendezvousing with a 10 over northern Iraq, in the weather, then getting in the basket. A sine wave up and down the hose will rip your probe off just as fast as the maiden. MPR pods have their own challenges as well with wingtip vortices, but it's not hard. They're all terribly unforgiving of inattention and poor technique. That said, it works. Quite well. Harriers not tanking from the maiden is an operational and design limitation, not a matter of refusal. A five wet rhino can be next to impossible if you're single engine with the gear stuck down too. By far the "easiest" thing to tank off of was the S-3, but that's no longer an option. We need what we can afford, from there the guy in the seat needs to adapt, overcome and execute.

Welcome back to the 1950's. If your wife's ankles are showing in a picture on your desk, expect paperwork. Do the right thing.

I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread... The most arrogant community in AMC, the ones who think by some incredible quirk of mathematics that great pilots exist only in the KC-10 while every other airframe is full of incompetent dweebs, the ones who treat other AMC aircrew deadheading on their jet worse than they treat space-A pax, the ones who can't talk to other AMC crew dogs for more than five minutes without telling them how much they suck or how incredibly gifted KC-10 pilots are. This incredible flying community, a gift to our nation from the almighty, has been told by big blue: GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU. On behalf of KC-135, C-130, and C-17 flyers everywhere: before you start showing up at "slums" like Altus, Little Rock or McConnell and flying our crappy jets, remember to leave your gucci bags and arrogance on your KC-10s when you drop them off at the boneyard.

Hey man, numbered air forces are expensive to maintain.

I am so glad I'm past the half-way point in my career.

How many times have we asked joe to pony up with his qualifications/experience? Not holding my breath now

Say quals?

From today's New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/us/robinson-risner-ace-fighter-pilot-dies-at-88.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131028

From what I've seen on this forum, you can't let any argument go quietly. You also come across as a bit of an ass. 1&2. You're right, it's not impossible to move fighters & bombers around the world without us. It will require tasking about 120-150 KC-135/46s to fill the capability gap left by the departed KC-10s (or multiple-leg fuel stops). How many KC-135s would it take to support just 2x air-superiority fighters over a 5-hr flight with a fight in the middle? This won't be impossible, just really hard, especially considering how limited the ramp space would be throughout the Pacific should a no-shit war ever start up. We'll save short-term money by cutting the -10, but every -10 mission filled by 2.5 KC-135s will actually cost more in fuel and flying hours. 3. The new tanker will use our boom plus a centerline drogue and be receiver-AR capable, just like a KC-10, but smaller and for only $250m each. Sweet. We'll have 18 of them by 2017 and all of them by 2028, according to Boeing. I sincerely hope they can deliver on schedule. 4. Yes, tanking is easy. But so many still screw it up. 5. Agreed. Outsource the peacetime cargo. Overall you are correct, we could get by without the KC-10, as well as the A-10, F-15, U-2, B-1, C-5, and half the C-130s. Scrap them all, we'll figure it out like we always do. So what if it costs billions and our capabilities are reduced. What do you fly, for frame of reference?

It's not that incredible, it's because we have a flight engineer.

LOL. This is easily the most butthurt comment I've read on baseops. Go cry some more, get it all out then come back and tell us how you really feel It's truly disturbing that someone "hates" another aircraft community so much that they take "pleasure" seeing our Air Force lose even more aircraft and capabilities than they have already. You need help bro, maybe you should go talk to the chaplain/SARC/IG and tell them about your problem with the KC-10 and how their aircrew members hurt you emotionally.

Let me guess... Brand new co with the ink still wet on his MR folder?

The term Gucci originates from the issued flight bags the original -10 guys (circa Barksdale/March/Seymour etc.) carried with them to the airplane. At the time...the shoe fit. From a space available reference: no glass...manual TOLD, airplanes beat to $h!t, smelled like piss and only 'hot cuz they're deployed'...a lot. Still the most comfortable military airplane I've been on, felt like an airline flight. Hate to hear this might be going...from a planner's perspective this airplane has an extraordinary ability to save CAS in the AOR. It was always the 'best' choice for the CAOC when you needed a plan to support navy/air force/heavies...to include the mighty herk. -130 crew stuck in Lajes for 5 days due to winds...-10 crew came through, drank heavily, and then offered to hang with us to refuel after 30 minutes of flight to get the tanks full...came through the next day unbeknownst to their mom at TACC...got us home. Very good dudes.

Seriously. There is a squadron that refused an exercise unless they could get any other tanker. They would not come if a -135 was their only option. Not to say that these guys wouldn't take gas from a -135 when it mattered, they would. Do you take gas from the boom or from the drogue? I have yet to meet a Hornet or Harrier guy who says that the iron maiden doesn't completely suck. It has to do with the metal basket and where the probe is on the Harrier. Catch the bow wave wrong and have a not perfect approach and you can put the basket through the canopy on that thing. Whoa, as if they don't have enough problems with the whole V/STOL thing. Plus a missed approach on a Hornet with a soft basket can F up your AoA probe/pitot tubes on the right hand side. Worse case you send them down your right motor. With the iron maiden, it's almost a guarantee if you don't plug really well on the first pass. Combine that with where you have you put the hose so you can get gas and it can be a problem. The drogue at the end of the boom on a -135 is the worst Air to air refueling system out there for the Navy/Marine types. We really don't want to use it.. It happens too often to have messed up AoA probes and pitot tubes, or have a basket not come off of your probe. There is a good reason the AF went away from the probe/drogue method. We just can't do boom ops from the boat. Watch that KC-10 video that was posted and pay attention to the plays for the basket that the Hornets and Prowlers have to do. This isn't a "naval aviators have more skill" argument at all btw. We just don't like the -135. Edited for grammar and syntax- my brain don't work too good on scotch.

Yeah, though not a perfect system. Those baskets aren't very stable- especially if the tanker is in a turn. But I get what you're saying. If we had our way every tanker would be as easy as getting gas from a 5 wet Super Hornet. It just surprises me that the AF would look at getting rid of an asset that is in fairly high demand. There are never enough tankers. I guess the AF really is broke.

So how does an older platform with less capabilities save the AF money in the long run when you're going to need twice the airplanes to provide the same amount of gas? Not to mention that when we Navy/Marine types need a tanker the -135 is either boom or drogue, but can't do both. KC-10? Boom or basket, they both have the gas AND the ability to give to anyone who needs it. We Marines can be pretty stupid WRT some stuff, but holy hell, this is really short sighted. Though what can you expect from the same people who got out of the EA business, and left it to the Navy and Marine Corps (which is ridiculous, why the F do we really need EA squadron in the Marine Corps? I have yet to hear a truly convincing argument) Hornet bros around the world agree - give us a KC-10 over a -135 any day. I know Hornet dudes who would rather take a shitty weather night trap than try to plug the Iron Maiden. I know of a Harrier squadron that will outright refuse a training sortie if they have to have -135 support.

Liberals? The complaint was filed in Texas. I thought they didn't have those there.

The KC-135 was never designed to be a multiple-role aircraft or carry a huge amount of cargo. It was designed to refuel the B-52 so it could go nuke enemies if needed.

  Comment: This sentence reads like it was written by a 3rd grader.