Airlift and Air Refueling Squadrons

[aquajam77]

Hey all,

I was wondering what you guys thought some pros and cons of being in an Airlift Squadron opposed to an Air Refueling Squadron were. I am looking towards that division of the air force, but I dont exactly know which one to pick

[drewpey]

can't decide? choose both!

[Wolf424]

can't decide? choose both!

Questions?

[Red Fox]

I would choose airlift, for the following reasons:

1. Tankers don't fly to Antarctica.

2. Tankers don't fly channel missions throughout the Pacific to places like Wake Island, Guam, etc.

3. Tankers normally fly to a theater and stay (i.e. Manas, the Deid). The strat airlift crews mostly fly into and

out of the theater (unless they're part of the AEF)

4. Airlift crews get to land in Afghanistan and Iraq (to me that's a plus). Tanker crews don't as far as I know.

5. Airlift crews (C-17, C-5, and Spec Ops C-130's) get qualified in air-air refueling (once again a plus). Most

tanker pilots are not air-air qualified (receiving end).

6. KC-135 bases are at RAF Mildenhall, Fairchild, McConnell, and MacDill. (Can't remember anymore).

C-17 units are in better locations like McChord, Travis, Charleston, Elmendorf, Hickam, etc.

I'm an ORF and haven't been to SW Asia in almost 5 years, so I may be out of touch with recent events or missions. I flew the C-130 and the C-17. I flew both to places that I know a tanker would never go. (Like dirt strips in the Canadian Arctic). I'm biased, but I think the C-17 has the best mission in the AF. These are my opinions and they are not written in stone. Good luck!

Red

[Guest CA]

I would choose airlift, for the following reasons:

1. Tankers don't fly to Antarctica.

2. Tankers don't fly channel missions throughout the Pacific to places like Wake Island, Guam, etc.

3. Tankers normally fly to a theater and stay (i.e. Manas, the Deid). The strat airlift crews mostly fly into and

out of the theater (unless they're part of the AEF)

4. Airlift crews get to land in Afghanistan and Iraq (to me that's a plus). Tanker crews don't as far as I know.

5. Airlift crews (C-17, C-5, and Spec Ops C-130's) get qualified in air-air refueling (once again a plus). Most

tanker pilots are not air-air qualified (receiving end).

6. KC-135 bases are at RAF Mildenhall, Fairchild, McConnell, and MacDill. (Can't remember anymore).

C-17 units are in better locations like McChord, Travis, Charleston, Elmendorf, Hickam, etc.

I'm an ORF and haven't been to SW Asia in almost 5 years, so I may be out of touch with recent events or missions. I flew the C-130 and the C-17. I flew both to places that I know a tanker would never go. (Like dirt strips in the Canadian Arctic). I'm biased, but I think the C-17 has the best mission in the AF. These are my opinions and they are not written in stone. Good luck!

Red

These are the exact reasons why I hope to one day fly the C-17.

[C17Driver]

I would choose airlift, for the following reasons:

1. Tankers don't fly to Antarctica.

2. Tankers don't fly channel missions throughout the Pacific to places like Wake Island, Guam, etc.

3. Tankers normally fly to a theater and stay (i.e. Manas, the Deid). The strat airlift crews mostly fly into and

out of the theater (unless they're part of the AEF)

4. Airlift crews get to land in Afghanistan and Iraq (to me that's a plus). Tanker crews don't as far as I know.

5. Airlift crews (C-17, C-5, and Spec Ops C-130's) get qualified in air-air refueling (once again a plus). Most

tanker pilots are not air-air qualified (receiving end).

6. KC-135 bases are at RAF Mildenhall, Fairchild, McConnell, and MacDill. (Can't remember anymore).

C-17 units are in better locations like McChord, Travis, Charleston, Elmendorf, Hickam, etc.

I'm an ORF and haven't been to SW Asia in almost 5 years, so I may be out of touch with recent events or missions. I flew the C-130 and the C-17. I flew both to places that I know a tanker would never go. (Like dirt strips in the Canadian Arctic). I'm biased, but I think the C-17 has the best mission in the AF. These are my opinions and they are not written in stone. Good luck!

Red

1. True

2. Not true (tankers go to many of the islands)

3. Not true (tankers do this now)

4. Not true (tankers do this now)

5. KC-10s do this

6. Airlifters do have some great locations!

[kapilot]

5. KC-135R Are these still out there?

Edited August 24, 2009 by kapilot

[Guest CA]

5. KC-135R Are these still out there?

I still find it ironic that a refueling aircraft would need to be refueled.

[aquajam77]

what type is the KC-135 with the pointed nose?

[skinny]

what type is the KC-135 with the pointed nose?

It was probably the test bird when they were first switching to R models. Non unlike the C-5M you see now-a-days. The probe is for instrumentation such as AoA, speeds, etc.

[aquajam77]

It was probably the test bird when they were first switching to R models. Non unlike the C-5M you see now-a-days. The probe is for instrumentation such as AoA, speeds, etc.

oh, i see, thanks

[HU&W]

I still find it ironic that a refueling aircraft would need to be refueled.

I wonder how many you can link together in a chain...

[aquajam77]

I wonder how many you can link together in a chain...

Now THAT would be something interesting to find out, lol

[Hammer]

McConnell has all 8-ish RT (reciever/tanker) models. From what I know they do the "spec-ops", if you will, missions. The old-heads say that there is a good chance that if you are at McConnell you will be qualed to be a reciever pilot at some point. Anyone with current knowledge please elaborate/correct. Also it doesn't matter who you talk to about which is "better" because everyone will claim their own airframe is the best. I love the Tanker and think it is pretty sweet flying one of the oldest/most historic airframes in the inventory. Realize that no matter what you get you will be happy in.

[Gas Man]

I would choose airlift, for the following reasons:

1. Tankers don't fly to Antarctica.

2. Tankers don't fly channel missions throughout the Pacific to places like Wake Island, Guam, etc.

3. Tankers normally fly to a theater and stay (i.e. Manas, the Deid). The strat airlift crews mostly fly into and

out of the theater (unless they're part of the AEF)

4. Airlift crews get to land in Afghanistan and Iraq (to me that's a plus). Tanker crews don't as far as I know.

5. Airlift crews (C-17, C-5, and Spec Ops C-130's) get qualified in air-air refueling (once again a plus). Most

tanker pilots are not air-air qualified (receiving end).

6. KC-135 bases are at RAF Mildenhall, Fairchild, McConnell, and MacDill. (Can't remember anymore).

C-17 units are in better locations like McChord, Travis, Charleston, Elmendorf, Hickam, etc.

I'm an ORF and haven't been to SW Asia in almost 5 years, so I may be out of touch with recent events or missions. I flew the C-130 and the C-17. I flew both to places that I know a tanker would never go. (Like dirt strips in the Canadian Arctic). I'm biased, but I think the C-17 has the best mission in the AF. These are my opinions and they are not written in stone. Good luck!

Red

1.) Who Cares.

2.) Been to Guam 14 times in the last 6 years. In and out of Hawaii 51 times (at least 18 hrs on the ground)

3.) Sort of true

4.) Damn! Don't get to be shot at or land with 1 truck on the runway and the other in the dirt taking out the runway edge lights with your nose gear....Doh!

5.) See above post

6.) Mildenhall, Fairchild, McConnell, and MacDill.. England, Spokanne, Kansas, Tampa. 3 out of 4 aint too bad.

7.) Join the guard as soon as you can!

Edited August 20, 2009 by Gas Man

[Toasty]

I love Herks, and think we've got the best crews in AMC, but that being said...

...airlifters fly to all the crappy places. In my Herk experience, good deals are few and far between, even when CONUS side.

...tankers never have to worry about spending the night in Mosul (or ever even going there).

...tankers don't get shot at.

...airlifters (well, Herks..) have long ground times in 120+ degree heat with no air conditioning.

Depends what you want. If you're a down-in-it kinda guy, go airlift. If you're a help-the-mission kinda guy, go tanker. I'm pretty sure they make alot more bucks on TDY's than we do too.

[Hacker]

A different view of some tanker-on-tanker action.

[Clayton Bigsby]

C-17 units are in better locations like McChord, Travis, Charleston, Elmendorf, Hickam, etc...

Nice job glossing over garden spots like Altus, Dover, and McGuire...lol

I wonder how many you can link together in a chain...

There is a painting from Operation El Dorado Canyon, showing 3 KC-10/KC-10/F-111 chains...kind of funny a KC-10 would still be passing gas to an F-111 while also being a receiver from another KC-10...

to the OP - Look, I'm no pilot, but I think it depends on what kind of flying you want to do. Want to fly up at 30k a lot, orbiting for receivers and racking up the hours? Or do you want to land a bunch in all sorts of different places? Look where the mission is - tankers, passing gas inflight, and cargo, well it has to be delivered to whatever place so you'll go almost anywhere.

Keep in mind every time I flew, even out of the 'deid on supposed out-and-backs, we dragged ALL our bags with us, everytime, since we might get re-routed somewhere else and then not see what we left behind ever again. Tanker guys can fly with a simple backpack/overnight kit since they're probably coming back, soon...part of the price of being able to go anywhere, right?

Edited August 20, 2009 by Clayton Bigsby

[Stunna]

I still find it ironic that a refueling aircraft would need to be refueled.

According to my FE buddy who just left the -10, it's not so much that they need the gas, but that they take on the extra fuel from a previous orbiter. Been a while since he tried to explain all that to me though, someone else here I'm sure could explain it better.

It is still sort of ironic though.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Stunna

[broncoflyer05]

The only real pain of being in the tanker is an archaic, Cold War era, study/practice that must be reviewed quarterly. Not sure if the -10 guys have stay current on this or not.

The -135 is flying into Afghanistan and doing aeromedical evac.

I'm a young co-pilot that hasn't gone over yet but I was sitting around talking with some of the older guys in the squadron today and they were talking about how they would offload fuel into the KC-10 rather than just dumping, err, adjusting gross weight, when receievers cancel.

[Jughead]

Link to 4.7M pic

Holy Huge Picture, Batman! I'm on a slow connection, that almost shut me down. May I suggest you resize it & repost, or just use a link? That said, it's a cool pic I hadn't seen before, I'm glad you posted it....

McConnell has all 8-ish RT (reciever/tanker) models. From what I know they do the "spec-ops", if you will, missions. The old-heads say that there is a good chance that if you are at McConnell you will be qualed to be a reciever pilot at some point. Anyone with current knowledge please elaborate/correct.

Yes, all eight (not "ish") of the RT models are at McConnell--sort of. There's now a ninth KC-135R with a receiver mod--the new Speckled Trout. It's got the E-Systems (later LTV, now L3, as I understand the corporate lineage) mod, vice the (much better) Boeing mod. Of the original eight "Christine" tankers, three have the Boeing system, five have the E-Systems version. L3 modded the new Trout, so of course they used their own system (with some updates, from what I understand).

My knowledge is not current, but from when the RTs were my bread & butter at McConnell (7+ years now), your chances of being qual'd to fly the RTs was about 100%--that's just a difference check that doesn't even require a flight portion, and the RTs are frequently used like any other tail on the day-to-day flying schedule, so everyone needed that. Your chances of being ARR qual'd varied depending on which squadron you were in. That pissed a lot of people off, but it boiled down to available training hours (not everyone could maintain qual in the available time). If you were in an "RT squadron," your chances of getting qual'd were pretty high, all things being equal; otherwise, chances were pretty low. Similar breakdown on the special ops mission qual, though there were special ops pilots who were not ARR qual'd (few) and some ARR pilots who were not special ops qual'd (plenty). The difference was that the SOCOM apportionment (the reason the RTs exist) dictated a certain number of special ops crews, and it's much easier to take an ARR-qual'd guy and spin him up on his special ops qual than to start from scratch. The special ops qual w/o ARR qual was more a case of incomplete training than a by-design qual level.

According to my FE buddy who just left the -10, it's not so much that they need the gas, but that they take on the extra fuel from a previous orbiter. Been a while since he tried to explain all that to me though, someone else here I'm sure could explain it better.

It is still sort of ironic though.

Your buddy is mostly right. It's a lot more efficient for one airplane to stay aloft with 100K pounds of off-loadable fuel than for two w/ 50K each, and a LOT more efficient than five w/ 20K each. Assuming that you don't need multiple booms in one spot, or fuel available in multiple spots, it makes far more sense to consolidate fuel and get the "extra" airplanes back on the ground to be turned, the crews into crew rest, etc.--saving gas is just a side benefit.

Two counter-examples, though. One, the reason the -10s have the ARR capability is the design purpose as a dual-role platform. When the KC-10 is flying as a pure airlifter, making use of a tanker in an airbridge role is the same as for any C-xx airplane. Two, the reason the RTs have the capability is to ensure that the specially qualified crews can stay on station as long as needed with as much offload as needed--as with any other platform that needs a tanker to extend its station time.

"Ironic"? Matter of perspective....

[JarheadBoom]

Hey all,

I was wondering what you guys thought some pros and cons of being in an Airlift Squadron opposed to an Air Refueling Squadron were. I am looking towards that division of the air force, but I dont exactly know which one to pick

Come to the KC-10 and experience both!

* Now, before you -130 and -17 guys get spooled up... yeah, the -10 doesn't do tac, or dirt, or really high-threat areas, or airdrop, or anything not on a pallet... but we do plenty of Channel ops.

According to my FE buddy who just left the -10, it's not so much that they need the gas, but that they take on the extra fuel from a previous orbiter. Been a while since he tried to explain all that to me though, someone else here I'm sure could explain it better.

It is still sort of ironic though.

Not ironic at all. What your FE buddy described is called "consolidation" - you consolidate small remaining fuel loads in -135s into the -10, so the -135 guys can go home, and the -10 crew can continue orbiting and rack up more hours/contacts. Saves the -135s from having to dum... I mean adjust gross weight, or fly around for hours with their gear & flaps hanging out in the breeze.

What your FE buddy didn't tell you is the other reason for the -10 to receive fuel. It's called "force extension"; usually used during a dual-role mission, where we're carrying cargo & pax, along with dragging fighters someplace. The weight of all that ass & trash takes away from our available fuel load, so a number of -135s will be positioned along our route of flight to top us off, so we can get the cargo/pax/fighters to their destination in one hop (if the shit has truly hit the fan). The fighters will often cycle across one -135 boom while we're on the boom of another -135 during this process, to ensure they've got enough gas onboard to make their diverts if they go tits-up.

The only real pain of being in the tanker is an archaic, Cold War era, study/practice that must be reviewed quarterly. Not sure if the -10 guys have stay current on this or not.

Yes. It's a relatively new thing, and a pain in the ass because of the operating limitations of the -10, but there are AD crews doing it, and figuring out how to make it work. There's been some discussion of getting the Reserve involved, but I don't see (from the outside) how that would work out.

The -135 is flying into Afghanistan and doing aeromedical evac.

And the -10 passes through Bagram during certain times of year for cargo.

[aquajam77]

wow, thanks for all the info, didn't know that there could be so many differences and similarities between the two

[Stunna]

Thanks to Jughead and Jarhead for clearing up my statement, and all of the great info in general. And come to think of it, he did describe some of what you were talking about as far as drags across the pond. Makes a lot of sense.

[amcflyboy]

I would choose airlift, for the following reasons:

1. Tankers don't fly to Antarctica.

2. Tankers don't fly channel missions throughout the Pacific to places like Wake Island, Guam, etc.

3. Tankers normally fly to a theater and stay (i.e. Manas, the Deid). The strat airlift crews mostly fly into and

out of the theater (unless they're part of the AEF)

4. Airlift crews get to land in Afghanistan and Iraq (to me that's a plus). Tanker crews don't as far as I know.

5. Airlift crews (C-17, C-5, and Spec Ops C-130's) get qualified in air-air refueling (once again a plus). Most

tanker pilots are not air-air qualified (receiving end).

6. KC-135 bases are at RAF Mildenhall, Fairchild, McConnell, and MacDill. (Can't remember anymore).

C-17 units are in better locations like McChord, Travis, Charleston, Elmendorf, Hickam, etc.

I'm an ORF and haven't been to SW Asia in almost 5 years, so I may be out of touch with recent events or missions. I flew the C-130 and the C-17. I flew both to places that I know a tanker would never go. (Like dirt strips in the Canadian Arctic). I'm biased, but I think the C-17 has the best mission in the AF. These are my opinions and they are not written in stone. Good luck!

Red

Whoa whoa whoa, back the truck up! Don't be hating Antarctica! And for CA who said he hopes to the fly the C-17 because it doesn't go to Antarctica, well you're slightly wrong. If you fly out of McChord and are lucky enough to be assigned to the right squadron, you can make runs to Antarctica from Christchurch, just not to the extreme parts of the continent. That's our job. By the way, I'm AIRLIFT!!!