Is the KC-10 going to be cut?

[JackaL]

I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything new on this topic? Rumor mill says that the avionics upgrade package got declined (which will lead into the KC-10 not being able to fly in Europe past 2015), so I did not know if that was the nail in the coffin, or if that was just bullshit.

No offense to -135's, but the -10 is WAY better in terms of multi-role tanker / cargo jet. It'd be retarded for them to cut the -10, AND the -46 won't be able to the same amount of work as one -10 can.

Thoughts / opinions / comments? Thanks

Edited October 26, 2013 by JackaL

[Azimuth]

No offense to -135's, but the -10 is WAY better in terms of multi-role tanker / cargo jet.

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.

[Blue]

 

No offense to -135's, but the -10 is WAY better in terms of multi-role tanker / cargo jet. It'd be retarded for them to cut the -10, AND the -46 won't be able to the same amount of work as one -10 can.

Thoughts / opinions / comments? Thanks

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

[B.M.]

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

Perhaps General Chang and his cohorts have taken to using reverse psychology on the crew dawgs to spread their message of assimilation:

"Wearing your PT gear in accordance with AFI 36-2903 is so ghey", "Rated officers who aren't AAD complete by winging are sooooo kewl!", "Someone said I needed to complete my Info Assurance CBT so the squadron would be more green for the exercise and I was totally like ORLY?"

Very tricky

[Clark Griswold]

I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything new on this topic? Rumor mill says that the avionics upgrade package got declined (which will lead into the KC-10 not being able to fly in Europe past 2015), so I did not know if that was the nail in the coffin, or if that was just bullshit.

No offense to -135's, but the -10 is WAY better in terms of multi-role tanker / cargo jet. It'd be retarded for them to cut the -10, AND the -46 won't be able to the same amount of work as one -10 can.

Thoughts / opinions / comments? Thanks

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/air-force-may-scrap-kc-10-tanker-fleet-general/

https://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/

Not just the KC-10 but the A-10 and F-15C also... but back to the KC-10, unfortunately it is probably done as I don't think they have upgraded but 2 of the KC-10 flight decks.

777 tanker would make a great replacement but not gonna happen...

[Swanee]

KC-10... More give than the -135 and no Iron Maiden. Why the hell would the AF get rid of them?!

[WABoom]

The argument isn't about capabilities, it's about what we can afford to lose and save the most money.

[Swanee]

The argument isn't about capabilities, it's about what we can afford to lose and save the most money.

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.

[pawnman]

So is this why AFPC is so unconcerned over the coming exodus from AMC? Fewer airplanes require fewer pilots...so the spreadsheets still look green!

[C17Driver]

Economies of scale. Eliminating an entire airframe saves more than making incremental cuts across the board.

[StoleIt]

While I agree it's stupid to cut the KC-10...that is the only one they "can" cut. There aren't enough -10's to retiree the -135. It would seem there are enough -135's to replace the -10.

I've suffered from a KC-10 stand down day while deployed and guess what? The -135 covered all the refuelings that day. I asked if the Deid could take a down day. Answer...nope.

[Azimuth]

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.

There are -135's that are equipped with soft baskets (MPRS) and can refuel two Hornets at once.

[Swanee]

There are -135's that are equipped with soft baskets (MPRS) and can refuel two Hornets at once.

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.

[Jaded]

Hey man, numbered air forces are expensive to maintain.

[f16wolfpack]

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.

Uhh...America is broke.

[xaarman]

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.

Fortunately, you won't need twice the -135s to replace the KC-10 capability. The limit is more booms in the air, not total offload capability - IIRC the average offload for tankers is around 80k worth of gas. While I admit I love refueling from KC-10s A LOT more then KC-135s, we will eventually adapt as we always have.

Here is a great article on future tanker needs. The -10 excels at strategic bombing support and airlift+tanker combinations, but it can be replaced.

https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/modernizing-aerial-refueling-fleet.pdf

edit:

Tankers rarely offload their entire capacity. A survey of five operations from Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to the stability operations in Iraq in 2005 showed that moderate offloads are more typical. During Operation Desert Storm, the average tanker offload (for all types, including some coalition tankers) was 47,500 lbs. per sortie. Eight years later in Operation Allied Force, the air campaign during the Kosovo crisis, the average was 48,700 lbs. per sortie. Offload rates averaged 75,400 lbs. per sortie in Operation Enduring Freedom from 2001 to early 2002, due to the long distances that receivers had to fly. Major combat operations in Iraq during the spring of 2003 saw averages of 60,800 lbs. per sortie. Stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan saw fewer strike sorties, but similar offloads of 62,400 lbs. per sortie in 2005.

Weather, tempo and other factors vary the rates. For example, during a round of Iraqi elections in January 2005, the offload average peaked at 89,000 lbs. on one particular day as extra sorties were flown for election security

We would be MUCH better keeping KC-10s, don't get me wrong, but if the budget cuts force extreme measures, especially with the war draw downs, I could see the -10 going by the wayside.

Edited October 27, 2013 by xaarman

[JarheadBoom]

My personal feeling is that I have 339 days remaining in this jet.

I need about 3x that to get enough points for retirement.

I may very well be screwed.

[Azimuth]

My personal feeling is that I have 339 days remaining in this jet.

I need about 3x that to get enough points for retirement.

I may very well be screwed.

Being a -135 ANG/AFRC bum is a sweet gig.

[USAF Pilot]

"Delivers 200% more fuel than the KC-135" Ooo...that sounds fun. Except the max fuel load on the -10 is more than the MTOGW of the -135.

Save money? Maybe. I'm going to have to unlearn all that Rapid Global Mobility/Strike stuff if they ground the fleet in 1.69 years.

[brabus]

I know of a Harrier squadron that will outright refuse a training sortie if they have to have -135 support.

Seriously? I too prefer a -10 any day of the week, but the -135 isn't some horrible god-awful platform to take gas from. If someone says it is, then they should maybe take a look at their own flying ability before placing all the blame on the tanker for why they can't get gas well, expeditiously, etc.

[scoobs]

Being a -135 ANG/AFRC bum is a sweet gig.

Can you make a living bumming as a boomer? Thought it was tough for pilots.

[Swanee]

Seriously? I too prefer a -10 any day of the week, but the -135 isn't some horrible god-awful platform to take gas from. If someone says it is, then they should maybe take a look at their own flying ability before placing all the blame on the tanker for why they can't get gas well, expeditiously, etc.

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.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Swanee

[brabus]

Damn, sounds like a host of issues refueling with the drogue. I retract my statement towards the drogue guys, but it still stands for the boom guys who make similar complaints.

[Azimuth]

Seriously? I too prefer a -10 any day of the week, but the -135 isn't some horrible god-awful platform to take gas from. If someone says it is, then they should maybe take a look at their own flying ability before placing all the blame on the tanker for why they can't get gas well, expeditiously, etc.

It's not nice to talk about the C-17 community like that.

[brabus]

Sure it is!