Is the KC-10 going to be cut?

[Azimuth]

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 is 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.

We (-135's) aren't allowed to refuel Harriers with the Iron Maiden, they can only refuel off MPRS jets. Don't really know how Harrier drivers are complaining about an AR we can't do with them. There's a BUFF driver reading this laughing about people bitching about being in contact with 5-10 minutes while they take up to 15-20 minutes to completely refuel using the boom.

Boom refueling is much harder (sts) to do and stay in the envelop, especially if you're a heavy, than drogue refueling.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Azimuth

[Majestik Møøse]

Boom refueling is much harder (sts) to do and stay in the envelop, especially if you're a heavy, than drogue refueling.

Do you have experience refueling as a heavy on the boom or as a fighter on a drogue?

[moosepileit]

Hop in the C17 sim some time and give A/R a whirl. You are at LTS with plenty of 'em, no?

Follow the $ trail, not your service pilot instincts, for the thread.

[Azimuth]

Do you have experience refueling as a heavy on the boom or as a fighter on a drogue?

I meant in relation to me making a contact.

[jango220]

I never realized how much the Navy/Marine guys hated tanking on the iron maiden until I did some Navy test support and actually got to sit around and talk with them. Lipping the basket is almost a given for most of the young guys on their first approach. I also realized that most Navy guys prefer the 250-275 knot range and Marines love tanking at 200-230. Probably a result of what they are used to doing in the fleet (buddy tanking on a Hornet and drogues from a KC-130, respectively). I'd be willing to guess that a majority of the difficulties are mental, just from stories passed down over the years from experienced guys to new.

Back to the topic at hand, some receivers may love tanking with the -10, but there is no better (current) tanker suited for a contested/degraded environment than the KC-135. The AF decided to make that investment in the -135 several years ago, while also decided to make minimal upgrades in the KC-10. Is the -10 better for dual-role? Yes, and that is why it was purchased. But it is going to take a lot of money to make it compliant for the mandatory avionics upgrades over the next 10 years just to allow it to fly in existing airspace, and that is before we begin to address issues with their boom control unit. The AF is going to have to make a decision on this one, and the reign of the Gucci boys may very well be coming to an end.

[Karl Hungus]

the reign of the Gucci boys may very well be coming to an end.

What reign? The last semblance of Gucci died on 9/11. I don't know anyone in the KC-10 community who still think of it as Gucci, at least not compared to the pre-9/11 days.

[xaarman]

It's colloquial, everyone knows the term Gucci relates to the KC-10 here -

Edited October 27, 2013 by xaarman

[noumenon]

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.

[Hueypilot]

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

I think in the upper levels of DoD these days (think cabinet level), the focus is in the $$ and not necessarily the capes. The -10 is among the most expensive airframes to operate (mostly because of its size), and there aren't many if them. Easy kill.

[Majestik Møøse]

Back to the topic at hand, some receivers may love tanking with the -10, but there is no better (current) tanker suited for a contested/degraded environment than the KC-135. The AF decided to make that investment in the -135 several years ago, while also decided to make minimal upgrades in the KC-10. Is the -10 better for dual-role? Yes, and that is why it was purchased. But it is going to take a lot of money to make it compliant for the mandatory avionics upgrades over the next 10 years just to allow it to fly in existing airspace, and that is before we begin to address issues with their boom control unit. The AF is going to have to make a decision on this one, and the reign of the Gucci boys may very well be coming to an end.

Alright, I'll engage. The -135 has some advantages over the -10: they have a datalink, they've got their GATM upgrade done, and there are 6 times as many, so they've got a lot of booms in the air. Otherwise, here is why the KC-10 remains the best tanker in the world and why its crews are so damn proud of it:

1. We're the only tanker (existing or planned) that can support a real long-range fighter movement capability. Considering the future Pacific shift, this is vital. If we're ever going to try running an air war out of Guam (IAW the RAND analysis from a few years back) we'll need some pretty gigantic offloads to move a 2-4 ship of large air superiority fighters 3 hrs west and back. Boom sequencing won't be an issue. Ref 1986/2011 Libya ops.

2. Global strike and airdrop require even greater offloads. KC-10s actively train for and execute these missions; moving large aircraft across the world nonstop will be greatly degraded/impossible without us.

3. Every KC-10 can refuel any allied jet on every mission. Any future conflict will be joint AF/USN/allies and real-time flexibility will be required. This is why the same capes are being built into the KC-46.

4. Every KC-10 Aircraft Commander is a fully qualified/current receiver and formation pilot, and we're good at it. Not only does this give us a lot of operational options (again, on every mission we fly), it makes us better at tanking because we know how much it sucks to be snap-rolled into the sun or weather. Fun party trick: we can boom-check our own formation members to ensure the systems work before the users show.

5. We're cheap to operate: $21K per hour, not including fuel (add another $9K for that). I doubt there's any jet in the inventory that can move as much payload for so little cash. There's a reason FedEx still uses this airframe. And as far as the avionics upgrade cost, it's less than the cost of one KC-46. Pretty good value, I'd say.

6. Yes we can haul a shitload of cargo, almost as much a C-17, just not the oversized stuff like MRAPs. But if you have 160K lbs of gold bricks that need to be in Japan tomorrow, we can get it there quicker and cheaper! Also, there seems to be a perpetual myth that since we carry a lot of cargo, we must be inferior tanker pilots. This myth is dumb. Flying cargo around into non-tactical environments is easy it doesn't detract from other skills.

7. What Boom Control Unit issues are you talking about?

[jango220]

Alright, I'll engage. The -135 has some advantages over the -10: they have a datalink, they've got their GATM upgrade done, and there are 6 times as many, so they've got a lot of booms in the air. Otherwise, here is why the KC-10 remains the best tanker in the world and why its crews are so damn proud of it:

I am not trying to downplay the role the -10 plays. It does its job well. And it is needed in the future, especially wrt Pacific pivot/global strike, etc. However, the key is it is a poor aircraft for use in CDO. The 3-1 has details, but we're not just talking about GATM here. I've flown on a KC-10 before, and the lack of SA due to a handcuffed FMS and displays that can't show boundaries was astonishing. Watching the crew break nearly every boundary of the area we were in and get called out by ATC was just further proof. Trying to fly off a falconview display with a $15 GPS puck isn't a good setup for a CDO scenario. If the avionics upgrade gets implemented, I may very well raise my hand and ask to go fly the -10.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a reason the KC-10 isn't invited to play in certain scenarios and OPLANs and it is purely due to the equipment on board, and the AF currently seems unwilling to invest the money to change that.

What Boom Control Unit issues are you talking about?

It was my understanding that the boom control unit was reaching its end of life and required replacement. Any A3/A4-types have any details? I could be wrong, just something I've heard.

Every KC-10 Aircraft Commander is a fully qualified/current receiver and formation pilot, and we're good at it.

All potential jokes aside... I think you are severely underestimating the number of KC-135 current and former receiver pilots (both from our airframe and cross-flows) when it comes to our attitude towards receiver considerations.

[Clark Griswold]

I think in the upper levels of DoD these days (think cabinet level), the focus is in the $$ and not necessarily the capes. The -10 is among the most expensive airframes to operate (mostly because of its size), and there aren't many if them. Easy kill.

2

Don't like it but it's the truth.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Clark Griswold

[ThreeHoler]

Full BCU replacement fleet wide was funded in FY12. Not sure of current progress replacing them...but if they don't get replaced, we will have cargo only KC-10s.

[Majestik Møøse]

I am not trying to downplay the role the -10 plays. It does its job well. And it is needed in the future, especially wrt Pacific pivot/global strike, etc. However, the key is it is a poor aircraft for use in CDO. The 3-1 has details, but we're not just talking about GATM here. I've flown on a KC-10 before, and the lack of SA due to a handcuffed FMS and displays that can't show boundaries was astonishing. Watching the crew break nearly every boundary of the area we were in and get called out by ATC was just further proof. Trying to fly off a falconview display with a $15 GPS puck isn't a good setup for a CDO scenario. If the avionics upgrade gets implemented, I may very well raise my hand and ask to go fly the -10.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a reason the KC-10 isn't invited to play in certain scenarios and OPLANs and it is purely due to the equipment on board, and the AF currently seems unwilling to invest the money to change that.

It was my understanding that the boom control unit was reaching its end of life and required replacement. Any A3/A4-types have any details? I could be wrong, just something I've heard.

All potential jokes aside... I think you are severely underestimating the number of KC-135 current and former receiver pilots (both from our airframe and cross-flows) when it comes to our attitude towards receiver considerations.

Well I suppose I've had the opposite experience during exercises and in the AOR WRT airspace SA. I'm sure we both have examples of buffoonery from the other side, and we're sticking to them. I'll just say I haven't been impressed with multiple deployed operations run by -135 guys (patchwearers included) compared to my own brethren.

Not sure what you mean about our displays not being able to show airspace borders, they absolutely can if they're programmed correctly. I'm curious to ask for a little more detail, PM if you'd like.

Our opinions as a receiver are reinforced often. I'm sure there are plenty of -135 crossflow dudes that have been receiver pilots before, they must be the good ones. There are also some absolutely heinous guys that would never fly the way they do if they'd ever tried to hang onto a boom in a heavy jet.

[SocialD]

I think in the upper levels of DoD these days (think cabinet level), the focus is in the $$ and not necessarily the capes. The -10 is among the most expensive airframes to operate (mostly because of its size), and there aren't many if them. Easy kill.

It's as simple as that. I really don't understand why people can't wrap their mind around this.

4. Every KC-10 Aircraft Commander is a fully qualified/current receiver and formation pilot, and we're good at it. Not only does this give us a lot of operational options (again, on every mission we fly), it makes us better at tanking because we know how much it sucks to be snap-rolled into the sun or weather. Fun party trick: we can boom-check our own formation members to ensure the systems work before the users show.

Yet, you still do it...every fucking time!

[Azimuth]

Does the -10 have the strategic commitment us -135 guys have?

[Majestik Møøse]

Yet, you still do it...every ######ing time!

True, but it's not due to lack of SA, it's because our boom needs more beans for the quarter! Also, the tracks are small! And the radar was clear!

[StoleIt]

 

Does the -10 have the strategic commitment us -135 guys have?

 

Nope.

[Stank]

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.

[nsplayr]

I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread...

[Azimuth]

Alright, I'll engage. The -135 has some advantages over the -10: they have a datalink, they've got their GATM upgrade done, and there are 6 times as many, so they've got a lot of booms in the air. Otherwise, here is why the KC-10 remains the best tanker in the world and why its crews are so damn proud of it:

1. We're the only tanker (existing or planned) that can support a real long-range fighter movement capability. Considering the future Pacific shift, this is vital. If we're ever going to try running an air war out of Guam (IAW the RAND analysis from a few years back) we'll need some pretty gigantic offloads to move a 2-4 ship of large air superiority fighters 3 hrs west and back. Boom sequencing won't be an issue. Ref 1986/2011 Libya ops.

2. Global strike and airdrop require even greater offloads. KC-10s actively train for and execute these missions; moving large aircraft across the world nonstop will be greatly degraded/impossible without us.

3. Every KC-10 can refuel any allied jet on every mission. Any future conflict will be joint AF/USN/allies and real-time flexibility will be required. This is why the same capes are being built into the KC-46.

4. Every KC-10 Aircraft Commander is a fully qualified/current receiver and formation pilot, and we're good at it. Not only does this give us a lot of operational options (again, on every mission we fly), it makes us better at tanking because we know how much it sucks to be snap-rolled into the sun or weather. Fun party trick: we can boom-check our own formation members to ensure the systems work before the users show.

5. We're cheap to operate: $21K per hour, not including fuel (add another $9K for that). I doubt there's any jet in the inventory that can move as much payload for so little cash. There's a reason FedEx still uses this airframe. And as far as the avionics upgrade cost, it's less than the cost of one KC-46. Pretty good value, I'd say.

6. Yes we can haul a shitload of cargo, almost as much a C-17, just not the oversized stuff like MRAPs. But if you have 160K lbs of gold bricks that need to be in Japan tomorrow, we can get it there quicker and cheaper! Also, there seems to be a perpetual myth that since we carry a lot of cargo, we must be inferior tanker pilots. This myth is dumb. Flying cargo around into non-tactical environments is easy it doesn't detract from other skills.

7. What Boom Control Unit issues are you talking about?

So tell us about yourself.

[Prozac]

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.

Damn dude. I'm all for a little friendly banter between MWSs but in all honesty, most of the KC-10 pilots I know are only a little douchey.

[Champ Kind]

So tell us about yourself.

Let me guess...

Brand new co with the ink still wet on his MR folder?

[B.M.]

GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU.

Don't be like that, girl. I'm sure he lost your # or something.

[Infamous]

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.

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.