Is the KC-10 going to be cut?

[Royal]

Did Selva say if we were going to be offered cyanide capsules?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Royal

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

So, the telephone game says that the KC-10 will begin to shut down October of 2014? That seems so sudden to go from super high ops tempo to nada. How did the phase out of the C-141 go? I guess some of the C-130H bubbas might know more about that... last year, a bro from UPT just finished legacy Herk FTU then PCS'd to Preds at FOB Cannon when he graduated. I can't do that... my girl won't follow me there!

[Bergman]

The C-17s at McGuire would stay. C-17s from an unknown location would move to Travis in place of KC-10s and KC-135s from an unknown location (I assume McConnell due to KC-46 basing) would move to McGuire in place of KC-10s.

Makes sense.

Highly doubt the USAF would leave KSUU without any tankers.

Why? With the Fairchild tankers about to have a lot more time on their hands, AD tanker unit at Hickam, Reserve tankers at March...the left coast is fairly well covered.

How did the phase out of the C-141 go?

Can't find definite info on when they started retiring them, but IIRC it was only a couple of years to retire over 250 airplanes. McChord lost their last one in April 2002 and they were gone completely from AD by 2004. A few stuck around in the ARC until spring 2006.

[tunes]

I'll let the fighter guys explain it to you.

However, in seriousness...yes, most of us who have been in the KC-10 for any amount of time (and pay attention) know that the initial CNS/ATM (this attempt) was funded in 2012 along with the replacement BCU...however, future funding has been sketchy at best. The two jets are eventually coming back to McGuire. What happens to the other 57 remains to be seen.

Be prepared for the KC-10 to get cancelled. Expect the AF to ask for it (ref AMC/CC comments the past month or so). Expect Congress to consider it and the good Congressmen and women of CA and NJ to oppose...we shall see.

As to looking for a new airframe...you're an AC. PHOENIX isn't likely unless you upgrade and work for the Wg/CC. That means UPT, MC-12, UAVs...unless AMC opens a mechanical crossflow due to the divestiture of the KC-10. Big OSA isn't likely, but maybe small OSA is...both are selective.

going away next year too........

[Champ Kind]

It will be interesting to see how quickly it happens. I'm not a tanker guy, but it seems like that big of a loss to capability would want to slow-rolled, but then again that would mean maintaining the fleet infrastructure and therefore continuing to spend money for that much longer.

[Azimuth]

Makes sense.

Why? With the Fairchild tankers about to have a lot more time on their hands, AD tanker unit at Hickam, Reserve tankers at March...the left coast is fairly well covered.

Can't find definite info on when they started retiring them, but IIRC it was only a couple of years to retire over 250 airplanes. McChord lost their last one in April 2002 and they were gone completely from AD by 2004. A few stuck around in the ARC until spring 2006.

Which wouldn't make sense to put active duty -135's at KWRI since you have Maine, Pease, New Jersey, Seymour, Tennessee, and Macdill on the east coast.

[go_cubbies22]

Which wouldn't make sense to put active duty -135's at KWRI since you have Maine, Pease, New Jersey, Seymour, Tennessee, and Macdill on the east coast.

I don't think they are proposing that move because it makes sense but to replace the iron and bodies so the NJ congressmen will go along with the plan.

[arg]

The real problem stems from all the air refueling capable airplanes we built.

[JarheadBoom]

Per the AMC/CC (through the telephone game, so take with a grain of salt):

AMC will not ask to fund the KC-10 in FY15.

Fuck. Not gonna make it to 7200 points.

I don't think they are proposing that move because it makes sense but to replace the iron and bodies so the NJ congressmen will go along with the plan.

Since they're not making these decisions based on any operational considerations, this makes as much sense as anything else.

edit: format

Edited November 23, 2013 by JarheadBoom

[ThreeHoler]

Briefing today said FY16 could see worst case 1 KC-10 squadron retiring per year until all were gone. Pilots and booms would be dispersed to other airframes. FEs are right fucked...

[Nasty2004]

Briefing today said FY16 could see worst case 1 KC-10 squadron retiring per year until all were gone. Pilots and booms would be dispersed to other airframes. FEs are right ######ed...

What did they say was best-case? Continued funding? I still think giving them to the guard is a better option than shit-canning them if the AD can't find the money for them anymore. This Time article has the hourly costs for many AF airframes, and the KC-10 and A-10 are among the cheapest on the list. Makes perfect sense to get rid of both of them...

https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

[Lawman]

What did they say was best-case? Continued funding? I still think giving them to the guard is a better option than shit-canning them if the AD can't find the money for them anymore. This Time article has the hourly costs for many AF airframes, and the KC-10 and A-10 are among the cheapest on the list. Makes perfect sense to get rid of both of them...

https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

I'm curious as to where they got those numbers. Something about the Pave Hawk costing nearly triple what I've heard the Black Hawk quoted for seems weird.

If they are accurate though... How the heck does a Gulfstream cost more per hour than a Viper... Make the Generals buy their own damn Scotch.

[SocialD]

What did they say was best-case? Continued funding? I still think giving them to the guard is a better option than shit-canning them if the AD can't find the money for them anymore. This Time article has the hourly costs for many AF airframes, and the KC-10 and A-10 are among the cheapest on the list. Makes perfect sense to get rid of both of them...

https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

Where do you think most of the Guard budget comes from? I'll give you a hint, it's not the state...and the AD still owns the iron.

We are flat broke and something has to be done. I tend to agree that cutting an airframe completely gives you the best savings. Cutting various airframes here and there just drive up the operating costs. What airframes would you chop?

[Royal]

What airframes would you chop?

F-35.

[Jaded]

RQ-4.

[HU&W]

Where do you think most of the Guard budget comes from? I'll give you a hint, it's not the state...and the AD still owns the iron.

We are flat broke and something has to be done. I tend to agree that cutting an airframe completely gives you the best savings. Cutting various airframes here and there just drive up the operating costs. What airframes would you chop?

F-35

F-15C

B-1

C-21

RQ-4

KC-10

CV-22

[Nasty2004]

Where do you think most of the Guard budget comes from? I'll give you a hint, it's not the state...and the AD still owns the iron.

We are flat broke and something has to be done. I tend to agree that cutting an airframe completely gives you the best savings. Cutting various airframes here and there just drive up the operating costs. What airframes would you chop?

Since you asked, I don't know where the Guard gets its funding, I assumed it rested largely on the states' shoulders. I also don't know where the most effective cost-cutting comes from, but if it does come from eliminating an entire MWS wholesale, what about the B-1? Much like the KC-10, it does things neither the B-2 or B-52 can do, but the only thing that seems to matter in this environment is how much money can be saved by elimination. It is also only at two bases like the KC-10, and $58K/hour (according to the Time article) is no bargain. And to continue the analogy, the next-generation bomber is "in the works." Why not get rid of one bomber before the next is ready to go if it means saving some budget dollars short-term? To me, that idea sounds as dumb as the first one.

What eludes me is how the move will in fact save any significant amount of money. No one is talking about closing any bases or cutting any personnel, so you're basically saving hourly operating costs by getting rid of an airframe. But if you cover the resulting operational shortfall with other tankers, where is the huge savings? The difference in hourly cost would have to be quite significant between the two to reap any real savings. This is ultimately a case of being penny wise and pound foolish, especially when you consider that this is being considered while the F-35 is continuing full steam ahead.

[SocialD]

F-35.

RQ-4.

No arguments here. I guess I should throw out my list.

F-35

C-21

RQ-4

B-1

KC-10

Since you asked, I don't know where the Guard gets its funding, I assumed it rested largely on the states' shoulders.

The Guard wishes this were the case.

I also don't know where the most effective cost-cutting comes from, but if it does come from eliminating an entire MWS wholesale, what about the B-1? Much like the KC-10, it does things neither the B-2 or B-52 can do, but the only thing that seems to matter in this environment is how much money can be saved by elimination. It is also only at two bases like the KC-10, and $58K/hour (according to the Time article) is no bargain. And to continue the analogy, the next-generation bomber is "in the works."

I couldn't agree more.

What eludes me is how the move will in fact save any significant amount of money. No one is talking about closing any bases or cutting any personnel, so you're basically saving hourly operating costs by getting rid of an airframe. But if you cover the resulting operational shortfall with other tankers, where is the huge savings? The difference in hourly cost would have to be quite significant between the two to reap any real savings. This is ultimately a case of being penny wise and pound foolish, especially when you consider that this is being considered while the F-35 is continuing full steam ahead.

You save money in many different avenues. Lets use the Viper for example, the following (plus much more, I'm sure) would be cut. The fleet obviously, Depot MX, SPO, Paint facilities, Test (ET/OT), AATC, Regional support centers, personnel, training, Simulator facilities (at least 5), logistical supply chain, etc... you get the point. There is so much more than just the jets themselves.

Edited November 25, 2013 by SocialD

[ThreeHoler]

Since you asked, I don't know where the Guard gets its funding, I assumed it rested largely on the states' shoulders. I also don't know where the most effective cost-cutting comes from, but if it does come from eliminating an entire MWS wholesale, what about the B-1? Much like the KC-10, it does things neither the B-2 or B-52 can do, but the only thing that seems to matter in this environment is how much money can be saved by elimination. It is also only at two bases like the KC-10, and $58K/hour (according to the Time article) is no bargain. And to continue the analogy, the next-generation bomber is "in the works." Why not get rid of one bomber before the next is ready to go if it means saving some budget dollars short-term? To me, that idea sounds as dumb as the first one.

What eludes me is how the move will in fact save any significant amount of money. No one is talking about closing any bases or cutting any personnel, so you're basically saving hourly operating costs by getting rid of an airframe. But if you cover the resulting operational shortfall with other tankers, where is the huge savings? The difference in hourly cost would have to be quite significant between the two to reap any real savings. This is ultimately a case of being penny wise and pound foolish, especially when you consider that this is being considered while the F-35 is continuing full steam ahead.

You're not cutting the hourly costs. You are cutting the cost of the entire logistics chain.

Perspective: The logistics chain cost per KC-135 is $2M/yr. The logistics chain cost per KC-10 is $10M/yr. Pretty simple math, as briefed by the AMC/CC last week.

[osulax05]

No one is talking about closing any bases or cutting any personnel, so you're basically saving hourly operating costs by getting rid of an airframe.

What are you new?

What about the entire mx supply chain? That goes away. I'm sure the behind the scenes footprint (mx, FTU courseware, etc) of the -10 is smaller than other a/c but there are notable savings associated with cutting an entire airframe that surpass the hourly operational cost. Again, nobody here is saying that losing the jet will be easy and that we won't take a hit in operational capability. Times are tough, we just have to get used to some lean times.

[Champ Kind]

I can't help but figure the AF will still figure out a way to waste the cost savings that are made.

[Nasty2004]

You save money in many different avenues. Lets use the Viper for example, the following (plus much more, I'm sure) would be cut. The fleet obviously, Depot MX, SPO, Paint facilities, Test (ET/OT), AATC, Regional support centers, personnel, training, Simulator facilities (at least 5), logistical supply chain, etc... you get the point. There is so much more than just the jets themselves.

I understand that the budget savings on the KC-10 will be 100%, but my question is what percentage of those costs will end up being spent on the KC-135 since no one is talking closing bases or reducing personnel (pilots at least). Nor is anyone saying that we will reduce our tanker ops. Since it takes approximately 50% more -135 airframes to complete a given Coronet, I'm asking: What percentage of the savings associated with the elimination of the KC-10 will be realized by the DOD, and is that savings ultimately worth the loss of capability?

You're not cutting the hourly costs. You are cutting the cost of the entire logistics chain.

Perspective: The logistics chain cost per KC-135 is $2M/yr. The logistics chain cost per KC-10 is $10M/yr. Pretty simple math, as briefed by the AMC/CC last week.

What percentage of the $590 million/year is personnel? From everything I've seen, those costs will be retained. Again, is the net savings worth it?

What are you new?

What about the entire mx supply chain? That goes away. I'm sure the behind the scenes footprint (mx, FTU courseware, etc) of the -10 is smaller than other a/c but there are notable savings associated with cutting an entire airframe that surpass the hourly operational cost. Again, nobody here is saying that losing the jet will be easy and that we won't take a hit in operational capability. Times are tough, we just have to get used to some lean times.

I guess if you're talking about the intricacies of logistics, then yes, I'm new. I'm definitely no expert when it comes to these things. That being said, this looks like a move with minimal upside cost-wise with potentially major impact on our ability to put our planes anywhere at a moment's notice. Yes, eliminating the KC-10 will mean we spend less money. The same can be said for every jet in the inventory. When you look at the cost of the F-35 and the "impact" cutting that program would have versus the same scenario with the KC-10, it's pretty clear that we aren't making cost-cutting decisions based on maintaining maximum capability with minimum cost. Not to mention that the KC-46 is a replacement for the -135, yet we are using its imminent arrival as justification for retiring the -10.

[Azimuth]

You can force extend a -46. You can't with -135's*

*minus the RT's

[Nasty2004]

You can force extend a -46. You can't with -135's*

*minus the RT's

One of the many reasons it will be a great replacement for the -135s. This adds zero capability when compared to the KC-10 since it also has receiver capability.

[Azimuth]

One of the many reasons it will be a great replacement for the -135s. This adds zero capability when compared to the KC-10 since it also has receiver capability.

What's the burn rate of the -46? I bet it's not as high as the -10 (which is double the -135).