ThreeHoler Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 If Guam is the only base, true. If the fighters are more than 3 hours away the KC-135 becomes a better option. The KC-135 has a longer flight endurance at MTOGW. There is a reason the KC-10 is kept closer to the air refueling tracks and has higher density of offloads. That must be the answer why -135 guys do tons of coronets...because the -10 was totally not designed to be the Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft and it did not have a design requirement to carry people and 50K of shit from point A to b while refueling 6 fighters across the ocean. Man, that -135 is one hell of a long range refueler. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBoost Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'll just thrown in for the KC-10, gotta say I was impressed when a KC-10 flew 6 hours, gave us 100k of gas, and flew 6 more hours to land recently, I'm 99% sure a -135 wouldn't have been able to do that... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Hey, what about that set of missions flown to FHAW by all those -135s to move all the POTUS stuff for the Mandela funeral. Oh, those were all -10s with nary a -135 in sight? Interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That must be the answer why -135 guys do tons of coronets...because the -10 was totally not designed to be the Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft and it did not have a design requirement to carry people and 50K of shit from point A to b while refueling 6 fighters across the ocean. Man, that -135 is one hell of a long range refueler. You guys sure are beating down the door of AE's and 8010. You know, the missions that are more important than Coronets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You guys sure are beating down the door of AE's and 8010. Pretty sure the -135 was designed with the 8010-style mission at the forefront of Boeing's minds. As the Advanced Tanker/Cargo Aircraft, the -10 was not. We've got approved configurations for the AE mission. TACC not using us for it, ain't our fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergman Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Hey, what about that set of missions flown to FHAW by all those -135s to move all the POTUS stuff for the Mandela funeral. Oh, those were all -10s with nary a -135 in sight? Interesting. Yeah, we were busy backfilling the -10 OEF commitment so you guys could stock up on Kashi and soy milk in the tropics. Standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You guys sure are beating down the door of AE's and 8010. You know, the missions that are more important than Coronets. Being a missileer is important. Would you to do that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Being a missileer is important. Would you to do that? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Hey, what about that set of missions flown to FHAW by all those -135s to move all the POTUS stuff for the Mandela funeral. Oh, those were all -10s with nary a -135 in sight? Interesting. Yeah, they were too busy deployed, doing START, in the middle of another NORI, or sitting ONE alert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homestar Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Gotta love a tanker bro fight 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
169FE Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Gotta love a tanker bro fight I was thinking the same thing. Haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 As a common courtesy, just wanted to let you know that you come off as massively insecure when you post in this thread. As a common courtesy, just wanted to let you know that you come off as massively lacking credibility when you post in any thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right Seat Driver Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Dudes, KIO. This is fvcking stupid. The potential cut in capability is going to felt by everyone, regardless of the airframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
169FE Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Dudes, KIO. This is fvcking stupid. The potential cut in capability is going to felt by everyone, regardless of the airframe. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Comments concerning the KC-10 in the current FY15 NDAA House Appropriations Committee Report. "The Air Force has indicated that should spending limits contained in current law remain in force in fiscal year 2016, it will propose to retire the entire fleet of 59 KC-10 tanker aircraft by fiscal year 2020, saving an estimated $2,300,000,000 over the future years defense program. The Committee believes that eliminating the KC-10 fleet poses a serious risk to the Air Force's ability to carry out one of its stated core missions, that of providing global reach for the armed forces. The KC-10, with its ability to deliver 150,000 pounds of fuel at a range of 4,400 nautical miles using both the boom and drogue methods, is a critical element of providing the air bridge to combatant commanders across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. "The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to be more forthcoming about the operational impact of retiring the KC-10 fleet, a proposal which appears to be driven primarily by the Air Force's stated preference for ''vertical cuts" that eliminate entire fleets and their associated infrastructure to achieve the requisite level of savings under current law and Department of Defense policy. Current acquisition plans for the KC-46 will not provide an adequate replacement for the KC-10, since the Air Force already plans to replace the older fleet of KC-135s with KC-46s on a one-for-one basis. The Committee notes that the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 prohibits the Air Force from taking any action toward divestment of the KC–10 fleet and requires the Commander of the United States Transportation Command to submit an operational risk assessment and mitigation strategy to the congressional defense committees along with any proposal to divest the KC–10 fleet in the fiscal year 2016 budget." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComingLeft Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I remember hearing the joke in 2008 that the KC46 would replace the KC-10, and the 135s would refuel the 10 to the boneyard. A few corrupt people in the acquisitions process are still screwing over the force. I just hope we replace both airframes before we lose confidence in their safety. It appears though "vertical cuts" are the Air Force's sequestration gambit. It is sound enough to be dangerous; we lose the cost, people, and capability all at once. Can't do more with less when the jets are in the boneyard. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Any news or rumint on KC-10 divestment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 The CNS/ATM mod is fully funded for FY15, with several jets completed. One modded jet left OKC today (as scheduled), the next one in line for mod arrived at OKC on Monday. The partial mobilization of the AFRC KC-10 squadrons continues on. When questioned about it, the quote from my SQ/CC this weekend was "There's no end in sight.". I'm expecting my mob notification/orders for my next desert rotation in the next couple weeks. We're still hiring; we just had a pilot hiring board this weekend. I think we'll be around for at least a few more years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 The partial mobilization of the AFRC KC-10 squadrons continues on. When questioned about it, the quote from my SQ/CC this weekend was "There's no end in sight.". I'm expecting my mob notification/orders for my next desert rotation in the next couple weeks. I remember the old guys telling me that the desert rotations would never stop after OEF-A. They were right; it's been going on for literally 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Any news or rumint on KC-10 divestment? Look my recent post in the sequestration thread. They're certainly thinking about it as a buffer for other aircraft/programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 To quote Gen Welsh: "if sequestration returns for FY16, we will have to consider the future of the KC-10." Did the other 24 jets and the rest of the sims get funded for CNS/ATM? I'm out of the loop on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Look my recent post in the sequestration thread. They're certainly thinking about it as a buffer for other aircraft/programs. Captured. Thanks Here's why sequestration in 2016 would be very bad for the Air Force.So let's look at America's last 10 years of signing NDAA's in consideration of the FY start date. This obviously doesn't account for the Continuing Resolutions (CR's), but my point is CR's don't provide the fiscal certainty for planning and projecting. The NDAA is the bedrock upon which we base our acquisitions, personnel levels, development/research funding, and nearly everything else. CR's are only a band-aid. Possible FY16 sequestration level actions that directly impact readiness include: - Divest the KC-10 fleet (cuts 13 percent of available refueling booms and 21 percent of fuel capacity)o Airpower could be late to the fight. Sustaining operations would be difficult, especially in the Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The CNS/ATM mod is fully funded for FY15, with several jets completed. One modded jet left OKC today (as scheduled), the next one in line for mod arrived at OKC on Monday. The partial mobilization of the AFRC KC-10 squadrons continues on. When questioned about it, the quote from my SQ/CC this weekend was "There's no end in sight.". I'm expecting my mob notification/orders for my next desert rotation in the next couple weeks. We're still hiring; we just had a pilot hiring board this weekend. I think we'll be around for at least a few more years... Glad to hear that. To quote Gen Welsh: "if sequestration returns for FY16, we will have to consider the future of the KC-10." Did the other 24 jets and the rest of the sims get funded for CNS/ATM? I'm out of the loop on that. Hope they get it fixed and keep the -10. With the talk of a Pacific Pivot, the -10 would seem ideal for those distances between US / friendly islands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Did the other 24 jets and the rest of the sims get funded for CNS/ATM? I'm out of the loop on that. Haven't heard about that yet either. Hopefully they will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpseat18 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Haven't heard about that yet either. Hopefully they will...Any update on upgrades or on cancellation talk from the squadrons?I know this got vetoed, but if this 2016 NDAA language sticks, it seems promising: SEC. 146. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RETIREMENT OF KC–10 AIRCRAFT.(a) Prohibition.—Except as provided by subsection (b), none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal years 2016 or 2017 for the Air Force may be obligated or expended to retire, or prepare to retire, any KC–10 aircraft.(b) Exception.—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to individual KC–10 aircraft that the Secretary of the Air Force determines, on a case-by-case basis, to be non-operational because of mishaps, other damage, or being uneconomical to repair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now