Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Bases For KC-46?  
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4106 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9903 times:

Sorry if this has been listed elsewhere; I searched and couldn't find anything.

Will any New England bases (specifically Pease (NH) or Bangor (Maine)) see this new plane based there?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9892 times:

Pease ANGB was one of the 11 listed bases in the compitition to determine the MilCon costs, Bangor ANGB was not. It is not certain that any of those 11 bases will get the KC-46A.

My guess is the NHANG at PSM will convert to the KC-46A, with an active duty Air Refueling Squadron brought in to make it an associate wing.

The MEANG at BGR will be an all ANG Refueling Wing with the KC-135R, perhaps getting the former NHANG KC-135Rs. Again, that is a guess.

The New England states and the NE US in general have always been the most logical and ideal place for tankers. Years ago the NE US and New England had 1 Tanker Task Force (at PSM, moved to PBG after Pease closed), 2 ANG tanker Squadrons (PSM and BGR), 2 active duty squadrons at PSM (until 1976, then 1 after that), 2 active duty aquadrons at LIZ, 2 active duty squadrons at PBG, and 1 active duty squadron at RME. This made up a fleet of 65 KC-135A, 16 KC-135E, and 15 KC-135Q, for a total of 96 tankers, about 15% of the entire KC-135 fleet at the time.

This does not count the 8 KC-135Es of the PAANG at PIT, or 16 KC-135Es of the USAFR (Ohio) and OHANG, nor the 2 active duty squadrons of 24 KC-135As 6 EC-135Gs or 3 EC-135Cs at GUS, .


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4106 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9882 times:

Thank you so much! The quality and depth of your response here and elsewhere is impressive, and I appreciate it.

I also figure that New England makes sense for tankers, and have wondered why not KC-10s? I do not know the relative fuel capacity of that type relative to the KC-135s that Pease and Bangor have. Obviously the cargo-carrying capacity is greater, to the extent that this space is used for that purpose. I always wondered whether the KC-10 was a freighter pretending to be a refueling tanker or a refueling tanker pretending to be a freighter.

In any event, it's good to see the nearest base to me--Pease--standing a chance to get the KC-46 some years down the road.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9863 times:

The total fuel capacity of the KC-135 (all models) is 202,000 lbs, the KC-10A carries 356,000 lbs.

The reason for not having the KC-10s in the NE is their cargo carrying capacity is better suited to be on or near MAC bases as well as good weather bases. Originally SAC had the KC-10As stationed at BAD and RIV. After SAC and MAC were disestablished in 1992, and BRAC played a bigger role in aircraft assignments the KC-10s were moved to SUU and WRI, which are both AMC bases. The NHANG, MEANG, PAANG, and NJANG are all AMC units now.

I am not counting the NYANG and their HC-130P as they are assigned to the AFSOC/USSOCOM.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9815 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
My guess is the NHANG at PSM will convert to the KC-46A, with an active duty Air Refueling Squadron brought in to make it an associate wing.

An active duty enclave on a civilian airport is not going to happen. Hickam is the exception because of the small size of the Hawaiian islands. The only places I see Reserve/Guard/Active duty associate refueling wings are:

Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst
McConnell
Fairchild
Seymour Johnson
Hickam
MacDill

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 2):
I also figure that New England makes sense for tankers, and have wondered why not KC-10s?

The only active duty Department of Defense airfield in the Northeast part of the US, save Fort Drum, is Joint Base Mcguire/Dix/Lakehurst in New Jersey. That's where the KC-10s are with the 305th and 514th, and that's where the KC-46s will go. Most likely forming associate squadrons between the NJ ANG 108th ARW and either the 514th (Reserve) or the 305th (Active duty).

I really think the 108th and 305th will join up, moving the 108th from their side of the airfield at McGuire to the 305th side to jointly fly the KC-46. One of the reasons why is that the 108th has shrunk and will be sharing their ramp with the Navy now that Willow Grove has closed.

Prior to the 2005 BRAC the New Jersey Air National Guard 108th ARW flew 16 KC-135Es and 2 C-32s, they have their own ramp and buildings on the Fort Dix side of the airfield. After BRAC the 108th now has 8 KC-135Rs and 2 C-32s, the excess ramp space on the 108th ramp is for the Navy's VR-52 (C-9s) and VR-64 (C-130s) who just moved to McGuire AFB from WIllow Grove. Right now the Navy is using the 514th's ramp and hangars while their new hangars are being completed on the 108th ramp.

I think the Navy may take over the entire 108th side of the airfield and expand their presence, and the 108th would move to the 305th side and become and associate.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9769 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
My guess is the NHANG at PSM will convert to the KC-46A, with an active duty Air Refueling Squadron brought in to make it an associate wing.


An active duty enclave on a civilian airport is not going to happen. Hickam is the exception because of the small size of the Hawaiian islands.

But there are active duty units on ANGBs, which Pease is. The military side is called Pease ANGB, they 'own' some 60% of the ramp.

I just don't see the NJANG getting the KC-46A, replacing their KC-135Rs. WRI already has, or will be getting C-17A, KC-135R, KC-10A, C-9B/C, C-32B, and C-130F/T. The USNR C-9s will eventually be replaced with the C-40A.

Throw in the transit C-17s, C-5s and whatever and McGuire has a very busy ramp.

Putting the tankers these aircraft need to go to Europe and beyond in places like PSM or BGR makes sense, as they will be positioned ahead of the receivers.

So, I do see up to 24 KC-46As (more likely 16) sent to PSM and associte wings formed, the NHANG 157th AREFW and a USAF AREFW. PSM has the space to park the aircraft, WRI does not, without more MilCon ramp building. At PSM, only the refueling pits need to be moved, as the ramp space is already there.

WRI (1995);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McGuire_AFB_-_16_April_1995.jpg

PSM (1998);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pease_AFB_NH_-_29_Apr_1998.jpg

Apparently, the USAF has already moved an active duty air refueling squadron to Pease ANGB. It looks like the 64th Air Refueling Squadron, part of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing (stationed at IAB), stood up at Pease in October 2009 with KC-135Rs as an Associate Wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_Air_Refueling_Squadron


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4106 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9767 times:

This, from one of the linked pieces above:

The 64th Air Refueling Squadron was activated at Pease Air National Guard Base, NH on 2 October 2009 as part of the 22d Air Refueling Wing. It is part of the Total Force Initiative and will work side by side with the 157th Air Refueling Wing, New Hampshire Air National Guard. This will be the first time that an active duty U.S. Air Force unit has returned to Pease since the active Air Force closed the base in 1991.

So does this mean that there are TWO batches of KC-135s at Pease...one for the NHANG and another for the 64th? 'Side-by-side', to me, implies two fleets kept separate from one another. Is this true?

[Edited 2011-04-10 12:42:29]

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7135 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9694 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Pease ANGB was one of the 11 listed bases in the compitition to determine the MilCon costs, Bangor ANGB was not. It is not certain that any of those 11 bases will get the KC-46A.

Will be real interesting to see the actual bases that do finally get the a/c, I assume if there are significant differences it will be due to budget constraints.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9653 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 6):
So does this mean that there are TWO batches of KC-135s at Pease...one for the NHANG and another for the 64th? 'Side-by-side', to me, implies two fleets kept separate from one another. Is this true?

The aircraft will be shared, and show each unit. They may be 'owned' by one side or the other, but all aircraft will be shared and maintaned by active duty and ANG people.

Quoting par13del (Reply 7):
Will be real interesting to see the actual bases that do finally get the a/c, I assume if there are significant differences it will be due to budget constraints.

The USAF knows which bases make the most military sense to base the aircraft. However politicians will want their say. You can bet Norm Dicks and Patty Murray will want some KC-46s based at SKA. The 92nd Air Refueling Wing and the WAANG is based there. Also the 509th Weapons Squadron (formerly the 509th Air Refueling Squadron at PSM and RME) is based there. All 3 units currently fly the KC-135R. If the KC-46 is based there, my guess is the 509th WS will fly both the KC-46A and KC-135R.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/509th_Weapons_Squadron

When it was my squadron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/509th_Weapons_Squadron

Another unit that will (most likely) is LTS, 97th Air Mobility Wing get the KC-46. It is the AETC unit that trains all AMC C-17 and AMC/ACC KC-135 crews


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9634 times:

KC;

Originally during the 1993 BRAC McGuire AFB was slated for closure, all of the aircraft and units at McGuire were to go to Plattsburgh AFB in New York. From a strategic geographic location Plattsburgh made a lot of sense, however NJ's Congressional delegation made two arguments that the BRAC committee agreed with;

First McGuire AFB is connected by a underground pipeline to refineries in Camden NJ, McGuire gets jet fuel pumped directly to the base from the refinery. No trucking, no barges, nothing. This is a key asset for a base who's main mission is aerial refueling. Plattsburgh received their jet fuel by barges over the Hudson, from New Jersey, which were affected by the river freezing.

Second McGuire AFB is in a prime location to recruit reservists, and Guardsmen. It's halfway between NYC and Philadelphia, a perfect location for developing robust populations of reservists/Guardsmen. Plattsburgh was so far up NY State that airlines today use the airfield to attract Canadians going to Florida.

Those two key points got McGuire off the BRAC closure list and instead had Plattsburgh, which was not even on the BRAC list, closed.

Now two those two points with Pease ANG;

How does Pease receive it's jet fuel, and second what is the recruiting potential for Reservists/Guardsman in that region?..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
I just don't see the NJANG getting the KC-46A, replacing their KC-135Rs. WRI already has, or will be getting C-17A, KC-135R, KC-10A, C-9B/C, C-32B, and C-130F/T. The USNR C-9s will eventually be replaced with the C-40A.

Throw in the transit C-17s, C-5s and whatever and McGuire has a very busy ramp.

That's the point of the mega base, to incorporate as much joint missions as possible. They still have plenty of excess ramp space. Even with the Navy, Marine Corps and Army aircraft moving over from Willow Grove there's less aircraft based at McGuire today than there were ten years ago.

Ten years ago there were 32 C-141s, 32 KC-10s, 20 KC-135Es based at McGuire. Now there are;

16 C-17s, 32 KC-10s, 8 KC-135Rs, 2 C-32s, 4 C-9s, 3 C-130Ts, 5 C-12s, 6 CH-53Es, 6 AH-1/UH-1s.

So it's about the same size in terms of aircraft, however now all the services are represented.

They have plenty of land now that Fort Dix, McGuire and Lakehurst are one base. They are all connected to each other. There is tons of land on Fort Dix adjacent to the McGuire Airfield to expand upon, the Marines just built a new ramp on Fort Dix which connects with the McGuire runways for their AH-1s, UH-1s and CH-53s. The Air Force demolished over 2,000 1960s era Army housing and replaced them with brand new homes for all families from all the services at the joint base. They have facilities from Commissary, PX/BX, Class Six, Gas stations, family readiness centers, day care, schools, medical clinics etc.. None of which are at Pease ANG.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9630 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
WRI (1995);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McGuire_AFB_-_16_April_1995.jpg

PSM (1998);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pease_AFB_NH_-_29_Apr_1998.jpg

That McGuire photo shows the base before the 108th moved to the Fort Dix side of the base, you can see the beginning of construction in the left hand corner. Another point besides the fuel pipeline to point out is McGuire's two runways, Pease obviously has one. That's not good when it comes time to repave, right now McGuire's main runway is closed for total repaving. However thanks to the second runway operations have not skipped a beat.

Here's summary of some of the BRAC projects at Joint Base MDL;

http://www.samephiladelphiapost.org/...B%20McGuire%20Brief%20Sep%2008.pdf



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9500 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 10):
STT757

That's why I dated each picture.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
First McGuire AFB is connected by a underground pipeline to refineries in Camden NJ, McGuire gets jet fuel pumped directly to the base from the refinery. No trucking, no barges, nothing. This is a key asset for a base who's main mission is aerial refueling. Plattsburgh received their jet fuel by barges over the Hudson, from New Jersey, which were affected by the river freezing.

Second McGuire AFB is in a prime location to recruit reservists, and Guardsmen. It's halfway between NYC and Philadelphia, a perfect location for developing robust populations of reservists/Guardsmen. Plattsburgh was so far up NY State that airlines today use the airfield to attract Canadians going to Florida.

Those two key points got McGuire off the BRAC closure list and instead had Plattsburgh, which was not even on the BRAC list, closed.

First, the NJ delegation flat out lied to the BRAC people about how PBG gets its fuel supply. In the warmer months most of the fuel does come from barges up the Hudson River and then Lake Champlain. It is piped from around St. Aldens to both PBG and BTV. Both also receive jet fuel (year round) from Canada and the St. Lawrence River/Seaway, which also supplies YUL, YYZ, BTV, and PBG.

Don't forget, PBG had 2 Air Refueling Squadrons, and gained more assets after PSM closed (they also got the Pease Tanker Task Force). Getting reliable jet fuel to PBG was never a problem. PBG also has the capability to store 12 months worth of fuel.

Recuriting is a 'non-issue'. It ebbs and flows constantly at different areas around the country. WRI procimity to NYC and Philly have nothing to do with it. At one point in the early 2000s, Iowa led the nation in recruiting numbers. New England has always had high recruit numbers, too.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
How does Pease receive it's jet fuel, and second what is the recruiting potential for Reservists/Guardsman in that region?..

PSM has an ice free seaport that is open year round. Fuel is pumped from tankers that dock in Newington, NH. PSM also has a large fuel storage capability, and is now supporting 2 Air Refueling Squadrons.

The ice free Port of Portsmouth also has the historic Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) which is the USN's east coast SSN and SSBN major overhaul, refueling, and refit ship yard. The main channel allows for large ships with drafts as deep as 30' at low tide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Naval_Shipyard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piscataqua_River

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bay_(New_Hampshire)


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9482 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
That's the point of the mega base, to incorporate as much joint missions as possible. They still have plenty of excess ramp space. Even with the Navy, Marine Corps and Army aircraft moving over from Willow Grove there's less aircraft based at McGuire today than there were ten years ago.

STT you seem to be drinking some of the Joint Base Kool Aid. What is the purpose of incorporating as many joint missions as possible? Does it make us better warfighters or offer us a better training environment? Not at McGuire. What benefit do we get by flying KC-10s at the same base as AH-1s? None. I agree with the concept of a mega base but I prefer McConnell (40+ KC-135s) or Charleston (50+ C-17s) to McGuire, which will have 8-12 very different types of aircraft competing for the same ramp space. The economies of scale don't work too well either when each aircraft is represented by only 4-8 aircraft, such as the Navy C-130s and C-9s at McGuire.

The Northeast might seem to be an ideal geographic location for oceanic crossings, but that's only a small fraction of the refuelings that are taking place, and it doesn't make much sense to throw brand new aircraft at guard locations (Pease, Bangor) that won't fly them as much as the active duty especially when the active duty is so busy flying overseas. The AF has already decided that the new locations will be MacDill, Grand Forks, McConnell, and Spokane (it was in AF times two weeks ago). While I would prefer to see Grand Forks left off of that list since it no longer has tankers those seem to be appropriate locations to me since all of them (except RDR) have more than one tanker squadron currently.

Congress will get their say and eventually get KC-46s assigned to locations and units where they'll be under utilized.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9450 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
An active duty enclave on a civilian airport is not going to happen. Hickam is the exception because of the small size of the Hawaiian islands. The only places I see Reserve/Guard/Active duty associate refueling wings are:

Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst
McConnell
Fairchild
Seymour Johnson
Hickam
MacDill

Also: Birmingham, Pease, March, Scott. Closing Grand Forks in the 2005 BRAC (4 active duty squadrons) definitely hurt the active duty's tanker force, they've tried to make that capability up with the blended active/associate units since its practically impossible to close a guard unit.


User currently offlineUPS757Pilot From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8978 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 13):
STT you seem to be drinking some of the Joint Base Kool Aid. What is the purpose of incorporating as many joint missions as possible? Does it make us better warfighters or offer us a better training environment? Not at McGuire. What benefit do we get by flying KC-10s at the same base as AH-1s? None. I agree with the concept of a mega base but I prefer McConnell (40+ KC-135s) or Charleston (50+ C-17s) to McGuire, which will have 8-12 very different types of aircraft competing for the same ramp space. The economies of scale don't work too well either when each aircraft is represented by only 4-8 aircraft, such as the Navy C-130s and C-9s at McGuire.

The Northeast might seem to be an ideal geographic location for oceanic crossings, but that's only a small fraction of the refuelings that are taking place, and it doesn't make much sense to throw brand new aircraft at guard locations (Pease, Bangor) that won't fly them as much as the active duty especially when the active duty is so busy flying overseas. The AF has already decided that the new locations will be MacDill, Grand Forks, McConnell, and Spokane (it was in AF times two weeks ago). While I would prefer to see Grand Forks left off of that list since it no longer has tankers those seem to be appropriate locations to me since all of them (except RDR) have more than one tanker squadron currently.

Congress will get their say and eventually get KC-46s assigned to locations and units where they'll be under utilized.

I think they'll end up at McGuire as well. You're forgetting that the main driver of this will be economics, and I bet we will see more base closings. Defense budgets are shrinking rapidly, and why keep a base open if it only supports one mission (McConnell/Grand Forks etc). The name of the day if jointness...and McGuire leads the way like it or not


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8870 times:

KWRI still has plenty of excess capacity from the good old days of the C-141s, KC-10s and KC-135Es, even with the addition of the Navy VR squadrons, the Marines CH-53s and AH/UH1s, and the Army C-12/C-35s the total number of aircraft based at KWRI is actually down from the late '90s.

I would love to see the Marine KC-130s from SWF brought to the Joint Base to co-locate with MAG 49 and the other Squadrons, and or a P-8 Reserve Patrol squadron. The new Navy hangars they are building can easily accommodate the P-8.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8778 times:

The problem with JRBs is you are putting all your 'eggs' on one base. It seems the politicians like to make almost every military bases with an airfield a joint base. But they don't seem to combine US Naval bases with the USCG, and close some Coast Guard Stations. They don't seem to combine Army Forts with Marine Camps.

Let the Air Force and Navy have some wings on independent bases. Those are often the strongest units, as they don't have to share a runway schedule, or airfield schedule when one unit needs to train generating aircraft, has an ORI, or higher headquarters tasking they cannot share with other flying units on the base.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 12):
The AF has already decided that the new locations will be MacDill, Grand Forks, McConnell, and Spokane (it was in AF times two weeks ago). While I would prefer to see Grand Forks left off of that list since it no longer has tankers those seem to be appropriate locations to me since all of them (except RDR) have more than one tanker squadron currently.

I agree with you on not basing the KC-46 at RDR, that just makes no military sense at all.

So place those KC-46s the USAF is thinking about for RDR and put them at PSM. Then you have your tankers at SKA, PSM, and IAB (which should become the school house for the KC-46A). Maybe at RIV and DOV, too.

That places the KC-46As at 2 west coast bases, 2 east coast bases, and one central US base.

I would leave MCF as a KC-135R base.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 8732 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Maybe at RIV and DOV, too.

I don't think Dover will ever get tankers.

Since KWRI has KC-10s, I doubt they'd get KC-46s as well; mainly because they are replacing the 135s with them, not the KC-10. I think the NJ ANG will just keep the KC-135Rs. They may get replacements down the road; but not with this first batch of KC-46s.

I also think KLTS will be the KC-46 school house. I just have my doubts that AMC is going to set up an AETC associate wing at McConnell.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8636 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
That places the KC-46As at 2 west coast bases, 2 east coast bases, and one central US base.

For the West Coast the first bases that should get the KC-46 are Eielson Air Force Base (AK ANG) and Hickam (HA ANG).



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8558 times:

Neither EIL, nor HNL are west coast bases. They are both considered as overseas bases as they are not in the CONUS. Both EIL and HNL are part of PACAF.

User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8356 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Neither EIL, nor HNL are west coast bases. They are both considered as overseas bases as they are not in the CONUS. Both EIL and HNL are part of PACAF.

Agreed...however, I hate to rag on your codes there, but HNL isn't a PACAF base, PHIK is Hickam (which shares runways with PHNL...but the civil side and military side have their own codes), and PAEI is the IACO for Eielson (although EIL has been used as the IATA code).


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8178 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 20):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Neither EIL, nor HNL are west coast bases. They are both considered as overseas bases as they are not in the CONUS. Both EIL and HNL are part of PACAF.

Agreed...however, I hate to rag on your codes there, but HNL isn't a PACAF base, PHIK is Hickam (which shares runways with PHNL...but the civil side and military side have their own codes), and PAEI is the IACO for Eielson (although EIL has been used as the IATA code).

Thanks.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8054 times:

HNL, West Coast, we know what you meant. No need to get bogged down in semantics.

I guess we're talking about where we wish they would get based vs where they probably will get based.

My wishes would be to fill current active duty KC-135 bases that have more than one squadron, namely McConnell, MacDill, and Fairchild. 2-3 squadrons each plus an extra squadron at McConnell for the KC-46 school house. Add 2 squadrons to Mildenhall but make it an AMC detachement not owned by USAFE so that they can actually deploy in numbers instead of acting as a European flying club. Why so few to the reserve and guard? We've been at war for 10 years now and the ANG and AFRC tankers have MOSTLY sat it out doing TTF, Noble Eagle, and Incirlik rotations, so, give the new planes to the folks who will fly them most. I may get flamed on that last comment but with few exceptions it is true.

How will they probably be based? Initial batches will go to MacDill, Fairchild, and McConnell, the schoolhouse will stay at Altus, and Grand Forks will probably get a squadron. After that, the ANG squadrons will start getting them in order of congressional clout.

Quoting UPS757Pilot (Reply 14):
I think they'll end up at McGuire as well. You're forgetting that the main driver of this will be economics, and I bet we will see more base closings. Defense budgets are shrinking rapidly, and why keep a base open if it only supports one mission (McConnell/Grand Forks etc).

I hope that there will be more base closings, but unlike the last BRAC, I hope the base closings make sense. And I disagree with you on the one mission base question: Litlle Rock AFB only trains and flies USAF C-130 aircrews, but there are close to 100 C-130s there. That is a very effective and efficient base performing just one mission, a BRAC decision that actually made sense. Other single mission bases, like Luke, Charleston, and McConnell are also very effective.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):
I would love to see the Marine KC-130s from SWF brought to the Joint Base to co-locate with MAG 49 and the other Squadrons, and or a P-8 Reserve Patrol squadron. The new Navy hangars they are building can easily accommodate the P-8.

Why? Do you just want to look at lots of different aircraft at the same time? What good is it to have a 2-4 aircraft C-130 squadron? Or a 2-4 aircraft P-8 squadron?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 18):
For the West Coast the first bases that should get the KC-46 are Eielson Air Force Base (AK ANG) and Hickam (HA ANG).

Again, why? Why send brand new aircraft to PACAF ANG units that rarely fly operationally and rarely deploy? For the past 20+ years the overwhelming bulk of AMC flying has been focused on Europe and the Middle East and that trend will continue for the next decade at least. So lets at least base the aircraft closer to the fight geographically. (And we can shift to a China or N Korea threat quite quickly for a short term war, but the Middle East already IS a war and it will be long term)

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 17):
I also think KLTS will be the KC-46 school house. I just have my doubts that AMC is going to set up an AETC associate wing at McConnell.

I agree, but the C-17 and KC-135 crews can always dream of the day when Altus closes. I've been dreaming of that day for 15 years now. How the heck did the C-5s pull off that move to Texas?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Which Bases For KC-46?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
French Union Understands "Buy US" Attitude For KC-X posted Wed Jul 14 2010 18:37:56 by KC135TopBoom
Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X posted Fri Jul 2 2010 08:02:38 by joecanuck
Il-96 To Be Offered For KC-X posted Fri Mar 19 2010 18:43:25 by Shmertspionem
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
Usaf Pushing For KC-777 And KC-737 Mix - AW&ST posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:37:23 by Boeing Nut
Airbus Plant In The U.S. For KC-135 Repacement. posted Sat Sep 24 2005 02:24:14 by 747400sp
Possible Usaf Order For KC-130Js. posted Tue Jan 18 2005 01:04:34 by CX747
777LRF Launched - Opens Door For KC-777? posted Wed Nov 17 2004 14:32:04 by Boeing nut
Embraer Selects IAE V2500 For KC-390 posted Sat Aug 6 2011 14:11:08 by SpruceMoose
KC-46 Might Be More Advanced? posted Sat May 28 2011 03:44:10 by OyKIE
What Ever Happen To The A-330 Desitined For KC-X? posted Tue Mar 8 2011 10:32:25 by USAF336TFS
French Union Understands "Buy US" Attitude For KC-X posted Wed Jul 14 2010 18:37:56 by KC135TopBoom
French Union Understands "Buy US" Attitude For KC-X posted Wed Jul 14 2010 18:37:56 by KC135TopBoom
Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X posted Fri Jul 2 2010 08:02:38 by joecanuck
Antonov/US Aerospace To Bid For KC-X posted Fri Jul 2 2010 08:02:38 by joecanuck
Il-96 To Be Offered For KC-X posted Fri Mar 19 2010 18:43:25 by Shmertspionem
Il-96 To Be Offered For KC-X posted Fri Mar 19 2010 18:43:25 by Shmertspionem
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format