Quote: Omega Air plans to offer refueling services to the Air Force with a fleet of 60 older DC-10s, a company spokesman said. The proposal would offer undisclosed savings to the Air Force compared with the Boeing and Airbus submissions because Omega Air would retain control of the aircraft and the pilots, the spokesman said.
But Omega Air's plan does not immediately address the Air Force's needs to replace some 500 KC-135 tankers that are on average 45 years old, more than three times older than the nation's commercial fleet. The company's spokesman acknowledges that the proposal is a stopgap measure to quickly upgrade Air Force tankers while new planes are being built over the next 20 years.
"We would view this as an interim service," the spokesman said. "It's our understanding it would take quite a few years to have new planes replace their entire fleet."
Very interesting. However, I would view the offer to retain "control of the aircraft and the pilots" as a "thanks, but no thanks" proposition. Why not put the tankers under the control of the UN?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5470 times:
If one is willing to spend the money and time, it is possible to restore to almost "like new" condition. The USAF Maintenance Depots are superb at doing this. It is an expensive proposition, though, and would most likely be very expensive.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11346 posts, RR: 89 Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5432 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1): Also many are parked/worn out out or with dodgy operators.
to be fair they bought 20 from a Japanese operator with excellent service records and practices. they say that they can secure 20 to 40 more from similar sources.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5397 times:
Interesting that another company named Omega is in the tanker business...Omega Aerial Refueling Services operates a 707 used for Navy tanker ops. The idea of outside contracting tanking isn't a totally bad idea, the civilians tend to keep the equipment in very good repair as well (most of their pilots an Mx people are ex mil). It's worked so far, but not sure about such a grand scale as they're proposing here.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 45 Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5391 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 4): Interesting that another company named Omega is in the tanker business...Omega Aerial Refueling Services operates a 707 used for Navy tanker ops. The idea of outside contracting tanking isn't a totally bad idea, the civilians tend to keep the equipment in very good repair as well (most of their pilots an Mx people are ex mil). It's worked so far, but not sure about such a grand scale as they're proposing here.
I think it is the same company, or that Omega is also bidding. I saw an article on the FlightGlobal website about this.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5372 times:
Hmm, that's interesting. I had, at first, thought it was the same Omega, but I saw this one was owned by a company in Ireland, so I wasn't sure if it traced it's roots to the one I know based in VA.
The compant CEO of Omega Aerial Refueling is an old CO of my dad's (hence why I get rides in their 707), I'll ask him what's up....if so, their company could be doing very well soon. Last time I checked, they were about to add a 2nd 707 to the fleet.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2462 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5355 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 3): to be fair they bought 20 from a Japanese operator with excellent service records and practices. they say that they can secure 20 to 40 more from similar sources.
Doubtful. These 20 are DC-10-40s. Only a handful of other 40s even exist anymore. What's more they have poor commonality with KC-10s. If they had started with DC-10-30s there would have been less of an issue.
JarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5311 times:
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 7): What's more they have poor commonality with KC-10s.
If I'm reading it right, the aircraft in question would be civilian-registered, owned, and flown. Therefore, the only commonality with the KC-10 that would be necessary is the boom itself (and that's questionable), the A/R lighting, and crew training.
Galaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5311 times:
I doubt the AF will go for this deal. They want new tankers, and now. They are holding off retirements of the E-models until they get a deal going for a replacement, not a short term solution.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5297 times:
Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 8): If I'm reading it right, the aircraft in question would be civilian-registered, owned, and flown. Therefore, the only commonality with the KC-10 that would be necessary is the boom itself (and that's questionable), the A/R lighting, and crew training.
I had to read the article twice myself and that is indeed what it appears to be saying! Imagine that these aircraft are registered to a company in a country that has a government that does not support the U.S. on a certain foreign policy issue and blocks the use of these aircraft as a way of registering their displeasure. It is NOT going to happen. That's why I jocularly referred to the UN in a previous post....
[Edited 2006-06-14 17:20:27]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5245 times:
Awesome ftrguy...who was your crew? There's not a whole lot of pilots, so chances are I've flown with one or two of em. Did you fly out of NTU or elsewhere? Was their CEO onboard perhaps (guy by the name of Sanders)
Nice bird indeed- hope they gave you some stick time, they're usually pretty good about it, especially on the long long hops when they're bored.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2462 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5235 times:
Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 8): the only commonality with the KC-10 that would be necessary is the boom itself (and that's questionable), the A/R lighting, and crew training.
the -40 also has different payload/range than the -30. It'd always have to be used as a seperate subfleet, rather than being able to directly substitute for a KC-10.
Ftrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5236 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12): Awesome ftrguy...who was your crew? There's not a whole lot of pilots, so chances are I've flown with one or two of em. Did you fly out of NTU or elsewhere? Was their CEO onboard perhaps (guy by the name of Sanders)
Nice bird indeed- hope they gave you some stick time, they're usually pretty good about it, especially on the long long hops when they're bored.
DeltaGuy
DeltaGuy-
I flew with them twice over a couple days. I flew with a total of 5 different crew. The one guy who was there for both flight was brand new (it was his first trip). I don't remember the other guys names, but they all, with one exception, came from the TACAMO community.
I did get in the left seat, but I didn't actually fly. It was my squadron mates who were tanking, so I didn't want them to have to deal with me at the controls for the first time in a 707. They thanked me for that later.
The interior was a little worn and dirty, but what can you expect from a 38 year old bird who hauls around gas.
I found this picture of N707AR in her Pan Am days. Good thing I found it after my flights.
I also took a video of the takeoff and posted it to Flightlevel350.com. Just put 707-100 (i know N707AR is not a -100) in the search criteria and it will show up.
I saw the picture in your profile where you are in the left seat of 707AR. I recognized it pretty quick.
JarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5169 times:
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 13): the -40 also has different payload/range than the -30. It'd always have to be used as a seperate subfleet, rather than being able to directly substitute for a KC-10.
OK...
The current KC-135 and the KC-10 have different payload/range numbers, too. What are you getting at?
I personally don't see this being a huge fleet of tankers for Omega, operating world-wide. Maybe a handful for work around CONUS supporting USAF training missions, but I don't see Omega (K)DC-10's doing fighter drags across either pond, or working in the sandbox region.
Just my 2 cents...
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2462 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5133 times:
Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 15): The current KC-135 and the KC-10 have different payload/range numbers, too. What are you getting at?
So instead a better solution is two different KC-135 capabilities, two different DC-10 capabilities, and add in the winner of the 767/330 competition. Might as well throw in some KC-25s and KC-32s while at it.
Irish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 862 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5095 times:
The Omega proposal is for an interim solution ("stopgap measure"). The principals of the company are Irish and, in the 1980s, were involved in sourcing many of the JT-3D-engined Boeing 707s which were retired to Davis-Monthan/AMARC to provide engines and other parts for the KC-135E programme. Clearly the company would have to be able to source the required DC-10s and as the number of -40s available is insufficient, these would have to be either a mix of -30s and 40s, or series 30s only. They sourced a lot of 707s, some from unlikely sources, so there is a good prospect of doing the same here, if the right price is on offer.
If this option offered a sufficient time advantage over ordering and getting into service new-build tankers, maybe it has a chance. However I agree with others that a key question is whether these aircraft would be available for the full spectrum of tanker ops or just the more routine training and maybe deployment operations outside potential combat zones.
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4890 posts, RR: 58 Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5076 times:
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 4): Omega Aerial Refueling Services operates a 707 used for Navy tanker ops
Is this not the same company? I know of the 707's used for the tanking, but I assumed that if someone was offering up DC-10's that it would probably be the same company.
Regardless, it is interesting to watch the 707's come in and out of SAT sometimes.
I fail to see the point you are making about the 707s. They may have been for parts, but they were all fliers when they arrived at DM and would undoubtedly have had longer service lives, had the economic climate been more favourable. Many (e.g. American, Pan Am & TWA) were "one-owner" aircraft and had given good service but were far from time-expired.
On the second point, well, you need 60 aircraft! Looking at the photo database on this site, quite a number of DC-10s have been either broken up for parts or are in storage in flyable condition. One must assume that the makers of the proposal would have had to be confident of sourcing the airframes required and having sufficient spares supplies before they put it forward. Otherwise they would just end up looking silly, which I assure you they are not.
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4890 posts, RR: 58 Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5069 times:
Quoting Irish251 (Reply 21): quite a number of DC-10s have been either broken up for parts or are in storage in flyable condition.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10587 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 4992 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 23): The list below is every DC10 still in existence, (KC10's and RNLAF KDC10's excluded)
Out of that list, many of the DC-10s are DC-10-10s, -30s, a few -15s and about 22-40s (by my count). Several others are now MD-10s.
I doubt the USAF would seriously consider this proposal, because of the limited number of DC-10-30/-40 available. Now if Omni Air were to propose a fleet of 40-45 B-747-200/F/CF converted to tankers, it MIGHT have a better chance of being accepted by the USAF and Congress. There are more used B-747-200s available now. Some are worn out, but many still have years of life left in them, though they may need major overhauls.
25 Bennett123: As you say, I did cast the net wide. IMO most of these aircraft have issues or one sort or another.
27 Saintsman: Omega will very shortly have its first twin podded DC-10-40 modified and hopefully will show it at RIAT Fairford and Farnborough next month. The peopl
29 Bennett123: Saintsman Which 60 aircraft do you suggest. IMO this would only be a runner if all/most of the FEDEX fleet is included.
30 JarheadK5: Well, considering that Omega is currently tanking USN aircraft around CONUS during OIF, and Omega is the company proposing to tank USAF aircraft arou
31 Lumberton: IMO, there is a very large difference between the Omega role now and the greatly expanded role it would play if USAF were to outsource a significant
32 AirRyan: Tell me again why Boeing couldn't make new KC-11's? I'm sure just like was the case with DICKcheney they completely destroyed all of the tooling as so
33 Saintsman: BAESystems is a British registered company who provide an awful lot of arms to the US through companies they own in the US. So why can't Omega do the
34 Lumberton: There are legal work-arounds, like registering the company in the U.S., etc. But any proposal is likely to be demagogued to death and will never brin
35 Saintsman: No there is no link, I was just using BAES as an example. However the same logic applies. You can't say that Omega won't be threatened by their own c
36 Lumberton: Agreed. However if the DC-10 is a contender, then USAF needs to consider re-enginining the KC-135Es with JT8Ds and remanufacturing the airframe! (We
37 Galaxy5007: I highly doubt that the AF will buy a KC-787, since the first 787 hasn't been built yet, hasn't flown yet, hasn't completed any sort of flight testin
38 AirRyan: Ironically enough, but isn't that exactly what the USAF didn't do back when they placed the order for KC-135's? They were using "trustworthy" KB-29's
39 Galaxy5007: That was the past. This is now. They need tankers now. Not 2012. They want new ones flowing in by 2008. They had time before, they are out of time thi
40 JarheadK5: Agreed. However, 60 Omega aircraft, even at a 1-for-1 exchange with USAF KC-135's, is only about 10% of the -135 fleet (I don't know exact -135 fleet
41 AirRyan: How does the saying go? "Lack of foresight on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part." For such a pivotal part of the USAF (B-2's, C-5'
42 Bennett123: I have since been told that N189AX was scrapped after it's crash in 2004.
43 MigFan: Hell No! What is the reasoning behind it? To save a few bucks? The USAF should purchase a new tanker, if they expect to get the longevity out of them
44 DL021: unfortunately it does.....Congress has been as lax as the AF here.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5755 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2462 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 862 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
