Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:55 pm

Per http://finance.yahoo.com/news/congre...ing-kill-boeing-air-191027381.html
Congress could throw a wrench in the KC-46 procurement by mandating retention of the KC-10s (worst case scenario) or just delay the the next buy increment.. But like much Congressional meddling, it may just be hot air and posturing.
 
karadion
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:06 pm

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:23 pm

Huh? The KC-X contract is supposed to replace older KC-135's with KC-Y and KC-Z down the road to replace remaining KC-135's and the KC-10 fleet. So it sounds like a bunch of crap at this point.

After all, that's what the RFP says.
http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10463
 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:42 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 1):
So it sounds like a bunch of crap at this point.

That's our elected Congress.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:29 am

The RFP to replace the KC10 hasn't even been issued yet.
Why would replacing the KC10's have anything to do with replacing the KC135's?
Deeper Still? What would they replace the KC10's With??
Now if Airbus want's to compete? This is the contract to compete with the KC45 though I think the B777-200ER is a far better bet.
Solely because the KC45 will be built out of the country.
Were it built in Alabama? They'd have a better than even shot.
Or Lockheed-Martin could assemble them In Georgia, and they KNOW the Pentagon Procurement protocols.
In any case? They'll NEED a USA based lead partner, Grumman, Lockheed, somebody!
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:57 am

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
it may just be hot air and posturing.
Quoting Karadion (Reply 1):
So it sounds like a bunch of crap at this point.
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 3):
What would they replace the KC10's With??

Guys, time to relax and step back. The plan to retire the KC-10 are a potential fallout from sequestration. That the USAF has been considering this has been public knowledge for at least the last year or so.

AF-Weighs-Scrapping-KC-10-10-Fleets" target="_blank">http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...F-Weighs-Scrapping-KC-10-10-Fleets

“You only gain major savings if you cut an entire fleet,” Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, told sister publication Air Force Times last week. “You can cut aircraft from a fleet, but you save a lot more money if you cut all the infrastructure that supports the fleet.”

As with the plans for the A-10, the USAF see significant gains by retiring whole fleets of aircraft. In this case the KC-10 would make sense given it is the smaller fleet compared to the KC-135.
 
okie73
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:26 pm

Given that the 767 is between the size of a KC-10 and a -135, why would the USAF need to replace the KC-10 with any thing other than more KC-46's? FEDEX is replacing their MD-10s with the 767. I think the KC-46 is positioned perfectly to replace both the -135 and -10.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:03 pm

Quoting okie73 (Reply 5):
Given that the 767 is between the size of a KC-10 and a -135, why would the USAF need to replace the KC-10 with any thing other than more KC-46's? FEDEX is replacing their MD-10s with the 767. I think the KC-46 is positioned perfectly to replace both the -135 and -10.

  
I think that's exactly what will happen, and it makes perfect sense. At some point, retire the 50+ KC-10s and buy another 50+ KC-46s. Problem solved.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
UA444
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:03 pm

The KC-10s are relatively young and low time/cycle aircraft. It's far more prudent to replace the older KC-135s and keep the 10s flying indefinitely.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:13 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 7):
The KC-10s are relatively young and low time/cycle aircraft. It's far more prudent to replace the older KC-135s and keep the 10s flying indefinitely.

The argument to remove the KC-10 is not and has never been about airframe viability. It is and always has been about sequestration. Removing an entire type from service is the best way to make savings.
 
UA444
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:34 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 8):
The argument to remove the KC-10 is not and has never been about airframe viability. It is and always has been about sequestration. Removing an entire type from service is the best way to make savings

Yes, but the airframe viability makes the argument due to the sequestration that much more idiotic. Although, maybe with a new congress the sequestration will end. Okay, maybe that's insanely optimistic, this is Congress we are talking about.

But I sure hope cooler heads prevail. Would be a huge shame to see these beauties scrapped while geriatric 135s soldier on.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:52 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 9):
but the airframe viability makes the argument due to the sequestration that much more idiotic.

Not really. When you try and save money you choose the low hanging fruit. In aircraft terms that is the types with the smallest numbers in service. While the KC-10 is a great aircraft, its job can be done by others. That is the reason the USAF is not threatening to cut the B-2 even though there are only 20 costly aircraft. The job the B-2 performs cannot be done by other aircraft.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8905
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:54 pm

Don't see how you can replace the KC10 with the -46, as good as that aircraft is it doesn't come close to the fueling and cargo moving capability of the KC10.


Apples and oranges..
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:54 pm

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
But like much Congressional meddling, it may just be hot air and posturing.

What, Congress? Naahhhhhhhhhh . . . . . .

Quoting okie73 (Reply 5):
why would the USAF need to replace the KC-10 with any thing other than more KC-46's? FEDEX is replacing their MD-10s with the 767.

True, but FX is getting the -300's, not the -200's. Liiiittle bit of a difference there.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
Apples and oranges..

But we're still talking' about fruit.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
okie73
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:59 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):

You don't have to replace the KC-10 capability on a one for one basis. When a KC-46 replaces a KC-135 you are gaining a lot of capability to move fuel and cargo. While the KC-46 may not be as capable as a KC-10, the cost to introduce and maintain another type far outweighs any benefit you get from a larger aircraft. Given the tight budget for new aircraft, do you really think the USAF is going to allocate money to a large tanker?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Congress Wants KC-10 Retirement Review

Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:53 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
it doesn't come close to the fueling and cargo moving capability of the KC10.

The KC-10's fuel burn is much higher, making it no where near as good for long duration missions regardless of what it takes off with.

That said, still good to have the KC-10 for missions that don't involve hauling lots of fuel for lots of hours.

Perhaps in replacing it, we should look at 748F based frames in lower numbers. Best at rebasing across the oceans, and best at taking bombers to full load. Don't need many for that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos