ThePointblank wrote:

For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.

That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.

Doesn't anyone else notice the incongruity of DoD saying they would not extend the life of KC-135s while they are now requesting bids for a re-engine of the even older B-52s?

At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?

IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.

Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.

When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.

Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.

Revelation wrote:

That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.

What ever they decide to do, the corporations will benefit, one way or another. And what's best for the country is not always unanimous, even in a supposed democracy.

bt

Revelation wrote:

...
At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?

IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.

Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.

When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.

Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.

We are already in the age of drones, long-range hypersonic missiles and the Chinese have just deployed anti-ship conventional ballistic missiles. Not to mention cyber warfare.

This whole concept of in-flight refueling using nostalgic aircraft (KC-135, B52, A10, C-5, F-15, etc., and yes 767) is really only good for large defense contractors and A.net geeks. Applies to aircraft carriers too, but that is not for discussion here.

Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?

Yup, lets spend another $ billion or more to improve the KC-46 refueling video system..it is so worth it !! /s

It’s taken about 20 years to get the KC46 to delivery. Let’s not jump to some conclusion any drone/unmanned tanker can be delivered/accepted to USAF service prior to 2050. We have to replace the KC-10’s basically now, and a bunch of the 135’s. The USAF loves nothing more than it’s pilot’s, too. Cutting off pilots for tankers would make something like 1/3 of the ‘top ranked’ pilots of today mid ranked. It’s not just the evil contractors; the DoD is run by the officers.

QuarkFly wrote:

Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?

Don't confuse losing the war (which is a political edevor) with losing a battle (which is the military endeavor).

Here is an example of tankers helping win a battle. Recall a few years back when ISIS besiege the city of Kobani? Recall all those B-1 and B-52 sorties that were used to repel ISIS with the help of the Kurdish fighters because the Turks refused to help because they hate the Kurds more than ISIS? If we had KC-46 then, they would have contributed to the victory.

Pivoting to China or Russia and their "high tech" weapons do not preclude the need to fight some other low tech war that may pop up in the future. For these low tech war, there will still need to be loitering aircraft and refueling to keep them up.

bt

What’s this, a delivery? I have to give it to the USAF contract writers in this case, they did a good job protecting the US taxpayer.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ears-away/

The DD-250 was signed for A/C 15-46009. The USAF has possession of it, but it hasn't been delivered to McConnell yet. Reports are the first 4 are going to McConnell, followed by 4 to Altus.

10 were delivered to BDS and around that number are in acceptance flights. I recall that McConnell and another base are each getting 4. Could 8 be delivered by the end of Feb?

Anyone know how many of the dozens already parked are basically ready?

The reports that a 20% retention of $28M translates to $140M per frame. Anyway getting 10 delivered is over $1B invoiced, a big help for the program balance sheet.

Driving down East Marginal Way on Friday (just south of the Museum of flight), I saw all the stalls that typically hold P-8A's are filled with KC-46 tankers. First flight to McConnell will probably depend when they can coordinate the receiving ceremony at McConnell.

bt

ThePointblank wrote:

And if Boeing thinks they can recoup some of the costs in future maintenance contracts, I would not count on it.

For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.
.

The problem is from an avionics perspective the KC-46 is a very different aircraft from your standard 767. Also as airlines shed their 767 fleets they are quickly scooped up by cargo carriers.

https://www.ksn.com/news/local/kc-46a-p ... 1704753857

Delivery to McConnell scheduled for the 25th of January.

Revelation wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.

That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.

Doesn't anyone else notice the incongruity of DoD saying they would not extend the life of KC-135s while they are now requesting bids for a re-engine of the even older B-52s?

At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?

IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.

Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.

When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.

Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.

In all fairness (although I hate the idea of an 80+ year old first line warplane) bombers sit around most of the time. Fly maybe once a week if that.

The only reason KC135s don't fly every day is that they are so old they spend 1/3 of the year in maintenance.

There is a real tanker shortage.

With respect to corporate welfare, the Air Force changed the requirements several times. And continue to change the requirements. The boom in particular would have been equally costly for Airbus had they won. No existing boom met the new transfer requirements. I personally don't see where the KC10 and KC135 fail to do the job once the maintenance downtime is factored in. But the existing KC767 and A330MRTT were not adequate in the eyes of the Air Force. This one is on the government.

QuarkFly wrote:

Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?

Air superiority....if you never been on the ground in war zome you will not understand the value of having air support watching your 6.. ready and willing to rain hell from above if you need it. They, however, need fuel to remain aloft. When lives are to the line going back to base or the carrier to refuel is not an option. This is the value of the tanker

jagraham wrote:

Revelation wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

For one, the USAF might just buy every available second hand 767 out there and scrap them for spare parts to keep the KC-46's running. They did the same thing to keep the KC-135's running as well; buy out every available Boeing 707 and use them as parts donors.

That would suggest USAF, DoD and Congress are doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for corporations, and I have strong doubts about that.

Doesn't anyone else notice the incongruity of DoD saying they would not extend the life of KC-135s while they are now requesting bids for a re-engine of the even older B-52s?

At the same time, asking for funds for an all new bomber?

IMHO KC-46 is corporate welfare with origins in the post-2001 Congress wanting to do something to help Boeing deal with the post-911 drop in airliner orders.

Up to that point USAF were projecting KC-135 had enough airframe life to last till after 2045, some reports said 2065.

When USAF saw a windfall was there for the taking they all of a sudden needed new tankers.

Yet B-52 is already slated to be in service for eighty years and with new engines it should be over 100 years.

In all fairness (although I hate the idea of an 80+ year old first line warplane) bombers sit around most of the time. Fly maybe once a week if that.

The only reason KC135s don't fly every day is that they are so old they spend 1/3 of the year in maintenance.

There is a real tanker shortage.

With respect to corporate welfare, the Air Force changed the requirements several times. And continue to change the requirements. The boom in particular would have been equally costly for Airbus had they won. No existing boom met the new transfer requirements. I personally don't see where the KC10 and KC135 fail to do the job once the maintenance downtime is factored in. But the existing KC767 and A330MRTT were not adequate in the eyes of the Air Force. This one is on the government.

There are many issues at play that can help explain why the B-52 can have its life extended (and make no mistake, the re-engine effort is not as simple as just slapping a new engine on them). You have to consider all of the factors at play. What originally sized the aircraft, how they are maintained, what are their missions. I see a KC-135 in the air just about every single day. Training. Doing touch and gos. But they keep them low enough that they don't add pressure cycles (important for fatigue on the fuselage). Consider the performance of the KC-135 vs the KC-46. Among many other factors. It's incredibly egotistical for any one of us sitting in our desk chairs to say we can do a better job than the folks that handle these acquisitions at assessing the cost of staying with the KC135 fleet or introducing the KC46s. And don't forget. These KC135s aren't going anywhere, they'll eventually find their way into the hands of the national guard units etc.

You want to talk about corporate welfare, talk about JSTARs, the USAF doesn't even want them, and have said so in public hearings. Yet congress insists.

INFINITI329 wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

Right now, the Taliban finally chased us out of Afghanistan, also leaving Syria to Iran and Russia. How much did these hundreds of billions $$ of tactical aircraft with air-refueling help "win"?

Air superiority....if you never been on the ground in war zome you will not understand the value of having air support watching your 6.. ready and willing to rain hell from above if you need it. They, however, need fuel to remain aloft. When lives are to the line going back to base or the carrier to refuel is not an option. This is the value of the tanker

Not to mention refueling of support aircraft like the C-5 so they can take off with more payload than normal.

LMP737 wrote:

The problem is from an avionics perspective the KC-46 is a very different aircraft from your standard 767. Also as airlines shed their 767 fleets they are quickly scooped up by cargo carriers.

The other problem is if you can get your hands on the odd 200+ used 767 frames, they will be of dozens of different configurations (structures and others) as they would have been built at different time for different customer. Preparing retrofit kits and keeping track the paperwork of these different configurations would be a nightmare. Heck, you'll end up paying Boeing a heck of a lot more upfront money to prepare the various kits than having them do just one design for the base 767-2C.

bt

trpmb6 wrote:

You want to talk about corporate welfare, talk about JSTARs, the USAF doesn't even want them, and have said so in public hearings. Yet congress insists.

The USAF originally wanted it. Then they changed their mind and want to put money in some net-centric system, drones/satellite based system which they think is less vulnerable. Congress just want the USAF to think carefully and not go down a rabbit hole and find out some years later that their net-centric system is not workable, and they have no alternative in place.

Imagine, the USAF spend $$$ in a net base system (the same "corporate welfare", just with another company) and find out it is just a vulnerable and doesn't work. Then they are left without the capability and have to rely on the USN and their fleet of P-8A's with AAS capabilities

bt

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The Guard and Reserves already have plenty of KC-135s and will be equipped with KC-46s soon, probably by EOY 2019 or H12020 at Pease. C-5Ms don’t normally AAR to maximize cargo loads, heck, the As and Bs rarely did it and the C-17s less so with the center wing tanks.

GF

I'll definitely defer to you on the refueling of C5s It was more of a "that's another potential mission" type of statement.

Was not aware that the guard and reserves would be getting KC-46s.