Thread: Tanker pt2
View Single Post
  #6  
Old April 16th 06, 02:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tanker pt2

The proper action would have been to charge and try the
officers in the USAF and at Boeing who rigged the contract.
But the tanker lease deal wasn't a bad deal except for the
price fixing. The price could have been fixed without
canceling the whole contract.

A few years ago a tornado hit Wichita and other local
cities. The path of the storm was across the south part of
McConnell AFB. Had it gone a mile further north, it would
have destroyed half of all the B1 bombers, which were parked
in the open.

Base closings and consolidation may save money, but they
also mean that a flood or tornado can destroy a major part
of our equipment. In the days of big fleets of thousands of
fighters and bombers and large numbers of support aircraft,
the loss of a dozen airplanes was not as serious a problem
as it is today. If you only have 100 airplanes of a type
and 10 are destroyed by a single storm [or terrorist attack]
and the production line has closed, they can't be replaced.

I'm all in favor of saving taxpayer money, but first the
defense must have depth. We should never have all of our
planes, ships, troops at one consolidated base even if it is
more efficient, a civilian peace-time idea from an
accountant. The generals and privates might voice support
but just because their choice is consolidate or nothing.

Current military use of tankers is not just to increase
range, but to increase payload and availability. Fighters
and bombers take-off with reduced fuel and increased weapons
or cargo loads, and refuel soon after take-off. This
increases payload and reduces wear and tear on those
airplanes. But we need enough tankers to do the job. I
don't think that the KC 135R will be replaced totally,
because even though a new tanker might carry more fuel,
there is a limit as to how many airplanes can be refuel at
one time from one tanker. But the new, big tankers can
carry more off-load fuel because the new engines burn less.
That was also a factor with the KC 135R, new engines burned
less fuel.

Jim
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
| The KC 135 fleet was rebuilt and re-engined in the 1980
as
| the KC 135R with new fanjet engines. But they are all
old
| airplanes. But they were all made in the USA. I wonder
if
| Congress {John McCain] will consider the need to have
all
| the repair parts under US control, the way the French
are,
| they night just decide to shut the USA off from spares.
|
| Agreed. If the Air Force even considers buying a foreign
aircraft,
| we've clearly got the wrong leadership at the top.
|
| Although it can't hurt to make Boeing THINK we might buy
Airbus, just
| to keep the price honest... ;-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|