aging tankers to be replaced

In article , s.p.i.
writes
If Boeing were smart they would get out of this bean-counter drivien
box they are in and show some real innovation by feilding a next
generation large military aircraft design much as they did with the
Dash 80 a half century ago. Indeed the seeds of such an aircraft
already exist in the abortive Sonic Cruiser and 7E7.

Some people believe the driving force behind the 767 deal is that it
allows Boeing to keep the 767 line running for those few operators who
might one them. If so, it sounds like a good deal for Boeing, and one
that may not drive them to looking at other options.

--
John

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
(Longtailedlizard) wrote in message
...
Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings,
and is
"the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.

Sure its been a money maker for the airlines, but the 767 is no
warplane. New operational concepts are taking these big airframes
OVER the battlefield now. This is a significant fundamental change
from the way such aircraft have operated for the last 50 years and one
that is being ignored.

Are you suggeting a C-17?


I've been a 767 heavy check mechanic since 92, I pushed over 200 767's
through, heavy "C" check, and last year was the first time we had ever
pulled
off a engine pylon. (Boeing calls them engine struts)

Then you know the 767 is not built to withstand even minor battle
damage. Its folly to assume they could operate as they have in OEF and
OIF in an opposed battlespace....and if they won't be able to it may
mean the difference between winning and losing. The last few conflicts
have built up a bad case of hubris and false security that will
eventually bite somebody in the ass-Hard.

Tankers gernerally avoid being in harms way. The idea is to tank in airspace
you control. The only exception I can think of where it "might" have to
would be to rescue a damaged plane losing fuel and even in that case it
might be better to lose the damaged aircraft and pilot rather than risk the
tanker.


Its a well used and abused airplane, and will make the airlines money
for
years to come.Its big enough to haul money making cargo in its belly,
and pax
on top, on long trips, yet small enough not to need all the "attention"
that a
4 engined 747, or the temparametal 777 with its 12ft dia. fan engines

In a battle situation the redundancies of a 4 engine aircraft-along
with the increased redundancies of other systems-are an obvious
advantage.
And its been my experience that the 777-200 isn't any more
"temperamental" than the 767-200 or -400 while beating the 76 in
payload and range dramatically... of course the 777 isn't an aircraft
I'd want to go into Harm's Way in either.

If Boeing were smart they would get out of this bean-counter drivien
box they are in and show some real innovation by feilding a next
generation large military aircraft design much as they did with the
Dash 80 a half century ago. Indeed the seeds of such an aircraft
already exist in the abortive Sonic Cruiser and 7E7.





The Air Force will just be replacing one workhorse with another.


J

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:52:32 -0700, David Lednicer
wrote:

What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same vintage
and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle the
Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020. As
Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at the
expense of the American taxpayers.

Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
the end of theirs.

Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
that has been out of production for decades. Fortunately, the Boeing
engineers designed such a rugged and capable bird that it is still
capable of performing its heavy/nuclear bombing mission fifty years
after it first entered service, and despite all the changes in either
mission or warload over that period. Part of the reason for this
"over-engineering" was the willingness of the only buyer -- the U.S.
Air Force -- to pay almost any price to get exactly what it needed and
wanted on an exclusive basis.

OTOH, the R&D costs have long since been amortized and the aircraft
itself has changed very little (other than continuing improvements in
electronic systems) in decades, so producing replacement parts for the
B-52 is probably considerably less expensive today than it was when
the aircraft was still in production. It's also the only way to keep
the B-52s in service of course, short of rebuilding the assembly lines
and producing new aircraft. (When it comes to projecting a U.S.
military presence, the B-52 is not just any old aircraft; it is
uniquely American, distinctive in appearance, and to many people
synonymous with U.S. nuclear and conventional bombing capability.)

The KC-135 is essentially just one version of the aircraft most of the
world knows as the Boeing 707, and was designed with mass production
in mind. The original aircraft design was influenced to some degree
by the necessity of making it competitive price-wise with similar
designs from other companies. Neither jetliners nor military aerial
tankers are usually exposed to the sort of strains placed on heavy
bombers; nor are they intended to continue in service anywhere near as
long as the B-52 has flown, since expected improvements in technology
essentially guarantee their eventual obsolescence and retirement from
regular service. (I hate to use the term "planned obsolescence", but
in one sense that is what we're talking about.) The civilian Boeing
707, once the most common jetliner on international, transcontinental
and transoceanic routes, has long since been retired by almost all the
world's airlines -- which actually made it economically feasible for
the Air Force to keep the KC-135 flying a few years longer, since
plenty of retired aircraft with still-usable parts were available
(cheap!) for cannibalization. After more than 20 years of this
practice, however, the best parts-donor aircraft have already been
taken and prices for the remaining 707s are going up.

Add to this an increased mission for the aerial tanker force. Used to
be, only a relative few military aircraft were equipped for in-flight
refueling. These days, practically everything that goes into a war
zone has either a boom receptacle or a probe -- and, as we saw in both
Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, that can mean a lot of thirsty birds
in search of someplace to get a drink. Today's larger tankers are not
only equipped with both boom and probe-and-drogue, but in some cases
are actually able to refuel more aircraft before returning to base
with dry tanks; that means more fill-ups from a single tanker and thus
fewer tankers required in or near hostile airspace.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

"Leadfoot" wrote in message news:oTN_a.10724$2g.8029@fed1read05...
"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
(Longtailedlizard) wrote in message
...
Also, I'd like to add, the 767 has alot of airtime under the wings,
and is
"the whore of the north atlantic". (mechanics lingo)
She'll take everyone, anywhere and do anything.

Sure its been a money maker for the airlines, but the 767 is no
warplane. New operational concepts are taking these big airframes
OVER the battlefield now. This is a significant fundamental change
from the way such aircraft have operated for the last 50 years and one
that is being ignored.

Are you suggeting a C-17?
What I am suggesting is that in future conflicts new methods of
deployment of aircraft that used to stay on the periphery of the
battlespace means they are now smack in the middle of it. This is
especially true of the ISR platforms (E-8s, P-3s, Rc-12s, etc.), but
also true of the tankers which ventured within 50nm of bagdad in the
early phases of OIF. Specific to the tankers, the "Smart Tanker"
concept will only bring them that much more into the fight...and a
much more enticing target for an adversary. These missions belong in
an airframe that can take the punishment-or avoid some of the
punishment- of the fight and not in a civil airframe that even minor
damage will disable and is a sitting duck.
Just because the Japanese and Italians have bout 767s for some of
these roles doesn't make them viable warfighting aircraft.

,various snippages

Tankers gernerally avoid being in harms way. The idea is to tank in airspace
you control. The only exception I can think of where it "might" have to
would be to rescue a damaged plane losing fuel and even in that case it
might be better to lose the damaged aircraft and pilot rather than risk the
tanker.

Thats not so any more. As related above it was widely reported that
tanker aircraft operated in contested battlespace. The Commanding
General flew one mission to boost morale according to the reports.

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message ...

Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
that has been out of production for decades.

What's the biggest part that's been replaced? Have they replaced main
spars on the wing (and can that be done without a total wing rebuild)?

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:52:32 -0700, David Lednicer
wrote:

What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same
vintage
and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767 debacle
the
Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020.
As
Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at
the
expense of the American taxpayers.

Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
the end of theirs.

Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
that has been out of production for decades. Fortunately, the Boeing
engineers designed such a rugged and capable bird that it is still
capable of performing its heavy/nuclear bombing mission fifty years
after it first entered service, and despite all the changes in either
mission or warload over that period. Part of the reason for this
"over-engineering" was the willingness of the only buyer -- the U.S.
Air Force -- to pay almost any price to get exactly what it needed and
wanted on an exclusive basis.

OTOH, the R&D costs have long since been amortized and the aircraft
itself has changed very little (other than continuing improvements in
electronic systems) in decades, so producing replacement parts for the
B-52 is probably considerably less expensive today than it was when
the aircraft was still in production. It's also the only way to keep
the B-52s in service of course, short of rebuilding the assembly lines
and producing new aircraft. (When it comes to projecting a U.S.
military presence, the B-52 is not just any old aircraft; it is
uniquely American, distinctive in appearance, and to many people
synonymous with U.S. nuclear and conventional bombing capability.)

The KC-135 is essentially just one version of the aircraft most of the
world knows as the Boeing 707, and was designed with mass production
in mind.

And you were doing so well. The KC-135 precedes the 707. You will note that
some parts interchange but the Airframe and most panels won't. It's
slightly smaller. After the 135 was produced, they widened it, extended the
wings a bit for Passenger service. They are NOT the same Aircraft.


The original aircraft design was influenced to some degree
by the necessity of making it competitive price-wise with similar
designs from other companies. Neither jetliners nor military aerial
tankers are usually exposed to the sort of strains placed on heavy
bombers;

You are falling apart. The KC-135 can outclimb anything in it's weight
class. And carries about 3 times it's own weight in Fuel load. The strain
that the AC goes through is much higher than it's civilian counterpart.
Therefore, the fatique is much higher as well. I don't know of too many
Civilian Liners that can cruise (including climbout) at 500 knots like the
KC-125C can. They call it an E-6 these days but even a fighter can't run it
down if you give it a head start. These are NOT civilian AC in any way,
shape or form and the original KC-135A now the KC-135R got almost everything
new except for the Air Frame. When the Air Frame goes, the AC is sent to DM
to rot in the Desert. Some of those Airframes are 50 years old. Even the
B-52 isn't that old.

nor are they intended to continue in service anywhere near as
long as the B-52 has flown, since expected improvements in technology
essentially guarantee their eventual obsolescence and retirement from
regular service. (I hate to use the term "planned obsolescence", but
in one sense that is what we're talking about.)

You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the Buff.
And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they are.



The civilian Boeing
707, once the most common jetliner on international, transcontinental
and transoceanic routes, has long since been retired by almost all the
world's airlines -- which actually made it economically feasible for
the Air Force to keep the KC-135 flying a few years longer, since
plenty of retired aircraft with still-usable parts were available
(cheap!) for cannibalization.

Outside of only a few parts, almost nothing is interchangeable from the 707.
The KC-135 has been so severely modified that it's not even the same AC
except for the Airframe and maybe the Horizontal Stab.


After more than 20 years of this
practice, however, the best parts-donor aircraft have already been
taken and prices for the remaining 707s are going up.

The KC-135 is a different AC entirely these days. Why would anyone want to
cabal something from a tired old AC that is already in Mothballs.



Add to this an increased mission for the aerial tanker force. Used to
be, only a relative few military aircraft were equipped for in-flight
refueling. These days, practically everything that goes into a war
zone has either a boom receptacle or a probe -- and, as we saw in both
Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, that can mean a lot of thirsty birds
in search of someplace to get a drink. Today's larger tankers are not
only equipped with both boom and probe-and-drogue, but in some cases
are actually able to refuel more aircraft before returning to base
with dry tanks; that means more fill-ups from a single tanker and thus
fewer tankers required in or near hostile airspace.

Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many as
they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to the AF
Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3 and
the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's better to
lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only cost a
few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.

Got a newsflash for you. For almost every Buff, there is a KC-135 assigned
to it. The mission profile is for the Buff to take off using quite a bit of
fuel. Meet up with a KC-135, gas up and head accross the Ice Cap. Without
that lone tanker, the Buff is a one way ride. They may be anyway but at
least the KC-135 gives them a chance.

If a Buff is low on gas, the KC-135 gives them all it has less about 5000
lbs. That is enough gas to break away. After that, the KC-135 is deadmeat.
It's going down. The Crew cannot eject due to the communciations antenni
along it's belly. It will shred anyone attempting to jump out the Crew Door
and jumping out of anywhere else is just plain suicide. The Boom may get
out by breaking out the rear glass but he will be the lone survivor. Unlike
the Buff, the crew has to jump and the chances of survival is slim to none.
Staying with a Tanker with fumes in the tanks with the motors off survival
is none to none.

The KC-135, due to the Air Frame, can't last forever and it IS older than
the Buff you keep comparing it to. There aren't too many 195X series Buffs
still flying but there are a ton of 1954 to 1957 KC-135s still in the air.

"Leadfoot" wrote in message news:x3__a.351

I would really avoid using the latest war in Iraq as an example at how
combat will be fought in the future. The Iraqi military had as much chance
as a one legged man in an asskicking contest.

They ventured within 50NM of Baghdad because they could with impunity, not
because the mission was important enough to risk the aircraft.

What has occured is an increased role for large ISR aircraft-with
large crews of folks with rare and sensitive talents and knowledge- to
be OVER the battlefiled and a body of operational doctrine is
integrating that. In future conflicts this persistent ISR presence is
going to be sorely missed if someone says it can't be provided.
I've mentioned it before. The OP-2E story should give some folks some
pause. It was deemed so necessary to deliver the sensors (the
persistent ISR principle at work) over The Trail that an 80 percent
loss rate was acceptable. Our military can no longer afford to fight
that way today or in the future. We simply do not have the resources
to fight a "War Of Plenty" anymore.
Tankers too are taking on an increased warfighting role with the
advent of the "Smart Tanker" concept. There will be a need for them to
be near or in contested battlespace as well.
As far as the sorties near Baghdad, the SAM threat was still real when
they occured.
Its folly to assume that these civil airframes are not going to be
shot at and they are simply not built for it.

"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...

"Walter Luffman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:52:32 -0700, David Lednicer
wrote:

What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for
their
entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same
vintage
and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767
debacle
the
Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020.
As
Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing at
the
expense of the American taxpayers.

Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old
as
the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
the end of theirs.

Any aircraft can be maintained in serviceable condition indefinitely
if one is willing to pay the costs. With the B-52 fleet, virtually
every part on every bird has been replaced more than once; that gets
very expensive when parts are specific to a particular aircraft type
that has been out of production for decades. Fortunately, the Boeing
engineers designed such a rugged and capable bird that it is still
capable of performing its heavy/nuclear bombing mission fifty years
after it first entered service, and despite all the changes in either
mission or warload over that period. Part of the reason for this
"over-engineering" was the willingness of the only buyer -- the U.S.
Air Force -- to pay almost any price to get exactly what it needed and
wanted on an exclusive basis.

OTOH, the R&D costs have long since been amortized and the aircraft
itself has changed very little (other than continuing improvements in
electronic systems) in decades, so producing replacement parts for the
B-52 is probably considerably less expensive today than it was when
the aircraft was still in production. It's also the only way to keep
the B-52s in service of course, short of rebuilding the assembly lines
and producing new aircraft. (When it comes to projecting a U.S.
military presence, the B-52 is not just any old aircraft; it is
uniquely American, distinctive in appearance, and to many people
synonymous with U.S. nuclear and conventional bombing capability.)

The KC-135 is essentially just one version of the aircraft most of the
world knows as the Boeing 707, and was designed with mass production
in mind.

And you were doing so well. The KC-135 precedes the 707. You will note
that
some parts interchange but the Airframe and most panels won't. It's
slightly smaller. After the 135 was produced, they widened it, extended
the
wings a bit for Passenger service. They are NOT the same Aircraft.


The original aircraft design was influenced to some degree
by the necessity of making it competitive price-wise with similar
designs from other companies. Neither jetliners nor military aerial
tankers are usually exposed to the sort of strains placed on heavy
bombers;

You are falling apart. The KC-135 can outclimb anything in it's weight
class. And carries about 3 times it's own weight in Fuel load. The
strain
that the AC goes through is much higher than it's civilian counterpart.
Therefore, the fatique is much higher as well. I don't know of too many
Civilian Liners that can cruise (including climbout) at 500 knots like the
KC-125C can. They call it an E-6 these days but even a fighter can't run
it
down if you give it a head start. These are NOT civilian AC in any way,
shape or form and the original KC-135A now the KC-135R got almost
everything
new except for the Air Frame. When the Air Frame goes, the AC is sent to
DM
to rot in the Desert. Some of those Airframes are 50 years old. Even the
B-52 isn't that old.

nor are they intended to continue in service anywhere near as
long as the B-52 has flown, since expected improvements in technology
essentially guarantee their eventual obsolescence and retirement from
regular service. (I hate to use the term "planned obsolescence", but
in one sense that is what we're talking about.)

You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the
Buff.
And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they
are.



The civilian Boeing
707, once the most common jetliner on international, transcontinental
and transoceanic routes, has long since been retired by almost all the
world's airlines -- which actually made it economically feasible for
the Air Force to keep the KC-135 flying a few years longer, since
plenty of retired aircraft with still-usable parts were available
(cheap!) for cannibalization.

Outside of only a few parts, almost nothing is interchangeable from the
707.
The KC-135 has been so severely modified that it's not even the same AC
except for the Airframe and maybe the Horizontal Stab.


After more than 20 years of this
practice, however, the best parts-donor aircraft have already been
taken and prices for the remaining 707s are going up.

The KC-135 is a different AC entirely these days. Why would anyone want
to
cabal something from a tired old AC that is already in Mothballs.



Add to this an increased mission for the aerial tanker force. Used to
be, only a relative few military aircraft were equipped for in-flight
refueling. These days, practically everything that goes into a war
zone has either a boom receptacle or a probe -- and, as we saw in both
Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, that can mean a lot of thirsty birds
in search of someplace to get a drink. Today's larger tankers are not
only equipped with both boom and probe-and-drogue, but in some cases
are actually able to refuel more aircraft before returning to base
with dry tanks; that means more fill-ups from a single tanker and thus
fewer tankers required in or near hostile airspace.

Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many
as
they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to the
AF
Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3 and
the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's better
to
lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only cost
a
few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.

Got a newsflash for you. For almost every Buff, there is a KC-135
assigned
to it. The mission profile is for the Buff to take off using quite a bit
of
fuel. Meet up with a KC-135, gas up and head accross the Ice Cap.
Without
that lone tanker, the Buff is a one way ride. They may be anyway but at
least the KC-135 gives them a chance.

If a Buff is low on gas, the KC-135 gives them all it has less about 5000
lbs. That is enough gas to break away. After that, the KC-135 is
deadmeat.
It's going down. The Crew cannot eject due to the communciations antenni
along it's belly. It will shred anyone attempting to jump out the Crew
Door
and jumping out of anywhere else is just plain suicide. The Boom may get
out by breaking out the rear glass but he will be the lone survivor.
Unlike
the Buff, the crew has to jump and the chances of survival is slim to
none.
Staying with a Tanker with fumes in the tanks with the motors off survival
is none to none.

The KC-135, due to the Air Frame, can't last forever and it IS older than
the Buff you keep comparing it to. There aren't too many 195X series
Buffs
still flying but there are a ton of 1954 to 1957 KC-135s still in the air.

Hi all! A few points here (in no particular order).

1) Major portions of the KC-135 were replaced during the R model upgrade,
but it should not be believed that the aircraft got *everything* new.
Holdovers from the A model included most of its avionics (including the
radar), all of its fuel, pneumatic, and electrical systems, all of its air
refueling gear, all of its flight controls, and of course the airframe
itself. There's probably more details, but that's what I can remember right
off. Even with all this, the R is quite superior to the earlier versions,
but it doesn't qualify as a new airplane.

2) The biggest problem facing the -135 fleet is not fatigue from flight,
but rather corrosion from exposure to the elements while sitting all those
years on alert on the ground. -135's are not routinely hangared.
Weathering and corrosion from years of exposure to rain and snow have taken
their toll.

3) It is true that compared to airliners, or even other aircraft in the
USAF fleet (save for the BUF perhaps) the -135s have relatively few hours on
them. When I quit flying in '97 the average tanker in our little group had
about 14k hours on it. I think our oldest (a '57) had passed 15k. For a
plane of that age, that's not too bad. However, as I just said above,
fatigue isn't the major problem the aircraft faces.

4) Not all -135A's were taken for the R model upgrade. Oldest plane I ever
noticed was our '57. Newest in our group was a '62. Almost all the E
models I noticed are older than this. There was talk of an E to R
conversion, but it was determined that corrosion (and some other issues)
kept such a mod from being cost effective. My sources here are my own
observations, plus what I heard from the "rumor mill," so there may be
significant variances from what I've said here.

5) I'd hate for you to tell the KC-10 guys that because they're reserve,
they don't get to the war zones. I don't know too much about the "Gucci
boys" (as we called them), but I do know that they seemed to always be part
of the tanker task forces put together for various operations. Yeah, they
can't hold a candle to the number of sorties generated by -135's, but then
again, there are far fewer of them.

6) I know of no policy or attitude that says one type of aircraft (and its
crew) is more expendable than another type. I also know that every
reasonable effort will be expended to try to rescue an aircraft in trouble.
We wouldn't do something that would be obvious suicide, but the best effort
would be made.

7) Tankers and AWACS aircraft don't venture into contested airspace unless
complete air superiority has been established (in my limited experience).
Tankers have no ECM gear or countermeasures of any sort. Our first
indication of a SAM fired at us would be the loud bang when it hit. We may
hear some traffic on the radios if someone else detects the launch, but if
we were the target, such info would be pretty useless. A tanker's defenses
consist of its speed (don't laugh, given enough of a lead it takes lots of
time to run one down in a tail chase), and its reliance on its "little
friends" to chase the bad guys away.

8) I won't comment on the specifics of any projected operations plans
(mainly because I don't know of any first hand anymore), except to say that
the days of the tankers giving all their fuel to bombers and then ditching
are long past.

9) Primary bailout exit for the -135 is the crew chute (forward crew door).
There is a spoiler that would extend from the forward end of the hatch which
(allegedly) would allow the jumping crewmember to clear the aircraft. As
long as the gear is up and the boom is stowed, the path is clear. There are
no antennas in the way (at least not on the R model). I wouldn't want to
try it, but that is the primary way out. One can also bail out the aft
emergency hatch (right side, rear end), but this would also pretty much
suck. I've heard "war stories"/urban legends of people who've bailed out
of -135s, but I've never heard such stories "straight from the horse's
mouth." Smashing out the boom sighting window is not an option for bailout.
The window is a multi pane pressure window (16 panes thick if I remember
right) that is about 1.5 inches thick, so it would take more time to hack
through it than you'd probably have. The window opening itself is also
pretty small. I doubt I could fit through it with a chute on my back.

As for the proposed 767 tanker, I'm in favor of it, but I'd do it
differently than what is being planned. Mainly, I'd ditch all that overly
expensive camera system crap and just put a sighting window in the back.
Ideally, I'd use the configuration similar to the KC-10, but the old style
boom pod would work just as well. Cameras can fail. Windows aren't so apt
to. As for the airframe, I'm of the opinion that it would serve quite well
as a tanker. Fuel efficient (compared to the -135) and larger. The ability
to take combat damage isn't really an issue as the current tankers can't
absorb missile hits any better (which is the biggest threat against
tankers). Leasing the aircraft is a joke. The USAF should buy them
outright. We will get our money's worth from them in their lifespan. But
keep them simple and cheap as possible. That way we will be able to buy
larger numbers, and they will be more reliable.

The "smart tanker" idea is interesting, but I would opine that giving your
AWACS/JSTARS and other "specialty" planes a secondary tanker capability
would be preferable to outfitting all tankers to handle these roles. You
just don't need that many "specialty" airplanes, and you always need lots of
tankers.

That's my $.02.

Dan K.
former KC-135R Boomer
Nebraska ANG

You are falling apart... They call it an E-6 these days

The E-6 is based on the 707, not the -135.

Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many
as
they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to the
AF
Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3 and
the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's better
to
lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only cost
a
few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.

The KC-10 was a bargain at (about) $60 million apiece. Cheap compared to the
767 which won't come close to the Ten's offload capability.
Fighter drags are the Ten's first mission but we do much more theater
refueling and even cargo hauling.
No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire & Travis) have
an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units "own"
the airplanes.
KC-130s generally operate in higher threat areas due to the nature of the
mission, not financial reasons. Howwever, plenty of KC-135s & KC-10s go in
harm's way when the mission calls for it.

Curt
KC-10 flight engineer

Where do you get this ****? Some offhand comment by a fighter pilot? What AF
doctrine even discusses this? We exchanged posts on this subject several
months ago. The idea that any large aircraft can routinely "absorb battle
damage" and still remain mission capable is ludicrous. Any aircraft of the
sort receiveing battle damage is going to RTB immediately. What you are
suggesting, some sort of armored battle-tanker, would be hugely expensive
and there would be little return on investment, because that capability
would be almost never be used. The more crap a tanker has to carry means
that much less fuel for offload. It would be much cheaper and more effective
to protect the tankers with fighters, SEAD, or EW aircraft than equip each
tanker to defend itself to the extent you propose. You've been watching too
much 12 O'clock High.

Curt

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"Leadfoot" wrote in message news:x3__a.351

I would really avoid using the latest war in Iraq as an example at how
combat will be fought in the future. The Iraqi military had as much
chance
as a one legged man in an asskicking contest.

They ventured within 50NM of Baghdad because they could with impunity,
not
because the mission was important enough to risk the aircraft.

What has occured is an increased role for large ISR aircraft-with
large crews of folks with rare and sensitive talents and knowledge- to
be OVER the battlefiled and a body of operational doctrine is
integrating that. In future conflicts this persistent ISR presence is
going to be sorely missed if someone says it can't be provided.
I've mentioned it before. The OP-2E story should give some folks some
pause. It was deemed so necessary to deliver the sensors (the
persistent ISR principle at work) over The Trail that an 80 percent
loss rate was acceptable. Our military can no longer afford to fight
that way today or in the future. We simply do not have the resources
to fight a "War Of Plenty" anymore.
Tankers too are taking on an increased warfighting role with the
advent of the "Smart Tanker" concept. There will be a need for them to
be near or in contested battlespace as well.
As far as the sorties near Baghdad, the SAM threat was still real when
they occured.
Its folly to assume that these civil airframes are not going to be
shot at and they are simply not built for it.