aging tankers to be replaced

"C Knowles" wrote in message y.com...
What link?

I got the quote from he

http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html

It is silly to think tankers won't eventually be shot at as they take
on more warfighting roles and assuming they won't will ensure its
occurence. Related; do you really think the JSTARS and its follow on
variants can reasonably be operated outside areas ot taking fire?

The 767 is built for rapid turnaround operations at airports and
economic cruise characteristics. It's built as light as possible, and
because components and systems have been engineered for ease of
access, they are vulnerable to external damage. Those who are familiar
with the brick ****house engineering and sporty performance of the
C-135 need to understand the 76 isn't your Granddaddy's Boeing.
It doesn't posess the inherent survivablity factors of speed, low RCS,
or agility of TACAIR and its not overbuilt like the C-135 is.
Without some hardening of the airframe and systems the chances of
going RTB after taking damage is pretty low with that airplane.

If there is official debate about this, its likely(rightfully)
happening in closed circles given the existence of this link
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/1999aircraft/neigh.pdf

But there is alot of open source on the subject and from this link you
can see surviviability been a red-headed step child discipline for
some time:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/ACFTVULN.HTM

Here are a couple of more links:
http://www.aircraft-survivability.co...Textbooks.html
http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac/
http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/oacurric/....%20Thesis.htm
http://www.blazetech.com/Products___...uelshield.html

Well, you obviously have a very different read on this than I do. You have
made a huge leap from Gen Jumper's comments to the idea of tankers and other
HVAA fighting it out with SAMs and AAA over a hot area, conducting AR while
taking hits. I have no idea who you are or what your qualifications are. You
may remember who I am. I'm one of the guys orbiting in that tanker near the
bad guys. Seriously, not trying to flame you here but you just don't seem to
be that knowledgeable on these aircraft or air refueling in general.

Tanker, or any other HVAA, employment is determined by the threat vs. the
mission requirement to get in close to the battle. ORM, really. And in spite
of what you think, tankers have been going into harm's way since the Korean
War and none have been shot down. That's where the smart tanker concept came
from. The biggest threat to this type of aircraft is probably taking a
manpad on takeoff or landing. The technology to counter this threat is
relatively cheap and available, yet few tankers anywhere in the world have
it.

Now, the special ops mission requires going into the bad guys back yard.
That's why we have MC- and KC-130s.

I checked out your links and, aside from the smart tanker article, saw
nothing addressing tankers, and only several references to heavies period.
I will agree however that the fuel tank explosion suppression technology is
something that should be put on large aircraft regardless of type. Not just
for combat either, but to prevent a stray spark from ruining the day.

Think about this; you use Gen Jumper's comments to justify your thesis; this
is the same Gen Jumper who is asking Congress for 767 tankers. Oh, and 767s
for the MC2A as well. Are you just smarter than him? If you are correct why
isn't the military pursuing a battle-capable tanker? Maybe because it costs
way too much? The only way we can afford 100 767s, a fraction of the KC-135
fleet, is by leasing. And that will require pulling funds from other
programs. Guess the Navy missed the boat as well, basing the MMA on the 737,
another airliner.

Curt

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"C Knowles" wrote in message
y.com...
What link?

I got the quote from he

http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html

It is silly to think tankers won't eventually be shot at as they take
on more warfighting roles and assuming they won't will ensure its
occurence. Related; do you really think the JSTARS and its follow on
variants can reasonably be operated outside areas ot taking fire?

The 767 is built for rapid turnaround operations at airports and
economic cruise characteristics. It's built as light as possible, and
because components and systems have been engineered for ease of
access, they are vulnerable to external damage. Those who are familiar
with the brick ****house engineering and sporty performance of the
C-135 need to understand the 76 isn't your Granddaddy's Boeing.
It doesn't posess the inherent survivablity factors of speed, low RCS,
or agility of TACAIR and its not overbuilt like the C-135 is.
Without some hardening of the airframe and systems the chances of
going RTB after taking damage is pretty low with that airplane.

If there is official debate about this, its likely(rightfully)
happening in closed circles given the existence of this link
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/1999aircraft/neigh.pdf

But there is alot of open source on the subject and from this link you
can see surviviability been a red-headed step child discipline for
some time:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/ACFTVULN.HTM

Here are a couple of more links:
http://www.aircraft-survivability.co...Textbooks.html
http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac/
http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/oacurric/....%20Thesis.htm
http://www.blazetech.com/Products___...ield/fuelshiel
d.html

"C Knowles" wrote in message ...

Well, you obviously have a very different read on this than I do. You have
made a huge leap from Gen Jumper's comments to the idea of tankers and other
HVAA fighting it out with SAMs and AAA over a hot area, conducting AR while
taking hits.

It's not such a great leap to see the potential for taking rounds when
you are tasked to be,"...as close to the danger zone as [you] possibly
can so that the planes...have the shortest distance to go to do their
jobs."

This will be especially true in the future since the CISR role will
keep you "as close as possible" for periods not envisioned throughout
your career. I'm not suggesting you will be plugged up while jinking
away from SAMS. I am sugessting that you and others in your business
had better think seriously about getting shot at. And you better think
about putting some battle hardening into your new airframes.

I have no idea who you are or what your qualifications are. You
may remember who I am. I'm one of the guys orbiting in that tanker near the
bad guys. Seriously, not trying to flame you here but you just don't seem to
be that knowledgeable on these aircraft or air refueling in general.

Its not my day job to be concerned about such things now...it used to
be in a previous life though. My active duty days predate yours by a
considerable margin and I find it troubling how important operational
concepts do not seem to be evolving with the times and the emerging
threats.
Cavalry officers never thought the horse would be replaced, battleship
admirals never thought airplanes would ever be able to think their
ships, I guess tanker guys think they will never be in a position to
take rounds. Time will tell.

Tanker, or any other HVAA, employment is determined by the threat vs. the
mission requirement to get in close to the battle. ORM, really. And in spite
of what you think, tankers have been going into harm's way since the Korean
War and none have been shot down.

Since the Korean war there has been haven airspace near the fight
where you guys could do business. I remember some ballsy KC-135 guys
going into SAM envelopes to drag fighters out of North Vietnam but
thats been the exception.
I notice you have studiosly avoided the missions near Baghdad by the
way. Why did General Mosely think it was so important he went too?

The biggest threat to this type of aircraft is probably taking a
manpad on takeoff or landing. The technology to counter this threat is
relatively cheap and available, yet few tankers anywhere in the world have
it.

When you are confronted with a S-300 or S-400, or truly viable air
threat that won't be true.


Now, the special ops mission requires going into the bad guys back yard.
That's why we have MC- and KC-130s.

And what about the 767 sporting the GMTI as the JSTARS replacement?

I checked out your links and, aside from the smart tanker article, saw
nothing addressing tankers, and only several references to heavies period.
I will agree however that the fuel tank explosion suppression technology is
something that should be put on large aircraft regardless of type.

What was suggested is a bit different from the tank inerting
technology making its way into the civil world. Now that MANPADS is
something the civil fleet must worry about maybe some of this
technolgy may become a viable consideration for civil aircraft as
well.

Think about this; you use Gen Jumper's comments to justify your thesis; this
is the same Gen Jumper who is asking Congress for 767 tankers. Oh, and 767s
for the MC2A as well. Are you just smarter than him? If you are correct why
isn't the military pursuing a battle-capable tanker? Maybe because it costs
way too much?

No, I'm not smarter than Gen Jumper. Yep you're right its money. Does
that mean that the AirForce isn't fielding a vulnerable platform? No.
I still suspect this discussion has cropped up in closed circles and
if it hasn't it should be. You are in a position to find out.
Pardon a digression here but I must ask. Is the 767 cockpit going to
be reconfigured for a flight engineer? IIRC there may have been some
early ones that were configured that way for union purposes but I've
never seen one. It would be expensive to do in the current production
line.


Guess the Navy missed the boat as well, basing the MMA on the 737,
another airliner.

They jury is stil out about what the Navy is going to do about MMA.
But yeah, the 737 is a bad choice as well and the notion of the
EMB-145 borders on the silly.

I am suggesting that you and others in your business
had better think seriously about getting shot at. And you better think
about putting some battle hardening into your new airframes.

We've been thinking about it as long as I've been in the business.
Unfortunately getting the funding for even the basics is well-nigh
impossible. Every time something starts to gain momentum it is sacrificed
for something determined to be more important. And if I had a dollar for
every time a general made a pronouncement...
On the other hand, if a very powerful politician or high-placed civilian
says make it happen, it will. That's how the smart tanker idea came about.
The Secretary Rouch said make it happen and it did.

I guess tanker guys think they will never be in a position to take
rounds.

We have been; many, many times. As you point out with the reference to the
"Baghdad missions." My opinion, or the opinion of the tanker guys, means
little. Until there is an established need identified by the leadership,
nothing will happen regards hardware.

Time will tell.

You're right there.

No, I'm not smarter than Gen Jumper. Yep you're right its money.

Which is my whole point. Is that money better spent defending tankers
against a threat that may or may not occur, or on some other program with a
higher priority? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see all this stuff. I just
don't see it happening. Even if it means losing a couple tankers. Hell, we
can't even bail-out of a KC-10. I would also love to see a purpose-built
tanker but that's a long shot at this point. The 767 lease may provide a
short-term respite to allow to us to better define the next generation
tanker. Or we could just buy more 767s. IMHO, the AF should get in on the
7E7 program now, provide some seed money, and lay the ground work for that
next generation tanker. Or we could just buy more 767s.

Pardon a digression here but I must ask. Is the 767 cockpit going to
be reconfigured for a flight engineer? IIRC there may have been some
early ones that were configured that way for union purposes but I've
never seen one. It would be expensive to do in the current production
line.

No (sigh), no way they will put a FE on the crew. Too much $, and not
everybody likes us. However, the roles of enlisted aircrew are evolving and
I expect the boom operator will be taking on some new duties.

"C Knowles" wrote in message om...
We've been thinking about it as long as I've been in the business.
Unfortunately getting the funding for even the basics is well-nigh
impossible. Every time something starts to gain momentum it is sacrificed
for something determined to be more important. And if I had a dollar for
every time a general made a pronouncement...

One last input and I will let theis dead horse be buried and
gone...Its been my observation that the Air Force has the shortest
institutional memory of all the services...I'd opine the Marines have
the longest. heck a recent Aviation Week articel all but said that the
AF had essentially forgotten that Firebee drone variants had been used
as armed UCAVs as long ago as Vietnam and as recently as GW I.
Anyway, rumaging about I found this article on the web:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...3/jana_93.html

Which has the following interesting passage printred below. Mind you
the 767-200 and especially the -400 are not going to be nearly as
"sporty"(I note that for the evasive tactics mentioned below) as the
C-135s they will replace and they have fewer parts to lose before
things get really, really ugly as well. Could well be most of the
folks who "discovered" the dilemma mentioned below are now long gone?:

Most people may think that tankers just fly around in safe areas
during wartime, never getting too close to danger. The Gulf War
disproved this notion. On numerous occasions, tanker crews flew into
the combat zone to rescue aircraft low on fuel. In some cases, tanker
crews braved antiaircraft fire. A flight of two KC-135s led by Maj.
Herb Otten of the 452nd Air Refueling Wing was orbiting in Saudi
Arabia near the Israeli border awaiting a return strike force of F-16s
when an AWACS advised that the F-16s were low on fuel and that one had
sustained serious battle damage. Despite lack of fighter cover, Otten
flew north into Iraqi air space to meet the fighters before they ran
out of fuel. The tankers eventually had to fly almost 100 miles north
into Iraq before they made contact with and successfully refueled the
fighters.

"One of the vital lessons of our experience over there was the
vulnerability of tankers," explains Col. Bill Sherer, the commander of
the 161st Air Refueling Group of the Arizona ANG. Sherer was
coincidentally in Europe on an air refueling mission when Desert
Shield began. He flew one of the first missions of the tanker "air
bridge." Sherer notes that flying close to enemy lines, or sometimes
into enemy territory, opened a lot of eyes. "In years past at
exercises like Red Flag, our tankers would orbit outside the exercise
area and refuel either side's aircraft as necessary," Sherer
continues. "It was like the game King's X: everyone was safe from
attack when refueling. Now we are treated as the high-value assets we
really are. If we get shot down, our side loses its fuel supply, and
probably loses the war. So now when we go on exercises, we practice
evasive maneuvers. We work much closer with our fighter cover when we
have it. Fighter crews have a vital interest in our protection."

On 18 Aug 2003 15:14:38 -0700, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

Pardon a digression here but I must ask. Is the 767 cockpit going to
be reconfigured for a flight engineer? IIRC there may have been some
early ones that were configured that way for union purposes but I've
never seen one. It would be expensive to do in the current production
line.

I don't know why they would. The KC-135s lost their flight engineers
when the aircraft were upgraded with glass cockpits. This was
probably close to five years ago.

The Guard pilots I talked to said they weren't too happy about losing
the third person in the cockpit and intended to carry a second boom
operator for a while, to have someone to sit in the jump seat and back
them up. They'd have preferred a flight engineer, but theirs were all
going away.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer