Texas company buys mothballed RAF Tristar Tankers

Tempus Applied Solutions has purchased 6 of the aircraft which retired in 2014 with an eye on contracted aerial refueling services. The market seems to be growing quite a bit ans those who frequent ADS-B exchange note the Omega tankers in the air all the time. The company which is a new one for me seems to have thier hands in all sorts of small to medium defense department projects and they also do alot of contracted flights both manned and unmanned as well as modifying planes for special operations.

Our clients include NASA, the United States Department of Defense, Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, United States Africa Command, Joint Special Operations Command, and many other government agencies, individuals, and corporations.
www.tempus-as.com...

The former RAF Tristars are based on the L-1011-500 and would provide a similar capacity to the USAF's KC-10's or Omegas DC-10. They however cannot refuel USAF planes or any that use the boom. They are strictly probe and drogue.

www.thedrive.com...

a reply to: FredT

There are currently no civilian organizations that can refuel the AF. Omega is a Navy contractor, who also refuels foreign aircraft occasionally.

a reply to: FredT

In your estimation, could that have anything to do with the $18B increase in defense spending?

a reply to: JinMI

Tankers have always been in short supply. I once had two F-16s sit 88 days waiting for a tanker that could take them on after they broke. To refuel the Navy and Marines, and most NATO aircraft, they have to plug a drogue onto the boom of a KC-135, which means it can only refuel those aircraft, and nothing that doesn't have a probe. They have wingtip drogue units that fit on them, but only a limited supply of them. The KC-10 has a separate drogue unit, that retracts into the fuselage, but there are only 59 of those, and they're usually used for other airlift, such as carrying large cargo that doesn't fit on a KC-135.

a reply to: FredT

I would guess that the buyer is playing it close to the vest with these purchases and that they are really interested in buying these to refurbish has fire-fighting "tankers."

Any one can see there will be an increasing need for such craft around the world as droughts seem to be on the rise.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: FredT

I would guess that the buyer is playing it close to the vest with these purchases and that they are really interested in buying these to refurbish has fire-fighting "tankers."

Any one can see there will be an increasing need for such craft around the world as droughts seem to be on the rise.

that's what I was thinking, as well.

a reply to: Aliensun

They're buying six of the nine. Two are passenger/cargo, the other four are tankers. Three of them will be kept as spare airframes to be parted out as necessary, and the three they're planning on flying will remain configured in the tanker configuration. They'll contract with the Navy for refueling operations, and may see wingtip drogue pods mounted.

Civilian air refuelers?Hhhmmm I would call it 7/11 Air with free slushi refills with every tank of fuel..

a reply to: Blackfinger

They've been around for awhile. The Omega tankers have been operating under Navy contracts for a long time. They are pretty limited though, because, at least when I saw them come through, they didn't have the cargo holds blocked off with fuel tanks. So they could only carry what a normal 707 could carry. Fine for local ops, not so much for anything else.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Pretty sure that at least some of those Omega 70's are the ex RAAF ones. Most of them were former Qantas with a couple ex Saudi Air that we purchased in the mid to late 80's. From memory they didn't have additional cargo tanks as you said and the cabins were fitted with seating. So yes they will be more limited in offload compared to a dedicated 135, and never had booms.

This whole outfit in texas is interesting to say the least. They have a picture of a BACN airframe inserted into several of their pages

AH ...say YOU aviation guys ...I 'm a GROUND element with a REALLY bad memory ...but aren't this model of aircraft crash prone?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
AH ...say YOU aviation guys ...I 'm a GROUND element with a REALLY bad memory ...but aren't this model of aircraft crash prone?

Not per say according to wiki its had 32 Major incidents with 11 hull losses and a total of 540 or so fatalities (By comparison the DC-10 had 55,32, and over 1200)

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: FredT

I would guess that the buyer is playing it close to the vest with these purchases and that they are really interested in buying these to refurbish has fire-fighting "tankers."

Not likely with these guys. They have stated clearly that they are entering the a2a refueling game and do alot of government work already

Tristar LLC just received a $124M contract for refueling services through 2024. The contract specifies services in California(50%), Georgia(40%) and OCONUS(10%).