It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Commercial tanker industry day

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The Air Force will hold an industry day for commercial tanker services on December 17th at Scott AFB. The leadership has finally realized what's been known for years, that we don't have enough tanker airframes ro meet all their missions. Options include keeping KC-135s (they're already looking at keeping 28 beyond their planned retirement), or boosting KC-46 production (the RVS is at least four years from being fully deployment ready).

Omega Air has received the first of two boom equipped KDC-10s. The aircraft is in Texas undergoing modification for their requirements. Lockheed and Airbus have been vocal about using boom equipped A330s in a contract role for the Air Force.

So far those would be the only options that would meet requirements. The Air Force needs a boom equipped aircraft, while the few companies out there are all drogue equipped. There are options for companies coming in, which is one thing the Air Force will explore.

www.defensenews.com...

www.defensenews.com...

www.flightglobal.com...
edit on 12/13/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wonder where we'd be if NG wasn't shafted.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Masisoar

No way to know. The Air Force gave Boeing bad data on the boom requirements, and changed things up after design review was completed, so we'd almost certainly be seeing some issues with it as well.

That being said, the tanker shortage has been ongoing for 30+ years. I watched two F-16s that dropped out of a fighter drag sit for just short of three months. They were only able to to be added on to tankers going the same way instead of having a tanker assigned to them. The first time they aborted again for external tank problems. They sat so long they had to FCF them before they could leave.
edit on 12/13/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Get the RAF to dust off a few Victor and VC-10 Tankers. God what I'd give to see them flying again. Sorry for the pointless reply it's 2:30am just finished work I'm bored lonely and need someone to talk to



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

They were trying to buy a bunch of the L1011s and ferry them to the US, but the last I heard it fell through because they didn't get the contract.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Someone had actually posted some photos of those on a facebook page I'm on, and yes from what I gather from the comments the deal fell through. Flew on a L1011 with the old British airliner British Caledonia. First wide body aircraft I ever went on. Still that's off topic I'll shush now



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

And when is the last time you saw one of these threads stay on topic?

The Tristar deal was contract contingent, and Omega made the better bid. They have a long relationship with the Navy already, and the infrastructure already in place so were a much lower risk.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   
While we wait on the Dept of Defense to start replacing/adding new aircraft, let's look at the KC-135....


- The average passenger car would operate for more than a year on the amount of fuel transferred through the air-refueling boom in one minute. 

- Enough material is contained in the tires of the landing gear (eight main gear wheels and two nose wheels) to produce 100 automobile tires. 

- A gas station pump operating steadily for 24 hours wouldn't pump as much fuel as the tanker pours through its air refueling boom in eight minutes. 




The total fuel carried on a single flight of the tanker would be enough to last the average driver 46 years. 

-  Five thousand wires totaling 14 1/2 miles in length are needed in the electrical circuits of the tanker. 

- The electrical power generated on a single four-engine tanker is sufficient to supply all the power needs for 35 average homes. 

- There are almost 500,000 rivets in the tanker transport. These rivets range in cost from 14 cents to $1.50 installed. 

- Under normal landing conditions, the tanker's brakes absorb enough energy to stop, simultaneously, 432 automobiles traveling at 50 mph. Under full braking conditions, the bra


the brakes would stop almost 975 automobiles.


Photos by me of 171st ARG and 911th Airlift Wing

edit on 13-12-2019 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Pity we can't get the Iranian KC-33A

Omega is putting together quite a fleet. The USAF will be a bit harder due to the differences in method as non boom equipped craft can be much more easily refitted with pods.

Given the age and issues, Its not clear how many KC-135's will even be up to the task of being privatized and Omega already got Netherlands KDC-10's



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Nice shots



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

There are still some in Arizona that can be brought out and refurbished. They'll be a couple years coming back to life though. I doubt we'll see any of them. IAI has a 767-300 to KC-767 conversion on the market though. That's the most likely way we'll see new tankers.



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah and I don't see Omega with the kind of capital to fund either a new aircraft or a conversion at least boom wise



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

No, but two KDC-10s are nothing to sneeze at either. That's 12 fighters all told they can drag that they might not have been able to before.

ETA- Even without extra tanks added, you're looking at around 250,000 pounds of fuel total. The -135 is somewhere around 220,000 IIRC.
edit on 12/13/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT



Thanks


Some of hose are the same planes were flown by grandfather's, fathers and sons. They were there when my dad was with the 171st and I was a kid, now guys my age have a couple kids flying them. Those KC-135's are practically heirlooms. But gotta admit the mechanics are really good. And the engine's have been replaced over the years.

Edit: they do go for a major maintenance check, but I'm not sure where they go to. But like Zaphod states; it takes a while to get done before they're back in service.





edit on 13-12-2019 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-12-2019 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Most large aircraft go through PDM at Tinker. It's a year plus for a -135, and is getting longer as they age.

There are a few -135s that could probably be bought if they could get clearance. Singapore just retired theirs, and France is in the process of retiring theirs.
edit on 12/13/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks, thought they went to Lackland AFB (but I was wrong) and holy cow that's a long time. Not sure if they get loaners, but that would really put missions in a real pinch.

Edit: especially when you only have 9 to 12 refuelers too.
edit on 13-12-2019 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2019 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

They split PDM between Tinker and San Antonio. When the aircraft goes in, they start with stripping the paint off, and go all the way down to pulling the wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers off, and the landing gear off. They repair any corrosion and fix any unforeseen issues with the aircraft.


edit on 12/13/2019 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join