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.

 

So long TRANSCOM, we hardly knew you

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Yes, the title is click bait, but I have suspicions the head of TRANSCOM has limited time left. Ever since they announced the decision to start retiring tankers, he's been screaming from the rooftops that it's a stupid decision, and will affect the ability of everyone when it comes to completing their missions. Now he's taken it a step farther.

In a letter to Congress, he stated that the number one priority of TRANSCOM is aerial refueling, and retiring the tankers would "create a capacity bathtub with significant impacts to Combatant Command daily competition and wartime missions, and negatively impact senior leader decision space for mobilization when confronted with a crisis". He also asked for $110M to buy back 10 KC-10s and 13 KC-135s, with a year by year review, based on KC-46 progress before retiring any more aircraft.

Generally people that speak harsh truth like this, and go against the wishes of their superiors, even trying to ensure they can do their job, and the mission can be completed, don't last long. We'll see if he comes to a bad end, but I wouldn't be the slightest bit shocked if he gets fired soon.

breakingdefense.com...
edit on 2/25/2020 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 01:36 PM
link   
He's not wrong it's insane to be retiring any of an asset in high demand without a solid replacement coming on line.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Oh, he's absolutely right. But you know what happens to people that dare to speak hard truths.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Yes, the title is click bait, but I have suspicions the head of TRANSCOM has limited time left. Ever since they announced the decision to start retiring tankers, he's been screaming from the rooftops that it's a stupid decision, and will affect the ability of everyone when it comes to completing their missions. Now he's taken it a step farther.

In a letter to Congress, he stated that the number one priority of TRANSCOM is aerial refueling, and retiring the tankers would "create a capacity bathtub with significant impacts to Combatant Command daily competition and wartime missions, and negatively impact senior leader decision space for mobilization when confronted with a crisis". He also asked for $110M to buy back 10 KC-10s and 13 KC-135s, with a year by year review, based on KC-46 progress before retiring any more aircraft.

Generally people that speak harsh truth like this, and go against the wishes of their superiors, even trying to ensure they can do their job, and the mission can be completed, don't last long. We'll see if he comes to a bad end, but I wouldn't be the slightest bit shocked if he gets fired soon.

breakingdefense.com...


Am curious Zaph, any evidence that some O'B holdover in DOD is pushing decreasing available tankers to deliberately decrease our readiness as O'B was so hell-bent doing his whole 8 years?



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JoseGarcia

No. We've had a tanker shortage to one degree or another since the 90s at least.
edit on 2/25/2020 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Is there a scheduled replacement tanker on the way?

Have our 10's and 135's somehow become redundant?

Forgive my questions, but I don't see how the hell we can maintain any sort of readiness if we can't count on a dependable fleet of refueling aircraft.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Notoneofyou

The KC-46 is entering service, but won't be ready to support combat missions for probably 3-4 years. They're still certifying it for refueling all types of aircraft, and it still has serious issues that need to be resolved.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Some friends at Mcconnel say probably closer to 10, cause they are even looking at retrofitting a boom window into the thing because the camera system is so borked.

ETA: and yea he is toast, its a shame when speaking the truth wrecks your job.
edit on 25-2-2020 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

That was the running joke the other day. Supposedly they're looking to approve a fix for the cameras by next month and fly it by this summer. My buddy said, "what's the fix, a guy in the back?"



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

yea when I look at their "fixes" for the software problem on the max, I cant imagine them being better at fixing the camera issues than the coding.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

It just amazes me that a freaking tanker has been such an utter disaster. It's really not this hard. Throwing new tech on because it's new is the dumbest reason for it ever.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yea we just dont understand the intricacies of running a big business I guess...

And I am certain if pressed boeing would blame the USAF and they would be at least part right.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Between changing requirements just short of CDR, giving them bad numbers for the boom stiffness, and wanting every bell and whistle possible, they did hurt things. But at the same time, at some point you have to put the blame on Boeing. So many stupid things during development, like not running the wiring long enough, and running corrosive chemicals through the fuel system, that had everything to do with Boeing screwing up in every way possible.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree, if nothing else Boeing should have said nope, tech isn't there yet instead they said yep no problem we can do that chasing the all mighty dollar.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

If they end up retrofitting them I'm going to laugh my ass off, before I go off to cry at the stupidity of it all.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

sooner or later the Govt contracts will start to dry up especially if the B-21 continues as smooth as it has.

Once that happens they are done as a company.



posted on Feb, 25 2020 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

They'll keep feeding the fighter division long enough for NGAD to go through selection. After that, even with all the equipment that needs replacing, there won't be a lot of big contracts for large numbers of aircraft.



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:47 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 26 2020 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Long time ago (1980s) there was a great book published. "The Pentagon and the Art of War", by Edward Luttwak.

I assume much of what he wrote then is true today, and may be true in even greater degree.

Cheers




top topics



 
9

log in

join