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.

 

New USAF tanker race about to begin

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Personally I feel Boeing should get the contract period.

If USA is in a national security situation, and European countries or the whole EU does not support it, then Airbus could possibly not supply spare parts or orders of the plane could be delayed or withheld.

If I remember right there was a Swiss company that produced a part on some smart bombs, and they did not like the invasion of Iraq, and did not supply parts. So it has happened.

When dealing with that possibility it makes perfect sense to me to give it to an American company. Especially when American tax dollars are paying for it. Create jobs here.

If you are from Europe this may seem unfair, but refueling tankers are a key piece of equipment.




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Actually the A330 (as the KC-30) is being proposed to the USAF by Northrop Grumman and final assembly, if selected, would be in the USA so it is US jobs that would be created. Who (except ots) can say that Northrop engineers are less worthy than Boeing ones when the jobs are dished out?.

The scenario you sketched out is a very big 'if', and in any case there are plenty of A330's in the USA that could be cannibalized if such a thing ever did happen.

There is even a proposal att he moment for the USN to use Ilyushin Il-78 Midas tankers, with two already on the US register in readiness. If that can Happen then anything can.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by colour_of_fire
Would a tanker version of the C5/C17 be feasable?


No. The wake turbulence would be too great coming off them, and the modifications required would be too extensive. The C-5 only has about a 2500 mile range if it has 270,000 pounds of cargo. You'd have to sacrifice cargo space. Not to mention that the USAF uses a fixed boom system, and both planes load through the tail, so you'd have to find some way to mout the boom without interfereing with the cargo doors.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   


posted by sbob

I feel Boeing should get the contract period. If USA is in a national security situation and European countries do not support it, then Airbus could possibly not supply spare parts or orders of the plane could be delayed or withheld . . there was a Swiss company that produced a smart bomb part and did not like the invasion of Iraq and did not supply parts. It has happened. When dealing with that possibility it makes perfect sense to me to give it to an American company. Especially when American tax dollars are paying for it. Create jobs here.
This may seem unfair, but refueling tankers are a key piece of equipment.
[Edited by Don W]



Sbob, without knowing, I’d wager over ½ of all the parts in a plane coming off Boeing assembly lines was made outside the US. The new manufacturing practice is “on time” delivery of parts. No or low inventory. On time delivery by UPS or FedEx. My point is that what you are asking was no longer possible even before Geo W became America’s first designated president.

There is nothing we can do about it. It’s called the New World Order first mentioned publically by King George 1. A/K/A Bush 41. Bush 43 is A/K/A Prince George, a mere shadow of his father.



[edit on 6/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Look at the 787. A HUGE chunk of it is being made outside the US but it's still technically a Boeing plane, because the final assembly is done at the Boeing plant.

www.aircraft-info.net...



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I never realised Boeing content was as little as 35%, thats a genuine surprise. Next time I arguing the point about Airbus components being transported to Toulouse I hope I rememeber that one


On the diagram it says '(purple square) = Other'

Where's the purple?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   


posted by waynos

There is even a proposal att he moment for the USN to use Ilyushin Il-78 Midas tankers, with two already on the US register in readiness. If that can Happen then anything can.
[Edited by Don W]



I’m surprised the Navy could use such a large tanker. I thought they employed medium size tankers that could land and take off from a carrier’s deck. That is not in the Il-78's future. See from site below: Il 78 counterpart is the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker. Il-78 MTW is 374,785 pounds.

www.theaviationzone.com...



[edit on 6/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I never realised Boeing content was as little as 35%, thats a genuine surprise. Next time I arguing the point about Airbus components being transported to Toulouse I hope I rememeber that one


On the diagram it says '(purple square) = Other'

Where's the purple?


There's probably a four ounce widget in the landing gear system that some bumpkus company makes.


The USN CURRENTLY refuels KA-6s or KF-18s (EA-6Bs and F/A-18s with buddy pods to refuel other planes) from USAF tankers, then refuels other USN planes. They do launch their own off the carrier, but if they're going to be up any length of time they try to arrange for the USAF to hit their tankers at some point. For a long haul flight they use USAF tankers.

HOWEVER, the USAF won't allow the F/A-18s to refuel from KC-135s anymore, because the Hornet pilots keep breaking the drogue that the USAF attaches to the boom to refuel the USN/USMC. They're supposed to back out and drop down, but they keep dropping down without backing out. And let me tell you that hose and drogue are insanely expensive.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
More info on the IL-78
The Il-78 tanker - the most remarkable Il-76 derivative - became operational in 1987. The Il-78's total fuel capacity is 92,800 kg, of which 85,750 kg is transferable.






[edit on 6/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
US Ilyushin tankers

They are owned by a company called NATA (North American Tactical Aviation). They are chasing a contract that is currently held with Ireland based Omega Air who operate Boeing 707 tankers (converted airliners, not KC-135's) and which is up for renewal on September 1st this year. NATA have two Il-78's at the moment but if they win the contract they will acquire more (if they don't win I don't know what they will do with the two they have already?). The first one (also the first Il-78 on the US register - N78GF) is currently at Fort Worth Airport.

Omega air is going to bid to renew though and is currently having an ex JAL DC-10 converted to a tanker by Flight Refuelling Ltd at Bournemouth (another plane with a mysterious future if they lose).

The third bid is from EADS North America with A310MRTT''s.

I'll be honest, before I read this today I didn't even know that the USN used privately operated tankers, I've been slagging the RAF off for taking that route for ages



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Omega is not the best choice for them to use though. They use 707's which are actually bigger than KC-135s (the -135 being the 720 fuselage), BUT, unlike the -135s they didn't add extra fuel tanks to them to give them a bigger capacity. They still use the TF-33 engine which isn't the most efficient. So you basically have a 707 that takes off with a max fuel load and has a limited range as a tanker. On a short range mission that's not a problem but on a drag that's a HUGE problem.

Waynos, they only use Omega in a pretty limited role because the USAF tankers are mostly all dedicated to hauling cargo and the war zones so it's getting even harder to get access to them.

And a big THANK YOU to the Pentagon for selling some of the -135s to Turkey and Singapore. Great decision there boys!
We were ALREADY hurting for tanker support, so let's sell some of them.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Ha, you're complaining. The RAF is getting NINE new A330's to replace its entire fleet. Still, not to worry. If we cancel some more combat aircraft it wont be a problem


Thinks; How long before Boeing can offer a KC-787? That would be cool, but must be many many years away with commercial demands.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Well it just pisses me off to see two F-16s sitting on the ramp for two months because it takes that long to get a tanker to get them to the mainland. The bigwigs complain about not having enough tanker support, then they sell the damn things.


And I'm surprised you guys are getting 9. Your entire force could be hauled with no more than 5.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
No, its the short fuselage version we're getting.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Oh right. Then 7 could haul the entire RAF, so I guess you're getting two spares.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   


posted by Waynos

The IL-78s are owned by a company called NATA - North American Tactical Aviation. The contract currently held with Ireland based Omega Air operating Boeing 707 tankers is up for renewal September 1st this year. NATA have the first Il-78 on the US register - N78GF - currently at Fort Worth Airport.

Omega air is going to bid to renew and is currently having an ex JAL DC-10 converted to a tanker by Flight Refueling Ltd at Bournemouth. The third bid is from EADS North America with A310MRTT's.

I'll be honest, before I read this today I didn't even know that the USN used privately operated tankers . . “
[Edited by Don W]




I hate privatization. It began here as a union-busting tactic. It also serves to dumb-down the public. And it amounts to wage cutting for the general population. And, it is no doubt the source of corruption. The Dept of Energy website says it has 18,000 employees and elsewhere on the same site it says it has 110,000 employees under contract. So how many “work” for the government? Who pays them? Pols go to the public and boast how they have cut the size of government. Liar, liar, pants on fire!



posted by Zaphod58

Omega is not the best choice for the Navy. Omega use 707's which are actually bigger than KC-135s (the -135 being the 720 fuselage), BUT, unlike the -135s they didn't add extra fuel tanks to them to give them a bigger capacity. Also they still use the TF-33 engine which isn't the most efficient. So you basically have a 707 that has a limited range as a tanker. On a short range mission that's not a problem but on a long drag that's a HUGE problem. The Navy only use Omega in a pretty limited role because the USAF tankers are mostly all dedicated to hauling cargo and [serving] the war zones so it's getting even harder to get access to them.

And a big THANK YOU to the Pentagon for selling some of the -135s to Turkey and Singapore. Great decision there boys! We were ALREADY hurting for tanker support, so let's sell some of them. [Edited by Don W]




OK, Z58, but if I was a GAO auditor, I’d check those Pentagon types to see who was buying NATA, Omega and EADS stock options. Or, I’d watch to see which purchasing agent leaves US employment on Sept. 2, and takes a senior management type position - not a job which means work, but a position which means you are paid for who you know - with the winner. It stinks!



[edit on 6/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Which would be why we're having ANOTHER tanker competition instead of seeing KC-767s in USAF markings already.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
The thing I don't understand about PFI's (and you'll have to excuse me as I'm no expert) is that they are supposed to be cheaper but, instead of buying a fleet of planes and paying crews to fly and maintain them the Air Force is paying a third party company which needs to make a profit and keep its shareholders happy to do the same thing. How can that be cheaper?

A local firm that used to use a haulage company near where I live cancelled the contract and started its own hauling operation with its own drivers and lorries because it was cheaper. That I can understand.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   


posted by waynos

The thing I don't understand about PFI's is that they are supposed to be cheaper but, instead of buying a fleet of planes and paying crews to fly and maintain them the Air Force is paying a third party company which needs to make a profit and keep its shareholders happy to do the same thing. How can that be cheaper? [Edited by Don W]



We screwed up in Vietnam. The public would not support a draft because it was blatantly skewed in favor of the Rich and Famous. Deferments. The National Guard scam and all that. Read the names on The Wall. I’ve read that 3/4ths were lower 4 grades. That is a bad sign. 20% of our Armed Forces are officers. Where were the officer's names on The Wall? How can you "lead" from behind? That may be symptomatic of the underling causes for the “fragging” we hear so little about. Like frequency, experience level of officers, and etc. Unique to the Vietnam War. So we went the cheap and easy way out of a mess, with the all volunteer Army.

I don’t like all volunteer armies. I don’t know to whom they may owe loyalty. To me, my country, or to the man who signs the paycheck. Plus, soldiers are forced to submit to endless propaganda. They may be doing wrong and think they are doing right. I don’t like paid mercenary armies. They will do things civilians drafted into an army for 24 months service will not do. I think it is evident in how low regard the civilians at the Pentagon hold the men women in the field. "Hey, this is what they're paid for!"

We are at the end of our rope. The current O10s are the last to have matriculated at the academies with instructors left over from the days of the pre all volunteers army. The new officer corps will be those who have no institutional memory of what it should be like. There are foreboding times ahead. We need a good leader to navigate this fast moving stream. Let us at least look at the history of Ernst Röhm and the Brown Shirts.





A local firm that used to use a haulage company near where I live cancelled the contract and started its own hauling operation with its own drivers and lorries because it was cheaper. That I can understand.
[Edited by Don W]



Exactly, Waynos. Plus, you have the problem of enforcing a dirty job on short notice. You have the problem of getting a man or men to take high risks. Money is not everything to everyone. Halliburton is paying $10,000 a month to ordinary truck drivers and having trouble keeping drivers. You can be sure Halliburton is charge the US $30,000 a month for each driver and no doubt, charging for those how have gone home until they get caught, then it’s an “oversight.” It’s private. We have no control. We are on a slippery slope and going the wrong direction.

Where is the i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l memory - the tradition - the pride - that will see you through the hard times? Who wants to die for Halliburton? Or Blackwater? Or General Dynamics?

To me, 'NGO' is the name a cancer when it's doing government business. Let the government do government business. Then I know who is accountable. If he mucks it up, I can vote him out. We have a system already in place for that. So what do I do if Ken Lay types are the CEO? Or worse, VP Cheney types?



[edit on 6/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The reason they're using private companies right now is simply because we don't have enough tankers for all the missions, and we aren't GOING to have enough tankers thanks to the KC-767 Great Tanker Fiasco. I have literally seen planes sit parked on the ramp waiting for a tanker for over a month.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join