It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


$40 Bil Air Force Boeing Tanker Lease Program.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:41 AM
Why does the Air Force suddenly need so many tankers? What happened to the KC-10?

U.S. air force will award $40B tanker deal by year's end to Boeing or Northrop

Aug 16, 2007


More chemtrails maybe?

Oops, missed that mispell in the title.

If possible, could mods fix.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by stompk]

[edit on 2-9-2007 by stompk]

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:53 AM

The KC-767A tanker lease program had been the Air Force's partial solution to jump-start the replacement of the service's fleet of 400 ageing KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refuelers. Some of those aircraft are now more than 40 years old.

The original plan was to lease up to 100 commercial 767 aircraft from the Boeing Co. and have them modified to serve as tanker aircraft, to include extra tanks and refueling booms.


Why civilian aircraft? Maybe so they look like any other aircraft flying. Also, if they lease, are they required to have military pilots, or could they hire people like Blackwater?

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:06 AM
First of all, there were less than 100 KC-10s built.

As for civilian planes, what do you think the KC-135 and KC-10 started out as? The KC-135 is a 707 airframe, and the KC-10 is a DC-10 airframe. They're doing the same thing with the KC-767, taking a 767 airframe, and modifying it into a tanker that the military will fly.

As for why we need so many, the average age of the KC-135 fleet is older than most of the crews that are flying them. The last ones were built in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and the KC-10s are almost 30 years old already as well. We BARELY have enough tanker support as it is with the current fleet. I've seen fighters sit for days, and in one case two weeks before they could get tanker support to get them to their destination.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:07 AM
keep in mind that when boeing created the c-135, they also did a civilian version.....the original 707-020, that spawned from the test craft, is practally the same plane.....they'll do the the same with the 767...they'll extra engineer it to fit military.....

and it's easier to use an exsiting plane, than it is to design an entirely new one.....(and by easier i mean cheaper)

p.s. zaphod....the test frame for 707's and c-135's is the same...however the aircraft are not exactly....there's some structural differences in the original....and size differences....(not much in the original....a couple inches for the 707)...the boeing designation for the c-135 is 717

[edit on 2-9-2007 by wenfieldsecret]
added more to make clear that only the test frame is the same for both

[edit on 2-9-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:57 AM
This is from a 2002 GAO report concerning the existing tanker fleet.

fact, in responding to our 1996 report, the Air Force said that with proper
maintenance and upgrades, the aircraft could be sustainable for another 35

And why lease them. Just another $40 bil worth of disposable income we have lying around?

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:19 AM
The initial purchase was going to be a lease, however there were some issues with that contract. That's why this is already many years behind. They're leasing the initial planes, to get a price break in the long run from what I've heard.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:02 AM

Atmospheric science researchers have been doing research for the Department of Defense since 1986, and the new institute gives the opportunity to study the propagation of chemical and biological threats in air and water, said John Forsythe, assistant director of Department of Geosciences and Atmospheric Research


And from an older report.

Ground and unmanned flight tests showed that the tank system, filled with five parts mineral oil and one part JP-5, generates usable smoke trails from ground level to at least 28,000 feet MSL

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:24 AM
At that has WHAT to do with buying tankers? The QT-33 is an unmanned drone they use to shoot down, and has NOTHING to do with tankers, and as near as I can tell neither does your first source. You're picking and choosing things that aren't related and putting them into a giant conspiracy. I guess according to your thinking we should either keep flying 40 year old airplanes, or just get rid of tankers altogether and never use them again.

[edit on 9/2/2007 by Zaphod58]

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 11:44 AM
What I'm saying is why do we keep building for war so much. What is the ultimate outcome. It sure isn't peace if we've got over 4000 tons of VX
nerve agent stored in one location alone. That's after peace?

It's time you guys came home and started defending our borders, instead
of Operation Global Take Over.

This tanker lease program is just another indicator of what our fine leaders are up to. Blowing money for purposes of war. In 2006, $56 billion was the overall transportation budget. But we can spend $40 billion on an aircraft tanker lease program?

Wake up. Our leaders don't have our best interest at heart.
US Code
Title 50, Chapter 32

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:05 PM
So you think that flying planes that are about to fall out of the sky is safe? They don't just use those planes for war, or for refueling. They also fly them into areas after disasters and move cargo around. And many other humanitarian reasons.

This is far from building up forces for war, it's about REPLACING forces. They are going to end up SAVING billions in the long run, because they're spending so much on maintenance NOW that they won't have to when the KC-X program is finished.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:36 PM
Actually, your probably more likely to die in a bridge collapse.

The $40 billion Air Force contract is for 179 planes to start replacing the aging fleet of Boeing KC-135s. Eventually the deal could total more than 500 planes

Let's see.
$40b/179 planes = 223 million dollars per plane!

If we get all 500 planes, that will be around $100 billion!!

Just for a lease program.

And we wonder why we have a $8.9 Trillion dollar debt, that we pay $400 billion a year interest on.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:31 PM
more likely to die in a bridge collapse?.....these planes are so fricking old....i pray every time we take off....and when we come in to land....
and i fly on some of the newer ones built in the mid-late 60's.....

and also you can always sell the parts to other countries that have the c-135...there by keeping the cost lower than what it says....

these are replacements you're talking about.....not a new addition....

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:07 AM
As long as a plane if properly maintained, you can fly them for a long time. And one is constantly replacing spars, inspecting for cracks, upgrading engines and electronics. Quality control and plane captains and mechanics all have to sign off to let them fly. Are you saying you don't trust your mechanics?

Why are we so interesting in a future with Global War? That is why we would need so many tankers. Either that, or they really are spraying us.

Pilots may not even know about it. It could be mixed in JP-4,5,8 without anyone knowing it. Vapor trail would be non detectable within 500 meters or so, and folk on the plane don't usually look out the rear view mirrors.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:53 AM
mistakes happen.....things are overlooked....there's always a push to get us off the ground....

even with proper maintenance things can only go so far....start replacing now so you can put the old ones to bed sooner.....

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 07:56 PM
We lost three or four KC-135s to exploding fuel pumps, a KC-10 to an electrical short, and various other issues that there was no finding or avoiding until it was too late. I don't care how well you maintain something, planes (as well as anything ELSE) wear out. You can maintain them as well as you can, and they are going to eventually wear out.

You keep asking why we need so many tankers, take a look at all the missions they have. We don't have enough airlift to move cargo around the world, and tankers back them up and help move cargo as well as refueling fighters and cargo movers all over the world. They're not spraying anything, but as it is now we don't have enough tanker support as I said. But you're right, let's keep flying the KC-135s and KC-10s until they fall out of the sky and then just get rid of them.

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:09 AM
As an ex Air Force Mechanic I can honestly tell you it's better to replace airframes after a while. I spent several years working on C-130's made in the early 70's and most of our squadron was grounded for being unsafe. There are things on the frame that cannot be fixed or replaced due to cost or difficulty. We had most planes down or wing cracks and the only way to fix them was to replace the wing box whic would cost 10 million a plane and take two years for plane. Plus they estimated the repairs would last maybe five years. In that case it's easier to buy new planes that can last another 30-40 years and save money in the long run. If I remember correctly a 130J costs twice as much as a 130H3, but casts 1/3 to operate.

Leasing the tankers actually makes sense. Lease a few, if they work well, lease the rest and turn them back in at the end of the lease for new ones. If they don't cancel the lease. Why do you think most companies lease they're vehicles instead of buying them outright? it's makes sense financially in the long run.

As for why we need them, our current tanker force is rather pathetic and can't keep up (Nothing against tankers, I'm talking numbers and Equip.) With all our overseas bases being closed and most countries saying no to basing US troops and Aircraft, we have to fly them from countries away from the combat zone or even worse, from the US itself. No combat aircraft can fly from the continental US to Afghanistan, perform combat ops, then fly back without running out of gas. We need more tankers to get them there and back.

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:16 AM
I worked on A-3 and P-3 aircraft. Any of you been around an A-3, you know they where built in the 40's and have been fazed out.

When they sent me with a group of A-3's to Saudi Arabia for support ops in Desert Storm, we weren't down one flight, because of aircraft problems. Got a medal for leading the maintenance crew.

The pilots still did high speed fly-by's with 90 deg banks.

But I'm not against upgrades. Except for 230 million dollar tankers, and keep building up for more war.

And the fact that I think they are actually being used to make chemtrails.

Here is what your getting for 230 mi. EACH (lease price!)

[edit on 4-9-2007 by stompk]

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:39 PM
Here's to the losers trying to scare us
Bite me

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by stompk

And how much do you think a plane the size of a 767 costs? To lease OR to purchase?
A new 767-300ER, in standard AIRLINE configuration runs you over $100M. That doesn't count adding more fuel tanks, the R&D for the flying boom, and other things for the KC-767.

You might wanna check your facts there on the A-3. They were built in the mid 1950s, and there were barely a handful left for Desert Storm, all EA-3 variants, doing electronic intel work. They ALL retired shortly after. Now, if they forced even the civilian ones used for testing to stop flying at 40 years old, why is it acceptable for them to keep flying KC-135s built in the 60s for another 20 or 30 years?

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:18 PM
Again you might want to check facts. The deal being worked out is to PURCHASE 175 aircraft for $20-30 Billion. Not lease them as your source claims. And here's one more VERY good reason to replace the KC-135s. Boeing just received a $1.1 Billion contract for 10 years of KC-135 PDMs. JUST the PDM portion of the maintenance program, for 200+ KC-135s. So which makes more sense? Purchase 175 aircraft for $30 Billion, or spend $1.1 BILLION for maintenance on less than HALF of your tanker fleet. There are approximately 530 KC-135s in the USAF inventory. This contract covers roughly 200 of them undergoing PDM.

[edit on 9/16/2007 by Zaphod58]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in