KC-X and CSAR-X delayed....again

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

Well if this new incomming admin takes us into Iran...and I really dont see why...but if we do end up going in there, chances are that the set budget for 2009 will be amended and perhaps by the later part of 2009 those new KC-X and CSAR-X will be brought to the front. I do agree they are much needed.

Lets hope tho that it wont take very long to turn the nation's economic situation around so that congress will be more willing to go along with adding to the already allocated budget. Note the approval date on that 2009 budget 9/30/08, right in the middle of the downspiral of the economy, and I am sure that had a great effect on decision.


Cheers!!!!

Reply to Westpoint

Westpoint, here's something for you to think about when you say that replacing the fighters is so important.

Currently the AVERAGE age of the KC-135 is 47. At retirement, they will be pushing NINETY. If everything had gone smoothly with the KC-45 award, the KC-135 would fly until 2040. The oldest tankers are older than the GRANDPARENTS of the crews. The youngest are older than all but the most senior crews. But the irony is that the mother of the last KC-135 pilot hasn't been born yet.

At the start of FY08 there were 85 KC-135E models in inventory. Of those 85, 16 are flying. Thirteen were retired to the boneyard. Fifty-six are in XJ status, meaning they're in a semistored/mothballed status waiting permission to be retired and do a one time flight to the boneyard. Of those fifty-six, twenty-six WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN, but all 56 are showing as active in the inventory for the total tanker count.

Congress has decreed that they CAN'T be retired until the KC-45 contract is completed. That means they're sitting on the bases they're assigned to rotting until they FINALLY get the KC-45 contract done. But they're showing as counting towards the total tanker fleet.

The average age of the REST of the Air Force is 23.5. That's HALF the age of the KC-135. But they're saying it's just fine for us to fly the KC-135 with a crew of 4-6 and passengers, because we have to replace the fighters with a crew of 1-2. What's it going to take to get the -135 replaced? Losing a flight of 6 fighters, all their crew chiefs and the crew of the tanker, because it fell out of the sky when they were too far out to get another tanker to them? And then who do you think will take the blame? Congress? Of course not!

[edit on 12/24/2008 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

Heh, can you imagine if we did the same thing with fighters and bombers from WWII and keeping them on the flight line till 1970 or even 1980? Or using the first tankers from the 50s into 1989? lol! Scary thought, and yet, here we are going down towards that reality.

Its a tough spot. The issue with the tankers is clearly a politcal one and was so from the begining.

However, given the proliferation of double digit SAMs, the F-22 based on a recent AWST article may be the only airframe the USAF (Including the as yet to deploy F-35) will have in the near term that can operate in say an S-300's engagement envelope. In that light a much stronger force is needed IMHO.

The tanker issue also need to be resolved and resolved quickly.

I was actually watching a MSM report on the incoming administration and one of the pundits said that Pres-Elect has said that he is interested in cutting the f-22 project because it doesn't fit into the reality of the wars we ARE fighting and what is projected for the next 20 years. Maybe some hope.

reply to post by FredT

---

It IS a tough spot, and we DO need to update the fighters, but without the tankers, having a super modern fighter fleet won't do any good when it takes two days to get to the theater.

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

We would be better off if the Air Force started buying the block 60 F-16s and said the hell with the JSF and only buy the Raptors currently on order.

It's a catch 22, because we NEED the JSF and Raptor. The F-16s are good, but even with sensors and other upgrades, the design is getting old. We DO need the fighters, but we have to find the right balance for buying them, and the tankers. Instead of buying all the F-22s and delaying the tankers, they need to keep the F-22s coming, but get the tanker contract awarded, and start buying them as well.

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

Trust me, we would do much better with the Block 60s. The numbers for the JSF just are not going to be there because of the increased cost per airframe as opposed to the 60s.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

The problem is though that even with the Block 60 upgrades, you're still dealing with a 30 year old design. That's like taking your 1978 Mustang, and putting a new engine, new guages, new wheels, etc and making it a better car, but still the same body and technologies.

What would be smart would be to buy a mix. Buy SOME Block 60s, and cut the JSF order. That way we get an F-16 replacement, but we can start getting the new tankers rolling at the same time.