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]

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.

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.