US defense law to equip Israel with refueling jets, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 05:03 AM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by tommyjo

Jordan would put up no resistance what so ever, they are basically allied to Israel even given their massive Palestinian population. As you say Iraq would struggle to do anything about it. Geo-politically it would be caught in a spider's web.

It would want to protect its airspace as a matter of national pride and as not an encouragement to future incursions by Israel or anyone else. They would also not like to facilitate an attack on their Shiite neighbor. On the other hand, does it really want to make an enemy out of Israel again and in essence of the United States.

Tricky situation for the Iraqis.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 05:21 AM by gravitational

Israel already owns refueling jets (converted 707).
It is certainly not the reason behind the delayed attack on Iran.

www.ynet.co.il...

It's unknown when the KC135 will be supplied. It appears as if Obama signed this new bill to upstage Mitt Romney's trip to Israel.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 05:23 AM by IsraeliGuy

Even if the Iraqis decide they are not going to allow an Israeli strike flying through their airspace, honestly there's not much they can do about it, if there is anything at all.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 01:42 PM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by IsraeliGuy

Even if the Iraqis decide they are not going to allow an Israeli strike flying through their airspace, honestly there's not much they can do about it, if there is anything at all.

Apart from align with Iran against Israel for the future. Jeez, get rid of one enemy leader in Saddam only to create another one in the same country. Israeli leaders sure do like creating bogeymen for their citizens to fear.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 02:01 PM by Zaphod58

Israel has had the ability to hit Iran for years, without the KC-135. As for this sale, don't even get me started on this BS. Oh wait, too late.

Way back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, I used to watch F-15s and F-16s sit on the ramp for WEEKS or even MONTHS in some cases, because they had broken during the ferry flight, and it took that long to get KC-135s or KC-10s going the same way to get them the rest of the way. The USAF has always had a tanker shortage, and to "solve" it, they've sold KC-135s to Turkey, Indonesia (I think that was one of the sales), France, and several other countries.

reply posted on 31-7-2012 @ 04:46 PM by Peruvianmonk

reply to post by Zaphod58

So you consider this just a latest American-Israeli bluff to scare Iran into compliance, i.e. the abandonment of their nuclear programme? The general consensus on the Israeli military decision making process is that conflict is at its most unlikely when they are at their loudest.

reply posted on 5-8-2012 @ 07:00 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

More than likely yes. They've had the ability to hit Iran for a long time. It would be very painful for Israel in regards to losses, but if they really wanted to they could do it.

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 06:51 PM by Spinoza73

I heard this evening (from Chris Klep, a solid Dutch defense and international affairs specialist) Israel has been bying 707's and now has ten. With which they could refuel 40 yets, flying across one of three routes, for example across Turkey, which Israel presumably also was allowed to cross when they bombed the Syrian (nuclear?) complex. Klep says the 'window of opportunity' is closing for Israel. He estimates the chance Israel will hit within half a year at 49%, concluding Israel doesn't take risks, for most regrettable reasons, as everybody will agree.

It would be so nice if religions and nations weren't so damn geographically bordered. Below a link to the appearance of Chris Klep (in Dutch, sorry) in late night show Pauw & Witteman. Edition 28 september, from 30 on.

pauwenwitteman.vara.nl...

edit on 28-9-2012 by Spinoza73 because: text

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 08:10 PM by _Del_

They already have aerial refueling planes. The only reason not to sell them additional planes is political.

Generally, we only hurt ourselves when we don't sell weaponry to allies. They just buy them somewhere else and someone else gets the money. How many times have we refused to sell Saudi Arabia more F-15's just to see them turn around and buy Tornadoes and later the Typhoon.

They already have aerial refueling. That's how they reached the Iraq reactor in the eighties. The -135 airframes are all several decades old. I don't see why we wouldn't sell some of the older ones if they were offering to buy them. Especially if we would get off our asses on the KC-46 program.

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 08:14 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by _Del_

Because even with the KC-46 coming online, we're short tankers. The -46 contract is for less than 200 airframes, and while they're supposed to be able to replace several -135s per airframe, we need every tanker we can get our hands on for the airlift mission. Even if we pulled out of Afghanistan today, we'd need every tanker we could get.

edit on 9/28/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 08:32 PM by _Del_

We've been short of tankers for as long as I can remember. I don't know why we'd stop now. If we really wanted to not be short, we would have bought KC-767's off the shelf or SLEP the A's to R's. Or bought bigger numbers of the KC-10 when they were available. But instead they went without and then eventually plowed through with the whole KC-X fiasco. I'm fairly well convinced that policy makers have decided that it isn't a priority (and yes, to my mind we should be spending way more money on un-sexy things like cargo and refueling airframes and less on overpriced "cutting-edge" projects). It just isn't going to happen. They don't think it's important.
What's the mission capable rate of the older -135's these days? At this point, I'm not sure we wouldn't want to be free of maintaining the older airframes and wait on the KC-46.

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 08:33 PM by _Del_

We also have several E's in flyable storage, don't we? Are those the airframes in question? It wouldn't effect the active fleet in anyway if so.

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 08:42 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by _Del_

It hasn't been a priority since every single Chairman has come up through fighters. Why do you think just about every major project by the Air Force has been fighter related?

We can't afford to get rid of even the maintenance intensive -135s. The only ones we can get rid of are the ones that can't fly at all. Even if a -135 is only capable of flying one or two missions before down time, that's one or two more freed up for another mission.

In 2009, we had 476 "viable" tankers, and needed 520 for the minimum requirement. During Operation Allied Force, the older (1950s/very early 60s) tankers had a 78% mission capable rate. In 2009 it was around 80%. Not great, but considering the age of the air frames in question, outstanding. The required maintenance time between flights is actually pretty low compared to other airframes in the inventory.

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 08:44 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by _Del_

The Es are going to spare parts for the R/Ts that are active. As far as I know, they're keeping them in storage to use as parts, because PDM times are going up for the active fleet. The airframes sold to Turkey, France, and Indonesia all came out of the active fleet.

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 09:00 PM by NullVoid

How about this ? Will it help ?

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 09:18 PM by _Del_

reply to post by Zaphod58

I'm not sure losing two or three of the hanger queens would be devastating to the fleet requirements. Policy makers have clearly decided they make do with quite a bit fewer than the requirement already. And if they're E's, it seems like an easy choice to me.

reply posted on 28-9-2012 @ 09:21 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by _Del_

The Es are already in the Boneyard, being prepped for stripping, or used to train new maintenance folks for the R/T fleet. Even hangar queens have purpose, and can be useful though. If I can get two hangar queens to fly three missions, that means that I've got three more tankers to do other missions that I need more. It frees up that much more for the more vital missions.

reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 01:45 AM by SrWingCommander

I think the IDF air force currently only had 6 to 10 tankers. Doubling that number gives them the ability to get 2-4 more squadrons over Iran at one time, or gives them the ability to sustain a raid easier over 3 to 5 days.

I hope they don't use Jericho missiles.Russia and China will detect that on their launch detection satelllites and things could get freaky REALLY quick.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^