[On the way]

Geez, what a mess this tanker replacement contract is. I can't believe the USAF can mess it up this badly. I say forget about all these new build Boeing 767s, and Airbus. There must be hundreds of surplus DC-10s and MD-11s either in storage or with airlines that want to sell them. I say just buy them, do a tanker conversion on them, and re-engine them if you have to. Modernised the cockpit and anything else u need. The USAF has been operating KC-10s for decades now. U will end up with a cheaper tanker, and it will be available much faster. U will create jobs here, and not in Europe. I know this is naive thinking, but at this rate, the new tanker will be in service too late.

[Gregory]

On the way, on Sun 29 Mar 2009 0114, said:

Geez, what a mess this tanker replacement contract is. I can't believe the USAF can mess it up this badly. I say forget about all these new build Boeing 767s, and Airbus. There must be hundreds of surplus DC-10s and MD-11s either in storage or with airlines that want to sell them. I say just buy them, do a tanker conversion on them, and re-engine them if you have to. Modernised the cockpit and anything else u need. The USAF has been operating KC-10s for decades now. U will end up with a cheaper tanker, and it will be available much faster. U will create jobs here, and not in Europe. I know this is naive thinking, but at this rate, the new tanker will be in service too late.

Those airframes have tens of thousands of hours on them already. Add the intense op. schedule the AF has, and you'll have wings falling off of them in 5-10 years at the longest. Not to mention that the spare parts lines are not there, and you can't depend on scavenging everything. It's a non-starter.

[seahawk]

Most useful DC-10s and MD-11 airframes have undergone freighter conversion. Those that are no longer needed or wanted in that role have so many cycles on them, that they would be only a temporary solution for the problem of the USAF. Add that they had different owner,s different maitenance, modifications and engines and you get a mixed fleet, which would be as hard to keep in service as the current KC-135 in the long run.

[swerve]

Buying secondhand is OK for a small fleet, but not the USAF. The numbers are too great to be able to get a standardised fleet, or to rely on old spares stocks.

[Paul in Qatar]

Still you have to think a dozen good airframe could be found and a dozen new tankers would ease the strain.

[Luke Y]

I assume you mean something like the Dutch MD-11 tankers?

Problem is the MD11 is a dead airframe.

The simple fact is that this USAF contract has no hit any technical difficulties (which any civillian airframe conversion would) but the problems are simply political within the procurement system.

If some with the authority (and balls) just said so the A330 tanker could be entering service within two years, and I can't see the 767 taking much longer than five...

[5150]

I don't think you solve the problems of having an aging fleet by adding more aging aircraft to it, particularly if you're adding a hodge-podge of clapped-out airframes and engines.

A friend was a flight engineer on DC-10s for a small airline. Interesting stories! These DC-10s were previously owned by a Mexican airline, and had engines uprated for operation from higher elevations. At one point the airline informed crews that they could no longer drink orange juice in the cockpits, as spills had corroded too much of the wiring. The aircraft were unexpectedly retired when one had its annual inspection--structural problems were such that any additional pressurization cycles put the airframe at risk. They were all flown to the boneyard at altitudes low enough to make pressurization unnecessary.

[TheSilentType]

Paul in Qatar, on Sun 29 Mar 2009 1610, said:

Still you have to think a dozen good airframe could be found and a dozen new tankers would ease the strain.

Although it flopped as a passenger airliner the MD-11 has been fairly popular as a cargo-hauler. I doubt that there are a dozen unused ones available on the market. You might be able to turn a few old DC-10s into tankers, but those airframes are probably so old and worn out that the conversion would be a waste of money.

[Bob B]

I hope this doesn't sound like a silly question, but if the USAF can keep B-52's and C5A's flying forever, why can't they upgrade the current tanker fleet the same way?

Maybe because the original tanker airframes were not as sturdy in the first place?

[JOE BRENNAN]

B)-->

I hope this doesn't sound like a silly question, but if the USAF can keep B-52's and C5A's flying forever, why can't they upgrade the current tanker fleet the same way?

Maybe because the original tanker airframes were not as sturdy in the first place?[/quote]

The KC-135's have serials ranging from 55- to 65- (authorized in fy '55-fy '65), B-52H's are 60 and 61, C-5A's tail no's start 69 and 70. They tend to get run harder, and C-5A availability rates are unsatisfactory as far as that goes. But that said the KC-135's are not falling apart right now. Buying beat up old airliners wouldn't make sense for that reason: they could easily be in worse shape than the planes they are supposed to replace, being newer but not having received the same work (ongoing periodic major work) to extend their lives that the KC-135's have had. But sooner or later they must be replaced, and even at the rate of replacement in the original KC-X program it would take many years. The KC-X tranche is only a downpayment. If they keep waiting, they will eventually have planes falling apart, even higher costs to prevent it, or need much higher rate of production of the replacements.

Joe

This post has been edited by JOE BRENNAN: 29 March 2009 - 2144 PM

[Bob B]

Thanks Joe! Interesting stuff that makes sense.

[Bearded-Dragon]

There a lots of older model 747s available on the civilian market and there must be a very large spare parts line available for them. Surely they'd make good candidates for conversion to cheap tankers?

[beans4]

Exactly how worn out the KC-135s are isn't clear. Some people claim the newer airframes still have thousands of hours left on them. My understanding is the KC-135s assigned to SAC spent a lot of time on alert sitting on the ramp, and so are in better shape than an equivalent-aged airliner or USAF cargo jet. All of the R models have had engine and avionics upgrades. And the USAF maintenance infrastructure for them is well-established, obviously.

[BP]

How much of a success/failure was the KC-10? I flew on them back and forth to NTC, as well as Space-A a couple of times back in the day. The VIP load out they had was pretty suite, but even the regualr airliner seats was neat.

Coming back from a TEWT at the National Training Center, the pilot allowed us to go back and watch them refuel a passel of F-15s somewhere over the Grand Canyon, which was snow covered at the time. A spectacular site to behold, and a real aerial ballet.

[mobryan]

Bearded-Dragon, on Mon 30 Mar 2009 0441, said:

There a lots of older model 747s available on the civilian market and there must be a very large spare parts line available for them. Surely they'd make good candidates for conversion to cheap tankers?

Major basing problems, fairly high operating costs, and I expect quite a bit of $$$ and time to certify it for the collision close flying tankers do.


Matt

[Dawes]

Apparently a split buy between Boeing and EADS is still a possibility, although one would imagine that the USAF would rather not have to deal with the different logistics trains.

[On the way]

Dawes, on Mon 30 Mar 2009 1955, said:

Apparently a split buy between Boeing and EADS is still a possibility, although one would imagine that the USAF would rather not have to deal with the different logistics trains.

A split buy would be the worse case scenario for the USAF, i would imagine. Its a political creation anyway. I am sure the USAF would want to see only one time, otherwise they have the night mare of operating legacy KC-135 and KC-10s until they are phased out and Airbus and Boeing 767 at the same time.

[On the way]

Paul in Qatar, on Sun 29 Mar 2009 1610, said:

Still you have to think a dozen good airframe could be found and a dozen new tankers would ease the strain.

Yeah, this website indicates that there are 21 DC-10/MD-11 in flying condition for sale or lease. Not to mention how many are in mothballed in the deserts. U would think just buying 15 of the best airframes and converting them to KC-10 configuration would ease the strain.

http://www.airtradin...m//jta.htm#b767

This post has been edited by On the way: 30 March 2009 - 1906 PM

[On the way]

Gregory, on Sun 29 Mar 2009 1105, said:

Those airframes have tens of thousands of hours on them already. Add the intense op. schedule the AF has, and you'll have wings falling off of them in 5-10 years at the longest. Not to mention that the spare parts lines are not there, and you can't depend on scavenging everything. It's a non-starter.

Wouldn't the spare parts be the same as for the existing KC-10 fleet? .

[On the way]

Luke_Yaxley, on Sun 29 Mar 2009 1839, said:

I assume you mean something like the Dutch MD-11 tankers?

Problem is the MD11 is a dead airframe.

The simple fact is that this USAF contract has no hit any technical difficulties (which any civillian airframe conversion would) but the problems are simply political within the procurement system.

If some with the authority (and balls) just said so the A330 tanker could be entering service within two years, and I can't see the 767 taking much longer than five...

According to this website, there are 45 flying condition Boeing 767 for lease or for sale right now. I would say screw it, and buy them all and convert them. I say 4 months for each conversion, farm out the conversions to other companies if Boeing does not have the capacity, and get at least a squadron of 767 tankers going within a year. Yeah, i know, its just a fantasy.

http://www.airtradin...m//jta.htm#b767

This post has been edited by On the way: 30 March 2009 - 1914 PM