Civilian Tankers

[Deuce130]

That's a good point, but guys that would sign up to do it would ususally be the type that would, hopefully, always put the mission first.

Fox - I was thinking of exactly that sort of thing.

They probably would be .... at first. A few years on the job always changes attitudes.

 

[TGR]

Good point. I wish you were flying the last tanker I refueled off. However, flying lead as another fighter and flying it as a tanker ain't the same thing. They usually have the A/P on anyway.

Sometimes we start wondering if the guys up front are even looking outside. We'll be refueling in the soup, in and out of a layer and can see it's clear 1K' above. We end up having to ask them to climb. Yeah, I know.... Wahhhhhh.

I agree to a point. When I was in C-5s I thought the same thing about the tankers. Unfortunately, its not that simple. You guys have been operating above the AR track and know were the tops are. We often never get above the track, and if we tried to climb that extra 1000 ft to get in the clear every time we "thought" it was only a 1000 ft to the tops we might never get the AR done. Many times there are other variables, another AR right behind you, airspace issues, another tanker above that is coming in, etc. A lot of times its just not worth it for the 5k a fighter is going to get. If its a heavy that is taking on 140k, thats a different story. Hope it helps explain a little. We do try give you guys the best conditions if its possable.

BTW, I was always curious, How come you guys have a radar, wingman, AWACS, etc pointing out the tanker, but still can not find the tanker. It seems to me a fighter should be able to find the tanker without any assistance. "Sometimes we start wondering if you guys are even looking outside."

Sorry, that was a shot, but you can see how easy it is to critique the other guy with this stuff.

Just my 2c.

 

[Bjammin]

I can't speak for the Hornet or any other pointy nose, but we had air to air TCN and AWACS snaps only. We could tell if you were coming or going by the rate of DME change and them make the turn when your were abeam.

One clear day I saw the taker at 40NM. I think my eyes have gone way downhill since then.

 

[Be 23]

Who is going to refuel all of those new Marine V-22's? The KC-130 fleet isn't big enough to keep all of the pilots current for training, even if they didn't have a war (or two) on their schedule. I think there will be some opportunities for civilian tankers as the unprobed H-46's get replaced with probed V-22's.

 

[fishalaska]

Great Idea, but...

The mil guy can be ordered to risk his/her life while outsourcing might result in no fuel in a hot combat zone. Probably would not happen but the possibility is there. It might not even be the pilots--maybe management would not be willing to risk their airplanes or some other reason beyond the normal.

My 2 cents,
Fish

 

[JimNtexas]

Years ago I was involved in the USAF 'Faker' program, which rents Lear Jets and other GA aircraft from the private sector to support various training and testing activities.

Based on that experience I suspect that the military would benefit from a contract tanker operation to support training and testing.

 

[CobraKai]

training and testing yes, war probably not.

what company has the capital to buy the 500+ tankers that would be needed to replace the military force.

It would work to help reduce the home workload and give the crews some time off back home, but you would still need mil tankers to do the wartime stuff.

Lastly as hard as this is to believe what happens when the war is over and the tankers come home (almost 3/4 of them are on the road right now)? Do we pay a contractor to do the trainig and screw our own crews just to keep the contractor in business. There is a reason this idea never really came up during the cold war when everybody was always home.

 

[RampFreeze]

what company has the capital to buy the 500+ tankers that would be needed to replace the military force

I don't think anyone is saying that they replace all 500+ KC-135s. Maybe just the KC-135Es which don't have the capability of the R-Models anyway and which need to be the first retired. (oh, by the way, this helps with the overall USAF downsizing effort as well...) By replacing the Es with a contractor, you can put off the immediate necessity of buying new KC-767s or KC-30s ASAP and shift the KC-135 replacement timeline a few years to the right. That might buy you some time so that "hopefully" the war isn't taking as big of a chunk of the DoD budget and you can afford to not only buy new tankers, but might get a more advanced airframe like a KC-787, etc. instead of an airplane like the KC-767. (An airplane that has been around for 24 years and for which the assembly line will be shut down due to obsolescence unless the tanker contract is won.)

I personally still think we need to buy KC-767s now, but the Omega thing does make a pretty good business case argument over a beer. :beer:

 

[CobraKai]

Just trying to make a few points on total replacement, which this thread seemed to be heading. Read the lines right above and below. If it can ease my workload a little when I am home, so I can actually go somewhere on leave instead of balancing my use/lose days locally around CONUS coronets bringing some F-15Cs who haven't been in the AOR since the war kicked off to Red Flag for the 500th time.

The current problem is that at the current rate, the AF contracting system will not have a replacement online until mid 20teens, and by the time all replacement tankers come the -135 will be 70-80 years old.

 

[TankerDriver]

Just trying to make a few points on total replacement, which this thread seemed to be heading. Read the lines right above and below. If it can ease my workload a little when I am home, so I can actually go somewhere on leave instead of balancing my use/lose days locally around CONUS coronets bringing some F-15Cs who haven't been in the AOR since the war kicked off to Red Flag for the 500th time.

The current problem is that at the current rate, the AF contracting system will not have a replacement online until mid 20teens, and by the time all replacement tankers come the -135 will be 70-80 years old.

Bitter, aren't we? :laugh:

The problem with replacing the E models with civilian contractors is that all the E models are at ANG units right now. Do you think the ANG units using E models are going to go for using contractors to take their pay away? I don't think so. I would say, replace the E models with active duty R models, which are already being updated to the new Block 40.2/.3 datalink avionics and give active duty a new tanker (which is what they're eventually going to do). We all know the ANG doesn't use their jets nearly as much as the active duty supertanker units, so why contract out their "business"?

The fact of the matter is, unless it drops ordinance, pulls a lot of g's and makes a lot of noise, it doesn' get much pull right now. AMC gets the crap end of the stick when it comes to new equipment. Even if they signed the contract tomorrow and Boeing/Airbus started cranking them out as fast as they could, it'd still take them 20+ years to replace all 200+ AD 135's. What would be better would be to initially start up a whole new unit using the new tanker instead of actually replacing the R models to augment the workload and then as they got more and more, they could phase out the 135.

 

[HoursHore]

What ever replaces the 135 Will be unmanned. In the year 2035ish

 

[dtfl]

I

I personally still think we need to buy KC-767s now, but the Omega thing does make a pretty good business case argument over a beer. :beer:

We in Current Ops at Hurlburt contacted Omega - they are paid for by the Dept of the Navy and primarily refuel Navy aircraft. I think its a GREAT idea for stateside training and refueling. As far as them going on strike, etc....right now we schedule 4 nights of CT EVERY WEEK at HRT (excluding Xmas and NY week), M-Thur, with 4 CTs a night. 40% of them arent used as the squadrons have "other" priorities for low level, etc. We are having to look at that and possibly buy less Bus Effort tankers. So, from what I see...we could effectively use a ci tanker company with TACC as a stateside backup if something happened (strike, fleet grounded, etc).
You'll still need AF tankers for Gin Bear training, most likely.

 

[dtfl]

and by the time all replacement tankers come the -135 will be 70-80 years old.

Wow some houses dont last that long

 

[Draginass]

A quasi-civilian company flying lift and refueling as a partial replacement to KCs and airlift has a strong arguement. The 135s have done an unbelievable job over these 40-50 years, but they seriously lack lift capacity in addition to offload capacity. A 767-200 would be an improvement on that, and have less maintenance and much better fuel burn. Boeing is going to have its 787 order books filled to capacity for some time, while there are good 767s out there waiting for conversion. The 767 tanker is a proven comodity with several other air forces flying them.

Of course, the USAF should have bought 747s for heavy lift instead of the C-17 too.