Kc-135

[Wowjack]

Has anyone seen or know when the KC-135's are to be replaced with the new 767's and what the military designation will be?

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The 767s will supplement the 135s and/or replace the KC-10s. The 135Rs are getting all glass cockpits and a bunch of upgrades, so they'll be used for another 30 years or so.

Cliff
GRB

PS-In the new tanker flight evaluations when the AF selected the DC-10, the 747 was the clear winner, followed by the L1011, and then the DC-10, but the -10 was in someone's district, or whatever, and the worst plane for the mission was purchased.

 

[Wowjack]

767

Thanks for the info. I'm hoping to get some word on if I can get a slot in the guard.

 

[CCDiscoB]

The Guard won't get the 767.

Speaking of someone's district, the 76 program looks like it will be an "off the shelf" lease from Boeing.

 

[TankerPuke]

I will second the info about the Guard not getting the 767. We always get Active leftovers...so.....replace the 10 with the 767 and give the KC10 to the Utah Guard to replace our KC135E's

PUKE

 

[DHPope93]

The plan is apparently to use the 767's to free up R-models to be given to the E-model units (por ejemplo, we are getting R-models late '03/'04 timeframe). Apparently, the active duty AF wants to shift some portion of the R-model fleet to the Guard to shift the increasing depot mx costs. However, I do not know how that works as far as the Sioux Falls unit converting to E's, the McConnell Guard converting to R's, or the Portland unit converting to R's. They need to shut down the Forks and hand those tankers out across the force, but that's a rant for another time.

Wasn't the WANG is lobbying hard for 76's, playing the "hometown" angle? Never underestimate the power of Congress to squeeze a couple of "good deals" into their district, so the possibility of Guard 767's exists. Remember all those C-130J's the AF didn't want?


Peace,
DP

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

Guard doesn't want 767's

The guard units don't want 767's because it requires less support personnel per plane = LESS JOBS.

The 767 lease program has been put on hold by congress.

 

[T1bubba]

The guard doesn't always get the active duty leftovers- my soon-to-be unit was one of the first to get a bunch of those C-130J's that the USAF didn't want. They're only a couple years old now.

I don't necessarily mind when congress makes the USAF buy tanker/airlift/bomber aircraft they didn't ask for. The fighter guys that run the USAF sometimes seem to forget about modernizing the other airframes.

 

[DHPope93]

LiveFree said:

The guard units don't want 767's because it requires less support personnel per plane = LESS JOBS.

That may be true, but the Guard can do some creative (legal) things to keep most of their people employed (i.e. cross-training). And I know one unit that would kill for 767s.

Peace,
DP

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

DHPope93-

From your profile, you are actually in the guard, so you prob have a better feel for it. Are you the D. Pope stationed at Robins then Altus?

 

[DHPope93]

Yup!

As far as having a better feel, it's still all anybody's guess, and I'm a FNG. I just listen to all the conjecture running around the unit, some logical, some not-so-much. Lots of politics involved (esp. with McCain being against it) a peck of rumors, with a little dash of "who the hell knows?" ;

There are some guys that would love it (pilots that already fly 75/76, and those who don't want to go through the hassle/expense/time of converting to R's now and possibly 76's some time in the future) and some that think it'd suck (concern on turning into cargo carriers, changing the complexion of deployments, etc). Right now, the 767 debate/pool is running a distant second to the "When are we going to get activated" betting.

Peace,
DP

 

[Draginass]

The 767 would make a great tanker. Plenty of gas and plenty of room for cargo. Probably a 410GW or so. If only the USAF can get over it's 4 engine fetish. Although, the 747 would be great too, but it'd sure take up a lot of ramp space. And again, many times it not the total quanity of gas for offload, but the numbers of booms in the sky.