USAF gets 767 tankers

[SpeedRacer]

USAF 767's

I was in Memphis yesterday and saw the C-141 with the left wing broken off while refueling. It broke between the #2 engine and fuselage - my "sources" say apparently not due to any human error while refueling. It had a fuel leak (patched) the day prior and was set to fly out to Ramstein for their SID.

The 767 could be a welcomed replacement (short-term) for the C-141 while more C-17's come off the production line. I flew the 141 back in the mid 90's and the plane had wing crack problems before and after desert storm - I think it was just a matter of time for something like this to happen - thank goodness it happened on the ground and not inflight. It's time to send them to DM for good.

Lots of UPTers will be begging for a 767 if given the choice between that and a C-5, C-130 or T-37!!...Heck, I would if I was a 2LT!!.

 

[Draginass]

Replacing two 135's with one 767 won't work. The problem is not alway "not enough gas," it's mostly "not enough booms." Also the cargo capacity, once not important when the primary role was strategic refueling for Strategic Air Command, is now VERY important, especially since AMC has been cut past the bone. The 767-300ER/400 would make a great tanker and carry a fair amount of cargo to boot. IMHO, we should have bought a slew of 747-400s Freighters for AMC with only a minimum number of RORO freighters like the C-17. With additional fuel tanks, the C-17 is getting better, but was a disappointment at first. With simple and commonly available MHE, a 747 can be offloaded in less than an hour. The 747 is also considerably cheaper than the C-17 or new production C-5.

 

[Wiggums]

Have the decks of the 135s been converted to RORO, or are they still plywood?

 

[HueyPilot]

Its about time...

Yeah, I can buy the arguement that the lease was done to help Boeing. But at the same time, it's about time that Congress decided that 40-year old airplanes aren't the best idea for combat readiness.

The 767 can also add an airlift element to AMC, so long as they put the RORO floors on the aircraft. The AF has spent a little more money procuring more pallet handling equipment, which should make the 767 variants at least some-what airlift useful.

I think the lease idea is smart. Since they are gearing this program up so fast, it's better to let Boeing handle alot of the maintenance issues before we turn it over to the military folks. This will allow us to develop maintenance programs that fit with the military way of doing things. The C-130J is a lesson in how NOT to procure an aircraft. They bought those things with little or no operational experience, and that has been one of the type's main downfalls. I think it will get fixed in the long run, but it's causing pain in the short term.

Some people I've talked to have reservations about the AF leasing aircraft, calling it absurd. The airplanes I fly now were leased, then bought. The AF leased 80 Learjet 35s, then bought them in the late 1980s. It's been done before folks, so don't worry about the whole lease issue. Like I said, it's better to do that when you're buying an aircraft that the AF has little or no maintenance support to handle.

I think I wouldn't mind cross-flowing into tankers if they put the 767s in some decent locations (not Grand Forks!).

 

[Draginass]

135s and 767s are not RORO. They require MHE to offload regardless if the cargo floor is equipped with pallet rollers. Aircraft such as the 141, C17, C5, and C130 can "roll on roll off" which one can very rapidly offload pallets/rolling stock in a tactical situation (or even airdrop/LAPES) etc. While a very valuable advantage, those aircraft are very expensive and their capability is not always necessary. Much cheaper aircraft such as the 747 can provide the bulk lift with the ROROs providing an initial supply of HiLift MHE and the specialized cargo.

BTW, the cargo floors of KC135s are pretty weak and must be shored up with plywood. It's a lousy cargo aircraft. Even a small jet engine will barely fit through the cargo door. The 135s have done their duty in spades. The KC10s, while not very fuel efficient, still have some life in them. It's time to bring our tanker force into the 21st century with a heavy tanker/airlifter combi like a 767 or even a 777 that would include both boom and a drouge baskets.

 

[SpeedBird]

I'm working out at Edwards with the tanker test/support reserve unit here. I spoke with my commander about the 767 tanker replacement, and while nothing offcial has come down to our level yet, we are anticipating at least one aircraft being delivered to Edwards before the end of the calendar year. It will be used initially for testing & development. There is a lot of anticipation among the TPS patch wearers about who will get their hands on this plane when it shows up. When more news arrives I'll post what I can for those who are interested.

 

[Visceral]

This is all very interesting considering we got briefed before 9/11 that the R model tanker would be going another 40 years. We were told the entire acquisition process wouldn't even begin until about 2020. Despite 9-11, I'm still a skeptic and I'll believe it when I see it on the ramp.

NKAWTG

 

[Mud Eagle]

The events of Sept 11 have changed a *lot* of things. I'm flying F-15Es today with a software suite and datalink upgrade that people swore we wouldn't see until 2004.

You just never know....