Contact  |  Baseops Wiki  |  Military Pay  |  Military Discounts  |  Air  Force UPT  |  Aviation  Jobs   |  Aviation  Medicine   |  Pilot Supplies  |  Donate

Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with OpenID Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Is the KC-10 going to be cut?


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#41 Azimuth

Azimuth

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 02:17 PM

Does the -10 have the strategic commitment us -135 guys have?
  • 0

#42 Majestik Mse

Majestik Mse

    Flight Lead

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:04 PM


Yet, you still do it...every ######ing time!

True, but it's not due to lack of SA, it's because our boom needs more beans for the quarter!  Also, the tracks are small!  And the radar was clear!


  • 0

#43 StoleIt

StoleIt

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,716 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:25 PM

 

Does the -10 have the strategic commitment us -135 guys have?

 

Nope.
  • 0

"If we hit that bull's eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." - Captain Zapp Brannigan


#44 Stank

Stank

    SNAP

  • Registered User
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FL

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:41 PM

I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread...

 

The most arrogant community in AMC, the ones who think by some incredible quirk of mathematics that great pilots exist only in the KC-10 while every other airframe is full of incompetent dweebs, the ones who treat other AMC aircrew deadheading on their jet worse than they treat space-A pax, the ones who can't talk to other AMC crew dogs for more than five minutes without telling them how much they suck or how incredibly gifted KC-10 pilots are.

 

This incredible flying community, a gift to our nation from the almighty, has been told by big blue:  GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU.

 

On behalf of KC-135, C-130, and C-17 flyers everywhere: before you start showing up at "slums" like Altus, Little Rock or McConnell and flying our crappy jets, remember to leave your gucci bags and arrogance on your KC-10s when you drop them off at the boneyard.


  • -1

#45 nsplayr

nsplayr

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,523 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread...

2304795-good_good_let_the_butthurt_flow_


  • 7
"However, in the grand scheme of things the mass punishment is extremely mild and in my mind excusable." - albertschu

"Mark the day, I agree with you 100%." - ClearedHot, 11 July 2011, 9:15 AM

#46 Azimuth

Azimuth

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:25 PM

Alright, I'll engage. The -135 has some advantages over the -10: they have a datalink, they've got their GATM upgrade done, and there are 6 times as many, so they've got a lot of booms in the air. Otherwise, here is why the KC-10 remains the best tanker in the world and why its crews are so damn proud of it:

1. We're the only tanker (existing or planned) that can support a real long-range fighter movement capability. Considering the future Pacific shift, this is vital. If we're ever going to try running an air war out of Guam (IAW the RAND analysis from a few years back) we'll need some pretty gigantic offloads to move a 2-4 ship of large air superiority fighters 3 hrs west and back. Boom sequencing won't be an issue. Ref 1986/2011 Libya ops.

2. Global strike and airdrop require even greater offloads. KC-10s actively train for and execute these missions; moving large aircraft across the world nonstop will be greatly degraded/impossible without us.

3. Every KC-10 can refuel any allied jet on every mission. Any future conflict will be joint AF/USN/allies and real-time flexibility will be required. This is why the same capes are being built into the KC-46.

4. Every KC-10 Aircraft Commander is a fully qualified/current receiver and formation pilot, and we're good at it. Not only does this give us a lot of operational options (again, on every mission we fly), it makes us better at tanking because we know how much it sucks to be snap-rolled into the sun or weather. Fun party trick: we can boom-check our own formation members to ensure the systems work before the users show.

5. We're cheap to operate: $21K per hour, not including fuel (add another $9K for that). I doubt there's any jet in the inventory that can move as much payload for so little cash. There's a reason FedEx still uses this airframe. And as far as the avionics upgrade cost, it's less than the cost of one KC-46. Pretty good value, I'd say.

6. Yes we can haul a shitload of cargo, almost as much a C-17, just not the oversized stuff like MRAPs. But if you have 160K lbs of gold bricks that need to be in Japan tomorrow, we can get it there quicker and cheaper! Also, there seems to be a perpetual myth that since we carry a lot of cargo, we must be inferior tanker pilots. This myth is dumb. Flying cargo around into non-tactical environments is easy it doesn't detract from other skills.

7. What Boom Control Unit issues are you talking about?

 

So tell us about yourself.


  • 0

#47 Prozac

Prozac

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CONUS

Posted 27 October 2013 - 05:20 PM

I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread...

 

The most arrogant community in AMC, the ones who think by some incredible quirk of mathematics that great pilots exist only in the KC-10 while every other airframe is full of incompetent dweebs, the ones who treat other AMC aircrew deadheading on their jet worse than they treat space-A pax, the ones who can't talk to other AMC crew dogs for more than five minutes without telling them how much they suck or how incredibly gifted KC-10 pilots are.

 

This incredible flying community, a gift to our nation from the almighty, has been told by big blue:  GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU.

 

On behalf of KC-135, C-130, and C-17 flyers everywhere: before you start showing up at "slums" like Altus, Little Rock or McConnell and flying our crappy jets, remember to leave your gucci bags and arrogance on your KC-10s when you drop them off at the boneyard.

 

Damn dude.  I'm all for a little friendly banter between MWSs but in all honesty, most of the KC-10 pilots I know are only a little douchey.


  • 0

#48 Champ Kind

Champ Kind

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Z - 6
  • Interests:Herk Drivin', Buffoonery

Posted 27 October 2013 - 05:22 PM

 
So tell us about yourself.


Let me guess...

Brand new co with the ink still wet on his MR folder?
  • 2
"Don't think of the the AF as functioning as a military force - it's more like the DMV with some guns."

#49 B.M.

B.M.

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cal

Posted 27 October 2013 - 05:44 PM

GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU.


Don't be like that, girl. I'm sure he lost your # or something.
  • 0

#50 Infamous

Infamous

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:55 PM

I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread...

 

The most arrogant community in AMC, the ones who think by some incredible quirk of mathematics that great pilots exist only in the KC-10 while every other airframe is full of incompetent dweebs, the ones who treat other AMC aircrew deadheading on their jet worse than they treat space-A pax, the ones who can't talk to other AMC crew dogs for more than five minutes without telling them how much they suck or how incredibly gifted KC-10 pilots are.

 

This incredible flying community, a gift to our nation from the almighty, has been told by big blue:  GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU.

 

On behalf of KC-135, C-130, and C-17 flyers everywhere: before you start showing up at "slums" like Altus, Little Rock or McConnell and flying our crappy jets, remember to leave your gucci bags and arrogance on your KC-10s when you drop them off at the boneyard.

 

LOL.  This is easily the most butthurt comment I've read on baseops.  Go cry some more, get it all out then come back and tell us how you really feel

 

Bawwwww_bunny.jpg

 

dawson_crying.gif

 

It's truly disturbing that someone "hates" another aircraft community so much that they take "pleasure" seeing our Air Force lose even more aircraft and capabilities than they have already.  You need help bro, maybe you should go talk to the chaplain/SARC/IG and tell them about your problem with the KC-10 and how their aircrew members hurt you emotionally.


  • 1

#51 JarheadBoom

JarheadBoom

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quagmire Weekend Flyer's Club
  • Interests:Airplanes, guns, booze, and other expensive endeavours
  • Qual:KC-10 Boom Operator

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:16 PM

 

Being a -135 ANG/AFRC bum is a sweet gig.

If you're AFRC/ANG, then you know as well as I do that there's not many AFRC/ANG units that will use a school slot for a non-"connected" enlisted guy to get retrained in a new airframe, just so he/she can score a couple more years of retirement points before pulling chocks for the last time.  Especially when they're being flooded with applicants from younger folks who have a lot more time left until retirement, and therefore offer a lot more ROI.

 

In any case, it ain't worth brooding over.  I'm sure ARPC will give me all the info and time I need to make an informed decision about what remains of my career, if/when we start flying one-shots to AMARC.  [/sarcasm]

 

Back to enjoying every flight as if it's my last...


  • 0

I understand that long days, TDYs, deployments are part of the game. I get it, and I (and my family, frankly) don't mind executing that for valid reasons.

"These CBTs must be done for the third time this year so we all look really current for the next exercise" is not a valid reason.

-pawnman


#52 BolterKing

BolterKing

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Mediocre Hornet pilot

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:26 PM

I've got probably several hundred plugs on a 135/iron maiden combo, as well as every other combo including Brit VC-10's, L1011's, etc.

While the iron maiden is challenging at times, so is landing on the boat at night. One of the worst nights I had was rendezvousing with a 10 over northern Iraq, in the weather, then getting in the basket. A sine wave up and down the hose will rip your probe off just as fast as the maiden. MPR pods have their own challenges as well with wingtip vortices, but it's not hard. They're all terribly unforgiving of inattention and poor technique. That said, it works. Quite well. Harriers not tanking from the maiden is an operational and design limitation, not a matter of refusal. A five wet rhino can be next to impossible if you're single engine with the gear stuck down too. By far the "easiest" thing to tank off of was the S-3, but that's no longer an option.

We need what we can afford, from there the guy in the seat needs to adapt, overcome and execute.

Edited by BolterKing, 27 October 2013 - 11:27 PM.

  • 5

#53 LumberjackAxe

LumberjackAxe

    SNAP

  • Registered User
  • Pip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NorCal
  • Interests:Flyin da Big Sexy

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:43 PM

I feel a little guilty taking so much pleasure in this thread...

 

The most arrogant community in AMC, the ones who think by some incredible quirk of mathematics that great pilots exist only in the KC-10 while every other airframe is full of incompetent dweebs, the ones who treat other AMC aircrew deadheading on their jet worse than they treat space-A pax, the ones who can't talk to other AMC crew dogs for more than five minutes without telling them how much they suck or how incredibly gifted KC-10 pilots are.

 

This incredible flying community, a gift to our nation from the almighty, has been told by big blue:  GO AWAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU, WE'LL BE JUST FINE WITHOUT YOU.

 

On behalf of KC-135, C-130, and C-17 flyers everywhere: before you start showing up at "slums" like Altus, Little Rock or McConnell and flying our crappy jets, remember to leave your gucci bags and arrogance on your KC-10s when you drop them off at the boneyard.

 

Sounds like someone didn't get their KC-10 on assignment night.


  • 2

#54 SurelySerious

SurelySerious

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:56 PM

 You need help bro, maybe you should go talk to the chaplain/SARC/IG and tell them about your problem with the KC-10 and how their aircrew members hurt you emotionally.


No, new technique is go tell CNN how you can't handle the "tough" job you signed up for.

Edited by SurelySerious, 27 October 2013 - 11:57 PM.

  • 0

#55 Majestik Mse

Majestik Mse

    Flight Lead

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 01:18 AM

The most arrogant community in AMC, the ones who think by some incredible quirk of mathematics that great pilots exist only in the KC-10 while every other airframe is full of incompetent dweebs...

It's not that incredible, it's because we have a flight engineer.


  • 1

#56 joe1234

joe1234

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:02 AM

Only once in a while does an argument come along that is so awful that you can't sit by and let it go quietly.

 

Alright, I'll engage. The -135 has some advantages over the -10: they have a datalink, they've got their GATM upgrade done, and there are 6 times as many, so they've got a lot of booms in the air. Otherwise, here is why the KC-10 remains the best tanker in the world and why its crews are so damn proud of it:

1. We're the only tanker (existing or planned) that can support a real long-range fighter movement capability. Considering the future Pacific shift, this is vital. If we're ever going to try running an air war out of Guam (IAW the RAND analysis from a few years back) we'll need some pretty gigantic offloads to move a 2-4 ship of large air superiority fighters 3 hrs west and back. Boom sequencing won't be an issue. Ref 1986/2011 Libya ops.

 

2. Global strike and airdrop require even greater offloads. KC-10s actively train for and execute these missions; moving large aircraft across the world nonstop will be greatly degraded/impossible without us.

3. Every KC-10 can refuel any allied jet on every mission. Any future conflict will be joint AF/USN/allies and real-time flexibility will be required. This is why the same capes are being built into the KC-46.

4. Every KC-10 Aircraft Commander is a fully qualified/current receiver and formation pilot, and we're good at it. Not only does this give us a lot of operational options (again, on every mission we fly), it makes us better at tanking because we know how much it sucks to be snap-rolled into the sun or weather. Fun party trick: we can boom-check our own formation members to ensure the systems work before the users show.

5. We're cheap to operate: $21K per hour, not including fuel (add another $9K for that). I doubt there's any jet in the inventory that can move as much payload for so little cash. There's a reason FedEx still uses this airframe. And as far as the avionics upgrade cost, it's less than the cost of one KC-46. Pretty good value, I'd say.

6. Yes we can haul a shitload of cargo, almost as much a C-17, just not the oversized stuff like MRAPs. But if you have 160K lbs of gold bricks that need to be in Japan tomorrow, we can get it there quicker and cheaper! Also, there seems to be a perpetual myth that since we carry a lot of cargo, we must be inferior tanker pilots. This myth is dumb. Flying cargo around into non-tactical environments is easy it doesn't detract from other skills.

7. What Boom Control Unit issues are you talking about?

 

1. Do you really believe your own bullshit? That, prior to the year 1980 the United States Air Force was completely and utterly incapable of supporting any long range fighter movement capabilities, or fight a war in the Pacific? That, before the KC-10 came online, the U.S. literally could not project power anywhere ever, but somehow you came along and singlehandedly revolutionized warfare?

 

2. "Impossible". Holy shit dude, you really DO believe your own bullshit...

 

3. They are building it into the new tanker. And then they are killing off your tanker. Surely even you can draw the line from point A to B.

 

4. Better at tanking? As if there's some sort of lost art kung fu pilot technique to sitting on your ass and making left turns with the autopilot engaged while the boom does all the actual work.

 

5 & 6. Yes, there's a reason why FedEx uses it. And a bunch of other civilian carriers with similar airframes and capabilities. So why don't we just pay them to do it instead of you? 

 

The KC-10 is nice to have, as a planner, as a flyer, and as a receiver. It has a lot of capabilities. It's also a really expensive, redundant luxury that we will able to do without once the KC-46 gets here. So what if you're a receiver and you won't get soft baskets? Get over it and do your job. So what if as a planner it's now more tricky to manage the gas in an AOR because you don't have a magical giant super-expensive fuel truck sitting around? Get over it and do your job. This is the military that we operate in now. One that requires actual intelligent people to figure out how to solve problems with what they've got instead of just having everything ever at their disposal, and being propped up with a a never ending river of money, logistics, and highly expensive, redundant airframes to help them do it.


  • -2

#57 Majestik Mse

Majestik Mse

    Flight Lead

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:25 AM

Only once in a while does an argument come along that is so awful that you can't sit by and let it go quietly.

 

 

1. Do you really believe your own bullshit? That, prior to the year 1980 the United States Air Force was completely and utterly incapable of supporting any long range fighter movement capabilities, or fight a war in the Pacific? That, before the KC-10 came online, the U.S. literally could not project power anywhere ever, but somehow you came along and singlehandedly revolutionized warfare?

 

2. "Impossible". Holy shit dude, you really DO believe your own bullshit...

 

3. They are building it into the new tanker. And then they are killing off your tanker. Surely even you can draw the line from point A to B.

 

4. Better at tanking? As if there's some sort of lost art kung fu pilot technique to sitting on your ass and making left turns with the autopilot engaged while the boom does all the actual work.

 

5 & 6. Yes, there's a reason why FedEx uses it. And a bunch of other civilian carriers with similar airframes and capabilities. So why don't we just pay them to do it instead of you? 

 

The KC-10 is nice to have, as a planner, as a flyer, and as a receiver. It has a lot of capabilities. It's also a really expensive, redundant luxury that we will able to do without once the KC-46 gets here. So what if you're a receiver and you won't get soft baskets? Get over it and do your job. So what if as a planner it's now more tricky to manage the gas in an AOR because you don't have a magical giant super-expensive fuel truck sitting around? Get over it and do your job. This is the military that we operate in now. One that requires actual intelligent people to figure out how to solve problems with what they've got instead of just having everything ever at their disposal, and being propped up with a a never ending river of money, logistics, and highly expensive, redundant airframes to help them do it.

From what I've seen on this forum, you can't let any argument go quietly.  You also come across as a bit of an ass.

 

1&2. You're right, it's not impossible to move fighters & bombers around the world without us.  It will require tasking about 120-150 KC-135/46s to fill the capability gap left by the departed KC-10s (or multiple-leg fuel stops).  How many KC-135s would it take to support just 2x air-superiority fighters over a 5-hr flight with a fight in the middle?  This won't be impossible, just really hard, especially considering how limited the ramp space would be throughout the Pacific should a no-shit war ever start up.  We'll save short-term money by cutting the -10, but every -10 mission filled by 2.5 KC-135s will actually cost more in fuel and flying hours.

 

3. The new tanker will use our boom plus a centerline drogue and be receiver-AR capable, just like a KC-10, but smaller and for only $250m each.  Sweet.  We'll have 18 of them by 2017 and all of them by 2028, according to Boeing.  I sincerely hope they can deliver on schedule.

 

4. Yes, tanking is easy.  But so many still screw it up.

 

5. Agreed.  Outsource the peacetime cargo.

 

Overall you are correct, we could get by without the KC-10, as well as the A-10, F-15, U-2, B-1, C-5, and half the C-130s.  Scrap them all, we'll figure it out like we always do.  So what if it costs billions and our capabilities are reduced.

 

What do you fly, for frame of reference?


  • 1

#58 Fuzz

Fuzz

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Planes and Politics

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:33 AM

I think I understand why Joe1234 is so angry all the time he's flight manager at TACC!
  • 0

This is a non-idea from non-thinking, non-operator glass-lickers at A1.


#59 Champ Kind

Champ Kind

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Z - 6
  • Interests:Herk Drivin', Buffoonery

Posted 28 October 2013 - 12:51 PM

Only once in a while does an argument come along that is so awful that you can't sit by and let it go quietly.
 
 
1. Do you really believe your own bullshit? That, prior to the year 1980 the United States Air Force was completely and utterly incapable of supporting any long range fighter movement capabilities, or fight a war in the Pacific? That, before the KC-10 came online, the U.S. literally could not project power anywhere ever, but somehow you came along and singlehandedly revolutionized warfare?
 
2. "Impossible". Holy shit dude, you really DO believe your own bullshit...
 
3. They are building it into the new tanker. And then they are killing off your tanker. Surely even you can draw the line from point A to B.
 
4. Better at tanking? As if there's some sort of lost art kung fu pilot technique to sitting on your ass and making left turns with the autopilot engaged while the boom does all the actual work.
 
5 & 6. Yes, there's a reason why FedEx uses it. And a bunch of other civilian carriers with similar airframes and capabilities. So why don't we just pay them to do it instead of you? 
 
The KC-10 is nice to have, as a planner, as a flyer, and as a receiver. It has a lot of capabilities. It's also a really expensive, redundant luxury that we will able to do without once the KC-46 gets here. So what if you're a receiver and you won't get soft baskets? Get over it and do your job. So what if as a planner it's now more tricky to manage the gas in an AOR because you don't have a magical giant super-expensive fuel truck sitting around? Get over it and do your job. This is the military that we operate in now. One that requires actual intelligent people to figure out how to solve problems with what they've got instead of just having everything ever at their disposal, and being propped up with a a never ending river of money, logistics, and highly expensive, redundant airframes to help them do it.


Say quals?
  • 1
"Don't think of the the AF as functioning as a military force - it's more like the DMV with some guns."

#60 Warrior

Warrior

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 12:55 PM

How many times have we asked joe to pony up with his qualifications/experience? Not holding my breath now
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users