Is the KC-10 going to be cut?

[pawnman]

This is my $.02 as a current -135 AC, and a Coronet Detail Planner with one of the Guard TTF shops. I have about 6-7 years in the 135 and about 3 years now of traveling around the world as a Coronet Planner on KC-10s.

I'm not going to engage in any of the community/culture bashing or wenis measuring contests. Most tanker dudes are good pilots/booms and want to do their job well. Some suck, and want to keep sucking. No community is immune.

From a planning perspective, JarheadBoom hit the nail on the head. A safe rule of thumb in the coronet world is that 1 x KC-10 = 2 x KC-135s. As a planner, we obviously love to reduce the number of moving parts whenever possible. But could we do some of our most complex coronet mission sets (ie, Strikes from KMUO-AOR or 22's from PAED-AOR) with only 135s? Of course. We have done it, all the time. We have also done them with only KC-10s. In the end, the missions are completed with similar rates of MX issues, etc. What matters to the people who’s opinion matter is that the fighters get delivered nearly on time, not a 10-20% cost differential.

I have also seen it go both ways with receiver units. Some Navy/Marine units have squawked about 135s. Some got KC-10's. Some were told that the 135 was their only option. It mostly had to do with tail availability. I have yet to see a unit wait for a KC-10 to free up rather than deal with a 135 and go on time, especially when headed westbound. In the case of FMS sales, the rcvr units (most recently Tornados for me) get what they want for obvious reasons.

As others have said quite accurately, if big blue does cut the 10 it will be completely about $$. A smaller inventory (less than 20% of the 135 fleet size) with overlapping capabilities would seem to be an easy target. All semantics about who has more items of flair aside, we have other jets that can offload gas and move cargo in the inventory, and rcvr units will adapt. We as planners will adapt, but it will suck.

All that being said, I think this and discussions about chopping the A-10 are mostly posturing to wake politicians up to the impacts of sequestration. But anyone who convinces themselves that their job, airplane, base, etc, are indispensable in today's military is just setting themselves up for failure.

~NH

Of course, standing down fighter and bomber units was also supposed to wake politicians up to the impacts of sequestration...the result was a total government shutdown.

So, don't hold out a lot of hope in the politicians to fix it.

[Nasty2004]

The KC-10 isn't going anywhere. If the federal government is concerned about saving money, they could consider converting the 8 KC-10 squadrons to guard units, but we can't survive without the capabilities of the -10 without fundamentally changing the way we do business. Anyone who thinks that we'll "adapt" to the loss is in denial. Cutting the airframe out completely is a non-starter. No one can make a legitimate argument to the contrary.

[Clark Griswold]

The KC-10 isn't going anywhere. If the federal government is concerned about saving money, they could consider converting the 8 KC-10 squadrons to guard units, but we can't survive without the capabilities of the -10 without fundamentally changing the way we do business. Anyone who thinks that we'll "adapt" to the loss is in denial. Cutting the airframe out completely is a non-starter. No one can make a legitimate argument to the contrary.

But for the kind of money that sequestration is going to force us to save, it is very likely to be retired along with some others unfortunately (A-10 & F-15C).

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309230019/

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/

Edited November 9, 2013 by Clark Griswold

[Swanee]

But for the kind of money that sequestration is going to force us to save, it is very likely to be retired along with some others unfortunately (A-10 & F-15C).

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309230019/

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/

25k is only 5% of the AF? Holy crap you guys have a lot of people in your service.

[joe1234]

The KC-10 isn't going anywhere. If the federal government is concerned about saving money, they could consider converting the 8 KC-10 squadrons to guard units, but we can't survive without the capabilities of the -10 without fundamentally changing the way we do business. Anyone who thinks that we'll "adapt" to the loss is in denial. Cutting the airframe out completely is a non-starter. No one can make a legitimate argument to the contrary.

Sounds like someone is primed for some earth-shattering disappointment in a few years.

[Tulsa]

We are making decisions that don't make sense. I suggest you FENCE in accordingly.

[BigFreddie]

I was at ATA last week and the AMC/CC said one COA is to retire the entire KC-10 fleet starting in FY15 with the entire fleet being gone 3 years later. The cost savings come from "divesting" the entire fleet, not taking small pieces away. This is all coming from the AMC/CC who was a KC-10 guy in the true Gucci days. His explanation for why this was happening was the KC-46 - the money is needed for an uninterrupted roll out of the new hotness.

He also said the C-130 fleet won't get new avionics and 50-60 of the old ones will be retired in favor of eventually getting more J models. He said there would be pain in the next 5 years but we would end up with a more capable fleet in the 5 to 7 year window.

I'm a C-5 guy working at TACC and see the value of the KC-10. If you want to see the value look at Talisman Sabre from this summer.

Also, as someone mentioned, this hasn't met the beast that is Congress and politics. I can't think of toe worse delegations to cross than the ones from CA and NJ. If the relatively young delegation for AK can make the AF stop moving a single squadron of F-16s from Eielson to Elmo, this battle will be really tough to win...

[GearMonkey]

I was at ATA last week and the AMC/CC said one COA is to retire the entire KC-10 fleet starting in FY15 with the entire fleet being gone 3 years later. The cost savings come from "divesting" the entire fleet, not taking small pieces away. This is all coming from the AMC/CC who was a KC-10 guy in the true Gucci days. His explanation for why this was happening was the KC-46 - the money is needed for an uninterrupted roll out of the new hotness.

He also said the C-130 fleet won't get new avionics and 50-60 of the old ones will be retired in favor of eventually getting more J models. He said there would be pain in the next 5 years but we would end up with a more capable fleet in the 5 to 7 year window.

I'm a C-5 guy working at TACC and see the value of the KC-10. If you want to see the value look at Talisman Sabre from this summer.

Also, as someone mentioned, this hasn't met the beast that is Congress and politics. I can't think of toe worse delegations to cross than the ones from CA and NJ. If the relatively young delegation for AK can make the AF stop moving a single squadron of F-16s from Eielson to Elmo, this battle will be really tough to win...

Talisman Sabre (Alaska direct to Australia with a 6-on-6 KC-10/C-17 gangbang along the way) is a pretty clear outlier in the air refueling world. Sure it was nice to be able to do it with just six tankers but 10-12 KC-135s would have worked fine as well. I also suspect that in most realistic scenarios this mission would have been forward staged and probably could have been performed without any tanker support at all.

[Azimuth]

The KC-10 isn't going anywhere. If the federal government is concerned about saving money, they could consider converting the 8 KC-10 squadrons to guard units, but we can't survive without the capabilities of the -10 without fundamentally changing the way we do business. Anyone who thinks that we'll "adapt" to the loss is in denial. Cutting the airframe out completely is a non-starter. No one can make a legitimate argument to the contrary.

I heard the same thing back in 2004 about Legacy Herks when the first J-Model flew in to LRF. Things change.

[ThreeHoler]

Talisman Sabre (Alaska direct to Australia with a 6-on-6 KC-10/C-17 gangbang along the way) is a pretty clear outlier in the air refueling world. Sure it was nice to be able to do it with just six tankers but 10-12 KC-135s would have worked fine as well. I also suspect that in most realistic scenarios this mission would have been forward staged and probably could have been performed without any tanker support at all.

Except for that year they tried it with KC-135s and the C-17s didn't make it to Australia because they had to divert for gas.

[JackaL]

So, I randomly stumbled upon this: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=1273 Does this mean that the Air Force has already paid for the avionics upgrades? Did they AF forget they already spent $216M to upgrade all 59 tails? LOL. Didn't know if anyone knew about this or not.

[ThreeHoler]

So, I randomly stumbled upon this:  http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=1273  Does this mean that the Air Force has already paid for the avionics upgrades?  Did they AF forget they already spent $216M to upgrade all 59 tails?  LOL.  Didn't know if anyone knew about this or not.  

Hey new guy, tell us about yourself...

[scudrunner12]

So what are guys at McGuire/Travis being told? AFPC has been dropping KC-10s out of UPT like nothing is going to happen anytime soon.

[Prosuper]

So, I randomly stumbled upon this: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=1273 Does this mean that the Air Force has already paid for the avionics upgrades? Did they AF forget they already spent $216M to upgrade all 59 tails? LOL. Didn't know if anyone knew about this or not.

Boeing subcontracted it to Rockwell Collins then RC subcontracted ARINC in OKC which did the first 2 birds. Then RC bought ARINC just for their avionics. The ARINC facility in OKC is finishing up its Navy E-6 contract then most likely be sold or shuttered. RC wants no part of the MRO business.

[JackaL]

Hey new guy, tell us about yourself...

Not sure if this was sarcastic or not, either way... I've been on Baseops since 2006, and in the -10 since 2010 at Travis. Currently an A/C and just debating on if I need to start looking for a new airframe or if I'm safe in the KC-10. That pretty much sums up the reason I started this thread.

So what are guys at McGuire/Travis being told? AFPC has been dropping KC-10s out of UPT like nothing is going to happen anytime soon.

We're being told the Avionics upgrade program was cancelled and the KC-10 was going to be shut down at the beginning of FY15.

[Azimuth]

Try not to find a new airframe without an FE. They're extremely dangerous.

[Nasty2004]

We're being told the Avionics upgrade program was cancelled and the KC-10 was going to be shut down at the beginning of FY15.

So are any -135 dudes being told their life is about to start sucking in high gear due to the complete loss of tankers from a certain "undisclosed location in Southeast Asia?" Yeah, yeah, I know, we'll be out of Afghanistan by then...

Edited November 19, 2013 by Nasty2004

[ThreeHoler]

Not sure if this was sarcastic or not, either way... I've been on Baseops since 2006, and in the -10 since 2010 at Travis. Currently an A/C and just debating on if I need to start looking for a new airframe or if I'm safe in the KC-10. That pretty much sums up the reason I started this thread.

I'll let the fighter guys explain it to you.

However, in seriousness...yes, most of us who have been in the KC-10 for any amount of time (and pay attention) know that the initial CNS/ATM (this attempt) was funded in 2012 along with the replacement BCU...however, future funding has been sketchy at best. The two jets are eventually coming back to McGuire. What happens to the other 57 remains to be seen.

Be prepared for the KC-10 to get cancelled. Expect the AF to ask for it (ref AMC/CC comments the past month or so). Expect Congress to consider it and the good Congressmen and women of CA and NJ to oppose...we shall see.

As to looking for a new airframe...you're an AC. PHOENIX isn't likely unless you upgrade and work for the Wg/CC. That means UPT, MC-12, UAVs...unless AMC opens a mechanical crossflow due to the divestiture of the KC-10. Big OSA isn't likely, but maybe small OSA is...both are selective.

[10percenttruth]

Not sure if this was sarcastic or not, either way... I've been...

SIT DOWN!!!

[Azimuth]

So are any -135 dudes being told their life is about to start sucking in high gear due to the complete loss of tankers from a certain "undisclosed location in Southeast Asia?" Yeah, yeah, I know, we'll be out of Afghanistan by then...

Most -135 crew would rather do that than the strategic mission that the KC-10 community washed their hands of years ago.

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

We're being told the Avionics upgrade program was cancelled and the KC-10 was going to be shut down at the beginning of FY15.

Who has told you this? Maybe not specifically "who," but is this just something you read on baseops, or did someone actually lay this out straight?

[Nasty2004]

Most -135 crew would rather do that than the strategic mission that the KC-10 community washed their hands of years ago.

If they get rid of the KC-10 it won't be a matter of one vs. the other for -135s. They will have to do both. Of course the load will be lightened in 2017 when there's 4 KC-46s on the line.

[ThreeHoler]

Per the AMC/CC (through the telephone game, so take with a grain of salt):

AMC will not ask to fund the KC-10 in FY15. What Congress decides to do...

If the KC-10 goes away, they want to move KC-135s to McGuire and C-17s to Travis. Expect to crossflow into the KC-135, possibly another AMC airframe. FEs...sucks to be you.

[Azimuth]

What -135's do they want to move to McGuire? They already have a ANG unit there.

[Nasty2004]

We are making decisions that don't make sense. I suggest you FENCE in accordingly.

This statement is becoming more and more prescient...

Per the AMC/CC (through the telephone game, so take with a grain of salt):

AMC will not ask to fund the KC-10 in FY15. What Congress decides to do...

If the KC-10 goes away, they want to move KC-135s to McGuire and C-17s to Travis. Expect to crossflow into the KC-135, possibly another AMC airframe. FEs...sucks to be you.

Why would the KC-10 elimination/KC-135 relocation affect the C-17s at KWRI?

I think when China takes over we will have deserved it. This shit is insane.