Due to lack of tanker support?

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlog/articles/20101112.aspx

Not sure who wrote that piece, but it seems fairly inaccurate. For instance, we (tanker planners) use an historical 80% mx reliability rate for ute calculations. Also, the Buffs are older than us by a few years. Of course the tanker fleet is getting old, but she's a great jet that hasn't lost a crew in over a decade, at least that I've heard of... AAR is a capability that few other countries can boast, and our AF will never have enough tankers to cover every contingency plan on the book, but we do pretty well with what we have.

Not sure who wrote that piece, but it seems fairly inaccurate. For instance, we (tanker planners) use an historical 80% mx reliability rate for ute calculations. Also, the Buffs are older than us by a few years. Of course the tanker fleet is getting old, but she's a great jet that hasn't lost a crew in over a decade, at least that I've heard of... AAR is a capability that few other countries can boast, and our AF will never have enough tankers to cover every contingency plan on the book, but we do pretty well with what we have.

All of that aside, the recent RF did cancel due to tanker availability.

Sounds like Boeing or Airbus wrote that article. I bet it is really because there are no man days to support the Guard/Reserve tanker missions. https://www.ng.mil/news/archives/2010/11/111110-Tanker.aspx

Are you American tanker crews annoyed? Yeah, sounds like some propaganda.

Moreover, Airbus has been developing the KC-30 for several years, and the first entered service with Australia last year. This annoys American tanker crews, as they struggle to operate their elderly KC-135s, and know that they will have to continue doing so for another two decades.

Um...no. I am annoyed the KC-X procurement is so jacked up...but I am certainly not jealous/annoyed at anyone flying the Airbus.

(I am slightly jealous of the Italians and Japanese for rocking the KC-767 though).

Not sure who wrote that piece, but it seems fairly inaccurate. For instance, we (tanker planners) use an historical 80% mx reliability rate for ute calculations. Also, the Buffs are older than us by a few years.

The BUFFs are mostly 60/61-XXXX tail numbers, I've seen quite a few -135s with 56-58 tails, but I'll admit I'm not sure about the average -135...consider also that -135s have new engines while the B-52 still has their originals.

our AF will never have enough tankers to cover every contingency plan on the book, but we do pretty well with what we have.

We cannot fight wars everywhere, so it is impossible to cover EVERY contingency. We should always have enough tankers to cover our needs in any one war. (This is a general statement and does not necessarily reflect our operational capabilities)

consider also that -135s have new engines while the B-52 still has their originals.

Say again??

EDIT TO ADD: Oh, and BTW, the majority of B-52s made are pre-1960 tails. I'm not a BUFF guy, I have no idea what the "average" one on the ramp is these days, i.e., which tails were converted to H-models vs. sent to the bone yard, guillotined, etc. I also believe (but again am not sure) that the B-52 pre-dates the -135 by some small margin (no more than a year or two).

Edited November 14, 201015 yr by Jughead

According to AF magazine, B-52 IOC was 6/19/55. Aircraft delivered between Nov 55 and Oct 62. KC-135 was IOC Jun 1957 with aircraft delivered between Jan 57-65.

In addition, B-52 avg age is 47.8 years, while AD -135s (209) are 47.0 avg. age, ANG (173) avg 48.4 yrs and AFRES (64) avg age 48.1.

So, we're arguing over what exactly here? They are both operating at ages that aircraft have never operated at before and each day, week, month and year bring new problems that have to be dealt with.

BL: The USAF needs a new tanker.

Edited November 14, 201015 yr by Herk Driver

The BUFFs are mostly 60/61-XXXX tail numbers, I've seen quite a few -135s with 56-58 tails, but I'll admit I'm not sure about the average -135...consider also that -135s have new engines while the B-52 still has their originals.

We cannot fight wars everywhere, so it is impossible to cover EVERY contingency. We should always have enough tankers to cover our needs in any one war. (This is a general statement and does not necessarily reflect our operational capabilities)

I'm almost certain you've never seen a '56 tail or older other than a static display. The oldest -135 I've flown on was a '57, the youngest a '64. Those "new" engines are actually 20+ years old, and currently the -135's are getting the hell flown out of them (triple turning in theater) in crappy desert conditions while BUFF guys enjoy island paradise at their "austere" location.

Edited November 14, 201015 yr by Crew Report

Say again??

EDIT TO ADD: Oh, and BTW, the majority of B-52s made are pre-1960 tails. I'm not a BUFF guy, I have no idea what the "average" one on the ramp is these days, i.e., which tails were converted to H-models vs. sent to the bone yard, guillotined, etc. I also believe (but again am not sure) that the B-52 pre-dates the -135 by some small margin (no more than a year or two).

Yes, the majority of BUFF tails were pre-1960. The majority of pre-1960ish tails were G's which have all since been retired and/or chopped. The H models, which are the only BUFFs flying since the mid-1990s are original builds and rolled off the line around 60ish. G's and H's were the same basic airframe (chopped tail, wet wing) among other things. The G retained the water burning J-57s while the H's had, and still do, rock out some of the best engines built in their day...the TF-33.

I'm almost certain you've never seen a '56 tail or older other than a static display. The oldest -135 I've flown on was a '57, the youngest a '64. Those "new" engines are actually 20+ years old, and currently the -135's are getting the hell flown out of them (triple turning in theater) in crappy desert conditions while BUFF guys enjoy island paradise at their "austere" location.

I could be wrong (it's happened about once a decade...), but I'm pretty sure we refueled from a reserve 56 tail number. Those new engines on the 135s are significantly newer than ours (by a "mere" 30 years). That hot, dry air in the desert is a pain for the crews (I did 2 tours in the kitty litter), but it's relatively good for the engines. The island deployments cause a LOT of corrosion with the salt in the air, just ask the B-2s.

I could be wrong (it's happened about once a decade...), but I'm pretty sure we refueled from a reserve 56 tail number. Those new engines on the 135s are significantly newer than ours (by a "mere" 30 years). That hot, dry air in the desert is a pain for the crews (I did 2 tours in the kitty litter), but it's relatively good for the engines. The island deployments cause a LOT of corrosion with the salt in the air, just ask the B-2s.

The oldest R-model would be a 57-XXXX, a 56 would probably be an E, and they have all been retired. The R-model engines are awesome, and I am pretty sure they have saved many crews that would have otherwise augured in if it were an A-model (one of the booms I know has a great Altus PIQ story where he knows the R-model engines saved the jet). While the R-model engines are "new" in regards to a -135 timeline, they are being worked to death. MTOW for the Wx conditions in the sandbox light up the EGT lights all the time.

I can't find the article, but the oldest engine in continuous service was pulled off a McConnell tanker earlier this year with 13.5k hours or so on it. The engine was installed around '83 and it ironically was still hanging on the first R-model tanker for its entire service life.

The oldest R-model would be a 57-XXXX, a 56 would probably be an E, and they have all been retired. The R-model engines are awesome, and I am pretty sure they have saved many crews that would have otherwise augured in if it were an A-model (one of the booms I know has a great Altus PIQ story where he knows the R-model engines saved the jet). While the R-model engines are "new" in regards to a -135 timeline, they are being worked to death. MTOW for the Wx conditions in the sandbox light up the EGT lights all the time.

I can't find the article, but the oldest engine in continuous service was pulled off a McConnell tanker earlier this year with 13.5k hours or so on it. The engine was installed around '83 and it ironically was still hanging on the first R-model tanker for its entire service life.

https://www.mcconnell.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123194267

https://www.mcconnell.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123194267

Thanks, I am glad you were able to find it. The wifi at my current location is problematic to say the least.

Yes, the majority of BUFF tails were pre-1960. The majority of pre-1960ish tails were G's which have all since been retired and/or chopped. The H models, which are the only BUFFs flying since the mid-1990s are original builds and rolled off the line around 60ish. G's and H's were the same basic airframe (chopped tail, wet wing) among other things. The G retained the water burning J-57s while the H's had, and still do, rock out some of the best engines built in their day...the TF-33.

All the H models are 60-xxx or 61-xxx. There were no G's "converted" to H models.

All 55 and 56 Model KC-135's are retired that is to include J-57 and TF-33 equipped models, their wing is different from the 57 thru 64 models which wouldn't take the CFM56 unless we put whole new wings on them. All in all the planes avionics are more update compared to a KC-10 or E-3 which still use steam guages. What I remember about the A model and what newest block R model it is comparing the Wright flyer to the ME-262. If you saw a 55/56 model it was probably a TF-33 equiped NKC-135 AFMC test bird flying target mission for the YAL-1 747-400 airborne lazer which have been recently retired.

The CFM-56' equipped Navy E-6's had a write up in the Tinker base newspaper of having over 20K hours on the wing before they had to remove for mx on the other hand I had some bad luck with my E-3 I was a Crew Chief on , changed seven TF-33's on the same plane in 3 weeks on a OSW deployment.

All 55 and 56 Model KC-135's are retired that is to include J-57 and TF-33 equipped models, their wing is different from the 57 thru 64 models which wouldn't take the CFM56 unless we put whole new wings on them. All in all the planes avionics are more update compared to a KC-10 or E-3 which still use steam guages. What I remember about the A model and what newest block R model it is comparing the Wright flyer to the ME-262. If you saw a 55/56 model it was probably a TF-33 equiped NKC-135 AFMC test bird flying target mission for the YAL-1 747-400 airborne lazer which have been recently retired.

Are you talking AD only? FWIW, I know that the NE ANG out of Lincoln has a handful of 55s laying around on the ramp that were converted to R models and that they fly the $hit out of...

Are you talking AD only? FWIW, I know that the NE ANG out of Lincoln has a handful of 55s laying around on the ramp that were converted to R models and that they fly the $hit out of...

I'm on the road currently, so I can't provide documentation for this right now...but there is NO WAY they are flying '55s any more. There weren't that many made in '55 the first place, and as someone else has previously stated, they are all retired now anyway. IIRC '57 is the first year to have R-model engines, and Lincoln only has R-models. I'll post a reference when I get home and can find the exact tail number data.

All of that aside, the recent RF did cancel due to tanker availability.

That is what happens when AMC cuts the funding for most of the ANG/AFRC tankers (crews)...who happen to operate roughly 60% of them.

Between AMC's current budget woes (i.e. all MPA funding gone) and the new 18AF/CC policy for "no guard/reserve help to active duty" it's going to get pretty ugly for the AD bubbas. Not our fault, fellas!

Edited November 14, 201015 yr by Bergman

Schwabbeau, how's WIC treating you brotha? Bergman, I haven't heard about 18AF/CC's new policy. Care to elaborate? FWIW, tanker reliability isn't getting any better any time soon, despite the best efforts of maintainers and crews. Recent white paper: "9 Secrets of the Tanker War" (https://www.irisresearch.com/9-secrets-of-the-tanker-war?a=1&c=1129)is a good read if you haven't seen it yet. The author theorizes that the 179 A/C KC-X contract may be the only buy due to our current budget issues.

Are you talking AD only? FWIW, I know that the NE ANG out of Lincoln has a handful of 55s laying around on the ramp that were converted to R models and that they fly the $hit out of...

Lincoln used to fly Es but converted over to the R. I believe they were separate airframes and that all of the Es were sent to the Boneyard.

I'm on the road currently, so I can't provide documentation for this right now...but there is NO WAY they are flying '55s any more. There weren't that many made in '55 the first place, and as someone else has previously stated, they are all retired now anyway. IIRC '57 is the first year to have R-model engines, and Lincoln only has R-models. I'll post a reference when I get home and can find the exact tail number data.

That is what happens when AMC cuts the funding for most of the ANG/AFRC tankers (crews)...who happen to operate roughly 60% of them.

Between AMC's current budget woes (i.e. all MPA funding gone) and the new 18AF/CC policy for "no guard/reserve help to active duty" it's going to get pretty ugly for the AD bubbas. Not our fault, fellas!

Weird, I've participated in six RF's before I went to AETC, and not once did I see an ANG or AFRC crew there. Must have been in that 40%.

Don't worry, I'm sure the AD will somehow "survive" with all those RF's, ME's, Air Bridges to Europe, trips to South America and Japan that the ANG/AFRC currently "help out with."

Edited November 14, 201015 yr by Crew Report

There were alot of KC-135E's that were 55 or 56 models but are all retired, Chile now flys 1 or 2 KC-135E's but I believe they are 57 models. I read the Utah ANG guys are the only current E model guys who train the Chileans. The 55th at Offutt had the only AD KC-135E they used as a trainer and trash hauler, don't know if they still have it. Not many TF-33 equipped -135's left around flying.

There were alot of KC-135E's that were 55 or 56 models but are all retired, Chile now flys 1 or 2 KC-135E's but I believe they are 57 models. I read the Utah ANG guys are the only current E model guys who train the Chileans. The 55th at Offutt had the only AD KC-135E they used as a trainer and trash hauler, don't know if they still have it. Not many TF-33 equipped -135's left around flying.

Some of the Chileans went to Altus.

Weird, I've participated in six RF's before I went to AETC, and not once did I see an ANG or AFRC crew there. Must have been in that 40%.

Don't worry, I'm sure the AD will somehow "survive" with all those RF's, ME's, Air Bridges to Europe, trips to South America and Japan that the ANG/AFRC currently "help out with."

Yeah, good deals is pretty much all we help out with. Like sitting strip alert at Eielson for weeks on end. Or sitting bravo in Maine for weeks on end.

Or spending 5 months a year at Manas or the Deid. Something close to 20% of the deployed crews are ANG/AFRC volunteers (i.e not normal AEF crews). If you think taking that participation out of the system won't have an effect on AD TDY rates, you are nucking futs. Yes, the ANG/AFRC get a pretty good share of the good deals, but don't think that we're not contributing in many other ways.

I will close with a firm "shut it" before you can even come back with a "yeah but our guys spend 9 months a year at Manas" or whatever. Not trying to start a TDY rate pissing contest here. FWIW I'm at 154 and counting this year, and I will still end up making only about 80% of what I would have if I was on active duty, plus won't see any retirement cash until age 60. And there are many, many more like me.

BL - AMC has pulled the funding for ANG/AFRC participation within the tanker world, and the AD is not going to be able to cover the requirements. The fact that RF canceled due to lack of tanker support is evidence of that.