November 9, 201312 yr 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.
November 9, 201312 yr 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). https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309230019/ https://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/ Edited November 9, 201312 yr by Clark Griswold
November 9, 201312 yr 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). https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309230019/ https://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.
November 9, 201312 yr We are making decisions that don't make sense. I suggest you FENCE in accordingly.
November 9, 201312 yr 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...
November 9, 201312 yr 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.
November 9, 201312 yr 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.
November 9, 201312 yr 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.
November 15, 201312 yr Author So, I randomly stumbled upon this: https://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.
November 15, 201312 yr So, I randomly stumbled upon this: https://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...
November 16, 201312 yr 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.
November 16, 201312 yr So, I randomly stumbled upon this: https://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.
November 18, 201312 yr Author 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.
November 19, 201312 yr 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, 201312 yr by Nasty2004
November 19, 201312 yr 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.
November 19, 201312 yr 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.
November 19, 201312 yr 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?
November 21, 201312 yr 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.
November 22, 201312 yr 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.
November 22, 201312 yr What -135's do they want to move to McGuire? They already have a ANG unit there.
November 22, 201312 yr 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.
November 22, 201312 yr The C-17s at McGuire would stay. C-17s from an unknown location would move to Travis in place of KC-10s and KC-135s from an unknown location (I assume McConnell due to KC-46 basing) would move to McGuire in place of KC-10s.
November 22, 201312 yr The C-17s at McGuire would stay. C-17s from an unknown location would move to Travis in place of KC-10s and KC-135s from an unknown location (I assume McConnell due to KC-46 basing) would move to McGuire in place of KC-10s. Highly doubt the USAF would leave KSUU without any tankers.
Create an account or sign in to comment