Sculprit
Well-Known Member
These new tankers really can’t catch a break.
KC-46 makes emergency landing
KC-46 makes emergency landing
Reminder that Boeing sleazed this tanker gig away from the already-done Airbus deal.can’t catch a break.
The USAF is retiring KC-10s at a fast rate, which is odd because they are far newer and far more capable than the KC-135s that they are keeping. And with an outstanding safety record. Of the 60 KC-10s produced, only one was lost in a maintenance ground fire at Barksdale AFB in the 1980s. Currently of the remaining fleet of 59, the 20th one has arrived to the boneyard here for storage, leaving 39 in the fleet. The KC-10 is longer range, carries more cargo and does it more efficiently, and has better air refueling capabilities as it has both its flying boom as well as an extendable drogue to accommodate both refueling styles. A few current R model KC-135s have been retired to the boneyard, but there aren’t many of the older A/E model -135s around as those have been scrapped. Those R models may have nice CFM engines and modern avionics on them, but they’re still late 1950s to mid 1960s airframes.
You forgot that the -10 is also way cooler
It’s easier to air refuel off of, that’s for sure. Even in planes that are somewhat of a pain in the butt for the receiver such as the B-1 and A-10.
A few years ago, I'd see the A-10s that came up this way from MD. They REALLY preferred doing air refueling missions with KC-10s over the -135s from the 134th or 157th ARW. A bit odd, since the Maine and NH ANG didn't operate the KC-10. Gonna have to do some homework and see if VT or NY would come up this way to drill with them, but I definitely agree: the KC-10 beats the 135.
Yeah that decision never made sense to me. Was it a matter of commonality with E-3/E-6/E-8 on some level, that was more cost effective for the DoD? KC-10 being an oddball and all
Yeah that decision never made sense to me. Was it a matter of commonality with E-3/E-6/E-8 on some level, that was more cost effective for the DoD? KC-10 being an oddball and all
Avionics upgrade that would have been required to operate in EUCOM.
Somehow the money people used that as the motivator to get it when cut when the Air Force was talking about killing something big in the form of a whole MWS like B1 or Hawg.
And everybody knows you can’t actually retire the Hawg.
Here in Greensboro, NC HAECO has been refurbishing the KC-10 for over the last 10 years.The USAF is retiring KC-10s at a fast rate, which is odd because they are far newer and far more capable than the KC-135s that they are keeping. And with an outstanding safety record. Of the 60 KC-10s produced, only one was lost in a maintenance ground fire at Barksdale AFB in the 1980s. Currently of the remaining fleet of 59, the 20th one has arrived to the boneyard here for storage, leaving 39 in the fleet. The KC-10 is longer range, carries more cargo and does it more efficiently, and has better air refueling capabilities as it has both its flying boom as well as an extendable drogue to accommodate both refueling styles. A few current R model KC-135s have been retired to the boneyard, but there aren’t many of the older A/E model -135s around as those have been scrapped. Those R models may have nice CFM engines and modern avionics on them, but they’re still late 1950s to mid 1960s airframes.
Reminder that Boeing sleazed this tanker gig away from the already-done Airbus deal.
The USAF is retiring KC-10s at a fast rate, which is odd because they are far newer and far more capable than the KC-135s that they are keeping.