So how long can the KC-135 fleet last in service? The KC-135 tanker when it was young.The KC-135 fleet makes up most of the inventory of USAF air refueling tanker aircraft. Before 911, USAF predicted that it could fly the KC-135 out to the 2030-2040 years. Various post Cold War contingencies like Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch (the Iraq no-fly-zones of the day), and support of operations over the ex-Yugoslavia (including Allied Force) as well as other day to day duties, kept the aging air refueling fleet busy.
Ops tempo for these aircraft have picked up even more after 911. The KC-135 is a three-level maintenance aircraft. This means that it receives routine flight line maintenance and every few hundred hours it goes into “phase” and “issochronic” maintenance in a hanger at its home base. This involves various inspections and detailed fixes of the aircraft systems. Finally, every so many years or flying hours, it goes to the depot at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma to get stripped down and refurbished.
With the increased ops tempo, the original plan of making this aircraft last to the year 2030-2040 is at risk. Each airframe now spends more time for each depot visit as new corrosion or other aircraft age discoveries show up.
The USAF thought it knew everything there was about three-level maintenance on the F-15 Eagle fighter jet. Then a manufacturing defect showed up two year ago and grounded a huge portion of the fleet after an in-flight catastrophic failure.
The KC-135 tanker fleet is just one surprise maintenance discovery and/or catastrophic failure away from suffering a long term grounding. All of the U.S. fighting forces depend on tanker gas for almost every operation. U.S. Air Power is the permission slip to make any U.S. war fighting operation happen. One bad KC-135 maintenance event means U.S. air power will be crippled.
Procurement of new air-refueling tankers has to be looked as an urgent priority. Or, some years from now people will stand around with a stupid look on their face with the whole KC-135 tanker force grounded due things we should have taken care of years ago.
A lesson from the past: if we are also to use the next tanker for three decades, let’s find an airframe that already has a broad commercial base and its logistics most likely still be available in 2035. FBW is almost certainly a must-have.USAF tanker replacement is arguably a more urgent need than fighter replacement. Interesting, F35 currently costs more than either MRTT-A330 or KC767.
In terms of fuel & cargo capacity, KC767 is in MRTT-A310′s (MRTT-A330′s smaller cousin) class.In terms of flight control, KC767 uses mechanical flight control (except for boom operator’s station) which is already going extinct in modern day FBW trend, let alone 20 years from now.Beoing is nuts, if not outright arrogant, to submit a 767-based design and expect to win the contract without challenges.
Great argument. Let me try too:The F-22 fighter fleet is just one surprise maintenance discovery and/or catastrophic failure away from suffering a long term grounding.
Probably not.
Raptor is one of the few recently matured programs. It reached “zero-defect” landmark on assembly line in 2007 and has deployed oversea twice. The 60% readiness rate is actually amendable with better logistic algorithm, like B2 has had over the past decade. It’s sad to see the assembly line facing closure merely 2 years after reaching maturity. The jet is insanely expensive, that’s right, but it’s also the only high performance stealth fighter we have.Pentagon will soon come out with a list of which programs to cut back, which to kill and which to keep. There is a lot of waste in DoD acquisition all right. Just hope that they keep both the budget and long-term needs in mind. I wouldn’t mind if we end up with a 2,000 fast-jet force if that’s what it takes to be fiscally responsible while staying globally competitive.Back to the topic: Tankers, like what ELP said, without which there is no air force to speak of at all.
From Spain:You need the tankers, scores of them (when the first Stratotanker flies, my father was in the elementary school… and I´m 28), and you need all the 381 planned Raptors (at least). You need the Sea Raptor too, but you will never get it (rendering the US Navy unusable in high-threat environments). You also need the F-35, but only as a COMPLEMENT (not a REPLACEMENT) to the initially planned Raptor fleet (the ten 24-plane squadrons). And, of course, you need the Next Generation Bomber to replace the aging fleet of B-1 and B-52 (when it flies first time my father was 5 years old!) and to complement the few B-2. But…Do you have the money? US military hardware had become too expensive to make high tech wars, the dream of a pacifist… but, are the Chinese and some other guys so pacifist?Excuse my English
The real issue here is that fighters keep hijacking USAF strategic discussions. The tanker is absolutely crucial to force projection (fighters and otherwise), and there’s a huge queue of issues demanding time and money behind that (ISR, Comms, Ground C2, CAS, Cyber, Space, UAS, etc.). Yet discussions about USAF recap always return to fighter issues. The USAF just can’t afford to lose any more time mired in this fighter debate – it needs to move on.And in a budget constrained environment, you have to make choices. You can’t mortage the future of strategic and tacital lift, long range stike, SATCOM and early warning, trainers, etc. to buy aircraft that are valuable in a limited set of scenarios (i.e. anti-access).
MRTT-A330 is simply larger, more modern and capable than KC767.
The difference matters: Given the published data, MRTT can carry more than 250K lb of fuel (K767: 202K) or 32 pallets (vs 19) of standard cargo containers on each flight.
It means that FOR EVERY 3 TRIPS with MRTT, the operator can SAVE A WHOLE SORTIE worth of tanker/cargo flight. This would translate into a lot of saving and op efficiency in a long run. It is no simple coincidence that most countries choose MRTT-A330 over KC767.
Oops, sorry –
“every 3rd (cargo)-5th (fuel) trip….”
not
“every 3rd trip….”