Posted on 04/26/2022 7:09:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
The U.S. Air Force now has 57 new, high tech refueling tankers with more in the proverbial pipeline to replace its aging fleet of Eisenhower-era tankers. While tankers don’t generally capture the headlines, without a capable tanker to do mid-air refueling, the reach of our military’s bombers, fighters, and reconnaissance planes are cut dramatically. Simply put, tankers allow America’s warfighters to stay in the air and on target longer and without making extra trips back to the home base to refuel. And the KC-46 is operating right now refueling military aircraft over Poland and Germany that are protecting NATO as war wages nearby in Ukraine. The modernized KC-46 tankers are the most capable on the planet, and are more fuel efficient and can deliver fuel to every single aircraft in our arsenal. That means they are better for the taxpayer, the environment, and the warfighter.
Our nation’s military leaders estimate that we will need about 480 tankers to entirely replace America’s aging fleet and meet our defensive needs. As with all military equipment, many years or even decades from now, we will likely replace the KC-46 tanker, just as we are now doing. However, for the fights of today and the generation to come, the KC-46 is the world’s most capable and robust tanker. It’s also cost-effective at a time when budgets are being spread thin.
Given what has happened in recent years, it is clear that we have a lot of pressing national security budgetary needs. We will need to expand our missile defense and deterrence capabilities and make sure we have the tools to deter Chinese and Russian aggression as well as deter rogue states like North Korea and Iran. In times like these, we can’t afford to waste billions of dollars to buy a less advanced foreign tanker, let alone the years of development and testing it will take to upgrade it to the capability of an aircraft we already own. Doing that would simply divert money from other pressing needs which would have the impact of endangering our nation — not protecting it.
Development of military hardware is an expensive and time consuming process. And adding a whole host of changes and upgrades to bring a foreign tanker up to U.S. military standards would be a major development program with all the same risks of the unknown and the unproven. If the Pentagon starts down that path on another tanker today, it likely won’t roll off the assembly line for close to a decade. By that time, the Air Force will be looking to next generation tankers that are unmanned, stealthy, and able to fly places a wide body aircraft never will. In the meantime, if the Pentagon wants new technology or capability built into the new KC-46, that can easily be done.
Some Pentagon officials want to pursue a relationship with Airbus. That would be a mistake. Even as Russia wages war against Ukraine, threatens expanded war against the Western world, and even threatens nuclear escalation, Airbus continues to buy titanium from Russia. In contrast, U.S.-based Boeing has announced that it is ceasing Russian titanium buys.
But that’s not the only reason the U.S. should be wary of entering into business with Airbus. The company has a long history of scandal and corruption. In the United Kingdom, for example, investigations have exposed massive bribery scandals. French investigations have also uncovered evidence of corruption. Additionally, Airbus has paid billions in fines because it has engaged in bribery schemes around the globe.
Moreover, Airbus has cost Americans thousands of high-paying aerospace jobs by violating trade laws and trade agreements. It doesn’t make sense defensively or economically to outsource our high tech capabilities and make our nation more dependent upon unreliable and untrustworthy trading partners.
“Buy American” is a mantra being repeated far and wide by the White House and others, from newsrooms to manufacturers. It’s merits can be debated, but the reality is that it makes no sense at all to choose to make ourselves dependent upon other nations for the things we absolutely must have to survive in a dangerous world. For example, missile defense technology and national security technology must be 100% American.
The KC-46 tanker is the most capable in the world. It is new and in the coming years if it needs updates, it can be achieved at a minimal cost. There is simply no real benefit to our war fighters, our taxpayers, or our nation to start developing a foreign tanker, especially given the current global environment.
The U.S. has a lot of work to do in other areas of national security to ensure that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran pose no serious danger to our nation. When you consider all the facts, it becomes clear we need a new tanker built by Airbus like we need a gasoline powered turtleneck sweater.
My favorite line “…it’s also cost effective when budgets are spread thin.”
The US military budget is spread thin?
I guess $773 billion is peanuts now…
Designed to be the most capable, but still isn’t. Boeing screwed the pooch on its design and delivery, but, hey, they have the self-described “African” born in Boston, Ted Colbert, as proof of “diversity” as the defense CEO.
Thanks for the post, Kaslin. The KC-46 has some advantages, but also disadvantages.
Actual combat missions in the Middle East wars of late revealed several unanticipated issues arising. Importantly, in a hot fight the fact that you have one large tanker orbiting an area with lots of fuel on board, does not help the A-10’s, or Strike Eagles as they hold over station in dispersed fighting. Going back to the ‘mothership’ some distance away for fuel may be at exactly the time the bomb carrier needs to be actively working the enemy.
It turned out that having to smaller, less efficient KC-135’s positioned nearer the dispersed hot-spots was a huge advantage. This, even though they were originally designed to be the high flying long-range tankers for the B-52’s on their missions to Moscow in the ‘50’s.
Also, even modern equipment has glitches. If you have all your “eggs in one basket” on a mission, you are out of luck if the one efficient large mother-ship has a problem. Another tanker has to sortie, causing all sorts of downs-stream problems. There goes all the efficiency you were hoping to gain.
And, in my personal opinion, removing the boom operators position from the tail was a wrong move. The problems with the remote operating position via video to the front cabin continue to exist, despite the current USAF P.R.
So, there’s that.
kc 135s still work
They are based on the 707 which was last produced in the 1960s. I imagine their airframe limit is getting close to max hours.
Yes, $773 billion is peanuts.
We need at least $500 billion more to meet the threats of China, Russia, and the nuclear weapons of Iran andNorth Korea.
We are short 300 ships, a thousand aircraft, a missile defense system, a cyberattack defense, and about one million soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
We just spent $6,000,000,000,000 on welfare, pork, and handouts, not a dime of which went to defense.
KC135 are all based in 707 airframe built in the 1960,70s thst have been re-engined twice the limits are the airframe spar lifetimes and cabin pressure cycles both after 40+ years of flying are nearing the end of their life span before the danger metal fatigue and cracking will set in. There is also a reason every long haul aircraft is a big twin engine not a quad anymore it’s much cheaper and fuel.efficient to run two engines than four add in the maintenance that is half as much on a twin vs a four and the KC 135 is obsolete. The new KC46 is a much more capable aircraft with a new airframe and tens of thousands of flight hours more available airframe life. The only reason AF1 is a 747 and a quad is for redundancy in the power plants and since it’s a two off deal the extra fuel,maintenance and parts is a nonissue. AF2 is a wide body twin and AF3 is a narrow body twin for good reasons.
Amen on the remote boom operator watching the refueling on TV.
Whoever in the Air Force requirements and acquisition approved that should be in jail. Obviously, they didn’t bother to ask real boomers about the three dimensional perception required to plug that boom into another aircraft receptacle, especially in night, weather, and turbulence.
I hope there are fighters to be refueled!
What is the platform? 757? Why can’t they just modify a typical air carrier?
This particular procurement exercise has been going on since 2001. 21 years ago usairfarce began the process to acquire tankers based on existing aircraft already in service and have screwed around until now and they still have had trouble with the refueling booms.
Nothing is so urgent and important that it can’t be screwed up and corrupted.
Here is the history of the cluster fluck, just one of many:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
Even if it has some errors it is still a cluster fluck.
Our gooberment and military could not organize a piss-up in a pub.
Boeing 767.
“Billion” is peanuts, nowadays; look for *TRILLION” to come real soon.
some airframes just rock
I worked rc 135s and conbat sent, they still work
u2s, a10s,b52s, some airplanes will never die
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.