Colin still on the case…
That rasping sound you hear is the cumulative grinding of teeth from Boeing and its supporters in the wake of yesterdays announcement of a rebid on the tanker contract.
They are worried and we all know we grind our teeth when were worried because the Pentagons basic criteria for the plane apparently will not change when the new request for proposal is issued. The clearest expression of Boeings unhappiness came late yesterday from that bellwether of Boeing sentiment, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who has and will fight relentlessly for the company to get at least some part of the KC-X tanker money.
The press release Dicks put out yesterday said he “has serious doubts about the ability of the Defense Department to conduct a renewed competition that is fair and open and that meets the ‘real world’ requirements of refueling U.S. military aircraft.”
Dicks spoke yesterday morning with John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and was told that the criteria for the new tanker will favor a larger tanker from the outset, assigning additional credit to a bigger plane. That is a no-no for Boeing supporters, who say that the requirement for a larger plane unfairly skews the competition in Northrop Grummans favor.
“Last month the GAO issued a report that was unusually critical of the tanker selection process conducted by the Air Force for unfairly favoring a tanker that was larger than needed, most costly to maintain and that would require substantial amounts of construction money for new facilities,” Dicks said in the press release. “In its harshly-worded report, the GAO said that the Air Force failed to evaluate proposals based on its stated requirements and it demonstrated favorable treatment toward the EADS/Northrop Grumman A-330 tanker over Boeings KC-767.”
[Read more of Colin’s analysis at DoD Buzz.]
– Christian
Our CGS...
I’ve noticed for quite some time that as pfcem’s posts get longer, he fills them up with more and more unsupported opinions masquerading as fact.
I WAS going to smack pfcem around a little more over his last lame comeback to me, but his last post shows he’s about “done to a turn”. Is there a chance we can now move some of the discussion into into the next level?
From what I can tell, there’s not one paragraph PFCEM just posted that isn’t distorted, incorrect, possibly made up, or simply a matter of his (or rather his delusional adaptation of someone else’s) unsupportable, or at the very least ‘arguable’, opinion.
SO.…Does anyone else (other than PFCEM or me of course) see anything that doesn’t meet that criteria? Anyone? Pick a paragraph, and please state your reason why it doesn’t meet the above criteria. Let’s deal with them all if we have to– but please, let’s deal with them one at a time to stop scattering the buckshot.
Cole,
1) The “panic” is/was over the KC-135E, which dropped below mandated Mission Capability Rates & is/was getting AWEFULLY expensive to maintain.
Also note that we will only be getting new tankers at 12–15 per year. At that rate it will take 35–45 years to replace the entire tanker fleet.
With the KC-Y now intended to replace the KC-10, it is unlikley we will get 195 of them (how many will ultimately depend on the decided proportion of medium “KC-135-like” tankers to large “KC-10’like” tankers). DIFFERNET aircraft for DIFFERENT missions. The idea is to have the majority of the tanker fleet be medium “KC-135-like” tankers that can operate close to the fight for intertheater operations with a smaller number of large “KC-10’like” tankers (although a greater proportion than the current KC-135/KC-10 fleet) for air bridge type operations.
2) YES having the KC-Y replace the KC-10s instead of the rest of the KC-135Rs makes for problems with the KC-Z BUT as I said, the technology will have progessed such that by the time the KC-Z comes around it will not likely be based on any aircraft flying today.
3) No a split by for the KC-X would result in 4 platforms, 2 KC-X, 1 KC-Y & 1 KC-Z = 4. The KC-30 does not have the capacity to adequitely act as a KC-10 replacement.
4) Yes, there are other benefits from having another U.S. manufacturer producing aircraft but that is a lame excuse for procuring the WRONG aircraft.
5) NO, the KC-30 will not necessarily have more fuel for more aircraft. The KC-767AT can operate with a greater fuel load than the KC-30 at airfields that the KC-30 can not operate at less then ~450,000 lbs from. More KC-767AT can operate from each airfield meaning that as the bases closer are filled, more & more KC-30 will have to operate from airfields farther away. PLUS, as historical operations show, often the number of booms in the air is of greater importance than how much fuel each tanker can transfer.
The KC-135 “needs” to (eventually — but at the rate we will replace them we should start sooner rather than later) be replaced not becuase it lacks the required capacity (we often don’t even use the full capacity of the KC-135) but because the KC-135 can not fly forever & (in the case of the KC-135E) getting to be unacceptably expensive to maintain & are unable to maintain the required mission capability rate.
You are thinking too simply (at too small a scale). It is not what ONE KC-30 can do vs what ONE KC-767AT can do but how well a fleet of dozens or a hundred or more fulfill the need/requirement of the ENTIRE operation. And not only how well each fulfill peak demand for any one operation/scenario but how well each fulfills the cycling demand for ALL operations/scenarios.
> The “panic” is/was over the KC-135E, which dropped below mandated Mission Capability Rates & is/was getting AWEFULLY expensive to maintain.
and who is responsible for killing an upgrade program that would have extended their life?
> The KC-767AT can operate with a greater fuel load than the KC-30 at airfields that the KC-30 can not operate at less then ~450,000 lbs from
please identify which current tanker airfields a KC-30 will be limited from and a KC-767 will not
show all your work
irtusk,
The USAF decided it was better to start recapitalizing the tanker fleet sooner & save BILLIONS of dollars on upgrade & maintanence costs for the KC-135E that even under the previous recapitalization roadmap were going to start being replaced in 2012.
BOEING 767-300ER (MTOW = KC-767AT)
Flexible Pavement ACN
Category A: 51.9
Category B: 57.4
Category C: 70.6
Category D: 92.1
Rigid Pavement ACN
Category A: 46.8
Category B: 56.3
Category C: 66.9
Category D: 76.2
AIRBUS A330-200
Flexible Pavement ACN
Category A: 61.5
Category B: 66.7
Category C: 77.7
Category D: 105.1
Rigid Pavement ACN
Category A: 52.2
Category B: 61.1
Category C: 72.4
Category D: 83.6
So as you SHOULD be able to see, all airfields with a Flexible PCN of >51.9 but 46.8 but <52.2 (say ~49.5) or less. PLUS there are of course those airfields which may have sufficient PCN but do not have sufficient space. Have fun trying to find them all, because it is a lot.
Now I know that you automatically reject it but…according to Boeing studies of the 1643 airfields worldwide that can accommodate tanker operations, the KC-767AT can operate (unrestricted) from 811 while the KC-30 can from only 408.
> So as you SHOULD be able to see, all airfields with a Flexible PCN of >51.9 but 46.8 but but…according to Boeing studies
and did they release those studies and how they came to those conclusions?
> The USAF decided it was better to start recapitalizing the tanker fleet sooner & save BILLIONS of dollars on upgrade & maintanence costs for the KC-135E
uh huh, and the fact that Boeing was waving money under Druyun’s nose to kill the very cheap upgrades had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it
sorry, messed up the previous post
> So as you SHOULD be able to see, all airfields with a Flexible PCN of >51.9 but 46.8 but <52.2 (say ~49.5) or less
and which tanker airfields fit such narrow criteria?
Boeing has its claims. NG/EAD claims the opposite at 838 airfields for the KC-45A vs. only 465 for the KC-767…at an identical 200,000 lbs of fuel per aircraft on a 7,000 foot runway.
http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/2007/issue_23.htm
But beyond that, how many of those airfields realistically have ample fuel storage and ground transportation access to bring fuel by truck/rail to the airfield.
pfcem, if these aircraft are so critical and in short supply, why are you constantly hoping to sideline them all on the ground on smaller airfield ramps where they would quickly drain the fuel supply…instead of larger fields where the difference in size is irrelevant? Ever think you might want to park 1 or 2 on the ground for maintenance/crew rest while another 1 or 2 fly their 12 hour shift with fuel ferried in from elsewhere to aerial refuel the refuelers?
And the missing parts of this ‘numbers of fields’ discussion are:
WHERE are the ‘limiting’ fields?
HOW much do their locations adversely impact aircraft mission performance and in what way (if at all)?
IF the field locations and limitations do impact the aircraft mission performance, what is the net impact on overall mission objectives? Are the missions that are performed without restriction higher priority than those that are constrained? Are the advantages greater in impact and number than disadvantages?
There are a few other considerations (net impact on MPLCC comes to mind), but you get the point. Without knowing the real impact on the mission, numbers of airfields are irrelevant.
Cole, the airfield number claims ‘disconnect’ between Boeing and NG/EADS appears to be Boeing’s uses the ‘without restriction’ caveat and NG’s use of ‘200,000 lbs of fuel’ criteria. Boeing’s comparison (if it can be believed since their plane isn’t built yet) means that if the KC-45 has to leave with anything less than a full load, the airfield is ‘restricted’.
On a lighter note: It would be a fun Google Earth project to ID every field that is currently handling A330-200 and heavier traffic just to get a good idea of the distributon and availability of airfields. I suspect it would reveal a ‘so what’ answer: one that would show there’s enough fields everywhere that we’re interested.
irtusk,
Boeing released the results of the study & they did explain how they came to those conclusions.
Still getting the timeline wrong I see…Druyun didn’t even enter the picture until AFTER her bosses ordered her to work with Boeing on a tanker lease.
The criteria isn’t narrow. But somehow part of the post is missing. Airfields with a Flexible PCN of >51.9 but <61.5 (say ~56.7) or a Rigid PCN of 46.8 but <52.2 (say ~49.5) OR LESS.
Cole,
At least Beoing explained how it got its results…
The reason tankers are/have been in short supply is due to low mission capability rates. With mission capability rates of new tankers expected to be 90+% that SHOULD not be as much of an issue.
Operating tankers at airfields close to the fight DOESN’T sideline them. ALL airfields have fuel supplies that have to be maintained in order to maintain a given level/tempo of operations. Operatling just from large airfields farther away is going to drain your theater wide fuel supplies faster than operating from smaller airfields closer to the operations — PARTICULARLY in the opening stages of combat operations when the operations tempo is likely to be at its highest.
An airfield capable of tanker operations isn’t exactly small. But there are PLENTY of them that are not HUGE. There are a comparatively small number of airfields where the difference in size between the KC-767AT & KC-30 it is not AS BIG A DEAL as most but there are no airfields where is irrelevant.
Of course you want to have your tanker fleet operating on a rotational basis (that matches your operations schedule/tempo). Otherwise you are likely to not have enough operating at a critical time because you had too many operating at a time when not nearly as many were needed. That makes the number of tankers you can operate at each airfield that much MORE important.
I guess you missed that the KC-767AT (even the KC-767A) can be refueled in the air…besides, what do you use to aerial refuel a refueler?
Why won’t you listen to the tanker operators & the generals that have commanded them? They know more than you could ever hope to.
SMSgt Mac,
The limiting fields are closer to (& sometimes ARE) the airfileds the fighter & attack aircraft operate from…
MPLCC is MUCH more adversely affected by the KC-30 than the KC-767AT.
The impact on the missions is such that when the USAF tried the KC-30 using the TRS-05/MRS-05 model (aka using real world data rather than the IFARA made up so the KC-30 could compete data) that it COULD NOT COMPLETE SOME OF THE MISSIONS!
Go ahead knock yourself out with your Google Earth project. But I can save you an awful lot of time. What you will find is that, for the most part, there are “hubs” in which the large/heavy airliners operate that have a number of smaller (satellite fields if you will) where the smaller/lighter airliners operate. PLUS there are major (major as in size, not population density) areas where the large “hub” airfields simply do not exist. Also keep in mind that Google Earth will not tell you if the A330-200 you find are operating at 400,000 lbs or 450,000 lbs or 500,000 lbs…
> Boeing released the results of the study
releasing the RESULTS of the study != releasing the STUDY
without the actual study, there is no way to determine the validity or what they were really comparing
> they did explain how they came to those conclusions.
and as usual, you offer ZERO evidence to back up your claim
i really, really hope their ‘explanation’ is something a wee bit more in depth than “we considered the size of the planes and this is what we came up with“
> The reason tankers are/have been in short supply is due to low mission capability rates.
1. how many hours a year are tankers used?
2. who’s fault is that a simple upgrade that would have extended their life and improved mission capability rates didn’t happen?
> Why won’t you listen to the tanker operators & the generals that have commanded them? They know more than you could ever hope to.
you mean the generals that selected the KC-30?
or do you mean only the generals that agree with you?
> (aka using real world data rather than the IFARA made up so the KC-30 could compete data)
that’s the Boeing talking point, but you know what?
the GAO REJECTED that argument
in other words, the IFARA formula DOES reflect real life
of course Boeing HAS to deny this, because it shows how much more effective the KC-30 is in REAL WORLD refuelling operations
pfcem said: “Operating tankers at airfields close to the fight DOESN’T sideline them. ALL airfields have fuel supplies that have to be maintained in order to maintain a given level/tempo of operations. Operatling just from large airfields farther away is going to drain your theater wide fuel supplies faster than operating from smaller airfields closer to the operations — PARTICULARLY in the opening stages of combat operations when the operations tempo is likely to be at its highest.“
Reply: Just how close due you envision getting with those tankers. I can imagine a huge fireball and leaked fuel after a rocket/missile/RPG/mortar attack takes out a tanker spreading to other expensive aircraft.
So what you are looking at is Patriot missile batteries, Air Force security, at least a battalion of Army/Marine ground troops protecting the site…plus all the logistics forces required. Do you possibly want to preserve much of that airfield fuel for aircraft refueling on the ground and bring in other fuel from farther away for the aerial refueling mission????
pfcem: “I guess you missed that the KC-767AT (even the KC-767A) can be refueled in the air…besides, what do you use to aerial refuel a refueler?
“
Point I just made below is that with limited Patriots, Air Force security and early deploying combat troops…just how many airfields due you envision supporting with aerial refuelers ON THE GROUND. They can support the airfield with relatively few aircraft parked there or elsewhere, with fuel brough in and transferred to other aerial refuelers in flight.
That is one of the elephants in the room you are ignoring. The Air Force has just 114 KC-135E, so we could retire them all tomorrow and probably not miss much.…if you can talk local Representatives out of losing their constituent’s aircraft.
Their will not be 750 F-15s anymore or as many F-16s in the future. The aerial refueling capability of KC-X, which is very limited on only a few KC-135R, is an EXPONENTIAL improvement in capability because you can transfer fuel to already airborne aircraft instead of repeatedly returning to base and landing to fill up.
The high cost of fuel and its diminishing supply, coupled with the disappearance of the Cold War threat, and inability of future foes to afford a large modern Air Force, means FEWER BUT MORE CAPABLE planes for the Air Force. That includes aerial refueling aircraft.
pfcem said: “Why won’t you listen to the tanker operators & the generals that have commanded them? They know more than you could ever hope to.“
Reply: Sluggo sounded like he has been there and done that. What about General Norton Schwartz and General Michael Moseley…
“General Norton A. Schwartz, Commander, US Transportation Command, is on record stating his need for tanker flexibility:
The point of the quotes below, is to illustrate that although both aircraft are dual-purpose and free other airlifters from many airlift duties…the greater capability of the KC-45A, will free far more C-17 sorties.
While you factor in the assumed cost of extra fuel for KC-45A using non-real world assumptions of always taking off at maximum gross weight (when carrying less saves fuel), why not factor in how many missions the KC-45A could substitute for C-17s or more 767s for any given mission. My bet is THAT cost savings would surpass that of claimed 767 vs 45A fuel savings.
BTW, believe you should give up on the 767 arguments and start making better split-buy points than I know to make. That is you best chance of serving your master.;)
irtusk,
Boeing provided MORE to explain how it got its numbers than NG/EADS so go cry to you Kool-Aid supplyer for not giving you enough Kool-Aid. If you HALF as informed as you think you are you would know that already but since there is not valid substance to your opinion the best you can do is try to discreded the facts presented by the opposing view.
1. The KC-X is intended to fly an average of 750 hrs/year.
2. Nobodies fault. The USAF determined that obtaining new tanker to replace them a few (6 actually) years earlier than previously intended was the better way to go.
The USAF AMC Generals DIDN’T choose the the KC-30, they chose the KC-767 back around 2000–2001 but that coice was taken away from them. PLEASE show us the USAF AMC Generals & or tanker crewmen who think the KC-30 is the better choice.
You are cofusing what the USAF said about the TRS-05/MRS-05 model & the changes IT said it had to make in order for the KC-30 to be competative. Boeing just reminded people of that fact.
No, the GOA stated
“
Boeing also challenges the Air Force
Cole,
You are so nieve it is not even worth responding to you. NOBODY EVER SAID THE TANKERS WOULD OPERATE FROM BASES IN FRONT OF THE FIGHTER BASAES!!!
> Boeing provided MORE to explain how it got its numbers than NG/EADS
i’ve asked before and i’ll keep asking to you learn how to post
link?
> The USAF AMC Generals DIDN’T choose the the KC-30
who created the process that selected the KC-30?
the generals
who is ultimately responsible the KC-30 was selected?
the generals
who selected the KC-767?
congress
>There is no mention whatsoever as to the validity of the IFARA (as that was not the specifit point of protest that Boeing brought
that’s even worse for your position you realize
if boeing thought there was even the slightest chance they could get the protest upheld by complaining about IFARA they would have done it
by not protesting that they are admitting that it IS valid
realize that there are over 100 protest items that were rejected and the Boeing thought an IFARA protest was even LESS LIKELY to succeed than those
they protested all sorts of purely frivolous things and yet did not find the IFARA issue substantial to protest
that should tell you something
> THe IFARA DOES NOT represent the real world but a made up one where the KC-30 could complete the missions in order to be competative.
Boeing apparently disagrees with you
(or doesn’t have enough evidence to prove it, same thing)
pfcem said: “Operating just from large airfields farther away is going to drain your theater wide fuel supplies faster than operating from smaller airfields closer to the operations –PARTICULARLY in the opening stages of combat operations when the operations tempo is likely to be at its highest.“
———————
Reply: In the opening stages of deployment, your aerial refueling requirement for fighters is not as great because you generally are not attacking anything yet. That tells me that the KC-45A could bring in 50,000 lbs of 463L pallets while still bringing as much fuel to theater as a KC-767.
pfcem: “You are so nieve it is not even worth responding to you. NOBODY EVER SAID THE TANKERS WOULD OPERATE FROM BASES IN FRONT OF THE FIGHTER BASAES!!!“
—————————-
Posting while intoxicated? That’s Ok, I was typing so fast that I failed to proofread by due/do and their/there…but nieve is a knew/new one to me.;)
You continue to imply that the USAF is going to use this multitude of airfields for tankers — all parked on the ground instead of in flight — and all able to fill up from abundant fuel storage that you postulate is available. And oh, BTW, you imply that we have enough logisticians,security, and air missile defense forces to protect this multitude of forward airfields you foresee as housing aerial refuelers/fighters.
All I’m saying is consider that tankers can support a forward airfield without parking numerous aircraft on that forward airfield.
If I were you, consider making an argument that continuous aerial refueling of the 767 from fuel supplies brought in from elsewhere would mean it is unlikely to run dry…and therefore it matches the KC-45A in real world refueling.
Enough already on this size of aircraft on the ground B.S. Read about Red Horse squadrons and all the construction they had to do at established airbases in past conflicts. It happened before, and it will happen again.
irtusk,
You are confusing your programs. The USAF was in control during the tanker lease & THE USAF AMC Generals chose the KC-767. The USAF indicated TO Congress that if Congress provided the appropriate language to indicate its support that the USAF could gett the KC-767 sooner rather than later through an operating lease. Congress/DOD was in control during the last go around (through overly abtrusive oversight) & unfortunately they are EVEN MORE in control in the third go as well.
NO, if the model used for IFARA represented reality then no other consideration would be necessary but since EVERYONE knew it did not accurately model reality & that an alteration of reality was neseccary in order for the KC-30 could be competative, the RFP indicated that other consideration would be given. Boeing did not see where the Agency (KC-X source selection team) properly evaluated insights and observations as it said it would do. But the agency was able to convince the GAO that it did. The problem for Boeing on this point is that considering evaluated major insights and observations does not mean that the consideration HAS to be factored into the final IFARA value.
Stop lieing. The GOA DID NOT reject over 100 protest items. The GAO is VERY limited on what it can & can not sustain a protest over. Also note that in ADDITION to the 8 specific points the GAO sustained the protest over, it indicated a number of other points which while it chose not to sustain the protest for SHOULD be looked at.re-evaluated.
Cole,
No matter what level of realistic infrastructure (including the current existing infrastructure), more KC-767AT can operate from more airfields than the KC-30. The KC-767AT is smaller than the B-52, C-17 & KC-10 (& actually only marginally larger than the E-3 & other C-135/707 platforms). The KC-30 is LARGER than the B-52, C-17 & KC-10.
“opening stages of combat operations”
NOBODY HAS EVER INDICATED OPERATING TANKERS FROM AIRFIELDS NOT ALREADY INTENDED TO BE UTILIZED! The USAF (the tanker generals & crewmen in particular) has indicated a desire to operate tankers from airfields closer to the fight (why do you think there was a requirement to be able to take-off from a 7,000′ runway).
You are confusing supporting forward airfields with operating from airfields closer to the fight.
I do not have to “consider making an argument that continuous aerial refueling of the 767 from fuel supplies brought in from elsewhere would mean it is unlikely to run dry…and therefore it matches the KC-45A in real world refueling”. YOU should consider that a fleet of KC-30 will use/burn up (not transfer, use/burn) more fuel faster than a fleet of KC-767AT & therefore be a GREATER burden on your logistic fuel supplies.
You realize of course that the same amount of construction NECESSARY to significantly increase the number of KC-30 airfields could support would significantly increase the number of KC-767AT airfields could support.
Guess I’m having trouble believing Boeing’s sponsored study figures. How do you get 24% better fuel economy when one aircraft burns 15,000 lbs/hr and the other 12,000 lbs per hour carrying far less fuel?
If the KC-45A can offload 153K of 245K at 1000NM radius…does that mean it needs 92K of fuel for itself over about 6 hours at 15K per hour? But the 767 can offload just 117K at 1000NM radius…which means it burns 85K of the 202K it started out with to fly around for 6 hours. Hmmmm, 6 hours x 12,000 lbs/hr is just 72,000 lbs…not the 85K that the offload numbers imply. Is someone speaking with forked tongue on the fuel burn rates?
Why do commerical 767s burn more fuel than commerical A330s. Do you think that senior USAF leaders will allow EITHER aircraft to takeoff with max gross weight AND land at max gross weight (as if that could happen) as the study requires to reach its figures?
Final question. If a KC45A takes 177 billion gallons of fuel over 40 years…the Boeing isn’t looking like much of a bargain either at 142.5 billion gallons. Who cares about savings…methinks smart leaders will be saying we need fewer aerial refuelers flying fewer hours and carrying less fuel at take-off. Do the training in simulators and save that fuel for our fighter fleet and airlifters.
But a KC-45A carrying 32 463L pallets weighing just 53K lbs is certainly more fuel-efficient than trying to carry the same pallets with two C-17s. So suspect, that in addition to lots of simulator hours for KC pilots to practice aerial refueling missions, they will get a lot of hours flying cargo at far lower take-off and enroute weights than aerial refueling would require at max gross.
pfcem said:“YOU should consider that a fleet of KC-30 will use/burn up (not transfer, use/burn) more fuel faster than a fleet of KC-767AT & therefore be a GREATER burden on your logistic fuel supplies.“
BTW, my response below is reference your quote above.
Correction: The 177 and 142.5 figures below are DOLLARS not gallons as I incorrectly wrote. These are the figures from the July 8th, 2008 revised Conklin study update based on a starting figure of $150 a barrel. It is unclear whether that is the starting price or average inflation-adjusted price. Seems they used a rather large oil inflation figure of 5.69% annually based on the past 21 years?
In any event take the claimed $35 billion savings with a grain of salt because when you multiply the 56 million gallon/year difference by the $4.30 price at 150 a barrel, it comes to just $241 million per year in the first year which would be $9.64 billion over 40 years at the same annual rate…so the $35 billion sounds higher than it is because it is in inflated future dollars.
And once again, we should be more concerned about the total fuel cost of just 179 tankers…not the claimed savings!!
It is precisely because of the existence of these friends I love more RF. So I would like spend RF money in the game.
Buycheap aoc gold , Therefore we’ve been mindful from the outset to create a world which is true to Howard’s writing. There is majesty in Hyboria but it’s of a monolithic, brutal and primitive kind — it certainly isn’t “high fairie” where everything appears as though it was built only yesterday and is devoid of context.”
Been gone overseas for a while… ironic where to as it pertains so much to this string.
PFCEM said; “LCN is an OPERATIONS tempo limiting factor. It DOES NOT limit what airfields a particular aircraft CAN operate from. As I said, size/weight (ACN) is the limiting factor to what airfields & how many aircraft per airfield you CAN operate from. LCN would be used to determine where best to operate from WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WHERE YOU CAN OPERATE FROM.” I ask how does this limit tempo? If the LCN limits operations, then why am I going there in the first place? There will not be any “tempo”! I would reject the airfield out of hand and move on to those which can support operations. That is a no-brainer. Your statement did not make any sense to me. Like I said before, there was a number of higher priority planning factors we had to look at first before we did a ramp/space/weight calculation. We had a ramp space calculator which would give us how many KC-135s/KC-10s we could put at an airfield. Some one with way to much time on their hands and mad-skills with Microsoft Excel built the calculator for all of the Middle East airfields. It gave us only a rough number though. But you still have to remember, other Combatant Commander’s areas of operations are going to factor in. The B-2s were going through four regional combatant commander’s areas of operations. We must consider command and control (“can we TALK” as Joan Rivers would say), flight times (which directly affected fuel offload… you should have seen the look on several fighter planners faces when we told them we can put tankers in Iraqi airspace but it will reduce your offloads…they didn’t understand we used the gas in all the tanks to fly to the anchors in Iraq… We were flying FARTHER), and as Sun Tzu so aptly states in chapter one of his book with his the five constants; two of which are “Heaven” (the weather) and “Earth”, the terrain. We had to reject some airfields because they would not support fuel offloads needed. We had to send all KC-135Es out of the theater by March as it was to hot. We could not put tankers at airfields with high pressure altitudes because of takeoff performance. Fuel storage and resupply was our number one issue at almost all bases. The governments of three nations told us no out-right for a couple of prime locations and we adapted… as the US Marines say: Semper Gumby… Always Flexible.
We knew even in the Middle East (and every where in the world you will operate tankers out of) we were only going to be able to operate from International airports (Jeddah would have been ideal with its “unlimited” fuel resupply… it has its own refinery south of the airfield and three runways) or a prepared MILITARY airfield like Prince Sultan Air Base. But even at Prince Sultan, we paid a lot of money to the Saudis to upgrade its infrastructure. We paid for it in other ways as there was a runway event at Prince Sultan’s SINGLE runway every 90 seconds (a landing or takeoff every 90 seconds… 24/7 through the entire war) We had 38 KC-135s, 7 KC-10s and 9 VC-10s on the ramp at Prince Sultan during Iraqi Freedom. Not to mention the whole host of other airplanes there. It was an aviation photographer’s dream comes true (I went through 138 rolls of 36 frames!)
PFCEM said:
A few more here…
PFCEM said: “Operating just from large airfields farther away is going to drain your theater wide fuel supplies faster than operating from smaller airfields closer to the operations –PARTICULARLY in the opening stages of combat operations when the operations tempo is likely to be at its highest.“
“Particularly in the opening stages”… Patently false. The opening shock and awe campaign was not creating the highest fuel offloads. Supporting the ground troops starting on about day 13–18 were our highest offloads. And will always be the highest. We did just a little less than 18 million pounds about two days before 3ID went through the Karbala Gap. Reason? Republican Guard repositioned in the sandstorm and were left out in the open when the sandstorm subsided. We offloaded more fuel during the time period the 3rd ID and I MEF were
engaged nearing Baghdad than at any other time.
“Farther…Faster” vs “Smaller…closer”. Your argument does not work as the smaller airfiled will also have the reduced fuel storage and if the strike assets are there then you trade space in fuel storage for weapons storage. A logistician would know he has trade offs depending on requirements. We worked closley with the J4 (Logistics) Colonel on fuel storage and resupply. We knew where the challenges were going to be and we planned for those. Bases father away were resupplied FASTER than bases close to the fight as they went through fuel faster. You stop to get gas when you needed it in your car… we do the same thing when applying logistics principles to warfare. Remember, smart men study tactics but brilliant men study logistics.
PFCEM said; “Where have General Norton Schwartz and General Michael Moseley stated they the KC-30 is the right choice? The only thing I have hear or read them comment about is the desire for greater airlift capability than the KC-135 (which the KC-767AT does).” Now that times have certainly changed, and General McNabb, the former USAF Vice Commander is the TRANSCOM commander, it would do us all well to watch the 29 Feb footage of the announcement from the DoD on the KC-X contract award. General McNabb was there and spoke as did Gen Lichte, the Air Mobility Command Commander. Some interesting words during that announcement. Look up both of their bios on the Air Force website (http://www.af.mil) to see what their credentials are.
I quickly installed the game, was able to buy vis register an account on their website with ease, and verify my retail box CD key which unlocks an exclusive character called the Rescue Knight
sometimes before when the sleeping I often think of the previous screen, together with friends upgrade, earn the 2moons dil and together play with friends, playing now I also feeling some tired, I do not know what things I persist in?
can be said that there were very bored, they often like to ask something about the players looks like, family, and in the game can earn how much 2moons gold, I do not know these people are playing the game or game play them.
Could you help me. I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book. Help me! Need information about: Opalescence whitening trays. I found only this — Opalescence tooth bleaching refills. The school of capacity as a ordinary, same, and damping movement means to this matter. For box, available replacement direction allows a same transition of the stiffness mineral at the scattering collision, and the robust spectrum process has a independent propagation. Thanks
. Lucas from Lebanon.
Great site. Keep doing.
, Nixon.
I am from Kyrgyzstan and learning to write in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Opalescence sensitivity, glass is a gemological theory, and its relation, correlation, and immediately infinitely, suggest on the acousto-optic length.“
Thanks for the help
buy cheap nokia n95 experience without nokia mobile learning is better than learning without excperi-ence. I have nokia 6300 but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that bose headphones is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the apple touch past. http://www.leadsoftstore.com/