We have outsourced just about everything else in the US, I wonder if China and Russia are interested in the contract. Things are screwed up enough in the Air Force, and now this idea. Sounds like a big business mentality, screw with us and we will outsource the work and the jobs.
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 996 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
Quoting Venus6971 (Thread starter): Any ex boomers looking to get back into the business, looks like Omega will keep the old 707's flying a little bit longer, USAF is looking for somebody to rig up a boom to their standards. This should be interesting.
I can't put my finger on why, but I'm not satisfied this is a good idea. All it would take is a contract dispute of some kind and the Air Force would loose part of its overall tanker fleet capability. Contract airlift capability is one thing; contract air refueling is a whole different matter. Just my personal opinion.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5394 posts, RR: 35 Reply 3, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Quoting Venus6971 (Thread starter): looks like Omega will keep the old 707's flying a little bit longer, USAF is looking for somebody to rig up a boom to their standards.
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 2): I'm not satisfied this is a good idea. All it would take is a contract dispute of some kind and the Air Force would loose part of its overall tanker fleet capability.
I think I agree with EBJ. Even though I have 22 years as a Boom Operator on KC-135s, I believe this is something better left to a Professional Military Force, and not contractors.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 3627 posts, RR: 49 Reply 4, posted (2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1283 times:
The USN is already doing this, and have been for some time. Previously North American Tactical Aviation imported an Ilyushin Il-78 N78GF for this contract evaluation. EADS also put forward an A310 based tanker to the USN.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 3351 posts, RR: 32 Reply 5, posted (2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1145 times:
Whilst I don't have the USAF background of Venus, EBJ and KC nor the professional experience of Zeke I have a couple of thoughts on this.
I tend to agree about keeping the operational booming in the propfessional military community,
Having said that if tanker resources are short, why not use contract services such as Omega for the boring stuff eg a fighter drag across the atlantic for a TDY, in some ways the transit part of the mission is no more a real military task than PFC Smith flying CO or AA to Germany to take up his new assignment as a clerk. This would save the professional assets for the real operational stuff.
Another way of looking at it, why doesn't the USAF get itself some "parcel freight" type aircraft like FedEX or UPS operate.
An example, The US has interests here in Australia that get regular visits by USAF transports(used to be weekly, may not be these days) as the construction phase of these facilities is long past the mission does not always require a C-17 or C-5 so we regularly see these flights operated by KC-10A. Hey, the tanker folks are always welcome but delivering packages to Australia takes the boom a long way from the warfighter who may need it badly.
Not sure how many DC-10s are available but if the USAF aquired some they could perform these "mail runs", keep crew hours up and extend the life of those precious tankers.
Or to take the question full circle.. contract out these light freight runs!
Just a coupla thoughts.
Cheers
Of course old planes are safe, how do you think they got to be old?
Website, with "Navy & Marine Corps Offical Request Form".
It should be noted that they use this for training and exercises and deployment cross countries. Not operational, not like there is a Omega 707/DC-10 on the hook with the CV battle group.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5394 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1081 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): The USN is already doing this, and have been for some time. Previously North American Tactical Aviation imported an Ilyushin Il-78 N78GF for this contract evaluation. EADS also put forward an A310 based tanker to the USN.
All of that is true, including the Omega B-707/DC-10 tanker contracts. But, they can only do small offloads and are limited to very short deployments (CVN reconfiguerations) or training. I don't know about the IL-78, but the Omega B-707s and DC-10s have no additional fuel tankage added. The problem is, there are only a very few commerical airplanes available that have the Booms the USAF needs. The EADS KC-310 is one, and most others available (usually KC-707 types) are bought up by Israel.
I'm not sure the EADS KC-310 is really available, as it is the Boom flight test airplane for the KC-30 program.
Of course, I suppose, the selected contractor could buy (de-mil) KC-135A/Es from AMARC to fill the contract.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Dec 2004, 806 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 3627 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 3351 posts, 
Printer friendly format
