JohnB wrote:
Kyleb wrote:
Interesting that they are retiring an aircraft that is >20 years newer and more capable than the KC-135. Does anyone understand the logic behind this?
Easy. Fleet size.
There is simply not enough KC-10s to replace the entire KC-135 Fleet. So, so would you park a good chunk of the 135s and replace them with the relatively few 10s?
If you do, you have to maintain separate units, training, parts and depot resources. All that costs lot of money.
Also, most tanker missions don't require a plane the size of a KC-10.
You don't need the occasionally used capacity of a KC-10 for refueling ANG F-16s on CONUS training missions or F-35s patrolling the Polish border.
Also, the Air Force now has KC-46, 135 and 10s. It doesn't need three types of tankers.
In short, logistical and operational stuff not always apparent to the layman or casual observer.
You learn these things as a staff guy at AFMC HQ.
Then there is the obvious point that the KC-46, another wide body airliner turned into a tanker, has the same cargo carrying capability as the 10. (I don't know if AMC plans on using it in the same way it used KC-10s). At any rate, I would guess a new twin engine 46 would cost less to operate than a 40 year old three engine 10.
I bet truck fleet operators make similar decisions. "We have 600 Sprinter vans. But we also have 75 newer Fords". We want to cut service and inventory expenses...which do we cut?"
There are plenty of prescedents...in the '70s SAC parked B-52E and Fs in favor of keeping older D's around. In large part because there were more D's available...so it only had to maintain one model.
Kind of why Southwest flies one type.
The 1100th Operations Group out of Bolling Air Force Base operated B-25s for executive transport purposes until roughly 1958. The reasoning seems to have been that they were essentially brand new aircraft. For instance, 45-8898 had been flown straight from the factory to desert storage - where it sat for approximately two years before it was acquired by the unit. However, using a B-25 for as what is essentially a glorified squadron hack is overkill. The result leads to this quite interesting passage from the 1100ths unit history:
2nd Lt. Allan Barry wrote:
The last topic for discussion is the utilization of the L-26 aircraft versus the B-25 aircraft in regard to our squadron mission. As of this report[,] our squadron has fifteen B-25 aircraft assigned and six L-26 aircraft assigned. Both aircraft are utilized on relatively short hops for V.I.P.'s. Following are the advantages and disadvantages of both aircraft:
B-25 Aircraft
Better all weather aircraft than L-26; better for flights over 600 miles; longer range; slightly faster than L-26 (5 M.P.H.)
L-26 Aircraft
Much more comfortable than B-25; L-26 gas consumption is 25 gallons per hour as compared to 135 gallons per hour for the B-25; L-26 is easier to tow; L-26 much easier to maintain; occupies far less space both in hangar and for parking purposes; uses less parts and cheaper parts; L-26 has no flying crew chief in majority of flights; crew chiefs always flies [sic] on B-25; less personnel needed for maintenance.
The foregoing data was compiled from interviews with key personnel in the 1104TH B FLTRON. It is a general concensus [sic] of opinion that, for the purpose of our squadron mission, the L-26 could and should replace all but a few of our B-25 aircraft.
The only time the B-25 aircraft would have an advantage over the L-26 in our squadron would be during inclement weather. A study of the advantages and disadvantages of both aircraft seems to indicated more utilization of the L-26 would save the USAF many thousands of dollars each month.
(Source: Allan Barry, “History of the 1104th Base Flight Squadron, 1100th Operations Group” (Bolling Air Force Base: Headquarters Command, USAF, 1955), M0043, Air Force Historical Research Agency, n.p.)
So, sure, the B-25s only had 10 years of service when they were retired, but, among other things, they used over 5 times the amount of fuel than the replacement!
_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant
Warbird Philosophy Webmaster
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
