← Back to Squawk list
  • 27

KC-10s Might Make a Comeback Commercially

Submitted
KC-10s might make a comeback commercially. At least, that’s what USAF Gen. Mike Minihan hinted to lawmakers earlier this month, testifying for the House Armed Services Committee. Air Mobility Command has been exploring the idea of commercial aerial refueling, including with old KC-10 tankers. Most KC-10s are already retired and stored at the Davis-Monthan AFB “Boneyard” in Arizona. (avgeekery.com) More...

jeffg33
TrendsetterNews junkieTrusted friendHonor RollAmateur PhotographerPromoter

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


raynetherwood
ray netherwood 8
I’ve had the pleasure of flying in one,’great ride from HI to CA.

Not sure of maintenance intensive it is, but its ability to do fuel and significant cargo, seemed to be a plus.

DOD contracts for cargo and passenger flights, so refueling isn’t a big stretch. Would probably make some retired boom operators happy ……. $$
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
yr2012
matt jensen 6
The really odd thing is that the KC135 is flying
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
SimTech135
Bill Eger 4
Nothing odd about a REAL Boeing airplane with a long lifespan. B-52Hs are still going strong.
There are also 707s still flying around the world and they’re almost as old as -135s.
All the airplanes designed after the Boeing/McDonnell merger are POSs as well as the Boeing Starliner capsule.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
siriusloon
siriusloon 5
They might even outlast the KC-46.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
yr2012
matt jensen 4
Yeo most likely. They dont carry as much fuel as the KC10
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
augerin
Dave Mathes 2
...well hells bells, the (Boeing) KC-46 is 7 billion dollars over budget, (Boeing) faces continuous production issues and the (Boeing) 'state-of-the-art' operator system doesn't work for shit...why not drop some bucks to update the boom operators station on the KC-135 or KC-10 and make it comfortable...just sayin'...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
LeanderWilliams
Leander Williams 4
With the current situation with these massive forest fires popping up all over the Central and Western United States, perhaps a more immediate need for them would be as aerial firefighting tankers. Living in California I have seen the current fleet of DC-10s drop their massive retardant load on these fires. Cal Fire has a substantial fleet of small air tankers but with the speed these fires have grown they need assets that can make a difference in one pass. Maybe they can retrofit a few of the KC-10s to be retardant refuelers, which would save them from having to return to base after each drop. With fires, every second counts.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bahalana
Keith Brown 5
Any time you hear "commercial" and "contract" associated with the government, *someone* has their hand in the till, just sayin'. It's not about cost savings, that's for dang sure.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
raynetherwood
ray netherwood -1
Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. Then,
there’s also pure rationalization.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ko25701
ko25701 6
I question the sweetheart deals that commercial operators will get from buying fully equipped KC-10s and the contracts they will get to deliver fuel "for profit" to our military aircraft. It's a slippery slope but I guess we are already sliding down that slope in other ways.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
numb9
numb9 1
The Military slowly trying to "FIX" their lackadaisical approach to staying properly Ready for the future, for decades now. Our Government Representatives are primarily responsible for this Dangerous & Foolish Situation. They are too quick to retire equipment that isn't BROKE, and is affordably maintainable, and more of these types of equipment could actually be produced at a far cheaper cost. (F-15EX for example) Keep More of What Works, by not wasting fortunes on "new" equipment that can be "lived without". What is done Now, is to keep "those Elected People" in Their Jobs! GREED, NOT The Security of America has taken Precedence! Common Sense over Votes...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
kechke1939
Rudi Marczi 1
Is the US oblivious to the fact that their country is on fire!
The world would be better served by converting all those KC-10 as well as the hundreds of other suitable planes at Davis- Monthan to water bombers.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
cnyflyboy
Stephen Donnelly 0
It's up to the powers that be, but I question the use of old aircraft with a 3 person
fight deck and 3 engine aircraft
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
LeanderWilliams
Leander Williams 2
One person for each engine.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
numb9
numb9 6
IMO 3 engines is better than 2. "Yes, one person for each engine". A third person can also be an asset in the cockpit in addition to being necessary as "the flight engineer". Historically, an excellent aircraft.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
numb9
numb9 6
P.S. Isn't the B52 a Very Old Aircraft with 8 engines"?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
pjjblouin
Peter Blouin 2
So that's 8 people for the 8 engines?? j/k
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss