First KC-10 tanker off to boneyard

edpop · by **edpop** » 16 Jul 2020, 04:05

https://www.yahoo.com/news/air-force-se ... 33597.html

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 16 Jul 2020, 07:35

Looks like most of the KC-10 retirements will come out of Joint base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (as KC-46s become operational). I think Travis may follow. HASC was looking at maintaining 50 KC-10s for FY 2021, going down to 38 and 26 for the next few years but I think the pace of retirement may be slower.

35_aoa · by **35_aoa** » 16 Jul 2020, 08:02

Hopefully the -135 is soon to follow. Never made sense to me why they pushed the more capable (and more desirable for us probe endowed fellas) tanker away first. KC767 flew over my house recently though (assumed it was on a pst mx check flight or test out of nearby Boeing Field).....looked pretty good and worth hitting for some gas.

madrat · by **madrat** » 16 Jul 2020, 13:13

The most capable half, or more, should be kept ready to go. Too much capability retired too fast.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 03 Aug 2020, 13:12

madrat wrote:The most capable half, or more, should be kept ready to go. Too much capability retired too fast.

I was gonna say...

The KC-10 just seems monsterously more capable than the -135, even the re-engined ones. It can carry crazy amounts of cargo, a lot more gas and just seemed like a much better aircraft for the job.

I hope they have a good, solid plan for protecting those KC-46's. It just seems that the proliferation of things like the J-20, hypersonic missiles with incredible ranges and of course, IADS is too much. How your tankers stay in the fight in that environment.. I don't know. We can't afford a stealth tanker fleet though, so they're going to have to come up with something.

Hope to see a KC-10 at an airshow before they're completely gone...