Another industry comment article not posted before
Post# of 2306
(Total Views: 214)
Posted On: 04/25/2019 11:31:13 AM
Another industry comment article not posted before - worth reading the whole thing - it backs up everything in my authoritative sticky at #580.
In particular, note the following extracts:
In addition, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps have increasingly turned to contractors to provide aerial refueling services for training as well as developmental and operational test and evaluation activities in recent years.
For the United Kingdom, its deal with AirTanker creates a cost-sharing arrangement where it doesn't have to pay for the full fleet at all times and consortium can generate revenue using the surge aircraft when they're not required for their aerial refueling duties.This is a model that could easily appeal to the Navy and Marine Corps, as well, which otherwise have to rely in large part on already heavily taxed Air Force tanker fleets. Those two services have already increasingly employed contractor owned-and-operated tankers to support non-combat activities, such as training and developmental flight testing and operational evaluations. Other companies have already been looking to take advantage of this growing market. [this is TMPS - article is from Dec 2018]
I have long argued the USAF should move toward obtaining a significant portion of its aerial refueling needs from private contractors who can offer tailored tanking solutions and elastic capacity. Doing so would mean the USAF would not have to invest so heavily up-front in tanker fleets or the infrastructure needed to support them, while contractors can procure fleets of smaller and larger aircraft based on what the market demands.
As the KC-46A comes online, it will be a great time for potential commercial tanker services providers to absorb retiring KC-135Rs, or introduce new platforms depending on what their customers want.
Under such a concept, it has been proven that industry, the service and the taxpayer win. On the tanking front, Omega Air has been doing this for some time now for the Navy and international customers, and other countries are following suit. Additionally, private tanker companies’ adversary air support contractor cousins will increasingly provide aggressor training for the same US Navy and USAF fighter aircraft that private tanker companies of the future could be supporting as well.
Not embracing a similar strategy now for offsetting a portion of the USAF’s tanker needs is wasteful as procurement decisions are being made without factoring what is more of an eventuality than a possibility at this point.
If the USAF were to embrace a restructuring of their tanker recapitalization plans and were to widely accept that private contractors can provide a portion of their tanker needs, these savings could be reinvested into a stealth tanker program and to build more KC-46s at a lower unit cost.
In particular, note the following extracts:
In addition, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps have increasingly turned to contractors to provide aerial refueling services for training as well as developmental and operational test and evaluation activities in recent years.
For the United Kingdom, its deal with AirTanker creates a cost-sharing arrangement where it doesn't have to pay for the full fleet at all times and consortium can generate revenue using the surge aircraft when they're not required for their aerial refueling duties.This is a model that could easily appeal to the Navy and Marine Corps, as well, which otherwise have to rely in large part on already heavily taxed Air Force tanker fleets. Those two services have already increasingly employed contractor owned-and-operated tankers to support non-combat activities, such as training and developmental flight testing and operational evaluations. Other companies have already been looking to take advantage of this growing market. [this is TMPS - article is from Dec 2018]
I have long argued the USAF should move toward obtaining a significant portion of its aerial refueling needs from private contractors who can offer tailored tanking solutions and elastic capacity. Doing so would mean the USAF would not have to invest so heavily up-front in tanker fleets or the infrastructure needed to support them, while contractors can procure fleets of smaller and larger aircraft based on what the market demands.
As the KC-46A comes online, it will be a great time for potential commercial tanker services providers to absorb retiring KC-135Rs, or introduce new platforms depending on what their customers want.
Under such a concept, it has been proven that industry, the service and the taxpayer win. On the tanking front, Omega Air has been doing this for some time now for the Navy and international customers, and other countries are following suit. Additionally, private tanker companies’ adversary air support contractor cousins will increasingly provide aggressor training for the same US Navy and USAF fighter aircraft that private tanker companies of the future could be supporting as well.
Not embracing a similar strategy now for offsetting a portion of the USAF’s tanker needs is wasteful as procurement decisions are being made without factoring what is more of an eventuality than a possibility at this point.
If the USAF were to embrace a restructuring of their tanker recapitalization plans and were to widely accept that private contractors can provide a portion of their tanker needs, these savings could be reinvested into a stealth tanker program and to build more KC-46s at a lower unit cost.
(3)
(0)Tempus Applied Solutions Holdings, Inc. (TMPS) Stock Research Links
"Per Ardua Ad Astra" - "Through Adversity To The Stars"
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
Scroll down for more posts ▼