Contracted Out Military Tanker Business Sector - U
Post# of 2306
(Total Views: 272)
Posted On: 06/20/2020 3:51:29 PM
Contracted Out Military Tanker Business Sector - Update June 20, 2020.
The latest from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) considerations on the ongoing US DoD tanker fleet recapitalization, legacy fleet retirement plans, ongoing KC-46A problems and need to reduce military owned tanker costs to fund higher priority items in the inventory in an article just published by defensenews.com.
Extracts relevant to increasing the likelihood of part contractorization of the overall USAF task going ahead at some point and my comments in [...] :
"The House Armed Services Committee will forbid the Air Force from retiring KC-135 tankers in fiscal 2021, but will allow the service to divest some B-1 bombers and KC-10 tankers. "
[$TMPS Tristars are the direct equivalents of KC-10s in fuel off-load capacity - and 30% of the overall USAF task is for the "hose & drogue" method]
"... the House hopes to block the Air Force from mothballing any of its 398 KC-135s until after FY23"
[so this would remove the option of a third "new" company - in addition to the only current tanker fleet owners Omega and $TMPS - buying or taking over "free" (to then fund the manpower and operating costs) any ex-USAF KC-135s until at least FY23]
"The Air Force currently has 56 KC-10s that are considered primary mission aircraft, so the HASC’s language would allow the service to retire six aircraft in FY21 and a total of 30 tankers over the next three years, said a source familiar with the bill. That will allow the service to retire roughly the same number of tankers as it proposed, but over a longer time period."
[Again this pushes back the time scale that would make any KC-10s available for use by contractors. In any event, it is the extremely high cost per flying hour of operation of the KC-10 that is leading the USAF to want to divest it first. By comparison, the $TMPS Tristars have much lower flying hours consumed - one as little as 32,000 hours (source - original ad after retirement before $TMPS purchased).]
"The changes proposed by HASC will be debated within the Senate Armed Services Committee" "SASC staffers told reporters June 11 that their proposed legislation does not stipulate what kind of aircraft the Air Force needs to keep, but does set a primary aircraft inventory requirement of ... 412 tankers."
"The House committee’s reluctance to begin retiring tankers was expected given US Transportation Command’s concerns about a tanker shortfall and ongoing complications with the Air Force’s newest tanker, the KC-46."
"TRANSCOM listed $110 million in its unfunded priorities to buy back 13 KC-135 and 10 KC-10 tankers that the Air Force wanted to retire, claiming the divestments would create a “capacity bathtub” and limit options for military mobilization if military leaders were “confronted with a crisis.”
"Worries about the tanker fleet being too small were a lso compounded by the slow pace in resolving ongoing KC-46 deficiencies, particularly with its remote vision system. Prime contractor Boeing has agreed to completely redesign the RVS, which is used by the boom operator to see outside of the aircraft during the refueling process. However, the new system will not be ready until at least 2023. "
" Without it, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein has said the aircraft will not be ready to deploy in normal operations, [ie those that contractors could perform] though it would be used in combat if necessary."
" The Air Force argued that retiring some of its legacy aircraft — including the KC-135, KC-10 and B-1 — were necessary to free up funding to invest in future modernization priorities in areas such as space and joint all-domain command and control, with many of those efforts classified."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/19/ho...-boneyard/
The latest from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) considerations on the ongoing US DoD tanker fleet recapitalization, legacy fleet retirement plans, ongoing KC-46A problems and need to reduce military owned tanker costs to fund higher priority items in the inventory in an article just published by defensenews.com.
Extracts relevant to increasing the likelihood of part contractorization of the overall USAF task going ahead at some point and my comments in [...] :
"The House Armed Services Committee will forbid the Air Force from retiring KC-135 tankers in fiscal 2021, but will allow the service to divest some B-1 bombers and KC-10 tankers. "
[$TMPS Tristars are the direct equivalents of KC-10s in fuel off-load capacity - and 30% of the overall USAF task is for the "hose & drogue" method]
"... the House hopes to block the Air Force from mothballing any of its 398 KC-135s until after FY23"
[so this would remove the option of a third "new" company - in addition to the only current tanker fleet owners Omega and $TMPS - buying or taking over "free" (to then fund the manpower and operating costs) any ex-USAF KC-135s until at least FY23]
"The Air Force currently has 56 KC-10s that are considered primary mission aircraft, so the HASC’s language would allow the service to retire six aircraft in FY21 and a total of 30 tankers over the next three years, said a source familiar with the bill. That will allow the service to retire roughly the same number of tankers as it proposed, but over a longer time period."
[Again this pushes back the time scale that would make any KC-10s available for use by contractors. In any event, it is the extremely high cost per flying hour of operation of the KC-10 that is leading the USAF to want to divest it first. By comparison, the $TMPS Tristars have much lower flying hours consumed - one as little as 32,000 hours (source - original ad after retirement before $TMPS purchased).]
"The changes proposed by HASC will be debated within the Senate Armed Services Committee" "SASC staffers told reporters June 11 that their proposed legislation does not stipulate what kind of aircraft the Air Force needs to keep, but does set a primary aircraft inventory requirement of ... 412 tankers."
"The House committee’s reluctance to begin retiring tankers was expected given US Transportation Command’s concerns about a tanker shortfall and ongoing complications with the Air Force’s newest tanker, the KC-46."
"TRANSCOM listed $110 million in its unfunded priorities to buy back 13 KC-135 and 10 KC-10 tankers that the Air Force wanted to retire, claiming the divestments would create a “capacity bathtub” and limit options for military mobilization if military leaders were “confronted with a crisis.”
"Worries about the tanker fleet being too small were a lso compounded by the slow pace in resolving ongoing KC-46 deficiencies, particularly with its remote vision system. Prime contractor Boeing has agreed to completely redesign the RVS, which is used by the boom operator to see outside of the aircraft during the refueling process. However, the new system will not be ready until at least 2023. "
" Without it, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein has said the aircraft will not be ready to deploy in normal operations, [ie those that contractors could perform] though it would be used in combat if necessary."
" The Air Force argued that retiring some of its legacy aircraft — including the KC-135, KC-10 and B-1 — were necessary to free up funding to invest in future modernization priorities in areas such as space and joint all-domain command and control, with many of those efforts classified."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/19/ho...-boneyard/
(2)
(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 ▼