Originally Posted by
Davef68
If only there had been an interim solution where the USAF could have perhaps leased some tankers to provide capacity and releive the elderly KC-135s until KC46 came onstream....
Which brings up some interesting factoids about funding and the "color of money".
When the KC-767 lease idea was put forward, the point was to avoid sinking lots of money into half century old airframes to keep them flying until a suitable replacement could be developed. The lease option was based on using KC-135 operating/maintenance dollars to lease the KC-767s, because buying them would require procurement dollars (one color of money) which USAF did not have and instead using operating/maintenance dollars (a different color of money) which USAF did have. But Senator McCain essentially single handedly killed that idea because he seriously disliked Boeing and called it "corporate welfare." So instead, the KC-135 fleet was upgraded with new avionics/cockpits to keep them flying. Guess who got that contract? Boeing. (Yeah Rockwell built the parts, but did not install them along with other upgrades.) And we all know that Boeing
also ended up with the contract to build new KC-46 tankers. So much for sticking it to Boeing. And oh yeah, with the new cockpits, the KC-135s aren't all that decrepit after all and the pressure to retire them is greatly diminished. So while KC-46's late entry into service is lamentable, it has not resulted in a loss of aerial tanking capacity.because none of the KC-135s have been retired with most of the fleet having service life to well into 2040 and many well beyond. Theoretically, KC-135s will start to be retired as KC-46s come into service. But it's still not clear if this will be on a one for one basis, or a two for one basis. We'll have to wait and see.