KC-10 Extender Retired to the Air Mobility Command museum

[Duggy009]

The first KC-10 Extender ever produced arrives at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, April 26, 2022. The aircraft was officially retired following a short ceremony and will become part of the Air Mobility Command museum. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. J.D. Strong II)

[JohnB]

Interesting...Will their retirement cause a airlift capability shortfall?
If so, it will increase charters? (A friend flies 747-800s for Atlas and they do a great deal of DoD business...some of it I suspect are in areas civil aircraft have no business being...my sentiments, not his).
Also,will it put premature wear on the C-17s?

-I wonder how many DC-10s remain in service?
-How many flight hours does the average KC-10 have?
I would imagine a fraction of an airliner's time.

[Mike]

Only a handful of DC-10s (MD-10 freighters) left, with FedEx, nowadays, and they’ll all be gone in a few months.

[Kyleb]

Interesting that they are retiring an aircraft that is >20 years newer and more capable than the KC-135. Does anyone understand the logic behind this?

[junkman9096]

Interesting that they are retiring an aircraft that is >20 years newer and more capable than the KC-135. Does anyone understand the logic behind this?

Boeing lobbyists????

[JohnB]

Interesting that they are retiring an aircraft that is >20 years newer and more capable than the KC-135. Does anyone understand the logic behind this?

Boeing lobbyists????

Not likely since the KC-10 is now a Boeing product.

Last edited by JohnB on Thu Apr 28, 2022 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

[JohnB]

Interesting that they are retiring an aircraft that is >20 years newer and more capable than the KC-135. Does anyone understand the logic behind this?

Easy. Fleet size.

There is simply not enough KC-10s to replace the entire KC-135 Fleet. So, so would you park a good chunk of the 135s and replace them with the relatively few 10s?
If you do, you have to maintain separate units, training, parts and depot resources. All that costs lot of money.

Also, most tanker missions don't require a plane the size of a KC-10.
You don't need the occasionally used capacity of a KC-10 for refueling ANG F-16s on CONUS training missions or F-35s patrolling the Polish border.

Also, the Air Force now has KC-46, 135 and 10s. It doesn't need three types of tankers.

In short, logistical and operational stuff not always apparent to the layman or casual observer.
You learn these things as a staff guy at AFMC HQ.

Then there is the obvious point that the KC-46, another wide body airliner turned into a tanker, has the same cargo carrying capability as the 10. (I don't know if AMC plans on using it in the same way it used KC-10s). At any rate, I would guess a new twin engine 46 would cost less to operate than a 40 year old three engine 10.

I bet truck fleet operators make similar decisions. "We have 600 Sprinter vans. But we also have 75 newer Fords". We want to cut service and inventory expenses...which do we cut?"

There are plenty of prescedents...in the '70s SAC parked B-52E and Fs in favor of keeping older D's around. In large part because there were more D's available...so it only had to maintain one model.
Kind of why Southwest flies one type.

Last edited by JohnB on Thu Apr 28, 2022 12:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

[Mark Sampson]

From reading the original post, it may be that only this particular airplane (the first one) is being retired?

[Dan K]

From reading the original post, it may be that only this particular airplane (the first one) is being retired?

The link is a little dated but seems to explain the present situation pretty well:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... lawmakers/

[marine air]

It would be nice if they put the engine covers , etc on it and mothballed it in place at the museum. You never know, it could be needed in the future if war continues in Europe and starts up in Asia. Itf the type is still in service with UPS and FEDEX, then its still a 'moneymaker." Shame to see it withdrawn.

[sandiego89]

From reading the original post, it may be that only this particular airplane (the first one) is being retired?

KC-10s have been going to the boneyard since 2020.

As of the most recent April 20202 FOIA inventory release 12 KC-10's are at the boneyard already.

Great add for the AMC museum, they have quite a specialty in "first and last" airframes.

[Noha307]

Interesting that they are retiring an aircraft that is >20 years newer and more capable than the KC-135. Does anyone understand the logic behind this?

Easy. Fleet size.

There is simply not enough KC-10s to replace the entire KC-135 Fleet. So, so would you park a good chunk of the 135s and replace them with the relatively few 10s?
If you do, you have to maintain separate units, training, parts and depot resources. All that costs lot of money.

Also, most tanker missions don't require a plane the size of a KC-10.
You don't need the occasionally used capacity of a KC-10 for refueling ANG F-16s on CONUS training missions or F-35s patrolling the Polish border.

Also, the Air Force now has KC-46, 135 and 10s. It doesn't need three types of tankers.

In short, logistical and operational stuff not always apparent to the layman or casual observer.
You learn these things as a staff guy at AFMC HQ.

Then there is the obvious point that the KC-46, another wide body airliner turned into a tanker, has the same cargo carrying capability as the 10. (I don't know if AMC plans on using it in the same way it used KC-10s). At any rate, I would guess a new twin engine 46 would cost less to operate than a 40 year old three engine 10.

I bet truck fleet operators make similar decisions. "We have 600 Sprinter vans. But we also have 75 newer Fords". We want to cut service and inventory expenses...which do we cut?"

There are plenty of prescedents...in the '70s SAC parked B-52E and Fs in favor of keeping older D's around. In large part because there were more D's available...so it only had to maintain one model.
Kind of why Southwest flies one type.

The 1100th Operations Group out of Bolling Air Force Base operated B-25s for executive transport purposes until roughly 1958. The reasoning seems to have been that they were essentially brand new aircraft. For instance, 45-8898 had been flown straight from the factory to desert storage - where it sat for approximately two years before it was acquired by the unit. However, using a B-25 for as what is essentially a glorified squadron hack is overkill. The result leads to this quite interesting passage from the 1100ths unit history:

The last topic for discussion is the utilization of the L-26 aircraft versus the B-25 aircraft in regard to our squadron mission. As of this report[,] our squadron has fifteen B-25 aircraft assigned and six L-26 aircraft assigned. Both aircraft are utilized on relatively short hops for V.I.P.'s. Following are the advantages and disadvantages of both aircraft:

B-25 Aircraft
Better all weather aircraft than L-26; better for flights over 600 miles; longer range; slightly faster than L-26 (5 M.P.H.)

L-26 Aircraft
Much more comfortable than B-25; L-26 gas consumption is 25 gallons per hour as compared to 135 gallons per hour for the B-25; L-26 is easier to tow; L-26 much easier to maintain; occupies far less space both in hangar and for parking purposes; uses less parts and cheaper parts; L-26 has no flying crew chief in majority of flights; crew chiefs always flies [sic] on B-25; less personnel needed for maintenance.
The foregoing data was compiled from interviews with key personnel in the 1104TH B FLTRON. It is a general concensus [sic] of opinion that, for the purpose of our squadron mission, the L-26 could and should replace all but a few of our B-25 aircraft.
The only time the B-25 aircraft would have an advantage over the L-26 in our squadron would be during inclement weather. A study of the advantages and disadvantages of both aircraft seems to indicated more utilization of the L-26 would save the USAF many thousands of dollars each month.

(Source: Allan Barry, “History of the 1104th Base Flight Squadron, 1100th Operations Group” (Bolling Air Force Base: Headquarters Command, USAF, 1955), M0043, Air Force Historical Research Agency, n.p.)

So, sure, the B-25s only had 10 years of service when they were retired, but, among other things, they used over 5 times the amount of fuel than the replacement!

[JohnB]

Interesting stuff comparing the VB-25 to the L-26, which was the Aero Commander twin.
The VB-25 actually outlasted the more numerous TB-25 in service.
The trainer, used for multi engine training, was retired in 1959, the VIP transport, was retired in early 1960.

[Pat Carry]

Whatever happened to the USAF developing a new tanker? Wasn't Boeing in line to get the contract to build this new tanker?

[phil65]

Whatever happened to the USAF developing a new tanker? Wasn't Boeing in line to get the contract to build this new tanker?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

We are building the engines here at Pratt, slowly...

Phil