Outsourcing: Even the tanker fleet isn't exempt.....

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 19 Aug 2006, 15:35

Check out this link Outsourcing Tankers

Well I guess it's no different then using a company like Evergreen or Atlas to haul military cargo around.

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 19 Aug 2006, 15:45

Interesting details on there of their flight plans.

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 19 Aug 2006, 16:27

I saw them in a conglomerate with Evergreen called, Global AirTanker Service at RIAT the other year. It seemed like a bloody brilliant idea.

Nick

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 19 Aug 2006, 16:27

I saw them in a conglomerate with Evergreen called, Global AirTanker Service at RIAT the other year. It seemed like a bloody brilliant idea.

Nick

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 23 Aug 2006, 21:21

Someone got started with outsourcing a few years back. The argument was that it was less expensive than maintaining military capability to do that. Also that it would "free-up" GI resources. I guess we have seen how inexpensive it is! From what I understand Halliburton really gouges the Government for meals and other contract services. But at least they went to war with the GIs. That has always been my concern-Will the needed items (Tankers in this case) be there to support strike forces in a shooting war?? Same questions for 'civilianized' force structure positions.
My thought is that as a civilian- a guy could refuse to go. Most would not, but a few might. The Guard and Reserve guys all stepped up to the plate and deserve our thanks-but they are also Military!!

VulcanDriver · Post by **VulcanDriver** » 24 Aug 2006, 12:16

Back during the 1980's I read that the British Govt was considering selling our tanks and APCs to a vehicle leasing firm, and then renting them back in times of war. Thankfully the British Army top brass showed them the errors of their ways. Some wit said that British Army fighting vehicles would carry the Hertz Car Rental logo...

What they did do was to sell off the maintenance side of the British Army so our tanks are now maintained by a division of Honda Motors IIRC. I'll check with my neighbour who works at the AFV repair facility at Bovington Camp.

John

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 24 Aug 2006, 16:54

There is that famous story of the shipbuilders who were working on one of the Carriers after Pearl Harbor. The ship needed to sail and they went along to continue repairs. The ship was eventually in the Battle of Midway but I don't know if the ship-builders were still on board.

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 24 Aug 2006, 17:31

VulcanDriver wrote:I'll check with my neighbour who works at the AFV repair facility at Bovington Camp.

John

The best years of my single life. Bovi is a fantastic area to live for a single man. Those were the days.

Calvin Gwin · Post by **Calvin Gwin** » 29 Aug 2006, 01:30

Hmmm... interesting..... I dont have any objections.... yet... As long as there are only two I dont really think there will be an impact, but If the military decides to let all tankers be controlled by civialians then I would be worried.

VulcanDriver · Post by **VulcanDriver** » 29 Aug 2006, 13:01

Flight Refuelling based at my local airport (EGHH) have a contract to convert six airliners into tankers, they've done one (a DC-10), but I don't know the operator.

John

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 29 Aug 2006, 17:41

Hi Vulcan Driver,
I get a kick out of your quote of Duncan Sandys. As a Former SAC Director of targets, the discussions of bombers vs. missiles were driven more by targets and objectives. The thing that quieted the missile advocates was that "missiles could not be recalled." The arguments against bombers was the logistics tail and the time to deploy. The reality was that the Strategic Triad (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Manned Bombers) was a very effecient system.
It is interesting today that Iran is saying it will have the capability to fire nuclear missiles from submarines. That is a function of the missile not having the legs to get to a target. The Soviets understood that when they built their nuclear sub fleet. Another major factor is that rotation of the earth favored the US-shooting east is easier. The Soviet SLBMs had to sit off the US east coast (and some west) to overcome that effect with a missile of reasonable size. To shoot west, you would have to build some heavy (fuel) missiles. They did do that also.

VulcanDriver · Post by **VulcanDriver** » 29 Aug 2006, 20:29

GZR_Sactargets wrote:Hi Vulcan Driver,
I get a kick out of your quote of Duncan Sandys. It is interesting today that Iran is saying it will have the capability to fire nuclear missiles from submarines. That is a function of the missile not having the legs to get to a target. The Soviets understood that when they built their nuclear sub fleet. Another major factor is that rotation of the earth favored the US-shooting east is easier. The Soviet SLBMs had to sit off the US east coast (and some west) to overcome that effect with a missile of reasonable size. To shoot west, you would have to build some heavy (fuel) missiles. They did do that also.

Yes dear old Duncan Sandys cancelled most of the UK's advanced aircraft projects including the AVRO 730 a Mach 3+ bomber plus many fighter projects. He only let the Lightning and the TSR2 go ahead as they were "the last of the manned RAF aircraft". They say he could not understand the reason airplanes fly, but could understand that rockets worked as they had a ruddy big engine behind it... Probably apocryphal. Thanks for info on SLBMs by the way, lots there I didn't know.

Cheers

John

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 29 Sep 2006, 14:41

Well, looks like the "ownership' thing isn't over. This article says they want to build a bunch of tankers. Of course politics comes first.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1 ... force-a.nl

P3_Super_Bee · Post by **P3_Super_Bee** » 30 Sep 2006, 07:23

This type of thing is the 'wave" of the future...

The Navy reserve C-20's, the C-40's and the up and coming P-8 (BBJ2) are all contract maintenance(civilians)

I believe the new T-6 Texan II will be contract maintenance as well. Hell IIRC the T-43's flight station crews are cilivians.

Some of the R&D outfits are also contract maintenance, either in it's entirety or portions. IE Navy does flight line maintenance, and civilians do special inspections.(IE plane washes and the such)...

ricktk · Post by **ricktk** » 30 Sep 2006, 20:13

Not a big problem running civilian contracts to do cargo flights, refuel, or maintenance as far as I can see. Especially since it frees up manpower and hopefully money also.

Civilian manned tankers could easily do many tanker duties, not in a combat zone. Look at all the long distance flights across the pond, for B1s, B2s, B52s, etc. etc. The problems could come in on morale, if the civilian flight crews are based on the same bases as the military?

To: GZR_Sactargets

The carrier was the Yorktown. After the battle in the Coral Sea, she had two days in the Pearl Harbor drydock to turn around all the bomb damage sustained, and then scoot NW to Midway. And yes, there were civilians aboard during the battle and when she was redamaged, and had to be abandoned at Midway.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 01 Oct 2006, 02:58

Thanks for the info Ricktk!

P3_Super_Bee · Post by **P3_Super_Bee** » 01 Oct 2006, 09:20

ricktk wrote:Especially since it frees up manpower and hopefully money also.

Does away with...

ricktk wrote: Civilian manned tankers could easily do many tanker duties, not in a combat zone.

VR-51 operates along with probalby some of the other VR's in combat zones, with their civilian maintainers... The new P-8's will definatly be operating in combat zones as well.

KMTC · Post by **KMTC** » 01 Oct 2006, 16:27

I know the Army uses civilians overseas for vehicle maintenance, including people from host nations. It provides really cheap labor while freeing up soldiers.