Air Force announces criteria for basing KC-46A

News > Air Force announces criteria for basing KC-46A

Photos


(U.S. Air Force graphic/Robin Meredith)
Download HiRes

Related Stories
• KC-46 enters critical design review phase - 9/21/2012

Air Force announces criteria for basing KC-46A

Posted 5/14/2012

Email story Print story

5/14/2012 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- After extensive internal review, the Air Force released today its basing criteria that will be used to select candidate bases for the KC-46A formal training unit and first two main operating bases.

The formal training unit (FTU) and first main operating base (MOB 1) will be led by active duty units. The second main operating base (MOB 2) will be led by an Air National Guard unit. The FTU and MOB 1will begin receiving aircraft in FY16. MOB 2 will receive aircraft in FY18.

The basing criteria for the MOBs, approved by Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz, include mission (proximity to refueling receiver demand, airfield and airspace availability, fuels considerations, and the potential to establish an association), capacity (hangar, runway, ramp space and facility considerations), environmental requirements and cost factors.

The basing criteria for the FTU, approved by the secretary of the Air Force and the chief of staff of the Air Force, include mission (proximity of aircraft available to support air refueling training, student throughput, aircrew training systems, fuels considerations, and the potential to establish an association), capacity (hangars, runway, ramp space and facility considerations), environmental requirements and cost factors.

"The KC-46A tanker is a critical force multiplier and essential to the way this nation fights its wars and provides humanitarian support around the globe," explained Schwartz. "The KC-46A is a game changer, and will be a great asset to the nation, not only as a tanker, but as a means to augment the airlift fleet, provide aeromedical evacuation and transport of passengers and cargo."

"The Air Force is committed to an open and transparent process to address KC-46A basing," said Kathleen Ferguson, Air Force deputy assistant secretary for installations, "As we progress through the basing process, we will share information so interested communities are aware of what to expect."

The Air Force will evaluate all sites within the defined enterprise against the approved criteria. This information will be used to identify candidate bases for the KC-46A. After the release of the candidate bases, Air Mobility Command will conduct site surveys at each candidate base.

Site survey teams will assess each location against operational and training requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, housing, infrastructure, manpower, and develop cost estimates to determine how to beddown the KC-46 at each location.

Based on the results of these efforts, the Air Force plans to announce KC-46A preferred and reasonable alternatives and begin the environmental impact analysis process (EIAP) for the FTU and MOB 1 in December 2012. Likewise, the Air Force plans to announce the preferred and reasonable alternatives and begin the EIAP for MOB 2 in the spring of 2013.

"This enterprise-wide look enhances our ability to create, protect, and sustain all air and space forces across the full range of military operations," said Ferguson. "It is a deliberate, standardized, and transparent process."

Comments

9/25/2012 7:08:24 PM ET
BTW...on the subject of 'vast ramp space' these RC PlanesUAVsUCAS'UAS' we're in the process of supplanting all manned aircraft with---you vast-ramp-space-cadets could be a might bit heplful to your friends in the brac office by FYI'ing to your wing commander with the message that heshe needs to ASAP make office space available for the local mayorcounty supervisor in the wing headquarters. we've had some trouble in the past with departing 'cadamy grads trashing the joint.thx AF BRACSTER

AF BRACSTER, baja TJ

9/25/2012 6:37:34 PM ET
all this vast ramp space seems like good pickin's for when BRAC comes a knockin'

AF BRAC PLANNER, baja TJ

9/13/2012 4:20:51 PM ET
Travis or McGuire would be good choices as both bases already support tanker wings. Also McGuire already has an FTU unit. This would cover the entire country and both bases already have compatible hanger facilities. Admittedly McGuire would make a better choice for MOB 2 with the ANG unit there.

Airman, McGuire AFB

9/6/2012 12:36:04 PM ET
I would imagine that Fairchild will get MOB 1 or 2. It really isn't that big of a deal since most existing tanker bases will get the new tanker at some point. The fear is a BRAC before then. If you are concerned about closing in a BRAC you should be concerned about meeting the requirements for the new tanker. I'm not an Altus fan but it makes the most sense for the FTU to be here. Open airspace multiple runways good flying weather open sim spots you name we have it.

Mike, Altus OK

5/30/2012 4:14:04 PM ET
The U S Air Force is not in the business of impacting communities. Lets get that straight.

Alex, Eielson AFB

5/30/2012 2:00:01 AM ET
It's going to Grand Forks. So what was the question?

JinX, California

5/28/2012 3:00:29 AM ET
BRING EM TO GFAFB. WOULD GREATLY IMPACT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

GORDON, GFAFB

5/25/2012 2:32:32 PM ET
Don't forget the open skies of Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota.

merle, utah

5/24/2012 6:03:21 PM ET
Seymour Johnson NC is the obvious choice for the FTUMob 1 as it has housed both the KC-10 and 135R AND has a Reserve wing that also has an Active Duty reverse associate squadron forming the Air Force's first tanker wing total force integration unit. This satisfies both Active duty and Reserve leaving the Mob 2 to an ANG unit somewhere in the Western plains.

Mark, NC

5/24/2012 2:35:15 PM ET
The new KC-46As will end up going to the principal ARWs that have the KC-135s like MacDill so they will eventually be replacing them. The ARWs with KC-10s will most likely be keeping those airframes where they are. Just my two cents...

MS, TX

5/24/2012 1:16:40 AM ET
Wherever they decide to put them...we trust that the decision will be in the best interest of the Air Force and National Security. This is where the faith in the system tenet of our core values is put to the test.

Airman, Overseas

5/22/2012 3:10:32 PM ET
The new kc-46 should be stationed here at McChord. We have more than enough ramp and runway space with room to expand. The C-17 is larger than the kc-46 so we have plently of hanger space. Lord knows we could use tankers here with our growing mission support.

Rian, McChord Field

5/21/2012 11:51:04 AM ET
Criteria are also based on the current infrastructure at an installation like accommodating the difference in aircraft frame size. The KC46 is about 29 feet longer than the 135 10 feet taller and has a wingspan 27' greater than the 135. That means expensive construction to house the aircraft...far better to use a base that has an infrastructure to support the new aircraft frame rather than demolishing and constructing new. I would think that a base with hangars designed for a larger aircraft frame would be ideale.g old C5 bases Altus Charleston Dover and Travis seem like ideal candidates with both coasts covered as well as the nations interior. Just thinking.

bryan, safb

5/20/2012 5:16:47 PM ET
Send the FTU or MOB 2 to Selfridge ANGB MI. They are a prime location and already equipped with KC-135R's vast ramp space and hangar availability abundance of housing and barracks that aren't utilized. This would be a highly cost effective move because it's a huge hub and all of the available Jet Routes leading into and out of the area. The KC-135 crews I know love it and find it very conducive to operational sorties as well as an abundance of training ops. The approach and departure corridors don't have a huge impact on neighborhoods either you're over Lake StClair or over businessindustrial warehouses. I hope SEN Levin fights to bring the newest tanker home to the Great Lakes State of Michigan.

TJ, MI

5/18/2012 11:54:25 PM ET
Look at the big picture Grand Forks is a beautiful base with all the proper facilities and central CONUS location. The Dakota's is the perfect strategic base for both the FTU and first active duty base. Sorry Altus

Crossflow, CONUS

5/18/2012 7:35:33 PM ET
Wright-Patterson AFB would be an excellent location for the KC-46. There is ample room and many hangars left over from the C-5As. With the recent cuts for the 121st ARW at Rickenbacker this would lessen the damage. Wright Patterson is near at least in aviation terms to many important bases like Andrews Whiteman and many other locations on the East Coast like Langley and Dover. It could fly tracks over both the mainland the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico.

Joshua, Ohio

5/18/2012 3:19:46 PM ET
Would it not be logical to continue with the previous plan for the KC-X and use the formal FTU at Altus - where current KC and C-17 training are located. Use existing cargo load training facilities highly experienced mechanics 360 available flying days per year and oversized hangers leftover from the C-5 galaxies.

Dennis, Fairborn OH

5/18/2012 1:34:51 PM ET
McConnell is not equipped to handle these aircraft. They should be in location not known for having tornadoes every other month. A Guard location would be the most logical location for testing and permannent basing.

Dane, Colorado

5/18/2012 12:48:20 PM ET
Looking at all the name brand engine changes as new aircraft enter the inventory I am sure glad to be retired. I never had an easy time working on P and W engines they are always needy and not maintainer friendly. I doubt that has changed much if at all But the maintenance people have no say in what power plants are purchased it is down to initial cost and politics. Not many companies can afford to sell engines for less then it cost to build them but then the higher costs of spare parts to repair them more often then some brands makes up for the lower initial sale price tag I guess. I think low unscheduled maintenance history and high reliability should be the driving factor but again the maintainers are never consulted.

SNCO Ret 89, Ohio

5/18/2012 10:32:14 AM ET
I agree they should be stationed near to the location they are built at. That would be McConnell since Boeing promised they would be in KS. They would use the joint runway with Boeing. The Boeing Mod center would make modfications easy.Oops - No more Boeing Tanker in Kansas and now no more Boeing either. Deploy the C-46 to Washington ST. Let Airbus buy the Boeing Facility in Wichita and let Airbus build the US version of the MRTT and base that out of McConnell ExBoeing facility.

DerbyTims, Derby KS

5/17/2012 6:27:03 PM ET
you guys are all wrong... make them permanent party at a base where trees dont grow and its 100 degrees or more year round.... well need em there. shower shoes for everyone and PT gear for the entire family

dave, the moon

5/17/2012 2:20:20 PM ET
A new tanker is more than overdue and definitely has a LOT of political backing. Therefore it makes perfect sense to have this new state of the art tanker as close to DC as possible. Recommend Bolling. Get rid of the Air Force Band and consolidate the DIA with the folks at Fort Meade Maryland and there should be plenty of room to build a runway. Better yet share the runways with Reagan Airport across the river and opearate a water taxi service. Who can argue putting the next tanker at the home of The Chief's Own

RG III, Pentagon

5/17/2012 5:30:59 AM ET
Fairchild Washington- HUAAre you a soldier Maybe you should refrain from saying that HUA garbage and start chanting something else.

Gumball 3000, Europe

5/16/2012 10:09:49 PM ET
Bring em up to Grand Forks our base is ready for anything

Ryan, GFAFB ND

5/16/2012 3:09:03 PM ET
Know for a fact the 22 ARW is not the best refueling wing. Definitely would be good for the Guard though.

Dane, Colorado

5/16/2012 12:05:54 PM ET
Bring them to Fairchild Global Reach for America TANKER PRIDE HUA

Fairchild, Washington

5/16/2012 11:54:13 AM ET
Bring back to GFAFB.

kevin, GFAFB

5/16/2012 10:00:11 AM ET
Bring it to Schriever We'll cancel two satellites and build an airfield

CP, COS CO

5/16/2012 8:39:00 AM ET
Bring 'em on to the Mississippi Air National Guard. First Air Guard unit to have the C-17 so why not the KC-46A

SSgt. P, Thompson Field MS

5/16/2012 7:39:47 AM ET
Keep 'em in the heartland at the best tanker wing the 22 ARW

Tanker Central, McConnell AFB KS

5/15/2012 2:56:45 PM ET
Bring them to Grissom IN. This base is the best choice for the ANG East of the MISS.

Paul, Indiana

5/15/2012 2:32:12 PM ET
Bring it Seymour Johnson- Best TFI tanker wing in the Air Force

FirstinFlight, NC

5/15/2012 2:25:20 PM ET
In an election year they forgot the number one priority and it doesn't matter who is President both sides do it and that is which bases are in swing states. That would mean Ohio would be a possible but Fairchild would be out. Whiteman would also be a possible as would any of the bases in Florida.

Jerry, Oklahoma

5/14/2012 6:12:49 PM ET
Fairchild should be first Keep it in Washington State where it's built.

KC-135 Boomer, Seattle

5/14/2012 6:04:42 PM ET
Bring 'em on over to Ohio we're ready

Brady, OH

Add a comment