• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

OKC

Tangential question: The Navy's 2 (E-6B) Tacamo squadrons are at Tinker AFB & have been for a long time. Other than being located at a 707-airframe OMR site are there any compelling Navy operational reasons to keep them in Oklahoma?? Would appreciate viewpoints & info from those more current than I. Thanks.
 
Fog said:
Tangential question: The Navy's 2 (E-6B) Tacamo squadrons are at Tinker AFB & have been for a long time. Other than being located at a 707-airframe OMR site are there any compelling Navy operational reasons to keep them in Oklahoma?? Would appreciate viewpoints & info from those more current than I. Thanks.
Click to expand...
It is in the central United States and close (too close IMO) to our overlords in Offutt.

We moved two squadrons that were in Hawaii and Pax to OKC and fly a plane that is so costly that we divert it if we think it is going to hail. Hmmmmm....

In other words, Fog, sounds political to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fog
e6bflyer said:
It is in the central United States and close (too close IMO) to our overlords in Offutt.

We moved two squadrons that were in Hawaii and Pax to OKC and fly a plane that is so costly that we divert it if we think it is going to hail. Hmmmmm....

In other words, Fog, sounds political to me.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was at Pax River way back when it was VR-1 (TACAMO) w/ a few C-130s: definitely a long time ago. Would love to see the 2 squadrons at Forrest Sherman Field to give some operational flavor to the Pensacola area. But I guess Offutt wouldn't allow that - and you'd have the ocassional hurricane to deal with. At Tinker, I'm sure it hardly feels as if you're in the Navy.
 
I think from Big Navy's point of view consolidating the E-6's in one location makes good 'business sense' from a support perspective. It is a unique airframe in the Navy and having all of it's support in one location makes sense, even more so when co-located with the USAF's biggest concentration of 707 airframes in the world.
 
Flash said:
I think from Big Navy's point of view consolidating the E-6's in one location makes good 'business sense' from a support perspective. It is a unique airframe in the Navy and having all of it's support in one location makes sense, even more so when co-located with the USAF's biggest concentration of 707 airframes in the world.
Click to expand...
That too. Our supply chain is totally separate from the Air Force, but we do use their depot maintenance facilities quite a bit. There are a lot of advantages and disadvantages, but the weather thing is always like a vulture hanging over our heads, mainly in the springtime.
 
Fog said:
Thanks. I was at Pax River way back when it was VR-1 (TACAMO) w/ a few C-130s: definitely a long time ago. Would love to see the 2 squadrons at Forrest Sherman Field to give some operational flavor to the Pensacola area. But I guess Offutt wouldn't allow that - and you'd have the ocassional hurricane to deal with. At Tinker, I'm sure it hardly feels as if you're in the Navy.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that the 8000 Ft RWY at NPA would also serve as a significant LIMFAC to 707 ops there.
 
Brett327 said:
I would imagine that the 8000 Ft RWY at NPA would also serve as a significant LIMFAC to 707 ops there.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised. It is pretty rare that runway length is a limiting factor for us. Sure, it happens, but in 95 percent of our takeoffs and 100 percent of our normal landings, 8000 is plenty. When we get really heavy and it is hot or wet and windy and when we have compound malfunctions is when it goes up above that.
I took off from Sigonella's 8000 footer with a full load of gas (150K) no problem.
Our normal lightweight landing distance is around 5000 feet.
We have great brakes, thrust reversers (don't count those in our data calculations though), and a lot of thrust for taking off.
 
e6bflyer said:
You would be surprised. It is pretty rare that runway length is a limiting factor for us. Sure, it happens, but in 95 percent of our takeoffs and 100 percent of our normal landings, 8000 is plenty. When we get really heavy and it is hot or wet and windy and when we have compound malfunctions is when it goes up above that.
I took off from Sigonella's 8000 footer with a full load of gas (150K) no problem.
Our normal lightweight landing distance is around 5000 feet.
We have great brakes, thrust reversers (don't count those in our data calculations though), and a lot of thrust for taking off.
Click to expand...

. . . and what's more, the new CO might be surprised to learn that it is technologically possible to extend the length of runways at NASs. It has been done before when there were appropriate reasons for doing so. Just sayin'.
 
Fog said:
. . . and what's more, the new CO might be surprised to learn that it is technologically possible to extend the length of runways at NASs. It has been done before when there were appropriate reasons for doing so. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
"If you build it…they will come..." ("The Voice" to Ray Kinsella)
"Be careful what you wish for…" (Various; unattributed)
 
Interesting. I would surmise that most of your operational flights would be max GW and hot/humid on a short field would be suboptimal starting point when establishing basing criteria. Do you have the old school engines or the newer version?
 
Fog said:
. . . and what's more, the new CO might be surprised to learn that it is technologically possible to extend the length of runways at NASs. It has been done before when there were appropriate reasons for doing so. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
I would be even more surprised if that were actually considered a viable option in today's resource constrained environment. ;)
 
Brett327 said:
Interesting. I would surmise that most of your operational flights would be max GW and hot/humid on a short field would be suboptimal starting point when establishing basing criteria. Do you have the old school engines or the newer version?
Click to expand...

The E-6's were among the last 707's off the line (along with the RAF E-3D's and French E-3F's) and have the big CFM56 (F108) engines like the KC/RC-135s. I remember a KC pilot telling me how they actually had throttle stops because their new engines actually gave them a bit too much power, not sure if that is the case with the E-6's.
 
Brett327 said:
I would be even more surprised if that were actually considered a viable option in today's resource constrained environment. ;)
Click to expand...
Just don't mention that to Senators Mark Rubio and Bill Nelson, or Representative Jeff Miller (for NPA). Just sayin'...
 
Regarding notions of building longer runways to accommodate the big white jet, which a lot of people haven't even heard of (E-6... that's the jamming one that flies off the carriers, right???),

It's been over fifteen years since the JPATS contracts started getting signed and just this year the Navy finally started digging (note: no concrete poured yet) to expand runways at the training command OLFs (the new airplanes need a lot more runway than the T-34s did). The decision to buy hundreds of these airplanes were made during the Clinton administration. Maybe I'm just being cynical about this :rolleyes:

I agree though- it'd be neat for those Navy airplanes to call a Navy base their home.
 
possible thread jack / split.

With P-8's coming to your neighborhood 8k' runway - are there scenarios, malfunctions, or emergencies that would render an 8k' runway too short?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top