KC-46A Candidate Bases Announced

[Muscle2002]

Talk to flight test guys who take jets up for the first time after a PDM, that would be more of a risk than a new jet.

They're typically not test pilots.

[Muscle2002]

According to the internets, ITAF's KC-767 had its first flight May of 2005. JASDF KC-767Js reached IOC May of 2009. Plus, like Fuseplug said, the 767 airframe has been flying since the early 1980s.

Not a tanker guy, but is a "first flight" for the KC-46 in Dec of 2014 really that big of an engineering feat?

Unknown. Are the flight controls different? Have there been considerable mods to the aircraft structure? Are the avionics completely new? I think the fact that Boeing thought the first flight merited high speed taxi tests (potentially looked at Mcg) and then a chase for the first flight indicates that the airplane is different enough.

[Majestik Møøse]

Considering this combination of wing, fuselage, and avionics has never been airborne before, I'd say there's enough reason to warrant a measured approach to flying it.

[DirkDiggler]

Honest question for any boomers out there. What does this new digital, 3D boom system on the -46 give advantage wise over the -10 and -135?

[Azimuth]

Honest question for any boomers out there. What does this new digital, 3D boom system on the -46 give advantage wise over the -10 and -135?

No hydraulic fluid, deice/anti-ice fluid on the sighting window. Nothing like trying to make a contact with a A-10 or B-1 at night and not being able to see out of the window due to it being covered in hydro fluid, hoping you don't hit the canopy/window. According to the test guys in Seattle night AR will be IR. The ability to see completely behind the tanker with the multiple camera angles and views.

The biggest change for -135 Booms is sitting up, not having to fly the boom around while in contact. A majority of -135 Booms have neck, shoulder, or lower back problems due to the 1950's era ergonomics.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Azimuth

[Disregard]

The biggest change for -135 Booms is sitting up, not having to fly the boom around while in contact.

Does the KC-10 boom "fly" itself when in contact?

[Azimuth]

Does the KC-10 boom "fly" itself when in contact?

Yes. It actually has stick shaker built into the system (ALAS, Automated Load Aleviation System) to shake if inadvertent input are made to the control stick.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Azimuth

[Majestik Møøse]

I was under the impression that the 3d system is used because it's cheaper.

[DirkDiggler]

No hydraulic fluid, deice/anti-ice fluid on the sighting window. Nothing like trying to make a contact with a A-10 or B-1 at night and not being able to see out of the window due to it being covered in hydro fluid, hoping you don't hit the canopy/window. According to the test guys in Seattle night AR will be IR. The ability to see completely behind the tanker with the multiple camera angles and views.

The biggest change for -135 Booms is sitting up, not having to fly the boom around while in contact. A majority of -135 Booms have neck, shoulder, or lower back problems due to the 1950's era ergonomics.

Yes. It actually has stick shaker built into the system (ALAS, Automated Load Aleviation System) to shake if inadvertent input are made to the control stick.

Thanks for the info, sounds like its a solid tech advancement for you guys.

[Champ Kind]

From what I understand, there are some pretty big differences between the KC-767 and KC-46. The 46 is more of a Frankenstein. Not enough to call yourself Chuck Yeager, but probably still a new plane. Ish.

Unknown. Are the flight controls different? Have there been considerable mods to the aircraft structure? Are the avionics completely new? I think the fact that Boeing thought the first flight merited high speed taxi tests (potentially looked at Mcg) and then a chase for the first flight indicates that the airplane is different enough.

Fair enough. I think points 2 and 3 in JarheadBoom's post last month make it a little easier to understand:

1. It's not a standard configuration, standard dash number 767 airframe that Boeing's been rolling off the line for decades. -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flight deck and flaps, different engines (hence the "Frankentanker" nickname). Hasn't been done before.

2. The whole triple redundancy thing REALLY complicates the avionics/electrical installation.

3. .mil-specific systems that need to be integrated into the standard flight deck and tested.

Those components have at least already been produced by Boeing though (200ER, 300F, 400ER). I know it's the first time they are being used together on one airframe, but it still doesn't seem like it should have taken as long as it has. The avionics and mil-specific components/upgrades are a probably a bear, so like I said, I can understand some delay on that account. Still seems like a long time either way.

[Homestar]

Not a tanker guy, but is a "first flight" for the KC-46 in Dec of 2014 really that big of an engineering feat?

It's not so much the feat of engineering as the simple reality that the program is moving forward.

I realize that the 767 is an old design, but these pieces of metal are fresh off the factory assembly line, no? Kind of like driving a car with zero miles....

[StoleIt]

I was under the impression that the 3d system is used because it's cheaper.

It was fiscally prohibitive to redesign the 767 fuselage even more so to fit a person back there. I believe they are already cutting it very close with takeoff and landing rotation/flare clearance between the runway and the boom.

[Prozac]

What would the Italians know about a traditional boom pod? As far as I know, they never operated boom equipped tankers until the KC-767. They don't really have anything to compare the boom station to.

[Azimuth]

Thanks for the info, sounds like its a solid tech advancement for you guys.

Time will tell. I know a lot of the old heads in the community are very skeptical. But the test team in Seattle are some smart bros and they've told me it's a good step into the future of AR.

[JarheadBoom]

Honest question for any boomers out there. What does this new digital, 3D boom system on the -46 give advantage wise over the -10 and -135?

No hydraulic fluid, deice/anti-ice fluid on the sighting window. Nothing like trying to make a contact with a A-10 or B-1 at night and not being able to see out of the window due to it being covered in hydro fluid, hoping you don't hit the canopy/window. According to the test guys in Seattle night AR will be IR. The ability to see completely behind the tanker with the multiple camera angles and views.

The biggest change for -135 Booms is sitting up, not having to fly the boom around while in contact. A majority of -135 Booms have neck, shoulder, or lower back problems due to the 1950's era ergonomics.

-135 booms definitely get more out of the new remote system than -10 booms, for all the reasons Azimuth states. The -10 ARO station was designed with much better ergonomics.

The biggest thing -10 booms lose is the giant sighting window... the long walk to the back... and the hill-climbing workout when walking back up front after A-10s.

I will freely admit I'm not a big fan of the remote AR concept (I love the view from the window in my office...), but night AR in LLTV and/or IR, the ability to actually see what the receivers are doing on the WARPs, and the much larger FOV are hard to argue with.

Does the KC-10 boom "fly" itself when in contact?

Yes; the -10 boom is FBW in all flight control modes. The ALAS system Azimuth referred to is one function of the Boom Control Unit (BCU), which is the flight control computer for the boom. The main job of ALAS is to minimize loads on the boom nozzle (and, by extension, the telescoping tube of the boom and the receiver's receptacle) while in contact, by back-driving the boom flight control stick to a position that gives minimal loading on the nozzle (there's load sensors in the nozzle). The stick shaker is part of ALAS, but not all of it; you can still push through the stick shaker and bend the boom.

I was under the impression that the 3d system is used because it's cheaper.

There's a shit-ton of engineering and structural reinforcement required to cut out a large chunk of structure in the fuselage of a pressurized aircraft, and replace it with a large transparency. Much more than what's required to scab a half-dozen or so cameras & fairings onto the outside, and drill small holes to pass the wiring through.

Might be cheaper in the short-term; I dunno. If it is, I highly doubt the remote system will come out to be cheaper in the long-term; thats a lot of lowest-bidder avionics to maintain.

You also lose a pallet position by having a door in the cabin floor to get access to a boom pod/ARO station. Since one of the main selling points of KC-X was it's cargo capability, it's probably fair to say that neither A nor B wanted to give up a pallet.

What would the Italians know about a traditional boom pod? As far as I know, they never operated boom equipped tankers until the KC-767. They don't really have anything to compare the boom station to.

Their initial cadre boom operators were trained in the USAF KC-10 pipeline; there were two in the FTU at the same time I was going through.

[Homestar]

Yes, in morse, with your lip light.

[Azimuth]

..... so do I still need to pass my tail number?

Jets in the boneyard don't need gas.

[MD]

No hydraulic fluid, deice/anti-ice fluid on the sighting window. Nothing like trying to make a contact with a A-10 or B-1 at night and not being able to see out of the window due to it being covered in hydro fluid, hoping you don't hit the canopy/window.

As bad on the receiving end too, in the Hog but probably the same as the Bone, with having a boom with a leaking knuckle that's getting JP all over the windscreen, and the only real way to hold position is to keep the compass and g-meter on the #1 and #3 engines. Makes one appreciate the planes with AR receptacles behind or aside the cockpit rather than in front.

[deaddebate]

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-31%20-%203-19-15.pdf

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Senator Donnelly: The KC-46 -- and this is more of an installations question. When can we expect an announcement on the candidate bases for the Reserve-led operating parts?

General Holmes: Sir, we expect to make that announcement in September of 2016 I believe is the last information I got. So for OPS-3, which should be a Reserve base, we expect that in September 2016.

[Azimuth]

Grissom or March

[ThreeHoler]

McGuire or Travis. Replacing KC-10s after Pease is covered.

[Clark Griswold]

Has anything been said about KC-135 drawdown as KC-46 comes online?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ComingLeft]

The only plans are the local plans to close/transfer/convert a squadron at McConnell and slowly move the iron. I imagine a plan similar to Grand Forks will occur once new jets are being delivered regularly.

[Azimuth]

The only plans are the local plans to close/transfer/convert a squadron at McConnell and slowly move the iron. I imagine a plan similar to Grand Forks will occur once new jets are being delivered regularly.

Jets will also flow to the boneyard (the ones with unrepairable corrosion issues) and to Fairchild as it becomes the only KC-135 Super Tanker Wing Ad wise. The KC-135 will be around for awhile. Block 40.6 will be released soon, which will be the last Block 40 upgrade as jets start to get the Block 45 conversion.

McGuire or Travis. Replacing KC-10s after Pease is covered.

I thought you guys aren't going away? Just ask your community about how important you guys are.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Azimuth

[Prosuper]

Has anything been said about KC-135 drawdown as KC-46 comes online?

Been hearing rumors that KC-135's when they get to PDM that if corrosion issues are bad ($$$) were going to put them back together for a 1 time to KDMA. Active duty birds are coming to Ktik in bad shape. If more iron is shifted to AFRC and ANG it will better for the mx of the birds.