Guest Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 "Air Force Announces KC-46A Candidate Bases The Air Force announced today Altus Air Force Base, Okla., and McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., as candidate bases for the KC-46A formal training unit (FTU). Altus Air Force Base, Okla.; Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash.; Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D.; and McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., are candidate bases for the first active-duty led KC-46A main operating base (MOB). Forbes Air Guard Station, Kan.; Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.; Pease Air Guard Station, N.H.; Pittsburgh International Airport Air Guard Station, Pa.; and Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, Ohio, are candidate bases for the first Air National Guard led KC-46A MOB. " Link to DOD News Release Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Altus for the FTU, Fairchild for the MOB #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) "Air Force Announces KC-46A Candidate Bases The Air Force announced today Altus Air Force Base, Okla., and McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., as candidate bases for the KC-46A formal training unit (FTU). Altus Air Force Base, Okla.; Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash.; Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D.; and McConnell Air Force Base, Kan., are candidate bases for the first active-duty led KC-46A main operating base (MOB). Forbes Air Guard Station, Kan.; Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.; Pease Air Guard Station, N.H.; Pittsburgh International Airport Air Guard Station, Pa.; and Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, Ohio, are candidate bases for the first Air National Guard led KC-46A MOB. " Link to DOD News Release --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All Men Should Read This Blog--Art of Manliness ||| Publicly Available References All Noobs Should Know--Medical Standards for Entry | What Medical Questions Will They Ask Me At MEPS? Part 1 Part 2 | Aircrew Waiver Guide | Medical Standards for Continued Duty | Duty Limiting Conditions (Profiles) | The Air Force expects you to write like the grown-up you pretend to be. ||| Mil Only--Enlisted Classification Directory | Officer Classification Directory | Get your AF Form 469/422 here instead of waiting for your Commander Enlisted? Check out this Forum Donald Duck Gets Drafted I like how you put your favorite links in your signature block so we can all have easy access to them. Brilliant! Edited January 17, 2013 by Spoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUSEPLUG Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 What's the word on the street for the FTU? Any chance it won't go to Altus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 My money is on McConnell for the FTU. They have the receiver qual'd KC-135 bubbas. I expect Fairchild for AD and McGuire for ANG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jango220 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) McConnell only makes sense for the FTU if they put the AD squadron there too. Unless the DOD wants to do some weird dual 135/46 hybrid wing and convert 2 of the squadrons and 1 AMU to the new jet. My money is Altus for FTU, Fairchild for AD and Pease for ANG. It puts the jets on the coasts for coronets. Plus anything to stay away from Grand Forks... EDIT: That scenario also opens up the possibility of the 135 FTU moving out of Altus to McConnell as well Edited January 18, 2013 by jango220 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 My money is on McConnell for the FTU. They have the receiver qual'd KC-135 bubbas. I expect Fairchild for AD and McGuire for ANG. McConnell and Fairchild have same sized ramp space, with McConnell having double the -135 tails as Fairchild. The -135 isn't going away anytime soon, considering the first R-model was retired this week. McConnell will still be the biggest -135 Wing in the USAF IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 You guys are acting like common sense will have something to do with the basing decision. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I don't think they're buying enough tails for it to make sense to have a dedicated schoolhouse that's not collocated with an ops unit. My bet is McConnell. It's the hub of the KC-135, and it will probably be a KC-135 mafia for the KC-46 initial cadre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It's the hub of the KC-135, and it will probably be a KC-135 mafia for the KC-46 initial cadre. Except for that pesky receiver AR qual...that most of the KC-135 "mafia" don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) Except for that pesky receiver AR qual...that most of the KC-135 "mafia" don't have. ....except the bubs at McConnell. Or you could tap the 11R guys. E-3 and E-8 guys have no problem with AR. You take your -10 mafia and go back to Andrews! Edited January 18, 2013 by Napoleon_Tanerite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 ....E-3 and E-8 guys have no problem with AR. Debatable 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 ....except the bubs at McConnell. Or you could tap the 11R guys. E-3 and E-8 guys have no problem with AR. You take your -10 mafia and go back to Andrews! E-3's and E-8's are some of the worst receivers to refuel. RC's usually are pretty spot on. Except for that pesky receiver AR qual...that most of the KC-135 "mafia" don't have. A lot more have it than you think. We had A3T brief us here two years ago of the various PTX courses AMC is coming up with for previous tanker pilots/no receiver experience, tanker pilots/receiver experience, no-previous tanker experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 :YAWN: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Hungus Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 You take your -10 mafia and go back to Andrews! What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 What? I think he's mad that there are a ton of -10 dudes at Andrews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 E-3 and E-8 guys have no problem with AR. Debatable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kack911 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Not that this will end well, but how does one watch that video and come to a conclusion other than the tanker being at "fault"? The horizon and ground movement seem to indicate an aggressive pitch-over by the tanker, and if you look a bit closer, you can even see the AWACS' wings flex as he unloads to avoid to the tanker. Is there an AIB that offers better information? Is the argument that the AWACS' bow wave at the upper/inner limit caused the tanker A/P to disconnect, therefore it's the AWACS' fault? I don't fly 325,000lb airplanes within 20ft of each other, so I don't know. Is it common for the tanker to fly in an out-of-trim state such that if the A/P takes a shit, the jet moves around like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) Not that this will end well, but how does one watch that video and come to a conclusion other than the tanker being at "fault"? The horizon and ground movement seem to indicate an aggressive pitch-over by the tanker, and if you look a bit closer, you can even see the AWACS' wings flex as he unloads to avoid to the tanker. Is there an AIB that offers better information? Is the argument that the AWACS' bow wave at the upper/inner limit caused the tanker A/P to disconnect, therefore it's the AWACS' fault? I don't fly 325,000lb airplanes within 20ft of each other, so I don't know. Is it common for the tanker to fly in an out-of-trim state such that if the A/P takes a shit, the jet moves around like that? The -135 doesn't fly in an out of trim state. When we have an A/P disconnect the jet is trimmed and will continue doing whatever it was before for the most part. 99% of the time the receiver won't even know our A/P just clicked off. Up front we can generally tell how fast the receiver is closing in just by paying attention to the trim wheel moving due to the receivers bow wave. I wasn't on that jet though, so it's hard to tell if it was an A/P issue. I'm betting you think the boom floated up because the tanker had a sudden pitch down. I'm willing to bet it was the boom operator doing his job and flying the boom out of the way. Tough call. The receiver definitely hit the upper limit though. The E-3's wing flex when he dives away means nothing other than he dives away. It doesn't tell the story if he had upward movement into the tanker or vice versa. Regardless, NATO E-3's still scare me...but not as bad as some foreign Vipers (Dutch and Polish not included). Edited January 18, 2013 by StoleIt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F16Rooster Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 If the receiver comes in too fast, the 1950's A/P can't keep up with the trim changes. When it disengages, it can have quite a nose down out of trim condition. Hence the reason for 1 foot per second closure. Back on topic: Where to base it will come down, as it always does, to politics. All these analyses of number of tails and convenient receivers probably isn't even a consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 The -135 doesn't fly in an out of trim state. When we have an A/P disconnect the jet is trimmed and will continue doing whatever it was before for the most part. 99% of the time the receiver won't even know our A/P just clicked off. Up front we can generally tell how fast the receiver is closing in just by paying attention to the trim wheel moving due to the receivers bow wave. Read your tech order again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 True, I should have clarified that's assuming a normal closure rate. The receiver in question managed to get into contact (briefly) prior to the incident so I'm just assuming it wasn't an issue of closure rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techsan Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I think he's mad that there are a ton of -10 dudes at Andrews. That checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right Seat Driver Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 If the receiver comes in too fast, the 1950's A/P can't keep up with the trim changes. When it disengages, it can have quite a nose down out of trim condition. Hence the reason for 1 foot per second closure. Back on topic: Where to base it will come down, as it always does, to politics. All these analyses of number of tails and convenient receivers probably isn't even a consideration. The autopilot from the 50s ended up in the dump decades ago. The current autopilot is "new" but leaves a lot to be desired. Like it was stated before, it will keep you in trim 99% of the time but it has a passive-fail design which can surprise you during A/R (C-17 moving rapidly to the forward envelope is a good example). WRT KC-46 basing, it is going to go like this. FTU at Altus, too much political momentum. The first operational base will be Fairchild, followed by Pittsburgh and Grand Forks. McConnell will be the last AD base to receive the jet, or maybe just before MacDill for two reasons. 1) McConnell has a ton of jets to replace and 2) McConnell has every single -135 mission. Too many variables to make it efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jango220 Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Not that this will end well, but how does one watch that video and come to a conclusion other than the tanker being at "fault"?.... Is there an AIB that offers better information? NATO jet, so they handled the safety stuff as far as I know. I don't fly 325,000lb airplanes within 20ft of each other, so I don't know. Copy, tumbleweed. Most people in this thread do this AR stuff for a living, either as tanker or receiver (or both). Going in guns blazing with limited knowledge of that skill set isn't a smart idea. I like reading the dash one warning that says that flying two jets in close vertical proximity is unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now