Jump to content

KC-46A Info


Hammer

Recommended Posts

I know most of the Test Booms currently in Seattle working on the KC-46 program. I worked at the KC-135 FTU with a few of them, and suffice to say they are very hard to please (sts) about any changes. They all speak of great things with the AAR system on the KC-46, and I would take their recommendations without a second thought.

People said the same thing to McDonald Douglas when they built the C-17. Put a fly-by-wire and a stick in a heavy? That's stupid said all the -141 drivers that were transitioning. Now the Golden Child of AMC is the C-17. Let it prove itself (or not) before passing judgment, the first aircraft doesn't even have a boom on it yet.

Edited by Azimuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know most of the Test Booms currently in Seattle working on the KC-46 program. I worked at the KC-135 FTU with a few of them, and suffice to say they are very hard to please (sts) about any changes. They all speak of great things with the AAR system on the KC-46, and I would take their recommendations without a second thought.

People said the same thing to McDonald Douglas when they built the C-17. Put a fly-by-wire and a stick in a heavy? That's stupid said all the -141 drivers that were transitioning. Now the Golden Child of AMC is the C-17. Let it prove itself (or not) before passing judgment, the first aircraft doesn't even have a boom on it yet.

That's good to hear I think the F-35 cluster is making us paranoid of break through technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story I've heard is that the rear pressure bulkhead on the 767 would have to be redesigned/moved in order to accommodate a conventional boom pod. This is supposedly more cost prohibitive than designing and producing the virtual boom station. Actually seems reasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story I've heard is that the rear pressure bulkhead on the 767 would have to be redesigned/moved in order to accommodate a conventional boom pod. This is supposedly more cost prohibitive than designing and producing the virtual boom station. Actually seems reasonable to me.

I call shenanigans. They are creating an entirely new aircraft from different 767 variants, but the bulkhead would have been too much?

I'll bet if you factor in maintenance costs for the vastly more complicated new system, like every single other new system on the -46, it'll end up costing much much more.

But who cares? It's what we have now. And since we can't afford enough of them, we'll have real boom pods for decades to come

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the last link posted. They have a Boeing Engineer commenting on the KC-46. And it's issues

Ah, the KC-46. The airplane I ended my career at Boeing with. What a train-wreck that thing is. If you only knew the half of it, you would be shocked. Boeing will never make a single penny on that program. Not one. First thing is that the major airframe structure is actually based on the 767-400 freighter. What is that you ask? I know that's not an actual thing, yet, but it's in the engineering database... Oh, and did you know that the first major hick-up was that someone forgot to actually calculate the volume of the cargo deck to see if it could actually hold the required amount of fuel per contract?

Yeah, it was too small. Solution? Take your already-engineered airplane and throw the majority of the drawings away and start over! Lower the cargo floor, revise the stanchion locations, push out the sidewalls, come up with thinner designs for the main deck, fittings, etc. Then we can just barely squeeze those tanks in there! Oh, you mean we have to actually have enough room for a man to bolt those tanks in place in the factory? Crap!

And I suppose you are going to require us to have enough room for an airman in arctic gear to be able to unbolt them and remove all the tanks in under an hour? Good news! If we have floor panels that flip up on the main deck, we can then grab that airman by his ankles and lower him/her head first to the locking bolts.

Oh, and we're going to save tons of money by reusing pre-engineered systems too! Wait, those "engineered" systems that have non-conforming hand-drawn sketches and are rife with errors? Oh, I guess we need to update those! Don't worry, we've been building the derivative that those systems exist on for decades! We'll make it up by reusing the installation plans the factory has successfully been using without error!

Yeah, the plans that say "install per drawing" and references the already mentioned poor engineering and don't meet any Boeing process specification in existence.

Guess we'll have to work our Manufacturing Engineers 7 days a week for 8 months straight! Don't worry, we'll lay them off when we're done with them! I can go on...and on...and on...super panels, panoramic fairings, promising work to Japan for cost-sharing, then undercutting them and stealing it back, fuel lines that don't conform to spec, center hose pressure bulkhead...oh wait, that actually worked out really well.

Oh, want to know why there isn't a man laying in a pod looking out a window? Because there's no room once the lower 46/47 is stuffed with fuel in order to meet requirements. So, spit shine it with some high-tech razzle dazzle and talk of "better teaming on the flight deck" and call it good.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

A program that has delays and cost overruns? Surely you jest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A program that has delays and cost overruns? Surely you jest!

Shocking but true... however as Azimuth said this is on Boeing to eat (sts)

Question if anyone has heard this discussed or can comment on an open forum about it: has it been discussed to buy more 46s as the 17s are retired? A friend who flies the 135 seems to think that is the going to be be the case as the 17s reach the end of their service life. Seems reasonable but wondered if this idea is circulating...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shocking but true... however as Azimuth said this is on Boeing to eat (sts)

Question if anyone has heard this discussed or can comment on an open forum about it: has it been discussed to buy more 46s as the 17s are retired? A friend who flies the 135 seems to think that is the going to be be the case as the 17s reach the end of their service life. Seems reasonable but wondered if this idea is circulating...

Why? The 46 is a shitty trash hauler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will always need an airlifter that can haul more than six pallets, oversized Army equipment that can't be rotated via a side cargo door, and land in austere locations.

The -46, or really any tanker, will never replace that requirement.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shocking but true... however as Azimuth said this is on Boeing to eat (sts)

Question if anyone has heard this discussed or can comment on an open forum about it: has it been discussed to buy more 46s as the 17s are retired? A friend who flies the 135 seems to think that is the going to be be the case as the 17s reach the end of their service life. Seems reasonable but wondered if this idea is circulating...

0bdf835a91390f3ca0096752db7ba01a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? The 46 is a shitty trash hauler.

Don't doubt that it is not its strong suit but his idea was that we would accept having less dedicated airlift / air delivery capability to have more modern full time tanker part time cargo hauler capability, his opinion and was just an interesting idea I thought. Basically to save hours on the remaining C-17s and have the dedicated regular airlift movements from CONUS to established OCONUS locations flown by less expensive per flight hour aircraft, etc... saving the C-17s, etc... for operations that specifically need that capability

You will always need an airlifter that can haul more than six pallets, oversized Army equipment that can't be rotated via a side cargo door, and land in austere locations.

The -46, or really any tanker, will never replace that requirement.

No doubt

Minor edit.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't doubt that it is not its strong suit but his idea was that we would accept having less dedicated airlift / air delivery capability to have more modern full time tanker part time cargo hauler capability, his opinion and was just an interesting idea I thought. Basically to save hours on the remaining C-17s and have the dedicated regular airlift movements from CONUS to established OCONUS locations flown by less expensive per flight hour aircraft, etc... saving the C-17s, etc... for operations that specifically need that capability

No doubt

Minor edit.

Six pallets at a time is even less efficient than the flight hour cost of a C-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six pallets at a time is even less efficient than the flight hour cost of a C-17.

True but his argument was the total overall cost of flying a few KC-46's inefficiently to move cargo occasionally vice keeping older C-17s flying was probably cheaper, as we were discussing this over a cold beer at the end of the day neither of us did any math or research on this. We got on this subject as I was talking about how few KC-46s the AF was planning to acquire (at least officially) compared to the current fleet size of the KC-135s & KC-10s - he believes that more will have to purchased but my cynical hunch is that as the F-35 goes into full rate production, there will be no money for more 46s, just thinking positively... not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless things have changed, the "plan" is for the current purchase of KC-46, an as yet unannounced KC-Y competition to replace the rest of the KC-135s, and the KC-Z program even farther in the future to replace the KC-10. Although RUMINT has it that as an operational KC-46 comes online a KC-10 will go to the boneyard. So, who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...