Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Hammer

KC-46A Info

Recommended Posts

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?

Copy that

My druthers, the new strategic tanker would be a 747-8 tanker.

KC-33A-USAF-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy that

My druthers, the new strategic tanker would be a 747-8 tanker.

KC-33A-USAF-1.jpg

Here is a interesting article on why we went with the KC-10 and not the KC-25. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-worlds-only-kc-747-tanker-is-flown-by-the-iranian-a-1581314071

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure a KC-46 hauls more than 6 pallets. Sure it doesn't have the outsize capability that a C-17 delivers, but how many C-17s would you really need if you had a few hundred (much more fuel efficient) KC-46s for the routine stuff? 767 freighters seem to work pretty well for FredEX, UPS, Atlas, and DHL. Why not the USAF? Just make sure to put a no shit Loadmaster on it for cargo missions.

Copy that

My druthers, the new strategic tanker would be a 747-8 tanker.

KC-33A-USAF-1.jpg

That thing looks like a -400 BCF with -200 motors on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy that

My druthers, the new strategic tanker would be a 747-8 tanker.

KC-33A-USAF-1.jpg

Ugh.

Can't you come up with something original? Draw something up with SketchUp or Photoshop.

Be sure to include all the stuff you think we need.

Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a interesting article on why we went with the KC-10 and not the KC-25. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-worlds-only-kc-747-tanker-is-flown-by-the-iranian-a-1581314071

Thanks

Pretty sure a KC-46 hauls more than 6 pallets. Sure it doesn't have the outsize capability that a C-17 delivers, but how many C-17s would you really need if you had a few hundred (much more fuel efficient) KC-46s for the routine stuff? 767 freighters seem to work pretty well for FredEX, UPS, Atlas, and DHL. Why not the USAF? Just make sure to put a no shit Loadmaster on it for cargo missions.

That thing looks like a -400 BCF with -200 motors on it.

Yep - just someone's concept drawing but close enough for a visual for the discussion

Yeah - I think that 6 pallets is in a particular configuration, I think with passenger seating but from the AF website and fact sheet:

A cargo deck above the refueling system can accommodate a mix load of passengers, patients and cargo. The KC-46A can carry up to 18 463L cargo pallets. Seat tracks and the onboard cargo handling system make it possible to simultaneously carry palletized cargo, seats, and patient support pallets in a variety of combinations. The new tanker aircraft offers significantly increased cargo and aeromedical evacuation capabilities.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104537/kc-46a-pegasus.aspx

I suppose the 6 pallets mentioned was in this configuration:

kc-46-pegasus.png

Ugh.

Can't you come up with something original? Draw something up with SketchUp or Photoshop.

Be sure to include all the stuff you think we need.

Frank

tumblr_inline_mtlcxecZpC1r79k32.gif

JK

I have a bit of practice with Sketch up (planning a remodel) but no where near enough for an aircraft project.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The KC-46 can only haul six pallets? Or is someone engaging in hyperbole since the 767 freighter hauls much more. Some of the FedEx guys chime in here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The KC-46 can only haul six pallets? Or is someone engaging in hyperbole since the 767 freighter hauls much more. Some of the FedEx guys chime in here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Uh no, the KC-135 holds six pallets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KC-46 has 18 pallet position, dual row. The fuselage contours at about 36" inches, so you're limited to the size of each pallet in the dual row config. When carrying seat pallets and the ATGL, cargo capacity is obviously even more limited. KC-46 is not designed to be the biggest, fastest, most capable cargo hauler, pax carrier, refueler, but it does all of those things "okay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(insert aircraft) is not designed to be the biggest, fastest, most capable (insert mission set), but it does all of those things "okay".

Standard for pretty much every "new" airframe in the inventory

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that Clark...I do think the argument can be made pretty well to have at least some specialization within the inventory (not trying to digress the thread at all)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with that Clark...I do think the argument can be made pretty well to have at least some specialization within the inventory (not trying to digress the thread at all)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ditto

Not to stray too far off course either there was a proposal for a single Air Mobility aircraft from the late 90's - the New Strategic Aircraft.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/nsa.htm

Some fairly out there designs but one that I thought could have come about was this high wing T-tail tanker / airlifter

nsa1.jpg

Could have shared motors, flight control system, avionics, etc... with the C-17 probably and been a flexible asset. With the austere times likely to continue, AMC may have to look at the 46 this way and let it replace some of the older 17s as they time out (looping back to the idea of pretty good at a lot of missions rather than perfect at one) and just reduce capability in austere/short field delivery, aerial delivery, etc...

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

767 freighters seem to work pretty well for FredEX, UPS, Atlas, and DHL. Why not the USAF?

Because 99.69% (maybe more) of the cargo that those operators move in their 767s is in ULD containers that have already been packed, weighed, and sorted for best aircraft CG. They're not dealing with pallets of randomly-shaped HHG crates with fucked-up nets, T2s without proper restraint, pallets contoured incorrectly, and other oddball shit that shows up late to the jet.

Their entire air freight organization is dedicated to loading and dispatching the jets as quickly and efficiently as possible, to maximize profits and make their delivery schedules. They're not closed for "training" every Thursday afternoon, bending over backwards to accommodate the latest hot-button social issue, or continually trying to define their identity by systematically destroying any sense of identity they once had.

Just make sure to put a no shit Loadmaster on it for cargo missions.

They will. The loadmaster will be called a Boom Operator, and he/she will be just as trained on the specific cargo handling procedures for the KC-46 as any other loadsmasher is on their jet.

edit: words

Edited by JarheadBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because 99.69% (maybe more) of the cargo that those operators move in their 767s is in ULD containers that have already been packed, weighed, and sorted for best aircraft CG. They're not dealing with pallets of randomly-shaped HHG crates with fucked-up nets, T2s without proper restraint, pallets contoured incorrectly, and other oddball shit that shows up late to the jet.

Their entire air freight organization is dedicated to loading and dispatching the jets as quickly and efficiently as possible, to maximize profits and make their delivery schedules. They're not closed for "training" every Thursday afternoon, bending over backwards to accommodate the latest hot-button social issue, or continually trying to define their identity by systematically destroying any sense of identity they once had.

They will. The loadmaster will be called a Boom Operator, and he/she will be just as trained on the specific cargo handling procedures for the KC-46 as any other loadsmasher is on their jet.

edit: words

He's a tanker pilot, he knows. He was referring to using a 767.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't seem to me that the C-17 magically solves all the pallet problems discussed above. Sure, it affords the convenience of having a truckbed height load floor, but this is really only a necessity at truly austere locations. Keep some C-17s on hand for those missions and let more conventional tanker/transports do the rest. As far as the dedicated Loadmaster thing goes, I'm advocating for the Boom Operator career field here. If you really have a hard on for unloading cargo while I'm having beers at the hotel, well, have at it my friend. In my experience the Boom Operator skill set, culture, and overall mentality are quite different from Loadmasters. Not saying one is better than the other....just....different....I'll leave it at that. Here's the thing though: at locations with an ATOC, the Loads could be non-flying. Hell, hire some civilian retirees who want to live in Germany/Japan/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep some C-17s on hand for those missions and let more conventional tanker/transports do the rest.

Some C-17s on hand won't meet the current OPLANS that rely on the airdrop capability/austere LZ en mass scenarios. Otherwise I agree, there is a lot of cargo that could be moved way more efficiently by 767s (or similar air frames) while saving hours and wear & tear on our military airlift fleet. Best of all type ratings for all my friends for the airlines!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a new setback just weeks before the planned first flight of a fully outfitted KC-46 Air Force tanker, the Boeing planes fueling system has been damaged by a chemical mix-up, temporarily grounding the jet.

The jet the first test plane outfitted with working air-refueling systems and designated as a tanker was at the fuel dock on Paine Field last week when mechanics used the wrong chemical during a test of the fuel system, according to people familiar with the details.

The chemical, supplied by a vendor and mislabeled, caused corrosion and damaged the fuel system, including the advanced new fuel boom designed to offload gas to fighter aircraft, the sources said.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-puts-fix-it-exec-fancher-in-charge-of-troubled-tanker/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a new setback just weeks before the planned first flight of a fully outfitted KC-46 Air Force tanker, the Boeing planes fueling system has been damaged by a chemical mix-up, temporarily grounding the jet.

The jet the first test plane outfitted with working air-refueling systems and designated as a tanker was at the fuel dock on Paine Field last week when mechanics used the wrong chemical during a test of the fuel system, according to people familiar with the details.

The chemical, supplied by a vendor and mislabeled, caused corrosion and damaged the fuel system, including the advanced new fuel boom designed to offload gas to fighter aircraft, the sources said.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-puts-fix-it-exec-fancher-in-charge-of-troubled-tanker/

200.gif

Israel is thinking about using its own 767 based tanker now rather than the 46; delays, costs and damned delays...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-evaluates-converted-767-as-tanker-alternative-415375/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel is thinking about using its own 767 based tanker now rather than the 46; delays, costs and damned delays...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-evaluates-converted-767-as-tanker-alternative-415375/

From the article...

Bedek has already delivered one converted 767 tanker to Colombia, and Brazil also intends to acquire three examples to replace its air force’s four KC-137s, which have been operated since 1986

Those tankers are spring chickens compared to the bulk of our fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article...

Those tankers are spring chickens compared to the bulk of our fleet.

Yup, average age now 50+ with another planned 25 years of service.

Someone has to make the point that replacing some airframes, even if they still have some service life in them is not necessarily a bad thing as the industrial base has to be sustained. Even if you can squeeze out another 20+ years after 50+ years of service, if you don't give your own aerospace companies work they may not be there when you will need them and you'll have to go looking abroad. Now I don't think Boeing is going anywhere but the expertise in particular divisions might retire, move on, etc...

Minor edit.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yup, average age now 50+ with another planned 25 years of service.

 

Someone has to make the point that replacing some airframes, even if they still have some service life in them is not necessarily a bad thing as the industrial base has to be sustained. Even if you can squeeze out another 20+ years after 50+ years of service, if you don't give your own aerospace companies work they may not be there when you will need them and you'll have to go looking abroad. Now I don't think Boeing is going anywhere but the expertise in particular divisions might retire, move on, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

Minor edit.

Already seeing this at the depot, had a TF-33 powered OC-135 here and they have to rely on old farts like me to work on the old Pratt's. Most new mechanics don't even know what EPR target means 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already seeing this at the depot, had a TF-33 powered OC-135 here and they have to rely on old farts like me to work on the old Pratt's. Most new mechanics don't even know what EPR target means 

Yup, 

Keeping the Industry base alive, healthy and competitive used to be national security strategy, now we just accept having only a few BIG aerospace companies and getting fake parts from China because it's cheap.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-07/counterfeit-parts-from-china-found-on-raytheon-boeing-systems

I don't wait till my car is so run down and so old that I have to look in junk yards for parts before I replace it, I get something new or a "new" used car before it gets to be a total pain in the a$$.  Retiring after 25+ years seems reasonable as a good planning factor.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2687338.jpg

I wonder what the communication capabilities are going to be looking at this picture.

Edited by Prosuper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2684165.jpg

I work on KC-135's everyday getting them ready for their FCF's after PDM, it's kind of nice looking at something newer once in awhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...