ClearedHot

Questions yes, pre-entry drug tests, no.

The liberals simply don't care. The country is being run by a demented shell of a man, I pray he doesn't hit the nuke button reaching for his Life Alert. As long as they got rid of the Orange Man. Truly criminal that his wife and staff are allowing this to continue.

Less than a new C-130J

An off-duty Massachusetts National Guard member aggressively confronted a tour bus full of senior citizens thinking they were migrants Pure insanity. Liberal Douche nuts want open borders until it comes to their state. Sadly this guy will be celebrated rather than punished.

FIFY

Recruiting is down for all services and of course they are all lowering standards. I could care less if you've smoked a blunt, given the shifting national attitude marijuana use will likely go the way of alcohol. However, until then, the law is the law and we are a country of laws...oh wait. Aim high: Air Force green-lights waivers for THC-positive applicants

The drogues are on the wings so it will have two drogues and one boom. There will be several configurations that allow for gas or cargo. Who says it was modded? Wiki? Embraer is very savvy, from day one they knew their primary customer was BAF and BAF needed a tactical tanker/airlifter. So from day one they designed it to do both. There was TREMENDOUS fallout from the TWA 800 incident, the requirements for fuel/electrics separation AND certification changed everything in the industry. Embraer has an equivalency agreement with the FAA which they fiercely protect (they sell a LOT of bizjets in the U.S.), accordingly they designed from the first page to be a tanker and meet all FAA requirements. So while Wiki says C-390, from the prototype it has all the plumbing and electrics in place to be a tanker. Luckily they also put in a data bus from the nose to the tail and from wingtip to wingtip. I've walked the factory floor, you could eat off it. They don't use a single piece of paper on the assembly line, everything is digitized and large portions of the build are completely automated.

First member of the FED to capitulate on raising rates so quickly. Finally!

I think most people skip over the fact that this is the first clean sheet tanker design in MANY years. They also miss that fact that the KC-390 tanker (minus the boom), is already in service with The Brazilian Air Force and The Hungarian Air Force. The Netherlands and Portugal both recently placed orders for five each. Before modification in the previous baseline configuration with three aux tanks it holds of 77,000lbs of gas. That number has gone up greatly after a big weight reduction mod and increased fuel tanks.

In current state they don't carry enough gas. If you look at the Hudson Institute report I posted above it shows some MQ-25 numbers. For the INDOPACOM scenario there are two big rocks that need to be moved. 1. In current state we don't have enough booms to support. There are several ways to solve it as outlined here with the two most popular being more big wing tankers or a paradigm change to agile tankers. 2. Regardless of which solution you choose for #1, the logistics of supporting either solution are no easy problems. If you go with big wing tankers you have limited bases and thus easier targets. It does not good if your massive fuel tanks are burning from Chinese missile strikes. If you go agile tankers now you have to move gas around the theater to support their disaggregated ops. it does you no good to have all your agile tankers survive only to sit empty with no gas to pass or operate. There is a LOT of work being done on item #2, but for obvious reasons we can't talk about it on here. I will say there are some very clever and game changing solutions on the table.

Yes

KC-Y was not the KC-135 replacement, it was the bridge tanker meant to address the shortage of booms in the INDOPACOM CONOP. If you watched the news the last year USAF made a lot of noise until Kendall decided to skip KC-Y and jump right to KC-Z which now defined by USAF as a family of systems. As many other programs are going "family" one can assume a host of requirements that can't be met by a single platform. I would think having several platform will reduce your efficiency but increase your capability. I also believe the KC-Z family will field our first LO tanker. That is because you are stuck in legacy thinking. The very nature of agile tankers means they don't have to park at Fortress Guam. I give huge props to General Miniham and a few others that are trying to break dogmatic thinking and flip the calculus back on the Chinese. We all know Guam is going to eat 1,000+ missiles on day one so what big thing had been done to protect the tankers? Aside from some Patriots that will tag a few of the inbound shots the only major move has been to lengthen and improve the runway at Tinian, great job you diluted the inbound missiles to 500. The Hudson Institute with no mandate from industry recently completed a Resilient Aerial Refueling Study which outlined the problem and examined the Agile tanker concept. A quick look at the AOR shows 254 airfields available for traditional tankers, lower runway requirement to 5000' and your options more than double, allow for dirt and you have completely diluted the Chinese missile advantage, widened the number of approaches by a factor of three, and allowed for FAR more gas on station. Potentially misleading, not intentionally and it really relates to the CONOP. Given the distances the KC-135 will have to operate from there is no way it can make it to the potential top off points and give 110K. When you operate an agile tanker closer to the fight, you have to acknowledge that proximity adds flexibility. Operating 500-750NM from a closer airstrip and being able to pass 75,000lbs+ at least equals if not exceeds a KC-135 trying to operate from Guam or other longer runways. Lets be real, you call bullshit on everything I say on here. I am sure you won't believe me, but having been on the aircraft, I can tell you your assumption is wrong. Never would I suggest we don't need strategic tankers, that concept has been proven in blood. What we need is new thinking and new ways to flip the calculus back on our adversaries and in my opinion Agile tanker does just that in a multitude of ways.

Serious concerns about VMCA using dual pontoons...

For those that land airplanes in austere locations CBR or California Bearing Ratio gives criteria for austere runways. KC-390 can make 14 landings on a dirt strip with a CBR of 4 before the strip needs to be addressed by CE/Red Horse.

Not a spear at all and a great point. That is in my opinion the highest point of risk in the project. KC-Z is projected to happen around 2030, the same time frame Elon Musk plans to have orbiting refueling stations. Despite the worst efforts of Boeing and Airbus I think if Musk can solve that engineering problem, the same can be said of developing a new boom. The boom is planned to be integrated into the door structure which will allow for mission configuration changes. You are absolutely INCORRECT on the about your runway surface/weight assumptions. I don't think most people realize this airplane exists and is in service by three nations as an austere tanker today. At current max weight the aircraft is certified for 14 passes at a CBR of 4. The T Tail actually helps with the AAR Envelope. Current envelope for the drogue system is 110 Knots to 330 Knots allowing a single platform to refuel any current probe and drogue system out there.

All in due time, for good reason that has only been communicated to USAF for now. But again, at certain distances it has the same offload as a KC-135 while operating of a runway half in length and made of dirt. Again in due time. There are numerous waveforms that already exist and again and this is certainly not the place to discuss the options. I've taken exception to your "fluff" comments because I don't think you understand the current state of JADC2 (correct me if i am wrong). JADC2 is conceptually a great idea, but to date that is all it has been is a concept VERY poorly defined by DoD. Each service is running in a different direction with the Navy having the best concept and architecture so far (in my opinion). USAF took a GIANT step in the right direction this week and named an RCO to lead the USAF portion of JADC2...maybe we will finally have some leadership that drives towards requirements rather than a continuous sketch of ideas on the white board. A couple of Key things about KC-390 from my vantage point prove it is not "fluff" First, this is a clean sheet design tanker...from day one it was mean to be a tanker and that reflects in its basis DNA and certifications. As such it is a fully digitized aircraft so integration of additional capabilities is far easier than legacy systems. Second and most importantly, the airplane is has multiple data buses from the nose to the tail and from wingtip to wingtip that were integrated into the open system architecture, again, from day one. As I hope you know integrating JADC2 capabilities is far more than simply adding power and to truly make them effective they should be integrated into the mission system. Do I think there will be RORO solutions, of course, and those solutions will enable rapid development and fielding of emerging capes, but having the option to integrate with the aircraft mission system makes them a lot more than "Fluff."

You numbers and assumptions are way off. AGAIN - offload equal to KC-135. Sorry brother but again I disagree, I am guessing you don't know what is already out there. The hardware does exist and already has a smaller form factor walked over from RJ. The problem actually defaults to DoD which needs to define what other wave-forms/connectivity they want. Same offload as a KC-135 Wiki is not accurate and that was BEFORE the engineering effort to increase fuel capacity. Your numbers are WAY low.

Thanks Incorrect, unless of course you think the offload of a KC-135 is shitty. Same places, same CBR. Once airborne it accelerates out to 400+ knots using the same motors as the A-320. Also, in current state minus the boom the refueling envelope is 110 knots to 330 knots, so you can refuel a helo, a CV-22, an F-35B/C all in the same mission WITHOUT changing the basket. Add the boom and it is a gas party for everyone. This aircraft is actually a clean sheet design AS A TANKER so it is plumbed to both pass AND take gas. Although the current setup up is for it to use probe and drogue when taking gas, the hard part (plumbin), is done and was built into the the design from day one. There is NOTHING cosmic about a installing a UARRSI. The boom is the risk and the company is going to spend a lot of money to develop a boom. Boeing in their desire to serve America....or should I say vendor lock DoD, has refused to share rights to their boom and has gone as far as to retrieve all their old booms from derelict KC-97s. Fine with me considering the abortion they put on the KC-46. By the way, the remote vision system was NOT a USAF requirement...that is all Boeing. Parts of it yes...the rest when DoD stops being psychotic and comes up with an actual Fing plan. The intent it for all the services to link together but every service is going a different direction. I challenge you to read the Doctrine they recently published without throwing the document against the wall. The minute they share an actual requirements document you will see a lot more focused effort to deliver boxes of knobs, until then everyone is running in a different direction. Absolutely nothing, probably not on a fighter as the antennas and weight detract from that mission but that is not the point. The point is if you have a tanker or other support aircraft in the airspace why not have a forward to node to enable to overall network.

At least he didn't shit his pants this time.

Liberals so triggered they actually got those illegals out of Martha Vineyard faster than we got to our people in Benghazi.

Sad day at Reno. Him Him 🥃

I do.

Ok Huggy, time to get off probation by telling us how you don't crap yourself on those long flights. Don’t Poop at 70,000 Feet: CIA Wrote a Manual for U-2 Pilots on How Not To