AC&W

And then there was one. "Hal stop turning into the sun!"

Just curious, is your country of birth, citizenship, and military service all the same country? Which country?

Considering our "nationalized" federal government is closed for business, I am not too sure an easy fix will be that easy or effective.

Concur. The vision system on their 707 tanker is well ahead of it's time.

Israeli boom operators are gonna love the KC-46 remote vision system compared to what they currently have, haha.

I think a combination of poor contract requirements, and Boeing intentionally delivering a product in need of an immediate upgrades is the recipe. Its a feature, not a bug. The upgrade Boeing has for the KC-46 vision system is phenomenal, they just need the cash stream to flow in.

Without major acquisition reform, even with its challenges, the KC-46 is the better platform for boom AAR. The KC-390 could potentially compete with the -130 for drogue AAR capes, but I'm not expert enough to compare and contrast it's cargo and AAR capes with the Herk.

I suspect you are aware the -46 will not be carrying 18 pallets ever, 10 is generous. ISUs are compatible, but commercial parts support is a pipe dream without acquisition reform. Unless we have a robust and diverse tanker fleet, 473L pallet compatibility with tankers is not a relevant capability for us (unpopular opinion). Potentially relevant for our allies.

Init qual check for the CO, and S1 for the Boom.

"At a distance of approximately 2,300 kilometers, the Air Force struck an Iranian refueling aircraft a short time ago at Mashhad airport in eastern Iran. The Air Force is working to achieve air superiority throughout Iran. This is the farthest strike since the operation began."

*looked like Appears the queen is dead.

If they cripple the Phantom fleet, maybe they can spare the Queen of the Tankers. https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/19/kish-air-show-a-unique-opportunity-to-see-the-worlds-last-flying-f-14-tomcat-jets-in-action-and-much-more/

Probably is too high, just lazy maths. Using more liberal assumptions of 5k per hour fuel burn, and 5k landing fuel, only adds 10k total offload capability for a one hour sortie. 6.9k for both assumptions, gets you 6.2k additional offload...so 1x Viper.

I suspect the "modification in the previous baseline" is hypothetical. I don't believe Embraer has actually modified the C-390 beyond its advertised specifications. The boom attached to the cargo door is hypothetical, and the Embraer engineer I spoke with used the 79,090 max fuel capacity when I queried. Anything beyond 79,090 would require engineering rework making a product with an "off the shelf solution" too big to fit on the shelf.

Per their website the max internal fuel is 52,690. Up to three auxiliary fuel tanks with individual capacity of 8,800 can be loaded in the cargo compartment, which brings the maximum fuel capacity to 79,090. I had the opportunity to chat with an Embraer C390 engineer at a trade show. I've since lost my notes on what he informed me was the fuel burn per hour and minimum landing fuel. But if you assume 10k per hour and 10k landing fuel, the hypothetical best case is about a 50k to 60k offload, assuming a one to two hour flight. I didn't get an as detailed explanation on how they plan to fit a boom on it, but he did mention the magic included some flexible and collapsible hoses and couplings. The 50k to 60k offload and boom sacrifice any cargo capability. My takeaway was this could be useful as a companion to a small fighter detachment. Remove the internal fuel tanks, leave room for six pallets and 36 maintenance troops. One pallet for bags, one pallet for boom equipment, four pallets for MX equipment. Land somewhere, reconfigure the cargo door to install the boom, have about a 30k offload capability, assuming one hour flight and landing gas (50k internal, 10k flight time, 10k land). Is the juice worth the squeeze?