UPT stud here. If I wanted to end up in KC-46s, would a recommended route be to go 10s or 135s first? I know that location, luck, timing etc all factor into it,  but just wondering what time of insights I can get from you all.

11 minutes ago, tx_flyer said:

UPT stud here. If I wanted to end up in KC-46s, would a recommended route be to go 10s or 135s first? I know that location, luck, timing etc all factor into it,  but just wondering what time of insights I can get from you all.

All of the -10s have been announced as on the list to be replaced by -46s. Only some of the -135s are.

1 minute ago, tx_flyer said:

UPT stud here. If I wanted to end up in KC-46s, would a recommended route be to go 10s or 135s first? I know that location, luck, timing etc all factor into it,  but just wondering what time of insights I can get from you all.

Just my $0.02, but from what I understand from the two first "hiring" boards, both tanker and receiver experience was required. That would lend itself to KC-10 experience over 135. That said, word is the next hiring will open itself to the rest of the MAF, not necessarily requiring both sets of experience. Again, maybe somebody directly involved at the FTU or IOT&E can chime in but that's what I've heard. 

2 hours ago, Truman08 said:

Just my $0.02, but from what I understand from the two first "hiring" boards, both tanker and receiver experience was required. That would lend itself to KC-10 experience over 135. That said, word is the next hiring will open itself to the rest of the MAF, not necessarily requiring both sets of experience. Again, maybe somebody directly involved at the FTU or IOT&E can chime in but that's what I've heard. 

That makes sense, thanks!

On 8/15/2017 at 10:17 AM, Heavywanabe said:

Interesting enough the 707 was actually developed as a tanker first, then converted to a civilian airliner. 

Technically the 367-80 was developed in Boeing's gamble to create a long range jet aircraft. The Dash-80 prototype led to the commercial 707 and military KC-135.

"Both planes shared the basic design of the Dash 80 but were very different airplanes, neither one being a derivative of the other."

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/707.page 

On 08/14/2017 at 9:42 AM, Azimuth said:

Both the USAF Booms that I know (one retired, one that did the exchange to Australia) that flew on it, love it.  YMMV.

yeah,  but we're extrapolating data to say it'd be something we'd want. Being a great platform in civilian airspace with maybe a half dozen receivers doesn't mean it'd be good at what we need it for. The control surfaces on the boom are probably too small for our range of receivers... it'd take us 5+ years to certify all our mds, assuming we could. Want defensive systems? Another couple years.

46 sucks and Boeing will deliver a useless, non - mission capable aircraft to meet the contact... I bet it sits 6-9 months after the ferry flight. 

If we're smart, we will renegotiate the contact and fix everything now and take our losses.  But we won't.  We don't want it unless it's fixed and Boeing won't fix it. Boeing walks away and then we start all over.

10 hours ago, AC&W said:

Technically the 367-80 was developed in Boeing's gamble to create a long range jet aircraft. The Dash-80 prototype led to the commercial 707 and military KC-135.

"Both planes shared the basic design of the Dash 80 but were very different airplanes, neither one being a derivative of the other."

https://www.boeing.com/history/products/707.page 

Back when Boeing knew how to do it right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8__rtimdCnA

I think everyone in the tanker community knew this was coming, but officially delayed:

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/reagan-defense-forum/2017/12/03/boeing-will-miss-2017-delivery-goal-for-first-kc-46/

Dang. Did IOT&E crews go through initial yet?

Dang. Did IOT&E crews go through initial yet?

Two years ago...

Are they staying current through sims?

Last I knew they were going TDY back to their airplane/base every once in a while to rehack things/keep gate months going.

The only people that don't think this program is garbage are the blue koolaid drinkers that are involved IOT&E program or some other directorate at AMC/AETC.

"Yeah the AR system is in black and white because some doctors said you see better in black and white."

The Italians are flying KC-767’s in OIR...how different is the kc-46?

Seems like a std govt shitshow.

The Italians are flying KC-767’s in OIR...how different is the kc-46?

Seems like a std govt shitshow.

When I spoke with them in 2015, the Italian booms were not fond of the system

Anybody that can chime in on the boom-scraping issue? How commonplace is it in the legacy tankers? Do you think it's something that is a by product of the new hardware and camera system?

Edited December 5, 20178 yr by extender10

1 hour ago, extender10 said:

Anybody that can chime in on the boom-scraping issue? How commonplace is it in the legacy tankers? Do you think it's something that is a by product of the new hardware and camera system?

Boom scraping? 

3 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Boom scraping? 

AFAIK, one of the main issues holding the program back is the feedback/warning systems in place to prevent the boom from scratching up the receiver have been failing.  

I'm curious how much of an issue this has been on legacy tankers that are somewhat less sophisticated... it seems like the kind of an issue that Boeing created for themselves.  

51 minutes ago, extender10 said:

AFAIK, one of the main issues holding the program back is the feedback/warning systems in place to prevent the boom from scratching up the receiver have been failing.  

I'm curious how much of an issue this has been on legacy tankers that are somewhat less sophisticated... it seems like the kind of an issue that Boeing created for themselves.  

Last I heard they’re making it color (current -46 system is in b&w). Nothing will replace being able to see the receiver with your own MKI. All the -135 needed was a system to wipe off the hydro fluid, anti-ice, de-ice fluid inflight and it would’ve been fine. 

Boeing sucks. They hired Rat for Christ’s sake.

14 hours ago, di1630 said:

The Italians are flying KC-767’s in OIR...how different is the kc-46?

Seems like a std govt USAF shitshow.

FIFY

 

10 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Boom scraping? 

AKA "boom strikes"... boom hitting aircraft outside UARSSI.

41 minutes ago, Tonka said:

AKA "boom strikes"... boom hitting aircraft outside UARSSI.

Not every aircraft has a UARSSI, but got it.

On 12/5/2017 at 9:27 PM, Azimuth said:

Not every aircraft has a UARSSI, but got it.

All the important ones do.

On 12/5/2017 at 6:06 AM, di1630 said:

The Italians are flying KC-767’s in OIR...how different is the kc-46?

Discussion on Airliners.net about 46 vs. 767 differences: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1025901

BLUF: KC-46 can carry about 45K more fuel and is slightly bigger / heavier (max gw) aircraft.

KC-767s can have booms or not based on customer choice, Columbian AFs don't have one.

KC-45... not dead yet?

https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/12/05/lockheed-martin-airbus-team-up-to-supply-a-tanker-in-case-the-air-force-needs-one-that-works/

From the article:

The immediate effect is to poke a finger in Boeing’s eye. The Chicago-based aircraft maker has had its struggles delivering the KC-46 on a contract to replace 179 KC-135 tankers, about half the existing fleet of 400 of the older tankers. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon indicated that it may be interested in more refueling capacity than the Boeing contract is set to deliver. Officials met with potential suppliers to discuss acquiring refueling capacity on a fee-for-service basis and that the military would need 7,000 hours of such services annually, according to a draft requirements document.