October 5, 20223 yr Anybody know what's going on at McGuire? Seeing memes about them not having any tankers, some drama between AD/guard?
October 6, 20223 yr RUMINT, guard is gonna loose their 135s and take the 46s away from he reserve squadrons
October 6, 20223 yr Reserve squadrons will shutter and the base will become AD/ANG associate like Pease.Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
October 6, 20223 yr 19 hours ago, ThreeHoler said: Reserve squadrons will shutter and the base will become AD/ANG associate like Pease. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app As in McGuire and Pease are both going to be TFI assignments for AD types?
October 7, 20223 yr There is an AD sq and an ANG sq at Pease now. But I might be confused.Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
October 7, 20223 yr 10 hours ago, ThreeHoler said: There is an AD sq and an ANG sq at Pease now. But I might be confused. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app Correct. Currently there are active associate units at both Pease and Seymour.
October 8, 20223 yr On 10/6/2022 at 7:01 PM, ThreeHoler said: There is an AD sq and an ANG sq at Pease now. But I might be confused. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app There’s one at SJ as well.
October 8, 20223 yr On 10/5/2022 at 10:08 PM, ThreeHoler said: Reserve squadrons will shutter and the base will become AD/ANG associate like Pease. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app What’s happening with the AFRC units personnel who just went through BTX/PTX? Edited October 8, 20223 yr by Sua Sponte
October 9, 20223 yr Reserve squadrons will shutter and the base will become AD/ANG associate like Pease.Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appIt’ll be more like Fairchild or McConnell where the AD owns the iron and the ARC wing associates with them but yes it would be an association.
October 9, 20223 yr 13 hours ago, Sua Sponte said: What’s happening with the AFRC units personnel who just went through BTX/PTX? Remember that scene from Casino where they drive Joe Pesci out to the cornfield? Edited October 9, 20223 yr by Stoker
October 9, 20223 yr 13 hours ago, Stoker said: Remember that scene from Casino where they drive Joe Pesci out to the cornfield? Don’t forget that scene from Goodfellas where they drive Joe Pesci to his initiation.
October 11, 20223 yr Dumb question. What are the differences between the KC-46 and the KC-767? I haven’t heard any bad things about the ‘67
October 12, 20223 yr On 10/8/2022 at 3:42 PM, Sua Sponte said: What’s happening with the AFRC units personnel who just went through BTX/PTX? They don't know. Some are looking into different units. On 10/10/2022 at 7:27 PM, skybert said: Dumb question. What are the differences between the KC-46 and the KC-767? I haven’t heard any bad things about the ‘67 All of the airframes have the passenger windows on them just covered up, the boom is more like the KC-135 boom (KC-46 boom is more like the KC-10). Some of the Japanese pilots i've talked to say that they can't offload as much fuel as the 46 for weight reasons I think. The integrated mission systems on the 46 are another difference.
October 12, 20223 yr On 10/11/2022 at 2:27 AM, skybert said: I haven’t heard any bad things about the ‘67 Partner Nations (PN) operating the -767 don't have extensive inventory of attack, strategic, and tactical assets the U.S. operates. PNs make due with what they have, meanwhile the USAF via bureaucracy, ensures their tankers are fully interoperable with the entire DoD fleet before praising their new tanker. Its the tradeoff of efficiency vs. resiliency. Or, it is classic government logic, let's not declare our new tanker asset IOC until it is technically compatible with the asset we want to retire (i.e. A-10).
October 12, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, AC&W said: Partner Nations (PN) operating the -767 don't have extensive inventory of attack, strategic, and tactical assets the U.S. operates. PNs make due with what they have, meanwhile the USAF via bureaucracy, ensures their tankers are fully interoperable with the entire DoD fleet before praising their new tanker. Its the tradeoff of efficiency vs. resiliency. Or, it is classic government logic, let's not declare our new tanker asset IOC until it is technically compatible with the asset we want to retire (i.e. A-10). I was curious about that. How could that be the case with the A-10? Isn’t the receptacle standardized (STS) across the fleet? Therefore if it works on a F-16 or B-1, why wouldn’t it work on A-10?
October 12, 20223 yr I was curious about that. How could that be the case with the A-10? Isn’t the receptacle standardized (STS) across the fleet? Therefore if it works on a F-16 or B-1, why wouldn’t it work on A-10?More to do with the low speed aircraft/boom performance envelope there.
October 13, 20223 yr Boom envelope is fine. Boeing ed up a perfectly good, even if archaic, Douglas design and the boom is too stiff (doesn’t extend or retract easily which makes it hard for the A-10 to push in).Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
October 13, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, Orbit said: They don't know. Some are looking into different units. All of the airframes have the passenger windows on them just covered up, the boom is more like the KC-135 boom (KC-46 boom is more like the KC-10). Some of the Japanese pilots i've talked to say that they can't offload as much fuel as the 46 for weight reasons I think. The integrated mission systems on the 46 are another difference. The 767 carries one more pallet (19) than a -46, more pax (around 200 I think), and doesn't have the built in AE capability.
October 13, 20223 yr 14 hours ago, SurelySerious said: More to do with the low speed aircraft/boom performance envelope there. That's not true. It has to do with the boom stiffness.
October 13, 20223 yr That's not true. It has to do with the boom stiffness. And the ability of one aircraft to perform enough to be compatible? Seems like it’s still a performance envelope problem. Also that boom isn’t stiff it’s on a ing ratchet.
October 13, 20223 yr I’d be more concerned about the fact that the W&B software can’t use the full CG envelope so the jet basically can’t carry cargo. RIP big sexy and your 175K cargo capacity!Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
October 13, 20223 yr I’d be more concerned about the fact that the W&B software can’t use the full CG envelope so the jet basically can’t carry cargo. RIP big sexy and your 175K cargo capacity!Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appSounds like the AF didn’t pay enough money to unlock the WB software.
October 13, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, SurelySerious said: Sounds like the AF didn’t pay enough money to unlock the WB software. They paid for the software, they failed to properly articulate the requirement, and/or perform quality control on the product delivered. #operatorsinacquisition
Create an account or sign in to comment