Jump to content

KC-46A Info


Hammer

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, LiquidSky said:

The U.S. Air Force has announced the completion of two KC-46A Pegasus tanker sorties with only a pilot and single boom operator, as well as an instructor pilot acting only as a safety observer, onboard.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/kc-46-pegasus-tanker-flies-with-a-single-pilot-at-the-controls

I’ve seen this debated in a few threads now. From my understanding, this would be a wartime contingency scenario such as not having enough crew rested pilots to flush from a base, or allowing essentially a 24 hour duty day with only two pilots, etc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dream big said:

I’ve seen this debated in a few threads now. From my understanding, this would be a wartime contingency scenario such as not having enough crew rested pilots to flush from a base, or allowing essentially a 24 hour duty day with only two pilots, etc? 

Starts that way. But then you have to practice it before you do it in wartime. Then the practice becomes a currency. Then it just becomes standard operating procedure to make the pilot shortage seem less severe. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll probably get flamed for this, but if this is truly a response to a pilot shortage, then I’m glad it’s being looked at…AS LONG AS it’s part of a holistic approach. The root cause of course has to be on retention efforts, but if the reality of the situation is we don’t have the pilots needed to meet the frag and lose the war, then we have to accept reality. I’d personally rather have a bunch of single pilot KC-46’s passing gas to the strikers required to actually meet the night 1 goals than get a ton of folks killed because we can’t get everything needed to the fight.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Starts that way. But then you have to practice it before you do it in wartime. Then the practice becomes a currency. Then it just becomes standard operating procedure to make the pilot shortage seem less severe. 

This. As long as expectations are set that's it's a contingency only thing to train for, sure. However, the retards that infest AMC as "leadership" will make sure it becomes a normal currency due to a pilot shortage.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

This. As long as expectations are set that's it's a contingency only thing to train for, sure. However, the retards that infest AMC as "leadership" will make sure it becomes a normal currency due to a pilot shortage.

The head honcho at AMC who is suggesting this is probably one of the best and most respected leaders in the Air Force. If he is so hell bent on doing this, he’s one of the few I would just trust as having his reasons.  Now, what I don’t trust is middle management from Wing Leadership at McConnell and the staff not screwing up this concept, for example mission creep as you mentioned above. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dream big said:

...this would be a wartime contingency scenario such as not having enough crew rested pilots to flush from a base...

How many times "what if (rules)" come up in a hypothetical contingency scenario. 

If its actual contingency, you make it happen. Who is the waiver authority to saving life, T-3?.../s Who is my T-3 CC because we've corrupted basic chain-of-command with endless COMREL food fights? 

Hey boss, looks like we are about to get cooked. Damn, if only we had crew rest to flush the base. Hey, why is your vRED overdue! 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

This. As long as expectations are set that's it's a contingency only thing to train for, sure. However, the retards that infest AMC as "leadership" will make sure it becomes a normal currency due to a pilot shortage.

Referencing who - specifically - here?

Wing leadership? GOs? Staff Colonels?  Just curious. 

It’s fair to say the messaging on this one has been low-key to borderline insufficient. PA was held back after the initial knee jerk “wtf” on the interwebs. But the fantastic (as in “bizarre”) suspecting on the commands motivations for this being made in the bozo-verse of retired grey-beards and airline bros is really wild.

Ten years ago they told us - then demo’d - C-17s flying (essentially) fingertip across the ocean to save on gas… Ten years before that there were barely any crews outside of AFSOC qualled on NVGs… Some advances materialize, some are just demos…

Eat some fiber and enjoy the show. 

To your other point - the USAF has its head so far in the sand re: pilot shortages it’s staggering. I’ve sat on both sides of this debate, but the shortages aren’t going away and no, it isn’t getting any better. Time to act on - not study (again…) - the problem. 

But that has nothing - zero - to do with this demo in the 46.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

Referencing who - specifically - here?

Wing leadership? GOs? Staff Colonels?  Just curious. 

It’s fair to say the messaging on this one has been low-key to borderline insufficient. PA was held back after the initial knee jerk “wtf” on the interwebs. But the fantastic (as in “bizarre”) suspecting on the commands motivations for this being made in the bozo-verse of retired grey-beards and airline bros is really wild.

Ten years ago they told us - then demo’d - C-17s flying (essentially) fingertip across the ocean to save on gas… Ten years before that there were barely any crews outside of AFSOC qualled on NVGs… Some advances materialize, some are just demos…

Eat some fiber and enjoy the show. 

To your other point - the USAF has its head so far in the sand re: pilot shortages it’s staggering. I’ve sat on both sides of this debate, but the shortages aren’t going away and no, it isn’t getting any better. Time to act on - not study (again…) - the problem. 

But that has nothing - zero - to do with this demo in the 46.

Chuck

Referencing who? Plenty of names. Vogel is a careerist retard who I've had the displeasure of being stationed with, however I don't think this good idea fairy came from him, but of course he had no problem executing it since he wants to pad that PRF. To do this back in the day when it was common to see most people with stars and toilet bowls on their wings, I don't think most people would have issues due to the large experience the USAF had at the time. However, as everyone here knows, that time has come and gone. You now have first assignment instructors and slick winged evaluators since all the experience is making a mass exodus from the USAF. This greatly increases the risk of conducting such non-standard "experiments."

To do this with the aircraft is still in OT, and months after another Class A, is questionable at best. As the for the suspecting, if it smells and looks like shit...

Edited by Sua Sponte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

Referencing who - specifically - here?

Tanker pilots who take command of tactical airlift wings and vs versa, and Phoenix crossflow airplane tourists who become squadron commanders in airframes they have 100 hours in without ever being squadron DOs.

Specialization and actually being a professional in a single mission set is obviously a bad thing in AMC.  That mentality has even crept into the Reserves.

Edited by FourFans130
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic

Well I started a new thread about single pilot ops not realizing it’s being discussed here on this thread. Is this exclusive to the KC-46 or being tried on other aircraft? I would think some platforms like the C-17 would be more difficult due to the width of the cockpit and trying to reach the gear handle, etc. 

If it’s exclusive to the KC-46, the obvious question is why? Is there really that much of a need for this? I’m sure restrictions for crew duty day, flying with pax, etc. will all have to be rewritten. 

And just ask the pilots of United 328, United 1175, and Southwest 1380 just how busy it gets when you shell out an engine at cruise let alone at V1!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HeyEng said:

Well I started a new thread about single pilot ops not realizing it’s being discussed here on this thread. Is this exclusive to the KC-46 or being tried on other aircraft? I would think some platforms like the C-17 would be more difficult due to the width of the cockpit and trying to reach the gear handle, etc. 

If it’s exclusive to the KC-46, the obvious question is why? Is there really that much of a need for this? I’m sure restrictions for crew duty day, flying with pax, etc. will all have to be rewritten. 

And just ask the pilots of United 328, United 1175, and Southwest 1380 just how busy it gets when you shell out an engine at cruise let alone at V1!

HeyEng be quiet!  /s

No shit.  The biggest jet I've flown (as a pilot) is the mighty E-175.  V1 cuts in that small shadow of a jet were hard enough with two pilots.  Time to teach the boom how to raise flaps, gear, use the AP and FMS.   Especially during one of those days where you can't see the end of the runway on your takeoff roll.  Its harder than one might think (sts).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something overlooked is the single seat vs crewed aircraft mentality.

I’ve flown some version of crewed aircraft since 2007. This year I switched to a single seat airframe and I just finished a T38 qualification. The stick and rudder was fairly easy, however the part that absolutely kicked my butt was getting past 15 years of crew mentality. That included things like not having the other dude talking on the radio, setting up approaches, running checklists, dealing with emergencies, etc. 

In a perfect world, a single pilot can fly the -46 without issue. When shit gets busy, it’ll be sketch at best, to downright dangerous, for that pilot to deal with the issues happening with the jet, and this whole experiment is geared towards the SHTF scenario. Without a lot of practice, I’d hazard to bet the guy flying the -46 by himself will have some subconscious crewed aircraft habits creep back in, which could be disastrous.

And no offense to booms, I’ve flown with some really sharp dudes, but a boom isn’t the same as a pilot. The boom can help but it’s not the same as having another pilot in the seat. 

TLDR; crewed to single piloted ops is not as simple as it seems. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human factors engineering plays into this as well. The 767/787 cockpit was designed with two pilots in mind. 

Can we achieve routine single pilot, or unmanned tankers? Absolutely, but not with our current manned iron. 

Edited by AC&W
*manned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's designed for single pilot then it'd obviously be more manageable but as it stands, it's a bad idea.   

But like a few guys have hinted at, why not just go unmanned for the close stuff. 

Design future AF fighters for both boom and drouge.  Kiss the giant manned (unmanned?) tankers good bye as you continue on to mainland China behind your ucav buddies with baskets.   Godspeed.  That's gonna suck to be them.  

Edited by Biff_T
More nonsense
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AC&W said:

It already is, MQ-25. 

Yeah but the offload is crap (10-15K total).  I would think is a business case in the INDOPACOM fight for larger attritable tankers...or at least unmanned that could help with the pilot shortage and be pushed closer to the threat ring.

We are in serious lag pursuit in this CONOP and I am for out of the box thinking that flips the calculus back in our direction.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large scale RPA tankers makes a ton of sense. Maybe a couple operators manage several aircraft at a time, much like airline dispatchers - don’t exceed a 4:1 ratio or something like that. I’m surprised we haven’t come further on this topic; the MQ-25 is nothing more than proof of concept. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Yeah but the offload is crap (10-15K total).

Acknowledged, but its step in the direction. 

27 minutes ago, brabus said:

...the MQ-25 is nothing more than proof of concept. 

Autonomous drogue AAR is simpler than Boom. 

 Curious to see what NGAD prefers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, AC&W said:

Acknowledged, but its step in the direction.

It is but it is also a Navy focused solution, dumping a crap ton of money to get it on and off the carrier. 

55 minutes ago, AC&W said:

Autonomous drogue AAR is simpler than Boom.

Concur, but certainly within the realm of possibility.  Folks are already working on it.

56 minutes ago, AC&W said:

Curious to see what NGAD prefers. 

Boom

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Large scale RPA tankers makes a ton of sense. Maybe a couple operators manage several aircraft at a time, much like airline dispatchers - don’t exceed a 4:1 ratio or something like that. I’m surprised we haven’t come further on this topic; the MQ-25 is nothing more than proof of concept. 

Exactly, if we can fly Global Hawk on long duration ISR missions we can certainly handle a few tankers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...