7 minutes ago, AC&W said:

In the interest of facts, not championing the KC-46. Deliveries were briefly halted in early 2025, but they have resumed and delivered at least 10 since the stopage.

And RVS?

5 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

And RVS?

Yeah, RVS sucks. They could have, should have fielded their improvement by now, but that is our wonderful Prime and Acquisition efficiency on display.

Existing RVS is good enough for current operations.

The -46 is a mess, so many lost opportunities on what could have been, but over 100 have been produced and production is still active.

The Airbus tanker is fielding an autonomous boom AAR capability for Singapore, the KC-390 is awesome. There was a time when, "Fly Boeing Tankers" was a cool slogan, unfortunately the -46 has tarnished that a bit.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by AC&W
Spelling

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The project was pitched to USAF (by me and a few others), three years ago. At that point the timelines were completely doable for the China fight.

Cool story except the jet is ALREADY doing those things...at least with the variable speed drogue. (Brazilian Air Force (since 2019), Portuguese Air Force (2023), and Hungarian Air Force (2024). It was designed to refuel Helos which it has been doing since 2014, the variable speed drogue was certified two years ago, I think they started with F-5's. Regardless, it is now certified for a bunch of aircraft...Gripen completed a few months ago. The Northrop Boom is TRL 7 so mot of the risk is gone.

It is already at scale and in service with the Brazilian Air Force (since 2019), Portuguese Air Force (2023), and Hungarian Air Force (2024). They make one per month, have the organic capability to make two per month. With investment, 10 per month...being fully digital means they are already postured for rapid production. Also, funny you mention the parts...Collins Avionics, the engines are the International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500-E5 right off the Airbus 320 CEO...a purposeful decision.

Also, kind of funny you mention timelines, Boeing was late delivering KC-46's and now deliveries are stopped because of major cracks. The RVS is broken and they openly admit they won't have a fix until 2027.

This and the fool me once meme are the reasons we are trapped in our own dogma. ZERO vision and willingness to try something different...now the tanker choads can just chew their cude...you got what you deserved...our at least what your masters think you deserved.

I've discussed it before but saw the same thing with the Wedgetail (which is better than a 60 year old E-3, but us still a flying tube of hot garbage). When we offered a far superior option with a brand new but proven radar, imported existing mission and data management systems from current ISR platforms with MILLIONS of flight hours and mounted on a Bombardier bizjet that could part up at FL 510...greatly changing the physics of the AMB world. We submitted HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of pages of tech data including detailed engineering reports from actual flights. As I recall there were 480 pages just on the certification of the "shapes" that would house the radar and other toys alone. We submitted the entire package and USAF responded ONE HOUR later - "not technically feasible." I am sure they did a detailed analysis of all the engineering and documentation in that hour. The NEXT DAY the gave Boeing a Sole-Source for E-7.

Other air forces are already using it, cool story. That has nothing to do with how long it will take to get this platform approved for use with every fighter in our inventory. AFSOC may be able to get shit fielded in 3 years but us peasants in the CAF can barely get software changes in that timeframe so excuse me if I have doubts on your timeline.

The E-7 is a good illustration of my point that "proven" platforms in use by our allies still take many years to become operational in our services. That's a critique on us not Embraer.

I've sat through too many shameless pitches from dudes who wear LM, Northrop, Boeing, RTX, etc. polos and who were once "bros" to believe the company brochure. Phrases like "most of the risk is gone" are par for the course. That's a critique on dudes I know that were either ignorant or blatant sellouts. Don't take it personally.

I don't know a single line pilot that isn't on board for trying something different when it comes to better capes/ acquisitions. The bobs who won't be going down range and are banking on a board spot at a big 3 are the ones that need convincing. Also, maybe vets should stop helping these companies oversell and under deliver...