Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-20-2020, 01:09 PM   #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TankerDriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Posts: 468
Default

Rebuild the -135 and use as many NG 737 parts available.
TankerDriver is offline  
Old 10-20-2020, 08:08 PM   #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
And yet none of the KC-46s yet delivered actually meets any of those requirements,
The KC-46 meets the requirements. As I said earlier, the USAF wanted a remote boom station and Boeing gave them what they asked for. After boom operators kept having COTRs (Contacts Outside the Receptacle), they blamed the camera system's fidelity. But the US Air Force ACCEPTED the tanker as is. Then they pressured Boeing for a change.

Yes, Boeing has made mistakes. But so have the USAF -- and then some.
PurpleToolBox is offline  
Old 10-21-2020, 11:11 AM   #33  
Permanent Reserve
 
navigatro's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox View Post
The KC-46 meets the requirements. As I said earlier, the USAF wanted a remote boom station and Boeing gave them what they asked for. After boom operators kept having COTRs (Contacts Outside the Receptacle), they blamed the camera system's fidelity. But the US Air Force ACCEPTED the tanker as is. Then they pressured Boeing for a change.

Yes, Boeing has made mistakes. But so have the USAF -- and then some.

The problem is the USAF's acquisition system, and unreasonable requirements.

The USAF could have bought the existing 767 tanker and gotten a proven airframe/tanker for cheap, and it would have met 90%+ of the requirements.

Instead, they (USAF) insists on meeting 100% of requirements, regardless of cost or complexity.

It is not a nuclear warhead. The system has to change.
navigatro is offline  
Old 10-21-2020, 07:26 PM   #34  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navigatro View Post
The problem is the USAF's acquisition system, and unreasonable requirements.

The USAF could have bought the existing 767 tanker and gotten a proven airframe/tanker for cheap, and it would have met 90%+ of the requirements.

Instead, they (USAF) insists on meeting 100% of requirements, regardless of cost or complexity.

It is not a nuclear warhead. The system has to change.
Then Congress will have to change it because most of it was inflicted on the military by them, and not just the USAF, ALL the services.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-23-2020, 10:41 AM   #35  
Line Holder
 
paulcg77's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A shack in Kailua
Posts: 82
Default

I'm holding out hope the AF will still order some A330 MRTT's. No reason they can't co-exist given the variety of tanker models currently and previously operated by the US military.
paulcg77 is offline  
Old 10-23-2020, 12:28 PM   #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tnkrdrvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulcg77 View Post
I'm holding out hope the AF will still order some A330 MRTT's. No reason they can't co-exist given the variety of tanker models currently and previously operated by the US military.
The A330 based tanker has some significant issues as well. It’s wingspan would significantly reduce the number of tails that could be parked in a given amount of ramp. The ice shield on the boom is also so fat that it has not been cleared for USAF F15 variants last I checked (It has been a couple years). Finally, while the number of pallets it can carry is impressive for a strat airlifter, it translates into a higher fuel burn that eats away “instantaneous” far more rapidly than a four engine 135. The real problem is the USAF wrote a bad RFP to begin with. Boeing’s malfeasance is merely a rewarded symptom of a broken system.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 10-23-2020, 12:39 PM   #37  
Line Holder
 
paulcg77's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A shack in Kailua
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr View Post
The A330 based tanker has some significant issues as well. It’s wingspan would significantly reduce the number of tails that could be parked in a given amount of ramp. The ice shield on the boom is also so fat that it has not been cleared for USAF F15 variants last I checked (It has been a couple years). Finally, while the number of pallets it can carry is impressive for a strat airlifter, it translates into a higher fuel burn that eats away “instantaneous” far more rapidly than a four engine 135. The real problem is the USAF wrote a bad RFP to begin with. Boeing’s malfeasance is merely a rewarded symptom of a broken system.
That's all totally fair and a great analysis. I do agree that the A300 MRTT isn't perfect either and has plenty of its own issues. With that said, I've got a mutual acquaintance flying the MRTT in the RAAF who raves about it. If we're stuck with existing designs for the next few decades, no reason why we can't continue to have a diverse tanker fleet, including the bus. If anyone wants some tanker smut, you can google some great recent pics of RAAF MRTT's refueling USN P8's. Pretty cool.
paulcg77 is offline  
Old 10-23-2020, 04:37 PM   #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 3,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulcg77 View Post
I'm holding out hope the AF will still order some A330 MRTT's. No reason they can't co-exist given the variety of tanker models currently and previously operated by the US military.
This would be the dumbest thing the USAF could do. For anyone who has employed tanker MWSs, you would quickly understand why this is a horrible idea. The fact that the USAF even considered the MRTT was a huge mistake -- no pun intended!
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Old 10-23-2020, 05:55 PM   #39  
Line Holder
 
paulcg77's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A shack in Kailua
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
This would be the dumbest thing the USAF could do. For anyone who has employed tanker MWSs, you would quickly understand why this is a horrible idea. The fact that the USAF even considered the MRTT was a huge mistake -- no pun intended!
No kidding.
paulcg77 is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Couple more problems in Chicago inky13 Major 0 12-24-2008 09:37 PM
Boeing Confirms More Nutplate Problems FBEDCOM Major 8 12-01-2008 10:11 PM
Anybody have problems with Eldee 2 arrival DCA ERJ135 Regional 26 01-24-2008 12:39 PM
Mesa and its staffing problems N2rotation Regional 20 11-07-2007 09:05 PM
Alaska Air problems.... Sir James Major 1 07-17-2005 08:47 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:33 AM.