Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Aerial Refueling Capability declining… >

Aerial Refueling Capability declining…

Notices
Military Military Aviation

Aerial Refueling Capability declining…

Old 03-14-2022, 05:33 PM
  #1  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 8,265
Default Aerial Refueling Capability declining…



https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....-refueling-gap

which of course affects both logistics and direct combat support.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 03-14-2022, 06:16 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,096
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post


https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....-refueling-gap

which of course affects both logistics and direct combat support.
My prediction, AMC and AFMC will continue to screw the pooch and the deficit will continue to grow worse.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 03-14-2022, 06:52 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 321
Default

If Boeing hadn’t pulled one of their signature business/legal chicanes and gotten the new tanker rebid we wouldn’t be years behind. Having tanked behind everything owned by a coalition force, nothing beats the Airbus tankers. Anybody who has been behind the Brits/Aussies/Canadians on a truly garbage night knows it is an excellent product. Boeing can barely get the KC-46 out of the barn in one piece.
flyinthrew is offline  
Old 03-14-2022, 07:13 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 693
Default

Originally Posted by flyinthrew View Post
If Boeing hadn’t pulled one of their signature business/legal chicanes and gotten the new tanker rebid we wouldn’t be years behind. Having tanked behind everything owned by a coalition force, nothing beats the Airbus tankers. Anybody who has been behind the Brits/Aussies/Canadians on a truly garbage night knows it is an excellent product. Boeing can barely get the KC-46 out of the barn in one piece.
Concur. Although the LED lights can be kinda bright on NVDs
jaxsurf is offline  
Old 03-23-2022, 08:25 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 3,482
Default

Originally Posted by flyinthrew View Post
If Boeing hadn’t pulled one of their signature business/legal chicanes and gotten the new tanker rebid we wouldn’t be years behind. Having tanked behind everything owned by a coalition force, nothing beats the Airbus tankers. Anybody who has been behind the Brits/Aussies/Canadians on a truly garbage night knows it is an excellent product. Boeing can barely get the KC-46 out of the barn in one piece.
That's not what happened. Not even close. There are several issues that happened.

During RFP #2, EADS coerced the USAF to change the airfield parameters of the war fighter modeling exercise which was based on a European theater war. Why did Airbus request it? Because the Airbus MRTT is too big to operate out of many of the airfields. The airfields and ramps were much larger than what would normally be found in Europe. This gave the MRTT a big advantage. Using existing airfields, the Airbus MRTT failed a few scenarios the USAF modeled. Second, the USAF lied and said it would cost the same to buy and operate the two airplanes. It is a lie because the Airbus is a much bigger airplane (requiring new hangars everywhere) and the fuel burn would be much higher since it weighs ~80,000lbs more than the 767. Boeing rightfully protested, the GAO agreed. When RFP #3 came, it was based on meeting KC135 specs on a pass-fail basis whereas exceeding the specifications wouldn't get you any additional points. Northrop decided to withdrawal the then Northrop/EADS tanker from the competition. But as the deadline neared, the USAF kept asking if EADS was going to submit a bid. In March of 2010 the USAF inexplicably announced that it was going to extend the bid for an additional 60 days. EADS then reentered the contest knowing that their bigger tanker would be at a disadvantage. The 767 was selected. The best tanker won for the RFP that was drafted.

I've said this a million times and nobody seems to get it. You do not replace a smaller tactical sized tanker (KC-135) which a much bigger Airbus MRTT (wing span bigger than a KC-10)!! You don't have enough ramp space to park all of them; especially in forward environments. And since you can park enough of them at bases, that reduces the number of booms/drogues in the sky and the fuel available.

Additionally, our test boom operators made a big deal about the glare issue with the RVS. Every RVS system has problems with glare. This is nothing new. I wonder if the USAF had selected the MRTT, or if the USAF selects the MRTT as the "bridge" tanker, will the same test boom operators find issues with EADS design? The EADS tanker did run into delays of its own and it lost two refueling booms during testing. That's not a typo. Personally I think our test booms weren't happy without having a window anymore and they came to the realization that the new system is inferior.
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Old 03-27-2022, 03:11 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,147
Default

Originally Posted by flyinthrew View Post
If Boeing hadn’t pulled one of their signature business/legal chicanes and gotten the new tanker rebid we wouldn’t be years behind. Having tanked behind everything owned by a coalition force, nothing beats the Airbus tankers. Anybody who has been behind the Brits/Aussies/Canadians on a truly garbage night knows it is an excellent product. Boeing can barely get the KC-46 out of the barn in one piece.
Eh, I’d have to give “best tanker” status to the KC-10, then the L1011, then maybe the VC-10.
Grumble is offline  
Old 04-03-2022, 11:46 AM
  #7  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 8,265
Default Reminds me of an old saying…

That troop could screw up the working parts of an anvil…

Fom the Seattle Times…

Boeing gets out the Velcro to patch over another glitch with the Air Force tanker

March 31, 2022 at 7:46 pm Updated April 1, 2022 at 5:34 pm

Boeing this month discovered the latest in a long line of glitches on its KC-46 aircraft: Some trim hanging down above the over-wing emergency exit doors prevents them from opening.

Though the KC-46 is designed as a troop transport as well as an air-to-air refueling aircraft, Boeing somehow missed this basic exit flaw in the tanker’s emergency egress system.

Every commercial airplane Boeing designs, including the 767 that is the basic airframe for the KC-46, is tested during certification to make sure all passengers can evacuate in an emergency within 90 seconds.

For this defect-plagued military variant, which entered service in 2019, no such test was run.

“We are carefully examining our processes to determine why this issue was not identified sooner,” said Boeing in response to Seattle Times questions.

The timing of the discovery is awkward.

At a media roundtable last Friday, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters that the Pentagon will likely not allow Airbus to compete for the next tranche of Air Force tankers, as had been expected, but will instead opt to stay with Boeing and ask only for “a modified KC-46.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...-force-tanker/
Excargodog is offline  
Old 04-10-2022, 06:48 AM
  #8  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 24
Default

Watching the KC-10 retire is annoying. It’s by far the easiest platform to tank off of. The -135 BDA or MPRS were atrocious and the -46 holds less gas.
Single Seat is offline  
Old 06-26-2022, 08:34 AM
  #9  
New Hire
 
YGBSM2017's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Position: F-16
Posts: 7
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Eh, I’d have to give “best tanker” status to the KC-10, then the L1011, then maybe the VC-10.

Definitely agree with the KC-10. Best tanker to hit at night too
YGBSM2017 is offline  
Old 06-26-2022, 08:50 AM
  #10  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 8,265
Default

Excargodog is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JonnyDolhar
Career Questions
0
11-26-2019 03:11 PM
airview
Part 91 and Low Time
13
04-27-2018 11:15 AM
natlitter
Part 91 and Low Time
3
04-08-2016 08:50 PM
lakehouse
Hiring News
0
01-21-2011 06:40 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread