Single pilot KC-46?
07-19-2022, 03:45 AM
#2
Speed Verified
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 854
Or how about we...wait for it...actually invest in defense and boost fighter production, activate a couple more UPT squadrons at some better locales, and increase crew production. Nope, let's go with the "more with less" as usual mentality. Oh, we can't get more, we can't build more, so let's try to limit our losses; the exact type of mindset that will lose wars.
07-19-2022, 07:18 PM
#4
New Hire
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Excargodog
07-20-2022, 07:57 AM
#5
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 38,241
Originally Posted by jaxsurf
“Shrinking the number of airmen onboard a tanker could help minimize potential troop casualties...”
lololol as if the Air Force gives two ***** about that. This is so dumb; what a train wreck the Air Force is.
lololol as if the Air Force gives two ***** about that. This is so dumb; what a train wreck the Air Force is.
They care about personnel costs, and retirement costs (although DoD already took a bite out of the later with the blended thing).
07-20-2022, 08:00 AM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 38,241
Originally Posted by StockAF
Don't tanker pilots have some of the longest missions in the Air Force...? (with the lone exception to possibly B-2s)
Would presumably augment for longer missions.
They could also use an airline style IRO (likely enlisted) to sit in the right seat and assist the rated pilot. That would be for workload, not to augment the pilot while he takes a long break. Although I guess they *could* let an enlisted IRO fly the plane on AP in cruise while the pilot sleeps.
It's actually been done before with "tankers"... USN S-3.
07-20-2022, 08:53 AM
#7
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 10,880
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Would presumably augment for longer missions.
They could also use an airline style IRO (likely enlisted) to sit in the right seat and assist the rated pilot. That would be for workload, not to augment the pilot while he takes a long break. Although I guess they *could* let an enlisted IRO fly the plane on AP in cruise while the pilot sleeps.
It's actually been done before with "tankers"... USN S-3.
They could also use an airline style IRO (likely enlisted) to sit in the right seat and assist the rated pilot. That would be for workload, not to augment the pilot while he takes a long break. Although I guess they *could* let an enlisted IRO fly the plane on AP in cruise while the pilot sleeps.
It's actually been done before with "tankers"... USN S-3.
All to save one FO slot?
Maybe they can subcontract the FO slots out to Skywest or Republic.
07-20-2022, 09:35 AM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 38,241
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Still, it creates a single point failure mode. I suppose you could have the single pilot wear one eyepatch to decrease the chance they might be flashblinded by a laser or nuke near-miss, but you might well have the better part of a squadron of fighters depending on that one tanker to get them to the target or get home.and it isn’t just the cost of the ~$200 million tanker and 3-4 F-35s at $100 million apiece you are talking about, but the cost of all the infrastructure and logistics necessary to get them mission-capable to begin with - not to mention the lives of the receiver aircraft crews themselves you are putting at risk.
All to save one FO slot?
Maybe they can subcontract the FO slots out to Skywest or Republic.
All to save one FO slot?
Maybe they can subcontract the FO slots out to Skywest or Republic.
The Navy had similar issues with concepts to automate ships and reduce headcount... all well and good until you get battle damage and have to fight the ship AND do damage control with a skeleton crew.
07-20-2022, 11:07 AM
#9
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 10,880
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I didn't say I thought it was a good idea.
The Navy had similar issues with concepts to automate ships and reduce headcount... all well and good until you get battle damage and have to fight the ship AND do damage control with a skeleton crew.
The Navy had similar issues with concepts to automate ships and reduce headcount... all well and good until you get battle damage and have to fight the ship AND do damage control with a skeleton crew.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PreciousCargo
Flight Schools and Training
13
06-07-2020 03:21 PM
orlandoite
Flight Schools and Training
12
06-03-2008 03:32 AM
