777 tanker?
06-20-2009, 05:41 AM
#21
Libertarian Resistance
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by BDGERJMN
Just out of curiosity, when would 280 or even 260 be too slow. My point is sometimes taking gas(in a Hornet) at FL330 for instance with 2 tanks and 3 2Klb JDAM on the pods on the outside of a turn makes staying in the basket much higher than 280KIAS a difficult chore.
WW
06-20-2009, 08:22 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
It's been a bit long for me to quote numbers, and I can only speak from KC135 experience, but I think the dash 3 (or whatever they call the document that replaced it) has most of your answers.
I will speak generally for OPSEC reasons--Normal AR altitudes for most planes are well below the altitudes you are talking about. An optimum, or planning altitude for receivers, is published. At higher altitudes, mach effects may be significant. The tanker gross weight may affect AR speed or tanker flap configuration.
Turbulence you've sometimes seen is likely from higher than normal power settings and high AOA for relatively low speed/high gross weight AR.
Autopilot off is (or used to be) a low frequency continuation training event. Receivers doing their own training will request this and generally cover our requirements. You may see a spike in tanker requests in JUN and DEC as laggards complete their requirements.
By the way, it is not possible to "lock the boom" for drogue receivers.
I'm just an old tanker guy, so I don't know much, but I think the DOD wants the big tankers not to replace the 135, but to replace the C141 or, rather, the C17s that we did not buy. They want a big plane for lift, if it does AR too so much the better. LJS is right, the 135 isn't going anywhere for a long time.
I'd bet on a big investment in sims for the 135 so volume training and qual and inst checks could be done in the sim. Innovations on the actual aircraft would be a lot cheaper than new plane--improved leading edge devices, thrust reversers (yes, I know), VNAV capability, autothrottles, etc. are unlikely but possible.
WW
I will speak generally for OPSEC reasons--Normal AR altitudes for most planes are well below the altitudes you are talking about. An optimum, or planning altitude for receivers, is published. At higher altitudes, mach effects may be significant. The tanker gross weight may affect AR speed or tanker flap configuration.
Turbulence you've sometimes seen is likely from higher than normal power settings and high AOA for relatively low speed/high gross weight AR.
Autopilot off is (or used to be) a low frequency continuation training event. Receivers doing their own training will request this and generally cover our requirements. You may see a spike in tanker requests in JUN and DEC as laggards complete their requirements.
By the way, it is not possible to "lock the boom" for drogue receivers.
I'm just an old tanker guy, so I don't know much, but I think the DOD wants the big tankers not to replace the 135, but to replace the C141 or, rather, the C17s that we did not buy. They want a big plane for lift, if it does AR too so much the better. LJS is right, the 135 isn't going anywhere for a long time.
I'd bet on a big investment in sims for the 135 so volume training and qual and inst checks could be done in the sim. Innovations on the actual aircraft would be a lot cheaper than new plane--improved leading edge devices, thrust reversers (yes, I know), VNAV capability, autothrottles, etc. are unlikely but possible.
WW
Im with ya on the altitudes, just saying I have done it at much higher for WX considerations and it isn't fun, I would imagine it's not fun for the tanker crew either. The boom myth was put to bed early on in my career after asking a 135 crew in the Kadena Oclub one Friday evening....then I heard all about their DFC citations for delivering gas on at TST(I digress).
As for the sims, most USN/USMC platforms do all of their Instrument and NATOPS(EP/systems) checks in the sim. I am pretty sure P-3 crews do NATOPS checks airborne as a crew with evaluators on board, not sure though.
06-20-2009, 02:53 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Originally Posted by L'il J.Seinfeld
With the radical and swift shift of power in the USAF from the F-22/F-35 crowd to the UAV proponents I doubt that we will ever see another tanker. The Blk 40 KC-135 will get more and more expensive to maintain but it will be a viable alternative to the megaexpensive alternatives.
The Army is the main game these days. I never would have thought that would be the case 10 years ago. Those USAF leaders pushing UAV technology will be the ones in power sooner than later. It is no longer a fighter pilot's Air Force, which is bad news for the new tanker programs.
The Army is the main game these days. I never would have thought that would be the case 10 years ago. Those USAF leaders pushing UAV technology will be the ones in power sooner than later. It is no longer a fighter pilot's Air Force, which is bad news for the new tanker programs.
Wow. You never would have seen the Army being the main game in town? I guess you never envisioned us being in combat in an urban environment with civilian populace throughout. Bad news for the tanker programs? How about we put all of our focus on having the greatest tankers in the world but lose the war we are currently in? How about we sacrifice just a few soldier's lives to get a few more tankers - they don't really need that top cover over there from our ISR assets.
We have a leadership corps that can not see their way to shape a force that can fight the multitude of threats that we face and it is as simple as those fighter guys vs. those UAS guys (of which the CSAF is not - neither is any other GO out there). Just because a non-traditional threat exists in the Middle East does not mean the conventional threat that is China or Russia or North Korea will go away - and vice versa. They don't take turns - as a matter of fact, prudent strategy would dictate the exact opposite. To cry for the loss a tanker program (which won't happen, by the way) because the focus is on the Army is pretty darn short-sighted.
Our leadership is a non-experienced in the real world, surrounded by yes-men, political bunch that can not seem to create a warfighting force that can take care of the non-traditional counter-insurgency immediate threat while still keeping their eyes on the big potential threat over the horizon. They descend into us vs them, UAS vs manned, fighter vs bomber, whoever vs whatever petty arguments that do anything EXCEPT lead to a most capable CUMULATIVE fighting force. And everyone else just accepts it as the norm, as unavoidable, and will end up perpetuating the act as they move into those leadership positions. I bet you would be surprised to know that a former "fighter" CSAF was personally against the exclusive focus on the F-22 but was public ally in support for political reasons. I've got news for you, the same is true for most CSAF's and generals - they do what is politically expedient 9.999999999 times out of 10. The current CSAF is no proponent of UAS anymore than any previous CSAF - he just does what the boss wants. As a matter of fact, the previous CSAF was more of a UAS proponent because he at least tried to stand them up and man them in a way that maintained their capabilities and took care of the people in a semi-responsible manner.
Congratulations, you are doing your part to perpetuate the mentality. You don't grasp the fact that no US servicemember on the ground has had a weapon dropped on them by enemy aircraft since sometime in the 1960's. You don't grasp the freedom our air superiority gave the Army (how is that not support) to move freely by forcing most of our enemies to resort to IADS vs manned aircraft to suit their defensive needs. You think that a focus on air superiority in previous years was only due to parochial interests. You accept the fact that the leadership does not recognize the support the tanker gives the Army by refueling the CAS assets and allowing them to maintain a continuous presence over our forces - they will forgo that capability in lieu of more UAV's. You don't get the fact that because someone is a proponent of a UAS, they can't be doing it because it is an asset that is used in conjuction with (vs instead of) other more traditional air assets. The recent events in Afghanistan have not done enough to convince you that no other asset can get a PID, maintain PID, allow for real-time CDE, and surgically employ weapons all in a manner that can minimize collateral damage as a UAV can. You must not believe that we can gain a quantum increase in our ability to conduct airstrikes in an urban environment without replacing any tankers. You obviously feel that the advancement of this technology and capability can only be done so at the expense of other assets.
You know what I want, I want leadership that will create an AIR FORCE as a whole that can effectively defeat any threat that pops up. KC-135's, F-15's, AC-130's, B-2's, and on and on don't win wars and will never win wars on their own individually and I don't care to think about the "saving of programs" just for the sake of the program. I don't want a new weapon system unless it fulfills a real current or future need in our overall fighting force. I don't want leadership that will eliminate our entire F-117 fleet, 3/4 of our F-15 fleet, try to eliminate our B-52 fleet, etc to buy another F-22 or two. I don't want leadership that can't buy a tanker without sending people to jail. I don't want leadership that will mandate an Anthrax vaccination program because a former CSAF is a major investor in the company that supplies the vaccine. I don't want leadership that still thinks in terms of fighters vs bombers vs anything else unless they are the general in charge of fighters or bombers or anything else specifically. And I don't want USAF leadership that does not advise our national leadership on how best to utilize air power, or does not speak against ideas that are potentially ill-informed all in the interest of politics. I don't want leadership that does anything that doesn't make us become a unified more capable fighting force - not an airline training program or a jobs program, our business is killing the enemy and destroying their stuff. How best can we move our USAF to take care of ALL of the threats that we will likely face in the future. And what is the best tanker platform to blend into the rest of the USAF to advance the fight?
The original direction of the thread was promising to be enlightening (KC10 talking about why the 777 is not a good fit for this buy - and I agree 100%) and educational for non-AR people (boom vs drogue, etc) - but we can't have a military discussion before it becomes an us vs them diatribe. For the younger guys, be proud of your MWS and become tactical experts in its employment. As you progress, start to discover exactly how you fit into the bigger tactical operation (that also helps you visualize the consequences of not accomplishing your mission). For the older fellas (and gals), the taxpayers expect you to become proponents and experts of their national defense as a whole - not just "tanker pilots" or "fighter pilots" who are doiing the same things they were doing as a Lt or Capt, but making twice as much money. If they wanted a bunch of those "smaller picture" types, they would force more O-4's out and bring in more O-1's for the cost savings alone.
06-21-2009, 12:09 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
I've just been around long enough to where I always try to dig deeper than just scratching the surface. That, and the fact that the more I get involved with how we are conducting our operations, the more I am upset that it seems that we haven't learned a single lesson since Vietnam. I am reminded on a daily basis that there are real consequences for the mistakes that are made. Without fail, it always someone else who pays the price. For me, it's all about the mission (as a whole).
06-21-2009, 04:58 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by BDGERJMN
Just out of curiosity, when would 280 or even 260 be too slow. My point is sometimes taking gas(in a Hornet) at FL330 for instance with 2 tanks and 3 2Klb JDAM on the pods on the outside of a turn makes staying in the basket much higher than 280KIAS a difficult chore.
06-22-2009, 05:58 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
Those speeds can be too slow for the KC-10. Depending on grossweight / altitude, they will be below our minimum maneuver speed. In other words, we are bank limited (to 15 degrees or less) just to avoid stalling the airplane. Additionally, refueling A-10s and C-130s usually means we have to not only configure the aircraft (at lower altitudes due to mach limits on the slats/flaps), but also limit the bank to 15 degrees to avoid stalling.
Copy all, thanks for the explanation
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
