Boeing KC-46 Pegasus

WTH is happening with that one, I have no idea, but it more and more looks like a flying "Littoral Combat Ship".
 
Because they are so old and maintenance intensive... I agree however it is a foolish move to replace them with flawed aircraft, even if brand new.

This mean that US tankers crews presently have the choice between

- flying KC-135s falling apart and risk dying

- flying KC-46s not falling apart but unable to refuel fighters without a risk of killing their pilots.

In both case, pilots and crews risk dying. That's a lose-lose situation...
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
The Italians KC-767 are fitted with a different RVS and a different boom with half the mass flow than seen in the KC-46.
The different design and software might explain why we are not aware of any serious problems with them refuelling their F-35.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc-46-aerial-refuelling-aircraft-us/
Click to expand...

... and obviously the perfectly good italian system wasn't good enough for USAF and/or KC-46 (facepalm)
 
The Air Force is seeking companies that have the capability to deliver commercial derivative tanker aircraft to supplement the Air Force tanker aircraft fleet at the end of KC-46A production.

The new aircraft will bridge the gap to the next Advanced Air Refueling Tanker recapitalization phase, previously referred to as “KC-Z.” The existing KC-46A firm-fixed price contract is limited to 13 production lots, with the last planned procurement in 2027 and delivered in 2029.

As a commercial derivative aircraft, the Bridge Tanker will be based on existing and emerging technologies with a full and open acquisition competition. Neither developmental stealth nor unmanned capability is planned.

The requirements for Bridge Tanker are currently being defined and the necessary capabilities will be incorporated into the final Request for Proposal once it is validated through the Department of Defense’s joint staffing process. The Air Force plans to release the final RFP by the end of 2022.


https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/news/arti...es-bridge-tanker-sources-sought-announcement/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...blems-persist-with-the-one-its-already-buying
 
aonestudio said:
The Air Force is seeking companies that have the capability to deliver commercial derivative tanker aircraft to supplement the Air Force tanker aircraft fleet at the end of KC-46A production.

The new aircraft will bridge the gap to the next Advanced Air Refueling Tanker recapitalization phase, previously referred to as “KC-Z.” The existing KC-46A firm-fixed price contract is limited to 13 production lots, with the last planned procurement in 2027 and delivered in 2029.

As a commercial derivative aircraft, the Bridge Tanker will be based on existing and emerging technologies with a full and open acquisition competition. Neither developmental stealth nor unmanned capability is planned.

The requirements for Bridge Tanker are currently being defined and the necessary capabilities will be incorporated into the final Request for Proposal once it is validated through the Department of Defense’s joint staffing process. The Air Force plans to release the final RFP by the end of 2022.


https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/news/arti...es-bridge-tanker-sources-sought-announcement/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...blems-persist-with-the-one-its-already-buying
Click to expand...

Why are the USAF planning on ordering another tanker (the KC-Z) so soon after the KC-46A? Unless the KC-46A has fallen out of favour with the Air Force top brass.
 
Given how Boeing had to redirect money on that program that would sound like an unfair decision.
Boeing had to lower their price given the competition was biaised by unrealistic pricing.

On the other hand, if some leasing have to be made in the future, here is probably one very good opportunity not to miss:
https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-airbus-a340-sale/amp/
 
TomcatViP said:
Given how Boeing had to redirect money on that program that would sound like an unfair decision.
Boeing had to lower their price given the competition was biaised by unrealistic pricing.

On the other hand, if some leasing have to be made in the future, here is probably one very good opportunity not to miss:
https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-airbus-a340-sale/amp/
Click to expand...

It all depends on how many flight hours the Lufthansa A-340s have remaining before the USAF buys them.
 
Boeing will have to pay to fix two new technical problems afflicting the KC-46 refueling tanker, which the U.S. Air Force has designated as “category 1” deficiencies that rank among the program’s most critical issues.

The Air Force has discovered that drain tubes in the KC-46′s air refueling receptacle — which are used to drain water out of the aircraft — can become cracked when the tanker operates in cold temperatures, the service stated in response to questions from Defense News. According to the service, this issue has occurred approximately three times, when water in the tubes froze and expanded, forming cracks.

The second problem involves a software bug in the KC-46′s Flight Management System, which has triggered “navigation anomalies,” according to Boeing.

The Air Force stated this issue has been limited to “isolated incidents,” most recently a March 3 flight over the Pacific Ocean. The crew “deferred to other navigation methods and did not declare an in-flight emergency; and the aircraft safely landed in Honolulu,” the service said.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...gram-logs-another-two-technical-deficiencies/
 
FighterJock said:
aonestudio said:
The Air Force is seeking companies that have the capability to deliver commercial derivative tanker aircraft to supplement the Air Force tanker aircraft fleet at the end of KC-46A production.

The new aircraft will bridge the gap to the next Advanced Air Refueling Tanker recapitalization phase, previously referred to as “KC-Z.” The existing KC-46A firm-fixed price contract is limited to 13 production lots, with the last planned procurement in 2027 and delivered in 2029.

As a commercial derivative aircraft, the Bridge Tanker will be based on existing and emerging technologies with a full and open acquisition competition. Neither developmental stealth nor unmanned capability is planned.

The requirements for Bridge Tanker are currently being defined and the necessary capabilities will be incorporated into the final Request for Proposal once it is validated through the Department of Defense’s joint staffing process. The Air Force plans to release the final RFP by the end of 2022.


https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/news/arti...es-bridge-tanker-sources-sought-announcement/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...blems-persist-with-the-one-its-already-buying
Click to expand...

Why are the USAF planning on ordering another tanker (the KC-Z) so soon after the KC-46A? Unless the KC-46A has fallen out of favour with the Air Force top brass.
Click to expand...
KC-Z has, at times, been envisioned either as a re-compete of KC-Y or as a step-change in tanker survivability via an LO airframe. The former is as much as driving prices down as it is concern about KC-46, after all that aircraft would likely still play a role in a "normal" tanker competition. The latter is all about USAF/DOD concerns regarding sustaining tactical aircraft on station in the Pacific during a hot conflict with a near-peer adversary.
 
aonestudio said:
The Air Force is seeking companies that have the capability to deliver commercial derivative tanker aircraft to supplement the Air Force tanker aircraft fleet at the end of KC-46A production.

The new aircraft will bridge the gap to the next Advanced Air Refueling Tanker recapitalization phase, previously referred to as “KC-Z.” The existing KC-46A firm-fixed price contract is limited to 13 production lots, with the last planned procurement in 2027 and delivered in 2029.

As a commercial derivative aircraft, the Bridge Tanker will be based on existing and emerging technologies with a full and open acquisition competition. Neither developmental stealth nor unmanned capability is planned.

The requirements for Bridge Tanker are currently being defined and the necessary capabilities will be incorporated into the final Request for Proposal once it is validated through the Department of Defense’s joint staffing process. The Air Force plans to release the final RFP by the end of 2022.


https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/news/arti...es-bridge-tanker-sources-sought-announcement/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...blems-persist-with-the-one-its-already-buying
Click to expand...
Who can it be now?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SECVGN4Bsgg&ab_channel=MenAtWorkVEVO
 
Moose said:
KC-Z has, at times, been envisioned either as a re-compete of KC-Y or as a step-change in tanker survivability via an LO airframe. The former is as much as driving prices down as it is concern about KC-46, after all that aircraft would likely still play a role in a "normal" tanker competition. The latter is all about USAF/DOD concerns regarding sustaining tactical aircraft on station in the Pacific during a hot conflict with a near-peer adversary.
Click to expand...
I wonder if anyone at Lockheed Martin will dig this old project up:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lm-skunk-works-2002-force-employment-tanker-fet.3910/
 
Well, it would make a better option than those "stealth tankers". If the KC-46 was screwed up, something simple on paper, imagine what a massive screw up a stealth tanker would be. It would take half a century just to enter service!
 
Wyvern said:
Well, it would make a better option than those "stealth tankers". If the KC-46 was screwed up, something simple on paper, imagine what a massive screw up a stealth tanker would be. It would take half a century just to enter service!
Click to expand...

I second that opinion. Something is very, very wrong at Boeing: similar issues are plaguing CTS-100 crew capsule to the ISS (botched software trying to kill humans, just like the KC-46 vision system and boom).

They have lost touch on aerial tankers after dominating that market with aproximately 2000 aircraft since 1950 (800+ KC-97, 800+ KC-135, plus the innumerable 707s converted, followed by 767s)

If stealth is thrown into that mess, the end result maybe a F-35 / KC-46 mix of horrors.
Imagine: the worst of Lockheed in the early 2010's when F-35 hit rock bottom; piling up ont top of another KC-46 nightmare.

"The horror, the horror" (Apocalypse now)
 
I am bewildered by all these issues. Omg in automotive we plan for success and simulate all the time if we are using something new. Its as if Boeing planned to fail and frankly pisses me off as a citizen to see this what can only be incompetence. What's next, the flaps fall off? The toilette overflows?

Should have bought many more kc10 when we had the chance.
 
helmutkohl said:
FighterJock said:
Anyone got any ideas as to why the USAF went with the flying boom method of air to air refuelling instead of the more popular probe and drogue that the rest of the world uses?
Click to expand...
I've read something along the lines that it was intended for SAC and their bombers in the old days. tactical jet fighters in the USAF still used the drogue back in those days
Click to expand...
I believe standardizing tactical aircraft to flying boom was a mistake that is now coming home to roost. The inability for navy and air force to share refueling resources and the need to for specialized tanking assets make development difficult and a strategic problem as seen in this thread.

If USAF tactical aircraft uses probe and drogue, you can convert any random aircraft to tanking in basically no time. You'd have your stealth tanker by figuring out how to extend a hose out of a bomb-bay. There can be operational concepts like FARP C-130 (or V-22!) fuelers or "aircraft carrier-tanker" supported strike package. If one push the imaginative operational concepts a bit, there is seaplanes moving fuel from submarines into airplanes.

The USAF is just going to replay operation black buck after the forward airbases eat TBM spam. Its cute that tactical aircraft have short field operation capability, doesn't help much when the tankers all take huge runways and the tactical aircraft ranges are still insufficient.

I actually do wonder if converting aircraft back to probe and drogue is a good idea....

FighterJock said:
aonestudio said:
The Air Force is seeking companies that have the capability to deliver commercial derivative tanker aircraft to supplement the Air Force tanker aircraft fleet at the end of KC-46A production....
Click to expand...

Why are the USAF planning on ordering another tanker (the KC-Z) so soon after the KC-46A? Unless the KC-46A has fallen out of favour with the Air Force top brass.
Click to expand...
Can the solution get cheated three times?
1280px-RAAF_KC-30,_EA-18Gs_and_FA-18Fs_with_a_USAF_B-1B_in_2018.jpg
 
Last edited:
^good points
on a related note.. since we are all talking about UCAVs and their potential roles in refuelling and awacs..
theres been a few drone tankers being tested on... but they are all drogue systems.
how large a drone needs to be to fit a large boom system
 
The boom system is used by the air force because it has more mass flow capability, which is better suited to large aircraft. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but if you tried refueling a B-52 or a C-5 with a probe and drogue, it would take a geological era (ok, maybe a bit of hyperbole...).
 
Large enough to carry and power a 1,500 US Gal/min pump and the fuel for a B-52. So quite large.

Chris
 
Yup, the probe-and-drogue can transfer less than 500 gallons per minute, 2-3rd less than the boom.
The USN having no C-5 Galaxy nor B-52 to refuel, just didn't cared: the largest thing ever on their decks was a C-130, and in regular service: Skywarriors (itself turned tanker, so it helped even more).
 
If one push the imaginative operational concepts a bit, there is seaplanes moving fuel from submarines into airplanes.
Click to expand...

The Seamaster could do that: refueling from old carriers (C.B, vintage WWII jeep carrier) or from submarines.

Where it gets really cool, is that a buddy-buddy refueling pack was tested, and it also had its own refueling probe.

So a Seamaster could be refueled by a Boeing, a submarine, or a carrier (how about that: don't try it with a B-52 !), and it could refuel another Seamaster; which in turn could have refueled other aircraft.
 
I also wonder whether there are any specialised versions of the KC-46 to replace the RC-135 fleet, as those would also need replacing. I've only just begun to realise the enormity of what needs to be replaced in US service, and many aircraft are threatened by being retired prematurely without a replacement even in the works, let alone under development.
 
(AFAIK) The Navy E-6s were the last ever Boeing 367-80 derivatives ever built (should I say 707 ? C-135 ?), and the year was 1992.
I mean, the basic 707 airframe was so good, it spanned four decades in production.
Except now, it needs to be replaced. Not that airliners have become bad: the big problem is procurement and cost.
That had gone completely bonkers since a long time ago...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom