Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
kc135topboom wrote:How many KC-46s are now at:
Altus
McConnell
Pease
DigitalSea wrote:How long do they intend to fly the KC-46s for?
LMP737 wrote:I think the most important question to ask is when is the KC-46 going to be ready operationally?
For decades, the Air Force’s tanker fleet have logged hours transferring fuel, transporting troops and serving as flying ambulances. Soon, the tankers could add another mission to the list: relaying communications data as part of the Air Force’s new mesh network.
...
Tankers are well-suited to be used as communications nodes for two reasons, Thomas said. One, aerial refueling planes are typically large, wide-body aircraft that have enough excess space and power to host additional communication systems. The second is their location during combat. One way to operate tanker aircraft is to position them near a contested airspace, close enough for fighters and other airborne assets to refuel as needed before returning to battle, he said.
“If you’re in that spot, you also have a great opportunity by virtue of that position. You can communicate to a lot of different assets if you have the right equipment on the tanker. You can communicate line of sight to other air assets. You can communicate line of sight possibly to some assets on the surface,” Thomas said. “If you have the ability to get to the space layer and communicate, then you can also be a pathway from line-of-sight to beyond line-of-sight, to the space layer. If you have a resilient space architecture, then you can lateral across and then come back down to a ground entry point.”
The Air Force’s newest tanker, the KC-46, has communications and defensive systems that would allow it to become a communications relay without needing significant upgrades, Thomas said.
...
At the heart of the KC-46 design are the boom and Remote Vision System. The latter of which has boom operators wearing 3D glasses and sitting in front of screens at stations in the front of the 767 derivative to control refueling operations (read all about it here). Both of these key components, the boom and the Remote Vision System, do not meet the USAF's expectations and are being redesigned. This is occurring as the jets continue to be delivered.
kc135topboom wrote:Thanks 747classic.
So 55 airframes have been built, or are in production for the USAF, 4 more are ordered by the USAF, and 1 ordered for the JSDAF. That puts the USAF at about 33% of the way through the 179 tanker order, and the JSFDAF 25% of the way through thier 4 tanker order?
21 at McConnell
2 at Altus
2 at Pease
Is that right?
On a separate note:
A fix was approved by the USAF in December 2019 for the cargo floor lock tie downs. All new builds will have the modified tie downs, and those tankers already delivered will all be modified in the coming months. At least one McConnell tanker has already been modified and is approved for cargo and passenger flights.
Ozair wrote:It has been suggested multiple times that the tanker fleet would make great comms nodes and now a subset of kc-135s are being modified for the role. Interestingly the KC-46 has clearly been designed with this in mind and the current airframe has everything it would need without major modification.
What if Air Force tankers became a communications node?For decades, the Air Force’s tanker fleet have logged hours transferring fuel, transporting troops and serving as flying ambulances. Soon, the tankers could add another mission to the list: relaying communications data as part of the Air Force’s new mesh network.
...
Tankers are well-suited to be used as communications nodes for two reasons, Thomas said. One, aerial refueling planes are typically large, wide-body aircraft that have enough excess space and power to host additional communication systems. The second is their location during combat. One way to operate tanker aircraft is to position them near a contested airspace, close enough for fighters and other airborne assets to refuel as needed before returning to battle, he said.
“If you’re in that spot, you also have a great opportunity by virtue of that position. You can communicate to a lot of different assets if you have the right equipment on the tanker. You can communicate line of sight to other air assets. You can communicate line of sight possibly to some assets on the surface,” Thomas said. “If you have the ability to get to the space layer and communicate, then you can also be a pathway from line-of-sight to beyond line-of-sight, to the space layer. If you have a resilient space architecture, then you can lateral across and then come back down to a ground entry point.”
The Air Force’s newest tanker, the KC-46, has communications and defensive systems that would allow it to become a communications relay without needing significant upgrades, Thomas said.
...
https://www.c4isrnet.com/air/2020/01/06 ... ions-node/
kc135topboom wrote:How many KC-46s are now at:
Altus
McConnell
Pease
747classic wrote:kc135topboom wrote:How many KC-46s are now at:
Altus
McConnell
Pease
Two more deliveries for Pease :
L/N 1120 C/N 34138 B767-2LKC 16-46019 USAF KC-46A (VH019) LRIP 2, #08/12, N5514K, tail 66019 was delivered BFI-PSM at January 10th 2020 with callsign PACK51 to 157ARW
L/N 1119 C/N 34135 B767-2LKC 16-46018 USAF KC-46A (VH018) LRIP 2, #07/12, N5514J, tail 66018 was delivered BFI-PSM at January 10th 2020 with callsign PACK52 to 157ARW.
One for McConnell :
L/N 1116 C/N 41860 B767-2LKC 16-46016 USAF KC-46A (VH016) LRIP 2, #05/12, tail 66016 was delivered BFI-IAB at January 10th 2020 with callsign MDUSA21 to 22ARW.
See : https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 8316554245
kc135topboom wrote:747classic wrote:kc135topboom wrote:How many KC-46s are now at:
Altus
McConnell
Pease
Do we know if these 3 new tankers have had the cargo tie down locks modified to the new standard?
Galaxy5007 wrote:kc135topboom wrote:747classic wrote:
Do we know if these 3 new tankers have had the cargo tie down locks modified to the new standard?
From what I've heard, there hasn't been a fix to the problem yet, so I would say no.
Ozair wrote:Galaxy5007 wrote:kc135topboom wrote:
From what I've heard, there hasn't been a fix to the problem yet, so I would say no.
The fix was released and modified airframes approved to carry cargo and passengers in mid December, https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12 ... assengers/ I expect every subsequent delivery has the new locks.
Delays in developing and fielding the U.S. Air Force’s new KC-46 tanker are aggravating the existing aerial-refueling shortfall, and the situation could get even worse if the service sticks to its plan to retire legacy tankers, the head of U.S. Transportation Command said Tuesday.
“We’ve got to figure out a way to mitigate the delayed fielding of the KC-46,” Army Gen. Stephen Lyons said Jan. 28 at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. “Because that delay is built in, and the Air Force had already planned on the retirement of some number of KC-135s and KC-10s, if we’re not careful we’re going to see a dip … in taskable tails for the joint force.”
Even though the Air Force is accepting deliveries of the KC-46, its leaders have made clear that the service will not utilize its newest tanker in combat until the remote vision system — a series of cameras used to steer the boom into another aircraft’s refueling receptacle — is brought up to the service’s specifications. Those hardware and software changes are still under negotiation between the Air Force and KC-46 manufacturer Boeing, and could take two to three years to solve, Air Force officials have said.
...
Buckeyetech wrote:I feel as though the statements by the TRANSCOM commander are purely political to put pressure on Boeing.
Buckeyetech wrote:There will always be plenty of tankers, as most of the real word missions they are used for, are for fighter drags, and the couple of aircraft orbiting Afghanistan/Iraq.
Buckeyetech wrote:I feel as though the statements by the TRANSCOM commander are purely political to put pressure on Boeing. There will always be plenty of tankers, as most of the real word missions they are used for, are for fighter drags, and the couple of aircraft orbiting Afghanistan/Iraq.
Stitch wrote:So the USAF just does not want the KC-46A to refuel anything in the Force, or is the main worry still about the stealth birds?
LyleLanley wrote:Stitch wrote:So the USAF just does not want the KC-46A to refuel anything in the Force, or is the main worry still about the stealth birds?
The KC-46 isn't ready to be relied upon by any jet, stealth or not, hence the legacy tanker in the cell. It can technically refuel stealthy jets, too, but not if they "need" stealth. The stealth aspect is but one reason why they won't deploy until the jet is fixed.
ChrisNH38 wrote:So, from what I infer, Pease has four planes whose 'mission' for now is to train crews. No actual refueling at all? I did get the sense that Pease's mission overall is to refuel the transatlantic planes, which means it is an important one. But I guess Bangor can help, and of course McGuire?
kanban wrote:LyleLanley wrote:Stitch wrote:So the USAF just does not want the KC-46A to refuel anything in the Force, or is the main worry still about the stealth birds?
The KC-46 isn't ready to be relied upon by any jet, stealth or not, hence the legacy tanker in the cell. It can technically refuel stealthy jets, too, but not if they "need" stealth. The stealth aspect is but one reason why they won't deploy until the jet is fixed.
bogus arguments... if the Air Force needed them to refuel planes they would be doing that. many of the "stealth" aircraft needing refueling are not on "stealth" missions but zipping around for PR. the best way to train crews is to use them in real situations.. I think some of the brass are merely hanging onto the old because the new is a change in their roles and a threat to their security.
Galaxy5007 wrote:Should of put a sight window and operator pod in...would of saved millions and wouldn't have the problems they are having.
Stitch wrote:Galaxy5007 wrote:Should of put a sight window and operator pod in...would of saved millions and wouldn't have the problems they are having.
RVS works - the Dutch have it on their KDC-10s and all A330MRTT's have it. It is just the Rockwell Collins system Boeing selected for the KC-46A that is having the problems.
par13del wrote:Stitch wrote:Galaxy5007 wrote:Should of put a sight window and operator pod in...would of saved millions and wouldn't have the problems they are having.
RVS works - the Dutch have it on their KDC-10s and all A330MRTT's have it. It is just the Rockwell Collins system Boeing selected for the KC-46A that is having the problems.
So the Air Force had the authority to force Boeing to do a number of things AFTER the contract was signed but they never thought to tell them to change the RVS vendor?
How many of the delays were the result of the Air Force wanting changes on an off the shelf option?
Boeing bid low, Air Force wanted changes, chickens coming home to roost, karma...
Stitch wrote:Galaxy5007 wrote:Should of put a sight window and operator pod in...would of saved millions and wouldn't have the problems they are having.
RVS works - the Dutch have it on their KDC-10s and all A330MRTT's have it. It is just the Rockwell Collins system Boeing selected for the KC-46A that is having the problems.
LyleLanley wrote:RVS works - the Dutch have it on their KDC-10s and all A330MRTT's have it. It is just the Rockwell Collins system Boeing selected for the KC-46A that is having the problems.
par13del wrote:Did the US Air Force know of this when they were making up their requirements for the tanker, if they did having a pod for the operator would have been a lower risk. Will see if I can find specifications for the initial tanker lease from years ago to see if that was also RVS, it raises interesting thoughts.
par13del wrote:LyleLanley wrote:To tell a little secret, the Dutch KDC-10’s RVS system doesn’t work very well, either. The major difference being the Dutch can change their ops to mitigate, whereas the USAF can’t.
Did the US Air Force know of this when they were making up their requirements for the tanker, if they did having a pod for the operator would have been a lower risk.
Will see if I can find specifications for the initial tanker lease from years ago to see if that was also RVS, it raises interesting thoughts.
kc135topboom wrote:kanban wrote:LyleLanley wrote:
The F-35s "zipping around for PR" were damn near the first brand new western aircraft to go feet dry over Persia since the late 70s. You can't fight an aircraft you can't see. The Iranian brass know that, the Iranian F-14 and F-4 bubbas know that, and I guarantee you the Iranian double-digit SAM operators know that.
FWIW I respectfully disagree. The B-1B, B-2A and F-22A were the first (all) new western aircraft in the ME since the 1970s. So was Rafale, Tornado, Typhoon, Gripen (combat ops over Libya), and the Mirage-2000.
All of these aircraft reached IOC in the 1980s or later..
Max Q wrote:Sounds like a disaster, from what I’m reading this RVS can never be ‘remotely’ as good as a boom operator in a proper ‘station’ with a window
Why this wasn’t designed in is hard to explain
LyleLanley wrote:Pros and cons to both, but with a properly designed RVS I think the downsides are worth the upsides.
LyleLanley wrote:kc135topboom wrote:kanban wrote:
Persia ≠ the Middle East and North Africa. In the modern era it's interchangeable with Iran.
If we were in the BCE I'd completely agree with you, as North Africa and huge swaths of the Middle East were part of the greater Persian empire, but then we would be speaking of Greek chariots instead of American airplanesMax Q wrote:Sounds like a disaster, from what I’m reading this RVS can never be ‘remotely’ as good as a boom operator in a proper ‘station’ with a window
Why this wasn’t designed in is hard to explain
I agree and disagree. There are some advantages of the window: it's simple from a system reliability standpoint using the mk. 1 eyeball and pictures turn out great. Then again, there has to be room for an ARO station, something the KC-46 just doesn't have. Also, night AR generally means lighting up like a Christmas tree in a tactical environment so the boomer can see properly, plus a LOT of extra training for night events. With a *properly designed RVS, that would greatly simplify training, as there would be essentially no difference between night and day for a boom operator. Pros and cons to both, but with a properly designed RVS I think the downsides are worth the upsides.
*not what the KC-46 currently has
Max Q wrote:
Well, there’s no room for an ARO station until you design it in and build it
It could have been done
kc135topboom wrote:Who's KC-135s have the KAPPA vision system been installed on? Why was it installed, for flight testing? I thought that was why it was installed on the A-310MRTT.
Is KAPPA better than the original air refueling vision system originally installed on the KC-30/A-330MRTT?
747classic wrote:Here is a PR-video from KAPPA about the automated A330MRTT boom air refueling : https://vimeo.com/358025528
Start at time 07.45.
Besides a reduction in time for connecting the receiver aircraft, also demonstrated are greatly reduced contact loads during automated refueling. Scheduled to be certified in 2021.
It seems that Airbus together with KAPPA is years ahead in remote vision for (boom)air to air refueling..
Galaxy5007 wrote:There seems to be some confusion to the number of jets delivered to Altus. So far 5 jets were delivered to Altus.
028, 027, 025, 032, and 033
McConnell just had their 21st jet delivered on Friday. They have the following,
009, 016, 017, 022, 023, 026, 030, 031, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, and 048
Pease had their first two delivered last August, and the second two last Friday
029 and 034 in August
018 and 019 10 Jan 2020