Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:18 am

Is it possible for the USAF to order up to 50 C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment to use as an increase in airlift capabilities given that the C-17 is out of production? I can see the USAF use the C-46 to airlift palletized cargo and given that it requires ground handling equipment and can only takeoff and land at the largest military bases or commercial airports, it would not be in service with the active-duty force and instead, be stored the Reserve and ANG fleets. Any thoughts?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:26 am

Nope. Not possible.

I'm not sure what your opinion is of the reserve/ANG basing options or their ability to land and/or be based at shorter fields, but it's inaccurate.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:45 am

LyleLanley wrote:
Nope. Not possible.

I'm not sure what your opinion is of the reserve/ANG basing options or their ability to land and/or be based at shorter fields, but it's inaccurate.


Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?
 
Newark727
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:03 am

UA857 wrote:
Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?


I'm a little hazy on that but I think those were mainly a holdover until the C-141 became available? At any rate, I believe most of them were converted to various special mission configurations after a few years, though I'd be happy to hear correction on that if I'm wrong.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:06 am

My main question was can the USAF order a C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:20 am

UA857 wrote:
Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?


They did. They also once dropped napalm in 12 ship formations, had a B-52 and KC-135 do low-level aerobatics, and also thought the F-104 was a great idea. What's your point? 2021 ≠ 1960. There are more than 200 C-17s and the Air Force is more than happy to puff on the CRAF-pipe. If the AF needs rubber dog shit to be moved from Travis to Hickam during PCS season it'll fly in a KC-46 or on a Kalitta 747. They don't give a s**t about making a half-breed C-46.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3816
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:22 am

Why not order more C-40 combi?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:24 am

bikerthai wrote:
Why not order more C-40 combi?

bt


Aren't they? I feel like I read about a couple being prepared for the Marines from secondhand 737-700s.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:25 am

Newark727 wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?


I'm a little hazy on that but I think those were mainly a holdover until the C-141 became available? At any rate, I believe most of them were converted to various special mission configurations after a few years, though I'd be happy to hear correction on that if I'm wrong.


You're absolutely right! Even with all the bases the USAF had in the early 60s, and the wide proliferation of marijuana, the AF couldn't think to keep cargo-only C-135s flying on a daily basis.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:23 am

LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Didn't the USAF purchase a KC-135 transport aircraft without tanking equipment called the C-135?


They did. They also once dropped napalm in 12 ship formations, had a B-52 and KC-135 do low-level aerobatics, and also thought the F-104 was a great idea. What's your point? 2021 ≠ 1960. There are more than 200 C-17s and the Air Force is more than happy to puff on the CRAF-pipe. If the AF needs rubber dog shit to be moved from Travis to Hickam during PCS season it'll fly in a KC-46 or on a Kalitta 747. They don't give a s**t about making a half-breed C-46.


How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:32 am

UA857 wrote:
How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?


I'm not sure why you're hung-up on tossing these pieces of garbage onto the part-timers, but they're not interested, either. A bespoke mission, constantly supplanted by contractors, is not in AFRC/ANG long-term interests. And the USAF generally doesn't buy worthless aircraft.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:09 am

Well the USAF wish list is: F35's, F-15EX, KC-46, helicopters, unmanned flight, missiles, etc. Far, far down the list after new golf courses introduced at most bases would be freighters. They pay the civilian firms far less than it would cost itself.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:10 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?


I'm not sure why you're hung-up on tossing these pieces of garbage onto the part-timers, but they're not interested, either. A bespoke mission, constantly supplanted by contractors, is not in AFRC/ANG long-term interests. And the USAF generally doesn't buy worthless aircraft.


While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
Max Q
Posts: 8747
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:35 pm

I’d be surprised if the KC46 doesn’t have the ability to install passenger seats on pallets that can be locked down if necessary
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:18 pm

aumaverick wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?


I'm not sure why you're hung-up on tossing these pieces of garbage onto the part-timers, but they're not interested, either. A bespoke mission, constantly supplanted by contractors, is not in AFRC/ANG long-term interests. And the USAF generally doesn't buy worthless aircraft.


While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.


Logic doesn't track, since C-130s are not the same as C-17s so there's no reason to think they are being used the same amount as each other.

The real logic is since the USAF has no interest in the C-27J they should go ahead and give them back to the Army.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:40 pm

UA857 wrote:
Is it possible for the USAF to order up to 50 C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment to use as an increase in airlift capabilities given that the C-17 is out of production? I can see the USAF use the C-46 to airlift palletized cargo and given that it requires ground handling equipment and can only takeoff and land at the largest military bases or commercial airports, it would not be in service with the active-duty force and instead, be stored the Reserve and ANG fleets. Any thoughts?


There is NO, ANG or AFRC base that cannot handle KC-46s, for that matter C-5, KC-135, KC-10, either. You’re posing a non-problem.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3230
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:50 pm

Max Q wrote:
I’d be surprised if the KC46 doesn’t have the ability to install passenger seats on pallets that can be locked down if necessary


From May, 2017:
https://www.epicos.com/article/118873/a ... -air-force

AAR has been selected to provide the United States Air Force with palletized seating systems to accommodate passenger carriage in KC-46 aircrafts in 10- or 12-seat configurations. The contract with AAR’s Mobility Systems is valued at just under $5 million, with ordering periods through the end of DoD’s FY19.

This contract supports the USAF’s newest air refueling tanker aircraft, the KC-46 Pegasus...For the first delivery, multiple sets of 12-passenger and 10-passenger seat pallets, valued at approximately $2 million, have been ordered by the USAF to support the Initial Test and Evaluation of the KC-46 Tanker Program.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
VMCA787
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:31 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:32 pm

The USAF has to get their palletized lav/gally sorted first before any pax are thought of. The USAF was responsible for providing that equipment and it would seem they dropped the ball and provided a unit that does not work on the current KC-46 unless there is a redesign of the palletized units.
Fly fast, live slow!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:32 pm

There were two C-5 passenger pallet setups. We used them ONCE, never again. MIT was a typical AFRes cock-up moving reserve units around. The set had been in storage for years,so cleaning took days, rigging more days. It looked like a theater.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:30 pm

VMCA787 wrote:
The USAF has to get their palletized lav/gally sorted first before any pax are thought of. The USAF was responsible for providing that equipment and it would seem they dropped the ball and provided a unit that does not work on the current KC-46 unless there is a redesign of the palletized units.


It's already fixed: it just needed a valve to be redesigned since the orientation of the pallet on the jet is now 90 degrees off of what it was originally intended to be (logistics rail vs. ADS rail orientation). There's still the other john, it's just not usable if they're doing AR.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19710
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:40 pm

UA857 wrote:
Is it possible for the USAF to order up to 50 C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment to use as an increase in airlift capabilities given that the C-17 is out of production?


The C-46 went out of production in 1945. Not happening. ;)





Someone had to.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
johns624
Posts: 3490
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:51 pm

scbriml wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Is it possible for the USAF to order up to 50 C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment to use as an increase in airlift capabilities given that the C-17 is out of production?


The C-46 went out of production in 1945. Not happening. ;)





Someone had to.
Beat me to it!
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:22 pm

UA857 wrote:
My main question was can the USAF order a C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment?


Absolutely. It would likely have to go through the existing JCIDS process, unless they could piggy back off the existing KC-46 as some kind of spiral or block development.

The question is one of why, when they can get the same hull and ultimately effect from leasing civil aircraft through existing contract vehicles.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:26 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?


I'm not sure why you're hung-up on tossing these pieces of garbage onto the part-timers, but they're not interested, either. A bespoke mission, constantly supplanted by contractors, is not in AFRC/ANG long-term interests. And the USAF generally doesn't buy worthless aircraft.


Hahaha. The entire Century series fighter procurement would disagree. There is a real argument to made that the USAF procured very few aircraft before 1980 that didn't have an as good/better NAVAIR analog.

Flying units, command billets and MILCON contracts are in the AFRes/ANG interest. If you came up with a justification that would survive JROC for every state to get an ATR or Bizjet squadron, Congress and the RC would be all ears.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:30 pm

aumaverick wrote:

While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.


The -17s and FRED really AREN'T overused. The -130s certainly aren't. Really, they don't answer many USTRANSCOM dictated requirements at all. Navy side requirements often are answered organically before JOSA/USTRANSCOM can process the request.

The C-27Js were land-grabbed because Schwartz wanted to get the Army out of the tac airlift business with the death of the -23, which was the SOCOM lift asset of choice in Iraq. That was insult to the C-130 community, esp. the SOF side, where Schwartz came from via USTRANSCOM.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:32 pm

scbriml wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Is it possible for the USAF to order up to 50 C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment to use as an increase in airlift capabilities given that the C-17 is out of production?


The C-46 went out of production in 1945. Not happening. ;)





Someone had to.


There is a flyable one in Bolivia I'd love to get my greedy hands on.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:11 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?


I'm not sure why you're hung-up on tossing these pieces of garbage onto the part-timers, but they're not interested, either. A bespoke mission, constantly supplanted by contractors, is not in AFRC/ANG long-term interests. And the USAF generally doesn't buy worthless aircraft.


Hahaha. The entire Century series fighter procurement would disagree. There is a real argument to made that the USAF procured very few aircraft before 1980 that didn't have an as good/better NAVAIR analog.

Flying units, command billets and MILCON contracts are in the AFRes/ANG interest. If you came up with a justification that would survive JROC for every state to get an ATR or Bizjet squadron, Congress and the RC would be all ears.


F-8s Forever, but seriously that’s very true—the F-4 started in the Navy, as did the A-7. The A-6 was a true all-weather.bomber when the Thud was still dropping with iron sights. The F-8 outclassed the Hun by a lot.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:20 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
There is a flyable one in Bolivia I'd love to get my greedy hands on.


I think Everts still has one flying out of Fairbanks too.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:11 pm

aumaverick wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
How about putting those half-breed C-46s in Reserve and ANG?


I'm not sure why you're hung-up on tossing these pieces of garbage onto the part-timers, but they're not interested, either. A bespoke mission, constantly supplanted by contractors, is not in AFRC/ANG long-term interests. And the USAF generally doesn't buy worthless aircraft.


While we're along this line of thought, why not bring back the C-27Js to the Reserves and ANG just to make sure they have even more variability and options to supplant the heavily used C-130s. If the train of thought is the C-17s are old and overused, then certainly the C-130s are too.


I guess I left out the ;) emoji to clearly indicate my sarcasm. I know the C-27Js are dead and gone. I feel, like most of you, a sub-fleet of aircraft dedicated to moving freight that can, and is, already served by contractors, is not in the best interest of the Air Force.
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:28 pm

scbriml wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Is it possible for the USAF to order up to 50 C-46 transport aircraft without tanking equipment to use as an increase in airlift capabilities given that the C-17 is out of production?


The C-46 went out of production in 1945. Not happening. ;)





Someone had to.



I'm talking about a Boeing C-46 Pegasus. Not the Curtiss C-46 Commando.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:30 pm

It’s a joke, son.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:04 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
Hahaha. The entire Century series fighter procurement would disagree. There is a real argument to made that the USAF procured very few aircraft before 1980 that didn't have an as good/better NAVAIR analog.

Flying units, command billets and MILCON contracts are in the AFRes/ANG interest. If you came up with a justification that would survive JROC for every state to get an ATR or Bizjet squadron, Congress and the RC would be all ears.


Touche, but to paraphrase my earlier post 2021 ≠ the 1950s and 60s. And your NAVAIR analog argument doesn't work with tankers, transports, and bombers. And your every state getting an ATR or biz jet squadron metaphor is valid, but one state getting 12 biz jets (or 50 C-46s spread to one or two states) would very quickly be squashed by the other states wanting a piece of the action. Hence why predators/reapers, F-16s, and KC-135s are so popular: they're numerous and they have real missions, so their chances of being cut are low.

The OP looks at the history of the C-135 and the cargo-747 NYANG abortion and imagines the same thing happening today, but ignores the totally different contexts of those programs: the C-135 was born in an age where every other transport had props and would take days to get anywhere. The C-135 could be at any airfield in the world with a 10,000 foot runway in <24 hours, which was revolutionary. But even then the C-135 was quickly obsolete. Now <24 hours to anywhere is the standard, and many of those planes only need 3500 foot strips. A C-46 would be worthless. The AF 747 was tempting (to some) when the AF had a gaping airlift shortfall with too few C-5s and 141s. Now, with ~ 100 more C-17s than originally programmed, that shortfall is non-existent, and contract airlift moves the majority of the HHGs and beans, whilst the fat girls move the weird stuff.

The only all-cargo 767 the AF will ever see has ATLAS AIR painted on its side, and being contract airlift, the AF won't pay for crew training, gas, depot mx, training flights, etc. The DoD won't pay nearly the same price for a C-46, with no boom, hose, and RARO, and get nearly the same jet but with far less capability (i.e. no tanker role) when you could spend pennies on the dollar by contract airlift or just spend a few mil more and have an airplane with actual versatility, i.e. the KC-46.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:07 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s a joke, son.


LOL!
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:31 pm

I flew a trailered boat, KSUU-PHNL, admiral’s HHG—24’-ish. And a bunch of seized DEA boats.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:56 pm

LyleLanley wrote:

Touche, but to paraphrase my earlier post 2021 ≠ the 1950s and 60s. And your NAVAIR analog argument doesn't work with tankers, transports, and bombers. And your every state getting an ATR or biz jet squadron metaphor is valid, but one state getting 12 biz jets (or 50 C-46s spread to one or two states) would very quickly be squashed by the other states wanting a piece of the action. Hence why predators/reapers, F-16s, and KC-135s are so popular: they're numerous and they have real missions, so their chances of being cut are low.

The OP looks at the history of the C-135 and the cargo-747 NYANG abortion and imagines the same thing happening today, but ignores the totally different contexts of those programs: the C-135 was born in an age where every other transport had props and would take days to get anywhere. The C-135 could be at any airfield in the world with a 10,000 foot runway in <24 hours, which was revolutionary. But even then the C-135 was quickly obsolete. Now <24 hours to anywhere is the standard, and many of those planes only need 3500 foot strips. A C-46 would be worthless. The AF 747 was tempting (to some) when the AF had a gaping airlift shortfall with too few C-5s and 141s. Now, with ~ 100 more C-17s than originally programmed, that shortfall is non-existent, and contract airlift moves the majority of the HHGs and beans, whilst the fat girls move the weird stuff.

The only all-cargo 767 the AF will ever see has ATLAS AIR painted on its side, and being contract airlift, the AF won't pay for crew training, gas, depot mx, training flights, etc. The DoD won't pay nearly the same price for a C-46, with no boom, hose, and RARO, and get nearly the same jet but with far less capability (i.e. no tanker role) when you could spend pennies on the dollar by contract airlift or just spend a few mil more and have an airplane with actual versatility, i.e. the KC-46.


Yeah, I’m in general agreement.

Honestly the only way I see a C-46 program would be save Boeing, kind of like the USAF did with the CT-43.

As long as Boeing is making 767s, they’ll be in tolerable shape.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:59 am

This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:43 am

UA857 wrote:
This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it


That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:10 am

LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it


That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.


Then what do C-5 and C-17 aircraft do during peacetime do they carry cargo or are they used for training and Space-A flights?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:12 am

Need that MICAP, I’m sitting in the Reef for 5 days , ETIC of parts + 2 hours.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:15 am

UA857 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it


That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.


Then what do C-5 and C-17 aircraft do during peacetime do they carry cargo or are they used for training and Space-A flights?



Usually haul pallets, as needed, but the need is way down from the glory days of the Cold War and 300,000 in NATO. Also, exercises, Banners, a few SAAMs, training missions for the Army doing static JA/AATs. At one time, my wing had 3 channel missions a week, two to Europe, one down range to Turkey or the Gulf, that was nominally peacetime. Often, leave KDOV with 36 pallets or Norfolk to Rota loaded. Now, barely two a month.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:25 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
UA857 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:

That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.


Then what do C-5 and C-17 aircraft do during peacetime do they carry cargo or are they used for training and Space-A flights?



Usually haul pallets, as needed, but the need is way down from the glory days of the Cold War and 300,000 in NATO. Also, exercises, Banners, a few SAAMs, training missions for the Army doing static JA/AATs. At one time, my wing had 3 channel missions a week, two to Europe, one down range to Turkey or the Gulf, that was nominally peacetime. Often, leave KDOV with 36 pallets or Norfolk to Rota loaded. Now, barely two a month.


What type of cargo due they haul is it outsize or is it palletized?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:02 pm

European and Korean channels were pallets of just about anything—HHG, office supplies, registered mail, Class A munitions, 3-4 pallet trains for longer items. 463L pallets can be linked together. SAAMs or exercise loads could be anything—2 or 3 helicopters,vehicles, troops. I moved a pre-positioned MASH, yes, like the TV show MASH, to/from Jordan once—new one in, lifed one out.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:39 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Need that MICAP, I’m sitting in the Reef for 5 days , ETIC of parts + 2 hours.


This has become the more realistic a-net thread ever.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:59 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Need that MICAP, I’m sitting in the Reef for 5 days , ETIC of parts + 2 hours.


This has become the more realistic a-net thread ever.


Good answer...

“Alright boys. Tanker slipped 24 for a broken oven. We’re back in Charlie, with no expected legal for alert. Let’s hit the shoppette so the FEs can buy more primo and smokes. The bus is taking us back to the reef - rooms are still ours. Happy hour starts in 45, so let’s go before traffic on the H-1 backs up. Someone wake up the loads.”
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:11 pm

I was headed to Australia, Newcastle IIRC, hit the window at the Hickam CP, sarge tells me I need to slip a day due to the dateline. Discussion ensues, he’s adamant. I’m damned sure of my planning, going to pick up a reserve F-16 unit deployed there. Captain comes over, asks about the problem. I look at him and ask, “when was the last time a reserve crew asked for LESS crew rest in Honolulu?” Instantly, rewrote the alert time.

Another trip thru, come in with an ALDCS problem. Line maintenance has an instant fix, they run over to a NYANG C-5, pull out the box, slide into our mount, instantly the smell of electrical burning permeated the aft flight deck. Still not convinced it more than the box, they start ordering one when I jumped in and yelled, “STOP, I’m just a dumbbell pilot, but even I know the problem isn’t the box.”

Yet another one—depot pickup at SA ALC. Holiday Inn Durango clerk catches on that we’re picking up a plane. Says, “I’ll hold your rooms, you’ll be back”. Sure enough, a few hours later, she just throw our keys back.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:26 pm

acecrackshot wrote:


The C-27Js were land-grabbed because Schwartz wanted to get the Army out of the tac airlift business with the death of the -23, which was the SOCOM lift asset of choice in Iraq. That was insult to the C-130 community, esp. the SOF side, where Schwartz came from via USTRANSCOM.



I'm interested. Can you tell more?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:32 pm

Not much more to say.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:33 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Another trip thru, come in with an ALDCS problem. Line maintenance has an instant fix, they run over to a NYANG C-5, pull out the box, slide into our mount, instantly the smell of electrical burning permeated the aft flight deck. Still not convinced it more than the box, they start ordering one when I jumped in and yelled, “STOP, I’m just a dumbbell pilot, but even I know the problem isn’t the box.”.


Everything in aviation is powered by smoke. The trick is, keeping the smoke in.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:21 am

LyleLanley wrote:
UA857 wrote:
This thread was inspired by this article from 2018: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... provide-it


That explains it.

Let me put it this way: if you would like additional airlift you have three options: contract airlift, which is a lot like a zip car where if you only need a car for an hour or two a few times a month, it's way, way cheaper than buying, owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling your own ride; utilize the KC-46s you already have, which with 18 pallet positions is not a small sum, and if you've got a jet going to Hawaii and 18 pallets of HHGs that'll fit no problem you're good-to-go; or buy your own C-46s, which can't do anything other than the occasional cargo/pax mission once in a blue moon. It'll be far, far, far more expensive than contract airlift, and won't lift as much , nor as reliably. Nor will it be able to do much else than carry your pallets of HHG, some C-5 MICAP, and some retirees looking forward to hitting the Hale Koa.

The first option makes the most sense, is efficient, and is comparatively cheap. The second option is certainly doable and cheap, but not as efficient. The third option is completely idiotic and in-line with many of Tyler Rogoway's articles.


So your saying that the only way the USAF can expand airlift capacity is by purchasing more KC-46s and expanding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: C-46 Pegasus?

Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:11 am

No, that's not what I said. I said you can "utilize the KC-46s you already have" and/or utilize the contract airlift the USAF is already utilizing, not "purchasing more KC-46s and expanding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet".

I assumed 'mystery airlifter that is neither designed, prototyped, purchased, nor tested' wouldn't be an option. The C-17 and C-5 are long out of production. And the C-130 wouldn't really expand airlift capacity in a realistic way. Nor would futuristic drones, parallel-universe space shuttles, or giant genetically-engineered mosquitos be realistic options, much as we might wish otherwise.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos